By Richard Pagliaro | Friday, March 4, 2022

Armed with an 85-square inch Pro Staff racquet and audacious athleticism, Pete Sampras transformed his first US Open as a seed into legacy launching pad.

Rocketing serves that bruised the back walls, a 19-year-old Sampras stopped four former or future world No. 1 players in succession—Thomas Muster, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi—to capture his maiden major at the 1990 US Open in a statement Slam.

More: Djokovic Will Be Able to Play Roland Garros

“He just kicked my ass,” Agassi candidly conceded after Sampras’ 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 victory that made him the youngest US Open men’s champion at 19 years, one month.

Tennis writer and historian Steve Flink covered the teenage Sampras’ inspired run through the Flushing Meadows field and recognized prodigious potential in the low-key kid from California.

In his book Pete Sampras: Greatness Revisited Hall of Famer Flink makes a case for the 14-time Grand Slam champion at the peak of his powers as “on hard courts, indoor or on grass better than anyone who has ever lifted a racquet.”

Flink supports that case recounting Sampras’ explosive performances in Grand Slam finals where posted a commanding 14-4 record, significant stats, including Sampras’ determined run to a record sixth straight season as year-end No. 1—a punishing stress test that created ulcers, caused his hair to fall out and prompted Sampras to snap and toss a racquet for the one and only time in his career—and the former world No. 1’s career-long dominance of a wide assortment of varied rivals over the years.

The book pops with insight from Sampras himself, who often shares his thoughts before major matches was as simple as believing he felt confident facing rival Andre Agassi before the ’99 Wimbledon final because he felt he’d have a chance to rally and believed he was superior in athletic points.

A collective chorus of some of the game’s greatest living champions, including Novak Djokovic, Martina Navratilova, John McEnroe, Billie Jean King, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier and many more provided perspective and insight into Sampras’ career and the ultimate question of where does he stand in the GOAT discussion.

It is a game rooted in ritual refined over years of playing, Sampras' stylized movements from the way he lifts his left toe during the start of his serve, to the explosiveness of his running forehand that blew so many points wide open, to his serving with just one ball because that’s all he needed to his swiftly swiping the sweat from his forehead with his index finger to the way he gazed at his strings between points inspecting the gut for signs of impending breakage.

Today, we see Sampras’ influence in players like Novak Djokovic, who recounts seeing his tennis hero Sampras win Wimbledon inspired him to devote himself to the same quest, to Stefanos Tsitsipas, who traces his all-court game to watching video of Sampras, to Venus Williams, who told Tennis Now she modeled her serve on Sampras’ vaunted serve to former UCLA standout Maxime Cressy, who grew up watching video of Sampras, attended college where Sampras’ sister Stella coaches and is now singlehandedly reviving the very serve-and-volley style Sampras himself once feared would “go extinct” on the ATP Tour.

How would a prime Pete Sampras and his serve-and-volley style stack up against Big 3 champions Nadal, Djokovic and Federer?

Where does Sampras, who like Nadal and Ken Rosewall won major championships in his teens, 20s and 30s, rate in the GOAT Debate? Who is the GOAT right now and what are the essential criteria for truly determining the one and only GOAT?

We put those questions and more to Hall of Famer Steve Flink in this Q&A.You can order Steve Flink's book on Sampras here.

Tennis Now: Steve, you covered Pete Sampras' entire career. In researching and writing this book, what did you learn that you previously did not know?

Steve Flink: What struck me about that was how little he has changed, which I liked. It reinforced the consistency of his character and what I remember in interviews in days gone by. Plus, the other thing is I continued to do these interviews with Pete long after the 2002 US Open. Once a year sometimes two [interviews] a year where I would talk to him and write a piece and keep up with him. So I’d seen over that span of time from ’02 right up until the last interview for the book that he was the same Pete that I’d known through all those playing years on into the seniors and beyond.

So no, nothing shocking about that; just sort of reaffirming how much the family means to him. And you can see how much he enjoys all that—being a father and being a husband and leading life the way he wants to lead it. He’s not consumed with the idea that he has to open up an academy or he has to do commentary. I think he’s enjoying his life playing golf, going to the gym and I can’t say any of that really surprised me that much.

TN: As you watched Sampras’ career unfold in real time, what match, tournament or moment elevated your opinion from: Pete’s a very, very talented young player to Pete’s a champion who may well be the greatest I’ve ever seen? We saw him take down a series of Hall of Famers in the 1990 US Open run, but still he was so young and that was one massive run.

