Pete Sampras: The Most Overrated Player of all time [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Pete Sampras: The Most Overrated Player of all time

vogus
09-15-2005, 01:22 AM
Pete Sampras desperately wanted to be known as the greatest ever, as an athlete who was so dominant that he transcended his sport, and for a while he had the general sports media in the U.S. on his wagon. But the fact is that the Peetster never dominated tennis at a level that gave him an undisputed claim to "greatest ever" and that would put him in the same category as Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan.

a few points:

Sampras had only two years in his career, 1993 and 1994, where he was a truly dominant #1 player, and even in those years he failed to win more than 2 Slam titles.

Sampras had a very one-dimensional game after 1996, and by the end of his career, other players on the tour were openly contemptuous of his inability to play from the baseline. At Roland Garros, Sampras was just another guy in the Top 100 struggling to win a couple of rounds.

While the crown jewel of Sampy's career, his 7 Wimby titles, is nothing to sneeze at, you have to consider that out of the few occasions from 1992-2001 when he played a big serve-and-volley player who had an on day, three times he was beaten (Ivo in '92, Krajicek in '96, Feds in '01), and a fourth time (Philipoussis in '99), his opponent retired injured after winning the first set.

Two of the Peetster's USOpen victories against Agassi ('95 and '02)were due, plain and simple, to Agassi getting screwed by the idiot USTA schedulers forcing him to play late into Saturday night in his semifinal matches, while Sampy had many hours of extra rest. This was especially the case in the '95 final, when Agassi was playing far better tennis than Sampras. After beating Becker 76 76 76, 14 hours was just not enough turnaround time for Andre to win two tough best of fives. And when Sampras came up against solid returners in the '00 and '01 USO finals, what did he get? A pair of straight set thrashings.

The only reason Sampras holds the record for Slam titles is that Borg skipped the Australian Open during his 9 year period of dominance. If Borg had bothered showing up in his prime he would have won the Australian four or five times, giving him 15 or 16 Slam titles, and people would still be calling Borg the greatest ever.

In sum, Sampras carved out his place in tennis history by winning 14 GS titles. But does he have a record that is going to stand the test of time qualifying him as "greatest ever"? No way.

Experimentee
09-15-2005, 01:25 AM
Yeah the most Slams ever in the history of the game. Very overrated :rolleyes:

Lee
09-15-2005, 01:27 AM
Thank you for informing us what a troll you are, Vogus.

faboozadoo15
09-15-2005, 01:36 AM
wow... just... wow...
2002 us open. his LAST matches. all that needs to be said. he's amazing, he won the last slam he played against andre in the final and never looked back. who cares if he never won more than 2 in a year (and that he only did that twice)? how many years did chris evert win 2 or more slams?

MisterQ
09-15-2005, 01:42 AM
how many years did chris evert win 2 or more slams?

5 :angel:

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 01:55 AM
Two of the Peetster's USOpen victories against Agassi ('95 and '02)were due, plain and simple, to Agassi getting screwed by the idiot USTA schedulers forcing him to play late into Saturday night in his semifinal matches, while Sampy had many hours of extra rest..

OR... maybe... just maybe... Pete dominated Andre head-to-head at Wimbly and USO... because... get ready for this.... here it comes... no, it's receeding... diminished beyond recognition... oh wait, it's back with a bang and there's no stopping it:

BECAUSE HE WAS A BIGGER ALL-AROUND TALENT, BOTH PHYSICALLY AND ESPECIALLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY.




Food for thought; eat up.

tinuviel_estel
09-15-2005, 02:03 AM
Sorry..... But i don't he is overrated.

faboozadoo15
09-15-2005, 02:10 AM
5 :angel:
oops, my bad... i guess i just had in mind her 13 consecutive years of winning a slam... so she never won three in a year? like pete...
i guess she wasn't the best example.

Tourmalante
09-15-2005, 02:13 AM
You guys denounce him as a troll without even really reading his posts. Pete has an almost unimpeachable slam record but that does not mean that Vogus has not brought up some thought provoking points. Indeed, Pete was only truly dominant in the years 93-95 and even then he lost twenty or so matches on the year- nowhere close to McEnroe's, Lendl's, Borg's, or Federer's best years. Pete was the best at racking up slams though, whether it was one a year or not. But in terms of peaks and dominant years he is out of any top contention. Pete's style was the most conducive to a long haul of slam achievement but he was no longer a truly dominant player by the end of 97. 96 was only saved as a year by his thrashing of Chang at the US Open. He never had the aura that the player's of the eighties, and Federer do, where a single loss can shatter their image of invincibility. He had domains like the grass of wimbledon, where people knew he was beyond reach, but also many others where even journeymen were quite comfortable in competing against him. Not so with the aforementioned players. Even if they were not pre-eminent on a surface, they were top-5 on all of them, and specialists knew they could be blown off the court regardless of the bounce or speed. And yes, folks Federer is top 5 on clay. Actually he is the #2 clay-court player in the world at the moment based on results and what have you. Coria and Gaudio don't trouble him anymore. Only Nadal does. There is a misconception that clay is somehow federer's kryptonite, and some people lose sight of how accomplished he is on the surface sans a Roland Garros win.

Tennis Fool
09-15-2005, 02:24 AM
Sampras' fault was having a boring s&v game, no personality, anti-Rafter attitude, and doing Sharapova-like runs on my TV with those braggard RBS commercials. If I could take slams away from him on those points alone I would...

However, I wish Agassi, Krajicek, et al would have stepped it up more often. The mid '90s were the pitts because of Sampras. Which is why I was watching Monica, Aranxta, Hingis, et al.

Tennis Fool
09-15-2005, 02:27 AM
You guys denounce him as a troll without even really reading his posts.
They don't care. It's a ride on the insult bandwagon. Anyone who doesn't agree with their views are trolls.

Real trolls are really, really nasty characters who get banned almost immediately (for those of you who remember costaslam2, etc).

Tennis Fool
09-15-2005, 02:31 AM
96 was only saved as a year by his thrashing of Chang at the US Open.
I was so badly rooting for Chang to win his 2nd Slam. This was even a better year for him than '89.

I still think of the view of his brother sitting alone, despondent, in the stadium seats long after everyone had gone.

Too bad stupid Alex couldn't take out a vomiting Sampras in that tiebreak :(

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 02:47 AM
Pete never had two years like Fed has had these two years. He was never as dominant as Fed has been, that is true. What Fed has done in these past two years can only be compared to a different era when winning 10+ titles was done more often by the top players such as Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Jmac, Lendl.

BUT.....

He had a different approach to things. He knew that Slams were what would cement his legacy and he concentrated on them. He wasn't out to win every tournament like Fed (so far) and Lendl.

If you want to say that the 7 time Wimbledon champion (and it could've been 8 in a row if Richard K. hadn't played an extraordinary match), 5 time US OPen Champ nad 8 time finalist, amazing totals of weeks at #1 and consecutive streaks at #1 is overrated, then go right ahead.

Federerhingis
09-15-2005, 02:49 AM
Actually most of what was written is true and it gives a little bit of perspective. I mean duh, nobody is disputing Sampras' dominance at the slams, I mean how can you? He wasnt even dominant at remaining #1 through out the full 52 weeks. So theres certainly some truth about the issues that were brought up.

Fee
09-15-2005, 02:56 AM
Pete played his entire career with Thalysemia (did I spell that right? I think not), a blood condition that can create fatigue and lack of conditioning. The fact that he was able to achieve what he did under those circumstances is pretty awe-inspiring to me.

As for his match record, Pete said many, many, many times that he was mostly concerned with Slams and maintaining his #1 ranking, not necessarily racking up titles (which might possibly be one of the reasons Andre has more Masters titles). He did what he needed to do to achieve those two goals. What made Pete great is a combination of the way he played the game and his results, not just his results.

Would have been easier for me to respect your argument a little bit more, Vogus, if you had left out the apparently derisive nickname. Your personal problem with Mr Sampras detracts from your argument (to me anyway). :D

Lee
09-15-2005, 02:57 AM
Pete Sampras desperately wanted to be known as the greatest ever, as an athlete who was so dominant that he transcended his sport, and for a while he had the general sports media in the U.S. on his wagon. But the fact is that the Peetster never dominated tennis at a level that gave him an undisputed claim to "greatest ever" and that would put him in the same category as Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan.

Please point out which article you read that Pete said he desperately wanted to be known as the greatest ever, thank you.

a few points:

Sampras had only two years in his career, 1993 and 1994, where he was a truly dominant #1 player, and even in those years he failed to win more than 2 Slam titles.

In the open era, how many players win more than 2 slams titles?

Sampras had a very one-dimensional game after 1996, and by the end of his career, other players on the tour were openly contemptuous of his inability to play from the baseline.

By the end of many players career, many of them hardly able to win a match or a title, let alone a Slam.

At Roland Garros, Sampras was just another guy in the Top 100 struggling to win a couple of rounds.

A guy who struggling to win a couple of rounds managed to win a TMS title on clay and reach SF in Roland Garros. Last time I check, you need to win 5 matches to reach the SF in a GS.

While the crown jewel of Sampy's career, his 7 Wimby titles, is nothing to sneeze at, you have to consider that out of the few occasions from 1992-2001 when he played a big serve-and-volley player who had an on day, three times he was beaten (Ivo in '92, Krajicek in '96, Feds in '01), and a fourth time (Philipoussis in '99), his opponent retired injured after winning the first set.

It's all other players fault that he won 7 Wimbledon titles. And it's Pete's fault that his opponent retired after winning the first set. Last time I check, winning the first set in a GS match doesn't mean you will win the match. The latest one being James Blake won 2 sets and up a break in the 3rd set and still lost to Agassi.

Two of the Peetster's USOpen victories against Agassi ('95 and '02)were due, plain and simple, to Agassi getting screwed by the idiot USTA schedulers forcing him to play late into Saturday night in his semifinal matches, while Sampy had many hours of extra rest. This was especially the case in the '95 final, when Agassi was playing far better tennis than Sampras. After beating Becker 76 76 76, 14 hours was just not enough turnaround time for Andre to win two tough best of fives. And when Sampras came up against solid returners in the '00 and '01 USO finals, what did he get? A pair of straight set thrashings.

Why Pete lost to solid returners like Hewitt and Safin but defeat the best returner of the last decade and a half, Agassi is way beyond my limited intelligence?

And of course, Sampras losing in '01 USO was USTA's fault, he had to play 3 previous champions before he reached the final. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The only reason Sampras holds the record for Slam titles is that Borg skipped the Australian Open during his 9 year period of dominance. If Borg had bothered showing up in his prime he would have won the Australian four or five times, giving him 15 or 16 Slam titles, and people would still be calling Borg the greatest ever.

Yes, if XXX played tennis instead of pingpong, he would defeat Sampras in all his Slam finals. If I bothered to show up to play USO, I would easily won 4 or 5 times. There's no if or what if in real life.

If Borg winning all his Slam titles in 2 GS events is called dominance, what's Pete winning his Slam titles in 3 GS events?

In sum, Sampras carved out his place in tennis history by winning 14 GS titles. But does he have a record that is going to stand the test of time qualifying him as "greatest ever"? No way.

No, he also being #1 at the end for 6 consecutive years. Of course, you can easily forget about his other records as they are not convenient to your biased theory.

Lee
09-15-2005, 03:03 AM
You guys denounce him as a troll without even really reading his posts. Pete has an almost unimpeachable slam record but that does not mean that Vogus has not brought up some thought provoking points. Indeed, Pete was only truly dominant in the years 93-95 and even then he lost twenty or so matches on the year- nowhere close to McEnroe's, Lendl's, Borg's, or Federer's best years. Pete was the best at racking up slams though, whether it was one a year or not. But in terms of peaks and dominant years he is out of any top contention. Pete's style was the most conducive to a long haul of slam achievement but he was no longer a truly dominant player by the end of 97. 96 was only saved as a year by his thrashing of Chang at the US Open. He never had the aura that the player's of the eighties, and Federer do, where a single loss can shatter their image of invincibility. He had domains like the grass of wimbledon, where people knew he was beyond reach, but also many others where even journeymen were quite comfortable in competing against him. Not so with the aforementioned players. Even if they were not pre-eminent on a surface, they were top-5 on all of them, and specialists knew they could be blown off the court regardless of the bounce or speed. And yes, folks Federer is top 5 on clay. Actually he is the #2 clay-court player in the world at the moment based on results and what have you. Coria and Gaudio don't trouble him anymore. Only Nadal does. There is a misconception that clay is somehow federer's kryptonite, and some people lose sight of how accomplished he is on the surface sans a Roland Garros win.

I read all the points before I called vogus a troll and I overestimate MTF posters that all of them should see the holes in most of his points.

My bad :rolleyes:

Sjengster
09-15-2005, 03:04 AM
The fact is this: Sampras is the only other player besides Borg to win at least 1 Slam every year for 8 consecutive years. Yes, Borg could have surpassed his total of Slams if he'd had success in one of his failed US Open finals, which would have convinced him to give Australia a shot, but ifs and maybes aren't worth talking about, only their actual achievements. This thread smacks of the recency effect to me; when Federer has finished as year-end no. 1 for 6 straight years, then we can talk. That quote from Blade Runner about the light that burns twice as bright and half as long springs to mind.

Lee
09-15-2005, 03:06 AM
And before some Fed fans jumping into defense, please note saying Pete is a great player doesn't mean Roger is not. Actually, as Pete being one of the greatest players and Roger manages to break all his records at the end of his career, only means that Roger is even a greater player but we'll see.

Sjengster
09-15-2005, 03:07 AM
Lee's already covered most of what I said, I see. I find it funny that all of a sudden three-quarter Slams are an essential prerequisite for every dominant no. 1 in the history of the sport, when it has only happened three times in the Open Era since Laver's Grand Slam in 1969, and even then an average of once every 15 years. Sampras won ONLY 2 a year from 93-95, you say? For shame!

