Would Sampras Have Won More Grand Slams If He Had More Competition

[McEnroeisanartist]

As much as, Nadal has hurt Federer's legacy by defeating him in 6 grand slam finals, do you think he actually inspired Federer to become a greater champion.

After losing in the 2005 French Open semifinal, 2006 French Open final, and 2007 French Open final, Federer must have felt very inspired to win Wimbledom and the U.S. Open to prove that he was the best player in the world. After Nadal's great 2008 season, how inspired was Federer in 2009.

I don't think Sampras had that rival to inspire him. Sampras had several losses throughout his prime/close to prime years - 1996 Australian Open 3rd Round, 1996 Wimbledon quarterfinals, 1997 U.S. Open 4th Round, 1998 Australian Open quarterfinals, and all those French Open losses, that you wonder if he might have won if he had a rival to truly challenge him.

 

[pistolPete2012]

Maybe. Federer is sticking around a couple more years because he knows Nadal is a threat to overtaking his slams record. Sampras main rival Agassi was his bunny in the same way Federer is to Nadal, but the difference being he's ahead in slams.

 

[ZeroSkid]

As much as, Nadal has hurt Federer's legacy by defeating him in 6 grand slam finals, do you think he actually inspired Federer to become a greater champion.

After losing in the 2005 French Open semifinal, 2006 French Open final, and 2007 French Open final, Federer must have felt very inspired to win Wimbledom and the U.S. Open to prove that he was the best player in the world. After Nadal's great 2008 season, how inspired was Federer in 2009.

I don't think Sampras had that rival to inspire him. Sampras had several losses throughout his prime/close to prime years - 1996 Australian Open 3rd Round, 1996 Wimbledon quarterfinals, 1997 U.S. Open 4th Round, 1998 Australian Open quarterfinals, and all those French Open losses, that you wonder if he might have won if he had a rival to truly challenge him.

lets be honest here, the only reason Fed won any slams in 2009 was 100 percent due to the fact that nadal was unable to play due to his knees

 

[Russeljones]

He had enough rivals to deny him a career slam. I think you picked the wrong era to make your comparison.

 

[tudwell]

Sampras would have won far fewer slams if he had anyone of Federer or Nadal's caliber playing in his era. He lucked out getting Agassi, who nosedived out of the top 100 just when he was starting to put up decent resistance to Sampras' domination.

 

[roberttennis54]

As much as, Nadal has hurt Federer's legacy by defeating him in 6 grand slam finals, do you think he actually inspired Federer to become a greater champion.

After losing in the 2005 French Open semifinal, 2006 French Open final, and 2007 French Open final, Federer must have felt very inspired to win Wimbledom and the U.S. Open to prove that he was the best player in the world. After Nadal's great 2008 season, how inspired was Federer in 2009.

I don't think Sampras had that rival to inspire him. Sampras had several losses throughout his prime/close to prime years - 1996 Australian Open 3rd Round, 1996 Wimbledon quarterfinals, 1997 U.S. Open 4th Round, 1998 Australian Open quarterfinals, and all those French Open losses, that you wonder if he might have won if he had a rival to truly challenge him.

I am not sure if you are serious or not? Sampras never lacked for motivation except maybe after equalling the record in 2000. If he had tougher rivals he would have won less.

Sampras had the biggest arsenal around. However, he tended to blast away and his defence was never as good as his offence. This meant on days he was not at his best he was always liable to be out gunned like against Kraijcek or Scud.

 

[kishnabe]

lets be honest here, the only reason Fed won any slams in 2009 was 100 percent due to the fact that nadal was unable to play due to his knees

lets be honest here, the only reason Nadal won 10 SW19 and US was 100 perfecnt due to the fact that Federer back was injured.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I am not sure if you are serious or not? Sampras never lacked for motivation except maybe after equalling the record in 2000. If he had tougher rivals he would have won less.

Sampras had the biggest arsenal around. However, he tended to blast away and his defence was never as good as his offence. This meant on days he was not at his best he was always liable to be out gunned like against Kraijcek or Scud.

I can understand that, but I think Sampras had some really perplexing losses in his prime-near prime, like 1997 U.S. Open 4th Round Loss to Korda, 1998 Australian Open quarterfinal loss to Kucera, 2001 Australian Open 4th Round loss to Martin.

But, maybe they are perplexing, because I am thinking of Federer with his 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals streak and 32 consecutive grand slam quarterfinals streak, and hasn't had many "weird" losses.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Sampras would have won far fewer slams if he had anyone of Federer or Nadal's caliber playing in his era. He lucked out getting Agassi, who nosedived out of the top 100 just when he was starting to put up decent resistance to Sampras' domination.