In the book, Sampras himself, Todd Martin and others suggest the 2002 Pete Sampras who beat archrival Andre Agassi in the US Open final for a fairytale finish to his career was the best version of Pete Sampras ever despite the fact he had endured about a two-year title drought. What was the best version of Pete Sampras you ever saw?

Steve Flink: I did feel that, interestingly, after the 1990 US Open. I was so convinced coming out of that 1990 US Open that I didn’t think it was an accident. I thought to beat that many great players as he had done—I mean even Muster, back then, that was no easy feat—starting in the round of 16 and then to continue right through Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi and to get better and better with every match. I honestly feel he was almost ready physically and technically before, but that he had to grow into it more emotionally and just coming to terms with being a celebrity. But I was pretty convinced by that 1990 US Open run and I was pretty concerned in ’91. We saw in the summer of ’91 he had a great summer but then you could feel the burden when he played Courier in the quarters of the US Open and was unable to defend his title. I think the way he was playing leading up to the ’91 Open he was fully capable of winning it again.

I did feel there was nothing freakish or no fluke about what he’d done at the 1990 US Open. And no, I wouldn’t have said 14 majors at that point, but I saw a cluster and a great future then. I was only that much more convinced by what he did at Wimbledon 1993. You can see how that was the one that freed him up because the ’92 Open had been so disappointing losing to Edberg in the final that really stung him hard. But when he won that ’93 Wimbledon over Courier I felt, as he seems to believe himself, that he was going to take off after that. He felt that was going to ignite him and it clearly did.

The guy that really believes that [2002 Sampras was best] as much if not more than Pete is Todd Martin. I was intrigued by how strongly Todd Martin feels that version was by far the best version of Pete Sampras that had ever been. And yet I got some different viewpoints on that. You have McEnroe saying: No, I’m not so sure. McEnroe thought that maybe the ’95 Pete was better. It’s a hard comparison because you’re older and he knew he only had so much time left at that stage and he wasn’t going to play into his mid 30s the way that Novak, Roger and Rafa have all carried on. That was never in his thinking. As you know in that generation, you felt once you got into your 30s, you were playing on borrowed time.

Tommy Haas was a tough challenge at that 2002 US Open. Sampras had lost to Haas earlier that summer so that was no gimme. It was a good performance to win that match in four sets. To me, when I felt he’d win the tournament was when he beat Roddick so handily under the lights having lost his only two matches with Andy previously as well. I felt that was a big moment and that it was gonna carry him to the title.

In my view, 2002 is right up there, but I would put alongside it ’97 when I felt like at 25 turning 26 there was a physical maturity and an emotional maturity and a level of tennis that he seldom, if ever, surpassed. It’s a tough year to evaluate—Agassi was largely out of the picture that year—but he played some stupendous tennis throughout that year. He only lost his serve twice at Wimbledon. Good draw, yes, but phenomenal serving and then the second stage was that period in ’99. In early ’99 he didn’t play the Australian because he was so exhausted working to get his sixth year in a row as year-end No. 1 in ’98.

The match he played against Agassi at Wimbledon, I would still put that above the ’02 Open slightly above. And then the way he was playing on hard courts during the summer I don’t think there was any way he would have lost the Open the way he was playing beating Agassi in L.A. and beating Krajicek, Agassi and Rafter in Cincinnati, he was really rolling. And then of course he had the herniated disc back injury that kept him out of the US Open. He showed that level again when he beat Agassi at the year-end after getting destroyed by him in the round-robin he came back to beat him handily in the final. So I’d say that ’97, ’99, or ’02 you could have a stirring debate about which version was the best version of Pete Sampras. But certainly ’02 was a great way to go out and a magnificent performance against Andre in the final.

TN: You’re a Hall of Fame historian and writer so it’s a major statement in the book you write in decades covering tennis you’ve only seen two champions master every shot: Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

You write: “In my view, Pete Sampras at his best on hard courts, indoor or on grass is better than anyone who has ever lifted a racquet.” For me as a reader, that’s the mission statement of the book and you make a multi-layered and compelling case supporting it.

Roger Federer is the only Big 3 champion who faced Sampras and young Fed beat Pete 7-6(7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7(2), 7-5 at 2001 Wimbledon. They play an electric exo at Madison Square Garden and Fed wins again. How do you respond to Federer fans who say: Wait a minute Steve, Roger beat Pete at Wimbledon when he wasn’t fully mature Maestro, he’s a better all-surface player, better defender, one of the few in history who can live with Sampras athletically. Absolutely, Sampras was the best big-match player in Slams—Pete 7-0 was in Wimbledon finals and 14-4 major finals—and his six straight years as year-end No. 1 astounding and a record Roger doesn’t match. But Fed has won nearly 40 more career titles and he’s done it an exceptional era vs. two other GOATS, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic, who are younger.

