Still consider Sampras the most dominating player ever

[dgold44]

His entire career he dominated all his main rivals: Agassi, Goran, Becker, Chang and Courier.
The guy was 14-4 in Slam finals and 2 of those loses occurred late in his career and one very early against Edberg.

Every time he was down in big matches he seemed to come up with either aces or matrix like volleys or giant forehands.

Plus he was number for 6 straight years.

He beat Agassi in 4 US open finals
He beat Goran in at least 3 Wimbledon finals

 

[AngryBirds]

His entire career he dominated all his main rivals: Agassi, Goran, Becker, Chang and Courier.
The guy was 14-4 in Slam finals and 2 of those loses occurred late in his career and one very early against Edberg.

Every time he was down in big matches he seemed to come up with either aces or matrix like volleys or giant forehands.

Plus he was number for 6 straight years.

He beat Agassi in 4 US open finals
He beat Goran in at least 3 Wimbledon finals

Sampras' career is relatively short compared to today's standard. He was mentally spent after 1999 and dropped off pretty quickly by 2001.

 

[jga111]

The most dominating player ever? I'm a Sampras fan but I don't think we can say that.

Lets just enjoy the fact he was the greatest player of his generation who was able to entertain purely with his tennis all over the court.

 

[AngryBirds]

The most dominating player ever? I'm a Sampras fan but I don't think we can say that.

Lets just enjoy the fact he was the greatest player of his generation who was able to entertain purely with his tennis all over the court.

He was the most dominating player in grand slam finals though. All his losses in slam finals were either before or after his prime years.

 

[pc1]

I think people are too impressed by the 14-4 record in finals. Yes it's a great record but the key number is that he played in 52 majors and won 14. Remember he often lost before he got to the final but once he was there he was tough. Winning 77.2% of your matches in your career isn't dominating and winning only 64 tournaments in your career isn't super.

I think Sampras was fabulous and on a fast court when he was at his best he was unbelievable but dominating is not the word I use for him. In his BEST year he won 77 matches and lost 12 in winning 10 tournaments. He never won ten tournaments again and never won 90% of his matches in one year. Compare that year to some of Djokovic's or Nadal's or Federer's years. Djokovic has already won 59 tournaments in his career and is at about the 90% range for since 2011. Djokovic is at 89.83% for the last FIVE years which is fantastic. Sampras hasn't been that high for just one year.

 

[KG1965]

IMO Sampras is very overrated , has a winning percentage of poor and few titles Master1000 .

 

[hoodjem]

The guy was 14-4 in Slam finals and 2 of those loses occurred late in his career and one very early against Edberg.

This 14-4 record works out to percentage to 77%.

Is this the best record in slam finals?

 

[urban]

Emerson was 12-3, Perry was 8-2 or so.

 

[President]

This 14-4 record works out to percentage to 77%.

Is this the best record in slam finals?

Wawrinka is 2-0

 

[BeatlesFan]

IMO Sampras is very overrated , has a winning percentage of poor and few titles Master1000 .

Obviously spoken by someone who never watched Pete play. And Masters 1000's were 3/5 sets back then and weren't regarded as anything meaningful.

Anyone who claims Pete is "overrated" simply knows nothing about tennis, quite obviously.

 

[big ted]

i think he is one of the best big match players ever. like the OP said he could serve himself out of trouble. there were some matches he literally willed himself to win.. vs correjta at '96 us open..
and his matches at '00 wimbledon with shin splints when he couldnt practice on his off days. i cant picture anyone being able to pull off something like that today (except serena williams)

 

[ultradr]

His entire career he dominated all his main rivals: Agassi, Goran, Becker, Chang and Courier.
The guy was 14-4 in Slam finals and 2 of those loses occurred late in his career and one very early against Edberg.

Every time he was down in big matches he seemed to come up with either aces or matrix like volleys or giant forehands.

Plus he was number for 6 straight years.

He beat Agassi in 4 US open finals
He beat Goran in at least 3 Wimbledon finals

I still consider him as top guy in open era.

Let's see if Djokovic ties Federer's 5 and Sampras' 6. We'll see...

But then again it would be harder to dominate for long period on current homogenized surface condition.
Sampras dominated grass courts, and #1 or 2 on hard courts or carpet.
That was all he needed to be #1.

Under current homogeneous surfaces conditions, it is easier to dominate in high degree.
In fact, that is only way to be #1. You have to dominate all year.
Accumulate large # of weeks at #1, like Federer, for example. but harder to continue for many years, IMHO.

 

[KG1965]

Obviously spoken by someone who never watched Pete play. And Masters 1000's were 3/5 sets back then and weren't regarded as anything meaningful.