Nadal wouldnt be a tough opponent for Sampras on anything but clay. He doesnt match up with Sampras anywhere near as well as he does Federer.

 

[merlinpinpin]

lets be honest here, the only reason Fed won any slams in 2009 was 100 percent due to the fact that nadal was unable to play due to his knees

Are you sure it wasn't because of the ROOF? :shock:

 

[ZeroSkid]

Nadal wouldnt be a tough opponent for Sampras on anything but clay. He doesnt match up with Sampras anywhere near as well as he does Federer.

I would say on grass it would be close but other than that nadal would dominate

 

[pistolPete2012]

Nadal would be lucky if he won one slam back in 90's era.

 

[BrooklynNY]

I can understand that, but I think Sampras had some really perplexing losses in his prime-near prime, like 1997 U.S. Open 4th Round Loss to Korda, 1998 Australian Open quarterfinal loss to Kucera, 2001 Australian Open 4th Round loss to Martin.

But, maybe they are perplexing, because I am thinking of Federer with his 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals streak and 32 consecutive grand slam quarterfinals streak, and hasn't had many "weird" losses.

Korda was busted testing positive for Nandrolone less than 7 months after that US Open defeat in 97.

Not an excuse, but it may help explain a perplexing loss. I mean he lost either way, but there is a difference b/w losing fair and square, and losing to someone who tests positive a few months after he beats you

 

[leonidas1982]

Korda was busted testing positive for Nandrolone less than 7 months after that US Open defeat in 97.

Not an excuse, but it may help explain a perplexing loss. I mean he lost either way, but there is a difference b/w losing fair and square, and losing to someone who tests positive a few months after he beats you

I never knew that.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras rose to the competitive heights brought forth by the competition.. He said Andre was the reason he had to develop a deadlier 2nd serve.. I think the one of the key reasons Pete quit when he did because there were no real threat in sight to overtake his slam record..

No doubt with a Fed or Nadal around, Pete would have rose to greater heights to counteract better competition. Pete was the ultimate competitor and wanted to be the best. Great players do that however.

Pete had a few issues at slams where he had injury issues that kept him out of slams though of course.. Someone like Nadal or Federer around, Pete would NO DOUBT raise his game though to be #1.

If you look back at Pete's career, you see whenever someone hands a crushing defeat to him, he comes back much deadlier and whipes them off the court. Very rarely could guys get Pete two times in a row. He took losing very personal and played with a chip on his shoulder to get the next big match back.

 

[ZeroSkid]

Sampras rose to the competitive heights brought forth by the competition.. He said Andre was the reason he had to develop a deadlier 2nd serve.. I think the one of the key reasons Pete quit when he did because there were no real threat in sight to overtake his slam record..

No doubt with a Fed or Nadal around, Pete would have rose to greater heights to counteract better competition. Pete was the ultimate competitor and wanted to be the best. Great players do that however.

Pete had a few issues at slams where he was injury issues that kept him out of slams though of course.. Someone like Nadal or Federer around, Pete would NO DOUBT raise his game though to be #1.

............................

 

[Bruce39]

I have to agree with the OP

 

[NadalAgassi]

He had more overall competition than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have. Those 3 guys only have each other and didnt even peak at the same time. The 5-20 ranked currently is one of the weakest in history, the top guys have a practical bye to the semis, where the tough opponents usually started in the 3rd round in the Sampras era.

Nadal would be irrelevant for Sampras, as obviously Sampras would be no threat to Nadal on clay, but Sampras didnt even reach a French final as it was so who cares. Nadal does not match up as well with Sampras as he does Federer, even most ****s concede that, so it is unlikely Nadal would have denied any of Sampras's slams at the other 3, where all his slams come anyway.

Federer would be competition for Sampras, but the reverse would be true too. Federer is much happier facing Nadal who is only a dominant player on clay, and while usually beats Federer when they play usually doesnt even make finals on other surfaces, and Djokovic who only emerged as a great player in 2011 when Federer had already won almost all the slams of his career anyway.

Djokovic would be a tough opponent for Sampras at the Australian Open maybe, but Sampras only won there twice, so it wouldnt really matter much. He still probably wins 1 or 2 with Djokovic probably winning more than that, but hardly impacts Sampras. Clay as mentioned Sampras isnt that relevant there to begin with, and truthfully neither is Djokovic as of yet (1 French Open final, nowhere near even Federer level clay credentials). On all faster courts prime Sampras would be too much for Djokovic, just look at the trouble Djokovic has with a 30 something Federer on all fast courts everytime they meet on them.