mattosgrant
Banned
FD3S said:
I just noticed this now. This part made me laugh.
Sampras would have won the 2003 grand slam had he played on
- Thread starter Blocker
- Start date
I just noticed this now. This part made me laugh.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
All I can say is dream on.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yea sure. Just like he was really DETERMINED at Wimbledon in 2002 (or 2001 or 1996 or 1992).
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Nothing would make him as detetmined as knowing for a fact that 2003 would be his last year. He never had a retirement year, he just felt content after USO02 knowing he had nothing else to prove. He dominated his era like no one else in history and he just kinda said that's it, I'm done. Now had he come out and said 2003 will be my final year, watch him channel everything into winning 28 slam matches in that year. He would have sacrificed everything else for the grand slam. No one was gonna beat him in 2003. He effectively has 18 slams to his name.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Then if Roddick was indeed "injured", it didn't matter. Was Agassi also "injured"? Is that how Sampras beat him in the final?
Have you ever played against a really great serve and volleyer before to understand what it's like? No, you don't get to play your game. If your game is to trade groundstrokes from the baseline with your opponent, like Roddick's game is, - no, you don't get to do that. Thus, they MAKE you play "poorly" because you don't get to do what you're good at.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There is no 'if' regarding Roddick, he was injured. Maybe Sampras would have made him look awful anyway - but you're refusal to accept that Roddick's injury probably contributed is laughable.
Agassi played like he was tired from the tougher SF but Sampras was just too good in 2002 and always had his number at the USO.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
This is getting pretty funny. These absurd assertions based on nothing but belief and determination.
Yes, "effectively" Lendl and Wilander and Rosewall won Wimbledon. Borg "effectively" won the USO and the AO. Connors "effectively" won the FO in 1974.
Here's a whole thread about "effectively":
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-winners-part-two.557281/page-3#post-10132085
pc1
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's interesting to note that I believe Sampras didn't win a ANY TOURNAMENT for years before he won the 2002 US Open.
FD3S
Hall of Fame
Again, he said in his book that he really wanted (one might even say he was... determined?) to win the FO for his deceased coach and he didn't. Now, I've seen your argument about the different surfaces in the 90's but he did manage to win Rome so why didn't Pete's vaunted determination carry him through on that one, particularly when he revered the coach in question?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
The fact that Sampras has 14 Slams while Roddick only has 1 is proof enough that Roddick was never as good as Sampras, even when Roddick was 100%. Roddick just never had the game that Sampras did, even when Sampras was way past his prime and 3 matches away from retirement.
FD3S
Hall of Fame
Anyone who makes the argument that Roddick could have matched up to Sampras career-wise or talent-wise needs to have their head examined, and that's coming from a huge Roddick fan. That said, I don't think it's in any way inaccurate to posit that a 100% healthy Roddick, while probably still winding up on the losing end in 2002, is likely to have pushed Pete farther than he did and garner a more respectable loss. At the very least, it would have resulted in a significant reduction in the whole 'LOL this is what happens when Roddick plays the REAL Pete Sampras' narrative that gets pushed far too often without any historical context.
Again, Pete's a better player (to say the least), and most likely would have won anyway but it didn't help Roddick's case that he had compromised movement.
mattosgrant
Banned
So I guess in your mind Sampras still holds the "real" slam record, and Federer needs an 18th slam to even tie?
Through a friend of a friend of a friend, I got invited to Mark's house warming party, which for whatever reason, never ended up happening. Last I heard, which was about 5 years ago and around the time the house warming was to happen, there were rumours circulating that the bank was going to take possession of his house, which could be the reason why the house warming was cancelled. But I'm only speculating. It would have been cool to say I went to Mark Philipousis' house warming but oh well not to be. I have seen him casually walking around Melbourne a couple of times but I don't know him personally so I've never gone up to him. Every now and again he writes tennis columns for one of the local papers here in Melbourne.