Anyone who claims Pete is "overrated" simply knows nothing about tennis, quite obviously.

I know nothing about tennis but has the good fortune to write here what I think: Sampras is overrated.

 

[jga111]

I know nothing about tennis but has the good fortune to write here what I think: Sampras is overrated.

Your bad fortune in this case is that no one will take you seriously - based on the fact that, as you say "I know nothing about tennis".

Troll?

 

[Phoenix1983]

I think people are too impressed by the 14-4 record in finals. Yes it's a great record but the key number is that he played in 52 majors and won 14. Remember he often lost before he got to the final but once he was there he was tough. Winning 77.2% of your matches in your career isn't dominating and winning only 64 tournaments in your career isn't super.

You always diminish Sampras' accomplishments. I wonder, are you Andre Agassi in disguise?

Sampras did not set out to win every tournament he entered or to have internet geeks salivate over his percentages in future years. He set out to break all important Open Era records, and by the time of his retirement, he had done so;

- 14 major titles
- 7 Wimbledons (Note that, at the cathedral of tennis, Sampras was more dominant at his peak than any player before or since, male or female: no-one else has ever won 7 out of 8 singles trophies at SW19)
- 6 successive years as world #1
- 286 wks as world #1
- 5 YECs (I concede that he only tied this record, which Lendl jointly held at the time as well)

Sampras' style of play was of course focused on his holding serve, and he knew that he often only needed one break per set to win. Thus you saw him win more often by scorelines like 6-4, 7-5, 7-6, as opposed to the likes of Borg and Nadal, who surely had far more 6-0, 6-0, 6-1 type scorelines. This doesn't mean that Sampras was 'less dominant' though, he knew exactly what he had to do to win using his imposing serve-and-volley style, and didn't care about winning by huge scorelines.

On a more macro level, he only cared about the stats which I posted above, not about racking up multiple minor titles like Connors and Lendl. He conserved his energy for the big events, and for periods when he could wrap up the No 1 ranking (i.e. at the end of 1998, entering tournaments to ensure he finished ahead of Rios). So I think it's highly unfair to criticize his comparatively "low" number of tournament wins or percentage W/L record.

I think Sampras was fabulous and on a fast court when he was at his best he was unbelievable but dominating is not the word I use for him. In his BEST year he won 77 matches and lost 12 in winning 10 tournaments. He never won ten tournaments again and never won 90% of his matches in one year. Compare that year to some of Djokovic's or Nadal's or Federer's years. Djokovic has already won 59 tournaments in his career and is at about the 90% range for since 2011. Djokovic is at 89.83% for the last FIVE years which is fantastic. Sampras hasn't been that high for just one year.

Again, who cares about percentages? Djokovic in the last five years has won 9 slams and finished world No 1 four times out of five, which I'd say is slightly inferior to Sampras' best five-year period from 1993-1997, when he won 9 slams but finished world No 1 five years in a row (I know this is debatable, but the point I'm making is that you can't use your beloved percentages to push the likes of Djokovic far above Sampras).

There is much more I could write about Sampras, but I understand the OP's point of view (on all surfaces bar clay): there is no-one you would rather have playing for your life, to have the confidence to pull out a second-serve ace, or a running forehand winner, than Pete Sampras. Maybe Pancho Gonzales could compare historically but that's about it.

I rank Sampras as the third greatest player of all time, behind only Federer and Laver. Only his lack of clay prowess prevents him from being right up there with those two...

 

[pc1]

You always diminish Sampras' accomplishments. I wonder, are you Andre Agassi in disguise?

Sampras did not set out to win every tournament he entered or to have internet geeks salivate over his percentages in future years. He set out to break all important Open Era records, and by the time of his retirement, he had done so;

- 14 major titles
- 7 Wimbledons (Note that, at the cathedral of tennis, Sampras was more dominant at his peak than any player before or since, male or female: no-one else has ever won 7 out of 8 singles trophies at SW19)
- 6 successive years as world #1
- 286 wks as world #1
- 5 YECs (I concede that he only tied this record, which Lendl jointly held at the time as well)

Sampras' style of play was of course focused on his holding serve, and he knew that he often only needed one break per set to win. Thus you saw him win more often by scorelines like 6-4, 7-5, 7-6, as opposed to the likes of Borg and Nadal, who surely had far more 6-0, 6-0, 6-1 type scorelines. This doesn't mean that Sampras was 'less dominant' though, he knew exactly what he had to do to win using his imposing serve-and-volley style, and didn't care about winning by huge scorelines.