Tennis Fool
09-15-2005, 03:13 AM
Lee's already covered most of what I said, I see. I find it funny that all of a sudden three-quarter Slams are an essential prerequisite for every dominant no. 1 in the history of the sport, when it has only happened three times in the Open Era since Laver's Grand Slam in 1969, and even then an average of once every 15 years. Sampras won ONLY 2 a year from 93-95, you say? For shame!
:ras:
You are so full of shit. You say you like intelligent posts, but then follow the litter to "Popularity Polls" by certain posters who have yet to come up with thoughtful threads. I take back that I thought you were an older, wiser poster.

Sjengster
09-15-2005, 03:15 AM
I have never been an older poster, despite what you think. And as for wiser... well, that's always a matter of opinion.

Sorry, what "Popularity Poll" is this? Are we talking about this thread? I'm confused, it seems I'm really not that wise indeed.

alfonsojose
09-15-2005, 03:31 AM
Sampras dick is small. End of the story :shrug:

Tennis Fool
09-15-2005, 03:33 AM
I have never been an older poster, despite what you think. And as for wiser... well, that's always a matter of opinion.
That's an old joke held over from King Lindsay.

Sorry, what "Popularity Poll" is this? Are we talking about this thread? I'm confused, it seems I'm really not that wise indeed.
PM

Lee
09-15-2005, 03:35 AM
Sampras dick is small. End of the story :shrug:

Big enough to keep his wife happy and makes 2 kids, so far ;)

Sjengster
09-15-2005, 03:40 AM
That's an old joke held over from King Lindsay.

Ah, King Lindsay. How I hated that guy... decent joke, though.

Mimi
09-15-2005, 03:46 AM
the one who won most slam and was able to his last slam at an "old" age of 31, beating the young roddick/Hass and then the old Greg/agassi, is the most overrated, then i wonder who is not overated :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 04:14 AM
Frankly, I think Sampras got really lucky in 14 different slams, 5 year end championships and all those weeks at #1. When his luck ran out, he was exposed.

Chloe le Bopper
09-15-2005, 04:23 AM
Real trolls are really, really nasty characters who get banned almost immediately (for those of you who remember costaslam2, etc).

You clearly don't, if you think he got banned immediately. I'll bet that you don't even know why he got banned :)

jole
09-15-2005, 04:29 AM
Aide Goran was the best.

Lee
09-15-2005, 04:37 AM
:lol: I didn't know another brilliant thread was started by vogus until now. What a waste of my time responding to his/her points here.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=53237

vogus
09-15-2005, 04:51 AM
OR... maybe... just maybe... Pete dominated Andre head-to-head at Wimbly and USO... because... get ready for this.... here it comes... no, it's receeding... diminished beyond recognition... oh wait, it's back with a bang and there's no stopping it:

BECAUSE HE WAS A BIGGER ALL-AROUND TALENT, BOTH PHYSICALLY AND ESPECIALLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY.

Food for thought; eat up.


It didn't have to be that way. The '95 USO final was Andre's to lose. He was clearly a better player than Sampras at that point. The absurdity of him playing that semifinal late into the night against Becker still pisses me off. It was the most crushing loss of Agassi's career, and it rejuvenated Pete's, who had been knocked off his perch and been forced to play second fiddle to Andre for the previous year.

TenHound
09-15-2005, 04:55 AM
I think Vogus made excellent points. Also, I think AA made very impt. points after his match. He said Roger is a better tennis player 'cuz he doesn't have serious holes in his game, which Pete did. Further, That Pete won so many Majors was a function of his longevity, in which luck & other incidental factors play a determining role.

The evaluation system needs to be overhauled by someone w/statistical knowledge. It's way too simplistic. Several factors need to be combined w/appropriate weights to determine a lifetime ranking. #Majors won; year end percentage of wins; #Masters won. Perhaps these should be weighed separately for a player's early years, prime years & tailing yrs., if any.

These are obviously preliminary considerations toward a more complex system. Unfortunately it's impossibly to assign a number to the completeness of someone's game, as Roger is said by those who know to have the most.

After looking at Sjengster's listing of Top 30 player yrs. by winning percentage, I have to agree that Pete is over-rated, at least as he is said to be indisputably the Best Ever in Open Era. I'm more inclined to consider Borg, McEnroe, Lendl & Federer a step ahead of him. Or perhaps I should say that listing convinced me that merely considering #Majors won in ranking players is too one dimensional.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 05:09 AM
It didn't have to be that way. The '95 USO final was Andre's to lose. He was clearly a better player than Sampras at that point. The absurdity of him playing that semifinal late into the night against Becker still pisses me off. It was the most crushing loss of Agassi's career, and it rejuvenated Pete's, who had been knocked off his perch and been forced to play second fiddle to Andre for the previous year.

Didn't have to be what way? Some matches are played earlier; others - later. Super Saturday wasn't instituted specifically to keep Andre from reaching the Final; every great player had to deal with scheduling adversity a few times in his career.

Maybe if Andre was super-dedicated to the sport for the first 2/3 of his career like a great champion is supposed to.... and wasn't scared of Sampras (and now Federer) every time they met in a Slam... The 1995 USO outcome would have been different. Maybe.

As for the biggest loss of his career.... 2004 USO against Fed. Andre wins that, he wins the whole tournament, and is riding an insane confidence wave right into 2005 Aussie Open where, at least in theory, his chances against Fed and Marat should be higher, to say nothing of his chances against Fed at 2005 USO where Andre's knees buckled late in the 3rd when he realized he was navigating uncharted territory.... The loss to Rafter at 2001 Wimbledon was a bit of a travesty - who knows, aside from kicking Hewitt's ass on grass, it might have given him that little boost he would have needed 2 months later against Pete in the USO QF.... Come to think of it, Andre had a real chance to knock Pete off his perch for good and cement his own legacy at the 1999 Wimbly final - 4 consecutive Slam titles sound awfully nice, eh?

Pete was too good on grass to have his career "resurrected" in that fashion, anyway. He could have lost in '95 and made up for it by training even harder and winning, say, an "extra" Wimbledon.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 05:17 AM
97 was an awesome year. How can you say his dominance came to an end? The guy busted his ass to be number one for 6 years and still was number one at the end of 98. He deserved to let down a little. 99 was pretty damn great that year and he embarrassed Andre's number one ranking by not losing to him that year. Pete never dominated the way Roger did but then he had a different focus and passion than Roger. Rogers treats small events like slams the way he plays them. :lol:

I wouldn't call you a troll but just think you are way off base here.

Ays25
09-15-2005, 05:17 AM
lollll u must be kidding hahahaha
federer is the most overrated player of all time.
becker was awesome, sampras was great, andre is greater but federer is bullshit.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 05:20 AM
Oh and it's not Pete fault Andre got the 2nd match and couldn't deal with him the next day because he played a 3 set match the night before. Pete also had to win his match fast in order to be rested too. Andre got outplayed that day and nothing more. I do think the Hewitt match took something out of him but that is just how it is. Ask Todd Martin if Andre benefited from Super Saturday in 99.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 05:20 AM
lollll u must be kidding hahahaha
federer is the most overrated player of all time.
becker was awesome, sampras was great, andre is greater but federer is bullshit.

Ok now you are a troll.

swellde
09-15-2005, 05:22 AM
I'm not even a Sampras fan but I think you really really have to try to distort things to consider him overrated. And I think it was posted earlier that he only won two slams in a year twice, but he actually won two slams in '93, '94, '95, and '97. And as pointed out earlier, five wins at the year-end singles championship against the best of the best are also pretty good.
Since Federer is being brought up I will say that I personally do think Federer is a better player, that also has nothing to do with whether or not Sampras is overrated.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 05:22 AM
Didn't have to be what way? Some matches are played earlier; others - later. Super Saturday wasn't instituted specifically to keep Andre from reaching the Final; every great player had to deal with scheduling adversity a few times in his career.

Maybe if Andre was super-dedicated to the sport for the first 2/3 of his career like a great champion is supposed to.... and wasn't scared of Sampras (and now Federer) every time they met in a Slam... The 1995 USO outcome would have been different. Maybe.

As for the biggest loss of his career.... 2004 USO against Fed. Andre wins that, he wins the whole tournament, and is riding an insane confidence wave right into 2005 Aussie Open where, at least in theory, his chances against Fed and Marat should be higher, to say nothing of his chances against Fed at 2005 USO where Andre's knees buckled late in the 3rd when he realized he was navigating uncharted territory.... The loss to Rafter at 2001 Wimbledon was a bit of a travesty - who knows, aside from kicking Hewitt's ass on grass, it might have given him that little boost he would have needed 2 months later against Pete in the USO QF.... Come to think of it, Andre had a real chance to knock Pete off his perch for good and cement his own legacy at the 1999 Wimbly final - 4 consecutive Slam titles sound awfully nice, eh?

Pete was too good on grass to have his career "resurrected" in that fashion, anyway. He could have lost in '95 and made up for it by training even harder and winning, say, an "extra" Wimbledon.

I think the Chang loss at Oz 96 really hurt because had he kept it and he would have killed Becker in the finals then Andre might have kept pressing on to fight for number one. He was very close to Pete going into that year.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 05:25 AM
Didn't have to be what way? Some matches are played earlier; others - later. Super Saturday wasn't instituted specifically to keep Andre from reaching the Final; every great player had to deal with scheduling adversity a few times in his career.

Maybe if Andre was super-dedicated to the sport for the first 2/3 of his career like a great champion is supposed to.... and wasn't scared of Sampras (and now Federer) every time they met in a Slam... The 1995 USO outcome would have been different. Maybe.

As for the biggest loss of his career.... 2004 USO against Fed. Andre wins that, he wins the whole tournament, and is riding an insane confidence wave right into 2005 Aussie Open where, at least in theory, his chances against Fed and Marat should be higher, to say nothing of his chances against Fed at 2005 USO where Andre's knees buckled late in the 3rd when he realized he was navigating uncharted territory.... The loss to Rafter at 2001 Wimbledon was a bit of a travesty - who knows, aside from kicking Hewitt's ass on grass, it might have given him that little boost he would have needed 2 months later against Pete in the USO QF.... Come to think of it, Andre had a real chance to knock Pete off his perch for good and cement his own legacy at the 1999 Wimbly final - 4 consecutive Slam titles sound awfully nice, eh?

Pete was too good on grass to have his career "resurrected" in that fashion, anyway. He could have lost in '95 and made up for it by training even harder and winning, say, an "extra" Wimbledon.

Andre's knees didn't buckle in that final this past weekend. Once Roger started to rip his BH on andre's serve and put andre on the defense right away is when things started to change around. After Andre lost that breaker he submitted to him like he did to Pete.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 05:34 AM
[Andre's knees didn't buckle in that final this past weekend

You're wrong. Said buckling took place before Roger elevated his game; one could argue Fed would have been drifting in a limbo for the remainer of the match had Agassi displayed some effin' killer instinct when it came right down to it.

Hell, Dre's 1st serve in the 3rd set by itself constituted a giant choke - he knew damn well he had to get them in at all costs in order to control points, and you could see by the ball toss and body language he was gonna blow them.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 05:41 AM
I think the Chang loss at Oz 96 really hurt because had he kept it and he would have killed Becker in the finals then Andre might have kept pressing on to fight for number one. He was very close to Pete going into that year.

Aussie Opens will not define Andre. His almost-wins and chokes at Wimbledon and US Open - that's where his true legacy lies.

The loss to Chang was certainly symptomatic of the deeper issue - his complete and total dedication to the game, or lack thereof; his refusal to seriously address his fitness and a weak serve always cost him big.

But even if he'd beaten Chang, that wouldn't have prevented his 97 wrist injury and the resultant slide into disgrace...

its.like.that
09-15-2005, 05:49 AM
The creator of this thread deserves a wildcard into the Arse Clown of the year competition.

Oh and on another note, you can't compare Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan. In fact, Tiger Woods hasn't even reached Jack Nicklaus status. Nicklaus - you can compare him to Sampras.

LoveFifteen
09-15-2005, 06:01 AM
Okay, I don't think Sampras was the "Greatest Tennis Player Ever" ... but shit, how much do you have to accomplish before you get a fucking ounce of respect around this place?!

niko
09-15-2005, 06:22 AM
Sampras will always be the greatest ever, why? I've stated that before in some forums. Sampras era was era of the Big Guns - Agassi,Courier, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Stich you name it. What's Rogers era - jorneyfuckingman. Don't get me wrong Roger is a great tennis player no doubt about it. There's only one challenge for Roger is to beat all the records. With all the jorneypussiesman around him he'll have no problem in reaching the goal.

megadeth
09-15-2005, 07:03 AM
the reason they look like journeypussiesman is he's too damn dominant and good.

if he were not that godly, roddick, hewitt and the rest could be in their own ways be like becker, edberg, etc.

sampras won't be the best for long because he loses more than 10 matches per year and can't win double digit titles in one season.

granted pete is very great, but it's just a matter of time and roger will take over. hoping there are no injuries though

vincayou
09-15-2005, 07:11 AM
I agree with many of Vogus' point. First, I don't get this idea of greatest ever. To me, Sampras is not the greatest player of all time, just the greatest player of his generation (and a the record slam holder) and the same can be said about Roger.

jacobhiggins
09-15-2005, 07:30 AM
Sampras is not overrated, he's the most accomplished male tennis player in the history of the sport. He's the best ever based on accomplishments, not nessacarily his peak tennis ability, but even then he's one of the best! People need to get that through there head, he's one of the best but there's a few others that can be right beside them and some consider greater! Pete is considered by some as the best ever, but known to EVERYBODY AS ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL TIME! I think that arguement about the competition is weaker now then it was when Sampras played is not true. All you have to do is watch players these days and you can see the difference in the eras. Sports evolve and players are constantly are getting better. The players these days are bigger, stronger, and more talented then the players in the past, that's common fact and will always be the case!

TheMightyFed
09-15-2005, 07:49 AM
It's a matter of time for Roger to prove he's the best ever, being in terms of dominance, invicibility, consistency, defense of titles, versatility (as someone said, you didn't see many grass guys being in top 5 on clay as well), beauty and purity of the game, plus the ice on the cake: open and easy going guy, always ready tot talk to the press and do charity stuff.
You can mix Lendl, Borg, Rafter, Edberg, Guga, Sampras and you obtain Roger.

RonE
09-15-2005, 08:44 AM
This was especially the case in the '95 final, when Agassi was playing far better tennis than Sampras. After beating Becker 76 76 76, 14 hours was just not enough turnaround time for Andre to win two tough best of fives.