Fed fans say our man is penalized because he has a losing career record vs. Rafa and Novak, but then doesn’t get credit for the winning record vs. Pete. What do you say to the legion of Federer fans who will say that statement in the book is unfair to Roger?

Steve Flink: The reason Federer fans don’t get the benefit of the head-to-head is I don’t think you can put stock in one Wimbledon round of 16 and it was a great match for sure. But Pete, as I think he’d say himself, slightly past his prime a little bit and Roger not quite at his prime. So it’s a little hard to judge that match particularly because it wasn’t a semi or a final. It was Roger just coming up and kind of announcing himself and then after that they only played the exhibitions. I would say the exhibitions they both played pretty hard in Madison Square Garden and Pete served for the match and also led 5-3 in the tiebreaker came very close to beating him in ’08 when he was so far removed and just sort of working his way back after having been gone from the game since he retired in ’02 so that was a remarkable effort. Again, don’t put too much stock in it because it’s exhibitions, etc. but I don’t think they were allowed to have a rivalry.


If they had [a rivalry], I think Sampras would have done very well against Roger. I think they would have had some classics. As far as Roger paying a penalty, I think really what it comes down to is if you’re the greatest player of your era you’ve got to beat your foremost rivals more than they beat you. As least that’s my estimation—Federer fans might argue—but I would say Roger did himself a favor by coming back at Rafa starting in 2017 and one more win at Wimbledon in ’19 pretty impressive after all the shellackings he had taken from Rafa and even a couple of the epic losses as well that he made that rivalry a little tighter, a little more compelling at 24-16, then it had been. Roger is down against Novak at this point 27-23 and I think you have to beat your biggest rivals. Obviously, Pete had some struggles against the likes of Wayne Ferreira, Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek. Those types, yes, but they weren’t his primary rivals. Mainly big servers were the issues and it was less in his hands and understandable why he might have a tougher time. Stich was really only a Sampras rival over the first half of the ‘90s and they didn’t play that many times only nine matches and it’s 5-4 Stich. To have a losing record against Stich or to struggle against Wayne Ferreira a bit or be down against Krajicek it was essentially a 10-match rivalry. I don’t think it’s that significant.

But for Roger I think it is significant: He had a big lead over Novak early and then Novak came on and almost inevitably will end his career with a winning record against Roger. And then Rafa of course built up a big, big lead. Roger closed the gap some and did himself justice to come back into the rivalry as well as he did. But I think there’s no ignoring the fact Roger is 3-6 vs. Rafa in major finals and he lost three Wimbledon finals to Novak, a US Open final, only compensated by one US Open final win over Novak back in ’07. So these things matter—to me they matter. That would be my argument to Federer fans.

When you look at Pete against his foremost rivals, he’s 20-14 against Agassi, including four out of five major finals, three at the US Open and one at Wimbledon, so in the biggest matches Pete played his best tennis. And Pete has a huge edge over Courier, Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter—you look at all the key guys that were really his chief rivals he mastered them. Also the other argument I would make on Pete vs. Roger is the diversity of styles Pete faced. In the book Michael Chang made that case very forcefully about how Pete, except on the dirt, he can deal with any kind of style. Pete beat the serve-and-volleyers, he beat the baseliners, he beat the big servers, he beat the big hitters—you name the style Pete beat it and it was a wider range of styles out there at that time as opposed to today’s game.

So that’s my argument and that’s not to knock Roger because his longevity is phenomenal. To think he won his first major at ’03 Wimbledon and most recent at 2018 Australian Open—virtually 15 yeas apart is remarkable. The fact Roger made 23 straight semifinals at Grand Slams and 36 straight quarterfinals at majors, the consistency is just astonishing. But I think where Roger gets hurt, is not in the argument against Pete so much, where Roger gets hurt is in the argument against Novak and Rafa. To not have the head-to-head edge over Novak and Rafa and to lose so many big matches to them—those six major finals, granted in Rafa’s case it’s stacked heavily on the four losses to Rafa at the French Open, but Roger still lost to him in Australia and he still lost to him in one of the Wimbledon finals.



