Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
This match caused Wimbledon to make their courts slower, so 14 years later Nadal could win.
Was Sampras one of the most boring Athletes Of All Time ?
- Thread starter Otacon
- Start date
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
Fed definitely can be a jerk on court at times. But in interviews or doing other media appearances he is typically poised, friendly and personable. Pete was cranky and dull.
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
I think Pete genuinely loved/loves tennis. Certainly more than Andre or some other players. However he clearly hated the other part of the job which is being on camera and being a personality and giving people a glimpse into himself. Andre did this naturally and Fed I think learned how to do it. Pete never did.
Going back to the OP, his style of play was boring because he was boring.
But if we go strictly by the game they played, doesn't Harold Solomon deserve a shout out?
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure if that's an accurate description of his game. I think a more prototypical point was, vicious serve elicits weak reply down the middle, Sampras crushes a forehand for a winner or gets an easy overhead. He was not a S&Ver. More of an all court player with unbelievable power on every shot.
I think at the time I would have said his game was boring but that was because I didn't really like him as a player. The older and wiser me realizes that his game was not boring, he was just too good for everyone and he was an insanely focused competitor. I do wish he had made more of an effort in the PR department, it might have helped grow the sport here in the US.
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
Yeah Murray is not fun to watch and he seems like a jerk too. But that makes it more interesting! I have a villain to cheer against. The greats understand this. Nole, Mac, Connors, Murray to some extent. You have to have a heel, just as the WWE. Sampras would have been a perfect heel to Agassi's "face" but he didn't even want to do that.
The Isomotion31
Semi-Pro
Nah.
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
You don't have to like them all the time. But Fed gets that part of the job.
As for Pete's game. I would have loved to see peak Sampras against peak Nadal. Ultimate offense vs. ultimate defense. I'm picking Pete in 4 unless it's on clay.
byealmeens
Semi-Pro
You don't think Pete was an S&Ver? To me Roger is more all-court than Pete as he was/is very proficient from the baseline. Pete I felt was OK from back there, but would rather come in than stay back (like M. Zverev for instance).
Pheasant
Legend
There was nothing boring about Sampras' play on the court. His 136 mph first serves, his 120 mph 2nd serves, his sky dunks at the net, and his overall attacking style was exhilarating to watch. He's personality was boring. But overall, Sampras was quite entertaining.
Edit: The OP specifically mentioned personality only.
yes, Sampras is a GOAT for boring personality. Even as a big fan, I have to admit this.
Edit: The OP specifically mentioned personality only.
yes, Sampras is a GOAT for boring personality. Even as a big fan, I have to admit this.
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
I would not put him in the category of S&V player. He certainly would do it at times, especially Wimbledon. But I think he played pretty typical for the way guys played in the 90s and today. The difference was he had a serve that got a lot of weak replies (or no return at all) and he hit a little flatter and had a devastating FH. But he could not move as well as Chang, Courier, or Agassi et al. so he wanted to keep the points shorter. Now we know he had the anemia which made it even harder to play long points and his aggressive power style becomes more understandable. But Pete was from So Cal in the 80s and 90s in So Cal everyone played like Chang, Courier, etc. Remember he had a double backhand until he was like 15.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
That would be true, if one considers S&V boring, which is a whole different problem in itself for the said person.
Besides, although S&V was the predominant style, it still wasn't the only game that was played, so, I don't consider an observation like that very accurate.
Besides, if we consider a domination on the surface a viable metric, then if Sampras, Ivanisevic and Krajicek "almost killed" Wimbledon, then Federer, Djokovic and Nadal read its obituary.
TheGreatOne1997
Rookie
Edhead-Fedhead
Hall of Fame
The first time I saw Pete play, was the 1990 USO (on TV.) To me, the final was very exciting! I'd never seen anyone serve like that! And, while in the present day, "wham-bam, score" might seem dull, it was out of the ordinary then. Watching a barely 19 year old American blast the #4 seed (and barely 20 himself) off the court, was quite riveting to me at the time. And, Pete did not seem AT ALL prepared to become a tennis star (unlike Agassi who was groomed for it since infancy), which just added to the charm of the story.
Over the years, I pulled for Pete fairly often (as long as he wasn't playing Edberg.) It wasn't until 1996 RCA Championships in Indy that I saw Pete play live, though. It was Edberg's farewell year, and the last time I saw Stefan play live, other than an exhibition match against McEnroe in Atlanta. Sampras ended up winning the tournament, but Stefan lost in the 3rd round, so I really couldn't blame Pete!