The one time you actually had a chance to get something right in your post you failed: Agassi defeated Becker by the scoreline 7-6,7-6,4-6,6-4 in that match :p

zimzim
09-15-2005, 09:19 AM
Sampras is the best tennis player to have walked planet earth. The greatest ever!

madmanfool
09-15-2005, 10:46 AM
Let's not forget that during his period at the top he almost never had an injury of great deal, or am I wrong? I think that's an accomplishment at itself too. And I wonder if Federer will manage to do that also. 2 years at the top is one thing, but 6 years or more is a real challenge

irma
09-15-2005, 12:01 PM
And still about all players in history (maybe 3 or 4 as exception because they had achievements that can compare) would love to trade careers with him :lol:

I guess in tennis it's good to be overrated (but I already said that before on the other site)

vogus
09-15-2005, 01:49 PM
Aussie Opens will not define Andre. His almost-wins and chokes at Wimbledon and US Open - that's where his true legacy lies.



exactly. :worship:

uNIVERSE mAN
09-15-2005, 02:14 PM
Pete Sampras desperately wanted to be known as the greatest ever, as an athlete who was so dominant that he transcended his sport, and for a while he had the general sports media in the U.S. on his wagon. But the fact is that the Peetster never dominated tennis at a level that gave him an undisputed claim to "greatest ever" and that would put him in the same category as Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan.

a few points:

Sampras had only two years in his career, 1993 and 1994, where he was a truly dominant #1 player, and even in those years he failed to win more than 2 Slam titles.

Sampras had a very one-dimensional game after 1996, and by the end of his career, other players on the tour were openly contemptuous of his inability to play from the baseline. At Roland Garros, Sampras was just another guy in the Top 100 struggling to win a couple of rounds.

While the crown jewel of Sampy's career, his 7 Wimby titles, is nothing to sneeze at, you have to consider that out of the few occasions from 1992-2001 when he played a big serve-and-volley player who had an on day, three times he was beaten (Ivo in '92, Krajicek in '96, Feds in '01), and a fourth time (Philipoussis in '99), his opponent retired injured after winning the first set.

Two of the Peetster's USOpen victories against Agassi ('95 and '02)were due, plain and simple, to Agassi getting screwed by the idiot USTA schedulers forcing him to play late into Saturday night in his semifinal matches, while Sampy had many hours of extra rest. This was especially the case in the '95 final, when Agassi was playing far better tennis than Sampras. After beating Becker 76 76 76, 14 hours was just not enough turnaround time for Andre to win two tough best of fives. And when Sampras came up against solid returners in the '00 and '01 USO finals, what did he get? A pair of straight set thrashings.

The only reason Sampras holds the record for Slam titles is that Borg skipped the Australian Open during his 9 year period of dominance. If Borg had bothered showing up in his prime he would have won the Australian four or five times, giving him 15 or 16 Slam titles, and people would still be calling Borg the greatest ever.

In sum, Sampras carved out his place in tennis history by winning 14 GS titles. But does he have a record that is going to stand the test of time qualifying him as "greatest ever"? No way.


boy I wonder how your rep became so bad :lol:

niko
09-15-2005, 02:27 PM
All you have to do is watch players these days and you can see the difference in the eras. Sports evolve and players are constantly are getting better. The players these days are bigger, stronger, and more talented then the players in the past, that's common fact and will always be the case!
All I have to do is watch an old fart Andre playing Roger in the final of USO. And by the way what players are more talented? More players are more pantsshiters.

tennisvideos
09-15-2005, 02:29 PM
Personally, I think Sampras is one of the greatest grass court players of all time. Also a very good hard court player, but not dominant on the surface except perhaps for 2 years or so, and as we all know he fell short on clay. But still, his Wimbledon record alone is testamount to the fact that he was one of the greats.

Borg was perhaps a better all rounder IMO with his success on grass and clay. But he fell short at the US Open which is a crying shame as he definately had the game to win there - he did win heaps of titles on hardcourt. And certainly had he have played the Aussie he would surely have taken a swag of those. So IMO he is underrated.

You have to remember that Laver won the Grand Slam in a Calendar year twice - in 62 and 69. And between 1963 and 1968 he couldn't play the Slams at all as he turned pro. So he is definately underrated (although had the pros been eligible to play the Slams I am certain he wouldn't have won the Slam in 62 as Rosewall and Gonzales were the top 2 at that time).

Speaking of Rosewall and Gonzales, Rosewall won 8 Slams - some before he turned pro in 1957 and some after he came back to Open tennis in 1968. So he couldn't play for 11 years on the tour - missing 44 Slams. How many more would he have won? And he was able to win on grass and clay so obviously had the versatility.

Gonzales virtually missed out on playing Slams for most of his career as he turned pro early. And yet he dominated the pro ranks in the 50s and would surely have also won a heap of Slams. Another underrated player. Same must be said for Kramer and more especially Don Budge who turned pro early after winning the Grand Slam.

It was widely accepted that the Pro circuit in the 50s and 60s in particular had THE BEST players in the world by far - they were head and shoulders above the amatuer players who were competing for the Slams for most of that period.

So ranking the greatest ever in mens tennis is far too difficult. Too many historical gaps because the two tours prior to 1968. But even still, Sampras is definately one of the greats.

Whistleway
09-15-2005, 02:43 PM
Pete said many, many, many times that he was mostly concerned with Slams

One thing that bugs the heck out of me is this Slam Snob attitude. Give me a godamn break.

500 Brownie points for Federer not being a Slam snob and playing with full interest in several tourneys !!

uNIVERSE mAN
09-15-2005, 02:45 PM
Sampras was a joke. Take away his serve, volleys, running forehand, mental strength and ability to elevate under pressure and he's just another player.

WyveN
09-15-2005, 02:45 PM
All I have to do is watch an old fart Andre playing Roger in the final of USO. And by the way what players are more talented? More players are more pantsshiters.

In 1992 out of shape, unmotivated, undertrained John Mcenroe made the semis of both Wimbledon/AO in the process thrashing defending champ Becker at AO in three comfortable sets.

1991 US open a ancient Connors made the semis of USO. does this mean the 1990s were soft?

Its a credit of how good these players are when they can compete at such a age rather then a indication of a weak era.

Plenty of people also said Sampras era was easy compared to the 80s where you had peak Lendl, Borg, Mac, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Nastasse etc

Only thing that matters is what you accomplish, all the rest is excuse making.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 02:46 PM
In 1992 out of shape, unmotivated, undertrained John Mcenroe made the semis of both Wimbledon/AO in the process thrashing defending champ Becker at AO in three comfortable sets.

1991 US open a ancient Connors made the semis of USO. does this mean the 1990s were soft?

Its a credit of how good these players are when they can compete at such a age rather then a indication of a weak era.

Plenty of people also said Sampras era was easy compared to the 80s where you had peak Lendl, Borg, Mac, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Nastasse etc

Only thing that matters is what you accomplish, all the rest is excuse making.

Welcome back by the way.

uNIVERSE mAN
09-15-2005, 02:46 PM
Personally, I think Sampras is one of the greatest grass court players of all time. Also a very good hard court player, but not dominant on the surface except perhaps for 2 years or so, and as we all know he fell short on clay. But still, his Wimbledon record alone is testamount to the fact that he was one of the greats.

Borg was perhaps a better all rounder IMO with his success on grass and clay. But he fell short at the US Open which is a crying shame as he definately had the game to win there - he did win heaps of titles on hardcourt. And certainly had he have played the Aussie he would surely have taken a swag of those. So IMO he is underrated.

You have to remember that Laver won the Grand Slam in a Calendar year twice - in 62 and 69. And between 1963 and 1968 he couldn't play the Slams at all as he turned pro. So he is definately underrated (although had the pros been eligible to play the Slams I am certain he wouldn't have won the Slam in 62 as Rosewall and Gonzales were the top 2 at that time).

Speaking of Rosewall and Gonzales, Rosewall won 8 Slams - some before he turned pro in 1957 and some after he came back to Open tennis in 1968. So he couldn't play for 11 years on the tour - missing 44 Slams. How many more would he have won? And he was able to win on grass and clay so obviously had the versatility.

Gonzales virtually missed out on playing Slams for most of his career as he turned pro early. And yet he dominated the pro ranks in the 50s and would surely have also won a heap of Slams. Another underrated player. Same must be said for Kramer and more especially Don Budge who turned pro early after winning the Grand Slam.

It was widely accepted that the Pro circuit in the 50s and 60s in particular had THE BEST players in the world by far - they were head and shoulders above the amatuer players who were competing for the Slams for most of that period.

So ranking the greatest ever in mens tennis is far too difficult. Too many historical gaps because the two tours prior to 1968. But even still, Sampras is definately one of the greats.

Can anyone even remember the kind of great players that were in Laver's era? Who was he beating in these Grand Slam years?

uNIVERSE mAN
09-15-2005, 02:51 PM
Let's not forget that during his period at the top he almost never had an injury of great deal, or am I wrong? I think that's an accomplishment at itself too. And I wonder if Federer will manage to do that also. 2 years at the top is one thing, but 6 years or more is a real challenge

Pete had a serious back injury in '99. Between '96 and '98 he had more aches and pains than in his early 20's due to wear and tear but nothing terribly serious, he played less tournaments after '95, he had a smooth game and generally had the ability to play through minor problems.

trulliscorpion
09-15-2005, 02:57 PM
Sampras was a joke. Take away his serve, volleys, running forehand, mental strength and ability to elevate under pressure and he's just another player.

I gotta agree. :p Take away everything that makes a certain player good or great, and he, whoever it is, will be a joke. :lol: But you were biased enough only to mention Sampras there when it'd apply with everyone. :p

niko
09-15-2005, 02:58 PM
In 1992 out of shape, unmotivated, undertrained John Mcenroe made the semis of both Wimbledon/AO in the process thrashing defending champ Becker at AO in three comfortable sets.

1991 US open a ancient Connors made the semis of USO. does this mean the 1990s were soft?

Its a credit of how good these players are when they can compete at such a age rather then a indication of a weak era.

Plenty of people also said Sampras era was easy compared to the 80s where you had peak Lendl, Borg, Mac, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Nastasse etc

Only thing that matters is what you accomplish, all the rest is excuse making.
The point I was trying to make that Roger's era is no era. To me it's like USSR hockey team, once USA beat them in 1980 and we made a big deal out of it. Roger has no challenge but beat all the records period.

thrust
09-15-2005, 03:34 PM
Despite his blood disease Pet was the #1 player for six consecutive years, won 14 slams, won the YEC 5 times against superior players than Federer^s top young competition today. Edberg, young Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Courier were far superior players to Roddick, Hewitt, today^s Nadal, Nalbandian, or Coria. As a very young player he beat McEnroe,3-0 and Connors,2-0. Noone deny^s Roger^s greatness, but I think a top player has also to be compared to his main competition of the time.

lizB
09-15-2005, 03:52 PM
Sampras' fault was having a boring s&v game, no personality, anti-Rafter attitude, and doing Sharapova-like runs on my TV with those braggard RBS commercials. If I could take slams away from him on those points alone I would...



ITA. I found his style of play mind numbingly boring and uninspired. It doesn't matter how many slams he won, I don't think he's the greatest player ever or is even close to it.

WyveN
09-15-2005, 03:59 PM
but I think a top player has also to be compared to his main competition of the time.

Sampras's competition has also been criticised during the 1990s. e.g Lendl/Becker/Edberg were at their peak in the 1980s. Stich/Kafelnikov were headcases. Chang didnt have enough weapons and Courier had to many weaknesses. Agassi didnt start treating tennis seriously until late 1990s.

What matters is what you achieve, not what competition you have as there are weaknesses in every era.

ExpectedWinner
09-15-2005, 03:59 PM
ITA. I found his style of play mind numbingly boring and uninspired. It doesn't matter how many slams he won, I don't think he's the greatest player ever or is even close to it.

Tennis is not gymnastics, figure skating, or diving where style, artistic impression matter. Tennis players are judged by the amount of GS won, period.

WyveN
09-15-2005, 04:00 PM
Welcome back by the way.

thanks although looking around the place its as bad as ever here ;)

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 04:02 PM
Despite his blood disease Pet was the #1 player for six consecutive years, won 14 slams, won the YEC 5 times .

Anyone who doesn't realize (and/or whose biased nature won't allow him to admit) why Sampras is one of the absolute all-time greats.... is someone not worthy of engaging in any serious or sincere way. Fuck 'em, in the other words.

Let me dispel another myth, while we're at it: Federer is ALREADY a living legend, and will be referred to as such by everyone who knows anything about anything should he perish in a plane accident, say, tomorrow. Federer is the antithesis of 'boring', and he's the greatest thing to happen to men's tennis since Andrete Samprassi.

And one more for the road: Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Gasquet, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Blake, Guga, Coria etc can easily hold their own, talent-wise, against anyone in Pete's heyday (including gifted underachievers like Larsson, Medvedev and Stich).

PamV
09-15-2005, 04:03 PM
You can go to this site and read how the players of history are ranked according to statistics:

http://www.setratings.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

McEnroe comes out at the most dominate of all time at his peak, with Federer coming in second. Sampras is in 5th place.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 04:04 PM
thanks although looking around the place its as bad as ever here ;)

Worse even.

As for the thread question Sampras isn't overrated.

PamV
09-15-2005, 04:06 PM
Federer is the antithesis of 'boring', and he's the greatest thing to happen to men's tennis since Andrete Samprassi.

And one more for the road: Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Gasquet, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Blake, Guga, Coria etc can easily hold their own, talent-wise, against anyone in Pete's heyday (including gifted underachievers like Larsson, Medvedev and Stich).

Well said. Great point!!!

R.Federer
09-15-2005, 04:10 PM
Sampras was a joke. Take away his serve, volleys, running forehand, mental strength and ability to elevate under pressure and he's just another player.
:) Good one
But if you took all of these away from another player and then had the strip down Pete play the strip down other player., Pete probably still win

R.Federer
09-15-2005, 04:12 PM
Longevite counts for a lot. Pete had 12 years betwen slam 1 and slam 14.
Even though he focus on slam, he racked up enough points to finish number 1 6 years in a row.
Pete deserves to be known as greatest or one of greatest tennis players so far.

