Pete The Great

Tribute to the Great Pete Sampras, the best tennis player of all times

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• tennis
• Pete
• Sampras

[rangeboyry]

federer story is weak on fundamentals...

sampras GS finals is 14-4 wins

federer GS finals 16-7 wins

sampras cursed agassi during their battle of GS 4-1

nadal cursed federer during their battle of GS 5-1

during sampras 12 years initial record breaking 17 GS champions

during federer 16 GS record breaking only 4 other GS champion

what a loser player getting trashed by his single rival Nadal

all the time.

tennis will never have another Pete Sampras skill level up against all his competition

[pockings]

Sampras is the best tennis player of all time. I don't care what other people say about Federer and Nadal. It's so fitting that Pete's last shot was a volley winner against Andre at the 02 USO final ;)

[hhgtipower]

@rangeboyry you put it the way it is!

[drkunalsharma]

@rangeboyry- well said! completely agree

[alin1975]

@89Pleasek

First off "only 2-3 years" is relative, since we are comparing him to Federer and the competition he had. Plus its closer to 1-2 years if we are talking the names you first posted. But again, its all relative...

But I do agree Roger is more consistent. Definitely give him that. But, playing them at their peaks, I would put my money on Sampras on anything but clay.

[hhgtipower]

Pete is the BEst, cause he had the most spectacular play of all time, He was so powerful, superb service, running forhand, to me he is the BEst of all time!

[89Pleasek]

only 2-3 years? that's a big chunk of his best 5-year period 1993-1997. I said 1993 was the toughest cause he has to deal with very tough compeition in Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi and others. After 1993 it got significantly worse so we could see a clay courter like Muster reach the no 1 spot in 1995, Rios and Moya reaching the top spot as well.

Sampras on a fast surfaces was just as good as Federer at his best. Fed was just way more consistant.

[alin1975]

@89Pleasek

Well, thats only 2-3 years, plus Agassi was successful in 1998 and Becker was very successful in 1996...

But anyway, we are sort of on the same page :) I think it was Laver who said that the best we can do is find the best player in each era. He was probably right.

[89Pleasek]

In 1996-1998 Sampras main compeition was Kafelnikov, Chang, Moya, Bruguera, Rios, Rafter, Chang, Muster, Ivanisevic - most of them clay courters. I wouldn't call it better than Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Coria.

I have to admit that nowadays is a pretty weak field. Other than Nadal, Djokovic we have a fading 30-year old Federer and a headcase Murray, that's it. Almagro, Fish, Melzer were all in the top 10 recently. I mean come on

[89Pleasek]

I agree about Lendl facing tough competition, it was as hard as you could get, Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Connors even Borg, Agassi, Sampras to name a few.

Sampras competition wasn't as tough, after 1993 tons of great player started to fade, Edberg, Courier, Becker was pretty good in 1995-1996 but he had his best years were 1987-1991. Agassi was an all-time great but until 1999 (with the exception of 1995) he was very inconsistant with his results.

[alin1975]

@89Pleasek

Well, much of the stats can be twisted and turned. However, I do not agree that it was all Pete's fault. He, much like Lendl, played in eras that were more competitive. I suppose one can always twist it and say that they were not good enough to dominate everyone... but most experts would rank their competition higher than Federer's (and so would I).

I respect if you think Fed is the best, in the end we will never know. I, however, do not share that opinion in the slightest.

[89Pleasek]

whatever...one thing made me laugh hard, tho - claiming that 14-4 in Slam finals is better than 16-7. This is absolutely hilarious. I'd take 15 Slams and 999 final losses than 14 final wins and no losses.

btw

1)Federer has actually beaten Nadal twice in Slams, so get your info right

2) Sampras faced more GS champions cause he wasn't good enough to win Slams on a consistant basis, too bad for Pete (he himself gave credit for Federer for being consistant)