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

[McEnroeisanartist]

Do you think Sampras would have won more grand slams and more matches (higher win/loss percentage) if he had a true rival to push him to make him better? For most of his career, you can not say that Agassi pushed Sampras to be better like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all inspired each other.

It is amazing to me that Sampras never had a season with three grand slams (Federer had three seasons). It also amazes me that he never had a season with a winning percentage over 88% (Federer had four seasons).

 

[90's Clay]

I would think so. Sampras was actually more motivated by main rivals pushing him than he was to play some of the lesser opponents. Sampras was a guy in which he was more motivated with something to prove and obstacles to climb.

He probably would have played longer as well but The main guy that was close to his stratosphere was Agassi and be bludgeoned him more times than not on the big stage when it mattered most.

At the time, 12 was the official record to break and after he broke it (With no slam rival in sight) he lost motivation

Different eras though as well. In today's homogenized conditions its 10 TIMES Easier to win 3 slams a year than it was during Pete's day when conditions were like night and day. Everything in SLOW.

Nowadays, you can essentially win a calendar slam from the baseline without any net play, real tactic etc.

Giving these one dimensional grinders their bread and butter conditions all year would be like giving Sampras lightning fast slick courts all year. The only time most of these top players are out of their element is at the end of the year indoors and even that surface has slowed down to a snail's speed

 

[El Diablo]

We have plumbed a new depth here. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Sampras might have won more slams if only the competitition had been tougher. Dope that I am, I actually thought he would have won fewer if there'd been better competition, but what do I know.

 

[NatF]

Nope lol. If Agassi had been in form and playing the AO 94 and 97 Sampras may have less etc...If Richard Krajicek hadn't been injured so much maybe he'd have less Wimbledon's

 

[Tenez101]

I think it would've helped him to the extent that his game would have evolved even more and he might have remained at the top even longer, but ultimately he would have won less slams with tougher competition.

 

[mattennis]

He (and Agassi too) would have won more had he played in a more homogeneous era with a unique playing style.

Just like Federer and Nadal would have won less had they played in an era with totally different conditions and totally different competitive playing styles.

The more or the less the top players of a given era accomplish is a product of the conditions of that given era.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Nope lol. If Agassi had been in form and playing the AO 94 and 97 Sampras may have less etc...If Richard Krajicek hadn't been injured so much maybe he'd have less Wimbledon's

+1. Can't buy into the OP's logic.

And don't forget Flip, up a set before his knee gave out - '99 QF match.

 

[TMF]

NOt only he would have won less slams, but would have less number of year and weeks at #1.

 

[helloworld]

Do you think Sampras would have won more grand slams and more matches (higher win/loss percentage) if he had a true rival to push him to make him better? For most of his career, you can not say that Agassi pushed Sampras to be better like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all inspired each other.

It is amazing to me that Sampras never had a season with three grand slams (Federer had three seasons). It also amazes me that he never had a season with a winning percentage over 88% (Federer had four seasons).

It's true that nobody really pushed Sampras the way Nadal did to Federer, but we still don't have any evidence to prove that Sampras would achieve more or less given a tougher rival to push him.

 

[helterskelter]

It is amazing to me that Sampras never had a season with three grand slams (Federer had three seasons). It also amazes me that he never had a season with a winning percentage over 88% (Federer had four seasons).

Contra your first paragraph, which I deleted, Sampras faced a far, far deeper field than did Federer. That explains the two facts. Having a whole host of excellent challengers is much more troublesome than having one, two, or very occasionally three rivals.

 

[Top Jimmy]

I think Pete was chasing a number, 12, he got 14. Roger was chasing 14 and got 17. I think once Pete reached that 13th he lost some motivation and only got motivated again when the other players started talking smack.

He might have got a few more if he knew some wunderkind was gonna come along and one up him.

And if you don't think chasing those records have anything to do with a players motivation, you don't have a clue.

I don't think rivals had anything to do with it. His rivals were Laver, Borg, etc.

 

[chjtennis]

I don't give much credit to answers to these types of questions - would a player A have done better/worse in another time? How would we know? we should just assume that the particular player mentioned would've done something similar in another time.

 

[mike danny]

In a way i doubt pete would have won as much had he had 3 great players to contend with like roger has

 

[tennis_pro]

We have plumbed a new depth here. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Sampras might have won more slams if only the competitition had been tougher. Dope that I am, I actually thought he would have won fewer if there'd been better competition, but what do I know.

Haha. We should end the thread right here.