Domino
09-15-2005, 04:12 PM
You can go to this site and read how the players of history are ranked according to statistics:

http://www.setratings.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

McEnroe comes out at the most dominate of all time at his peak, with Federer coming in second. Sampras is in 5th place.

Um, these people put Ginepri as the sixth best current player in the world. I like his new game, but dude, that's weak. I wouldn't use this site as a reference.

vogus
09-15-2005, 04:13 PM
Speaking of Rosewall and Gonzales, Rosewall won 8 Slams - some before he turned pro in 1957 and some after he came back to Open tennis in 1968. So he couldn't play for 11 years on the tour - missing 44 Slams. How many more would he have won? And he was able to win on grass and clay so obviously had the versatility.

Gonzales virtually missed out on playing Slams for most of his career as he turned pro early. And yet he dominated the pro ranks in the 50s and would surely have also won a heap of Slams. Another underrated player. Same must be said for Kramer and more especially Don Budge who turned pro early after winning the Grand Slam.

It was widely accepted that the Pro circuit in the 50s and 60s in particular had THE BEST players in the world by far - they were head and shoulders above the amatuer players who were competing for the Slams for most of that period.

So ranking the greatest ever in mens tennis is far too difficult. Too many historical gaps because the two tours prior to 1968. But even still, Sampras is definately one of the greats.


what i think you're saying, and i agree totally, is that it is MEANINGLESS to compare Slam totals of players before the Open Era with those from the 70s onward.

WyveN
09-15-2005, 04:18 PM
Um, these people put Ginepri as the sixth best current player in the world. I like his new game, but dude, that's weak. I wouldn't use this site as a reference.

Also Ginepri is #76 on the all time rankings

Angle Queen
09-15-2005, 04:20 PM
Controversial Title? Agreed.

Correct Statement? Maybe. Maybe not. It is, after all, an opinion.

I'm no Pete-fan by any stretch of the imagination and find myself agreeing a bit with TF:Sampras' fault was having a boring s&v game, no personality, anti-Rafter attitude, and doing Sharapova-like runs on my TV with those braggard RBS commercials. If I could take slams away from him on those points alone I would...

However, I wish Agassi, Krajicek, et al would have stepped it up more often. The mid '90s were the pitts because of Sampras. Which is why I was watching Monica, Aranxta, Hingis, et al.... although I gave up on the game all together (as the women didn't interest me at all) and have only just returned this century.

As I read through the thread, I've been amused that there's actually been some intelligent discussion in here with appropriately annotated rebuttals. But I also think we might be confusing "greatness" with "rating"...or something of that ilk. And I'm also reasonably certain the discussion might have been more cerebral had vogus chosen to focus our thoughts on what defines "greatness" or a "rating" rather than attaching a label to one of the game's legends.

Are we too Slam-centric? And if so, has it always been that way or have the players, tournament directors and other powers-that-be led us down that path?

Is it wrong that Sampras explicitly said that's what he wanted to concentrate on? How about when Hewitt specifically said he wanted to build his year around winning Davis Cup in '03? Both were quite successful in those articulated endeavors even at the apparent expense of the rest of their year. And before you jump on me, I am not trying to put Hewitt in a class with Sampras. I'm merely pointing out that players may have different agendas than the ones their fans would prefer.

With those things in mind, I found the following quote germane...After looking at Sjengster's listing of Top 30 player yrs. by winning percentage, I have to agree that Pete is over-rated, at least as he is said to be indisputably the Best Ever in Open Era. I'm more inclined to consider Borg, McEnroe, Lendl & Federer a step ahead of him. Or perhaps I should say that listing convinced me that merely considering #Majors won in ranking players is too one dimensional.So perhaps I could agree that Pete was over-rated in the general picture...but when it comes to the Slams and from an overall perspective, I still have to include him in the list of the game's Greats. Now is that not seeing the forest for the trees...or the other way around?

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 04:23 PM
Also Ginepri is #76 on the all time rankings

This is a joke source for sure.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 04:37 PM
Well said. Great point!!!

How come you excised the Sampras portion?

Remember: one cannot be a respectable Federer fan if one is unable to extol Pete's virtues when pressed. And vice versa. Not liking either's personality, style or image is acceptable; lacking respect for their 'game' and accomplishments, however, is not.

Lee
09-15-2005, 04:41 PM
The thing that bugs me the most is, people can always find ways to put down one's achievement. I'm not saying some of the pros or cons arguments are wrong. I'm just saying that we can always find faults with people.

Sampras won 14 Slams;
Nay-sayers said he could only win slams;
Sampras was #1 in the year ending rankings for 6 consecutive years;
nay-sayers said his win-loss ratio is not good compare to other players;
Sampras had great serve, a good serve and volley game;
nay-sayers said he could play on baseline;

this will go on and on and on

And it's not only for Sampras.

Borg winning RG and Wimbledons 5 times in the same year;
nay-sayers said he could not win USO and AO;

McEnroes had a good win-loss percentage;
nay-sayers said he could not win RG

I don't want to use Federer as example as he's still playing but even he has a pretty complete games and hardly lose;
nay-sayers said he wins too much, it's boring.

So, basically a player is great/overrate/underrate or whatever feelings tennis fans have toward him/her, base on the very subjective personal likeness but unfortunately, there are people trying very hard to sound objective by pulling all kinds of numbers, statistics to justify their own personal taste. And some of them have the bad taste of trying to put down the players they dislike by twisting facts, using sensational wordings, etc.

And for people trying to use numbers or statistics to justify their believes, the only thing I can say is: when I was a third year statistic student, I already learned how to use maths formulae, theories, etc to manipulate the results to fit my requirement.

I'm not saying statistics are bad, to use them correctly, it's a great tool for the improvement of our lives but it can also be manipulated to fit one's view.

vogus
09-15-2005, 04:42 PM
Worse even.

As for the thread question Sampras isn't overrated.


i'd be interested to hear the reasoning on that coming from somebody who seems to value clay court tennis first and foremost. Does Samp's one Italian title and one French semifinal get him off the hook on that count?

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 04:54 PM
i'd be interested to hear the reasoning on that coming from somebody who seems to value clay court tennis first and foremost. Does Samp's one Italian title and one French semifinal get him off the hook on that count?

Why do you care what I think?

vogus
09-15-2005, 04:59 PM
Why do you care what I think?


what do you mean, why do i care. You're a big fan of clay court tennis, Sampras was a non-factor on clay for most of his career, yet you say he's not overrated. You must have some reasoning behind that.

revolution
09-15-2005, 05:04 PM
what do you mean, why do i care. You're a big fan of clay court tennis, Sampras was a non-factor on clay for most of his career, yet you say he's not overrated. You must have some reasoning behind that.

Because Sampras won 14 GS and was world number one for years and won a clay TMS.

I don't know why adee-gee missed you for the MTF poster with the most nonsense, as you'd be well among the favourites.

vincayou
09-15-2005, 05:08 PM
As someone said, players are consistently getting better, so there is no point trying to compare era. The depth of good players is equally impossible to evaluate.

What was lacking in the 90's compared to the 80's was not a crop of talented players, but more a crop of charismatic players.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 05:15 PM
what do you mean, why do i care. You're a big fan of clay court tennis, Sampras was a non-factor on clay for most of his career, yet you say he's not overrated. You must have some reasoning behind that.

I am not a Sampras fan at all and the fact is that he is one of the greatest ever players, but I am not saying he is the greatest of all time and haven't said that.

For every one thing I could use against him, I could do exactly the same for Agassi as an example.

I don't care either way, but I am not going to eulogise Sampras he was one of the best ever players whether I like him or not.

I only watch claycourt tennis, but Sampras had good wins against Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi and Chang on that surface, so he was hopeless.

jtipson
09-15-2005, 05:16 PM
Um, these people put Ginepri as the sixth best current player in the world. I like his new game, but dude, that's weak. I wouldn't use this site as a reference.

I *would* use it as a reference, but be sure to understand how the system works. It's not supposed to reflect the last twelve months of results like the ATP rankings do. Instead, it's based on wins and losses and qualities of opponents. Probably better suited to historical rankings than current ones, but still quite good, just different from what we're used to. Chess uses this type of system.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 05:21 PM
I only watch claycourt tennis.

This better be a fucking joke.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 05:21 PM
This better be a fucking joke.

I don't joke.

revolution
09-15-2005, 05:23 PM
I don't joke.

Why do you go to the AO every year then? :p

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 05:26 PM
I don't joke.

This better be a joke, too.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 05:26 PM
Why do you go to the AO every year then? :p

Green clay, Wayne Arthurs said so.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 05:29 PM
Why do you go to the AO every year then? :p

Australia is nice little continent, and Aussie Open typically features the best kind of tennis - something that both big-servers and fitness freak-baseliners can appreciate. USO, Wimbly and RG favor either one or the other too much.

revolution
09-15-2005, 05:32 PM
I wasn't criticising it, it was just GWH said he only watches clay tennis, but he goes to the AO every year.

It's my favourite GS, so I wouldn't criticise it.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 05:34 PM
I wasn't criticising it, it was just GWH said he only watches clay tennis, but he goes to the AO every year.

It's my favourite GS, so I wouldn't criticise it.

The AO is clay didn't you know that, it will be if Nadal wins it.

revolution
09-15-2005, 05:36 PM
The AO is clay didn't you know that, it will be if Nadal wins it.

Yes, just as RG was red grass when Henman got to the semis.

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 05:39 PM
Yes, just as RG was red grass when Henman got to the semis.

You know it's true.

raeesa301
09-15-2005, 05:49 PM
I don't think Sampras was overrated. Some people say that there weren't that many good competitors for Sampras in the 90's, but think about how many good clay competitors there are for Nadal (don't get me wrong, he's a great player). And now that Fed has managed to brainwash players into thinking they can't beat him, how many good competitors does he have. I understand he's got enormous talent and is dominant, but the way he keeps on winning reminds me of how Michael Schumacher (when he was a genius) made F1 so predictable it got boring. I know Schumi and Fed wanna win, win, win but it's not great for viewers, and I was/am a fan of theirs.

As for the fact that Sampras only cared for Grand Slams, well why not call Lance Armstrong overrated. All he cares about is the Tour de France, so? Armstrong might've had a more serious disease, but the point is that he also only cared about one single major event and did so well. I know Merckx was a better rider, but you could say Borg was a better player. But the fact that there were better competitors in the past doesn't make them overrated.

SAMPRAS DIDN'T LIKE CLAY COURT. It might've been because he felt he didn't play well, but give the guy a break. There are a few players who couldn't play on all four surfaces, but you don't have to be an all court player to be great. As long as you can achieve things on the surfaces you're good on, you're doing pretty well in my book.

You also can't blame Fed, Nadal and Pete for their competitors. It's not/wasn't their fault there is/was no one good enough for them.

daze11
09-15-2005, 06:37 PM
Clay is the greatest test for any tennis player. As Mary Carillo said, "On grass, you can win with HALF a game. Clay is not so forgiving. You need to be complete and then some." Sampras' failure to persevere at Roland Garros eliminates him from the discussion of being the best, and for good reason. Being a great server does not make up for your inability to produce the type of skill needed to win the most difficult tournament or to be seen as time's best player.

Its not enough to say he didn't LIKE clay...its that he failed on it, and is less of a complete champion because of it.

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 06:57 PM
Sweet, sweet, sweet vcash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Purple Rainbow
09-15-2005, 07:01 PM
In order to start a serious discussion about this topic, we first have to reach some sort of consensus how Sampras is rated. If the general consensus is that Sampras is the greatest player ever, than I have to agree that Pete is overrated.

I'd rank Sampras as the greatest grass courter ever, but his record on clay prevents him from being the best ever. In my opinion, it takes an all-round player to be the best. For me, Sampras comes second after Borg.

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 07:02 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention, Sampras is the most overrated 14 slam winner ever. Other players who have won 14 slams shoud get more recognition. He's also the most overrated 7 time Wimbledon champion. Other 7 time winners don't get the respect that they deserve and it all goes to Sampras for some dumb reason.

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 07:05 PM
Well Sampras, himself, may be overrated. But his big fat tongue, rarely got the recognition it deserved. I credit Sampras for putting his tongue out there for all to see, but it was a futile effort. No one today probably even remembers that tongue. Shame really.

vogus
09-15-2005, 07:21 PM
As for the fact that Sampras only cared for Grand Slams, well why not call Lance Armstrong overrated. All he cares about is the Tour de France, so? Armstrong might've had a more serious disease, but the point is that he also only cared about one single major event and did so well. I know Merckx was a better rider, but you could say Borg was a better player. But the fact that there were better competitors in the past doesn't make them overrated.

.


the Armstrong analogy doesn't fly, because in cycling there really is one event that towers above and beyond all others as a test of greatness. Wimbledon to tennis is not the equivalent of the Tour de France to cycling. Even if you claim that Wimbledon is more important than the French and US Opens (and i say bullshit to that, but it's a different argument), the fact that there are three other events known as "majors" intimates that a tennis player should have a great record at all of them to achieve the status of best ever.

Clearly, Sampras is nowhere near Armstrong in terms of being a dominant athlete. Very few athletes can be mentioned in the same sentence as Lance Armstrong and Pete Sampras is certainly not one of them.

gillian
09-15-2005, 07:24 PM
Eh, I'm not Pete fan, but he wasn't overrated. Just annoying.

Tennis Fool
09-15-2005, 07:30 PM
Tennis is not gymnastics, figure skating, or diving where style, artistic impression matter. Tennis players are judged by the amount of GS won, period.
One of the many things Feds will be remembered for is having a beautiful game.

Interesting how so many different posters have an opinion on Pete :eek: Even brought Wyvern back to the board.

Rex
09-15-2005, 07:35 PM
oh fuck off----------------------------------in my book he was a true champ- i mean why dont you go out there and do what he has done...........ITs not EASY.....

ExpectedWinner
09-15-2005, 07:43 PM
One of the many things Feds will be remembered for is having a beautiful game.



The beauty is in the eye of a beholder.

