How can someone 1-dimensional win 14 slams (including 7 on a hardcourt)?
His game wasn’t the least bit 1-dimensional, it was all-round serving, volleying and varied groundstrokes. IMO Sampras had a very effective and above-average baseline game. He could rally with the best of them, hit winners from any angle and chip and charge, etc. Though in the last few years of his career his game did revolve almost completely around s/v, but he was still dangerous from the baseline. Remember all those impressive groundstroke winners versus Agassi?
He didn't win the FO because his counterpunching skills were not up to the level required to win the FO, and his backhand was vulnerable, especially on clay (prone to making UEs).
Just because he didn't win the FO, doesn't mean he didn't have a baseline game. What bizzare logic.
Sampras' game was one dimensional. He would attempt to play S/V even after second serve. His baseline game was merely "ok" during peak and pathetic during later stages of his career. His backhand was diabolically bad. Thing is, his serve was so dominant, he would often get one break and then blatantly tank the rest of his opponents service games, and just hold his own serve to win the set. That is very boring to me.
Sampras wasn't good on clay because of the fact he couldn't rely on S/V. Take Federer, for example. He isn't a counterpuncher by any means. He was still very good on clay, despite the fact he couldn't rely on his great serve to get him out of trouble. When you took Sampras' serve out of equation, he was atrociously bad. He couldn't rally at all.