I was actually at their AO match that night. I only reveived news that day that I got into the course of my preferred choice so I was doubly excited. Sampras just didn't try anything different, no game B, nothing. But I was at the 97 AO final and the way he dissected Moya was a sight to behold. Honestly ppl think I push his barrow but that final he pulled out all the shots. One of the most dominant displays I have ever seen in a final, either live or on tv. I also saw Federer v Baghdatis in the final and the level of play from both was no where near the Sampras level in the 97 final.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Tell that to Hewitt and Safin. Roddick of 2002 didn't have the game to beat that Sampras at the USO, but in much better form and not carrying an injury I think he could make the match a lot tigher at least - especially considering Sampras wasn't getting any younger. You're free to believe otherwise but I'm done taking your seriously..
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Huh? With only 2 Slams each, neither Hewitt nor Safin were as good as Sampras either. Sampras was much more motivated to win the 2002 US Open because he hadn't won a Slam in two years (and not much of anything else). Not true in 2000 and 2001. His mind was on his upcoming wedding in 2000 (got married right after the 2000 US Open), and he was still getting used to being married in 2001, thus the disinterest in tennis and the results showed.
NatF
Bionic Poster
You were saying Roddick couldn't beat Sampras because he was just a one timer weren't you. Safin and Hewitt won only 2 slams and took him to cleaners. Hence like always your logic is severely lacking. The excuses for Sampras' poor results is hilarious, he was focused enough to get to the final but too unfocused to beat guys who according to you 'shouldn't have the game to beat him'. Referencing getting married a year earlier as the reason why Hewitt crushed him must be a joke?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Since Sampras won 14 of 52 majors he entered the odds would be .0069 so it would be less than one percent. Of course you have to consider he was zero percent at the French (0-13) and of course he would be a lot older so the percentage is less than that since there's decline in his play.
I think he's a shoo in.
I think he's a shoo in.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I can think of a few other threads that this song applies to.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
According to Wiki, his previous win of any kind was the 2000 Wimbledon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras_career_statistics
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Sampras was runner-up In straight sets to Agassi at Indian Wells in 2001, and to Roddick in Houston at the US CCC of 2002.
At IW he beat Santoro, Grosjean, Rafter, and Kafelnikov along the way. At Houston he beat Gambill, Puerta, Todd Martin, and Agassi before the final.
In 2001 he finished the year ranked number 10; in 2002 he finished ranked 13.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That's almost a GS.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
"Effectively"!!!!
mattosgrant
Banned
Thanks for the info. Wow that is interesting to hear. My gut is telling me his house probably was repossessed by the point and that is why the party was cancelled. I have heard about his financially struggling but that he is doing a bit better now. He definitely let his career and life go to shambles at times, even if he had some really bad luck with injuries and other issues, he made some of his bad luck too. He definitely had a lot of talent though, but he never put it together or matured properly as a player.
Yeah Sampras at the 97 Australian Open was special in his final 2 rounds. Muster in the semis played incredibly well people forget, and probably well enough to have beaten any other player.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Effectively is the same as reality, isn't it??
mattosgrant
Banned
Do you think Safin would play with the consistency for a whole year to likely dominate? He never has done this, even in years he was healthy for the full year such as 2000, 2002, and 2004.
2004? His comeback year shouldn't be counted here. As he missed pretty much all of 2003. He also had injury problems in 2004 as well as blisters. Hell Safin also got injured during the AO 2004. I thought 2004 was still a very good comeback year for Safin despite poor draws due to a low ranking and injuries; He made a slam final and won 2 MS titles.
2001 and 2002 were poor years for a player of Safin's quality. BTW you're being harsh on Safin for not dominating 2000. He was 19/20 years old. I seriously can't remember the last time a 19/20 year old dominated a season of tennis.
Safin would have needed to be fully focused and injury free, but yes. I think the one big tournament he would have had trouble was Wimbledon, but even then we never really got to see a healthy Safin from 00-09 at Wimbledon. I think his serve however would have given him a fighting chance. All the other slams he could have won no doubts.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Really? Is that why Sampras crushed both Safin and Hewitt in straight sets in the 2001 and 2000 semis, respectively? Yeah, once he got to the final, he lost focus. And being an older guy, he probably needed more recovery time since the US Open plays its semis just the day before the final.You were saying Roddick couldn't beat Sampras because he was just a one timer weren't you. Safin and Hewitt won only 2 slams and took him to cleaners. Hence like always your logic is severely lacking. The excuses for Sampras' poor results is hilarious, he was focused enough to get to the final but too unfocused to beat guys who according to you 'shouldn't have the game to beat him'. Referencing getting married a year earlier as the reason why Hewitt crushed him must be a joke?
