Sampras would have won the 2003 grand slam had he played on

Blocker

Professional
Break it down, slam by slam.

2003 AO, Agassi beat Schuttler in the final. Fresh from his devastating blow to Agassi only 4 months earlier, Sampras would have done the same in Melbourne.

2003 FO, Ferrero beat Verkerk in the final. When Sampras was determined to do so, he won on clay, unlike Djokovic who's still trying for that elusive FO. Sampras not only won on clay, but he went to Russia and was the catalyst for the USA winning the DC on clay, which was huge back then, unlike in today's plastic tour. Knowing it was his last FO, Sampras would have pulled out all stops to win on clay again.

2013 W, Federer beat Philipwho? in the final. Quite simply, Sampras does NOT LOSE Wimbledon finals.

2013 USO, won by Roddick. Enough said.

No one would have stopped him. This is not fanboyism and not a troll. Like I said, break it down.

That is all.
 

ultradr

Legend
Break it down, slam by slam.

2003 AO, Agassi beat Schuttler in the final. Fresh from his devastating blow to Agassi only 4 months earlier, Sampras would have done the same in Melbourne.

2003 FO, Ferrero beat Verkerk in the final. When Sampras was determined to do so, he won on clay, unlike Djokovic who's still trying for that elusive FO. Sampras not only won on clay, but he went to Russia and was the catalyst for the USA winning the DC on clay, which was huge back then, unlike in today's plastic tour. Knowing it was his last FO, Sampras would have pulled out all stops to win on clay again.

2013 W, Federer beat Philipwho? in the final. Quite simply, Sampras does NOT LOSE Wimbledon finals.

2013 USO, won by Roddick. Enough said.

No one would have stopped him. This is not fanboyism and not a troll. Like I said, break it down.

That is all.

One problem: Wimbledon slowed courts from 2001 till around 2003.

From 2001, they started to use rye grass and compressed soil. Higher Bounce. Sampras lost to Federer at 4th round but still 2 serve and volleyer finalists.
In 2002, Wimbledon added more compressed soil under grass layer, satisfied with 2 baseliner, counter punchers at the final. Sampras lost at 2nd round.

From 2002 and on, Wimbledon has been 2nd slowest courts among slams.

Sampras retired at right time. Or the change pretty much made him to decide to retire, maybe.
 
Last edited:

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
tumblr_mi5bt1m30k1qhiah7o1_500.gif
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Let's say the predictions for the 2003 AO, Wimbledon, and USO managed to somehow came to fruition - Agassi collapses, pre-prime Federer does what he does best and headcases his way to gifting the elder statesman another Wimby crown, and Roddick (without a questionable ankle that year, in case some people are forgetting) remembers that he's dating Mandy Moore and subsequently celebrates too hard and gets alcohol poisoning. Alternatively, all three guys die or something, I dunno. Anyway, it's an ideal situation for Pete. Now, Sampras had one blazing good run in 2002, and besides that the rest of his year was garbage by his standards. It took prime Sampras to win Rome, and yet somehow a Sampras years past that prime is supposed to channel form that exceeds that prime, on a surface that his game is least suited for, and is supposed to beat Ferrero, a dude whose level was so high that FO he managed to out-forehand Fernando f***ing Gonzalez?

Good luck, Pete.
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
the OP lost me when he/she wrote that Sampras would have won the French in 2003. That is completely illogical given his career record at that tournament. He hadn't even been past the 3rd round since 1997 but all of a sudden he is going to win it in 2003? sorry but there is no logical breakdown under which that makes any sense.
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
His only best chance was AO , as apart from Agassi every big player was out of form and he could have been favourite again Andre.
 
When Sampras was determined to do so, he won on clay

So why would 2003 magically be the first year he was "determined" to win the French Open. I suppose he simply was not "determined" to any previous year, as surely he would have won it if he simply was determined to, and would simply zap on the determination for this year only.

2013 W, Federer beat Philipwho? in the final.

One of Sampras's main competitors on grass during his reign, that is who. Mocking "Philipwho" is the equivalent of saying Sampras's grass era really sucked.
 
There were quite a few players playing well at the AO that year. They all simply landed on one side of the draw and destroyed each other lol.

