Why wasn't Sampras more consistent throughout entire season?

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
I find it really strange that Pete Sampras wasn't able to be more consistent throughout the entire season compared to other three greatest players of the open era - Federer, Borg, and Nadal.

Sampras only had two seasons with a winning percentage over 85%. None over 88%.

Federer had four seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 5 if he finishes 2012 strong). He had 3 seasons over 90%.

Borg had four seasons with a winning percentage over 90%.

Nadal had three seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 4 if he finishes 2012 strong). None over 90%.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras was bored of the competition or either he was not a good a player as Federer or the competition was better then.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Much bigger variety of surfaces and playing style back in the day, Sampras had a higher risk game, his philosophy to peak for the big ones (slams), Thalassemia Minor etc.

Take your pick, doesn't take anything away from Pete IMO (personally I've never put much stock in winning percentages), that's the kind of player he was.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
I find it really strange that Pete Sampras wasn't able to be more consistent throughout the entire season compared to other three greatest players of the open era - Federer, Borg, and Nadal.

Sampras only had two seasons with a winning percentage over 85%. None over 88%.

Federer had four seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 5 if he finishes 2012 strong). He had 3 seasons over 90%.

Borg had four seasons with a winning percentage over 90%.

Nadal had three seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 4 if he finishes 2012 strong). None over 90%.

You keep asking these questions but I think you are overdoing it a bit. It is very hard to dominate a whole season, and if he scored a winning percentage over 85% twice then I am sure he would be happy with that.

From my recollection, 1994 was a year he was good throughout the year except in the summer when he had an injury. Started off winning Sydney and Australia, won in Japan after Australia? Won Indian Wells and Miami, the Italian Open, Wimbledon, a lull in the summer hardcourt season due to injury but won the ATP final in the autumn, I think he won 10 titles or something.

Anyway, life is not all about numbers, just celebrate how good these guys are instead of looking at that extra 3 or 4 percent. I do know one thing as well, Sampras at his best was devastating against his opponents, that to me is more interesting than numbers.
 

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
You keep asking these questions but I think you are overdoing it a bit. It is very hard to dominate a whole season, and if he scored a winning percentage over 85% twice then I am sure he would be happy with that.

From my recollection, 1994 was a year he was good throughout the year except in the summer when he had an injury. Started off winning Sydney and Australia, won in Japan after Australia? Won Indian Wells and Miami, the Italian Open, Wimbledon, a lull in the summer hardcourt season due to injury but won the ATP final in the autumn, I think he won 10 titles or something.

Anyway, life is not all about numbers, just celebrate how good these guys are instead of looking at that extra 3 or 4 percent. I do know one thing as well, Sampras at his best was devastating against his opponents, that to me is more interesting than numbers.

Very well said Laurie. I agree, the first half of 1994 was one of the best halfs of a season ever. I agree that sometimes I am splitting hairs over 3 or 4 percent difference in winning percentages. But, over the course of a season, this amounts to 5-7 matches that some players managed a way to win while others weren't. I think that speaks volumes about their competitiveness, mental toughness, playing style, dominance.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
History will record Federer's weak competition:

1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

11)Ancic's career was over at 23 when he got Mono = GONE

12))Soderling's career looks like it's over with mono now too = GONE


So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

Imagine if Federer had competition ready to take him down when his level slipped slightly?
 

Gangsta

Rookie
I grew up in the late 80s and the 90s, and even today, it is all about the slams for me. Winning percentage and other nonsense still do not bother me. The OG became bigger in the 90s once Agassi won it (it was for the first time one of the biggies won it), but it is still not big enough in my mind. But yeah, slams were all that mattered then. And in slams, Pete was King.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Because his game lived and died by the serve - when it was on he was The man - when it wasn't, not so much. His return of serve wasn't that good. His break % wasn't that good for a top player - nothing like Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.
 

iriraz

Hall of Fame
With his style of play,his matches were a lot closer then what we get now from the top guys.He rarely won by 6-1 or 6-2 sets and played a lot more tiebreakers against lower ranked opponents.And by playing lots of tight sets,it`s impossible to win every time especially in best of 3 format.
Obviously clay also lowered his % where he struggled throughout his career.
 
