Fiero425 said:
Sampras had the game to win RG, but wasn't really committed to doing it; not that I know of anyway! He was also very unlucky playing past or future FO winners! I seem to remember him getting past Bruguera and Courier only to lose to eventual winner Kafelnikov in the semi in '96! I didn't see it, but Agassi supposedly wore him out in an early round one year as well! IIRC his best chances should have been between '95 & '97! He was at the height of his powers, was established as #1, and could afford really preparing for the tourney! Before and after that he was wasting his time! Edberg had the best chance of winning with an aggressive style, but he was "spent" even before he won that 4th set from Chang in '89! That's one reason I haven't been that hard on top players who skipped or never won the tourney! It had an affect on a player for months depending on how successful he performed making semi or final! Lendl's was "done" for '84 after killing himself to win over McEnroe in 5 sets! Edberg was dead meat going into Wimbledon and actually lost a "love" set to Becker in the final! At least the surface and balls have been changed so it isn't as grueling as the old days, but it's still a haven for baseliners! A serve and volleyer hasn't won since Yannick Noah in '83 with an honorable mention of Federer in '09!
Back to the topic at hand, I don't think Murray has a snowball's chance in Hades to win a French Open! He'll be lucky to make a final! Like Nadal, he works too hard from the baseline with players not even highly ranked! You need to get on and get off the court sometime and conserve your energy! Add back and knee problems, I think Andy's pushing it to even attend the tourney! I've been begging Roger would get over it and skip to prepare for Wimbledon which he has a much better chance of winning! He's stubborn though, even with his style of play; trying to slog it out with kids from the baseline! :huh: :cry Could it get any worse than this past season losing to kids I'd never heard of on clay? In the old days, that would be no big deal, but it accelerates Roger's decline IMO!
Good post, Fiero. I meant to quote you earlier but got sidetracked by some other argument.
You are right. Sampras wasn't indeed too committed as far as the French was concerned. Two reasons, one, he had a condition in his blood that would make him lethargic if he were to engage himself in long grueling rallies under the sun, so he had to opt for a game that would give him the quick result; second, Wimbledon was too close to RG and Wimbledon was everything he had ever dreamt of and he could never risk it no matter what. So RG had to go. He had said a number of times that he felt right home at Centre Court of Wimbledon. USO was his 2nd favourite. He wasn't too keen on AO (mainly because of the distance) and had skipped it twice. He also had to withdraw from the 1999 USO with a sudden back injury just before it. He was the hottest player on tour at that moment and was on a winning streak. Had he played, chances were very, very high of him winning another USO. It went to Agassi instead. And he beat Todd Martin in the final.
Anyway, I had watched the whole 1996 French Open that year on TV. He had three 5 setters against two French champion Bruguera and Jim Courier and one against Todd Martin enroute to semi and met with a very fresh Kafelnikov in the semi. In fact, he was so spent by that time that Kafelnikov bageled him in the 2nd set. And he didn't have any time to recover from that long haul at RG and ended up losing to Krajicek in the qtr final in straight sets at Wimbledon.
Sampras could have won RG at least 1 time, yes had he paid equal attention to both RG and Wimbledon, but early on he'd decided that he was only going to focus on Wimbledon. And he never had an easier time from the get go of his career and staying at No. 1 for six straight years was really taking a toll on his body and mind. As someone mentioned somewhere I forget, he wanted to break Laver's record and had Laver had a higher GS count, then he would have gone for that but since he had already broken the record, he wasn't motivated at all and wanted to retire after 2000. He can't possibly beat Federer's record since he came before Federer.
I don't know if you know this but McEnroe himself was quite done after 1986 and took a six month break from the tour because he felt so exhausted. He was never the same player after he came back and never won a Major after that.
I believe Murray has the potential to win RG however, I am not sure if he is willing to sacrifice Wimbledon. Like Sampras, Wimbledon means a great deal to him. Quite ironic that both Sampras and Murray used the same mentor to guide them to the right direction - Lendl. And Lendl' work ethics even back then was epic. He literally proved that failure is indeed the key to the ultimate success.
