Why was Sampras considered the GOAT after Wimbledon 2000?
- Thread starter Djokovic2011
- Start date
90's Clay
Banned
They were going off mainly on the slam record. Not sure he was ever considered the "greatest" though. That would mean Emerson would have been considered the greatest before that (And who really believes that?)
Sampras has a legitimate claim as the best of the open era. (kept main rivals at bay and on single digit slam counts, Arguably the greatest ever at Wimbledon/USO, the two biggest slams, Record year #1, 2nd in total weeks at #1, 14 slams, maybe the greatest peak level ever etc).
I wouldn't put Sampras on Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, Tilden's level. But he nipped at their heels for sure. May be the greatest of the open era arguably. Obviously many will say Federer but Im not even sure if hes gonna be considered the greatest of the 2000s/2010s before its all said and done. Nadal would have already surpassed Federer if not for incessant injuries. Nole may very well leave Fed in the dust the next 3-4 yeas (Which barring Injury, I believe he will). I could see Nole at least tying Fed's slam record, and overtaking him, overall titles, weeks #1, YE#1. Nole isn't going anywhere any time soon. Hes not injury prone like Rafa and has developed a great serve in which he can win easy games
Sampras has a legitimate claim as the best of the open era. (kept main rivals at bay and on single digit slam counts, Arguably the greatest ever at Wimbledon/USO, the two biggest slams, Record year #1, 2nd in total weeks at #1, 14 slams, maybe the greatest peak level ever etc).
I wouldn't put Sampras on Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, Tilden's level. But he nipped at their heels for sure. May be the greatest of the open era arguably. Obviously many will say Federer but Im not even sure if hes gonna be considered the greatest of the 2000s/2010s before its all said and done. Nadal would have already surpassed Federer if not for incessant injuries. Nole may very well leave Fed in the dust the next 3-4 yeas (Which barring Injury, I believe he will). I could see Nole at least tying Fed's slam record, and overtaking him, overall titles, weeks #1, YE#1. Nole isn't going anywhere any time soon. Hes not injury prone like Rafa and has developed a great serve in which he can win easy games
Last edited:
RafaelHurts
New User
I'm sure I saw Sampras hitting with a wooden racket in an exhibition in North Carolina when he was a boy. Maybe it was when he was 16. That might rule him out as GOAT, if none of his major wins were done using a wooden racket. My criteria for GOAT is how good a player you were, not just how many titles you won.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree that the primary measure of greatness is peak level of play, and obviously, being able to maintain that peak level for a reasonable amount of time. That's why I'm not terribly concerned that Djokovic doesn't have as many major or total titles as Federer when I express the notion that he may have caught up with Federer in terms of all time greatness. That's also why I still consider Sampras to be a genuine GOAT candidate. BTW, Sampras' Pro Staff may have played closer to a wood racquet than to the more modern graphite racquets. It was heavy and considered stiff by the standard of the day. But, it's somewhat flexible by today's standards.
Strobe Lights
Semi-Pro
The main reason is that is how promotion of sport works. Whoever is the best right now is typically pushed as the best ever. "Watch our sport! The greatest ever is playing!" Sampras was the best ever. Then Fed was the best ever. Then Rafa was the best ever. I remember Andrew Castle on our British coverage of the 2012 RG final saying that Novak Djokovic would be the best ever if he won that match, for the 4 in a row and only 6 overall, because he had an aura of invincibility and they were still pushing Fed and Rafa (two other guys branded as GOATs) as being at their very best. There was no such talk this year bizarrely when he actually did it, even though it was for his 12th Major, perhaps because of Fed and Rafa being older.
So they want to push someone current as the best and what is the easiest way to give someone the "official" stamp of approval as being the best ever? Most big titles. Most Majors. Tennis' history is fragmented and complex. Pro/am split. Ranking flaws in the early days. Treatment of AO as sub-Major. Changing of surfaces and speeds. Discussing the greatest ever and comparing Majors won and weeks at #1 requires nuance and understanding and isn't simple (I put Borg above Sampras for various reasons, others disagree, it isn't a simple question and results in interesting discussion). The average person doesn't care about that. They want something straight-forward and easy to follow.