Yeah the Nalbandian-Federer, Schuettler-Nalbandian, Roddick-El Aynaoui matches were all really good. Even Schuettler I think could have given a better match in the final too. He played Agassi two more times that year and won one in 3 sets and lost the other in 3 (both best of 3 setters). He was too nervous in the Australian Open final to play properly which was to be expected as he had never been close to that point or caliber of match before.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yeah the Nalbandian-Federer, Schuettler-Nalbandian, Roddick-El Aynaoui matches were all really good. Even Schuettler I think could have given a better match in the final too. He played Agassi two more times that year and won one in 3 sets and lost the other in 3 (both best of 3 setters). He was too nervous in the Australian Open final to play properly which was to be expected as he had never been close to that point or caliber of match before.

This is what I meant. Even Hewitt vs El Aynaoui was really high quality. Those guys played some really intense matches but were left with nothing when they played Schuettler who to his credit did play well - both at the AO and throughout the year.
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
There were quite a few players playing well at the AO that year. They all simply landed on one side of the draw and destroyed each other lol.
Actually I never understood who made the stupid draw in AO 2003 , Agassi got cake walk and everybody landed on other side.
Similar thing happened in US open 01, where Agassi , Sampras, Rafter , Safin was on same side with Hewitt in final.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Actually I never understood who made the stupid draw in AO 2003 , Agassi got cake walk and everybody landed on other side.
Similar thing happened in US open 01, where Agassi , Sampras, Rafter , Safin was on same side with Hewitt in final.

I think the draws are random buddy. Don't go all conspiracy theorist on me now. Though I find the number of times Federer/Djokovic were drawn in the same half a while back a little suspect ;)
 

Blocker

Professional
the OP lost me when he/she wrote that Sampras would have won the French in 2003. That is completely illogical given his career record at that tournament. He hadn't even been past the 3rd round since 1997 but all of a sudden he is going to win it in 2003? sorry but there is no logical breakdown under which that makes any sense.

You realise you are talking about one of the greatest players in history. He was already a proven clay court tournament winner.
 

Blocker

Professional
So why would 2003 magically be the first year he was "determined" to win the French Open. I suppose he simply was not "determined" to any previous year, as surely he would have won it if he simply was determined to, and would simply zap on the determination for this year only.



One of Sampras's main competitors on grass during his reign, that is who. Mocking "Philipwho" is the equivalent of saying Sampras's grass era really sucked.

No Philipwho was a creampuff. Big serve and no brains. Poor attitude. When I think of good grass court players in that era I think of Henman, Rafter, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc, not a journeyman with a huge serve and not much else. I don't want to be overly critical of him, he lives in the next suburb from me, maybe if he had concentrated more on tennis than he did the chicks and maybe changed his crapola attitude he could have had a half decent career. If you look at Mark's serve, it's quite sad he didn't win W at least once because he had potential by the bucket load.
 

I am the Greatest!

Professional
Sampras couldn't have won against Federer at Wimbledon in 2003. Federer's returns on grass that year was Agassi-like, or much better. He got a good net and ground game, and Sampras' movement was not the way it was. If it was Sampras at his peak he definitely wins, but a Sampras without quality movement on grass won't win against Federer.

His best chance is at New York, with a good draw.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
You realise you are talking about one of the greatest players in history. He was already a proven clay court tournament winner.

You realize you are talking about a man who lost to all of the following at the french from 1997 to 2002:

Magnus Norman
Ramon Delgado
Medvedev
Phillipousis
Galo Blanco
Andrea Gaudenzi

Now if you really want to try and make this look acceptable feel free. Honestly the only ones that aren't horrible are Medvedev and Phillipousis....and maybe if you made a real stretch Norman. But the other 3 guys are no names who I had to look up on Wikipedia because I'd never really heard of them. Yet, according to you, Sampras would have run to the title in 2003? Ya ok, you are the one that needs to get real.
 
I don't want to be overly critical of him, he lives in the next suburb from me, maybe if he had concentrated more on tennis than he did the chicks and maybe changed his crapola attitude he could have had a half decent career. If you look at Mark's serve, it's quite sad he didn't win W at least once because he had potential by the bucket load.

Do you know how he is doing these days? I am just curious. I do agree on his attitude. I still remember the cell phone scene during Davis Cup one year, ROTFL! He was super unlucky with injuries but he isn't what I would call dedicated. Still remember he had Sampras probably beat at Wimbledon 99 but for his injury and beat him at Roland Garros 2000 and even Australian Open 1996. He wasn't an easy opponent for Pete.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
2013 W, Federer beat Philipwho? in the final. Quite simply, Sampras does NOT LOSE Wimbledon finals.

2013 USO, won by Roddick. Enough said.
2013? Huh?

You mean 2003.