Last edited:
L

Laurie

Guest
With his style of play,his matches were a lot closer then what we get now from the top guys.He rarely won by 6-1 or 6-2 sets and played a lot more tiebreakers against lower ranked opponents.And by playing lots of tight sets,it`s impossible to win every time especially in best of 3 format.
Obviously clay also lowered his % where he struggled throughout his career.

I don't think that's correct. Similar to Federer, Sampras posted a lot of easy sets in his early days of domination between 1993 and 1997, but it got tougher as he got older. Also, in 18 slam finals, win or lose he only played one 5 set final. Out of 14 won, he won 8 of those in straight sets, out of those 8 won in straight sets, he only played three tiebreaks, one against Chang in 1996 US Open final, the other two in the 1994 Wimby final against Goran, but he won the third set 6:0....
 

Emet74

Professional
Here is Pete's Slam record:

Year AO FO W USO

1989 R1 R2 R1 R16
1990 R16 R2 R1 W
1991 - - R2 QF
1992 - QF SF F
1993 SF QF W W
1994 W QF W R16
1995 F R1 W W
1996 R3 SF QF W
1997 W R3 W R16
1998 QF R2 W SF
1999 - R2 W -
2000 SF R1 W F
2001 R4 R2 R4 F
2002 R4 R1 R2 W


Excellent but more prone to early-round losses even during his prime than Fed let's say.

I assume his playing style had something to do with this but I'm no Sampras expert.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Here is Pete's Slam record:

Year AO FO W USO

1989 R1 R2 R1 R16
1990 R16 R2 R1 W
1991 - - R2 QF
1992 - QF SF F
1993 SF QF W W
1994 W QF W R16
1995 F R1 W W
1996 R3 SF QF W
1997 W R3 W R16
1998 QF R2 W SF
1999 - R2 W -
2000 SF R1 W F
2001 R4 R2 R4 F
2002 R4 R1 R2 W


Excellent but more prone to early-round losses even during his prime than Fed let's say.

I assume his playing style had something to do with this but I'm no Sampras expert.

The big thing is how times have changed so much including the explosion of prize money and prestige sorrounding these events. Look how many slams Sampras missed, some via injury, a few by choice like 1999 Australia. A lot of players didn't play certain slams right up to the 1990s, Agassi didn't play Wimbledon between 1987 and 1990 and incredibly didn't play his first Australian Open until 1995 despite turning pro in 1986. Even more incredible is that he won it on his debut!

Other players missed slams all over the place between the 1970s and the early 2000s (remember the clay players who went on holiday during every Wimbledon?), but now players hardly ever miss slams, other than Nadal through injury, no player exercises the can't be bothered to turn up trick. Perhaps players didn't get fined for missing or something.
 

JSummers

Rookie
Talking about consistency, how about multi-seasons? Sampras has the record 6 consecutive years #1, what more you'd ask of him?
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
History will record Federer's weak competition:

1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

11)Ancic's career was over at 23 when he got Mono = GONE

12))Soderling's career looks like it's over with mono now too = GONE


So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

Imagine if Federer had competition ready to take him down when his level slipped slightly?

Interesting......
 

90's Clay

Banned
Because Pete played under the most polarized conditions in the history of tennis in the 90s and during an era of specialists..

Unlike today where the game of tennis is played the same on every surface, at every venue and conditions have slowed everywheres.

You went from Rebound Ace to SLOW clay, to lightning fast odd bouncing very slick grass to fast deco.

His blood disorder probably played a role as well.

Take all these things into account, would ANYONE have crazy consistency throughout the year, year in year out? I highly doubt it.


Just in the last 5 years or so alone, we have already had three plays who have managed 3 slams in one year. That hadn't happen for 40 years.. And the conditions had a lot to do with it

Just the conditions at the time alone bred more upsets and more threats.


Pete was also someone who peaked for the slams of course.. But it was a different time in tennis.