Person A: "Majors are the most important? Cool, who has the most? This guy? He's the best then."
Person B: "But, you had these guys that for years were the best but they were playing on their own tour and..."
Person A: "They got more Majors than this guy?"
Person B: "Well, technically no, but..."
Person A: "Don't care."
Tennis wants to promote their current top guy as the best and with Sampras actually obtaining the Major record (the 7 titles at THE tennis tournament didn't hurt either), of course they were going to push him as such. The American media especially, where clay and RG was seen as beneath Wimbledon and the USO, wouldn't have cared too much that he didn't have a RG title. It didn't matter one bit about how Roy Emerson was actually rated and who he didn't have to compete against to wins his Majors, it just matter that Pete passed his number.
So they want to push someone current as the best and what is the easiest way to give someone the "official" stamp of approval as being the best ever? Most big titles. Most Majors. Tennis' history is fragmented and complex. Pro/am split. Ranking flaws in the early days. Treatment of AO as sub-Major. Changing of surfaces and speeds. Discussing the greatest ever and comparing Majors won and weeks at #1 requires nuance and understanding and isn't simple (I put Borg above Sampras for various reasons, others disagree, it isn't a simple question and results in interesting discussion). The average person doesn't care about that. They want something straight-forward and easy to follow.
Person A: "Majors are the most important? Cool, who has the most? This guy? He's the best then."
Person B: "But, you had these guys that for years were the best but they were playing on their own tour and..."
Person A: "They got more Majors than this guy?"
Person B: "Well, technically no, but..."
Person A: "Don't care."
Tennis wants to promote their current top guy as the best and with Sampras actually obtaining the Major record (the 7 titles at THE tennis tournament didn't hurt either), of course they were going to push him as such. The American media especially, where clay and RG was seen as beneath Wimbledon and the USO, wouldn't have cared too much that he didn't have a RG title. It didn't matter one bit about how Roy Emerson was actually rated and who he didn't have to compete against to wins his Majors, it just matter that Pete passed his number.
There are interesting aspects , I really like the concepts that you express .
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
The thing with Sampras is that he took the 'peaking for majors' mantra a little too far. It's problematic to directly compare his masters #'s with players of today, but even in his own era he trails Agassi by a ton, Becker won two more, and Lendl while not being much of a contemporary won countless more masters equivalent tournaments. In the grand scheme of things it's not that big of a deal nor is it the biggest hole on his CV, but it sure would create a little bit of distance between him and, say, Djokovic if he won a handful more.
to compound things, not only did he fail (or even attempt) to dominate the tour year-round, he established too cozy a niche even at the slams, focusing at Wimbledon and the US Open at the expense of RG, where he went 5-6 after his age 25 year. That is glaring. As is the fact that his prime years didn't overlap with the prime of another all-time great for extended periods of time. By the time Agassi proved his staying power, Sampras had already reached double digit slams + won all but eight of the tour titles he was to win in his career.
His saving grace is his big match pedigree and single-match/tournament peaks on fast courts, where he could be damn nigh impossible to beat. For that I think he still deserves his seat at the table in these debates. I shudder to think how good his serve would be with today's racquets.
to compound things, not only did he fail (or even attempt) to dominate the tour year-round, he established too cozy a niche even at the slams, focusing at Wimbledon and the US Open at the expense of RG, where he went 5-6 after his age 25 year. That is glaring. As is the fact that his prime years didn't overlap with the prime of another all-time great for extended periods of time. By the time Agassi proved his staying power, Sampras had already reached double digit slams + won all but eight of the tour titles he was to win in his career.
His saving grace is his big match pedigree and single-match/tournament peaks on fast courts, where he could be damn nigh impossible to beat. For that I think he still deserves his seat at the table in these debates. I shudder to think how good his serve would be with today's racquets.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer is clearly greater than Sampras. There's no real discussion on this.
Nadal is from a different generation (same era) and is a much better player than Agassi was, Federer has had to contend with 2 rivals each of whom are about as decorated as Sampras was. Take one away and Sampras isn't even on Federer's radar. Federer has achieved the most in this era, until that changes he is the best.
