Maybe Pete just didn't try hard enough [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Maybe Pete just didn't try hard enough

Manila ESQ
09-16-2010, 04:25 PM
Pete had several years to try and win the French Open. The best he could do was a SF in 1996. Most years, he was eliminated either in the 1st or 2nd round.

When Rafa won the French in 2005, nobody thought that he could win the career slam. But he tweaked his game a bit to win in every surface. He reached the Wimbledon finals 4 times, and won it twice. He won the hard court slams upon reaching his first final in both.

Upon seeing Roger and Rafa complete the Career Slam, it seems that Pete's legacy has been greatly diminished, especially that Roger has taken over the most Slam wins record. Maybe Pete is now thinking that he should have tried a little harder to win the French.:confused:

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 04:27 PM
He wasn't good enough to win 7 tough matches on clay. He lacked the endurance with the particular condition he had didn't help with that.

Couldn't get the balance right of when to attack and when to defend. Had difficulties moving especially on the running forehand, he ran into the plants.

Yes, he played some fine matches on clay, but his backhand couldn't hold up consistently.

Topspindoctor
09-16-2010, 04:32 PM
Sampras wasn't good enough to win RG and he would have never won it, no matter how hard he tried, he was a one dimensional serve and volleyer and that nonsense doesn't work on clay :wavey: You actually need to have a good baseline game to succeed in Paris. Once his serve was blunted, it was embarrassing and funny to watch him struggle.

out_here_grindin
09-16-2010, 04:45 PM
Once his inspiration run in 1996 ended by being beaten by the better clay court player. I think Sampras did lose a little motivation to play there. I read his book and after 1996 he would describe the clay season as "a write off" or maybe mention a sentence of who he lost too. Some years he never he mentioned it at all. Instead of trying to complete the career slam, he seemed to give up on the French title. Never made it past round 2 after 1996

Chair Umpire
09-16-2010, 04:47 PM
+1 @ topspindoctor.

Tennisman82
09-16-2010, 04:47 PM
Sampras wasn't good enough to win RG and he would have never won it, no matter how hard he tried, he was a one dimensional serve and volleyer and that nonsense doesn't work on clay :wavey: You actually need to have a good baseline game to succeed in Paris. Once his serve was blunted, it was embarrassing and funny to watch him struggle.

How can someone 1-dimensional win 14 slams (including 7 on a hardcourt)?

His game wasn’t the least bit 1-dimensional, it was all-round serving, volleying and varied groundstrokes. IMO Sampras had a very effective and above-average baseline game. He could rally with the best of them and hit winners from any angle. He could more than hold his own from the baseline. Though in the last few years of his career his game did revolve almost completely around s/v, but he was still dangerous from the baseline. Remember all those impressive groundstroke winners versus Agassi?

He didn't win the FO because his counterpunching skills were not up to the level required to win the FO, and his backhand was vulnerable, especially on clay (prone to making UEs).

Just because he didn't win the FO, doesn't mean he didn't have a baseline game. What bizzare logic.

Tennisman82.

oranges
09-16-2010, 04:52 PM
Probably the best running FH in history, but Rafatards bashing Sampras for lack of baseline game :haha: :haha:

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 04:53 PM
Probably the best running FH in history, but Rafatards bashing Sampras for lack of baseline game :haha: :haha:

Not on clay it wasn't, he couldn't stop properly. Come on don't be too hard on these people show some kindness.

Topspindoctor
09-16-2010, 05:03 PM
How can someone 1-dimensional win 14 slams (including 7 on a hardcourt)?

His game wasn’t the least bit 1-dimensional, it was all-round serving, volleying and varied groundstrokes. IMO Sampras had a very effective and above-average baseline game. He could rally with the best of them, hit winners from any angle and chip and charge, etc. Though in the last few years of his career his game did revolve almost completely around s/v, but he was still dangerous from the baseline. Remember all those impressive groundstroke winners versus Agassi?

He didn't win the FO because his counterpunching skills were not up to the level required to win the FO, and his backhand was vulnerable, especially on clay (prone to making UEs).

Just because he didn't win the FO, doesn't mean he didn't have a baseline game. What bizzare logic.

Tennisman82.

Sampras' game was one dimensional. He would attempt to play S/V even after second serve. His baseline game was merely "ok" during peak and pathetic during later stages of his career. His backhand was diabolically bad. Thing is, his serve was so dominant, he would often get one break and then blatantly tank the rest of his opponents service games, and just hold his own serve to win the set. That is very boring to me.

Sampras wasn't good on clay because of the fact he couldn't rely on S/V. Take Federer, for example. He isn't a counterpuncher by any means. He was still very good on clay, despite the fact he couldn't rely on his great serve to get him out of trouble. When you took Sampras' serve out of equation, he was atrociously bad. He couldn't rally at all.

Topspindoctor
09-16-2010, 05:06 PM
Probably the best running FH in history, but Rafatards bashing Sampras for lack of baseline game :haha: :haha:

Nadal is a better baseliner than Sampras could ever dream to be :wavey: Take away his serve and he would be a clown :o

oranges
09-16-2010, 05:12 PM
Not on clay it wasn't, he couldn't stop properly. Come on don't be too hard on these people show some kindness.

How can you not ROTFL at the claim Sampras has no baseline game and is a one-dimensional clown? Imposssible even with the best of will. :lol:

He was not a natural mover on clay, as is the case with most of his compatriots. Plus, his baseline game is not geared towards clay, but to claim it's non-existent is a curious combination of hilarious and extremely sad.

oranges
09-16-2010, 05:13 PM
Nadal is a better baseliner than Sampras could ever dream to be :wavey: Take away his serve and he would be a clown :o

See what I mean. Impossible not to ridicule :worship::worship::worship:

LoveFifteen
09-16-2010, 05:18 PM
I have no love lost for Sampras, but calling him a one-dimensional clown is disgraceful. The man was one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

Dougie
09-16-2010, 05:24 PM
Probably the best running FH in history, but Rafatards bashing Sampras for lack of baseline game :haha: :haha:

sampras made a lot of winners with that runnig forehand, so yeah, it was great. The problem was that clay court tennis is not about hitting winners, and when Sampras couldn´t do that, he had toruble getting back to position and left the court wide open for his opponent.