Fed may have been pretty consistent in the 90s (but not as consistent IMO) but even he has said the conditions at the time were a bit more difficult.

Would say Nadal or Djokovic have anywheres NEAR the type of consistency back in the 90s that they had today? No....
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
Sampras only had two seasons with a winning percentage over 85%. None over 88%.

Federer had four seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 5 if he finishes 2012 strong). He had 3 seasons over 90%.

Borg had four seasons with a winning percentage over 90%.

Nadal had three seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 4 if he finishes 2012 strong). None over 90%.

Goes to show you that over the course of a long career, the difference between winning 85% and 90% of your matches doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when it comes to winning M1000 titles and grand slams -- which are the indicators of tennis excellence. Such a difference is statistically irrelevant.
 

tusharlovesrafa

Hall of Fame
Much bigger variety of surfaces and playing style back in the day, Sampras had a higher risk game, his philosophy to peak for the big ones (slams), Thalassemia Minor etc.

Take your pick, doesn't take anything away from Pete IMO (personally I've never put much stock in winning percentages), that's the kind of player he was.

LMAO.I am also "Thalassemia Minor" but it doesn't effect your stamina or anything.The real reason is that he SUCKED ON CLAY.Period.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
Also, there were 16 seeds at slams pre 2002, I believe.

You could face a top 16-30 player in the first 3 rounds of the draw, depending on how the draw worked out.

They could all also eliminate each other as well, but it does add some flair to earlier rounds, providing more upsets.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Yeah, the first major with 32 seeds was 2001 Wimbledon. This was to head off a threatened boycott by leading clay-court players, who were annoyed that Wimbledon didn't seed according to world ranking. Kuerten didn't play as he cited an injury, nor did Corretja play, but Ferrero did play.

32 seeds has changed the dynamic of the majors compared to when it was 16 seeds.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
I find it really strange that Pete Sampras wasn't able to be more consistent throughout the entire season compared to other three greatest players of the open era - Federer, Borg, and Nadal.

Sampras only had two seasons with a winning percentage over 85%. None over 88%.

Federer had four seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 5 if he finishes 2012 strong). He had 3 seasons over 90%.

Borg had four seasons with a winning percentage over 90%.

Nadal had three seasons with a winning percentage over 85% (could have 4 if he finishes 2012 strong). None over 90%.

I will gladly buy a you a cheeseburger today, if you stop making threads.

I mean, you've been hard at work since wimbledon...take a break :)
 

Tafmatch

Rookie
Do you really think it's strange (it's not btw) or do you just wanna say that Pete isn't in the same league as the other players you mentioned?
 

DeShaun

Banned
History will record Federer's weak competition:

1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

11)Ancic's career was over at 23 when he got Mono = GONE

12))Soderling's career looks like it's over with mono now too = GONE


So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

Imagine if Federer had competition ready to take him down when his level slipped slightly?

Your burden is to show why "X's mother died and after that, X never was the same," which precipitated X rarely ever beating Federer again, the fact that X rarely ever beat Federer again proves that Federer didn't concomitantly go to another whole level that X and the ilk never were able to match.

Guessing in detail as to why the competition might have had reasons for feeling weak for not playing their best does not disqualify the possibility that Federer simply went to another level. Are you debating or are you writing journalism?
 
Last edited:

6-1 6-3 6-0

Banned
History will record Federer's weak competition:

1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

11)Ancic's career was over at 23 when he got Mono = GONE

12))Soderling's career looks like it's over with mono now too = GONE


So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

Imagine if Federer had competition ready to take him down when his level slipped slightly?

And that competition has finally arrived.

And even Tommy Robredo can still push Federer (took a set of Federer at 2011 AO).
 

martini1

Hall of Fame
Sampras' game is not as complete as Fed. He cannot use the same play book and technique to play on clay. Towards the end he is nothing but S&V. Too one dimensional and luck the power/spin game that was coming at the time.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Sampras was the best and most consistent for 6 years in a row and won 175% as many slams as the next best of his era. Tough to do under polarized conditions and no poly. How much more consistent do you want him to be.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Sampras' game is not as complete as Fed. He cannot use the same play book and technique to play on clay. Towards the end he is nothing but S&V. Too one dimensional and luck the power/spin game that was coming at the time.