Are you seriously saying that Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick were all better than Sampras and could beat him when he cared? LMAO!
NatF
Bionic Poster
Strawman. That's not what I'm saying at all.
Are you incapable of forming a rational reply? Don't answer that I already know. Your lack of logic is infamous.
Safin has beaten better players than Sampras at the majors. The guy has beaten prime Federer and Djokovic in the slams, he even beat Agassi at his favourite slam (AO) despite missing the previous year due to injury. Safin has also beaten Kuerten at the FO when he was defending champion. It really doesn't matter whether Sampras cares or not, Safin playing anywhere close to his best deals with Sampras. On the old grass however, Sampras would win. It would be pretty tight on the slow grass.
Safin v Sampras would depend on Safin caring.
By the way I have no doubts Sampras is the better player and had the greater career. Safin however at times displayed tennis that could only be described as 'too good'. He's the only player to have beaten prime Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Djokovic and Federer in the slams as well as all the other slam winners (although he never played Nadal in a major). I just think Safin playing good tennis poses the perfect game to beat Sampras.
Like I said only guessing about the housewarming cancellation. Makes you wonder why he wasn't cashed up given he was a professional tennis player and made 2 slam finals. He may have been unlucky with injuries, from memory he did his knee, but he made up for it in the woman delartment. He had some of the hottest WAGS I've seen.
Tell that to Hewitt and Safin? You say that as if Sampras was scared of them. They just happened to be two of the top players when Sampras was declining. The H2H between Sampras and Hewitt was 6-5 to Hewitt. Sampras led their H2H at one point. If these 2 were born in the same year and joined the tour at the same time Sampras would demolish him more times than not. As for Safin, Sampras beat him the following year, so what's your point? I've made my point clear, Sampras was declining. Because he was. "Tell that to Hewitt and Safin", turn it up. Combined they still fell 10 slams short of Sampras. What's the matter with you?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
You said that Safin and Hewitt can beat Sampras. Well of course they can because they did! That still doesn't mean either of them were better than Sampras.
Oh, and I never said that Roddick couldn't beat Sampras. Of course he can as he's beaten him before. But that still doesn't make him as good as Sampras. That would be like saying that since Cuevas beat Nadal on clay that must make Cuevas a better clay court player than Nadal. LOL
What I did say was that Roddick was never as good as Sampras:
And somehow you interpreted that as saying Roddick couldn't beat Sampras under any circumstances. So apparently you're the one who lacks logic.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, since it seems people around here like to play the "injury" card, Federer was playing injured (back and arm) when he lost to Safin at the '05 AO semis (Safin was 2-10 overall vs. Fed). Also, I don't consider '05 and '08 to be "prime" Djokovic.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The thread in question is whether Sampras could/would win the Grand Slam in 2003. You seemed to think that Sampras crushing Roddick in 2002 meant he would do the same or at least win in 2003. That is where this whole discussion sprung from.
No one said Roddick was as good as Sampras...it's just a strawman you've pulled in because you don't want to concede that Roddick was infact injured to some degree at the 2002 USO.
Look at the thread title, now have a think why I took your responses in that way. Could it be maybe because we're talking about the odds of Sampras winning the USO 2003? In the end what you said is irrelevant as no one claimed otherwise. Career wise and top level wise Sampras is faaaaar better than Roddick. However if Sampras played in 2003 chances are he wouldn't have been as good as Roddick (who was #1 that year) across the whole year. Which is what is important in this scenario. I do believe Sampras could have won the USO in 2003, but he wouldn't have been the favourite and there were more inform players in 2003 than in 2002 to make it tougher for him.
Safin was also injured in that match too.
I don't consider 05 to be prime Djokovic. I do consider 08 to be prime Djokovic. Safin was ranked outside the top 50 at the time IIRC.