Manila ESQ
09-16-2010, 05:29 PM
He wasn't good enough to win 7 tough matches on clay. He lacked the endurance with the particular condition he had didn't help with that.

Couldn't get the balance right of when to attack and when to defend. Had difficulties moving especially on the running forehand, he ran into the plants.

Yes, he played some fine matches on clay, but his backhand couldn't hold up consistently.

People said the same thing to Rafa after winning the 2005 French. He wasn't good enough to win Wimbledon, or win the US Open. But he was able to change his game and win the Career Slams.

Of course, it was easier for Roger to win all 4 because of his all-around game. It was tougher for Rafa (being primarily a clay courter), and also tough for Pete before. Difference was Rafa probably exerted more effort.

Dougie
09-16-2010, 05:33 PM
I have no love lost for Sampras, but calling him a one-dimensional clown is disgraceful. The man was one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

One-dimensional is probably a bit strong word, but his game was strongly based on serve & volley, other parts of his game were much more vulnerable, and his backhand was his biggest liability on clay. I would say that in his time, when he was at his best, he was considered a pretty complete player. But the game has evolved so much since then that players like Federer and Nadal have given that term a whole new meaning. If a player like Sampras would emerge now, he would be considered a pure s&v-player, whose weaknesses at the baseline would be exploited constantly.

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 05:37 PM
People said the same thing to Rafa after winning the 2005 French. He wasn't good enough to win Wimbledon, or win the US Open. But he was able to change his game and win the Career Slams.

Of course, it was easier for Roger to win all 4 because of his all-around game. It was tougher for Rafa (being primarily a clay courter), and also tough for Pete before. Difference was Rafa probably exerted more effort.

Well not like Wimbledon and the US are that fast now, as they were in the 90s. You do know Sampras is anaemic.

Topspindoctor
09-16-2010, 05:41 PM
Well not like Wimbledon and the US are that fast now, as they were in the 90s. You do know Sampras is anaemic.

US Open is still super fast :rolleyes:

Wimbledon is the tournament with most aces and least service breaks.

As soon as Nadal wins a tournament it's suddenly slowed down, clay etc.

:rolleyes:

Manila ESQ
09-16-2010, 05:49 PM
1989 - lost to Chang (R2)
1990 - DNP
1991 - lost to Champion (R2)
1992 - lost to Agassi (QF)
1993 - lost to Bruguera (QF)
1994 - lost to Courier (QF)
1995 - lost to Schaller (R1)
1996 - lost to Kafelnikov (SF)
1997 - lost to Norman (R3)
1998 - lost to Delgado (R2)
1999 - lost to Medvedev (R2)
2000 - lost to Philippoussis (R1)
2001 - lost to Blanco (R2)
2002 - lost to Gaudenzi (R1)

Topspindoctor
09-16-2010, 05:51 PM
1989 - lost to Chang (R2)
1990 - DNP
1991 - lost to Champion (R2)
1992 - lost to Agassi (QF)
1993 - lost to Bruguera (QF)
1994 - lost to Courier (QF)
1995 - lost to Schaller (R1)
1996 - lost to Kafelnikov (SF)
1997 - lost to Norman (R3)
1998 - lost to Delgado (R2)
1999 - lost to Medvedev (R2)
2000 - lost to Philippoussis (R1)
2001 - lost to Blanco (R2)
2002 - lost to Gaudenzi (R1)

Real clay juggernaut, this Sampras.

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 05:56 PM
1989 - lost to Chang (R2)
1990 - DNP
1991 - lost to Champion (R2)
1992 - lost to Agassi (QF)
1993 - lost to Bruguera (QF)
1994 - lost to Courier (QF)
1995 - lost to Schaller (R1)
1996 - lost to Kafelnikov (SF)
1997 - lost to Norman (R3)
1998 - lost to Delgado (R2)
1999 - lost to Medvedev (R2)
2000 - lost to Philippoussis (R1)
2001 - lost to Blanco (R2)
2002 - lost to Gaudenzi (R1)

We get it. Sampras was poor at RG and after 96, he really didn't care. There were better players on clay or is just an excuse to talk up Nadal.

Just like heaven
09-16-2010, 06:01 PM
I think it's true. You don't need many dimentions in order to be successful there. You don't even need to move great..

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7231/87336952.jpg

Manila ESQ
09-16-2010, 06:39 PM
We get it. Sampras was poor at RG and after 96, he really didn't care. There were better players on clay or is just an excuse to talk up Nadal.

Actually, Pete had some good results with a few QF appearances and one SF. I guess, you said it. After 1996, he just didn't care anymore. He even lost to Mark P on clay.

It's probably because during that time, achieving the career slam was really rare. Greats like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendl, etc. were not able to do it. So, Pete just went after Emerson's record, and gave up on the career slam.

But now, Roger and Rafa did it in back-to-back years, so Pete is probably thinking he could have done more to achieve it too.

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 06:44 PM
Actually, Pete had some good results with a few QF appearances and one SF. I guess, you said it. After 1996, he just didn't care anymore. He even lost to Mark P on clay.

It's probably because during that time, achieving the career slam was really rare. Greats like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendl, etc. were not able to do it. So, Pete just went after Emerson's record, and gave up on the career slam.

But now, Roger and Rafa did it in back-to-back years, so Pete is probably thinking he could have done more to achieve it too.

I am very aware of Sampras's record on clay. He beast most of he best players on clay at least once.

Well there was a deeper clay field, plus it's going to be harder when there is greater surface differentials. Think about that, can't apply conditions today to a time when things weren't even close to being the same.

McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander they were competing against each other from the mid 70s to the late 80s for the Slams, not exactly easy to do it in that time. Of course they weren't all at the same time, but there was crossover.

How could Sampras do it when he wasn't good enough on clay for a 2 week period.

