is pete sampras the greatest

rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

pauline pm for you.

great the silence says everyone agrees sampras his best

Not really pauline. I think the assumption is that you would not have any theory to support your arguement. One line topics don't tend to draw much attention. People prefer detailed explanations to how you have come to this opinion.

pauline1981 wrote:rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

but then, so would Pete Sampras, derr!

Someone call the men in white coats, we have a case of Saprashittymouth.

Jubba - please do not insult other posters

Just pointing out that some people "hit" on samprass to the detriment of sanity.

point out whatever you like. Just do it without insults please

what insult Davie ??

pauline1981 wrote:rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

Tell us how you figure that out?

rafa and rodger would have only won french open if samprass was in prime

Jubbahey wrote:what insult Davie ??

The last line of your initial post

pauline1981 wrote:rafa and rodger would have only won french open if samprass was in prime

If and buts

And If my aunt had a male appendage, she'd be my uncle!

usa`tennis is best

Oh yes, I've just spotted the typo, too many "S"'s in Sampras, so I've edited it.

Is that meant to be funny? I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about (and I did say "last line") though I notice you made the same "accidental" typo in your second post. As I said, that wasn't what I was referring to though

A more reasoned debate would be how many slams would Sampras, Nadal and Federer win if they were all playing together at the same time...given their individual successes at the slams, etc.

Nothing wrong with the question although we know it would become another GOAT/SamFedal debate...probably ending in argument.

The question is hard to answer anyway because the courts are now different in mid00's to mid90's. Because of this you could even ask if Nadal would get to the final of SW19 in mid90s. Or would Sampras have a better chance of getting to FO final if the clay plays faster and faster balls...

All good questions, all difficult answers.

you might be right

C'mon pauline, open up, give us your opinion, not just "I agree" comments, it is your article after all.

How many Slams do you think Sampras would have won if they did all play in the same era ???

all of them except french open

So, without Nadal or Federer in the picture, how could Sampras magically win more than the two Ozzies he only just managed to win against a tired Llendl and an ageing Hrbaty ??

You seem pretty under informed for a Sampras fan, do you know how many slams he won in total and at which venue ?

If usa tennis is the best, why hasn't there been a male winner in 8 years?

Doesnt look like we're going to get much of a debate from OP.

Move along, nothing to see here....

legendkillar wrote:If usa tennis is the best, why hasn't there been a male winner in 8 years?

There has been in the doubles. Ever heard of the Bryan brothers?

pauline1981 wrote:rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

But didn't Sampras lose to a young Federer on his favourite surface of grass even when he was still just in his prime?

gboycottnut wrote:

pauline1981 wrote:rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

But didn't Sampras lose to a young Federer on his favourite surface of grass even when he was still just in his prime?

...with Sampras' racquet!

gboycottnut wrote:

legendkillar wrote:If usa tennis is the best, why hasn't there been a male winner in 8 years?

There has been in the doubles. Ever heard of the Bryan brothers?

Talking singles. Did you know?

Never knew Sampras was in his prime in 2001. Guess you learn something new everyday. Lol

legendkillar wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

legendkillar wrote:If usa tennis is the best, why hasn't there been a male winner in 8 years?

There has been in the doubles. Ever heard of the Bryan brothers?

Talking singles. Did you know?

There isn't anything in the original question which explicitly stated it was a reference to Singles only.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Never knew Sampras was in his prime in 2001. Guess you learn something new everyday. Lol

Well he still was as his game was still there and according to John McEnroe, he stated that by 2001 Pete had managed to develop a second serve which was as big/fast as his first serve.

Eh gboy, i'm not arguing with you. If you think Pete was in his prime at 31, good for you.

And 1 result (like swallows) doesnt make a summer.