TN: Assessing Sampras' serve, Billie Jean King delivers a massive endorsement in the book. Billie Jean tells you when she's working with young players on serve today, she urges them to watch video of three iconic servers: Pancho Gonzales, Pete Sampras and Serena Williams. Billie Jean is one of several champions in the book who assert Sampras’ second serve was so strong he essentially hit two first serves.

I want to ask you the same two questions I’ve asked Pete Sampras a few times: What were the secrets to his serve? Secondly, what were the keys in Pete transforming himself from a very good server in the juniors, where he played up vs. older kids, to one of the most dominant servers in tennis history?

Lastly, where do you rate Sampras’ serve all-time among legendary servers: Isner, Karlovic, Roddick, Goran, Pancho Gonzales,Federer, Becker, Roscoe Tanner, and so many others in that discussion. The Bryan brothers told me Wayne Arthurs one of toughest servers they ever faced. Historically, where does Sampras’ serve rate?

Steve Flink: It’s fascinating: I don’t think Pete can fully explain what happened to turn his serve from a very good serve and a young player developing a serve-and-volley style to becoming that great a server. I still remember [Sampras] telling me about a conversation he had with [former coach] Pete Fischer, and Fischer wasn’t coaching him anymore, but they would talk from time to time and Fischer felt like he would have preferred a different formula and not so big on the serve. My point being: I don’t think he knew exactly what happened between ’89 and ’90, but there was something really almost earth-shattering that did happen with his serve.

Brad Gilbert talks about it a little bit in the book. You just saw a big difference and Pete agrees: Somewhere in that summer of 1990 he found it. It wasn’t something he had necessarily planned on, but suddenly there was just a lot more pop and it became a much bigger serve. I think the motion was so natural always. I think the secret is that Fischer having him use the same toss and then saying kick it wide or slice it down the T. You know Fischer would kind of order the serve while the toss was up there. From the same toss position, he could hit so many serves and therefore it became so deceptive, and I think that’s where there’s a similarity between Sampras and Federer—it’s just so hard to read Roger’s serve—but Pete just has more power. You never knew where he was going and no one could pick it from the toss. Agassi could pick Becker’s serve from the toss much better than he could pick Sampras’—no comparison. Pete was always very aware of the importance of the placement and the variation. I do believe that being drilled into him by Fischer that he had to hit different serves from the same toss was a really valuable service to him.


In the book, Martina Navratilova said Isner, Sampras and Federer are the three best servers though she didn’t necessarily rank them. I would rank Sampras as the best. It gets back to your original comment—the package of the first and second serve is superior. Okay you can argue that Isner or a Karlovic with their height and speed on both first and second, I think Sampras’ placement is probably superior to either of theirs and his ability to serve well under pressure and not suddenly get broken at 5-6.

I believe the combination of the first and second serve of Sampras, there’s never been anything like that. The funny thing is because people talk about how great his second serve was, as you mentioned, is that it obscured how magnificent the first serve was. Pete didn’t care if Goran or Philippoussis or Rusedski went 5, 6 or 7 miles an hour faster on serve. He would stick with 127, 128 or 131 miles an hour and put it on a dime. Oddly, I feel the greatness of his second serve obscured just how remarkable his first serve was. As a serving package, I don’t think we’ve seen anything like it.


TN: Dr. Pete Fischer was Pete’s head coach for almost 10 years. But he was more than that, he was almost an extended family member. When he made the decision to switch Sampras to a one-handed backhand the entire family was totally on board. So there was deep trust and obviously stinging horror and betrayal when Fischer pled guilty to two counts of child molestation was sentenced to six years. Pete Fischer was a pediatrician apparently had a 190 IQ is described as a genius and mastermind building Sampras game yet he himself had a dysfunctional serve and wasn’t even a good club player. Who is Pete Fischer? What is his ultimate impact on Sampras’ career? And do you think the shock of seeing what Pete Fischer was later influenced Sampras in keeping a tight, trusted team like coach Paul Annacone, stringer Nate Ferguson, etc.?

Steve Flink: I don’t think I want to comment on Pete Fischer from the outside because I don’t think I really know him well enough—or that anyone does—to really [detail] the daker side or whatever you want to call it. I just want to say from a tennis standpoint he was clearly a genius. Because he knew what he didn’t know.

