Was Andy Murray Better Than Pete Sampras?

Of course not. Right?

The title of this piece is framed as a question, and that's deliberate: I'm not going to argue that Andy Murray was better than Pete Sampras ... but I am going to make the case that he might have been. Obviously, this is unconventional. Pete Sampras is consistently regarded as a top-ten player, and I could not find any all-time ranking that had Andy Murray in the top ten. ^[1]

Let's briefly review some of their career highlights:

Sampras won 64 ATP Tour-level singles titles, including 14 Grand Slam singles titles. He spent 286 weeks at #1, and finished as the year-end #1 six times.

Murray won 46 ATP Tour singles titles, including three Grand Slams. He spent 41 weeks at #1, and finished as the year-end #1 in 2016. He also won two Olympic gold medals in singles, and an Olympic silver medal in mixed doubles.

They're both great, but it's easy to see why everyone ranks Sampras ahead. So what are the possible arguments for Murray?

1. An aesthetic or stylistic argument
2. Sampras' poor performance on clay
3. Caliber of competition
4. Peak performance

Let's take those one at a time.

1. An aesthetic or stylistic argument

Men's tennis in the 1990s was a game of 130 mph serves and short rallies. Sampras is emblematic of this era. He had a devastating serve, and he won a lot of points with it. But most spectators prefer long points to blistering serves. I think most (though not all) fans agree that Murray's style of play is more fun to watch. That can't carry too much weight here: we're evaluating best, not favorite. But in all sports, fans tend to boost the rankings at least a little for the players they loved to watch, guys who don't have the numbers but who made us love the sport. Gale Sayers. Pete Maravich. Bo Jackson. Derrick Rose.^[2] You get the idea. I actually don't think Murray fits in this category so much as Sampras is at the other end of the spectrum. To be clear, this isn't just Pete. The same thing applies to Mark Philippoussis, Goran Ivansevic ... a lot of the guys from that era, really.^[3]

So does this move the needle in Murray's favor? Not really, I think. Aesthetics are part of the sport, but they're not equivalent to quality of play or "greatness." Maybe it's a tiebreaker.

2. Sampras' poor performance on clay

This is related to the point above: because of Sampras' stylistic limitations, he was not a good clay court player. He never won the French Open, never even made the finals. He was a semifinalist only once. Murray made five semis at the French, including the finals in 2016. Sampras was knocked out of the French Open in the first or second round eight times (out of 13 attempts), including two years that he finished ranked #1. Murray lost in the first round the first time he played at Roland Garros, and the last two times he played there. In between, he reached at least the third round every year, and he was usually a semifinalist or finalist. Altogether, Sampras was just 24-13 at Roland Garros (.649), compared to 39-12 for Murray (.765).

Furthermore, Murray had to contend with Rafael Nadal, the greatest clay court player of all time. He went 2-7 on clay against Nadal — which is actually pretty good against Rafa — including a Murray win in the finals at Madrid.

Again, this is less about Murray and more about Sampras: his weakness on clay is probably the most commonly raised objection against his greatness. However, Sampras' 14 majors and six years at #1 are still there. His vulnerability on clay is balanced by his excellence on hard courts and grass. As with the aesthetic argument, I think this might be an appropriate tiebreaker, since we want the greatest players of all time to be well-rounded, without glaring weaknesses, but it doesn't change what Sampras accomplished overall.

3. Caliber of competition

This is the critical argument for Murray. Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal are commonly ranked as the three greatest players in the history of men's tennis. They have the most match wins and most Grand Slam singles titles of any players in history, and most rankings show them as the top three men's players of all time. Murray competed with those players throughout his career, while Sampras played in an era with far less historic opposition.