Otherwise, what about if Tim Henman had retired at the same age as Sampras leading 6-4 up against Federer? On the one hand we're told the H2H versus Nadal doesnt mean much, but 1 result against an aging Sampras does. Plus Tenez, we've argued before about how the courts had changed in 2001 (read para's 5 and 6 in http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html) allowing Federer to be more suited to it than Sampras who had played his entire career on a different surface. Plus look at what happened to Sampras a year later on even drier courts (2002 was much drier than 2001), courts that Henman said he didnt even recognise as grass. And yet in 2000 when the courts were their previous "fast grassness"...Federer lost in straights in the first round to that grass-court illuminary Kafelnikov.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Eh gboy, i'm not arguing with you. If you think Pete was in his prime at 31, good for you.

Certainly on the fast grasscourts of Wimbledon he was still in his prime.

gboycottnut wrote:Certainly on the fast grasscourts of Wimbledon he was still in his prime.

Agree....i.e. 1993-2000

lydian wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Certainly on the fast grasscourts of Wimbledon he was still in his prime.

Agree....i.e. 1993-2000

2001 he was as well due to the fact he had by then managed to develop a second serve that was just as big as his first serve.

A great 2nd serve isnt much use on a vastly slowed down surface...plus any match isnt just about 2nd serves, again especially on slower surfaces.

lydian wrote:A great 2nd serve isnt much use on a vastly slowed down surface...plus any match isnt just about 2nd serves, again especially on slower surfaces.

Wimbledon wasn't really all that slow back in 2001 (I remember one of Sampras's first serves at 136 mph almost knocking Federer's racket out of his hand early in that famous match). And for your information, tennis matches on grass back then were mainly decided on 2nd serves particularly when 2 big servers (Becker V Stich) were playing against each other.

Saying it wasnt "really" all that slow doesnt matter, the courts were changed in 2001 to what they are today so they were noticeably slower than 2000 and before.
Yes Sampras could serve hit...1st and 2nd...but not all the time! So when a ralley would ensue, which would clearly have been often, then the slower courts woud have an effect on play. After all, Sampras didnt serve his way to French Open titles as ralleying comes into play on slower surfaces.

Becker vs Stich comparisons relate to fast grass. We all remember Sampras vs Ivanisevic matches too. The point is that the courts were changed in 2001 so they clearly had an effect.

lydian wrote:Saying it wasnt "really" all that slow doesnt matter, the courts were changed in 2001 to what they are today so they were noticeably slower than 2000 and before.
Yes Sampras could serve hit...1st and 2nd...but not all the time! So when a ralley would ensue, which would clearly have been often, then the slower courts woud have an effect on play. After all, Sampras didnt serve his way to French Open titles as ralleying comes into play on slower surfaces.

Becker vs Stich comparisons relate to fast grass. We all remember Sampras vs Ivanisevic matches too. The point is that the courts were changed in 2001 so they clearly had an effect.

I still believe that the grasscourts whilst being slower in 2001 than in the previous year of 2000 weren't all that much slower as is the case with the grasscourts now, in order to clearly have an effect on a match like Sampras's epic 5 set loss to the young upstart Federer.

What rationale do you have for them being faster than they are now...they changed the grass to 100% rye...same as it is now. The balls havent changed...so what has?

Whether Sampras's loss was epic or not, my point is that the courts were greatly different to 2000. Funny how Federer loses to "grass king" Kafelnikov in 2000 in straights on fast grass then beats 7-time champ Sampras a year later once the courts have been slowed down. My supposition is that the change adversely affected Sampras's timing and overall game. We know Sampras only had successes after 2000 on fast courts, hence his win at USO 2002 (and final in 2001) - and during these years of 2000-2002 Federer didnt get past 4th round at USO as his fast court game hadnt evolved enough (lost to Agassi and Mirnyi). Wimbledon simply was not a fast court anymore...as Sampras found to his cost.

lydian wrote:Saying it wasnt "really" all that slow doesnt matter, the courts were changed in 2001 to what they are today so they were noticeably slower than 2000 and before.
Yes Sampras could serve hit...1st and 2nd...but not all the time! So when a ralley would ensue, which would clearly have been often, then the slower courts woud have an effect on play. After all, Sampras didnt serve his way to French Open titles as ralleying comes into play on slower surfaces.