Weak sauce h2h arguments from Sampras fanboys won't change that.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think it was debatable until 2012, when Federer retook the #1 ranking he moved a head for sure.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
To op , because when he won Wimbledon 2000, he was sure to win 2 or 3 slam more, with only Agassi, there were only young players and people thought they will take atleast 2 more years to mature.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Yeah Fed late run after turning 30 more or less seal the deal.
NatF
Bionic Poster
His 2014-2015 is like an exclamation point.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Yeah playing so good at late age when conditions have become more physical and slow is only adding to his legacy.
TupeloDanger
Professional
Nonsense from a kid not around long enough to understand the differences among eras.
Players post-2002 are operating under a completely different set of rules, as they don't have to contend with surface specialists any more, and certainly don't have to deal with anybody with a fast court pedigree. It was impossible to gather the sorts of slam numbers available to modern day players in the Sampras era, as there were always at most 3 slams a year you could legitimately hope to contend for. The only player in the entire pre-2002, graphite racquet era who could conceivably contend on all surfaces at the highest level was Agassi, and that wasn't because of his "greatness," it was because of his specific style of play -- training groundies and especially service returns from well inside the baseline for quick pickups made him and Connors the only two baseline players in Open Era, graphite-era, fast-grass history to compete meaningfully at Wimbledon.
Sampras HAD to choose to play fast court tennis or slow court tennis, and chose the one that best fit his toolbox. That made him a favorite twice a year in the biggest tournaments, and he capitalized on that advantage better than anybody, ever.
To compare modern guys, at the very LEAST you have to first handicap them by multiplying their slam totals by .75 to adjust for era. (Since they have four "slams" available to them each year, while before you were essentially relegated to three.) Then, from there, you can begin picking apart the rest of their resumes.
Sampras still stacks up against anyone to ever play the game, and sits well above the likes of Djokovic with six freaking Australians and third-tier success at best at the real tournaments.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I still consider Sampras #2 in the Open Era FYI you condescending tit - but Nadal/Djokovic are comparable. My understanding of different era's is fine, Sampras doesn't stack up to Federer.
Your generalisations about post 2002 are the same tired BS that 90's clay comes out with. A switch wasn't flipped in 2002 you know. Changes were more gradual than that. This talk of specialists is the biggest crock of ****. Nadal is a tougher prospect than all those specialists on clay, up to 2003/2004 you had guys like Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, a last run from Kuerten as well - from 08 you had Djokovic in the mix as well as a top player on clay. And pardon me but a lot of Sampras early round matches at Wimbledon were against bunch of doubles specialists with losing records in singles. Are these the fabled grass specialists? Federer's grass competition stacks up very well against Sampras' if you actually give it a considered analysis. Federer's HC competition has been very tough across his entire career as well.
The likes of Edberg made the finals of the FO with much less back court game than Sampras. The excuses fanboys like you come up with are hilarious. McEnroe was a set away from winning the FO in a year he also won Wimbledon and the USO. Lendl made multiple finals at Wimbledon and probably would have won one if his competition wasn't so fierce. And if Agassi can contend at all the majors in the 90's Federer certainly could...The fact is Sampras wasn't good enough on clay. He aimed to peak at the slams and only won 14, if he was focusing on cleaning up the entire tour like Federer I doubt he would have won that many
Your BS about dividing their slam titles is a joke. Maybe Sampras' slam tally should divided by 66% because his greatest rival was ranked outside the top 20 for 2 of his 6 years at #1. Agassi's year end rankings during Sampras' years at #1 were 24, 2, 2, 8, 110, 6
I don't have any issues with Sampras, I think he's underrated by many because they judge him by modern standards - like his paltry number of masters titles. But idiots like you build up his era to be something mythical when it was anything but and others criticise Federer because he actually had a serious main rival in his prime who was a much greater player than Agassi
Time for some intellectual honesty.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
First of all I do believe Sampras deserves consideration for GOAT but the main reason he or any player gets called the GOAT at first is often the initial awe at the player's greatness and accomplishments. This was true in the Open Era of Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. All of these players have been called the GOAT at times. Another huge reason nowadays is simply because tennis always want to push the current number one as the GOAT and the current players as the best ever. It helps push their product.