Castafiore
09-16-2010, 06:49 PM
Probably the best running FH in history, but Rafatards bashing Sampras for lack of baseline game :haha: :haha:
I don't think it's a matter of Rafatards although they're part of it. It's the entire ludicrous GOAT debate that's ongoing in here regardless of the mud-throwing between tards and snobs and such. It used to be just a Federer - Sampras debate and now, Rafa is in the mix in the threads about it although I don't perceive him as the GOAT either but I don't really care for that debate through various times, generations, racquet technology. It's pointless IMO.

Sampras was known for his serve obviously and I disliked watching Sampras with a passion but in no way, shape or form was his game all about serve.

When Sampras was dominating, the weak era would pop up about him and they would point at the golden era of Connors/JMac/Borg/.... Now that it's Federer's and Nadal's moment, they have the weak era while Sampras + Borg,...had a much stronger era. Come back when Fed and Nadal are retired and wait until we're witnessing another top talent dominating the sport and we'll see yet another "wear era" argument, pointing out that Fed/Nadal + Sampras + Borg...had the stronger era. It's all part of the debate.

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 06:52 PM
I don't think it's a matter of Rafatards although they're part of it. It's the entire ludicrous GOAT debate that's ongoing in here regardless of the mud-throwing between tards and such. It used to be just a Federer - Sampras debate and now, Rafa is in the mix in the threads about it although I don't perceive him as the GOAT either but I don't really care for that debate through various times, generations, racquet technology. It's pointless IMO.

Sampras was known for his serve obviously and I disliked watching Sampras with a passion but in no way, shape or form was his game all about serve.

You are not an idiot though.

fangirl
09-16-2010, 06:54 PM
Maybe this thread just isn't stupid enough.

Sapeod
09-16-2010, 06:57 PM
Sampras just wasn't made for clay.

Persimmon
09-16-2010, 07:04 PM
I think it's true. You don't need many dimentions in order to be successful there. You don't even need to move great..

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7231/87336952.jpg

:worship:

Infinity
09-16-2010, 07:05 PM
Don't forget the surface homogenization these days. Even a one-dimensional like Soderling is dangerous on 3 surfaces.

Johnny Groove
09-16-2010, 08:06 PM
I doubt Sampras would have won RG in any era. As stated before, his backhand was easily attackable and his movement simply didn't stack up to the clay courters of his time.

The Magician
09-16-2010, 08:07 PM
Don't forget the surface homogenization these days. Even a one-dimensional like Soderling is dangerous on 3 surfaces.

+1

Also Pete never got an easy draw like Nadal. This USO Nadal only had to play one GS champion in Djokovic. Pete was able to beat Courier (who is in another league from Nole), so with an extremely kind draw he would have won. Whether it was bad luck, or because the depth at the top made draws like you see today impossible (probably both) Pete never made it to the final. Doesn't really diminish from his overall legacy, Pete has definitely redeemed himself after Fedal showed how easy it is now to win a CGS compared to any time in history since they went off 3 grass court GS.

kindling
09-16-2010, 09:43 PM
He'd already won the 3 slams and knew that RG isn't a real slam.

Manila ESQ
09-16-2010, 09:47 PM
+1

Also Pete never got an easy draw like Nadal. This USO Nadal only had to play one GS champion in Djokovic. Pete was able to beat Courier (who is in another league from Nole), so with an extremely kind draw he would have won. Whether it was bad luck, or because the depth at the top made draws like you see today impossible (probably both) Pete never made it to the final. Doesn't really diminish from his overall legacy, Pete has definitely redeemed himself after Fedal showed how easy it is now to win a CGS compared to any time in history since they went off 3 grass court GS.

Yeah, although Andre did it in 1999 too.

The luck of the draw is very important too. That's why I also think Pete should not have given up after 1996. The draw could have opened up in one of those years too.

I guess some people think that he was not good enough to win at the French, but for me, it is more of a case of Pete not trying hard enough (esp after seeing how Roger and Rafa were so determined to get the career slam). Maybe it wasn't that important to Pete at that time. Emerson's record was more important to him, so he concentrated on Wimbledon and US Open.

timafi
09-16-2010, 10:04 PM
Sampras simply wasn't good enough on clay:shrug: and probably thought nobody would surpass his 14 slams so he didn't make 1 iota of effort to be more consistent yearly in Paris and give himself a chance to win there;like Federer:shrug:

Sampras starting talking about Paris a lot more since 2006 which is the time Federer started making finals there and losing to the same opponent in Nadal and he talked about it even more when Federer won it last year:lol:

Singularity
09-16-2010, 10:25 PM
+1
Also Pete never got an easy draw like Nadal. This USO Nadal only had to play one GS champion in Djokovic.
Pete had several easy draws:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=158255&highlight=draws&page=2

guga2120
09-16-2010, 10:55 PM
Everything with him came down to his movement. He like alot of Americans would hit the ball, and then slide after it, and be out of position.

The Magician
09-16-2010, 10:57 PM
Pete had several easy draws:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=158255&highlight=draws&page=2

Of course, I'm talking about at RG specifically. Nadal has had a bunch of easy draws at RG but it's not a joke like the USO draw was because he's expected to win anyway. If Sampras had gotten a joke draw at RG one year and won it would be a massive shame for the sport, sort of like Agassi's draw at Rg 1999. Fed is probably the only player who truly earned his CGS, and I say that because I'm speculating Del Potro will be a major force on clay in the future.

moon language
09-16-2010, 11:05 PM
Sampras raised the open era bar. He set a new target and each time that happens the focus of people chasing the records is altered. If he knew 14 wouldn't hold might he have done things differently, especially in the latter part of his career? Possibly. Who cares.

BeautifulTommy
09-16-2010, 11:24 PM
People are forgetting something.

In those days, Wimbledon was played on a much faster surface. If you played great serve and volley tennis you would win Wimbledon, and that's what Sampras consistently did. Therefore there was a stronger incentive to get off the fence, as it were, and choose your style of play.

Had Sampras tweaked his game to win RG, he'd have probably been less formidable at Wimbledon with less time to prepare.