The style can't determine the place of a player in history books. Cold facts do- the number of GS won, weeks at No1 position, W-L record, etc.

deekaye
09-15-2005, 07:56 PM
lollll u must be kidding hahahaha
federer is the most overrated player of all time.
becker was awesome, sampras was great, andre is greater but federer is bullshit.


"Ays25"

To quote the immortal MacEnroe, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS"
Either that or you are a human example of Quantum Theory ,where nothing makes sense or behaves as it should :)


Deekaye

cartmancop
09-15-2005, 10:00 PM
I think he was a great player, but I don't know if I'd consider him the 'best ever' due to his inability to even compete on clay... Right now Fed ranks lower than him on the all=time great list but with time, & a little luck (no major injuries) I think Roger will surpass him due to the fact that he as a legitimate shot to win 4 GSs every year whereas Pete's whole career he had a legitimate shot to win 3 GSs every year.

tennisvideos
09-15-2005, 10:07 PM
Can anyone even remember the kind of great players that were in Laver's era? Who was he beating in these Grand Slam years?

When Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969 it was Open Tennis (since the French in 1968 Open tennis meant the amateurs and Pros were all eligible to compete) so he had to compete against everyone including Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Gonzales, Ashe, Okker, Emerson etc. This was a legitimate Grand Slam.

But as someone else mentioned, the results of the Slams prior to the French in 68 are dubious at best, as the top players of the 50s and 60s were ineligible to play them as they were playing in the Professional ranks. The top Pro players of the 50s were in fact Kramer, Segura & Gonzales and the top Pros of the 60s were Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver. These are the players who would have taken most of the Slams of those two decades IMO and in the opinion of a number of journalists who covered the sport accurately in those days.

TenHound
09-16-2005, 01:09 AM
I'm glad to see someone brought up setratings.com. I don't think that's the Final Word either, but it's many more steps down the path toward working out criteria for evaluation. Unfortunately the method is not transparent, but he does a few things I think are excellent:

In deriving values he factors in/weights not only the magnitude of the venue, but the ranking of the player defeated. Also, he has different categories of achievement.

Another way to approach the question of whether Pete was the Absolute Best - I assume we're not touching Laver who those who know say was the Best Ever - is to ask yourself if you had to pick one player at the prime of his career to win a match not played on grass, would you pick Pete as the most likely to defeat any player I chose to pit him against?

TenHound
09-16-2005, 01:27 AM
On further thought, let me rework the above question slightly. Suppose you could pick any player of the Open Era - or whatevever range people are discussing, Laver excepted - w/the greatest chance of defeating on a surface randomly chosen, a player of my choosing. (The surface will be chosen by drawing from a bowl w/each surface represented in that bowl the same number of times as it appears on the Top Level Tour. Or you could draw by random number generator... or whatever.)

Those who contend that Pete is the Best Ever, by a fair margin is one only judges #Majors won, would have to say Yes.

(Yes, I know we run into a problem w/the "are we talking about Wimby's grass today, or when he played. I think you can only count the grass when they played - otherwise things get really crazy. Because once you change one factor from an age, then you have to change all & ultimately you don't know what you're talking about then 'cuz the times & stresses have really changed.)

wimbledonfan
09-16-2005, 02:04 AM
The difference between Pete and Roger Federer is quite simple . Pete didn't treat the smaller tournaments with any importance , he viewed them as preperation to the slams . For instance , Pete never won the Canadian open which I was a little dissapointed about , but I knew he would only play here to gear up for the u.s open which he would usually give it his all . I have no doubt in my mind , that if Pete treated every tournament like a slam , he would have had only 3 losses in that year , probably all on clay . Pete also had a condition that made him tire out more easily , so it's easily understandable why he didn't put more emphasis on some of the other tournaments . I think the way Roger is playing will eventually get to him at some point , my concern is that in 3 or 4 years , he won't have the longevity that Pete did when it came to winning slams later in his career . Only time will tell.

NYCtennisfan
09-16-2005, 02:14 AM
^The warmups to Wimbledon is a perfect example of this. He got beaten by players that would have absolutely no chance in hell of beating him at Wimbledon.

TenHound
09-16-2005, 02:27 AM
Roger has already announced that he is tiring.

The other huge difference bet. Pete & Roger is versatility. Roger is #2 on clay & #1on all other surfaces.

ExpectedWinner
09-16-2005, 04:38 AM
The difference between Pete and Roger Federer is quite simple . Pete didn't treat the smaller tournaments with any importance , he viewed them as preperation to the slams . For instance , Pete never won the Canadian open which I was a little dissapointed about , but I knew he would only play here to gear up for the u.s open which he would usually give it his all .

The ranking system has changed. When Pete didn't want to play Toronto, he could make up for it somewhere else. No such luxury today. In 1996 Pete had a mediocre year in terms of results in GS and TMS-es till the USO. He cared about the smaller tournaments that year because he needed it. He won San Jose, Memphis, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Indianapolis, Basel. It looks like winning one Slam and a bunch of the smaller tornaments hasn't been enough for the year end No1 ranking lately. Winning TMSes is a mandatory thing.

adee-gee
09-16-2005, 07:30 AM
Can I just say to the thread starter, you're lucky I didn't see this post before beginning the game in my signature, you would've had a chance of winning ;)

Mimi
09-16-2005, 07:38 AM
you are so smart and right :D :worship:
Can I just say to the thread starter, you're lucky I didn't see this post before beginning the game in my signature, you would've had a chance of winning ;)

nobama
09-16-2005, 11:06 AM
One thing that bugs the heck out of me is this Slam Snob attitude. Give me a godamn break.

500 Brownie points for Federer not being a Slam snob and playing with full interest in several tourneys !!Well you can't be/stay #1 based on slams alone, but I agree, I don't think Roger considers any tournament just a warm-up for a slam. Doesn't mean in a few years he won't take that approach and just concentrate on slams.

nobama
09-16-2005, 11:18 AM
You can go to this site and read how the players of history are ranked according to statistics:

http://www.setratings.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

McEnroe comes out at the most dominate of all time at his peak, with Federer coming in second. Sampras is in 5th place.How can Roger come in second yet....he's in the middle of his career. When Tennis magazine ranked the top 40 players (men and women), Roger was ranked 19 and they said he wasn't ranked higher because his career is far from complete. And Roger himself said this....also that it's difficult to compare players from different eras to really be able to say who was the best ever.

Ays25
09-16-2005, 11:48 AM
Sampras, becker, agassi, edberd, lendl, courier, mc enroe, connors, wilander even maybe stich, chang and prime time guga were all superiour to federer. each of sampras's wimbys are more precious than federers, cause they were won by beating all time greats, not mediocre players. even krajiceks and gorans wimbledon titles were better.
why ? they played with each other, they played in the best era of mens tennis.. when you look at a majors draw you could see 20 top players that can beat each other, but federer doesnt have any rivals! he is good, but if he played on sampras era he would mayy be win 1 slam but i dont think so.. becker or another player would win all of them.
Sampras was no 1 at a time that produced best tennis and had the best strenght and depth of all time.

Sampras = 5 x federer
discussion over

jtipson
09-16-2005, 11:56 AM
How can Roger come in second yet....he's in the middle of his career.

He comes in second because the ranking is not based on achievements but on peak performance. All it means is that his current dominance is rated second only to McEnroe's 1984 in the Open Era.

jtipson
09-16-2005, 12:07 PM
Sampras, becker, agassi, edberd, lendl, courier, mc enroe, connors, wilander even maybe stich, chang and prime time guga were all superiour to federer.

No. There's a case for some of them based on their complete achievements compared with Federer's half-career now, but the rest - Courier, Stich and Chang, are you kidding?

each of sampras's wimbys are more precious than federers, cause they were won by beating all time greats, not mediocre players. even krajiceks and gorans wimbledon titles were better.

why ? they played with each other, they played in the best era of mens tennis.. when you look at a majors draw you could see 20 top players that can beat each other

No, not at all, go back and look at their draws and opponents, especially after 1995. Besides, you can't judge whether Federer's opposition are all-time greats yet because most are in the middle of their careers.

federer doesnt have any rivals! he is good, but if he played on sampras era he would mayy be win 1 slam but i dont think so.. becker or another player would win all of them.

Sampras was no 1 at a time that produced best tennis and had the best strenght and depth of all time.

Pure speculation. Prove it.



Sampras = 5 x federer
discussion over

Absolute bullshit, and you know it :)

TheMightyFed
09-16-2005, 12:15 PM
Sampras, becker, agassi, edberd, lendl, courier, mc enroe, connors, wilander even maybe stich, chang and prime time guga were all superiour to federer. each of sampras's wimbys are more precious than federers, cause they were won by beating all time greats, not mediocre players. even krajiceks and gorans wimbledon titles were better.
why ? they played with each other, they played in the best era of mens tennis.. when you look at a majors draw you could see 20 top players that can beat each other, but federer doesnt have any rivals! he is good, but if he played on sampras era he would mayy be win 1 slam but i dont think so.. becker or another player would win all of them.
Sampras was no 1 at a time that produced best tennis and had the best strenght and depth of all time.

Sampras = 5 x federer
discussion over
Here we have a nostalgic poster who does not see the difference between Courier, Stich, Chang and Federer... I think you lose credit with many of your assertions.

LLeytonRules
09-16-2005, 05:28 PM
Had to answer to this thread, Pete was not overrated, he mostly intimidated his opponents with his serve and his volleys.I enjoyed watching his game, it seems like he didnt put alot of effort into winning RG, he was more into winning wimbledon.I dont think he is the greatest but he is number 2 in my mind.I would put his idol, Rod Laver number 1

1Rod Laver
2Pete Sampras
3BJorn Borg

uNIVERSE mAN
09-16-2005, 07:42 PM
Borg's career was much too short to be considered all-time great. Only 9 yrs.

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 07:45 PM
Borg's career was much too short to be considered all-time great. Only 9 yrs.

Yes, but winning RG and Wimbledon 3 times in a row in the same year, that's a poor achievement that doesn't deserve acknowledgment.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

R.Federer
09-16-2005, 07:55 PM
Yes, but winning RG and Wimbledon 3 times in a row in the same year, that's a poor achievement that doesn't deserve acknowledgment.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

I also see this statistic recently after Roger Federer has won Slam 6.
Roge, Pete Sampras and others (I don't remember all names) have won the six slam after being in 25 slams.
Bjorn Borg has won the slam six after being in 17 (record so far)

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 07:57 PM
I also see this statistic recently after Roger Federer has won Slam 6.
Roge, Pete Sampras and others (I don't remember all names) have won the six slam after being in 25 slams.
Bjorn Borg has won the slam six after being in 17 (record so far)

Federer will not be winning Wimbledon and RG in the same year three times in a row, that's the difference.

R.Federer
09-16-2005, 07:59 PM
Yes the remainder are like this (Number of slam played to win 6 slams)

Borg 17
Macenroe 21
Sampras, Wilander, Federer 25
Connors 31
Lendl 32
Edberg 38
Agassi 39
Becker 42

(Surprise that becker is behind agassi here)

R.Federer
09-16-2005, 08:01 PM
Federer will not be winning Wimbledon and RG in the same year three times in a row, that's the difference.
Yes it is true that this is not likely
But winning 3 slams in a year also is a great achievement (I dont think Borg got that)
These are different credits to each. It is difficult to make the comparison right now because Roge has not stopped play. But if he were to stop this year, it would seem that Borg has bigger accomplishments altogether

But some things are easy to compare. Like within how many slams Roge has won 6 (25) and how many it takes for Borg to win 6 (17)

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 08:48 PM
Clay is the greatest test for any tennis player. As Mary Carillo said, "On grass, you can win with HALF a game. Clay is not so forgiving. You need to be complete and then some." Sampras' failure to persevere at Roland Garros eliminates him from the discussion of being the best, and for good reason. Being a great server does not make up for your inability to produce the type of skill needed to win the most difficult tournament or to be seen as time's best player.

Its not enough to say he didn't LIKE clay...its that he failed on it, and is less of a complete champion because of it.


well said. Great grass courter no doubt. Best ever? NO WAY. As tothers have mentioned his clay ineptness eliminates him

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 08:49 PM
But some things are easy to compare. Like within how many slams Roge has won 6 (25) and how many it takes for Borg to win 6 (17)

The only reason I mentioned that point was the moronic comment about Borg not being a great player.

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 08:56 PM
The only reason I mentioned that point was the moronic comment about Borg not being a great player.


anyone that says Borg wasn't a great one is nuts. Proved he can win on EVERY surface. Cant say that for Sampras.

As far as Federer goes, all one ha sto do is listen/hear the accolades coming from TENNIS GREAT ONES .,ie,-Agaasi, McEnroe, Sampras, etc. Federer does not have a weakness. Wins RG's and he seals his destiny. If it wasnt for an 19 yr old he would have done it already.

LoveFifteen
09-16-2005, 09:52 PM
Federer does not have a weakness. Wins RG's and he seals his destiny. If it wasnt for an 19 yr old he would have done it already.

Thank God for that 19 year old! :)

Lee
09-16-2005, 10:20 PM
anyone that says Borg wasn't a great one is nuts. Proved he can win on EVERY surface. Cant say that for Sampras.

What's the proof? I'm not saying Borg is not great but please bring up your proof here so everybody will understand why Borg winning RG and Wimbledon many times can win on EVERY surface while Sampras winning Wimbledon, USO and AO is not.

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 11:00 PM
What's the proof? I'm not saying Borg is not great but please bring up your proof here so everybody will understand why Borg winning RG and Wimbledon many times can win on EVERY surface while Sampras winning Wimbledon, USO and AO is not.


proof? lol, sure here you go, but you could have looked this up yourself no?

Sampras- i 'think' you willl agree his accomplishments on this surface were ugly, being polite.

-64 career titles for Pete, THREE from clay. Rome '94 his only significant title on clay ( Kitzbuhel '92 and Atlanta '98).
- a 77% winning percantage CAREER for Pete; however drops to 62% on clay, 83% on grass
- overated he is NOT--the best of all time with his record on clay, he is NOT

Borg--too bad he didnt play in the AO's, but lets forget about that, He didn't win The US Open, HOWEVER was he an accomplished player on hardcourt? OF COURSE he WAS;

--9 visits to The US Open, he REACHED THE FINALS 4 times, and the semi's once.
--a CAREER 77% winning percentage on hardcourt
--39 career tiltes in his short career--i'm guessing well over half were on indoor and hardcourt, you can check yourself

Lee
09-16-2005, 11:34 PM
proof? lol, sure here you go, but you could have looked this up yourself no?