Considering Ivan Lendl's super record I am surprised he really was not called the GOAT at any stage in his career. I guess he wasn't the most popular even though I liked his game.
Considering Ivan Lendl's super record I am surprised he really was not called the GOAT at any stage in his career. I guess he wasn't the most popular even though I liked his game.
Like I said earlier, more variety of playing styles in the 90's. More than half of the Grand Slams in the 90's were won by SV players. Today's game all baseline players. Clearly RF is GOAT by numbers, but for sake of discussion consider the variety and difference in playing styles and court speeds in the 90's that made it more difficult to win consistently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NatF
Bionic Poster
Still calling Sampras a S&V player I see.
There's no substance to what you've written. It was easier to win on clay in the 90's considering the lack of Nadal, on grass there has to be less adjustment but the calibre and quality of play was no weaker. On HC the level of S&V in the mid to late 90's wasn't that high anyway, besides Rafter what elite S&V player was there? Sampras from around 1998/1999 I guess but he only had the one deep run at the USO anyway.
And like I said previously there were still some S&V players back in the early-mid 00's when Federer was on top. Philippoussis, Fish and Lopez all played lots of S&V against Federer at Wimbledon in 2003. Guys like Dent, Henman were around still. Ancic was a top 10 player who also played S&V, he made the SF at Wimbledon in 2004 and also played Federer in 2006 in the QF. A guy like Ljubicic used the net a fair bit as well for example.
Look it up, Sampras is on the greatest SV lists. Check how many GS tournaments were won by SV players in 2000's vs 1990's. You are missing the point on court speed. The French was much slower than it is today and Wimbledon was much faster. Today, French is faster, Wimbledon slower, everyone is a baseliner. The game has become homogenized, less difference in playing styles and court speed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't need to look anything up. I have eyes, I've seen Sampras playing tennis outside of Wimbledon and before 1999. You watch his matches in 1994 or 1995 at the Open and you can hear McEnroe commentating that he wished Sampras would come in more. He was not a S&V player, if he makes the list it will be because of what he accomplished at Wimbledon but not because he was an out and out S&V player. If you want to lecture me on the 90's and the court differences at least be correct on basic things like this
Proof that the FO is faster? Proof that it was faster as early as say 2005/2006? Tennis has changed somewhat in the last decade you know. Rebound Ace was still used until 2007 for example.
All these statements with little backing them up. Wimbledon did slow down yes, but Federer did win it in 2003 S&V'ing about half the time and against a finalist that was coming in on nearly everything. There is a still a big difference between Wimbledon and the FO in terms of court speeds and the way it plays. I've given examples of drastically different records at the majors for the Big 3. There is a video showing that Wimbledon grass slowed down significantly between 2003 and 2008. Your attempt to lump in Federer's dominant period with 2016 is dishonest.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I only consider Federer and Laver as GOAT contenders.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I include Pancho as you know - I consider Tilden with an outside shot due to his record, though his era was a lot weaker than the others.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Tilden is a tough one, I agree. The fact that we're almost 100 years after his prime and still discussing him proves how incredible he was. I feel he was the first male international tennis superstar for sure; his era was as you say probably a bit too weak for me to quite consider him as GOAT though. He will eternally be a Tier 1 great however.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Tilden is the kind of player who I believe would translate to any era. He had the mind to be a champion in any era and he wasn't exactly lacking physically.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
It was simple for those simpletons: Sampras had 13 slams--the most, then.
There were similar expressions made when Fed won 2009 Wimbledon (when Fed surpassed Sampras's 14 number.)
Simpletons like to keep it simple: GOAT = most slams. Simple.
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
We get a lot of articles from long ago on here, but not many from recent times. Here's one that relates to this thread - NatF, you might enjoy reading this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/4758164/Grasscourt-greats-close-to-extinction.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/4758164/Grasscourt-greats-close-to-extinction.html
NatF
Bionic Poster
Thanks for this, backs up a lot of what I've been saying. Unless this change happened exactly in the year 2000
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Interesting article. It dates from 10 July 2000.