For Federer and Nadal the transition was easier because the grass is slower, and therefore the risks of fiddling around with grips and techniques not as great. Federer and Nadal play predominantly from the baseline anyway. However, it's possible neither would have won Wimbledon with that style in the 90s, especially Rafa.

Roddickominator
09-17-2010, 03:58 AM
Mug thread....it will be truly awful to witness Rafatards as their man ascends up the ladder of great players. I have nothing against Nadal and respect him greatly, but holy cow some of his fanboys are idiots.

He'd already won the 3 slams and knew that RG isn't a real slam.

I wouldn't mind if we started discounting the French Open "Slam" wins....somebody should actually make a thread with that idea in mind. Everyone knows it's the Slam that most players don't care about.

Roddickominator
09-17-2010, 03:59 AM
People are forgetting something.

In those days, Wimbledon was played on a much faster surface. If you played great serve and volley tennis you would win Wimbledon, and that's what Sampras consistently did. Therefore there was a stronger incentive to get off the fence, as it were, and choose your style of play.

Had Sampras tweaked his game to win RG, he'd have probably been less formidable at Wimbledon with less time to prepare.

For Federer and Nadal the transition was easier because the grass is slower, and therefore the risks of fiddling around with grips and techniques not as great. Federer and Nadal play predominantly from the baseline anyway. However, it's possible neither would have won Wimbledon with that style in the 90s, especially Rafa.

Good post...and simply common sense to anyone with a brain. Talking about how "bad" Sampras' baseline game was compared to current players who have developed their games completely around baseline play with souped up rackets and strings on slower courts is pretty absurd.

Topspindoctor
09-17-2010, 04:06 AM
I wouldn't mind if we started discounting the French Open "Slam" wins....somebody should actually make a thread with that idea in mind. Everyone knows it's the Slam that most players don't care about.

How predictable. A fan of Roddick thinking RG doesn't matter :o Could it be because he's an absolute mug on clay (as well as the rest of American players!)?

RG is real tennis, not mindless serving and flat hitting from the baseline :wavey: Just because most players don't have the ground game for it, doesn't mean they don't care. :wavey:

Roddickominator
09-17-2010, 04:15 AM
RG is real tennis, not mindless serving and flat hitting from the baseline :wavey: Just because most players don't have the ground game for it, doesn't mean they don't care. :wavey:

It does mean that they don't care. If they did care, they'd obviously develop their game to improve in the areas that would make them solid clay court players.

Clay tennis is about as "real" as children hitting a ball around in the mud because they are too poor to play on a real court. It's a barbaric surface unfit for playing the game....especially at the highest levels.

Topspindoctor
09-17-2010, 04:18 AM
It does mean that they don't care. If they did care, they'd obviously develop their game to improve in the areas that would make them solid clay court players.

Clay tennis is about as "real" as children hitting a ball around in the mud because they are too poor to play on a real court. It's a barbaric surface unfit for playing the game....especially at the highest levels.

Tell me if Fed didn't care about RG. Or Agassi. Please. Most players are just clay mugs and don't even bother to improve there. It's a great time of the season, because I enjoy all-serve players struggle and lose early.

tazzz
09-17-2010, 07:59 AM
OH COME ON!!!!!
I saw some really stupid things here, but that CRAP from Topspindoctor, that is the top!!!! Sampras a one dimensional clown?!! You can not be serious. Did you ever watch him play? Do you even know who are you talking about? He had the best serve and volley game in history so why should he play from baseline when he can win his point in like 10 seconds?
The funny thing about Pete was that even when he had to play from baseline he was the best. I think you will consider Andre Agassi as a good base line player. I have no idea how old are you but I for example watched Pete vs Andre in Wimbledon and Masters finals in 1999. Both were for the title and both ended 3-0 for Pete.
I don't know if you will even think about this, because according to what you wrote you really DON'T understand tennis.

You don't have to like Pete, but be normal and don't say such a stupid things and give him respect he deserves. Even when I like Rafa for beeing such a modest person etc. I don't like his game too much. But I respect him as one of the best, because what he had achieved already. So please try to do the same with Pete. Because people like you are maybe the biggest reason that other ones hate Rafa.

P.S. Do you think Rafa feels the same way about Pete like you???

P.S.S. You enjoy big servers to end in first rounds in Paris don't you? Big servers like who? Robin Soderling? :))))))))))

Action Jackson
09-17-2010, 08:20 AM
OH COME ON!!!!!
I saw some really stupid things here, but that CRAP from Topspindoctor, that is the top!!!!

Don't take Topspindoctor seriously.

Priam
09-17-2010, 08:39 AM
Pete tried... and failed. I thought hiring Higueras would translate into a good clay season for him that one year, but no.

Shirogane
09-17-2010, 11:51 AM
People are forgetting something.

In those days, Wimbledon was played on a much faster surface. If you played great serve and volley tennis you would win Wimbledon, and that's what Sampras consistently did. Therefore there was a stronger incentive to get off the fence, as it were, and choose your style of play.

Had Sampras tweaked his game to win RG, he'd have probably been less formidable at Wimbledon with less time to prepare.

For Federer and Nadal the transition was easier because the grass is slower, and therefore the risks of fiddling around with grips and techniques not as great. Federer and Nadal play predominantly from the baseline anyway. However, it's possible neither would have won Wimbledon with that style in the 90s, especially Rafa.


Neither would probably have, that said Federer did win it serving and volleying back in 2003.

tennis2tennis
09-17-2010, 12:50 PM
when at your prime, you lose to mark philippoussis in clay...than your not trying hard enough! But it's not like the clay was speeded up the way grass is slowed down for him to adjust ;)

A_Skywalker
09-17-2010, 01:05 PM
when at your prime, you lose to mark philippoussis in clay...than your not trying hard enough! But it's not like the clay was speeded up the way grass is slowed down for him to adjust ;)

Speed up clay :rocker2:

oranges
09-17-2010, 01:08 PM
when at your prime, you lose to mark philippoussis in clay...than your not trying hard enough! But it's not like the clay was speeded up the way grass is slowed down for him to adjust ;)

RG was sped up, but all of it was after Sampras' time. Doubt it would help him win one either way

timafi
09-17-2010, 01:24 PM
Mug thread....it will be truly awful to witness Rafatards as their man ascends up the ladder of great players. I have nothing against Nadal and respect him greatly, but holy cow some of his fanboys are idiots.



