This shows what a Tough Clay Era looks like

[Finesse4sum]

For those that want to put Sampras down because of his RG career:

FO 89 - Loss to eventual Champion Michael Chang who went on to beat the number 1 in Lendl during the tournament

FO 91 - Loss to Champion ( I think Pete should be excused for such a cool name he played against) but the fact he beat the Original "King of Clay" in Muster in the first round is an amazing feat.

FO 92 - Loss to a 2 time FO finalist in Agassi who would eventually win one in 1999.

FO 93 - Loss to Bruguera who would eventually go on to win the title and defend the title in the following year.

FO 94 - Loss to Courier who won back to back FO titles from 1991-1992.

FO 95 - Loss to G Schaller

FO 96 - Loss to Kafelnikov who would go on to win FO going through Krajicek, Sampras, and Stich in the final.

FO 97 - Loss to M Norman who would eventually become a FO finalist in 2000.

FO 98 - Loss to R Delgado

FO 99 - Loss to Medvedev who would eventually make it to the final losing to Agassi in 5 sets.


Look at the stats:

From 1989-1999 Sampras has lost to an eventual finalist within the same year 5 times with 3 of those winning the title (Chang, Bruguera, Kafelnikov)

Sampras beat a former King of Clay in 5 sets (Muster)

Sampras played in a clay era with with different FO finalists with at least 1 FO title to many of their names:

Chang - 2 finals 1 title
Agassi - 3 finals 1 title
Bruguera - 2 titles
Courier - 2 titles
Kuerten - 3 titles
Kafelnikov - 1 title
Medvedev - 1 final and 3 hamburg titles

Sampras only lost to 2 players in that 10 year period that would amount to nothing in terms of career on clay or elsewhere for that matter.

 

[timnz]

For those that want to put Sampras down because of his RG career:

FO 89 - Loss to eventual Champion Michael Chang who went on to beat the number 1 in Lendl during the tournament

FO 91 - Loss to Champion ( I think Pete should be excused for such a cool name he played against) but the fact he beat the Original "King of Clay" in Muster in the first round is an amazing feat.

FO 92 - Loss to a 2 time FO finalist in Agassi who would eventually win one in 1999.

FO 93 - Loss to Bruguera who would eventually go on to win the title and defend the title in the following year.

FO 94 - Loss to Courier who won back to back FO titles from 1991-1992.

FO 95 - Loss to G Schaller

FO 96 - Loss to Kafelnikov who would go on to win FO going through Krajicek, Sampras, and Stich in the final.

FO 97 - Loss to M Norman who would eventually become a FO finalist in 2000.

FO 98 - Loss to R Delgado

FO 99 - Loss to Medvedev who would eventually make it to the final losing to Agassi in 5 sets.


Look at the stats:

From 1989-1999 Sampras has lost to an eventual finalist within the same year 5 times with 3 of those winning the title (Chang, Bruguera, Kafelnikov)

Sampras beat a former King of Clay in 5 sets (Muster)

Sampras played in a clay era with with different FO finalists with at least 1 FO title to many of their names:

Chang - 2 finals 1 title
Agassi - 3 finals 1 title
Bruguera - 2 titles
Courier - 2 titles
Kuerten - 3 titles
Kafelnikov - 1 title
Medvedev - 1 final and 3 hamburg titles

Sampras only lost to 2 players in that 10 year period that would amount to nothing in terms of career on clay or elsewhere for that matter.

Good work. That gives Sampras' 1990's performance at Roland Garros in some good perspective.

 

[Bertie B]

In other words, Sampras deserves "Greatest" title because of all the people he's lost to.

How about this?

Pete Sampras = GLOAT!!

True, prime Federer had Nadal, and it is a source of shame. However, more than a handful of players were capable of abusing Sampras in Paris & Melbourne.

 

[tennisaddict]

Haha, what a way to justify losses.. How come some years were skipped and how come the type of losses (bread stick or less than 3 games a set) glossed over ? How come the round he got beaten hidden ?


1989 - 2R - Chang beat Sampras 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
1990 - Did not Play
1991 - 2R - Champion beat Sampras 6-3, 6-1, 6-1
1995 - 1R - Schaller beat Sampras 7-6 4-6 6-7 6-2 6-4
1997 - 3R - Norman beat Sampras 6-2 6-4 2-6 6-4
1998 - 2R - Delgado beat Sampras 7-6 6-3 6-4
1999 - 2R - Medvedev beat Sampras 7-5 1-6 6-4 6-3
2000 - 1R - Phillipousis beat Sampras 4-6 7-5 7-6 4-6 8-6
2001- 2R - Blanco beat Sampras 7-6 6-3 6-2
2002- 1R - Gaudenzi beat Sampras 3-6 6-4 6-2 7-6

 

[ripitup]

1989- he was a clay mug at that point. With any draw his result would have sucked. It was his good fortune to draw Chang 2nd round so one can just say "oh lookie he lost to the eventual winner, that is so greatie even if he got only 5 games". Chang should have just been the eventual 4th round loser to a choking Lendl anyway. I guess had it not been for that darned Chang, Sampras would already be RG Champ at 17, LOL!