An Edberg side note: I found it interesting that someone who also didn't like to be the center of attention, announced his retirement plans a year in advance. As a fan, I really appreciated that he did that, because it did give me the chance to see him live once more.
Over the years, I pulled for Pete fairly often (as long as he wasn't playing Edberg.) It wasn't until 1996 RCA Championships in Indy that I saw Pete play live, though. It was Edberg's farewell year, and the last time I saw Stefan play live, other than an exhibition match against McEnroe in Atlanta. Sampras ended up winning the tournament, but Stefan lost in the 3rd round, so I really couldn't blame Pete!
An Edberg side note: I found it interesting that someone who also didn't like to be the center of attention, announced his retirement plans a year in advance. As a fan, I really appreciated that he did that, because it did give me the chance to see him live once more.
Nah mate I think PETE has surpassed Laver.
Think about it
What is Laver good at? Wool pants s&v.... which Pete OWNS everyone at..... then what else is there? Clay? Pete has his Davis Cup and ROME heroics so I think the most rounded and heroic player ever is PETE
Wurm
Professional
Because I started watching tennis in 1985, the year Becker first swooped and dived his way to a Wimbledon title, and Sampras and his ilk just about killed grass court tennis as a spectacle in the 90s. Since tennis being broadcast outside of the British grass court season didn't happen in the UK back then (maybe it was on Sky but my parents didn't have it and I couldn't afford it for myself until into the 2000s) they killed my interest in tennis almost entirely. The only good memory of a tennis match I have from around the time Sampras was dominating Wimbledon is when Becker was playing Agassi and Becker ended up playing from the baseline for a not insignificant chunk of the match.
You can't knock Sampras for being supremely effective at that style of tennis, and boy does it look good in the highlights when you see the flashes of brilliance he could produce, but sitting down to watch a full match of him on grass courts was usually pretty rotten if his opponent had a big serve too: he was mind numbingly efficient on his own serve, particularly since his second serve didn't come with the likelihood of an actual rally, and he drifted through opponent's service games half the time.
I can't say I'm a fan of metronomic baseline topspin slugging either - like v like with little-to-no variation makes for boring matches - but at least there's a decent chance of seeing the ball in play for longer than 5 seconds at a time.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Pete still gets heavily analysed, more so than any other player I can think of. He's still a talking point and people are still interested in his so called boring game.
Agassi to a lesser degree gets spoken of for his mechanics but mainly return of serve. However, the ground game has evolved away from his style and he seems to be reviewed less and less these days.
So in defence of Sampras who was more a tennis players hero than a tennis watcher hero, Sampras game which the ATP has moved away from is still heavily reviewed and is not boring to players and technique observers.
Other talked about ex players seem to be talked about in relation to personality or personality defects. There isn't going to be a Sampras movie soon. Agassi maybe, they can get Brook Shields as camio and Barbra she'll be cut in name of good taste. There's only one, The Graduate movie.
Agassi to a lesser degree gets spoken of for his mechanics but mainly return of serve. However, the ground game has evolved away from his style and he seems to be reviewed less and less these days.
So in defence of Sampras who was more a tennis players hero than a tennis watcher hero, Sampras game which the ATP has moved away from is still heavily reviewed and is not boring to players and technique observers.
Other talked about ex players seem to be talked about in relation to personality or personality defects. There isn't going to be a Sampras movie soon. Agassi maybe, they can get Brook Shields as camio and Barbra she'll be cut in name of good taste. There's only one, The Graduate movie.
TheGreatOne1997
Rookie
Petes my favorite player ever but career wise:
When someone surpasses 200 career titles, 2 calendar slams and manages 11 slams without playing it in their prime while not having questionable h2h problems with their main rivals , then we can talk. So far no one has even SNIFFED Laver.
Everyone Ive seen has marks/blemishes against their resume except for Laver. Sampras has the clay blemish. Federer has the ongoing career issues with his main rivals with NO calendar slam much less 2 like Laver. Nadal's resume is very "clay heavy". Djokovic has some lousy slam finals record against guys he should have beat.
Laver has NONE of that. Theres Laver.. Then everyone else
Last edited:
Ignorance is bliss!
Great Post!
I agree with you ..a little.
Pete was not very charismatic and this is not positive. He was a too quiet individual, like Borg, Lendl, Federer, Djokovic, but while Borg and Federer became icons, Pete, Djokovic and Lendl did not become them. The question is why?
I do not understand how one can not appreciate his game, to see him dominate with his S & V was a thing of beauty .. I agree.