Sampras- i 'think' you willl agree his accomplishments on this surface were ugly, being polite.

-64 career titles for Pete, THREE from clay. Rome '94 his only significant title on clay ( Kitzbuhel '92 and Atlanta '98).
- a 77% winning percantage CAREER for Pete; however drops to 62% on clay, 83% on grass
- overated he is NOT--the best of all time with his record on clay, he is NOT

Borg--too bad he didnt play in the AO's, but lets forget about that, He didn't win The US Open, HOWEVER was he an accomplished player on hardcourt? OF COURSE he WAS;

--9 visits to The US Open, he REACHED THE FINALS 4 times, and the semi's once.
--a CAREER 77% winning percentage on hardcourt
--39 career tiltes in his short career--i'm guessing well over half were on indoor and hardcourt, you can check yourself

Your 'PROOF' just proved my post #84. That's it :shrug:

daze11
09-16-2005, 11:36 PM
Borg--too bad he didnt play in the AO's, but lets forget about that, He didn't win The US Open, HOWEVER was he an accomplished player on hardcourt? OF COURSE he WAS;

--9 visits to The US Open, he REACHED THE FINALS 4 times, and the semi's once.
--a CAREER 77% winning percentage on hardcourt
--39 career tiltes in his short career--i'm guessing well over half were on indoor and hardcourt, you can check yourselfwell pointed out!! borg was PHENOMENAL in hard court, evidenced by his dramatic wins--year after year--against connors and mcenroe in the madison square garden masters championships (and later, lendl), which were far more exciting and well-played, i might add, to those us open finals he lost. the 78 USO final, in particular, was poor luck, as he was scheduled to withdraw before the match from a hand injury but couldnt do that to the fans, so he went down in 3 (it was the only match he DID lose to connors in the NINE they played from 1978-1979) but at least had the grace to take the court. he also made the USO final four times. if that is 'poor results'...i dont know what to say.

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 11:38 PM
well pointed out!! borg was PHENOMENAL in hard court, evidenced by his dramatic wins--year after year--against connors and mcenroe in the madison square garden masters championships, which were far more exciting and well-played, i might add, to those us open finals he lost. the 78 USO final, in partivular, was poor luck, as he was scheduled to withdraw beofore the match from a hand injury but couldnt do that to the fans, so he went down in 3 (it was the only match he DID lose to connors in the NINE they played from 1978-1979) but at least had the grace to take the court.

yep, too bad poster Lee doesnt see this, not even the stats helped him out, oh well........

:cool:

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 11:39 PM
Your 'PROOF' just proved my post #84. That's it :shrug:


what are you missing?

Lee
09-16-2005, 11:40 PM
what are you missing?

What are you missing?

Anywhere I said Borg is not a great player?

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 11:44 PM
What are you missing?

Anywhere I said Borg is not a great player?

no but you asked for prrof and i gave it to you, then it appeared you were confused with my post

incidentally you cant win the AO if you don't enter it. Sampras wasnt goign to win RG in his lifetime, never had a chance, never smelt it. Borg was unfortunate not to win the US Open, close in over HALF the times he entered it.

Lee
09-16-2005, 11:47 PM
So it's OK that Borg didn't like to play AO so he never played there and thus his lack of result but it's not OK for Sampras to focus only on Slams. Thanks for the double standards. It's not necessary pointing to you, but other posters.

If you really read my post #84 here, you will understand what I'm trying to say.

Freddi22cl
09-16-2005, 11:51 PM
What's the proof? I'm not saying Borg is not great but please bring up your proof here so everybody will understand why Borg winning RG and Wimbledon many times can win on EVERY surface while Sampras winning Wimbledon, USO and AO is not.

double standard, your getting off base here pal. You asked for evidence that Borg can win on EVERY surface, i gave it to you--want more do you want? Sampras was NOT A THREAT TO WIN RG's EVER--he was not A THREAT TO WIN ANY CLAY COURT event for that matter. If you dont get this by now, i have nothign else to say

Lee
09-17-2005, 12:02 AM
double standard, your getting off base here pal. You asked for evidence that Borg can win on EVERY surface, i gave it to you--want more do you want? Sampras was NOT A THREAT TO WIN RG's EVER--he was not A THREAT TO WIN ANY CLAY COURT event for that matter. If you dont get this by now, i have nothign else to say

If Sampras was not a threat to win ANY clay court event, how can he win 3? All the other players retired?

If you don't get the double standards by now, I have nothing else to say.

daze11
09-17-2005, 12:03 AM
guys, it would have mattered little, believe it or not, if Borg had gone to the australian open. it was played on grass back then, every year borg was on the circuit anyway, and it was rare indeed he could be taken on that surface. few would have complained if they just gave him the honorary trophy despite not attending. (not literally, of course, but he was just that dominant, winning the french-to-wimbledon back to back tricks four years in a row...)

Freddi22cl
09-17-2005, 12:05 AM
If Sampras was not a threat to win ANY clay court event, how can he win 3? All the other players retired?

If you don't get the double standards by now, I have nothing else to say.

Kitzbehul and ATlanta? LOL!!!! this from a 'great one'. This from someone who is argued by a few to be the 'best of alltime'...ya ok, count em all, all those 3 clay court titles.....nice Lee.....

who was more accomplished; Sampras on clay OR Borg on hardcourt?? who came closer to winning that elusive Grand Salm that they were missing--Pete's RG's failure or Borg's failure at The US Open?

hmm......

Freddi22cl
09-17-2005, 12:07 AM
guys, it would have mattered little, believe it or not, if Borg had gone to the australian open. it was played on grass back then, every year borg was on the circuit anyway, and it was rare indeed he could be taken on that surface. few would have complained if they just gave him the honorary trophy despite not attending. (not literally, of course, but he was just that dominant, winning the french-to-wimbledon back to back tricks four years in a row...)


agreed, the AO just wasnt that big a deal back then. It's too bad.

Freddi22cl
09-17-2005, 12:14 AM
""who was more accomplished; Sampras on clay OR Borg on hardcourt?? who came closer to winning that elusive Grand Salm that they were missing--Pete's RG's failure or Borg's failure at The US Open?""

no answer to this Lee?........

Lee
09-17-2005, 12:15 AM
Kitzbehul and ATlanta? LOL!!!! this from a 'great one'. This from someone who is argued by a few to be the 'best of alltime'...ya ok, count em all, all those 3 clay court titles.....nice Lee.....

Oh you forget Rome is an TMS event, that's garbage too or no, it's not clay. It's a red hard court. As I said, you just don't get it. I'm not here saying Sampras is greater than Borg. All the time I'm trying to say is, because you like Borg, so you focus on his success but not his failure and because you don't like Sampras, you focus on his failure but not his success.

who was more accomplished; Sampras on clay OR Borg on hardcourt?? who came closer to winning that elusive Grand Salm that they were missing--Pete's RG's failure or Borg's failure at The US Open?


So what! Borg is good on hardcourt. Sampras sucks on clay. Borg won Wimbledon and Roland Garros. Sampras failed on RG. By the end of their career, Sampars has the record of winning 14 slams and being #1 for 6 years. Borg has the record of winning both Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year 5 times (right). Both are great players. One day, their records may be broken by another player or may be not. We don't know. But is it that important to dismiss other great players' achievements to make your favourite players look good? This only means that you're not confident that your favourite players are good.

I can see you have absolutely no idea the post I keep pointing you to so I doubt you will understand what I'm trying to say here.

:wavey:

Lee
09-17-2005, 12:16 AM
""who was more accomplished; Sampras on clay OR Borg on hardcourt?? who came closer to winning that elusive Grand Salm that they were missing--Pete's RG's failure or Borg's failure at The US Open?""

no answer to this Lee?........

See you can wait for a little while.

Freddi22cl
09-17-2005, 12:19 AM
""""So what! Borg is good on hardcourt. Sampras sucks on clay. Borg won Wimbledon and Roland Garros. Sampras failed on RG. By the end of their career, Sampars has the record of winning 14 slams and being #1 for 6 years. Borg has the record of winning both Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year 5 times (right). Both are great players. One day, their records may be broken by another player or may be not. We don't know. But is it that important to dismiss other great players' achievements to make your favourite players look good? This only means that you're not confident that your favourite players are good.

I can see you have absolutely no idea the post I keep pointing you to so I doubt you will understand what I'm trying to say here.""""


LOL!!!!!!!! Incidentally, pal I don't dislike Sampras and I never liked Borg. You missed the boat......bye bye is right on pal.....

your original question to me was for evidence that BORG CAN WIN ON EVERY SURFACE--anyone who has to ask that question, well, you got to wonder....

:wavey:

LLeytonRules
09-17-2005, 12:29 AM
Lee is really the dodging the question, i would have to Pete probably in the 3rd or 4th spot as the greatest now, i do think Pete could have better then Borg in grass, who knows, these arguments are really up in the air.One thing i did enjoy was watching Sampras play, even if it was a little boring sice he had one of the most accurate serves in tennis.

Lee
09-17-2005, 02:18 AM
Lee is really the dodging the question, i would have to Pete probably in the 3rd or 4th spot as the greatest now, i do think Pete could have better then Borg in grass, who knows, these arguments are really up in the air.One thing i did enjoy was watching Sampras play, even if it was a little boring sice he had one of the most accurate serves in tennis.

If you are saying I'm dodging this question



your original question to me was for evidence that BORG CAN WIN ON EVERY SURFACE--anyone who has to ask that question, well, you got to wonder....

:wavey:

my answer is it's added after I left :shrug:

And if other questions posted by the above poster. The only thing I can say is, what can you expect me to do when the poster first claimed that certain player was not any thread to win any title on clay, then when pointed out that said player actually won 3 titles on clay, the poster dismissed those tournaments were meanlingless while conveniently forgot to mention one of the title is an TMS event.

So however I answer the questions by the poster, it's meanlingless and useless because the poster is not going to accept my answers.

And about Borg, I stated again and again and again that he's a great player, so what do you expect from me? Worship Borg like some of the Federer fans here, that he's GOD?

And are you expecting me to say the expected, Borg played much better on clay than Sampras? That Borg won Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same years while Sampras never?

Or are you and that poster want me to answer Sampras is not a great player, he's not a great player to win 14 GS titles, he's not a great player to win 64 ATP titles, he's not a great player to be #1 for 6 consecutive years.

Freddi22cl
09-17-2005, 02:53 AM
If you are saying I'm dodging this question




my answer is it's added after I left :shrug:

And if other questions posted by the above poster. The only thing I can say is, what can you expect me to do when the poster first claimed that certain player was not any thread to win any title on clay, then when pointed out that said player actually won 3 titles on clay, the poster dismissed those tournaments were meanlingless while conveniently forgot to mention one of the title is an TMS event.

So however I answer the questions by the poster, it's meanlingless and useless because the poster is not going to accept my answers.

And about Borg, I stated again and again and again that he's a great player, so what do you expect from me? Worship Borg like some of the Federer fans here, that he's GOD?

And are you expecting me to say the expected, Borg played much better on clay than Sampras? That Borg won Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same years while Sampras never?

Or are you and that poster want me to answer Sampras is not a great player, he's not a great player to win 14 GS titles, he's not a great player to win 64 ATP titles, he's not a great player to be #1 for 6 consecutive years.


holy mackarel I may have hurt this guys feelings!!!--i'm being refered to now as the 'other poster'---- i am right HE WAS NEVER A THREAT TO WIN RG's, sorry mate, never even made the semi's ( i was being flip about the 3 clay titles won in his ENTIRE career, get over that will ya). And to answer YOUR question one last time. You seem to keep forgeting how this discussion arouse, maybe you should re-read your initial inquiry to me, then have a re-glance at Borg's history on hardcourt--yeah, Borg was definetely a threat to win a GS on hardcourt, making it to the finals at The US Open 4 times........

Fedex
09-17-2005, 03:35 PM
I woulden't say he was overrated. I mean, I'm not a Sampras fan, but the guy did win 14 grand slam titles.

Fedex
09-17-2005, 03:42 PM
lollll u must be kidding hahahaha
federer is the most overrated player of all time.
becker was awesome, sampras was great, andre is greater but federer is bullshit.
:)

AgassiFan
09-17-2005, 04:46 PM
Why is this thread still going?

The answer to the (tongue-in-cheek) title question is an emphatic "No!"

The shallowniks who disagree can start dealing with it... Now!

Lee
09-17-2005, 10:09 PM
holy mackarel I may have hurt this guys feelings!!!--i'm being refered to now as the 'other poster'---- i am right HE WAS NEVER A THREAT TO WIN RG's, sorry mate, never even made the semi's ( i was being flip about the 3 clay titles won in his ENTIRE career, get over that will ya). And to answer YOUR question one last time. You seem to keep forgeting how this discussion arouse, maybe you should re-read your initial inquiry to me, then have a re-glance at Borg's history on hardcourt--yeah, Borg was definetely a threat to win a GS on hardcourt, making it to the finals at The US Open 4 times........

If you want to insult me, do this in public, not hiding behind a PM. And sorry to inform you that your PM does not hurt my feeling that I have the need to post it here. My suggestion is you get a life and don't get so wound up in an argument on a messageboard that you need to send an insulting PM to another poster.

Moreover, if you try to insult a country that's next to a poster's username here, think again. Many posters are not living in the countries next to their names and unfortunately, you just insult your very own country (if the flag reflects where you are) because that's where I am.

So now is "he was never a threat to win RG". Hopefully you returned to your post and changed it because you are contradicting yourself.

And because of your brilliance I explained to you again because it's obvious you never got what I post. That I had kept telling you to read them carefully, because if you did, you'll have answers for your questions that you keep on asking. But you are so brilliant.....

