We’re not disagreeing on the fact that Sampras wasn’t very good on clay or the fact that it’s a blemish on his record compared to Federer and others. We’re disagreeing about a couple of smaller points: how bad his French Open results were and where his inability to win there affects his status in this discussion, and what it means in historical context.
The guy made the quarters of the French three times and the semifinals once. I don’t think a word like “subpar” has a place in this discussion; getting into the late second week of any major event (nevermind the one that is the worst for your game) and losing to guys like Kafelnikov and Brugera and Agassi and Courier can’t be deemed “subpar” as far as I am concerned. I wouldn’t call him the greatest ever, but I think it’s a little unreasonable to say he’s out based on the French Open alone. And I do think the way the game has changed should be considered. None of it changes the end result, but I think you’re being a little hard on Sampras here.
Courier won the French Open twice. He’s not Nadal, but then again, only Nadal is Nadal, no? Like I said, all the guys who beat Sampras in the French Open quarters and semis won the tournament - and most of them won it right after beating him. Courier, Brugera, Kafelnikov and Agassi won six French Opens between them.
He was 2-3 against Agassi on clay, but Sampras never beat him in a five-set match on that surface. I think Sampras would rightly be a heavy underdog in most of those matchups, but if he played them regularly I think he could get a few wins.
I’d be inclined to pick Navratilova for the women, but Graf was on top for a very long time, too. Unfortunately her time at #1 was greatly extended by the stabbing of Monica Seles, but if you only consider what Graf did on the court and not what happened…
Also, when Graf was at the top of her game, she dominated like no man or woman had before or has since. 6-0 6-0 in a championship final, and it really wasn’t much of a surprise.
He couldn’t adjust his game which further hurts him. Other than Agassi, the other players you mentioned were good but I would not consider them great. In the context of this discussion, it really is a major knock (no pun intended) against him.
They’re not on the level of Sampras and Federer and Laver and the other people in the Best of All Time discussion, but you would be wrong to say they were just good but not great. Courier was the #1 player in the world for 58 weeks (he got to the top before Sampras and Agassi did). He won four majors, including two French Opens, and is still the youngest player ever to reach the finals of all four Slam events. Brugera won two French Opens and reached #3 in the world. Kafelnikov played more matches than everybody on tour every year, won the French Open, the U.S. Open, and an Olympic gold medal and spent a few weeks at #1 in 1999. You’re dismissing these guys like they were journeymen. Sampras was never great on clay and you’re right to count that against him, but during his peak years, his French Open results were good and he lost to guys who were legitimately excellent on clay. Other years he lost to unexceptional guys and he certainly did not excel as a clay court player.
All fair points in assessing Sampras (whom I still contend is the best grass player of all time) but in the context of this sort of thread, the biggest flaw in his game becomes even more glaring. The best would have overcome it, even once.
Borg won six times at Roland Garros which is just amazing given his dominance at Wimbledon.
It is nice isn’t it? And it doesn’t come to a definite conclusion (how could it? it isn’t really a question with an objective right answer) but I like the point about Federer loving the game and his place in it.
I think that it does show. Contemporaries seem constantly on the brink of turmoil through mental or physical demons and yet Federer rarely does. He has his little girls and wife able to travel with him now and that can only be a good thing for him. He seems content as well he may. Incidentally, I note the twins are now coming up to 3 and that their birth and early years coincide with his Majors “drought”. Correlation is not causation but he would not be the first to have form affected by personal upheaval.
I’ve watched tennis since the later Borg years and seen great players come and go but I can’t think of anyone more compelling to watch than Federer. He glides where others scuttle he strokes where others slog and yet, rather like Alain Prost, When he looks slow he is at his fastest. I’m thankful that he has played in an era of super slo-mo cams. All the better to appreciate his deceptively powerful whipped forehand.
I thought so too. He notes that there really isn’t a right answer but does try and quantify why, perhaps, Federer is so good and does so without it sounding cheesy.
You have to remember that guys like Laver and Rosewall did not play the Grand slam tournaments for years. If you consider the Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era you could say that Laver won 20 tournaments - 11 Grand slam and 9 Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era, and Rosewall 23 - 8 Grand slam and 15 Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era. Gonzales- 17 - 2 Grand Slam and 15 Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era.
You can debate the worth of Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era all you want, but remember that Laver did not play in Grand slams for 5 years or 21 tournaments at the very height of his career.
This list is biased. Ilie Nastase is clearly the best player ever, if you factor in nastiness, erratic behavior and comedic value…which are the only things that make tennis bearable for me. Oh, and hair. So by that reckoning, my top four are:
Ilie Nastase
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Bjorn Borg (hair)
In all seriousness, isn’t McEnroe rated a little low on this list?
Really hard to go against Federer as GOAT, although I still have a nagging feeling that he lucked out by having a lot of his career be against an aging Sampras and Agassi. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Federer’s first Grand Slam win came the year after Sampras retired. He’s ridiculously talented and ridiculously consistent (Agassi seemed to bomb out in the 1st round of a Slam at last once a year…), but he has a losing record vs the one big rival during his career (Nadal). I still think Nadal might end up catching Federer if his body holds up.
I seriously think we have to consider putting Nadal ahead of Sampras at this point: Made it to every Grand Slam final at least twice, won every grand slam on three surfaces, including twice on his least-favorite surface. Hell, Nadal has made it to five Wimbledon finals (!); Sampras never even got to a French Open final.
Agassi made it to every grand slam final at least twice, was the first player to win the career grand slam on three different surfaces, and you can toss in an Olympic gold medal in 96, he had a top 10 ranking in 1988, and was ranked in the top 10 almost 20 years later, in 2006. Pretty amazing, and you always wonder how many Slams he’d have if he didn’t waste a major chunk of his career at the McDonald’s drive through. 'Course, maybe he lasted so long precisely because he didn’t burn out early on.
I don’t think so. Seven grand slams, but none at the French Open or the Australian Open (never even made it to a final there), and his results taper off pretty quickly after 1985 or so - an awful lot of defeats in the 1st-4th rounds.
Like I said, all the guys who beat Sampras in the French Open quarters and semis won the tournament - and most of them won it right after beating him. Courier, Brugera, Kafelnikov and Agassi won six French Opens between them.