L
Laurie
Guest
I don't think Sampras did too bad:
8 titles in 1993
10 titles in 1994
5 titles in 1995
8 titles in 1996
8 titles in 1997.
He really slowed down considerably after 1997 which is why the number 1 ranking kept changing hands from 1998 to 2000. He still won 5 titles in 1999 despite missing two slams.
I still link Sampras' title winning demise to the conscious decision to serve volley on both serves on non grass surfaces. I didn't make sense at the time and it has been proven. 2 titles in 2000, 0 in 2001 and 1 in 2002. We look to Annacone as having persuaded him to go down this route but he is an adult and has to stand up for that decision making. Look at his level of play from the back in summer 1999, why start attacking all the time willy nilly?
Only thing I would say is that he made four finals in 2001 and lost every one of them. Lets say in 2001 he won Indian Wells and US Open, he probably would have kept playing beyond 2002.
Racquet technology also caught up with Sampras, and his unwillingness to switch to a more modern frame, bigger head and mixture of gut and polyester strings.
Well, if not strings then at least a change of racquet, I spoke to a stringer in Eastbourne some years back and he told me Clijsters and Henin continued with natural gut strings their whole career.
Although, you might recall the Wilson Pro Staff Tour 90 came out in 2003 for Sampras to use, but he didn't play and Federer used it instead and won Wimbledon.
One last thing looking at it in a historical context, you would expect someone to win more as their prime approaches, Sampras begins to win less and less after turning 26, surely it should be the other way round?
The guy won 14 Grand Slams, finished #1 six years in a row and was the undisputed best player of his generation. Seems to me he was his own man and made some pretty good choices.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I don't agree that Federer is clearly better than Sampras or that Nadal is clearly better than Agassi. In fact, I would pick Sampras and Agassi as the greater players on faster surfaces.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
He said clearly greater than Sampras, not better.
And even as a Sampras fan, I have to concede that Federer is indeed clearly greater.
L
Laurie
Guest
I think greater and better are two different things. Nat F said Federer is greater is Sampras, the stats and achievements clearly show that, more titles won and more weeks at number 1.
However, if you consider Sampras a better player than Federer, that is something entirely different, that can be argued until the cows come home as this is a subjective argument. Some people prefer Sampras, some Federer, some Laver, some Djokovic, some Borg etc etc etc.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, greater and better are synonymous in this context. If you are the better player, then you are also the greater player. You can apply those words to a player's record or a player's peak level of play. I prefer to consider a player's greatness as his/her peak level of play over a reasonably extended period of time, which does not always reconcile with a player's relative record compared to others.
L
Laurie
Guest
I agree with you. But since 2000 I have had the distinct feeling Sampras could have done better, actually should have done better. He turned 29 in August 2000, so really between 2000 and 2002/2003 he should have won five to ten tournaments and not three tournaments. Plus, and just my personal view, I find it irritating he never played 1000 matches on the tour, that would have been a nice achievement. Don't think he is bothered to be fair but nonetheless 1000 matches shows a certain longevity. Playing your last match barely at the age of 31 does not give you the opportunity to play 1000 plus matches.
L
Laurie
Guest
Sometimes it is not a good idea to try to be too clever by half.
They have two different meanings in this instance. I could argue Safin is a better player than Hewitt but Hewitt is the greater player because he has more achievements.
Tenez!
Professional
Let me get that straight: you're asserting that losing in R1 is more praiseworthy than losing in a final?
In effect that's what you're comparing: 4 finals, 5 semifinals, 1 quarterfinal (Sampras) is somehow better than 10 finals (Federer).
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
You could. But, in my view, you are trying to make a distinction the wrong way in this context. Greater and better mean the same thing as to peak level of play and record.
L
Laurie
Guest
I always get the impression you can't help yourself. Anyway it is your view.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Okay. Please tell me, what is the difference between better peak level and greater peak level? Or, better record and greater record? You are saying that greater inherently refers to record and better refers to level of play. They don't. Best to just say exactly what you mean.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal was clearly more of a rival during their respective prime periods that the main point, I agree Agassi was better at the USO and AO at least.