I said in my post #84 here that you can have whatever kind of statistics to fit into what you believe is. And your proof is just that. You have a number of percentage and statistics, they're probably right and I have no interest to verify them or not. It's not that important. Tennis is never a quantitative sport like track and field, swimming, etc... So no matter how people want to use numbers to justify what they believe, it's still not 100% perfect and/or correct. And when you said "proof", I like to know whether it just another set of numbers and statistics and of course, you didn't disappoint me.

btw, it's definitely, not definetely and I never said Borg is not a threat to win a GS on hard court.

Timariot
09-17-2005, 10:47 PM
holy mackarel I may have hurt this guys feelings!!!--i'm being refered to now as the 'other poster'---- i am right HE WAS NEVER A THREAT TO WIN RG's, sorry mate, never even made the semi's ( i was being flip about the 3 clay titles won in his ENTIRE career, get over that will ya). And to answer YOUR question one last time.

Sampras DID make it to semifinals at RG, beating Courier and Bruguera en route...(though admittably both were below prime by then).

wipeout
09-17-2005, 11:44 PM
It seems odd to think that Sampras' record at Roland Garros after seven visits is actually better than Federer's seven visits:

Sampras - 1 semi, 3 quarters, 2 second rounds and 1 first round
Federer - 1 semi, 1 quarter, 1 fourth round, 1 third round, 3 first rounds

Sampras' record also compares quite well to Coria's six visits:

Coria - 1 runner-up, 1 semi, 1 fourth round, 1 third round, 1 second round, 1 first round

Both Federer and Coria obviously have a lot more chances to improve over this but I thought it was interesting little fact that Sampras doesn't look too bad next to them so far. :)

Freddi22cl
09-18-2005, 02:42 AM
It seems odd to think that Sampras' record at Roland Garros after seven visits is actually better than Federer's seven visits:

Sampras - 1 semi, 3 quarters, 2 second rounds and 1 first round
Federer - 1 semi, 1 quarter, 1 fourth round, 1 third round, 3 first rounds

Sampras' record also compares quite well to Coria's six visits:

Coria - 1 runner-up, 1 semi, 1 fourth round, 1 third round, 1 second round, 1 first round

Both Federer and Coria obviously have a lot more chances to improve over this but I thought it was interesting little fact that Sampras doesn't look too bad next to them so far. :)


Timariot, thks for correcting me, he did make the semi's once in 13 trips to Roland Garros

wipeout, good observations--sadly, he simply never had the baseline play for clay--his record after those 7 trips is disgusting. Sampras Vs Federer on clay? can we actually make a comparison here? Pete won 3 clay events his ENTIRE career. Federer has won 5 ALREADY (including 3 TMS).

vogus
09-18-2005, 04:15 AM
Sampras - 1 semi, 3 quarters, 2 second rounds and 1 first round

:)


do you remember offhand which years Sampy made RG quarters? Because i only remember '94.

It's fair to say that Sampras was a pretty good clay court player for the first half of his career, and a walking disaster for the second half. Kitzbuhel is no slouch of an event and Rome obviously is one of the biggest clay tournies (Atlanta was a total joke, but two out of three isn't bad).

Timariot
09-18-2005, 06:11 AM
Yes, Sampras did fairly well on clay during first half of his prime. After 1997 his fitness began to decline and his clay results collapsed.

Even in his later years, many people speculated "maybe he will win it THIS time" although in hindsight it's obvious that after 1996 he never had a slighest prayer.

RonE
09-18-2005, 07:46 AM
do you remember offhand which years Sampy made RG quarters? Because i only remember '94.



'92, '93 and '94. He also made the semis in '96.

In all other attempts he failed to get past the third round.

TennisGrandSlam
09-18-2005, 07:51 AM
Pete Sampras desperately wanted to be known as the greatest ever, as an athlete who was so dominant that he transcended his sport, and for a while he had the general sports media in the U.S. on his wagon. But the fact is that the Peetster never dominated tennis at a level that gave him an undisputed claim to "greatest ever" and that would put him in the same category as Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan.

a few points:

Sampras had only two years in his career, 1993 and 1994, where he was a truly dominant #1 player, and even in those years he failed to win more than 2 Slam titles.

Sampras had a very one-dimensional game after 1996, and by the end of his career, other players on the tour were openly contemptuous of his inability to play from the baseline. At Roland Garros, Sampras was just another guy in the Top 100 struggling to win a couple of rounds.

While the crown jewel of Sampy's career, his 7 Wimby titles, is nothing to sneeze at, you have to consider that out of the few occasions from 1992-2001 when he played a big serve-and-volley player who had an on day, three times he was beaten (Ivo in '92, Krajicek in '96, Feds in '01), and a fourth time (Philipoussis in '99), his opponent retired injured after winning the first set.

Two of the Peetster's USOpen victories against Agassi ('95 and '02)were due, plain and simple, to Agassi getting screwed by the idiot USTA schedulers forcing him to play late into Saturday night in his semifinal matches, while Sampy had many hours of extra rest. This was especially the case in the '95 final, when Agassi was playing far better tennis than Sampras. After beating Becker 76 76 76, 14 hours was just not enough turnaround time for Andre to win two tough best of fives. And when Sampras came up against solid returners in the '00 and '01 USO finals, what did he get? A pair of straight set thrashings.

The only reason Sampras holds the record for Slam titles is that Borg skipped the Australian Open during his 9 year period of dominance. If Borg had bothered showing up in his prime he would have won the Australian four or five times, giving him 15 or 16 Slam titles, and people would still be calling Borg the greatest ever.

In sum, Sampras carved out his place in tennis history by winning 14 GS titles. But does he have a record that is going to stand the test of time qualifying him as "greatest ever"? No way.



How does the overrated guy win 14 Grand Slam Men Single Titles?

AgassiFan
09-18-2005, 03:51 PM
How does the overrated guy win 14 Grand Slam Men Single Titles?

That wouldn't be a rhetorical question now, would it?

wipeout
09-18-2005, 04:32 PM
sadly, he simply never had the baseline play for clay--his record after those 7 trips is disgusting. Sampras Vs Federer on clay? can we actually make a comparison here? Pete won 3 clay events his ENTIRE career. Federer has won 5 ALREADY (including 3 TMS).

Yes, as you point out, it was after these seven visits to Roland Garros I mention for Sampras, his results there were much poorer. Federer and Coria should obviously continue to be very good on clay and have much better overall career records.

Quarter-finals or better in four of Sampras' first seven visits to the French Open obviously means he actually was a respectable outsider for the title during the first half of his career, which I found surprising when I realized this as I was comparing the career records of Federer and Sampras some months ago.

vogus
09-18-2005, 07:24 PM
Quarter-finals or better in four of Sampras' first seven visits to the French Open obviously means he actually was a respectable outsider for the title during the first half of his career, which I found surprising when I realized this as I was comparing the career records of Federer and Sampras some months ago.


so, from '92-'96, Sampras won Rome and Kitzbuhel, and reached RG quarterfinals 4 out of 5 years. I'd say you have to call him one of the game's 10 best claycourters over that span.

Adman
09-18-2005, 07:53 PM
Sampras was overated where is he now not being able to compete with the top players, Agassi is getting to finals of TMS and GS, getting that far is an achievment in my mind Sampras just thought that he was the greatest and that no one will or is going to be better than him but he forgot about one man Roger Federer who is going to beat the "GREATEST" players record.

AgassiFan
09-18-2005, 08:37 PM
Sampras was overated where is he now not being able to compete with the top players, Agassi is getting to finals of TMS and GS, getting that far is an achievment in my mind Sampras just thought that he was the greatest and that no one will or is going to be better than him but he forgot about one man Roger Federer who is going to beat the "GREATEST" players record.

Take it from a die-hard Agassi fan..

Sampras >> Agassi.


Maybe if Andre had dedicated himself to the game utterly & completely from the very beginning, and had worked on his fitness and on improving (then pitiful) serve... and had avoided the injuries that wiped out his 1993 and 1997... THEN, the two players would have been more equally matched.

But as things stand, Pete is one of the Top 3 players of post-Laver era, while Agassi does not crack the top 10 when you consider the "Australia Open" factor as well as the dreck he had beaten in the Finals.

nkhera1
09-18-2005, 10:38 PM
Some things you guys have to remember is that Sampras stopped pushing himself after he won number 13. He said so himself so that he could enjoy some time with his family. Plus he had some disease which affected his stamina which could be one of the reasons he relied on his serve so much and served and volleyed which obviously doesn't work at RG. Plus you need to have good stamina to win RG which obviously Sampras couldn't have with his disease (not saying he didn't have good stamina but it probably could have been better.) Also if I'm not mistaken wasn't there a time when Sampras had a good backhand and the best running forehand. I haven't seen this in person, just heard about so I could be wrong but that tells me that he did have some talent.

its.like.that
10-12-2005, 07:15 AM
the title of this thread is more than enough for me

:lol:

Just Cause
10-22-2006, 02:47 AM
Pete may be good now, but Federer will surpass him.

guga2120
10-22-2006, 02:53 AM
i agree that anybody that did not even get to the finals of the French, is overrated and i know some consider him the greatest player ever, but you can NOt be the greatest player ever without ever winning RolandGarros. Pete on fast courts could match anybody in history, but on clay he sucked.

MisterQ
10-22-2006, 02:57 AM
I'm not going to form an opinion until I hear angiel's take on this.

bluefork
10-22-2006, 03:00 AM
i agree that anybody that did not even get to the finals of the French, is overrated and i know some consider him the greatest player ever, but you can NOt be the greatest player ever without ever winning RolandGarros. Pete on fast courts could match anybody in history, but on clay he sucked.

So who is the best?
Agassi? I have to think that six non-French Open slams are worth more than one French Open.
Borg? But Borg only won two of the four slams, and he has three fewer GS titles than Sampras.
Laver? The competition was very different back then, and three of the four slams were played on grass. Imagine how many GS titles Sampras would have if three of the four were played on grass in his day.

For the time being, I think Sampras has to be considered the best ever. Federer will probably take the title over very soon, but for now it belongs to Pete.

guga2120
10-22-2006, 03:09 AM
i agree in the long run Federer will be the best ever, but as of now Agassi IS, b/c he won them all. You can not just discount clay. Agassi was different from Samrpas b/c when healthy and there, mentally which was rare, was a factor at every slam, the same way Federer is. Pete was not, but Federer still has to win the French and win it from maybe the greatest clay courter i have ever seen, and i think Gustavo could match anybody before him. I still think Federer can and will win the French and become the greatest player ever, we will see if he can take out Nadal in Paris.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-22-2006, 05:05 AM
i agree in the long run Federer will be the best ever, but as of now Agassi IS

:haha:
Agassi of course wouldn't even dare to think that he 's in the near of Federer or Sampras. He's no idiot.

guga2120
10-22-2006, 05:11 AM
:haha:
Agassi of course wouldn't even dare to think that he 's in the near of Federer or Sampras. He's no idiot.

Federer he said after the US Open, he was the best he ever played, now Sampras thats different, show me a qoute after he won the French where Agassi said Sampras was better. Agassi himself was asked on ESPN what would he rather have the the career slam, with the gold medal, or 14, i don't think you will ever get Agassi to say Sampras is better than him b/c overall considering all surfaces its not true.

You can not be the greatest player ever with 0 French Opens.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-22-2006, 05:14 AM
Borg? But Borg only won two of the four slams, and he has three fewer GS titles than Sampras.


You can't blame Borg for that. Borg had only 2 1/2 slams to built up his legacy in the 70ies and he won the by far most important one 5 times in a row.
Borg was widely considered as GOAT during his aera and he is still a solid candidate.

rofe
10-22-2006, 05:17 AM
I'm not going to form an opinion until I hear angiel's take on this.

:lol: Damn straight.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-22-2006, 05:46 AM
Federer he said after the US Open, he was the best he ever played, now Sampras thats different, show me a qoute after he won the French where Agassi said Sampras was better. Agassi himself was asked on ESPN what would he rather have the the career slam, with the gold medal, or 14, i don't think you will ever get Agassi to say Sampras is better than him b/c overall considering all surfaces its not true.

You can not be the greatest player ever with 0 French Opens.

http://www.theworldoftennis.com/past_articles/sampras.html

When asked to name the five greatest players of all time, he [Agassi] didn't hesitate: "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras and Sampras."

That is well-known and was said after winning a French Open title.
Agassi is no serious candidate for the best ever and never was.
That's simple and there's nothing to think about.

The serious candidates are at the moment Borg, Sampras and Laver. Possibly Federer will be the next after winning Wimbledon next year and matching Borg.
3 of the 4 serious candidates didn't win all four Grand Slam titles and one of them played in the by far weakest aera...
Nobody is a perfect GOAT at this moment.

You can prefer whoever you like, of course not Agassi or Schuettler. That would be nonsense.

Aphex
10-22-2006, 07:58 AM
:lol: Sampras overrated.
It's between him and Borg who's the greatest of the open era. The greatest ever I don't have a clue. Tennis between WW2 and 1968 was to complicated. I usually say Laver because he won the Grand Slam twice. But his first one was as an amateur so the best players were pros. :shrug:

vogus
10-22-2006, 03:42 PM
in terms of sheer dominance at #1 and consistency on all surfaces, i think Lendl has to be included in the greatest-ever debate. Agassi however can't be considered because he was too much Sampras's bitch in the big matches. He folded psychologically every time.

kokket
10-22-2006, 03:47 PM
greatest ever?
we will see in future

one thing is for sure - greatest ever in terms of playing style (or shooting skills, talent whatever) is Roger
the michelangelo of tennis (especially on gras) x_X

revolution
10-22-2006, 04:24 PM
:haha:
Agassi of course wouldn't even dare to think that he 's in the near of Federer or Sampras. He's no idiot.

winning RG is a factor. It's clay, its unique from the other surfaces. Someone not brought up on it in the US winning it to complete the four slams was a big achievement.

Federer will surpass Agassi when he has that RG crown, not when he has yet to win the big one off his fave surfaces.

thrust
10-22-2006, 04:30 PM
The fact IS: Pete was the best of his time. To say his game was one dimensional is just palin ignorant. He may not have been the greatest of all time, but to belittle his achievements is not only stupid, but meanspirited. The fact that he achieved as much as he did with that blood viurs is amazing! Plus, he had much more great competition than Roger does. Nalbandian, Ivan L, Roddick etc, will merely footnotes in tennis history.