In the book, Tracy Austin describes what a terrible player he was. He had the worst strokes, so how did someone like that become a genius in the coaching field? Part of it was he understood he didn’t have the skills to be teaching all of those shots. Therefore, it was sort of an army of coaches with Robert Lansdorp and Little and all of these guys stepped in and I think that was a brilliant move. And he had enough inner security to not feel he had to rule the roost—that it had to be all under his control—yes those coaches coordinated and reported to him but he had the strength of mind, the clarity of vision to realize this is going to be the best thing to happen to Pete Sampras. He said I’m going to package this and point all of these people and use all of these great minds, along with my own, to shape him into the champion he will inevitably be.

Then the way he went about helping him with his serve, which I mentioned earlier, is also a stroke of genius. That’s not something many coaches would have done at that time. He obviously had an incredible feel for the game and for what Sampras could do. That’s also very important psychologically: someone is drumming this into you constantly, how great you’re going to be. He’s telling you that your real competition is not the guys out there, it’s Laver and it’s the all-time greats. I think that message was constantly resonating and I’m sure that did a lot of good for Sampras in his psychological development. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a coaching story quite like it; of someone who is a pediatrician, really an expert in another field, who obviously loved tennis who played such a prominent role in the making of a great champion.

TN: When I asked Paul Annacone to compare Pete and Roger as he coached both, surprisingly, he said Pete’s mentality is more like Rafa than Roger. Here’s Paul’s exact comment: “Pete was more of a gladiator. I would put Pete’s mentality—even though he was very quiet—closer to Rafa’s extroverted version than to Roger's mentality. Pete, internally, was more like Rafa with that energy than he was to Roger. Pete was very quiet about it. Pete was very stealth, but he had that nothing is going to get in my way mentality that is very similar to the way Rafa is. Roger is more of an expansive, artistic style. He competes his backside off, but it’s a very different approach.”

Do you agree with Paul Annacone on that? For me, the genius of Nadal is he’s the best match adjuster and one of best problem solvers ever, which we saw again in the AO final win over Medvedev. Whereas for me the genius of Sampras was he was so imposing he made you adjust to him. One is a problem solver the other is problem poser. How do you see the Pete and Rafa comparison posed by coach Paul Annacone?

Steve Flink: I think Paul is absolutely right. I was fascinated when I read his comments in the interview with you and I feel that he’s spot on. And he would definitely know—he was the one who was around Pete. And I feel there’s a lot credence to that and there was a lot of quiet intensity to Pete. Rafa’s intensity was more obvious, but Pete’s was there inside him and I feel the similarities are greater.

Not to say Pete is not an artist, by the way, because just looking at it from the tennis standpoint there’s a lot more similarity between Pete and Roger then there is with Pete and Rafa. But mentality-wise I think Paul Annacone is absolutely right.



TN: Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi created incredible highs together—they played on the U.S. Davis Cup dream team, they gave us electrifying US Open encounters, their Nike guerilla tennis street ad turned an entire generation of American kids onto tennis, they showed us you can be true to yourself against a rival who is polar opposite stylistically, politically, and personality wise and thrive—and obviously they had disputes, as rivals do, too.

I was there in Indian Wells at Hit for Haiti when their tiff blew up with Andre mocking Pete and Pete nearly drilling Andre—all that with Rafa and Roger on the court looking bewildered. A few years later, I asked Andre at a press conference to assess his relationship with Pete. Andre replied: “Strictly platonic.” What were the best and worst moments of this rivalry and what is their relationship today?

Also, Billie Jean says in the book that if both are at their best she feels Pete believes he will win nine times out of 10 and she believes Andre, deep down, feels that way too. That’s a heavy statement; this guy is a Hall of Fame champion. Do you concur? Did you try to get Andre for the book and if so how did that go?

Steve Flink: I think Billie Jean is right when it comes to big occasions. I don’t know how Agassi would answer that. I think he would probably dispute it, but I think that Billie Jean is right. I think she observed both of these guys over the years, constantly studied their games and she understands the tennis psyche as well as anyone and I feel she’s right about that. And it wasn’t a cockiness, it wasn’t an assumption. Pete would say to you: if I’m at 80 percent that’s not going to be good enough against Andre, I need to get up to the 90 to 100 percent range. If I’m at my peak, I’m going to beat him and if I’m not I could lose.

So Pete would demand it of himself and I think he was just more comfortable in that match-up. Andre won his eight majors—there’s no knocking him—he won a career Grand Slam. Andre has got a phenomenal record so it’s not to say he didn’t prove himself on big occasions, but he clearly wasn’t the same big occasion player that Pete was winning 14 out of 18 Grand Slam finals.