 

[mike danny]

Every all time great would have won less with tougher comp. i do not see why is this even.a debate

 

[tennis_pro]

Contra your first paragraph, which I deleted, Sampras faced a far, far deeper field than did Federer. That explains the two facts. Having a whole host of excellent challengers is much more troublesome than having one, two, or very occasionally three rivals.

I don't even...what exactly was so tough about Sampras' competition? He didn't even have a main rival, lawl. Federer has 2.

 

[jg153040]

Do you think Sampras would have won more grand slams and more matches (higher win/loss percentage) if he had a true rival to push him to make him better? For most of his career, you can not say that Agassi pushed Sampras to be better like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all inspired each other.

It is amazing to me that Sampras never had a season with three grand slams (Federer had three seasons). It also amazes me that he never had a season with a winning percentage over 88% (Federer had four seasons).

Haha, you excel yourself.

Big rival or no rival, there aren't any reasons why you should be losing to lesser players anyway.

So, you are saying if Pete had Rafa and Fed didn't have Rafa, Sampras would end up with more majors than Fed?

But I have to give it to you for creativity. You created a whole new circular argument to talk about. At least there is something different

So, this means the guy who wins the least titles in weakest competition is the goat, because he didn't have competition to push him?

 

[jg153040]

He (and Agassi too) would have won more had he played in a more homogeneous era with a unique playing style.

Just like Federer and Nadal would have won less had they played in an era with totally different conditions and totally different competitive playing styles.

The more or the less the top players of a given era accomplish is a product of the conditions of that given era.

You don't know that. I don't buy surfaces excuses. Borg was able to win W and RG on opposite surfaces. So I don't think this argument is good.

Sampras was just average on clay. That's it. And Agassi was just mentally weak and wasn't even present for half of the era.

Borg was good indoor, grass and clay.

And even today Rafa is bad indoor and Murray is bad on clay. Why is that if surfaces are the same? And Roddick, Safin, Hewitt weren't special on clay either.

I think Fed and Borg are special cases. They would do well everywhere.
If you put Rafa into 90s or Pete in today, they both do worse.

Sampras and Nadal have less dimensions, but they are the best in those dimensions. And they have incredible mental toughness to cover for their flaws.

 

[jg153040]

Do you think Sampras would have won more grand slams and more matches (higher win/loss percentage) if he had a true rival to push him to make him better? For most of his career, you can not say that Agassi pushed Sampras to be better like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all inspired each other.

It is amazing to me that Sampras never had a season with three grand slams (Federer had three seasons). It also amazes me that he never had a season with a winning percentage over 88% (Federer had four seasons).

I gave it another thought. This is a great counter to the weak era theory.

So, the guy who wins too much in a weak era can still be goat, since he didn't have competition to push him and make him better.

 

[Milanez82]

If Goran wasn't a nutcase Sampras could only win less.
And he definitely was done when he retired, didn't have any more years of winning slams within him.
And with Federer starting to play up to his potential, he wasn't going to win any more.

 

[Holmes]

If Goran wasn't a nutcase Sampras could only win less.
And he definitely was done when he retired, didn't have any more years of winning slams within him.
And with Federer starting to play up to his potential, he wasn't going to win any more.

Don't be silly, Goran played great but in '95 and 98 but PETE had the answers. Goran was a much better rival than Roddick since he proved he had the ability to both beat his Wimbledon GOAT (1992) and win the tournament when his GOAT was knocked out (2001). Contrast that with Roddick who could never beat Federer, even when Fed practically begged him to do so in 2009, and lost pitifully once his GOAT was knocked out of the tournament (QF Lu 2010, 3R Lopez 2011). Give PETE Roddick and he wins the tournament in 1992.
Pete's actually said over and over again that the reason he retired was emotional. He had given everything he had to win that major after he'd been written off and his wife talked down for a couple years and had nothing left to prove to himself. With a Federer or Djokovic there beside him, there would have been far more reason to stick around and recharge his heart.
I wouldn't be so sure. Nalbandian got Fed at USO in 2003, and Amun-RAgassi pushed him there for 2 years straight. A well playing, motivated 30s Sampras could definitely get a win over him.

 

[Holmes]

Nope lol. If Agassi had been in form and playing the AO 94 and 97 Sampras may have less etc...If Richard Krajicek hadn't been injured so much maybe he'd have less Wimbledon's

If Roddick was competent maybe Fed would still be on 14 and 285 weeks #1. No lucky Wimbledon title followed by a loss at the Open to a youngster and maybe Fed's head droops sooner and Djokodal punt him off the court just one slam earlier
Let's not even get into the Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Kiefer slams