The greatest tennis player I ever saw. Sampras played in a golden era, and proceeded to destroy the very best that wonderful era had to offer. The only smudge on his wonderful record is never quite turning up at roland garros, but it takes absolutely nothing away from him being the greatest player the game has ever witnessed
@Joe Publico Greatest cannot be said in numbers of GS different eras and moreover courts balls rackets have made today's players better. Just let these present guy's play on those old courts and then decide who is the greatest but then comparison fades
@Joe Publico yes but why comparison sir may be you are a fan of that fellow I am saying from a general perspective please u have to understand that I am not a fan of anyone and fyki all humans are unique greatness is not measured in what one possess but contention in oneself with what one has
@Joe Publico that is what i am trying to say why do u compare if u really want to make a debate I want to say how many times has Federer defeated all his opponents meaning Nadal Novak or Murray he definitely is behind h2h records with those guys would u really say he is greatest There are many matches where he has lost which he could have won and that too he lost what happened to ur Greatest plAyer did not he have the spine which shows that he is mortal nothing else No point in proving anything because comparing eras and players are obselete matter Anyway nice in having a chat bye
federer never came close to playing the level of competition that sampras did. im not the greatest tennis player but if i played grade schoolers my entire career im probably gonna break every record and my stats will say i am the best.
Sampras is the GOAT. End of story. A true champ with best serve of all time. He took tennis to another level with his speed, groundstrokes, serve and volley. He got it all. The surfaces these day may be slow and all players are ultra defensive, but back then it was all kind of players. A much tougher era. From players like Andre Agassi to Boris Becker. There was all kind of players. And Pete beat them all. You can't ask for more. Simply the best.
GOAT ?! Are you kidding me? He nearly killed tennis. He was the most boring tennis No.1 EVER ! He had the charisma of a wet rag. Worst of all, he'd have a five-o-clock shadow at the start of a match and by the end of it, he'd have a fully-grown beard !
Competition in 90 was definately harder than Roger's era. If you ever watched tennis for longer than 10 years, you should know that. One of the major reasons Pete's era was harder was because of versatility in players he had to face. Day in and out, he had to face baseliners, natural vollyers and all court players. There was no omni-solution for Pete, he always had to adjust his tactics. Roger? Throughout his entire GS regime, he only beat baseliners. Sorry, but that is a fact.
somebody from switzerland who has won 15 GS's in just 6 years, held no. 1 rankin for 4.5 consecutive years with 5 straight wins in US open, wimbledon and 4 straight finals in roland garros , 3 aus open with 22 consecutive semi finals is known as the greatest tennis player ever..has somebody heard about him?
This is a stupid argument. The reason it looks like Fed has no comp is because he is so good. ARod is better than Ivanisevic. Hewitt better than Chang. JCF better than Muster. Safin is better than Kafelnikov. Nadal could be better than Agassi. Plus Edberg, Lendl and Becker was the previous gen and Safin was the next generation
I don't care if Roger Federer wins 32 Slams. I don't care what the press have to say or anyone for that matter. Pete Sampras was the greatest tennis player this planet has ever seen.
@pmo1983 brugera is better than ferrero,becker and edberg are much better than djokovic and murray,ivanicevic and krajcek are better than soderling and tsonga and chamg is better than davydenko,did you ever watch tennis in 1990?????????
What a genius Im sorry that I lost interest in Tennis during his era didn't give him the respect he deserved was always for Andre , but he will always be the last great serve volleyer .
brugera is better than ferrero,and edberg and becker are much better than djokovic and murray.ivanicevic is better than tsonga and soderling,and chang is better than davydenko
Remember Pete in Aus Open years ago, sadly didn't realise his brilliance at the time, and what a legacy he left.Re whos better? Who really cares? Different game, style of play and focus on slower courts.In terms of who Fed or Pete had to play, there are ALL awesome players.Love to see a 2012 Sampras.Imagine a big flattish forehand banging deep big shots and assualting the net. Wonder whether this style of play may come back? Don't undertand why there are so many haters who post utter rubbish.
@BuddhaShiva1 in your dreams... I was a strong fan of Sampras, and yet I'm still, but in my life I have never seen a player with a class and perfection as Federer is... Roger Federer is the G.O.A.T.
@kuttusan I often find people to overrate Pete's competition tbh. I like Pete but people look at Becker and Edberg and say 6 slams each. What they don't say is that many of those came before Pete's prime. Courier has 4 slams but again all of those came before 1993 and 2 of them were on clay where Pete wasn't great. Lendl was getting old and Andre rarely beat Pete at a slam in his prime. The rest of the players you mentioned were no better than Roddick, Safin or Hewitt.