Sampras is clearly better on carpet, maybe a slight edge on grass. Federer better on HC in genera; and clay, at least IMO. The two which are indisputable are clay and carpet. I do think Federer is closer overall in the conditions that Sampras does lead - hence I consider Federer the better player overall.
Regardless I was talking about career accomplishments, greater and better are not synonymous. Safin was better than Murray IMO. But Murray is greater.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
You are correct, but if polarization of surfaces made it harder to compete equally well on all surfaces, it means that the competition on each surface was greatly diminished.
Let's start with the grass. Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Chang, Kafelnikov, Korda, Courier, Medvedev are top players from the 90's who were completely useless on grass.
The only players who had a game well suited for the old grass were Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Edberg, Krajicek, Stich, and Agassi in some extent. On this list only Sampras, Becker and Ivanisevic were consistently threatening. The other were very inconsistent, either due to injuries, risky game style, lack of dedication, or all of this together (Stich).
In turn, all these grass players were severely at their disadvantage on the old clay. HC specialist like Courier, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov could be good but clay was not suited for their style either.
So really both clay and grass field were amputed by about half the top players. Only the HC field was somewhat even with some real depth.
So I will readily admit that it was impossible, for Sampras, to match Federer's or Djokovic's clay achievements of the current era. What he should have been able to do, though, is out achieve much lesser players than him who were likewise disadvantaged on clay, like Rafter, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Rosset, Philippoussis, Stich, Edberg, Hrbaty, etc. These players were submitted to the same playing condition and did nearly as well as him at the FO, despite being so far from him in overall tennis abilities.
And more importantly, it must be noted that it was easier for him to dominate the fast surfaces, especially Wimbledon, the Master Cup, etc. were so many of the grittier veteran were at a disadvantage.
Today when you are among the best player, you will be on all surfaces, and can amass more impressive numbers. However on each surface the depth is greater, with all players having a game which suits all surfaces. Ivanisevic and Bruguera can't exist anymore. They have become Mahut and Almagro. Good enough to dominate event on their favorite surfaces without the top players attending, but not talented or mentally strong enough to beat the true champions.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
The clay is not faster, it hasn't changed. What has changed is the racket technology, in particular the strings. Before the polystrings only the most elite baseliners could play an aggressive game on clay without making too many unforced errors. To outflank the best sliders, you needed to hit with power and precision, several time in a row, and power and precision were exclusive. So the important quality on clay were movements, steadiness and patience, above all. Muster, Bruguera, Berasategui, Medvedev.
Today you can generate enough spin to put the ball inside the court despite hitting at full power, so players who are not specially good movers, steady or patient can hit powerful winners from the baseline, much more easily than it was before. Think Wawrinka, Soderling, Del Potro, Gonzalez, Tsonga, for example. If Wawrinka played with the old racket, he would be unable to keep the UE in check and would lose to any decent weaponless defender, like he did for most of his career. Because of the change of technology, power has became a taken a very important dimension on clay. Guys like Goffin who have all the old qualities can't generate power easily enough, and have to work too hard to be in position to hit outright winners. I bet that in the 90's he could have more success.
L
Laurie
Guest
A very interesting analysis. As with the article I wrote three months back, it has almost been a perfect storm of factors including technology and decisions made by authorities to be where we are now. I have to say personally clay court tennis is much more interesting now than it was back in the 1990s. In England (Britain), clay got a bit of a bad rap. I still think Kuerten changed the game, primarily due to the strings he used, he revolutionized it and clay tennis has not look back. I went to the French Open in 2004 and saw Henman easily beat Chela in the quarterfinal, very easily in fact.
As for Sampras, I completely agree with what the late Bill Threllfall said back in 2006. He said Sampras literally talked himself out of winning the French, or even try to win it. I have the 1994 Miami semifinal between Sampras and Courier, unfortunately it is not on youtube so can't send a link. At the end of the match, Mary Carillo asks him about the French and if it is his to win? Sampras provided a very cagey answer, saying he needed to get lucky, and to have a really good draw, and he couldn't consider himself favourite.