So I believe it wasn’t strictly about Andre so much as it was about how Pete expected himself to come through at the most important moments. Pete put such stock in those majors. And he says in the book part of the reason he was looking forward to the ’99 Wimbledon final against Andre was that Agassi was going to allow him to play, they were going to stay back, they were going to have some rallies. I think that appealed to him.

It still gets back to what we were talking about earlier: it still appeals to him more than having to face a scary big serving type of character like Goran with a big lefty serve where you feel it could all come down to one or two crucial returns at the right time or playing Krajicek or Stich. With Andre I think he felt the stylistic match-up appealed to him. He had great respect for Andre’s ground game. On the other hand, he felt he could hold his own from the backcourt, but then attack relentlessly as well. So it's all of those factors.


Pete comments in the book they were oil and water—they were definitely different kinds of people. They were never going to be that close although I think they enjoyed playing Davis Cup together for much of ’95, there were sometimes they would join forces to do stuff where I think they enjoyed that. But there was a different approach to life. They were just different people. So these days I don’t think they constantly talk but from time to time I believe they do—that’s the impression he gave me—and it’s still very respectful.

You ask about low points; the low point clearly was 2010 the Hit for Haiti out in the desert where they were all mic’d up and it was Pete and Roger and Andre and Rafa. You had that really uncomfortable moment where Andre talked about reaching into his pocket for a dollar and it was a follow up to something he said about Pete in his book.

I have to say, when you ask about their relationship, I felt Agassi could have been a little bit more respectful about Sampras in his book. You know, about what he brought to the game, professionalism and even if they did look at life so differently I felt it wasn’t as respectful as I thought it should have been. That was the low point because Andre made that crack about Pete not tipping the valet, giving the valet a one-dollar tip. And it was all stuff he talked about in the book and it was nasty, low-level stuff. Then Pete got really upset and served a ball that almost hit Andre. And Agassi didn’t end up apologizing so that would be the low point.



But of course that’s long after their prime careers, many years later, and they resolved that quickly enough. I do think there’s not a disdain there. They are certainly not enemies; they’re just distant. That’s just how it is because of their different ways of looking at life and their upbringing. There’s a lot of reasons for it plus for Andre it was probably very frustrating to lose that many big matches to a fellow American rival at various stages of the career.

Because you look at it started in the ’90 Open where Andre is the clear favorite, he’s the one that was No. 3 in the world the year before. Big favorite and Pete beats him in straight sets. Then they play in the prime of their careers in ’95 after Andre’s won 26 matches in a row over the summer, hasn’t lost since Wimbledon, and Pete beats him in the final there. And then they have that last final in ’02 when Andre was again favored. He was probably favored in all those big matches at the Open and Pete beat him in all those matches not to mention their epic quarterfinal in ’01.


So I think it was probably frustrating for Andre and the pride that he had to have this guy that I think deep down he knew was better. You can almost hear it in the interview he did with Pam Shriver prior to that ’02 final. That was the period they were starting to do those pre-match interviews with the players, which I’ve never really liked, but he made some comment about hoping that Pete wasn’t going to serve lights out. You kind of sensed that he always went in there wary and worried and thinking what if he’s really firing how am I going to stop it? So I guess all of these things lingered and were enlarged in his mind and he could never get past it.

TN: One of my favorite chapters in the book is “Imagining Sampras Against Djokovic, Federer and Nadal” which is an absolute must-read for any fan of tennis history. Because you engage some of the greatest living champions from Novak to Martina to McEnroe to Edberg to Courier to Billie Jean to Lendl to Wilander to really dig deeper than Slam titles—which a lot of people tend to reduce the GOAT debate down to—and dissect the reality of how do each of their games stack up against each other, which is what tennis is about.

All of those legendary champions bring a different point of view, but each backs their view with some rock-solid points. As I’m reading it, you feel like you’re in a pub in Wimbledon village and each of these champions is standing up stating their case, one right after another, it’s intoxicating.

In that chapter both Martina and Novak make the case Rafa, because of the lefty topspin to Pete’s one-hander, would pose the biggest problem. Interestingly, Sampras himself does not feel that way suggesting he thinks he could exploit Rafa’s deep return positioning. You can argue that Pete vs. Novak, who grew up idolizing Sampras and discusses his inspiration deeply, might be the most interesting because you have iconic server vs. greatest returner.

My question: What Big 3 champion vs. Pete Sampras would be most intriguing and most exciting for you to see? Who is your pick for GOAT?

Do you subscribe to the belief that the champion who winds up with most Grand Slam titles is GOAT? So as of today is 21-time Slam champion Rafa officially GOAT in your mind or do you think GOAT status is more a compilation of several factors?