But no. Sampras was done--mentally and physically. He was fairly lucky to win the 2002 USO.

He would not win the FO, not a chance. The best he ever did was the semis; that was 7 years earlier when he was much hungrier and younger. Fed had his number at Wimbers. And At the USO he would have lost before getting smushed by Roddick.
 
Last edited:

FD3S

Hall of Fame
It would have been very tough for Sampras: Roddick was moving up, Sampras was going down.

Also, many forget that Roddick had an iffy ankle going into the 2002 match despite what he claimed - don't get me wrong, the way Sampras played that tourney Roddick would have been hard-pressed to win even at 100%, but there's no way he would have been dismissed the way he was had he been fully healthy. Even this article http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/oconnor/2002-09-06-oconnor_x.htm, which eviscerates Roddick while extolling Sampras (and rightfully so, given the circumstances) makes no attempt to gloss over the ankle issue.
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
You didn't break it down at all. You assumed Sampras would reach all four grand slam finals before you even tried to 'break down' anything (You're right, Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final, but he lost in the 2nd round in 2002). All that breaks down is your logic. Oh and LOL at the suggestion that Pete would win on clay if he really wanted to. It's a shame for his fans that he never really wanted to reach a French Open final. Even more of a shame that he didn't play on for another year so he could reach it, AND win it, in 2003 and that playing to win on clay is necessarily a subset of wanting to play tennis at all.

Sampras was extraordinary, but this post is beyond the point of nonsense.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
It would have been very tough for Sampras: Roddick was moving up, Sampras was going down.
Well, Sampras won the US Open that year so not sure how much he was going down. Besides, Sampras DESTROYED Roddick 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 so even if he went down a little and Roddick went up a little, Sampras still wins. :)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well, Sampras won the US Open that year so not sure how much he was going down. Besides, Sampras DESTROYED Roddick 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 so even if he went down a little and Roddick went up a little, Sampras still wins. :)

Sport doesn't work that way. Roddick was injured and wasn't playing even as well as the year before. He was much stronger in 2003. Small margins determine matches.
 
Let's say the predictions for the 2003 AO, Wimbledon, and USO managed to somehow came to fruition - Agassi collapses, pre-prime Federer does what he does best and headcases his way to gifting the elder statesman another Wimby crown, and Roddick (without a questionable ankle that year, in case some people are forgetting) remembers that he's dating Mandy Moore and subsequently celebrates too hard and gets alcohol poisoning. Alternatively, all three guys die or something, I dunno. Anyway, it's an ideal situation for Pete. Now, Sampras had one blazing good run in 2002, and besides that the rest of his year was garbage by his standards. It took prime Sampras to win Rome, and yet somehow a Sampras years past that prime is supposed to channel form that exceeds that prime, on a surface that his game is least suited for, and is supposed to beat Ferrero, a dude whose level was so high that FO he managed to out-forehand Fernando f***ing Gonzalez?

Good luck, Pete.

Agree with that but in fairness I am 100% certain Sampras wins that 2002 U.S Open match even if Roddick had been fully healthy. Sampras played really well that night and had something to prove, and Roddick was extremely rough around the edges at that point. Roddick won their first 2 matches, but this was an entirely different Sampras by a long ways.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Again US Open slowed their court from 2004 and Federer took over.

It was in slowed down in 01 and changed to a "happy-medium" in 03 ( with big server Roddick and baseliner ferrero making the finals ). Quit with writing the years to fit your anti-federer bias.
 
Last edited:

Blocker

Professional
Knowing it was his final year Sampras would have gone out in all 28 of his slam matches in 2003 and won them all. He would have been determined, a determined Sampras never lost.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Agree with that but in fairness I am 100% certain Sampras wins that 2002 U.S Open match even if Roddick had been fully healthy. Sampras played really well that night and had something to prove, and Roddick was extremely rough around the edges at that point. Roddick won their first 2 matches, but this was an entirely different Sampras by a long ways.

Oh absolutely - in 2002 Roddick at 100% would still have had a tough time beating Pete, but I certainly think he would have played him closer. Roddick in 2003? Dunno how Pete comes out, but unless he channels his 2002 form he's probably gonna have a tough time the way Roddick was bombing it. Blocker's hypothetical Sampras that took down the three slams beforehand wins handily of course, but then again Blocker's Sampras was better than any version of Sampras that ever played, which is saying a lot considering the caliber of player Sampras was.

