RateItAll: The Opinion Network

he is the god of tennis. no one has played a game so intelligently as pete.

the greatest!

Best player and Dominator Of Dominators...

As the career of federer progresses, one has to wonder if he will one day be the consensus "best ever" on the men's side. As of now, I don't see how anyone could disagree that Borg is the best of the open era. That said, I would say that Federer and Sampras are in a tie for second place all-time. He was a truly great player.

Update: With Federer on the scene now, Pete is not even the second best anymore.

no doubt about it pete is the best of all time

I can make this real simple. All the players on the list have tremendous talent but what seperates the greats from the best of all time is the ability to step up when your in a championship match and go to another level...like Michael Jordan in basketball etc. This was Sampras' greatest asset...when the match was on the line he got even better...that is what seperates the greats from the greatest.

SIMPLY THE BEST EVER!!!!!!!!!!

Best Overall Player

Pete Sampras, in his prime, possessed more weaponry than any player in the history of the sport. While he wasn't a dominant returner, he didn't have to be. His serve allowed him to bide his time and conserve energy. And he could raise his level of play at critical moments in matches both on serve and when returning. And I strongly believe that when Sampras played to the peak of his skills, there has never been a player who could match him. He was wickedly talented and mentally tough as nails. Only his chronic physical issues (bad knees, thalassemia minor) prevented him from being more dominant than he was. Despite these issues, he ruled the tennis world with an iron hand and ruled Wimbledon like no one ever had before him in an era of big servers and strong serve and volleyers (Edberg, Rafter, Becker, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich). His 8 US Open final appearances over a 12 year period is a tribute to the talent of the man. He could do it all. While it may be true that the missing French Open title is a blemish, this "hole" in Sampras' resume is more of a testament to the strength of the clay courters in his era than any kind of fault in his game. Andre Agassi, who arguably had the some of the best groundstrokes in the history of men's tennis, only won in Paris once. Winning in Paris is a crapshoot when half the population of Spain can win at Roland Garros on any given year. But, grass and hardcourts are the great equalizer. These surfaces require creativity and brilliant shotmaking. And these were the surfaces where Sampras was most dangerous. On these surfaces, it's eat or be eaten. And Sampras rarely went home hungry.

Undeniably great. Cannot be regarded as the greatest as he never won the French Open. In fact he hardly ever won a clay court title.
Thus he has been over-rated at times.

He forced me to watch The Tennis.

Don't like the guy, and don't find his tennis interesting to watch. But by virtue of his domination, he was probably the best player in history.

I'll say this, Pete Sampras made me wanna give a look at tennis, and I became a fan.

sorry bur its not the best!

He is the BEST EVER.

good player, for his time... very borim to watch... its like a robot, no feelings...

people often they pete lived in an era that lack competition or if he had lived in an earlier era he wouldn't be as dominating. however, if you take a closer look at it, you'll notice that if it hadn'nt been for pete, the 90s would have produced as many greates as the 80s or 70s. that's why pete is the GREATEST.

What a great player! he won the most single-majors. he had this tramendous serve that made it easy to be always a bit in advantage. great volley. also great groundstrokes. a bit a shame that he hadnt that real opponent. so he nearly never was proved to show ALL. i m rememering that close match when he played becker at his last masters final over five sets. this was amacing. but that was the exception. becker was in his final years and most not really worked out. agassi, perhaps his biggest natural rival also was looking for his physical and mental shape that time. but at least: this is not sampras problem. one of the greatest, but in my feeling not the best one ever.

He is one of the best ever but not the best because on red clay he wasn't very strong. For what he did at wimbledon is comparable to borg and the us open to connors or mcenroe;but he never reach even the final at french (he has only a semifinal lost in straight sets to kafelnikof).I'm sure he woudn't win a set to Borg on red clay.

It's a pity we have to mention Pistol Pete's name among he reatest yet even i would accept that he has a place here. Pete has been a great beneactor of modern technology. You put him against a guy who serves faster and more consistently than him, then Pete has no clue. I saw him play the best tennis of his life in going down to richard krajicek at wimbledon in 1996. It was no contest because Krajicek served hard had volleyed exquisitely. In fact Krajicek beat Pete so many times that he made the pistol look like it was shooting blanks. Pete had an immensely powerful game and little else. that is why he couldn't compete at the french where all one's skills are probed.

Nikhil Pete is without doubt the greatest player ever. Its not about the grand slams ,its about the game that he had.No past player and I am sure no present and future player will come ever come close to playing like him. If he played any of the greats before him, his game would be too strong for them

He never won the French Open and was never particularly good on clay, so I can't call him the greatest of all time. He's got the greatest serve and greatest running forehand of all time, and Agassi, his greatest rival, often did bring out the best in Sampras. He was great, but would not have dominated earlier eras before the technology started producing 150 MPH serves.

He has won more Grand Slams than any other men's player in an era that had a lot of solid players, unlike the 80's where you had Mac, Connors and the Swedes and not much else. Also, he played an all-court game at a time when baseline bangers were beginning to take over the game. Old school stuff. Big serve and volley, one of the most devistating backhands of all time, and heart like few others.