Now, that was a strange answer for quite a few reasons:
1. He had just beaten Jim Courier, again
2. He was clear number 1 in the world with a 25 match win streak or something like that
3. He was holder of three majors at the same time so all the talk was about making it four in a row
4. The commentators kept focusing on the fact he had the best return of serve stats on tour in his last few tournaments including Indian Wells and Miami
5. The commentators noted how far his baseline game had come on since 1990 and thanks to Gullickson how he cut down dramatically on unforced errors.
Despite all of those things in his favour, he sounded surprisingly not confident to Mary Carillo, and as we know lost the quarterfinal to Courier in four sets, that would have been Coruier's first victory in almost two years against Sampras. Perplexing because American sportspeople usually talk confident, especially if they are the best.
Then there is an article from 1997, a big feature in Sports Illustrated or similar publication. I remember reading this article many years ago, it is archived online. To be fair, it is a slightly unflattering article, however, it does sum up the dilemma Sampras faced during his mid career, and the dilemma he has faced since his career ended. This article focuses on the problems Sampras was facing in early 1997. Principally his lack of a credible rival; perhaps a bit of diffidence which lead to misconceptions about him. Plus his use of a racquet that had no connection with the genral public, even with fellow pros. Most amateurs would hardly be able to hit the ball over the net adequately more than a few shots. And in his book, he notes the racquet caused him incredible problems in 1994 with a throbbing arm, after he claims Gullickson asked him to serve harder. Andt yet he persisted with it, most players changed rqcuets. Agassi switched from Donnay to Head, Krajicek switched from Wilson to Yonex, Becker's Estusa racquet was much more flexible, I believe the Puma racquet which looked similar was more stiff.
I quote a couple of paragraphs and you can read the rest at your leisure.
Sampras wanted to be casual about this, look
around, slowly get a feel for the new CoreStates Center. But he
couldn't help himself. His glance flew like a dart to one face,
there in the front row, the face of the man who set him off on
this amazing run that has lasted 17 years. Already Sampras can
hear Pete Fischer's voice, always saying the same thing, no
matter how many Grand Slam tournaments Sampras has won, no
matter what time of year it is, no matter what city he's in: You
don't want an asterisk next to your name, Pete. You've got to
win the French.
Sampras looks away, picks up his racket. A shiver passes through
his stomach, and now he is nervous, more nervous than he has
been in a long time. This is stupid. For four years Sampras has
finished the season ranked No. 1, and his straight-set
demolition of Spain's Carlos Moya in the 1997 Australian Open
final gave him his ninth Grand Slam singles title. Sampras plays
at a level far above that of anyone else in the game. But now
here's Fischer--not even a coach or much of a player, just a
tennis-crazed retired Southern California pediatrician--sitting
there, watching Sampras play in a pro tournament for the first
time in eight years, and it is too much.
"He keeps talking about the French. All you need is the French.
And I say, 'Well, what about the other ones?' Another Wimbledon,
another U.S. Open is what it's all about."
http://www.si.com/vault/1997/05/26/...y-wants-to-be-remembered-as-the-greatest-ever
The very last paragraph sums up perfectly the pickle Sampras got himself into, and we can safely say he is still suffering the consequences of that thought process. So, Bill Threllfall in 2006 was exactly right.
Now, for those who are about to write in and say, what are you talking about, he has 14 and was number one for six years etc etc; it is not about that, it is about Sampras wanting to be known as the best ever, but from a young age (early to mid 20s), he went about it in the wrong direction. It is worth noting out of the golden generation, Chang, Courier and Agassi all won the French, despite the fact we used to get told the Americans aren't very good on clay.
L
Laurie
Guest
You know, I really can't think of anyone who plays like Brugera today, especially on clay. In my mind the closest would be Guillermo Coria, I saw him beat Carlos Moya at Roland Garros back in 2004 on Suzanne Lenglen. Coria was an extremely smooth mover around the court, like floating almost.
Makes me wonder how Murray would have played on clay back in the 1990s.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray might have been a S&V player in the 90's, being British an all. I don't think Murray would have adjusted that well to the 90's, he hits pretty flat as it is and with gut strings I don't think his strokes would lend themselves well to continued success on clay. Not to mention his infamously weak second serve would be even more of a liability in earlier era's.
He's also not what I would call a smooth mover.
Similar threads
