[Jonathan Northrop] Why Was Sampras More Prone to Upset Than Current Greats?

[El Dude]

Read it here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/el-dude/why-was-sampras-more-prone-to-upset-than-current-greats/

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Why was Sampras more prone to upset than current greats (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Sampras was flat out bad on clay and that certainly accounts for a lot of his early slam losses. He was rarely getting upset early at the other 3 slams until he was well past his prime.

The other big factor is your 2nd point, court diversity. Overall, it was a lot harder to dominate the game back then because the courts played much differently and there were different styles of play. Pretty much everyone is a pure baseliner today and the courts have slowed down. This makes upsets a lot more difficult to come by and it makes total dominance a lot easier.

 

[Asmodeus]

RE: Why was Sampras more prone to upset than current greats (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Sampras was flat out bad on clay and that certainly accounts for a lot of his early slam losses. He was rarely getting upset early at the other 3 slams until he was well past his prime.

The other big factor is your 2nd point, court diversity. Overall, it was a lot harder to dominate the game back then because the courts played much differently and there were different styles of play. Pretty much everyone is a pure baseliner today and the courts have slowed down. This makes upsets a lot more difficult to come by and it makes total dominance a lot easier.

Pete was pretty bad on clay. Of his 64 titles only 3 were on clay (less than 5% of his total taking) compared to Federer with 13% if his titles coming on clay. In fact, after 1997 (when he was 26 year old) I believe Pete never made it past the 3rd round at the FO. Federer won the thing when he was 27 or 28.

So, Pete was pretty bad on clay in comparison to his result on other surfaces.

 

[Garro]

RE: Why was Sampras more prone to upset than current

Although Sampras always had struggles on clay, I think reason 2 has a bigger impact than 1 or 3. It is easier today for the top players to dominate playing the same style on each surface, in a way they could not before. Partly due to the court surfaces and partly racquet technology. This explains why even Andy Murray for example, can reach all four slam semi's in 2011, something that Sampras and Agassi never did.

 

[El Dude]

RE:

It isn't just Sampras. Take a look at Stefan Edberg, for instance. 1990 stands out in particular - he lost in the AO Final, won Wimbledon, and went out in the 1R of both the French Open and US Open. Boris Becker is similar - lots of early round exits.

Now Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg were more similar to recent players in terms of consistent dominance (making it to the QF or later in Grand Slams), at least during the 70s when both were in their primes. Connors had 27 QF Slam streak from 1973 to 1983, with 21 of those 27 being SF or later. After losing to Kevin Curren in the 4R at the '83 Wimbledon he started another shorter streak: seven straight SF or later Slams. So from Wimbledon 1973 to the end of 1985 Jimmy Connors only went out once in a Slam before the QF, an amazing feat - and similar to Roger Federer's span over the last decade.

So it is interesting to note that the two greatest players of the 70s, Connors and Borg, were similarly dominant as the greatest players of the 21st century - Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. But it is the great players of the 80s and 90s - Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, and Agassi - who were more erratic. The lone exception is Ivan Lendl, who is in some ways a bridge from the 70s and 80s (along with McEnroe).

The point being, for whatever reason the 80s and 90s saw more erratic performances from great players. This leads me to believe that it had more to do with the tennis of the time than it did the quality of players. Certainly the late 80s to early 90s saw more all-time greats playing at once. But I'm wondering if the courts were more diverse during that time; as some have mentioned, over the last five years or so the courts have become increasingly uniform - were they similar in the 70s and early 80s? Was it just the mid-80s to early-00s that saw a wide diversity of court types and speeds?

 

[huntingyou]

RE:

It isn't just Sampras. Take a look at Stefan Edberg, for instance. 1990 stands out in particular - he lost in the AO Final, won Wimbledon, and went out in the 1R of both the French Open and US Open. Boris Becker is similar - lots of early round exits.

Now Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg were more similar to recent players in terms of consistent dominance (making it to the QF or later in Grand Slams), at least during the 70s when both were in their primes. Connors had 27 QF Slam streak from 1973 to 1983, with 21 of those 27 being SF or later. After losing to Kevin Curren in the 4R at the '83 Wimbledon he started another shorter streak: seven straight SF or later Slams. So from Wimbledon 1973 to the end of 1985 Jimmy Connors only went out once in a Slam before the QF, an amazing feat - and similar to Roger Federer's span over the last decade.

So it is interesting to note that the two greatest players of the 70s, Connors and Borg, were similarly dominant as the greatest players of the 21st century - Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. But it is the great players of the 80s and 90s - Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, and Agassi - who were more erratic. The lone exception is Ivan Lendl, who is in some ways a bridge from the 70s and 80s (along with McEnroe).

The point being, for whatever reason the 80s and 90s saw more erratic performances from great players. This leads me to believe that it had more to do with the tennis of the time than it did the quality of players. Certainly the late 80s to early 90s saw more all-time greats playing at once. But I'm wondering if the courts were more diverse during that time; as some have mentioned, over the last five years or so the courts have become increasingly uniform - were they similar in the 70s and early 80s? Was it just the mid-80s to early-00s that saw a wide diversity of court types and speeds?

if you are talking court speed at the four slams, then there hasn't been enough change to warrant such results based on this factor alone. racket technology, nutrition, training and philosophy of the game has a MUCH greater impact. The whole "uniformity" of the courts talk it's a myth. If it wasn't then why Rafa has 8 RG but 2 Wimbledon? Why Novak has 4 AO but one UO? Certainly rebound ace wasn't considerable faster than plexi nor Deco 1 over deco 2? Clay is clay, receptive to weather more than anything. Grass plays like no other surface on tour and despite the constant crying about the improvement made to the grass so we could have a watchable event; grass is the surface where the server still reigns supreme.

The Big 3 represent the greatest accumulation of tennis supremacy ever assemble in the same era, that's why you have such results. There will be a time when Roger and Rafa are no more and Novak will be old..........and trust me; you will see many "upsets", surprise winners and "vulnerable" world number ones.

To answer dude's last post; just take a look at the players and the STYLE of game and it will answer this thread. A S&V player it's open for more upsets; it's a riskier game and requires greater level or execution. On a bad day, a baseliner like Roger could still employ his system and beat 90% of the tour. The forehand will still land in more often than not.

 

[El Dude]

RE:

huntingyou, I've never really heard anyone call Federer a baseliner, who I consider to be a true all-court player who can play pretty much anyway he needs to. When I think baseliner I think Rafa and Novak.

 

[huntingyou]

RE:

huntingyou, I've never really heard anyone call Federer a baseliner, who I consider to be a true all-court player who can play pretty much anyway he needs to. When I think baseliner I think Rafa and Novak.

he is a baseliner......he doesn't do anything different from the other players on tour.

Baseliner doesn't means not an all-court player, Rafa is an all court player as well.

He has added more net rushing into his game in the last few years but the facts remains he wins from the back of the court.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

RE:

huntingyou, I've never really heard anyone call Federer a baseliner, who I consider to be a true all-court player who can play pretty much anyway he needs to. When I think baseliner I think Rafa and Novak.

he is a baseliner......he doesn't do anything different from the other players on tour.

1) yes, mainly 2) no. but we've been there before.