PETE SAMPRAS IS THE BEST TENNIS PLAYER EVER! look at the facts people...hes won more grand slams than any other man...EVER! His game is so classy and aritistic...I LOVE watching him play. and when andre agassi was asked to name the top three best tennis players EVER (ANDRE AGASSI) he sai PETE SAMPRAS, PETE SAMPRAS, PETE SAMPRAS for once this andre sais sumthing intelligent! I <3 YOU PETE!

i give him a five because he beat andre aggasi last year and andre aggassi is very hard to beat

truly the greatest tennis player ever.on and off court. everyone who rated sampras below four i have sixwords for u you dont know jack about tennis. his service was brilliant and i dont think tennis will ever see a player as good as him.. no matter which part of the court he was on, if he was at the net or on the baseline he was great to watch. people keep saying he never won all four grand slams but there is also the point that if he had played earlier when there were more grand slams with grass courts he wudve kicked ass. i true sportsmen and an icon.an inspiration to all budding talented tennis players

There is no question that Pete has a senior place among the all-time greats of the game. A complete game second to none, technically sound,elegant..poetry in motion! However i am not convinced he is THE all-time great...his short-comings on the red dirt reveal a suspect fitness, a factor a rate as very important for THE top great. It is almost as if Pete could mostly shine when all is smoothsailing, but could not constantly show the guts and grit of a borg or lendl. Pete is a very smooth achiever, but perhaps not enough character to reach that pinnacle. Borg is the King because he combined a steely character with an exclusive genius.another point to remember is that a lot of Petes grand slams were not won against the kind of opposition that borg had to face.Apart from becker(for a while) and Agassi (who vanished for some years) most of the opponents that Pete faced were rather mediocre. I can bet that if Sampras reached his prime in the era of Becker,lendl,Wilander,Edberg he would have never have dominated the way he did. In part Pete became dominant because he was allowed to! I would even place lendl ahead of him. Pete is somewhat overrated.

Just the Greatest

Sampras is the greatest of all time, without question.

People should not even be allowed to rate Sampras lower than 5. He is the greatest athlete of all time. Sampras took his sport to a higher level than anyone has taken any sport and ever will. His game will beat anyone, anytime, PERIOD.

I don't know if he is the best player of all time, but his record is sterling and he treated opponents and fans with respect. My fantasy match would be for Sapras to play either Borg or Laver when they were in their prime.

Without doubt, the greatest men's tennis player ever. Not just because of his record 14 grand slams, but his game was superb in every facet: He could volley, serve, and return extremely well. The most complete game ever. Some people found him 'boring.' That's too bad. He may not have been very flashy or shown much emotion but his tennis game was awesome to behold. He was always a great role model, also.

He's the best of all time. His achievements are so many, his faults so few. You could point out his failure to win at Roland Garros a la Agassi, Budge, and Laver, but it's just about the only thing. And you can't say he can't play on clay; the Davis Cup victory over Russia is proof of his mad skillz. 6 straight years at number one, 14 grand slam titles, 6 Wimbledon titles in 7 years: the numbers don't lie. It's also easy to forget how much off-the-court stress he went through. The arrest of his childhood coach and the death of Tim Gullickson are examples. I, for one, am thankful that I was around to see him play in his prime.

Pete Sampras is by far the best of all-time. Marriage, a normal part of life, has facilitated his demise, along with age. He will win one more!

He is so clearly the best player of all time, and also a hottie!

I'm straight out sick of this dork. Can't wait tell he retires. Boring and disgusting to watch. What kind of person throws up on national t.v. Dude, its just a game man, if your sick don't play. He is #1 in my book on one thing, the most boring player of all time.

he has always let his raquet do the talking for him...and talk bout media-darling...he isn't at all snobby and very care-free...he's the best role-model and is very hard-working. congrats on his win esp since he was almost written off..sheesh! :) yay pistol-pete!!

he's the all time gr8. hope he doesn't retire...snif.

One of the greatest players in tennis today. I hope he has more years in him to play his best!

I get so tired of the "Sampras is boring" comments. All Sampras has done is to win more Grand Slams than any player in history, set a new standard for Wimbledon dominance, and carry himself with class and grace. One of my last memories of Jimmy Connors was during his last big US Open. There was a controversial line call and Connors, at the "mature" age of 32 or so, called the linesman an abortion at the top of his lungs. Is this what we want our sports stars to be? Is this interesting? Why isn't it enough for Sampras to dominate on the court, treat his opponents and fans with respect, and keep his private life private? I will never get it...

Pete Sampras is a terrific player! Living in England, my only experience of his personality is what we see at Wimbledon, when he comes across as a superb professional and a real gentleman - an excellent role model.

Pete Sampras is the best men's tennis player of all time. Even with his losing the 2000 US Open he is still the best and his records prove that. It would be great for Pete to win a French Open but it is not mandatory for his legend to continue.

No one in the history of professional tennis could Pistol Pete if he's playing on top of his game. At least on grass and hardcourts... clay would be a different story.

I'm really impressed with Pete's personality and and his image. He's not too fancy.

Another no brainer. This guy is the most dominant male tennis player of our era. If he does not get a 5, no one should. He is tied for the record for most grand slam wins in singles competition. Agassi cannot hold his jock strap. He also dates better looking women than Agassi.

the most dominant male player of the last 30 years. For all the glory of McEnroe, Borg, Connor and Lendl- none of them has accomplished what Pete has.

Pete Sampras is way too cocky, rude, and unnecessarily arrogant.

Pete Sampras may be good, but he is terribly boring.

Pete Sampras is the best ever, even if Agassi is the current #1!

Great player but not friendly