It turns out that Fed was lucky that Sampras didn't stick around and get his hands on a bigger racket and poly.
 
Considering the "consistency" discussion here is comparative, then one of the things worth looking at as a key indicator of vulnerability imo are the guys Pete lost to in his prime years at both slams and non-slam events. Look at that and ask: "Would Federer have lost to so-and-so during his peak years?" I'm saying that because for one thing, I'm rewatching Pete vs Jaime Yzaga at the USO right now...
 
Last edited:

cknobman

Legend
And that competition has finally arrived.

And even Tommy Robredo can still push Federer (took a set of Federer at 2011 AO).

Just like Rosol (ranked 100 btw) can take out Nadal 2nd round of Wimbledon 2012.

Anything can happen on any given day.

Nadal thrived on the left overs of Federer during this so called "era of weak competition". What does that say about him??????
 

Devilito

Legend
The big thing is how times have changed so much including the explosion of prize money and prestige sorrounding these events. Look how many slams Sampras missed, some via injury, a few by choice like 1999 Australia. A lot of players didn't play certain slams right up to the 1990s, Agassi didn't play Wimbledon between 1987 and 1990 and incredibly didn't play his first Australian Open until 1995 despite turning pro in 1986. Even more incredible is that he won it on his debut!

Other players missed slams all over the place between the 1970s and the early 2000s (remember the clay players who went on holiday during every Wimbledon?), but now players hardly ever miss slams, other than Nadal through injury, no player exercises the can't be bothered to turn up trick. Perhaps players didn't get fined for missing or something.

Because Pete played under the most polarized conditions in the history of tennis in the 90s and during an era of specialists..

Unlike today where the game of tennis is played the same on every surface, at every venue and conditions have slowed everywheres.

You went from Rebound Ace to SLOW clay, to lightning fast odd bouncing very slick grass to fast deco.

His blood disorder probably played a role as well.

Take all these things into account, would ANYONE have crazy consistency throughout the year, year in year out? I highly doubt it.


Just in the last 5 years or so alone, we have already had three plays who have managed 3 slams in one year. That hadn't happen for 40 years.. And the conditions had a lot to do with it

Just the conditions at the time alone bred more upsets and more threats.


Pete was also someone who peaked for the slams of course.. But it was a different time in tennis.

Fed may have been pretty consistent in the 90s (but not as consistent IMO) but even he has said the conditions at the time were a bit more difficult.

Would say Nadal or Djokovic have anywheres NEAR the type of consistency back in the 90s that they had today? No....

only relevant posts in this entire thread. Skip the rest
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
...Kuerten didn't play as he cited an injury, nor did Corretja play, but Ferrero did play.
You know in 10 years time people are going to be on here claiming Kuerten and Corretja were greater players than their results showed... because they were unfairly denied a chance at a Wimbledon title because the tour made it impossible for them to compete on an even standing.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
You know in 10 years time people are going to be on here claiming Kuerten and Corretja were greater players than their results showed... because they were unfairly denied a chance at a Wimbledon title because the tour made it impossible for them to compete on an even standing.

Are you being serious?
 

martini1

Hall of Fame
It turns out that Fed was lucky that Sampras didn't stick around and get his hands on a bigger racket and poly.

He made a choice to stick with his 85. Otherwise he could have switched.

And to stick around you mean playing until when? 2005? Not only his physical dropped, his mental was gone. He was definitely done at Wimby and little drive left to win again in USO. No racket or string in the world can change that.
 

leonidas1982

Hall of Fame
yes, because fed had teamates like Agassi, woodbridge and courier competing with him.

thanks for playing though, buh bye and enjoy your parting gifts.:)

Actually, the 95 Davis Cup final on clay was single handily won by Sampras -- Both singles and the doubles match. Courier lost both of his rubbers. Agassi was not featured in the final -- it was Courier, Martin, and Sampras.
 
Top