Freddi22cl
10-22-2006, 04:45 PM
The fact IS: Pete was the best of his time

:lol:

Ryan
10-22-2006, 09:46 PM
:tape: Vogus what an awful thread. Your wta posts at least are based on facts most of the time, but half of this is bitching, moaning, and speculation. You sound like a woman.

GlennMirnyi
10-22-2006, 11:14 PM
Federer he said after the US Open, he was the best he ever played, now Sampras thats different, show me a qoute after he won the French where Agassi said Sampras was better. Agassi himself was asked on ESPN what would he rather have the the career slam, with the gold medal, or 14, i don't think you will ever get Agassi to say Sampras is better than him b/c overall considering all surfaces its not true.

You can not be the greatest player ever with 0 French Opens.

Sampras is the greatest player ever. You're only embarassing yourself thinking Agassi is. Agassi never learnt how to make a volley and was totally clueless whenever it came to using some ability.

14 GS is a fact that speaks for itself and embarass your fallacious argument.

vogus
10-22-2006, 11:18 PM
:tape: Vogus what an awful thread. Your wta posts at least are based on facts most of the time, but half of this is bitching, moaning, and speculation. You sound like a woman.


if you read the first post, you'll see that i brought plenty of facts and concrete information to support my argument.

it is the Sampras supporters who bitch and moan when it is pointed out that their man simply doesn't have "greatest of all time" credentials once you look beyond the 14 GS titles.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-22-2006, 11:25 PM
winning RG is a factor. It's clay, its unique from the other surfaces. Someone not brought up on it in the US winning it to complete the four slams was a big achievement.

Federer will surpass Agassi when he has that RG crown, not when he has yet to win the big one off his fave surfaces.

Federer has surpassed Agassi already easily and both know that.
As written, Agassi is no idiot and he would share that opinion.

GlennMirnyi
10-22-2006, 11:36 PM
Winning 4 slams is a deal only when it happens in the same year. That "career GS" is some deal Agassitards created to elevate him to something he's not.

revolution
10-22-2006, 11:40 PM
Yeah but clay is extremely unique and different from other surfaces and for someone not brought up on it to conquer it was a big achievement. Definitely elevates Agassi higher than what he would be if another of the other three made up his 8 slams.

GlennMirnyi
10-22-2006, 11:43 PM
If Agassi had defeated someone like Guga, or one of the Spanish Armada guys, ok, but... MEDVEDEV? That's no comparison.
Following that logic Hewitt's Wimbledon would be the same as Ivanisevic's... when we all know that there's a big difference playing Rafter and Nalbandian in a final.

revolution
10-22-2006, 11:45 PM
If Agassi had defeated someone like Guga, or one of the Spanish Armada guys, ok, but... MEDVEDEV? That's no comparison.
Following that logic Hewitt's Wimbledon would be the same as Ivanisevic's... when we all know that there's a big difference playing Rafter and Nalbandian in a final.

Agreed.

But only the average tennis fan looks at what they've won, only deep thinking tennis fans look at who they beat to win their trophies.

vogus
10-22-2006, 11:46 PM
Winning 4 slams is a deal only when it happens in the same year. That "career GS" is some deal Agassitards created to elevate him to something he's not.


Why don't you grow up and learn how to debate. You couldn't win an argument against a paper bag.

Agassi is the only player in the Modern Era (since 1978) to win Slams on all 3 major surfaces. The other 10 greatest players of the last 3 decades were all unable to manage this feat. Just on that basis alone, it is a very significant achievement.

vogus
10-22-2006, 11:51 PM
Yeah but clay is extremely unique and different from other surfaces




what point are you trying to make? All 3 surfaces are "unique" and "different from other surfaces".

GlennMirnyi
10-22-2006, 11:54 PM
Why don't you grow up and learn how to debate. You couldn't win an argument against a paper bag.

Agassi is the only player in the Modern Era (since 1978) to win Slams on all 3 major surfaces. The other 10 greatest players of the last 3 decades were all unable to manage this feat. Just on that basis alone, it is a very significant achievement.

Very useful for you to take Connors out of it saying "Modern Era".

Agassi is too the only "great" player that never learnt how to volley. How about that?

Boris Franz Ecker
10-22-2006, 11:58 PM
Yeah but clay is extremely unique and different from other surfaces and for someone not brought up on it to conquer it was a big achievement. Definitely elevates Agassi higher than what he would be if another of the other three made up his 8 slams.

Agassi had advantages because he grew up on hard court, gives him good chances at 2 of 4 grand slams and he has home advantage at a lot of tournaments.
Home advantage, don't know wether it is the right word (Heimvorteil), is something that counts in sport. Statistics support that.
Even in tennis.
Look for example at the multiple US winners at the US Open.
The countless tournaments in the USA.
Chang, Sampras, Agassi, Courier.. all these players won a lot of in their home country, got the support of the fans, all these things.
Statistics say, this advantage can't be overlooked.

Someone like Federer has nearly nothing in comparison.

So, if you want ot give Agassi a bonus for not growing up on clay and winning FO, you also should look at his advantages as US american.
How many of his titles he won at home?

vogus
10-23-2006, 12:00 AM
Very useful for you to take Connors out of it saying "Modern Era".

Agassi is too the only "great" player that never learnt how to volley. How about that?


Connors winning the USO on green clay is a bit different than winning RG on red clay, no? But fine, count that if you must.

In any case, Agassi was a poor volleyer through most of his career, it's true. But, if he were a better volleyer, would have won more GS titles? I doubt it. Volleying just wasn't a part of his game. He didn't really need it with the style he played. Somewhat ironically, if you watch the '99 RG tapes, you'll notice that Agassi did in fact volley much more than usual in that tournie, and very effectively.

revolution
10-23-2006, 12:04 AM
what point are you trying to make? All 3 surfaces are "unique" and "different from other surfaces".

Yes but a lot of players who like grass tend to be good hard courters and indoor carpeteers too, whereas clay is different and not many can master both surfaces.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 12:14 AM
Connors winning the USO on green clay is a bit different than winning RG on red clay, no? But fine, count that if you must.

In any case, Agassi was a poor volleyer through most of his career, it's true. But, if he were a better volleyer, would have won more GS titles? I doubt it. Volleying just wasn't a part of his game. He didn't really need it with the style he played. Somewhat ironically, if you watch the '99 RG tapes, you'll notice that Agassi did in fact volley much more than usual in that tournie, and very effectively.

Tell me one of the greats that simply didn't know how to volley? Today it seems unimportant, but it's the ultimate display of ability in tennis. Few exceptions only prove the rule that there is no great player in tennis that can't volley.

MisterQ
10-23-2006, 12:26 AM
Agassi's ability to volley is irrelevant to discussions of greatness. One doesn't measure greatness by specific strokes, but by the total package. But if we are going to discuss it... the traditional volley (as opposed to the swing volley, which he was quite adept at) was a relative weakness for him, but he chose the time to come in to net wisely. And he pulled out some difficult volleys from time to time, some of which were crucial in his most important career wins.

As for the career slam, it was a significant accomplishment. Most people (myself included) agree that it was not enough to elevate him above Sampras, but it was an impressive achievement nonetheless. Agassi fully deserves the title of "great" player as much as any other 7-8 slam winner.

ufokart
10-23-2006, 12:29 AM
Agassi is the only player in the Modern Era (since 1978) to win Slams on all 3 major surfaces. The other 10 greatest players of the last 3 decades were all unable to manage this feat. Just on that basis alone, it is a very significant achievement.

Mats Wilander won at least a slam in clay, hardcourt, rebound ace (at least i think it was rebound ace in 1988) and grass.

vogus
10-23-2006, 12:51 AM
Tell me one of the greats that simply didn't know how to volley? Today it seems unimportant, but it's the ultimate display of ability in tennis. Few exceptions only prove the rule that there is no great player in tennis that can't volley.


We've just told you. Agassi is a historical great, yet he could hardly volley.

Max Mirnyi, the best volleyer in tennis today, has a hard time staying inside the Top 40. I think that's a commentary on how far great volleys and iffy groundstrokes will take a player in today's pro game.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 01:01 AM
We've just told you. Agassi is a historical great, yet he could hardly volley.

Max Mirnyi, the best volleyer in tennis today, has a hard time staying inside the Top 40. I think that's a commentary on how far great volleys and iffy groundstrokes will take a player in today's pro game.

That's because ATP slowed the courts to boredom.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 01:05 AM
Agassi's ability to volley is irrelevant to discussions of greatness. One doesn't measure greatness by specific strokes, but by the total package. But if we are going to discuss it... the traditional volley (as opposed to the swing volley, which he was quite adept at) was a relative weakness for him, but he chose the time to come in to net wisely. And he pulled out some difficult volleys from time to time, some of which were crucial in his most important career wins.

As for the career slam, it was a significant accomplishment. Most people (myself included) agree that it was not enough to elevate him above Sampras, but it was an impressive achievement nonetheless. Agassi fully deserves the title of "great" player as much as any other 7-8 slam winner.

If he knew how to volley, he could be much greater. That's the point you're missing here.

vogus
10-23-2006, 01:44 AM
If he knew how to volley, he could be much greater. That's the point you're missing here.


I don't know that that's the case. There were relatively few occasions when Agassi needed to volley to win points.

I'll admit, though, that one of the most critical points of Agassi's career was a badly missed volley. It happened when he was serving at deuce, 4-5 in the opening set of the 1995 USO final against Sampras. Sampras floated a desperate backhand right in the middle of the court, but Agassi hit his forehand volley putaway off the back fence. He looked like a high school player. :mad:

vogus
10-23-2006, 01:49 AM
Mats Wilander won at least a slam in clay, hardcourt, rebound ace (at least i think it was rebound ace in 1988) and grass.


good call, i totally forgot that Wilander's AO win in (was it 1983?) was on grass.

guga2120
10-23-2006, 02:33 AM
Sampras is the greatest player ever. You're only embarassing yourself thinking Agassi is. Agassi never learnt how to make a volley and was totally clueless whenever it came to using some ability.

14 GS is a fact that speaks for itself and embarass your fallacious argument.

embarass your fallacious argument:scratch: , if you disagree fine, but don't act like its a fact he is the greatest ever. He is, if you completly discount the French Open which is maybe the most important. How many finals did he play in there? He got lucky one year, he would usually lose in the 1st round to qualifiers. You know Agassi and Sampras played there once, Agassi killed him in 3 sets. On a fast court he was maybe better than anybody ever, except Federer, but thats what makes Federer different he can do it on all surfaces, like Agassi could, only Federer is even more dominant than him.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 03:08 AM
How can you dismiss a guy that has 14 GS?

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:11 AM
Mats Wilander won at least a slam in clay, hardcourt, rebound ace (at least i think it was rebound ace in 1988) and grass.

He won 7 GS titles. AO 83 and 84 was on grass and he was the first winner of it on Rebound Ace.

guga2120
10-23-2006, 03:15 AM
How can you dismiss a guy that has 14 GS?

i am not dismissing him, by saying he is not greatest ever, i don't think you can be without the French, He was certainly one of the greatest ever, and on fast courts like grass and New York he could maybe beat anybody in history, but in Australia a bit slower, he never won with Agassi down there, and Paris he was beatable. So he was still really good b/c he won so many tournaments i think 11 master series and 2 Australians, but if you slowed that serve down he could be taken out, its a fact.

ufokart
10-23-2006, 03:29 AM
He won 7 GS titles. AO 83 and 84 was on grass and he was the first winner of it on Rebound Ace.

Yep, thanks for clearing the reabound ace issue, i didn't remember it very well :)

In 83 he beated Kriek in quarterfinals, Mcenroe in the semis and Lendl in the final and in 84 he won against Edberg in the quarters, Kriek in the semifinal (total beatdown) and Curren in the final.
Nice work :) :lol:

Asmus
10-23-2006, 03:31 AM
Sampras=Serve=Boring!

Rommella
10-23-2006, 05:08 AM
14 Grand Slam titles and 6 consecutive times as year-end no. 1 -- res ipsa loquitur.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-23-2006, 10:46 AM
i am not dismissing him, by saying he is not greatest ever, i don't think you can be without the French, He was certainly one of the greatest ever, and on fast courts like grass and New York he could maybe beat anybody in history, but in Australia a bit slower, he never won with Agassi down there, and Paris he was beatable. So he was still really good b/c he won so many tournaments i think 11 master series and 2 Australians, but if you slowed that serve down he could be taken out, its a fact.

Forget this nonsense.

Schuettler is greatest player ever. Without the Lyon/Tokyo double one can't be the best and nobody did it apart from Schuettler.

Dancing Hero
10-23-2006, 12:52 PM
I'm not over keen myself on the 'best ever' arguments. The game has changed over the years. All anyone can do is be the best of their era. Sampras was. I don't know if he's overrated or not, but he was a great player.

abhinav_shaan
10-23-2006, 03:09 PM
hmmm.. well doesn't he need a rating to be overrated..
or does ATP has a rating for retired players..:)

well sarcasm apart.. come on man .. the guy won 14 GS / 11 MS
so he will always be thought of as 'one of the best'..
as for his die-hard fans he will always be GOAT.. arguments dont work
in something like that.. a fan's personal convictions do..

and this is coming from a die-hard sampras hater

alfajeffster
10-23-2006, 03:42 PM
How can you dismiss a guy that has 14 GS?


You can't. Pete Sampras is, unfortunately, going to go the way of Ivan Lendl, Bjorn Borg, Stan Smith, and many other great champions who get overlooked and are somewhat forgotten because they weren't flashy, loud, or disrespectfully arrogant in the public eye. Those of us who had the pleasure of watching him in full flight on a tennis court, playing the game about as well as it can be played and using all the shots in the game (very well, which is rare even among champions, I might add) do not forget how great he was and still is. You have to go all the way back to Rod Laver before you run into another champion who had all the shots and used them like Pete Sampras did. We are unusually blessed with Roger Federer following Pete's heels so quickly. Talent like that doesn't come along that often, and I remember it when I'm lucky enough to see it live.

mongo
10-23-2006, 04:00 PM
I'm glad you took the time to write such an extensive piece of drivel, rather than end your premise with the title.