Perhaps the problem goes back to the fact that the new generations hate net gaming, also because the current champions do not know how to practice it enough and instead of understanding why they do not know how to practice, they destroy the champions who knew how to approach the net.
Sampras is currently in a limbo: hated by Fedalovic fans, respected by the fans of the 60s-70s-80s, but they were more impressed by other champions.
However your question is still without an answer.
I tried but I do not know if in the right direction.
Last edited:
A fast court match between two big servers in the 1990s, could be boring, i think of the 1994 Wim final Sampras-Ivanisevic. The serve game had become too good for its own sake, so they slowed the surfaces down. Same goes for long grinder duels like Borg-Vilas on clay, or Nadal-Djokovic on medium fast hard courts. But when Sampras had the right contrasting opponent like Agassi, or a temperament player like Becker, the match was anything but boring. In itself Pete's game was a thing of wild beauty, grace under pressure, his vertical moving was exceptional, maybe his backhand looked a bit cramped sometimes, but all other facets were there. When on, his mental focus was like iron, under the quiet behaviour was a tacid aggressiveness, which made his fast court game still unsurpassed.
Nothing boring about his game. He moved like a panther, his service motion was the very symbol of power, his volleys were almost as sweet as Edberg's, and his forehand devastating. I don't know what the OP is talking about. Maybe watch his hardcourt game more and his grass game less
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
C'est vrai.
You are massively overrating almost everything here.
Laver has won 11 Slams, but 6 of them were Amateur Slams. In 1962, when he won his first so-called CYGS, he was not even the best tennis player of the year, because the Pro Tour (with Rosewall on top) was much better.
If we are very kind to Laver, then MAYBE he would have won 2-3 Open Slams until 1962, but rather unlikely (remember Rosewall still dominated in 1963 on the Pro Tour with Laver winning NONE of the 3 Pro Slams).
In total, only Laver (8 titles) and Rosewall (7 titles) won the 15 Pro Slams from 1963-68. If we want to extrapolate that on the 21 Slams that Laver missed from 1963 until the 1968 Australian Championships, then it would be 11 titles, but we must consider that he would also lose some matches to Roy Emerson, who was the best Amateur these days.
Also the smaller draws (mainly 8 players) at the Pro Slams were a slight advantage, even though the draw only consisted of very good players. But the occasional early loss was always possible in draws of 128.
So all that what be cancelled out a bit, and I think as an estimation we could go back to about 8 Open Slams he would have won in that era. And then he had his 5 Open Slams in reality starting in 1968.
So that would be 3+8+5 = 16 Slams in total (and I think I am very kind to him in my estimation here).
And the 200 titles in total are just laughable. The draws often were so small and easy that it were rather exhibitions than tournaments. I think sometimes he played even 2 of those “tournaments” per week. Imagine if peak Federer could have played such a schedule.
yokied
Hall of Fame
I agree. He lacked character on-court, preferred to play a brutal, lazy S&V style and was fairly dreary off court too. The most interesting thing he ever said was 10 grand slams.
He played some interesting matches against compact baseliners like Agassi and Hewitt. He was actually a moonballer FROM his Russian-engineered OHBH. Fed could have learned something there too if he could put his pride aside and accept that he needed to play defensively off his BH against some opponents.
He played some interesting matches against compact baseliners like Agassi and Hewitt. He was actually a moonballer FROM his Russian-engineered OHBH. Fed could have learned something there too if he could put his pride aside and accept that he needed to play defensively off his BH against some opponents.
If God played tennis, he'd hit 4 aces every serve game and on return, anything that wasn't a double fault would get hit back for winner
Perfection.... but also boring as you can get
On grass, that's a bit how I see Sampras.
I have a sentimental weakness for Wimbledon, and Sampras' play there was astonishingly good... but no, it wasn't "fun" like Edberg, Agassi or Federer, because it seemed so rote.