I wouldn't mind if we started discounting the French Open "Slam" wins....somebody should actually make a thread with that idea in mind. Everyone knows it's the Slam that most players don't care about.


at this point;If I were you;Roddick fans and Roddick especially;I would start considering RG as slam which it is because your boy at this point stinks so bad he is losing at his favorite slams on surfaces he considers himself the most successful on to nobodies and he has been consistent lately at losing to losers:tape:.Roddick is 28 and not getting younger;not getting any faster and especially not getting any better:tape:;so wherever he plays he should take it seriously;make adjustments and start sliding and give himself a chance to win;even in Paris cause Roddick is done;finish;finito;dunzo:tape:

his win in Miami was nothing but a FLUKE!

thrust
09-17-2010, 03:21 PM
Nadal is a better baseliner than Sampras could ever dream to be :wavey: Take away his serve and he would be a clown :o

The fact is, the serve IS a very important part of the game. Nadal proved that in this year's USO. Pete had a great serve, overhead, volley and forehand. Therefore he could still be a great player with just a good or very good backhand.

thrust
09-17-2010, 03:23 PM
Am watching the French-Argentina Davis Cup match. Llorda, at his best, is an exciting player! Love his style of tennis.

Manila ESQ
09-17-2010, 05:28 PM
OH COME ON!!!!!
I saw some really stupid things here, but that CRAP from Topspindoctor, that is the top!!!! Sampras a one dimensional clown?!! You can not be serious. Did you ever watch him play? Do you even know who are you talking about? He had the best serve and volley game in history so why should he play from baseline when he can win his point in like 10 seconds?
The funny thing about Pete was that even when he had to play from baseline he was the best. I think you will consider Andre Agassi as a good base line player. I have no idea how old are you but I for example watched Pete vs Andre in Wimbledon and Masters finals in 1999. Both were for the title and both ended 3-0 for Pete.
I don't know if you will even think about this, because according to what you wrote you really DON'T understand tennis.

You don't have to like Pete, but be normal and don't say such a stupid things and give him respect he deserves. Even when I like Rafa for beeing such a modest person etc. I don't like his game too much. But I respect him as one of the best, because what he had achieved already. So please try to do the same with Pete. Because people like you are maybe the biggest reason that other ones hate Rafa.

P.S. Do you think Rafa feels the same way about Pete like you???

P.S.S. You enjoy big servers to end in first rounds in Paris don't you? Big servers like who? Robin Soderling? :))))))))))


I am a fan of Andre, and I have seen a lot of Pete-Andre matches. I know how good Pete was during his time, and I know how determined he was to win (even compared to Andre) his matches. When he kept losing the French, I just thought that maybe it was just too hard to get the career slam. Other greats before him like Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc... all failed.

But after seeing how Roger and Rafa (plus Andre) achieved the career slam, I thought that Pete maybe just did not try hard enough. But some people here are saying that he was not good enough. I'm saying he was good enough to win the French, but maybe just gave up on it. There lies the difference in opinion.

Much as I admire Pete's serve and volley game, I still think that the best serve and volleyer I have ever seen was Stefan Edberg.:worship:

Action Jackson
09-17-2010, 05:31 PM
I am a fan of Andre, and I have seen a lot of Pete-Andre matches. I know how good Pete was during his time, and I know how determined he was to win (even compared to Andre) his matches. When he kept losing the French, I just thought that maybe it was just too hard to get the career slam. Other greats before him like Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc... all failed.

But after seeing how Roger and Rafa (plus Andre) achieved the career slam, I thought that Pete maybe just did not try hard enough. But some people here are saying that he was not good enough. I'm saying he was good enough to win the French, but maybe just gave up on it. There lies the difference in opinion.

Much as I admire Pete's serve and volley game, I still think that the best serve and volleyer I have ever seen was Stefan Edberg.:worship:

No, you are making the simple mistake. If Fed/Nadal could do it when Sampras couldn't, when the conditions weren't even close to being similar. It's the if Albert Costa and Gaudio can win a Slam why haven't Rios or Nalbandian won one.

Manila ESQ
09-17-2010, 07:47 PM
No, you are making the simple mistake. If Fed/Nadal could do it when Sampras couldn't, when the conditions weren't even close to being similar. It's the if Albert Costa and Gaudio can win a Slam why haven't Rios or Nalbandian won one.

Rios, Nalbandian, probably because of injuries? Costa and Gaudio are one-slam wonders, so I don't think you can compare Pete to them.

There are no right or wrong opinions, right? Pete reached the RG QFs several times and 1 SF, and he even won the Italian Open. So, my opinion is that he had a strong chance to win RG, but as you yourself said, he just gave up after 1996. Did he do anything to improve his clay court game (in the same way that Rafa tried to improve his hard court game in order to have a better chance at winning the US Open)?

oranges
09-17-2010, 08:34 PM
Pete was not good enough on clay to win RG, there was always going to be someone better on the red stuff to stop him by the time of semi/final. Today's conditions would be better for him, but I think it still wouldn't be enough. He'd still need better movement on clay no matter what.

GuiroNl
09-17-2010, 09:05 PM
I remember once having read a Sampras interview in which he says he now regrets not having made more adjustments to his game in order to win in Paris. Among the things he could have tried he mentioned using a bigger racket head. I can't find the original interview, but it is also mentioned in this CNN blog post.

Athletes, for the most part, hate change, especially so close to a tournament, because when pressure situations arise, as they are apt to do in tennis, technique that’s not familiar usually breaks down.