1991- bad loss.

1992- Losing in easy straight sets to slumping Agassi who then got clobbered badly himself by Courier is nothing special.

1993- ok, fine here.

1994- ok, fine here, although this was a declining Courier and he went on to lose in the semis after beating Pete too.

1995- Terrible result, nothing else to say.

1996- Impressive set of wins but losing the last 2 sets to Kafelnikov 0 and 2 in a slam semi is terrible.

1997- Terrible result. It doesnt matter what Norman would accomplish later, back then he was a very low ranked nobody, and he would remain this until 2000.

1998- Terrible result.

1999- oh, will cut him some slack here.


So really only 3 of those I would put down to a tough draw. His only good wins were in 1996 as well. The others he beat literally nobody to reach those stages, so even if the losses themselves werent bad, it is not like he did anything worth noting either.

 

[ripitup]

Oh yeah Muster in 1991 was World #57 or something like that and had a losing record on clay for the year. So no for reigning U.S Open Champion Sampras that wasnt a big win. Also while other years like 1990, 1993, and 1994 Muster was very strong on clay (definitely not in 1991) he was also no "King of Clay" until 1995. Before that even in his good years he was no more than one of Courier's whooping boys on clay, the previous King of Clay.

 

[Mustard]

At the end of 1990, after a brilliant comeback year against the odds, Muster suffered a big case of burnout and didn't bother to go to the 1991 Australian Open, leading to his coach resigning and telling Thomas to call him when he wanted to get serious again. Thomas started drinking and smoking for a few months, and his results nosedived very quickly. Thomas had enough of the partying after about 4 months, and his coach was back whipping him into shape.

 

[ripitup]

At the end of 1990, after a brilliant comeback year against the odds, Muster suffered a big case of burnout and didn't bother to go to the 1991 Australian Open, leading to his coach resigning and telling Thomas to call him when he wanted to get serious again. Thomas started drinking and smoking for a few months, and his results nosedived very quickly. Thomas had enough of the partying after about 4 months, and his coach was back whipping him into shape.

He must have been in poor shape to lose to Sampras on clay. That is embarassing for any clay star.

 

[Mustard]

He must have been in poor shape to lose to Sampras on clay. That is embarassing for any clay star.

It was still a bad loss, even though Muster's form had been very poor for most of the year at that stage. We have to remember that 2 years earlier, Muster's knee ligaments were shattered and his career was under threat.

 

[Federer20042006]

That FO match against Sampras was the only Grand Slam match Muster played in 1991.

 

[Finesse4sum]

In other words, Sampras deserves "Greatest" title because of all the people he's lost to.

How about this?

Pete Sampras = GLOAT!!

True, prime Federer had Nadal, and it is a source of shame. However, more than a handful of players were capable of abusing Sampras in Paris & Melbourne.

It obviously doesnt show Pete as any sort of adept clay player in any sort of way. It simply shows that even as a terrible clay courter he still had to contend with men that were plainly "above the pack" much of the time.

Haha, what a way to justify losses.. How come some years were skipped and how come the type of losses (bread stick or less than 3 games a set) glossed over ? How come the round he got beaten hidden ?


1989 - 2R - Chang beat Sampras 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
1990 - Did not Play
1991 - 2R - Champion beat Sampras 6-3, 6-1, 6-1
1995 - 1R - Schaller beat Sampras 7-6 4-6 6-7 6-2 6-4
1997 - 3R - Norman beat Sampras 6-2 6-4 2-6 6-4
1998 - 2R - Delgado beat Sampras 7-6 6-3 6-4
1999 - 2R - Medvedev beat Sampras 7-5 1-6 6-4 6-3
2000 - 1R - Phillipousis beat Sampras 4-6 7-5 7-6 4-6 8-6
2001- 2R - Blanco beat Sampras 7-6 6-3 6-2
2002- 1R - Gaudenzi beat Sampras 3-6 6-4 6-2 7-6

I'm not even a Sampras fan because he was prominent during the Michael Jordan B-ball years and I didnt even watch tennis until the early's 2000's and it was hard to be a fan of someone when youtube didnt even really exist early on.

I skipped any year after 1999 because of his obvious decline at AO and Wimbledon although maybe I should have counted 2000 but anyway I wanted an even 10 years.

If Djoker or Nadal got injured right before their prominent part of the season where they get many of their points you could see a LARGE drop in ranking like Nadal at number 5 or Federer at number 7 of this year.

Basically what I'm saying is that even if Serena plays as number 70 or 100 or something lower in the world beating a high ranked player in the 1st-3rd round it doesnt change the fact that that player had to play against her.

I didnt include the rounds because of that reason and it still makes it irrelevant if your playing a quality player who ends up making it to SF or F rounds during that tournament.

 

[Top Jimmy]

The FO is a second tier Slam along with the Aussie, it shouldn't even count. :twisted:

Way to go Rafa and Novak, you've piled up meaningless slams. :shock:

 

[Bartelby]

The only first tier slam is Wimbledon.