Sampras should have won more slams

[triforce defender]

This is in response to the 'Federer should have won more slams' thread. Sampras's total should have been higher too.

1. 1998 Australian Open: How did he lose to Krucera? Sampras advanced to QF without losing a set. Petr Korda and Marcelo Rios in the way? Totally should've won this one.

2. 1998 US Open: How did he lose to Rafter in SF leading 2 sets to one? C'mon man!

3. 1999 Australian Open: Why didn't he play? He definitely would have won. Kafelnikov caught a huge break!

4. 2000 Australian Open: How did he lose to his pigeon Agassi after leading 2 sets to 1? Kafelnikov would have stood no chance in the Finals.

5. 2001 US Open: He was up a break in the first set and hadn't been broken the entire tournament. Lleyton Hewitt stood no chance had he lost the first set to Sampras. If only Roddick had beaten Hewitt in the QF, then Sampras would have won for sure!

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

1998 US open final he was injured IIRC

 

[mike danny]

I still cannot believe how he did so poorly at the AO. i know he won 2 titles but he should have added at least 2 more.

1996,1998,1999. These 3 titles should have been his with no Agassi in his way. How did he lose to phillipousis who is considered weak comp for Fed?

 

[sureshs]

Wrong section

 

[triforce defender]

Wrong section

Huh? What do you mean wrong section?

 

[Backspin1183]

Yes. 14 slams too less.

 

[mike danny]

Huh? What do you mean wrong section?

He menas that this thread belongs to the former pro player section

 

[triforce defender]

He menas that this thread belongs to the former pro player section

Oh, I did not know there was one. Sorry.

 

[90's Clay]

He missed a few slams like AO '99 and USO 99 (when he was playing lights out tennis that year), and injuries cost him a few more like USO 94 vs. Yzaga and 98 USO vs Rafter and I believe he got injured vs.Agassi at the AO in 2000 where he was in control of the match.

If more motivated, and had he not broke the record by 2000 Wimbledon he probably should have won more slams from post 2000 wimbledon besides 2002 USO

Sampras probably would have won 18-19 slams (and Im sure he would have) if not for certain things (like injuries, loss of motivation after breaking the slam records) which hindered him.

 

[90's Clay]

I still cannot believe how he did so poorly at the AO. i know he won 2 titles but he should have added at least 2 more.

1996,1998,1999. These 3 titles should have been his with no Agassi in his way. How did he lose to phillipousis who is considered weak comp for Fed?

2 AO titles and a couple Finals appearances aint bad. Its a slow surface don't forget and Pete played High risk tennis which can leave you more prone to upsets. Not like today where you're game isn't as at risk playing the safe baseline style.

Slower surfaces hinder more strike first players as fast surfaces hinder the ball return machines

 

[magnut]

Its pretty amazing he won as many as he did. I crack up when every time he gets beat fanboys come up with these excuses....injury etc. If he is playing then he is fit to play. Its as simple as that. The matches he lost he was outplayed. Some of you fellas must be a real hoot in tournamnets! There must be a lot of injuries going on LOL!

 

[triforce defender]

Sampras could serve his way out of a zombie apocalypse.

 

[magnut]

Best big match serve the game has ever seen. Others hit harder, more spin etc. but nobody had the accuracy under pressure like Sampras. It made him kind of boring sometimes. There is nobody on the tour like this currently.

 

[heninfan99]

I remember in his book, A Champion's Mind, he said he didn't like the AO that much. Perhaps it was the flight and the conditions. But I disagree, in his tough era 14 seems like a huge achievement even for an all-time great. In the 2000 AO it just seemed Agassi just wanted it a little more on that particular night.

 

[magnut]

He had some big problems with players getting the ball high on his backhand in Australia. Sampras was not really an early ball striker like Federer either so guys could keep Pete pinned back.

Personally I enjoyed watching him there because his matches had more drama in them. Its was a tough surface for him. He did well winning what he did. It was far better suited for players like like Agassi and Courier. Spinny players that could take the ball early and hit through the court

 

[killerboi2]

Its pretty amazing he won as many as he did.