That’s the reason Pete Sampras never made a change before the French Open. He says he now regrets not using a larger-headed racket in order to try and conquer the Roland Garros clay. He of course didn’t win in Paris and so failed to complete the career grand-slam.


http://worldsport.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/modest-state-of-mind/

GuiroNl
09-17-2010, 09:19 PM
I remember once having read a Sampras interview in which he says he now regrets not having made more adjustments to his game in order to win in Paris. Among the things he could have tried he mentioned using a bigger racket head. I can't find the original interview, but it is also mentioned in this CNN blog post.



http://worldsport.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/modest-state-of-mind/

I think I found a repost of the article and it shows my memory is not that great. The Sampras thing was mentioned in an article in which it was suggested that Federer should use a bigger frame :lol:

Manila ESQ
09-17-2010, 10:03 PM
I remember once having read a Sampras interview in which he says he now regrets not having made more adjustments to his game in order to win in Paris. Among the things he could have tried he mentioned using a bigger racket head. I can't find the original interview, but it is also mentioned in this CNN blog post.



http://worldsport.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/modest-state-of-mind/

Thanks! Maybe he could really have done more, although some people are saying it would still not be enough. We can only speculate though.

french Open 1990-2002

1990 ECU Andrés Gómez def USA Andre Agassi 6–3, 2–6, 6–4, 6–4
1991 USA Jim Courier def USA Andre Agassi 3–6, 6–4, 2–6, 6–1, 6–4
1992 USA Jim Courier def TCH Petr Korda 7–5, 6–2, 6–1
1993 ESP Sergi Bruguera def USA Jim Courier 6–4, 2–6, 6–2, 3–6, 6–3
1994 ESP Sergi Bruguera def ESP Alberto Berasategui 6–3, 7–5, 2–6, 6–1
1995 AUT Thomas Muster def USA Michael Chang 7–5, 6–2, 6–4
1996 RUS Yevgeny Kafelnikov def GER Michael Stich 7–6(7–4), 7–5, 7–6(7–4)
1997 BRA Gustavo Kuerten def ESP Sergi Bruguera 6–3, 6–4, 6–2
1998 ESP Carlos Moyà def ESP Àlex Corretja 6–3, 7–5, 6–3
1999 USA Andre Agassi def UKR Andrei Medvedev 1–6, 2–6, 6–4, 6–3, 6–4
2000 BRA Gustavo Kuerten def SWE Magnus Norman 6–2, 6–3, 2–6, 7–6(8–6)
2001 BRA Gustavo Kuerten def ESP Àlex Corretja 6–7(3–7), 7–5, 6–2, 6–0
2002 ESP Albert Costa def ESP Juan Carlos Ferrero 6–1, 6–0, 4–6, 6–3

It's probably tough for Pete to defeat these guys, but we see Korda and Stich reaching the finals. Who knows? If he changed his game a bit, he could have done better.

Manila ESQ
09-17-2010, 10:07 PM
John McEnroe and Stefan Edberg also reached the finals in 1984 and 1989 respectively, but lost.

Shirogane
09-17-2010, 10:23 PM
It's probably tough for Pete to defeat these guys, but we see Korda and Stich reaching the finals. Who knows? If he changed his game a bit, he could have done better.

Certainly tougher for him to reach the semis. And if he'd changed his game, maybe he wouldn't have done as well everywhere else.

timafi
09-17-2010, 10:28 PM
John McEnroe and Stefan Edberg also reached the finals in 1984 and 1989 respectively, but lost.

I really think McEnroe gave himself a good chance to win but he he fucking let a flash bulb get in the way of tennis immortality:shrug:


it still pains me to see that loss final from McEnroe.Til this day;every year he talks about about not winning in Paris.HE talks about having nightmares;we have to give him credit;he worked hard;fought to get in the finals but let his temper get in the way and has admitted to that and for that I give him even more respect:bowdown:

Sampras can bitch about Federer and probably now Nadal having won ALL 4 slam and bitch about using a bigger sized frame but he never talked about working harder on his game:shrug:Sampras seems like he liked it easy and clay doesn't do it so he never got rewarded:shrug:

I am happy Sampras never even managed to make even 1 finals;much less win it:D

timafi
09-17-2010, 10:29 PM
Certainly tougher for him to reach the semis. And if he'd changed his game, maybe he wouldn't have done as well everywhere else.

Rubbish!
Roger Federer has done well everywhere

Shirogane
09-17-2010, 10:32 PM
So has Nadal. Your point?

oranges
09-17-2010, 11:05 PM
Rubbish!
Roger Federer has done well everywhere

Homogenized surfaces encourage developing a game that works practically equally well everywhere. Not true during Sampras' time :shrug:

While Mac and Stefan also had games that were not geared towards clay in any way, they moved more comfortably on it. Plus, they lost their finals anyway to superior claycourt players. BTW, that Mac-Lendl final was the first match I remember watching :D

Action Jackson
09-18-2010, 03:20 AM
Rios, Nalbandian, probably because of injuries? Costa and Gaudio are one-slam wonders, so I don't think you can compare Pete to them.

There are no right or wrong opinions, right? Pete reached the RG QFs several times and 1 SF, and he even won the Italian Open. So, my opinion is that he had a strong chance to win RG, but as you yourself said, he just gave up after 1996. Did he do anything to improve his clay court game (in the same way that Rafa tried to improve his hard court game in order to have a better chance at winning the US Open)?

You are still missing the obvious point. How can you compare Fed/Nadal winning a career Slam to Sampras when the surfaces played nowhere near the same then as they do now? This impacted on the types of games that were played during Pete's time and the current one we have.

As for it being wrong, well you aren't actually coming from a strong position, if you read the above paragraph this highlights why. It's obvious enough if there is a greater differential between surface speeds which there was than now, the fact there were better depth of claycourt players during that era, Sampras being anaemic having problems with during the necessary endurance training, poor movement and his game not being suited at all to clay day in and day out.

I am very aware of Sampras's record on clay, he played Becker in that Rome final on a very fast day. Had great wins of Chesnokov and Kafelnikov in DC 95. But couldn't do it consistently.

In other words how can you compare something over that length of time, when the conditions weren't the same or close to being the same?

