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.
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.