Well no of course he wouldn't have 7 Wimbledon titles, because Federer is the better player. But he'd be there with what we all consider the big 3. I think comparing him to the Russell Celtics is pushing him a bit too far back. Maybe the 90's Knicks lol. I agree that Novak is going to pass him soon.
Sampras's game was pretty average other than his serve which was probably the best in history. He won all his titles because his second serve was better than 90 percent of player's first serve. This is the reason he didn't do jack at the French Open. The surface took away his only weapon. His best showing was a semi-final there. He was out in the 1st or 2nd round in most years.
Define average. You don't get 14 grand slams win being a 1 trick pony. Sampras was a big shot maker and not one for big rallies and that potentially hurt him in the clay though he did better on clay courts outside the French. He finished his career with a number of 1st and 2nd round knock outs in the French but he has a nice string of quarterfinal runs in what could be argued was his prime. He obviously is not as good on that surface but he was flat out awesome on the other 2.
Haha don't like the constant digging in the ass? Nadal is in great shape but I'd hardly consider his physique PED enhanced.
Well, you do if your "1 trick" is the serve (probably the most important weapon in hard/grass court play), and 12 of your 14 grand slams came at Wimbledon and the US Open (notoriously rewards players with great serves). Sampras was also exceptional at the net... which complimented his big serve. Whoever said earlier that Sampras was "not a serve and volley player" is probably thinking I said that "negatively".... he very much was a big-time serve/volley guy because that was exactly what you had to be in that era, with that big serve. Sampras wasn't going to be winning tons of points with ground strokes, rallies, baseline play... if you got him in those sorts of matches, you usually were going to come out on top. So, while I would agree that Sampras' game outside his serve/volley was pretty average... I'll also say that a player with one of the greatest serves in history is rightfully also one of the greatest players of all time. And the great booming servers of that era (Sampras, Ivaneisavic, Martin, Phillipoussis)... helped usher in the "hybrid" game of the current stars that focuses more on defending the big serve, overall fitness/speed, and still packing a big-time serve of their own when needed.
Roided up Nadal for those 2-3 years was probably better than Federer at his peak. his style of play caught up to him fast though because he got so injury prone and pulled out of so many tournaments. and probably stopped roiding
I love Stefan Edberg.... That guy was a serve and volley king.... but I guess his baseline game isn't all that....Longline and Cross Being a Softcore fan at best.....
Yup. Chang did win the French Open IIRC Jerry Lin has to lead a team to the Finals or win DPOY or close to MVP, first or second team all NBA to come close to him.
Sampras is the second best player that played the game, but if you compare Sampras with other guys mentioned, he is the only one other than Borg that couldn't win on a surface. Federer won a career slam and lost to Nadal at the French a number of times Nadal won a career slam and won Wimbledon twice Djoker went to the finals at the French and wins a lot of clay court tournaments Agassi won the career slam McEnroe went to the finals at the French even though he was a pure serve and volley player Laver won a grand slam Sampras had the biggest serve in history, and if you could get the serve back, then he was very beatable.
Pete was not a serve and volley player. Other than at wimbledon, he did not rush the net after the serve. Yes he went to the net often to finish points but he didn't come to the net every chance he could like McEnroe. McEnroe was a serve and volley player. He even rushed the net at the French Open and would often rush the net after returning a weaker serve. BTW, McEnroe was the best doubles player and volleyer known to man. He won an ATP tournament at age 47. That is just sick.
I played in pumps my junior year. Sprained the **** out of my ankle at a major zone. They were too heavy.
I too will agree with this My Girlfriend at the time got me into watching Tennis Pete was her Fav and I could see why . . he was good Not to derail the thread but man . . a Match between Serena and Martina would be Epic Rocket River
Federer/Nadal Sampras Djokovic Agassi It's hard to put Federer clearly over Nadal IMHO. And I say that as a huge Roger Federer fan. Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon finals in one of the greatest matches ever played. He also holds a ton of ATP 1000 titles. Sampras never won the French Open, never even got to the finals. For that I cannot put him above Federer/Nadal. His serve was a thing of beauty and he was a supreme competitor. Djokovic is having an unreal season and if not for running into Stan the Man at the French, he'd own all titles. Nothing else seems to be slowing him down, I can see him equaling Sampras GS count. Agassi is in the bottom of this group but that is not a knock on him. He is a GOAT and one of my favorite players to watch, amazing ball-striker.
I hate to say it but Serena would destroy Martina. Serena just has too much power and athleticism for Martina to handle. Martina's serve and volley game doesn't translate well to modern tennis with bigger athletes and poly strings. She would get passed left and right.