That's a compliment to Sampras.... but if you look at it from the point of view of interesting/boring.... yes, I'd say it was boring
Not just because of the aces, service winners, forced return errors and put away volleys.... but because he semi-tanked a lot of return games, which means the same thing was going on on both sides of the court. No, not my idea of fun at all
On the other surfaces though, I thought he was a dynamic and exciting player
- though a magnificent server, he wasn't Ivanisevic/Krajicek/Philipoussis/Rusedski level of winning with the serve.... he won a fair few cheap points, but there was art to his volleying too
- look at his half-volleying. Best I've seen. Against thundering returns at his shoes, he got the ball over the net more than anybody
- the volleying was excellent and well worth looking at... he had the full range from both wings - deep stuff to the corners and drop/stop ones
- His movement was cat-like sleek
- from the baseline, his forehand was as dynamic as you can you get.... lots of winners and forcing errors and quite a lot of unforced errors trying to do it too.... whichever way you slice it, the game was alive on Sampras' forehand
- On the backhand, he'd usually play containment tennis which was smart.... and occasionally let loose with a full blown shot
So he was aggressive, dynamic entertainment on hard courts and carpet (don't remember much about clay)
-----
As for his personality, that's neither here nor there. Criticisms of it reflect how big he was and people's fault finding tendancies and shallowness
Borg seemed even duller - but he looked a maiden's fantasy - so doesn't get called boring
Edberg was the same - but he never reached such high levels, so doesn't get this kind of negative assessment either
See Lendl and the criticism he got for this type of irrelevant stuff
----
Summing up, Sampras on grass - amazing, the best I've seen, but could be a bit boring. Everywhere else, he's fine as an entertainer
Perfection.... but also boring as you can get
On grass, that's a bit how I see Sampras.
I have a sentimental weakness for Wimbledon, and Sampras' play there was astonishingly good... but no, it wasn't "fun" like Edberg, Agassi or Federer, because it seemed so rote.
That's a compliment to Sampras.... but if you look at it from the point of view of interesting/boring.... yes, I'd say it was boring
Not just because of the aces, service winners, forced return errors and put away volleys.... but because he semi-tanked a lot of return games, which means the same thing was going on on both sides of the court. No, not my idea of fun at all
On the other surfaces though, I thought he was a dynamic and exciting player
- though a magnificent server, he wasn't Ivanisevic/Krajicek/Philipoussis/Rusedski level of winning with the serve.... he won a fair few cheap points, but there was art to his volleying too
- look at his half-volleying. Best I've seen. Against thundering returns at his shoes, he got the ball over the net more than anybody
- the volleying was excellent and well worth looking at... he had the full range from both wings - deep stuff to the corners and drop/stop ones
- His movement was cat-like sleek
- from the baseline, his forehand was as dynamic as you can you get.... lots of winners and forcing errors and quite a lot of unforced errors trying to do it too.... whichever way you slice it, the game was alive on Sampras' forehand
- On the backhand, he'd usually play containment tennis which was smart.... and occasionally let loose with a full blown shot
So he was aggressive, dynamic entertainment on hard courts and carpet (don't remember much about clay)
-----
As for his personality, that's neither here nor there. Criticisms of it reflect how big he was and people's fault finding tendancies and shallowness
Borg seemed even duller - but he looked a maiden's fantasy - so doesn't get called boring
Edberg was the same - but he never reached such high levels, so doesn't get this kind of negative assessment either
See Lendl and the criticism he got for this type of irrelevant stuff
----
Summing up, Sampras on grass - amazing, the best I've seen, but could be a bit boring. Everywhere else, he's fine as an entertainer
SamprasisGOAT
Hall of Fame
Just want to say this thread has some of the best I’ve ever seen.
thsi thread rocks!
#samprasisgoat
thsi thread rocks!
#samprasisgoat
SamprasisGOAT
Hall of Fame
Even i as possibly the biggest Sampras fan born in 1989 or later, think sampras matches on fast grass and against ivanisevic are bad to watch. But Sampras did what he needed to do. Played the way he needed to.
Sampras on hardcourt has the most entertaining tennis style of all time. Also his style is great against baseliners at Wimbledon was still amazing to watch.
as a huge Pete fan who watches his YouTube matches daily, his hardcourt game is better to watch.
Sampras on hardcourt has the most entertaining tennis style of all time. Also his style is great against baseliners at Wimbledon was still amazing to watch.
as a huge Pete fan who watches his YouTube matches daily, his hardcourt game is better to watch.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Personally, I prefer the tennis of today with it's long rallies and point construction. But I have to say, whoever thinks Pete was 'boring' on the court must have a tennis IQ not much higher than that of a hog.
Sampras is much more interessant than Djokovic, i think...
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
Pete was superb zero cool.
Basically didn't care about all the shenanigans.
Just went on court and played great tennis.
Basically didn't care about all the shenanigans.
Just went on court and played great tennis.
NicoMK
Hall of Fame
I don't know why but most people stick to the very first impression of what they may have read or seen somewhere : 2 lines here and a 2 min. video there.