Lastly on GOAT, how do you respond to supporters of Novak and Roger, who say because they came from nations that did not have the Grand Slam champion history of Rafa in Spain or Pete in U.S. or Rod Laver in Australia that you have to give them even more credit in that they built GOAT legacies in nations where none previously existed?

Steve Flink: I understand the argument, but I’m not sure I buy it. Because it was clearly something that had to be overcome, but once they became immersed in the tennis world, they’re climbing up the ladder, they’re winning majors and they understood what it meant. Once you’re in their league, in some ways you’re citizens of the world when you’re coming for majors and the question is whether you have it within you and what you can bring out of yourself.

So I don’t know if that’s a terrible barrier for Novak and Roger to overcome. Can you remind me of your other question?




TN: Do you think it’s become reductive in that so many people distill GOAT to the champion with the most major titles. Absolutely, Rafa’s 21 Slam titles is historic and should weigh heavily for GOAT no question.

My question is: Do records like Novak’s seven seasons as year-end No. 1, his record weeks at No. 1 or Sampras’ six straight year-end No. 1 finishes, which he achieved suffering ulcers and his hair falling out at the end get lost in the shuffle when the spotlight is solely on Slams?

Steve Flink: You know it does get lost in the shuffle. For instance, Novak getting to seven total years as year-end No. 1 was a phenomenal record and yet another sterling accolade for him. And I give Novak full marks for that. It’s more total years than Pete and obviously a couple more than Rafa and more than Roger so he surpassed them. But to do it six years in a row, it’s like Borg winning Wimbledon five years in a row and Roger did that too. It’s the consecutive years that really has to be respected.

To return to your point about the GOAT argument, you know it’s ironic in a way because Sampras himself put such stock in the majors. And I talk about it in the book how he in some ways had a lot to do with that mentality. Because it was always his over-riding goal to win as many majors as he could each year. And then at a certain point to come away at the end of his career with the most majors of anyone, which he was able to do with 14 at the time. But I don’t think he would have argued, nor would the rest of us, that you could determine the Greatest Player of All Time solely, solely, solely on majors. It’s a big factor and it’s a great feather in Rafa’s cap to come back and win number 21. But in the end, I think we have to look at so many things.

It gets back to the discussion we had earlier about the head-to-heads. You know, Novak at this point has a head-to-head edge of 30 to 28 over Rafa and 27-23 over Roger that’s an important achievement. It’s years at No. 1, which again Djokovic has, I think you have to weigh all of these: Years at the top, major titles, overall titles won, consistency—again Federer has great consistency at the majors that shouldn’t be ignored because he was constantly in the thick of things for so long—so I don’t think we can base it solely on majors.

For instance, in the end, what if Djokovic ends up with 23 majors and Rafa wins 24, does that automatically mean Rafa gets ranked ahead of Novak as GOAT?

TN: No, because you have to factor in Novak’s years at No. 1, head-to-head as we’ve said and also he’s far superior indoors. So yes, Rafa 13-0 in Roland Garros finals and owns Golden Career Slam and Pete 7-0 in Wimbledon finals absolutely dominant on those surfaces, but you can flip that argument on its head and say Novak did it in every realm, every environment, hasn’t lost to Rafa in a hard-court Slam in nearly nine years and he did achieve Novak Slam.

Steve Flink: Exactly, exactly. That’s my point: you have to look at things like that. You have to look at the fact that as great as Rafa’s record is—and he’s got the best final-round record of this current group though it’s not as great as Pete’s finals record percentage-wise—but Rafa’s record of winning 21 major finals and losing 8 is a great record. The other two are 20-11 right now. Rafa is obviously…a lot of his best work has been done on one court and that’s a 13-0 final round record at Roland Garros, which is phenomenal, but again it’s weighted-heavily on his clay-court success where his [finals] records in the others is pretty much a .500 deal. So you see he’s dominant on the clay and awfully good on the rest but not nearly as dominant.

While you see in Djokovic’s case, there’s a little bit more balance. Yes, Novak’s only won two French Opens but that’s still pretty good. Then he has six Wimbledons and nine Australians and three US Opens. So all-around records, head-to-head against key rivals, years at No. 1, overall consistency, like Rafa’s had some bad Wimbledon losses for instance, do we hold that over him? I don’t know, but we have to consider it. Some of the Wimbledon losses to Steve Darcis or no year-end championships does that matter? I think it does matter.

I think it does matter when you see Novak with multiple ATP Finals titles. So I think a lot has to be weighed beyond just who’s won the most majors.