On a more macro level, he only cared about the stats which I posted above, not about racking up multiple minor titles like Connors and Lendl. He conserved his energy for the big events, and for periods when he could wrap up the No 1 ranking (i.e. at the end of 1998, entering tournaments to ensure he finished ahead of Rios). So I think it's highly unfair to criticize his comparatively "low" number of tournament wins or percentage W/L record.



Again, who cares about percentages? Djokovic in the last five years has won 9 slams and finished world No 1 four times out of five, which I'd say is slightly inferior to Sampras' best five-year period from 1993-1997, when he won 9 slams but finished world No 1 five years in a row (I know this is debatable, but the point I'm making is that you can't use your beloved percentages to push the likes of Djokovic far above Sampras).

There is much more I could write about Sampras, but I understand the OP's point of view (on all surfaces bar clay): there is no-one you would rather have playing for your life, to have the confidence to pull out a second-serve ace, or a running forehand winner, than Pete Sampras. Maybe Pancho Gonzales could compare historically but that's about it.

I rank Sampras as the third greatest player of all time, behind only Federer and Laver. Only his lack of clay prowess prevents him from being right up there with those two...

My friend I know you love Sampras but it's my opinion, sorry. I do think he is a great player but dominating is not the word I use for him overall. I do rank him among the top ever by the way. I like his style more than almost anyone.

I think sometimes you think I should praise any player I like to the skies. I'm just stating what I believe are realistic opinions of Sampras. What am I suppose to write? Should I write that Sampras is more dominating than Federer or Djokovic in recent years? Sorry I can't do that.

For what it's worth I think his six straight number ones is one of the great achievements of all time, even greater than his 14 majors. Very few in the history of tennis can claim that.

It's funny I wrote a tennis article years ago about Sampras and people complained I was too partial to him.

Glad to have you back by the way. Even though we disagree it's nice to have you around.

 

[Steve0904]

I think I kind of see where the OP was going with this and in a sense I agree. And please correct and forgive me if I'm wrong because I don't mean to intentionally offend any Sampras fans. With all that said, I don't think the OP is saying that he's more dominating than say Federer or Djokovic percentage wise over a season or even a set of seasons. He also has no 3 slam years, but again I don't think that's what the OP was getting at.

I think the OP is basically saying that Sampras's play style itself was dominating. With the 1st and 2nd serves. The cat like quickness and the explosive nature of his game (loved the slam dunks). He was THE guy more than any other, even the guys of today, that took the racquet out of your hands if he was playing well, just due to his serve alone. That looks to me like the gist of what the OP was trying to say.

 

[pc1]

I think I kind of see where the OP was going with this and in a sense I agree. And please correct and forgive me if I'm wrong because I don't mean to intentionally offend any Sampras fans. With all that said, I don't think the OP is saying that he's more dominating than say Federer or Djokovic percentage wise over a season or even a set of seasons. He also has no 3 slam years, but again I don't think that's what the OP was getting at.

I think the OP is basically saying that Sampras's play style itself was dominating. With the 1st and 2nd serves. The cat like quickness and the explosive nature of his game (loved the slam dunks). He was THE guy more than any other, even the guys of today, that took the racquet out of your hands if he was playing well, just due to his serve alone. That looks to me like the gist of what the OP was trying to say.

That's the case I could very well agree.

 

[pc1]

Delete post. Double post.

 

[Steve0904]

That's the case I could very well agree.

Well, I don't think much of a case can be made for Sampras from a statistical standpoint tbh. It becomes really murky when we try to factor in the variety of the 90's as opposed to today from a "how much did it affect Sampras view" so I'd tend to stay away from it. Also, as has been stated, Sampras wasn't all about giving 110% to win every tournament. Not to make excuses, but it may have had something to do with his condition. Ironically (or maybe not) his most grueling RG run (a SF in 1996) was followed by his only loss at Wimbledon between 1993 and 2000. He also had no idea that 3 guys would come along to challenge/surpass most of his records less than 10 years after he retired.

As far as some of the numbers in the OP go, there are obvious counter arguments. 6 straight YE#1's is hugely impressive to be sure, but the flip side is that Sampras never held it consecutively as long as Connors or Federer for example. 14-4 in major finals is also an awesome record, but of course Sampras never made any RG finals, much less played a guy like Nadal or Borg on the surface. And he loses 2 in his "old" age phase. So if he was consistent enough to keep making them, he likely loses them to a guy like Federer, as Federer himself is finding out right now re: Djokovic.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

In a certain sense, yes, he probably was, at least in the open era, because what tennis felt like from 2004-07 (i.e one horse race with Nadal in RG and challenging Fed at Wimbledon) was basically the bulk of the 90s, starting 1993. Remember Agassi only won three of his eight slams up to 98, so from 93 to 98, i.e. 6 years Sampras was the main factor at both Wimbledon and USO and it didn't hurt that he also won AO twice during this period. And clay had a very deep field in the 90s, so it never felt like one player was dominating RG. The only constant in the tour at the time was Sampras. After 1996, the lion began to slow down as evidenced by his losses to Korda and Rafter at USO but it wasn't until 99 when Agassi won two slams that the sheen of dominance began to wear off. And even that year, he played that uber dominant Wimbledon final.