Ay? No it's not. The guy was a beast and clearly the best player of his era. Name a grass player of his era that could have stopped him winning all those wimby titles. Even in the later stages of his career when he just wasn't the player he was still getting to US finals, and even won one.

 

[Mustard]

The 1997 US Open stands out the most. Sampras went into the tournament as overwhelming favourite, but lost to Korda in the Round of 16, in a fifth set tiebreak.

 

[Mustard]

1. 1998 Australian Open: How did he lose to Krucera? Sampras advanced to QF without losing a set. Petr Korda and Marcelo Rios in the way? Totally should've won this one.

Karol Kucera was the Miloslav Mecir of his era, and Mecir even coached him. On his day, Kucera was capable of beating anybody, and Kucera twice beat Agassi in majors (1998 US Open, 2000 French Open).

2. 1998 US Open: How did he lose to Rafter in SF leading 2 sets to one? C'mon man!

That was a great rivalry in the summer of 1998. Sampras was leading 2 sets to 1 and ended up losing to Rafter in 5 sets. Somewhere along the line during the match, Sampras got injured, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

3. 1999 Australian Open: Why didn't he play? He definitely would have won. Kafelnikov caught a huge break!

Kafelnikov thanked Sampras in his 1999 Australian Open victory speech, for not taking part. Sampras skipped it because he was exhausted after chasing a sixth consecutive year-end world number 1 ranking.

4. 2000 Australian Open: How did he lose to his pigeon Agassi after leading 2 sets to 1? Kafelnikov would have stood no chance in the Finals.

Agassi is not Sampras' "pidgeon". There was talk of another injury to Sampras as well, a rotator cuff problem. But again, that's the way it goes sometimes. You start a match, and your job is to win.

5. 2001 US Open: He was up a break in the first set and hadn't been broken the entire tournament. Lleyton Hewitt stood no chance had he lost the first set to Sampras. If only Roddick had beaten Hewitt in the QF, then Sampras would have won for sure!

Hewitt blitzed Sampras. He was totally outplayed.

 

[magnut]

The 1997 US Open stands out the most. Sampras went into the tournament as overwhelming favourite, but lost to Korda in the Round of 16, in a fifth set tiebreak.

Korda could beat anyone when he was on. Very dangerous player. They had a very close match at Wimbledon as well. I think it was the same year.

Other than Wimbledon Sampras didnt really "own" any major. He was always a favorite though. A few scares at Wimbledon but he was the most complete grass court player. That surface pretty much tailored every aspect of his game. It was similar to what we see now with Nadal at RG.

 

[Mustard]

Korda could beat anyone when he was on. Very dangerous player. They had a very close match at Wimbledon as well. I think it was the same year.

Oh yes, I know. But it was a shock that Sampras lost because he was clearly the tournament favourite and in such good form. Muster, the second favourite, had gone out in the first round. Sampras' defeat seemed to give Chang his opportunity to win another major, but Chang got beaten by Rafter in the semi finals, and Rafter won the title.

Sampras seemed a bit bitter at not winning that title too, hence the rivalry with Rafter in 1997 Davis Cup and in the summer of 1998.

 

[Young Pete]

I Agree With You Completely!!

He missed a few slams like AO '99 and USO 99 (when he was playing lights out tennis that year), and injuries cost him a few more like USO 94 vs. Yzaga and 98 USO vs Rafter and I believe he got injured vs.Agassi at the AO in 2000 where he was in control of the match.

If more motivated, and had he not broke the record by 2000 Wimbledon he probably should have won more slams from post 2000 wimbledon besides 2002 USO

Sampras probably would have won 18-19 slams (and Im sure he would have) if not for certain things (like injuries, loss of motivation after breaking the slam records) which hindered him.

I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER! MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!

 

[Goosehead]

^^Sampras missed USO 1999 because of a back injury just before the tourney, he had surgery on it,

AO 1999..dont know for sure but the effort of his late 1998 European odyssey to keep his year ending no1 rank (6th year) probably exhausted him, maybe didn't feel fresh enough to play aussie open.