Becker vs Stich comparisons relate to fast grass. We all remember Sampras vs Ivanisevic matches too. The point is that the courts were changed in 2001 so they clearly had an effect.

We have been there Lydian and you know you are wrong. They were not "noticeably slower" cause as I explained already you cannot find a single interview of any player in 2001 that "noticed" the courts or balls were slower.

That's another point of your agenda trying to diminish Federer's achievement right and left.

2002 is the year that really was slow due to the new balls.

2001 was fast...very fast!

lydian wrote:Saying it wasnt "really" all that slow doesnt matter, the courts were changed in 2001 to what they are today so they were noticeably slower than 2000 and before.
Yes Sampras could serve hit...1st and 2nd...but not all the time! So when a ralley would ensue, which would clearly have been often, then the slower courts woud have an effect on play. After all, Sampras didnt serve his way to French Open titles as ralleying comes into play on slower surfaces.

Becker vs Stich comparisons relate to fast grass. We all remember Sampras vs Ivanisevic matches too. The point is that the courts were changed in 2001 so they clearly had an effect.

Wait, you mean the courts at wimbeldon were changed in 2001, and that Roger Federer with his blazing speed won all of his six wimbeldons on slowed down conditions? And now that he is older and his fans see him losing to players as he has lost a step of speed think the courts should be sped up. There it is lady's and gentleman the greatest beneficiary of slow courts is Roger Federer who has won 16 grandslams on the slowed down courts.

I also agree that you can't compare one loss for a Sampras who was at least two or 3 years past his prime in the 4th round to Fed in 5 sets as a big indicator of there respective qualities. A nearly 40 year old Sampras beat Roger in Asia when Fed was at his peak a few years ago. In my mind Pete is a better grass court player, he has better volleys a better serve and more wimbeldon championships. Roger in my mind is about as good on grass, a quick hardcourt, or indoor court; with maybe Pete being a shade better. But Roger is a much better clay court player than Pete ever was, and I would also favor Roger on a slower hardcourt as well.

I just love Fed fans and their ability to have their cake and eat it to. The courts are slow, yeah Roger won 16 grandslams on slow conditions. Well now that he isn't as fast the conditions need to be sped up. Roger was completely thrown off his game by Nadal taking one minute to tape his ankle resulting in Roger completely losing his timing, but a 4 day layoff for Djokovic didn't cause him to lose his timing and in fact helped Novak. One win against an ageing pete sampras proves Roger is better than Pete, but 17 wins by Rafa over Roger proves nothing.

Well keeping on topic and answering the OP´s question my answer is a most definite NO never was and never is IMO... the only thing he is great at is being the most boring player on record. (yawn)
Now that should make me popular

Haddie-nuff wrote:Well keeping on topic and answering the OP´s question my answer is a most definite NO never was and never is IMO... the only thing he is great at is being the most boring player on record. (yawn)
Now that should make me popular

Pete was OK until he had his charisma bypass operation

I have watched tennis since the days when Caen played Abel... but during the era of Sampras I almost stopped watching tennis at all.. the boredom factor was too much for me .. only Agassi kept my spirits alive .. I lost interest practically entirely. Sampras gave me the

Haddie-nuff wrote:I have watched tennis since the days when Caen played Abel... but during the era of Sampras I almost stopped watching tennis at all.. the boredom factor was too much for me .. only Agassi kept my spirits alive .. I lost interest practically entirely. Sampras gave me the

Cain & Able - And I thought you were only in your nineties

I wish but thats why my spelling ent no good see

Haddie he was never my favorite player either, so precise and mechanical. But wouldn't you say that he is the best grass court and fast court player at least of the modern era. I would still rate him higher than Federer on a grass court.