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-18-2010, 03:31 AM
Pete did try hard enough. He didnt have any charisma or emotion. Back in the day yeah he couldnt serve and volley (slow)...but if he tried that now Fed and Nadal was pass him all the time. The passing show has become a better weapon i recent years. Federer esp when he is returning well, and moving well..is a master of it. All the flicks and tricks...just magical.

River
09-18-2010, 03:48 AM
His game just wasn't suited for it, sadly. He could have made adjustments but I think he was too scared about how it would affect his overall game through the season.

GuiroNl
09-18-2010, 09:32 AM
I think I found a repost of the article and it shows my memory is not that great. The Sampras thing was mentioned in an article in which it was suggested that Federer should use a bigger frame :lol:

Forgot to add the link to the repost http://boards.ign.com/tennis_board/b8468/168268968/p1

Vivalavida18
09-19-2010, 03:49 AM
I cant believe how little credit Sampras gets on this board. People call him a mug, clown, all serve... seriously....wtf? Lol I can guarantee that these people started watching tennis like 2-3 years ago. lol

Vivalavida18
09-19-2010, 03:55 AM
Pete Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time. 7 titles...nuff said. A mug/clown would never win the most prestigious tournament in the world 7 times.

Roddickominator
09-19-2010, 05:01 AM
I cant believe how little credit Sampras gets on this board. People call him a mug, clown, all serve... seriously....wtf? Lol I can guarantee that these people started watching tennis like 2-3 years ago. lol

I can tell you right now that this is the problem. The fanboys of the board are blinded by their love of their favorite player. While those that simply haven't been fans of the game for very long see today's baseline games with souped up rackets and strings, to go along with slower courts which further encourages building your game around baseline play.

They watch this tennis every week...and then they hear how great Sampras and Borg were, so they watch a few videos on youtube....and they see guys that developed different games to today's "baseliner on every surface" play. "Where are the ridiculous passing shots from 10 feet behind the baseline? Where are the 110 mph forehands? WTF are they going to the net so often for?"

This confuses them greatly. A typical human reaction to confusion is fear and anger. So their response to this is to bash former greats of the game, fearing that the man that they are in love with may not be quite as great as they believe in their heart.

It is a sad state of affairs, but is pretty typical among fans of all sport. The thought process seems to be "The latest is always the greatest, because the earth began when I gained consciousness of the situation."

BAMJ6
09-19-2010, 06:08 AM
Pete Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time. 7 titles...nuff said. A mug/clown would never win the most prestigious tournament in the world 7 times.

Seconded, and for that matter Wimbledon's equal or arguably more prestigious slam in the greatest city in the world 5 times.

I am surprised that given how badly he wanted to beat Andre Agassi, he didn't try to go all out and train for Paris after Andre won in 1999. Pete has more slams than his other 3 peers combined, but the other 3 each have the slam that Pete doesn't.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-20-2010, 02:12 PM
you know whats funny

the samprastards and nadaltards were anti fed

but now its federer fans desending sampras against the same nadaltards who have run over this site

we're at war against legions of ALT accts

its like star trek and the borg

the borg heh......... im so smart

(<.<)

(>.>)

Sophocles
09-20-2010, 02:15 PM
I can tell you right now that this is the problem. The fanboys of the board are blinded by their love of their favorite player. While those that simply haven't been fans of the game for very long see today's baseline games with souped up rackets and strings, to go along with slower courts which further encourages building your game around baseline play.

They watch this tennis every week...and then they hear how great Sampras and Borg were, so they watch a few videos on youtube....and they see guys that developed different games to today's "baseliner on every surface" play. "Where are the ridiculous passing shots from 10 feet behind the baseline? Where are the 110 mph forehands? WTF are they going to the net so often for?"

This confuses them greatly. A typical human reaction to confusion is fear and anger. So their response to this is to bash former greats of the game, fearing that the man that they are in love with may not be quite as great as they believe in their heart.

It is a sad state of affairs, but is pretty typical among fans of all sport. The thought process seems to be "The latest is always the greatest, because the earth began when I gained consciousness of the situation."

A good deal of truth in this.

Haasi
09-20-2010, 02:18 PM
Maybe he didn´t win it because the competition was tougher in his era, there was a lot of claycourt specialists, unlike this era...

Topspindoctor
09-20-2010, 02:22 PM
Maybe he didn´t win it because the competition was tougher in his era, there was a lot of claycourt specialists, unlike this era...

Wake up, Sampras would get crushed by mediocre clay specialist like Almagro in this era. Better clay courters like Verdasco, Ferrer and Ferrero would all make Sampras their bitch on clay. That clown got bageled by Kafelnikov on clay. He wouldn't get past 4th round of RG in 2000's.

oranges
09-20-2010, 03:16 PM
Almagro can play as well, if not better, on clay then all three of your candidates who are supposed to be few classes above him :lol: So much about your knowledge ...

Topspindoctor
09-20-2010, 03:23 PM
Almagro can play as well, if not better, on clay then all three of your candidates who are supposed to be few classes above him :lol: So much about your knowledge ...

Really? Fererro won RG in case you forgot...

oranges
09-20-2010, 03:33 PM
Really? Fererro won RG in case you forgot...

... and hasn't done anything in RG ever since, but don't let that take away from your point.

Now, honestly how many times did you see Almagro play?

Manila ESQ
09-20-2010, 04:22 PM
I guess this is not really a question of Pete's skills. He was one of the game's greatest. But the question was - did he try hard enough to win RG? Even Pete himself admitted that he could have tried a little harder.

Action Jackson
09-21-2010, 02:12 AM
I can tell you right now that this is the problem. The fanboys of the board are blinded by their love of their favorite player. While those that simply haven't been fans of the game for very long see today's baseline games with souped up rackets and strings, to go along with slower courts which further encourages building your game around baseline play.

They watch this tennis every week...and then they hear how great Sampras and Borg were, so they watch a few videos on youtube....and they see guys that developed different games to today's "baseliner on every surface" play. "Where are the ridiculous passing shots from 10 feet behind the baseline? Where are the 110 mph forehands? WTF are they going to the net so often for?"