TN: So would you say today that the GOAT is to be determined and cannot be determined until after each of the Big 3 retires? And would you say today if Novak winds up within one major of Rafa’s total Slam mark or equal then you would lean toward Novak for GOAT because he’s been more dominant on hard court and he’s the only man to beat Rafa twice on his realm in Paris?

Steve Flink: Absolutely, absolutely. I would say that. That’s why I say suppose they end up one major apart at 24 to 23, whatever it ends up, I think Nadal to make the case for himself based on some of the holes in his record needs to lengthen that lead and have it be two, three or four more majors. That’s going to be hard to do, but I think it is still to be determined.

We’ve got to let it play out until the very end here and it’s going to take a couple of more years. I would say for sure both Rafa and Novak will win more majors.

Obviously, Djokovic’s got to get himself to play these majors. We just don’t know where he’s going to be able to appear this year and also for his schedule to be so badly disrupted. To play three matches in Dubai and start getting tuned up and then ideally he’d go right to Indian Wells and Miami playing his best, which obviously he’s not going to have that chance. Maybe he jumps out again in Monte-Carlo or Rome and hopefully plays Paris, but then we don’t know if he’s eligible for Wimbledon. That’s going to be very tricky this year. So I hope for his sake he gets the vaccine so he can be able to compete regularly.

As far as Rafa, obviously if the foot holds up, I think he’s going to be awfully hard to beat at Roland Garros whether Novak is there or not because he just seems so confident as we speak now. He won his first three tournaments of the year, including the Australian. Yes, they are both likely to win more majors and it’s highly unlikely that Roger will because it’s possible Roger may not make it through the year. Who knows how successful this comeback is going to be and whether the knee will hold up and what he’s going to decide to do because he’ll be 41 in August.

To bring it back to Pete, I’m trying to make the case he is the No. 1 American, which is no mean feat because you’ve got the likes of Tilden, Budge, Kramer and Gonzales. People don’t realize how these were the top of the line champions with Tilden dominating the ‘20s, Budge in the ‘30s, Kramer in the ‘40s, Gonzales in the ‘50s they were just fantastic champions and I’m putting Pete above all them.

I still believe if you put them all in a time warp and played it on a hard court or a grass court or indoors in one of those imaginary tournaments where all the great players were together and all of them were at their peaks in a time warp that Pete as his best would prevail. And I think he believes that too. He says it very modestly, but I think he believes he would be able to combat anyone, any style, if he was playing his best.

To get back to your original question on how would Pete fare against the Big 3, some of the people I interviewed felt that Sampras might have struggled most among that trio with Rafa because of the heavy topspin being so tough to handle on the volley. Djokovic said he felt Pete would have been more comfortable playing him and Roger rather than dealing with, as he called it, because of Pete’s eastern forehand grip. Mary Carillo also commented on Pete having to play tough low volleys against Rafa with the heavy topspin. But I believe even on the current Wimbledon grass Pete would have had a big edge against Rafa and also indoors. On hard courts they would have had some stirring battles with both men imposing their styles at different times. But Rafa would have been vulnerable to Sampras’s wide serve in the deuce court and his court positioning and being so far back on the returns would have meant Sampras would have been able to smother him a lot with the serve-and-volley.

The Sampras-Federer series would have produced some gems with tons of tie-breaks. But I would have liked Pete’s chances in the closest contests because I believe he is better under pressure than Roger. I can’t imagine Sampras ever losing a Wimbledon final with a double match point lead on his serve as Roger did against Novak in 2019 when he led 8-7, 40-15 lead in the fifth set.

Finally, the Sampras-Djokovic series would have been for me the most enticing. Their grass court and hard court duels would have been spellbinding. Some days Novak would have had the edge with his stellar returns and his pinpoint passing shots but Sampras would have had the upper hand on his best days as well with serving of the highest order and some timely returning. He is respectful to all three players in his comments for my book but seems to have the most reverence for Novak.

The bottom line is that Sampras would have held his own with all of them because of his big match playing prowess, his outstanding serve-and-volley, and his temperament. Roger, Rafa and Novak never played a serve-and-volleyer and athlete like Pete who could rush them and take the racket out of their hands so frequently. It would have been unsettling. No doubt Sampras would have been made to play his best by these great players who would have tested him comprehensively and presented different problems than the likes of Agassi, Courier, Chang, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Ivanisevic, etc. But I believe he would have relished the opportunity and ultimately brought out his finest tennis when it was required of him.