You do realise Djokovic was the second best player behind Nadal at that time right? In fact, Federer only one 3 tournaments in 2008, I would be willing to say Djokovic was the second best player that year. Didn't he also win the TMC?
Lastly, Safin was injured pretty much all the time from 2003-2005. He couldn't even make it on court in 2003, and had a lot of problems in 2004 in his comeback year. If you feel Sampras would beat Safin playing at a high level anywhere then good for you. I've seen Safin beat the best AO players ever, the second best CC at the FO in the past 25 years (Guga) as well as beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. Not to mention the beatdown he's given Sampras at the US Open. And yes, it was a beatdown considering Safin nearly quit tennis that year.
I think it's pretty silly to play the injury card with Federer; I swear that guy hasn't missed a slam since 1999. At least he could make it on court. Safin was pretty much screwed throughout 03-05 with injuries and completely dropped off.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If you look at my first post in this thread, my only comment was about Sampras vs. Roddick at the 2002 US Open. I did not comment about Sampras nor any other players he may have played in 2003 nor any other tournaments he could have won in 2003. You imagined all of that in your head.
My ONLY point in this ENTIRE thread, is that given what he did to Roddick at the 2002 US Open, I thought there was a very good chance that Sampras would have beaten Roddick again at the 2003 US Open on the big stage. I never even said that Sampras would have won the 2003 US Open, just that he probably would have beaten Roddick again had they met in any round. And I never commented on whether Sampras could have won any other Slam nor any other tournament in 2003. Again, you conjured up all of that in your head.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Prime Djokovic didn't start until 2011. Federer had mono for at least all of 2008, that's why he only won 3 tournaments. Without mono, no way Djokovic could have beaten Federer at the 08 Aus Open semis to win his first Slam. Poor Federer could barely stand or move and was sweating like a pig (which he never does no matter how hot or how long a match goes) even in the warm-up. It was only afterwards that the doctors diagnosed him with mono and told him he could have died on court by playing the Aus Open.
Did you not see Djokovic in 2007? The only guys who beat Djokovic that year in the slams were Federer and Nadal. He made the semi's at FO 2007, Semi's at Wimbledon and made the finals of the US Open. Djokovic was in his prime in 2007 and 2008. 2011 was his peak.
Seriously, to say Djokovic wasn't in his prime in 07/08 borders is just plain silly. He might not have been at his best, but he was posting very impressive results across all surfaces for a man of his age. Federer and Nadal were never as good across all the majors at 19/20. Nadal was very good on clay, Federer didn't win a slam until he was 21-22 years. Djokovic by 2008 had won a slam, made a US Open final, 2 SF's at the FO (losing to Nadal in both) and he lost to Federer in the SF US Open 2008. His only other loses were to Safin at W08 and Federer at AO 07.
By the way Breakpoint. I do kind of agree with you about the Mono. However I do feel Federer's game did decline somewhat during 2007. I think that was when his footwork started to decline. I think what saved him the most was the fact he was able to take his serve to another level. Do I think Federer's mono effected him? Absolutely. Do I think this results in Djokovic not being in his prime? Absolutely not! He was the only one in 07/08 who even got close to Federer and Nadal - inside the majors and in the MS events. He was better in 07/08 than 09/10 for sure. I do think however Djokovic showed enough against Federer in Montreal and US Open to make me believe he would have a slight chance against Federer even if Federer was healthy. He certainly had chances in that US Open 07 final.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Bump.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Fair trolling effort, not a patch on his classic "Sampras would beat Nadal in the FO final" though.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
But why? WHY???
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep. Put it in the bank. Sampras winning the FO at age 32.
Last edited:
deacsyoga
Banned
Yep. Put it in the bank. Sampras winning the FO at 32.
Yes against a top form peak Ferrero in the final too, a bigger win than he ever had in his entire career on clay, at age 32. And yes before anything says anything about the very few good wins Sampras did have on clay, beating a peak Ferrero would be a way bigger win than beating a way past his prime Courier at the 96 French, or beating prime Kafelnikov once on clay (Davis Cup).
Similar threads