 

[SeeItHitIt]

Loved Pete's style of play and guts. Still get hooked on every old match TC shows, win or lose. He played when he played, you can't compare then and now...but back then he set the pace that inspired.

 

[pc1]

Well, I don't think much of a case can be made for Sampras from a statistical standpoint tbh. It becomes really murky when we try to factor in the variety of the 90's as opposed to today from a "how much did it affect Sampras view" so I'd tend to stay away from it. Also, as has been stated, Sampras wasn't all about giving 110% to win every tournament. Not to make excuses, but it may have had something to do with his condition. Ironically (or maybe not) his most grueling RG run (a SF in 1996) was followed by his only loss at Wimbledon between 1993 and 2000. He also had no idea that 3 guys would come along to challenge/surpass most of his records less than 10 years after he retired.

As far as some of the numbers in the OP go, there are obvious counter arguments. 6 straight YE#1's is hugely impressive to be sure, but the flip side is that Sampras never held it consecutively as long as Connors or Federer for example. 14-4 in major finals is also an awesome record, but of course Sampras never made any RG finals, much less played a guy like Nadal or Borg on the surface. And he loses 2 in his "old" age phase. So if he was consistent enough to keep making them, he likely loses them to a guy like Federer, as Federer himself is finding out right now re: Djokovic.

The thing is that when Sampras reached a final, he usually won it but is the record superior to that of Federer who won 17 majors out of 27 finals? Sure it's a lower percentage in the finals than Sampras but Federer did reach more finals than Sampras and has won more majors than Pete. Federer's been in the final 27 times out of 66 tournaments entered. Sampras was in the final 18 times out of 52 entered. Federer's won 17 and Sampras 14.

The record of 12 majors by Emerson was a phony record because of the Pro/Amateur divide for many decades. The top amateurs often turned pro so they would NOT get to add to their majors total. Perhaps Sampras would have been more motivated to win more majors if he thought the record was 17 for example. He certainly had the talent to win on all surfaces. It's a shame a player of Sampras' great ability couldn't win the French. Sampras played some super matches on clay like his great win over Kafelnikov in 1995 on clay in the Davis Cup.
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/1132

On a different note Steve0904 you did bring up that some players have a style that take the racquet out of their opponents hands. I take that as being able to impose their style onto the match. Some other players of that type I think could be Connors because of his return, McEnroe, Pancho Gonzalez and Laver. Nadal would not be in my opinion because I don't think his counterpunching can always impose his style onto the match. Guys like Wawrinka and Djokovic could deal with him when they are playing well imo.

 

[KG1965]

Your bad fortune in this case is that no one will take you seriously - based on the fact that, as you say "I know nothing about tennis".

Troll?

Troll? Gnome perhaps , almost ogre .

The talent of Sampras is not discussed.
The top in the 2 most important slams , but so many defeats in other tournaments .
Few big no-slam titles . Few.

Six years at the top , great result , but with lower scores in many years of numbers 2 ( like Nadal ) .

A big, but to recalibrate downward for my taste .

I'm sorry for the fans of Pete but I do not care about them.

 

[Triskadekaphilia]

An attacking-style player, best player of the 90s. Sampras was truly dominating IMO in big matches (except on clay). He had some trouble keeping his focus and/or motivation in smaller matches. He was saving his energy for wimbledon, USO, year-end title. Clay performance is always going to be the main knock on his legacy.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

When I was growing up, we only had the biggest tennis matches on tv. Grand Slam finals, maybe semis. But I got the impression that whenever Sampras plays, he wins. Which I found very frustrating, cos I preferred baseliners.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sampras' career is relatively short compared to today's standard. He was mentally spent after 1999 and dropped off pretty quickly by 2001.

He got married in 2000 and also broke the career Slam record that year. I think he lost interest in tennis after that.

 

[beltsman]

Lots of good responses in this thread. We also have to remember that back then, surfaces were actually drastically different. A player like Sampras would not be expected to win on clay, and it would not be useful for him to work on his clay game at the expense of his fast surface game.

Difference in surfaces meant everyone, not just Sampras, LOST more matches and were less consistent. Djokovic wouldn't be winning 90% of his matches if the surfaces today were like the ones in 1995.

So, nerds looking at matching winning % and other stats like that are completely missing the point.