Yeah I’ll echo some of the sentiments here and say that Sampras gets credit for beating some great players that he
a) didn’t actually play very much by virtue of them being on the outs
b) played before his own peak occurred (important because of how vaunted his ‘93-‘97 run is) or when they were outside of their peaks but stuck around
c) got beat by, thus making it kind of silly to think his record is propped up by mentioning them
d) a combo of A + B
As such, fans of Sampras mythologize his competition with the same reckless abandon as detractors when they disparage it. I don’t think Sampras had weak competition at all, and he had to face a very eclectic set of conditions that came with its own set of problems, but it certainly wasn’t decidedly better than Fed’s IMW. Let’s examine some of the frequently cited names and which of the four categories they fall under, if any:
Agassi: none of the above, genuinely strong ATG opponent. That said, if I wanna get hyper-critical I could mention that he only really put everything together and maximized his talent when Sampras was 28 and already won 11 of his 14 majors. Before then they ‘only’ faced off five times in majors...once on clay where Sampras likely wasn’t going all the way and got blitzed, and once at Wimby when Agassi had to alter his serve due to a wrist injury. Great as he was, Agassi wasn’t as around during Pete’s peak as some would think.
Edberg: B. Their first five meetings were before ‘93. After ‘92, Edberg reached only three tier one (major, M1000 equivalent, YEC) finals, yet 8 of their 13 meetings occurred after then, and as alluded to he was never Pete’s foe on grass.
Stich: C. Yes, Stich was a very strong opponent but he won 5 of their 9 matches despite being an inferior player, and he was 3-2 against Pete during the latter’s prime. To Sampras’s credit though, he won their lone GS match in impressive fashion during Stich’s prime.
Krajicek: C, C, C. I understand that Krajicek played a devastating match, and tournament, in ‘96 Wimby but he beat Pete again and again during his prime despite being several historical tiers below him. I’m not sure how mentioning Krajicek makes Sampras look better when RK won 6 of their 10 matches (6 of their first 8, all occurring during Pete’s prime), and went 1-1 in majors against him with the loss being a match where he was a set to the good and up something like 5-0 in the tiebreak before Sampras squared things. Particularly don’t see how he boosts PS’s cred on grass when, again, they played one match and it was lopsidedly in RK’s favour.
Lendl: B, their peaks didn’t even momentarily overlap but Sampras did notch an impressive win over him at the ‘90 Open.
Courier: B, primes did not overlap but doubtlessly prime Sampras would get the better of any version of Courier over a series of matches anyway, so he gets a pass here.
Becker: A bit of B. Becker was a dangerous player into his late 20’s but the mileage and lifestyle caught up to him in the early 90s. He wasn’t in his prime from ‘93-‘97 but stuck around as a dangerous contender.
Ivanisevic: none of the above, quality opponent on fast courts.
Rafter: mostly ditto but didn’t really challenge Sampras when he was running roughshod over the tour from ‘93-‘97. Nonetheless, Pete held up very well even once Rafter hit his peak and Sampras left his.
Wilander + McEnroe: played a combined 6 matches against them, none of which really hold any historical significance.
That era featured enough formidable early-round floaters and depth to make to salvage the status of the competition, but just as today’s tour is top-heavy and lacking in depth, the 90s tour was the polar opposite.
(I'm kidding somewhat, but not completely...)
