[m9m9m9m9m9]

Krajicek defeated Sampras in straight is definitely more of a shocker

[Egreen]

Safin.

[Sham Kay]

I'm saying Krajicek just because of how surprised (and disappointed as a glory hunting kid fan) I was. One of the shocks of that era, especially considering the ease of the victory, plus at Wimbledon of all places. Though Safin was also impressive, has to be said.

Krajicek had something like a 4-2 H2H advantage over Sampras, so it wasn't a fluke.

Added a poll.

[Shinoj]

Krajicek always had an upper hand over Sampras. In their previous meetings over 96 he had a hold over Sampras. While it was an upset at the end of the day it was not unexpected.

While Federer always had an upper hand over Safin before that and Safin was seen as an Underdog and add to that Federer's God Mode those days it really was a Classic in true sense.

Mind you Federer's form during 2004-05-06 was a notch above Sampras's form ever. That adds to it

[SetSampras]

Originally Posted by Shambritfan

I'm saying Krajicek just because of how surprised (and disappointed as a glory hunting kid fan) I was. One of the shocks of that era, especially considering the ease of the victory, plus at Wimbledon of all places. Though Safin was also impressive, has to be said.

Krajicek had something like a 4-2 H2H advantage over Sampras, so it wasn't a fluke.

Added a poll.

A 5-4 h2h actually Though I have read 6-4 other places. Not sure of the validity of either


It wasn't THAT surprising IMO. If you watched and saw how Krajicek played throughout the whole tournament. He was on fire. It reminded me of Muster at the 95 French Open or 2001 Goran Wimbledon run. Rich could have been a big time force had he not been injured many of the times.
Kraijcek at that level could beat anyone any time.

That said.. Guys can catch fire and win by playing a flawless few weeks of tennis

[Haelfix]

Krajicek was something like 6-2 against Pete all the way up until the end (when he was injured and lost 2 in a row) and beat Pete consistently during his prime.

It was just one of those matches that was less about how good the players were, and more about matchup issues. Pete always hated playing mirrors of himself, and just could never get any sort of rhythm going. I felt that Pete played a pretty horrible match by his standards in that semi.

Imo the Safin matches were much more impressive. Not only the AO Federer match, but the fact that he blitzed Pete off the court at the USO as well. Those two matches were less about matchup issues, and more just bonafide incredible tennis performances. They were rather unique in Marat's career, as he seemed to be completely zoning, and not throwing random temper tantrums.

[Johnny Groove]

Sampras was never considered as invincible in his #1 days as Federer was in his. Sampras had already lost 6 times in '96 before Wimbledon, and guys like Karol Kucera, 107 rank, took Sampras to a 4th set tiebreaker 2 rounds before. Fed, meanwhile, was cruising and hardly losing games, let alone sets before Safin "turned the tennis world upside down" as the Eurosport commentator put it after match point.

In terms of shock and surprise, it has to be Safin over Fed. When it comes to ease of GOAT slaying, gotta give it to Krajicek.

[SetSampras]

Safin and Krajicek were both dang tough at their peaks when they played their top level of tennis.. No shame in losing to either of these guys when they were at their best... of course, their best was few and far between.

I get a little more strange when Pete was losing to someone like Kucera or with Fed losing to a Fish or Canas etc. Marat and Rich? These guys can beat anyone on their day. Rich PROBABLY could have took more slams away from Pete.. As Marat PROBABLY should have took more slams away from Roger.