In tennis, McEnroe was an idiot, Borg as cold as ice, Lendl a robot from the East, Wilander a boring baseliner, Agassi the guy with the flashy suits, Sampras the ace-machine etc. But all those greats were much more than that !!
Maybe the Sampras-Ivanisevic 1994 final was not the most interesting of all to watch but hey, that's just ONE final. Grass only, the 1995 tie against Boris was great as were the 1999 and the 2000 ones against Agassi and Rafter (a great player too).
Pete was involved in many of the most interesting matches that I have ever seen (and I used to watch A LOT of tennis).
At Wimbledon in 2006 I met Pete's stringer and we talked about him. He told me that when Pete was training to play Wimbledon in 2003 (that was the idea after his 2002 USO run), he was trying a new (larger) frame with poly strings and he said : he hit his backhand as well as ever, I remember that.
And I also remember that sentence, he said : (when on the tour) Pete was playing with his heart.
Nuff said.
In tennis, McEnroe was an idiot, Borg as cold as ice, Lendl a robot from the East, Wilander a boring baseliner, Agassi the guy with the flashy suits, Sampras the ace-machine etc. But all those greats were much more than that !!
Maybe the Sampras-Ivanisevic 1994 final was not the most interesting of all to watch but hey, that's just ONE final. Grass only, the 1995 tie against Boris was great as were the 1999 and the 2000 ones against Agassi and Rafter (a great player too).
Pete was involved in many of the most interesting matches that I have ever seen (and I used to watch A LOT of tennis
).At Wimbledon in 2006 I met Pete's stringer and we talked about him. He told me that when Pete was training to play Wimbledon in 2003 (that was the idea after his 2002 USO run), he was trying a new (larger) frame with poly strings and he said : he hit his backhand as well as ever, I remember that.
And I also remember that sentence, he said : (when on the tour) Pete was playing with his heart.
Nuff said.
Otacon
Hall of Fame
Hingis aged well.
But before her first retirement, she was unbelievably cocky.
quirotkicks
Rookie
I don't think he was boring per say. His game was one of the most exciting to watch he was playing well and not playing a total serve bot where it just became a serving contest (eg his matches with Ivanisevic, both looked worst when playing each other, now that was boring usually).
His personality though was kind of strange and for me unlikeable. I wouldn't say he lacked charisma as some say much, more like he just lacked likeability. He was hard to get behind and root for. I know @Mainad who is not a Sampras fan probably has some thoughts to share.
His personality though was kind of strange and for me unlikeable. I wouldn't say he lacked charisma as some say much, more like he just lacked likeability. He was hard to get behind and root for. I know @Mainad who is not a Sampras fan probably has some thoughts to share.
quirotkicks
Rookie
He is sort of like a less likeable but more exciting (playing style wise) version of Duncan. Duncan would be the closest parallel in that regard though.
ChrisG
Professional
Sometimes when I read this kind of threads I wonder if some people even hit a racquet once in their life.
Sampras was a joy to watch (and I’m a Agassi fanboy), grass was just very boring at times. His volley game was majestic, and his backcourt play was very solid with an enormous forehand. Look at some matches on hard court/indoor, he’s up there with the big 3 in terms of talent and performance. He beat Agassi / Chang from the baseline on numerous occasions, to the point I truly believe his poor clay record is only due to lack of interest.
Sampras was a joy to watch (and I’m a Agassi fanboy), grass was just very boring at times. His volley game was majestic, and his backcourt play was very solid with an enormous forehand. Look at some matches on hard court/indoor, he’s up there with the big 3 in terms of talent and performance. He beat Agassi / Chang from the baseline on numerous occasions, to the point I truly believe his poor clay record is only due to lack of interest.
quirotkicks
Rookie
A legend giving up on a surface is not a positive. And wouldn't exactly endure him to fans.
Tennis on grass is not always boring. Would you say Nadal vs Federer matches on grass are ever boring. Yes different times and speed of grass, but still. To admit Sampras matches on grass are boring and put that just down to grass is kind of silly.
ChrisG
Professional
Read more carefully, I said grass was boring “at times”, not always. It is or was when two serving bot would play against each other like the final against ivanisevic. But apart from that, I’ve always enjoyed grass and I loved all the Fedal finals
ChrisG
Professional
Regarding avoiding or tanking a specific surface, you might not be old enough to remember that a lot of top players would not even attend a grand slam that wouldn’t suit their playing style. It’s true for all the claycourters not going to Australia (grass) or Wimbledon, but it also applies the other way and top players not playing a single game on clay before Rolland Garros, therefore playing badly under their normal level and exiting early.
Similar threads