Peter was my idol growing up but even I have to concede that federer is better. Yes in the beginning of his career the competition was weak and yes there are only baseline players really now but look at the sheer stats of his dominance, he's been good on every surface, he started his career serving and volleying, his fitness is a million times better than petes was. From 2005 to 2008 federer hardly lost before the final in any tournament!
+chris boothby sampras beat and domanated some of the best ever. had federar played at that time he would have been no better than aggasi or jim courer. federer was not in the same league with sampras
Sampras was a more determined net rusher and hustler with an even smoother serve than Federer but that may be because Federer was a little too good from the baseline to care. I wish Federer kept playing with the prostaff 90 because we lost the interesting way of playing and have to watch grinders bouncing the ball 16 times to catch their breath in between points now. It's a great shame.
Ummm... Ferrero only won 1 Master Series on hardcourt (Madrid in 2003)... Muster won 8 Master Series, 1 on carpet courts and 1 on hardcourt (Miami in 1997)...
@nocode61 the lack of serve & volleyers has 2 do with the court speed & racquet tech than the player calibre the courts have slowed down that the veterans now in the senior tour say it'd be suicidal to try to S&V now.. Fed managed to reach 4 RG finals yet pete lost 2 philippoussis, Delgado (ranked 97th) & never passed the semis. the slower the courts the worse pete plays. How many GS would he have won now if his biggest weapon his S&V was taken away?
@aleksandrpondios Did you actually read my post or understand what i was replying to. it was 3 months ago and i was replying to a poster who said competition in the the mid 90s was better than now. i pointed out the difference between competition and competitiveness. Just because their is less competitiveness dosent mean their is less competition. BTW i agree with everything you said but the acomplishments of Federer and Nadal shouldnt be questioned.
@nocode61 Tell me, apart from Agassi(which Sampras was always superior than him of course) who else was a strong rival for Pete?? WHO???? RAFTER??? Pete was also superior... Becker??? was old to compete against Pete !! WHOM ELSE????
@kuttusan The fact is, if Pete was better than he turned out to be you wouldn't be calling all those guys legitimate competition. I only count the first 5 or 6 you mentioned anyway.
@BuddhaShiva1 but you're assuming he'd play rafa in the same court speed as the 90s...today's slower hardcourts petes serve & volley would be neutralised and not as affective as the 90s...
@supers789 no, it just seems like present players don't have the competition because only federer and nadal win the slams (of course excepting the odd djoker/delpo hot run) and dominate
Class acts who happen to also be incredble athletes: Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Andre Agassi, Tiger Woods, Michelle Kwan, Nancy Kerrigan ... to name just a few.
@mariomarcano Ferrero in his prime (short as it was) was good on Hardcourts and has had ok results on grass. Muster became world number 1 without ever going past the first round at wimbledon.
Most tennis fans have been swarmed and mesmerized by the accomplishments of The Big 3, but when Sampras’ career is analyzed thoroughly we are looking at one of the greatest of all times. I also think the same goes for Borg. Both belong in the GOAT debate alongside The Big 3. Why neither of them completed a career Slam ? As far as Borg goes, back in the 70s the top players very seldom competed in the Aussie Open. It was played on December, so the only motivation to go there was to have previously won the other 3 majors. Had Borg won the US Open in one of the 4 finals he lost, he would have made the trip down under to procure a Calendar Slam. Same goes for McEnroe in 84, had he not lost the RG final to Lendl in the most incredible of fashions. Longevity counts when comparing athletes of a same generation. 40 years ago a ruptured meniscus spelled retirement, while today a simple arthroscopy can fix it. Nutrition, sports medicine, sports supplements, sports gear & equipment, they all have evolved tremendously. Turning 30 in the 70s, 80s and even the 90s was synonymous with the inevitable decline. Not today with all the evolution. As far as Pete goes; The Spanish Armada and the Argentinian Legion were primed back then and he didn’t adapt very well to clay courts.
@Steve0904 Also pertaining to Becker and Edberg, they were older than Pete and nearing the end of their primes at the time Pete started beating them regularly.
You do realize Becker is only 4 years older than Sampras. For example Navratilova was 12.5 years older than Graf, that's a big difference, yet they still had a competitive rivalry.
Nadal and Djokovic both have better head-to-head records against "the greatest." Federer played for years with little or no competition, unless you consider Roddick at Wimbleon competition.
Mark Phillipousis and the big Lithuanian serve and volleyer would take offense to your statement! :D Both Pete and Fed were great champions; deciding between the two seems ludicrous.
Friend it is only the technology, the court, ball and rackets that have made a difference. Back then very few people reached all slams I mean top players, whereas today most have almost reached the best eg being Stan Wawrinka and so many others For example take Nadal and put in the 80s he would be Just a claycourter whereas in this period he has won all so see how much it has made a difference In play with change s in all aspects