This confuses them greatly. A typical human reaction to confusion is fear and anger. So their response to this is to bash former greats of the game, fearing that the man that they are in love with may not be quite as great as they believe in their heart.

It is a sad state of affairs, but is pretty typical among fans of all sport. The thought process seems to be "The latest is always the greatest, because the earth began when I gained consciousness of the situation."

Pretty much.

Action Jackson
09-21-2010, 02:13 AM
I guess this is not really a question of Pete's skills. He was one of the game's greatest. But the question was - did he try hard enough to win RG? Even Pete himself admitted that he could have tried a little harder.

No matter how hard he tried, he was never winning it with this game at the time he played.

Filo V.
09-21-2010, 03:33 AM
I'm sure he tried at the French, but it wasn't his main concern or focus, it was Wimbledon, as well it should have been. Wimbledon still is considered the more prestigious tournament to this day, and it was his best major tournament, so that's where his main loyalties were. He had some good runs, mainly 1996, beating a declining Courier that year in the quarters. I didn't see any of these matches live obviously but it's hard for Americans to go to clay and win on the surface when it's foreign and unnatural for them to play on it. It's just not his surface, and they clay court field was way better than it is now.

It does NOT take away from his amazing accomplishments. It just means his record isn't quite perfect, but no-one's is, and complete and utter domination on the ATP tour 100% of the time in the modern days just doesn't happen.

Mimi
09-21-2010, 10:06 AM
How can someone 1-dimensional win 14 slams (including 7 on a hardcourt)?

His game wasn’t the least bit 1-dimensional, it was all-round serving, volleying and varied groundstrokes. IMO Sampras had a very effective and above-average baseline game. He could rally with the best of them and hit winners from any angle. He could more than hold his own from the baseline. Though in the last few years of his career his game did revolve almost completely around s/v, but he was still dangerous from the baseline. Remember all those impressive groundstroke winners versus Agassi?

He didn't win the FO because his counterpunching skills were not up to the level required to win the FO, and his backhand was vulnerable, especially on clay (prone to making UEs).

Just because he didn't win the FO, doesn't mean he didn't have a baseline game. What bizzare logic.

Tennisman82.

he did not move well on clay, uncomfortable about it, but he is never one-dimensional, as you have said, one-dimensional game would not win him 14 slams:cool:

Start da Game
09-21-2010, 11:02 AM
No matter how hard he tried, he was never winning it with this game at the time he played.

as if you followed him from the second row in stands at every match of his in his career.......never? who are you to conclude like that without any real explanation? did you ever check how many clay court tournaments he skipped in his career?

on one side you convey with your posts now and then that you are unhappy with the modern day ball bashers and on the other side you are so reluctant to take into account the surface specialists factor when it comes to sampras on clay.......stop being a hypocrite.......

sampras had the tools for clay but he did not have the endurance for the surface as he was restricted by thalesseimia.......that's the prime reason why he stayed away from clay for most part and also why he played australian open reluctantly for many years.......

yannick noah serve and volleyed his way to the title in the 80s.......heck, sampras had 10 times better tools than him.......he just could not try hard for obvious health reasons.......

you will never beat jim courier, sergi bruguera and thomas muster on clay in best of 5 sets format if you don't have the tools for the surface.......

Raiden
09-21-2010, 11:21 AM
US Open is still super fast :rolleyes:

Wimbledon is the tournament with most aces and least service breaks.

As soon as Nadal wins a tournament it's suddenly slowed down, clay etc.

:rolleyes:Bullsh*t. The "slow" complaint didn't start with nadal at all.

The British were slamming their own Wimbledon's authorities for slowing that major's courts cuz they thought it damaged (in fact ended) S&V specialist Tim Henman's last chances of winning Wimbledon.

Raiden
09-21-2010, 11:40 AM
Sampras wasn't good enough to win RG and he would have never won it, no matter how hard he tried, he was a one dimensional serve and volleyerActually Sampras is neither one-dimensional nor serve-and-volleyer. Someone like Sampras was more of an all-court type who nevertheless frequented the net since there were those opportunities (on grass) and so maximized the profit of his excellent serve

A true one-dimensional S&Ver on the other hand served-and-volleyed by default (even when the serve wasn't exceptional/excellent).

Action Jackson
09-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Actually Sampras is neither one-dimensional nor serve-and-volleyer. Someone like Sampras was more of an all-court type who nevertheless frequented the net since there were those opportunities and maximized the profit of his excellent serve (a true S&Ver on the other hand did it by default (even when the serve wasn't exceptional/excellent).

Why are you taking Topspindoctor seriously?

Raiden
09-21-2010, 11:46 AM
Oh I shouldn't? My bad!

Action Jackson
09-21-2010, 11:49 AM
Oh I shouldn't? My bad!

Come on, just do a search on the posts and you will see.

heartbroken
09-21-2010, 11:50 PM
How can you not ROTFL at the claim Sampras has no baseline game and is a one-dimensional clown? Imposssible even with the best of will. :lol:

He was not a natural mover on clay, as is the case with most of his compatriots. Plus, his baseline game is not geared towards clay, but to claim it's non-existent is a curious combination of hilarious and extremely sad.

Agreed. Good post.

At the heart of the problem, Sampras was never comfortable on clay. He won a few big clay court matches, but even then, it just wasn't a surface he liked playing on. And I have no problem with a player building a game to excel on a particular surface(s). Sampras grew up playing on hard courts, and he built a game to excel on hard courts. His game translated well to grass. Those surfaces represent three of the four slams...

I admire players with a game that translates well to all surfaces, like Fed and Nadal. But if you can win 14 slams in any combination, you got game.

I read some really goofy stuff on internet forums, but I usually get a good chuckle out of the arguments that go something like "take away this attribute from player A" and he wouldn't have won so much. Well, duh. Let's just strip ANY athlete of their best feature(s) and see how many of them stay at a championship level. :lol:

cutesteve22
09-22-2010, 04:26 AM
he just couldn't win. he is not all round player