Knowing it was his final year Sampras would have gone out in all 28 of his slam matches in 2003 and won them all. He would have been determined, a determined Sampras never lost.

IIRC Sampras himself said in his book that he wanted to win the FO for his coach after he passed, and he failed. Either your statement is false or Sampras cared a whole lot less about Gullikson than we thought.
 
Oh absolutely - in 2002 Roddick at 100% would still have had a tough time beating Pete, but I certainly think he would have played him closer. Roddick in 2003? Dunno how Pete comes out, but unless he channels his 2002 form he's probably gonna have a tough time the way Roddick was bombing it. Blocker's hypothetical Sampras that took down the three slams beforehand wins handily of course, but then again Blocker's Sampras was better than any version of Sampras that ever played, which is saying a lot considering the caliber of player Sampras was.

Yeah I agree he would have put on a more respectable performance and pushed Pete more, which wouldnt lead to the mocking of Roddick from that one match like we get now from some. FWIW I am also nearly 100% certain Roddick would beat Pete in 2003 if they even played (which I doubt as I dont see Sampras even going to the end, he wisely recognized his 2002 U.S Open for the last hurrah it was and wisely retired).

The bottom line is they played 3 matches outside both players primes, and while Sampras won the big one, Roddick went 2-1, a remarkable feat for the significantly less successful player.
 
Knowing it was his final year Sampras would have gone out in all 28 of his slam matches in 2003 and won them all. He would have been determined, a determined Sampras never lost.

You didnt answer my previous question. Why was he never determined to win RG or on clay in general outside Rome 94 and Davis Cup 96 (by your logic). Also why would he miracelously become so in 2003 when he had not been for years before, even much younger and more in his physical and mental prime.
 

Blocker

Professional
You didnt answer my previous question. Why was he never determined to win RG or on clay in general outside Rome 94 and Davis Cup 96 (by your logic). Also why would he miracelously become so in 2003 when he had not been for years before, even much younger and more in his physical and mental prime.

Okay Matt here is the answer. In Sampras' era, trying to win the FO and then Wimbledon would be like trying to peform heart surgurery and then oversee the engineering construction of a 100 story building, such was the difference in how the surfaces played at the time. You almost had to be two professions in one. I give Borg alot of credit but Borg never won the USO. These days winning both is like a stroll in the park So for Sampras to have gone all out in winning the FO, it would have jeopardised hus chances at W which is universally seen as the more important tournament. Had he played on in 2003, he would have just done his darndest to win every slam in the year. Remember Federer may have won more slams but that just means he's more consistent but most who saw both play at their peak agree that Sampras'' best would beat Federer's best. Sampras had a higher level of play, just ask Becker, and I have no doubt in my mind he would have pulled off the grand skam in 2003.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Sport doesn't work that way. Roddick was injured and wasn't playing even as well as the year before. He was much stronger in 2003. Small margins determine matches.
How did Roddick even get to the quarters of the US Open losing only 1 set en route if he was so badly injured?

It was Sampras who made Roddick play poorly. Good serve and volleyers can make anyone play "poorly" because they constantly put you under pressure to make passing shots instead of just leisurely hanging out behind the baseline trading groundstrokes.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
How did Roddick even get to the quarters of the US Open losing only 1 set en route if he was so badly injured?

It was Sampras who made Roddick play poorly. Good serve and volleyers can make anyone play "poorly" because they constantly put you under pressure to make passing shots instead of just leisurely hanging out behind the baseline trading groundstrokes.

Don't suppose you've considered the possibility that it started small and got worse as the tourney went on, with the bulk of the damage being done in the fourth round match against Chela where his opponent (and adrenaline) had him running like a madman?

Also, while Roddick obviously wasn't injured enough to pull out, it's certainly reasonable to say that he lost a step or two thanks to the ankle. Against a zoning Sampras, even a step or two's pretty damn big.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
How did Roddick even get to the quarters of the US Open losing only 1 set en route if he was so badly injured?

It was Sampras who made Roddick play poorly. Good serve and volleyers can make anyone play "poorly" because they constantly put you under pressure to make passing shots instead of just leisurely hanging out behind the baseline trading groundstrokes.

You're just clueless. Reports at the time confirmed the injury. Roddick was fit to play and Sampras was so good he would have won regardless - but Roddick was definitely hindered to some extent.
 
You're just clueless. Reports at the time confirmed the injury. Roddick was fit to play and Sampras was so good he would have won regardless - but Roddick was definitely hindered to some extent.

and anyone who saw the match can tell he was slow.
 
Top