My first job in sports was writing NFL power rankings. The critical difference between power rankings and standings is strength of schedule. And while Pete Sampras had a better record than Andy Murray, Murray had a much greater strength of schedule. From 2008-12, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, and Murray combined to make the year-end top four (in various orders) every year. There are only two quartets to comprise the ATP's year-end top four more than once:

⦁ Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Mats Wilander (three times: 1983-85)
⦁ Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Andy Murray, and Rafael Nadal (five times: 2008-12)

But the dominance of the Big Four extends beyond that. These four players combined to hold the top two spots in the ATP rankings continuously from July 2005 to March 2021 — almost 16 years in a row — and when anyone dropped out of the top four, it was usually due to injury. When Murray was a top player — the nine years he was ranked in the ATP year-end top 10 — the world #1 and #2 were always Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray himself. Absent the three greatest players of all time, Murray was the best in the world — for the better part of nine years, 2008-16.

Pete Sampras was a top-10 player from 1990-2001, including year-end top three every year from 1992-2000, a nine-year prime just like Murray's. During those nine years, the world #1 was, at various times: Sampras, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Andre Agassi, Thomas Muster, Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Patrick Rafter, and Marat Safin.^[4]

While Murray was sometimes behind Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, prime Pete Sampras was sometimes behind players like Muster, Rios, and Kafelnikov. I don't see any way that peak Andy Murray falls behind those guys. There were fewer players ranked in the top four during Murray's nine-year prime (7) than ranked number one during Sampras' nine-year prime (10).

Andre Agassi is an all-time great, but his devotion to tennis wavered at times. Sampras and Agassi were only the year-end 1-2 twice (in 1994 and 1995). When Sampras was #1, it usually wasn't because he was beating Agassi. Rather, the #2 guy would be Michael Stich, or Michael Chang, or Rafter, or Rios. Stefan Edberg is of historic caliber, as well. He was ranked #1 for six weeks in 1992, before Sampras ever took the top spot, and dropped out of the top 10 after 1994, basically the beginning of the Sampras Era. Similarly, Jim Courier dethroned Sampras for three weeks in 1993, then fell out of the top 10 in 1994 and never returned. He's only a factor for the first couple years of Sampras' prime.

In Andy Murray's nine years among the "Big Four," the other year-end top-four players were: Novak Djokovic (all 9 years), Roger Federer (7), Rafael Nadal (7), Stan Wawrinka (3), David Ferrer (1), and Milos Raonic (1). In the nine years Sampras was top-four, the other top four players were: Andre Agassi (3), Boris Becker (2), Sergi Bruguera (2), Michael Chang (2), Jim Courier (2), Goran Ivanisevic (2), Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2), Pat Rafter (2), Jonas Bjorkman (1), Alex Corretja (1), Stefan Edberg (1), Thomas Enqvist (1), Gustavo Kuerten (1), Thomas Muster (1), Magnus Norman (1), Marcelo Rios (1), Marat Safin (1), and Michael Stich (1).

In Murray's nine-year prime (2008-16), the Grand Slams were won by: Djokovic (12), Nadal (11), Federer (5), Murray (3), Wawrinka (3), Juan Martin del Potro (1), and Marin Cilic (1). In Sampras' prime (1992-2000), the Grand Slams were won by: Sampras (13), Agassi (6), Courier (3), Kafelnikov (2), Kuerten (2), Rafter (2), and Edberg, Bruguera, Muster, Becker, Richard Krajicek, Petr Korda, Moya, and Safin (1 each).

It is impossible to argue that Sampras faced the same level of competition as Murray. Agassi is the only player of historical caliber with whom Sampras had to contend for more than a couple of years, and even Agassi would disappear for long stretches. Murray faced Federer and Djokovic in Grand Slam finals a combined 10 times. Sampras faced Agassi 5 times, and the only other players he played in a Major final more than once were Cedric Pioline and Goran Ivanišević.

Murray got knocked out of a Slam by Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic a combined 20 times. If he'd been facing Pioline and Ivansevic instead, how many Slams would he have?

If Sampras had to face Djokovic and Federer in the Australian Open finals — as Murray did a combined five times — instead of Todd Martin, Agassi (who beat him), and Moya, would he have any wins there?

If Sampras had to contend with Joker, Roger, and Rafa, would he ever have reached the world #1? It is hard for me to see that he could have. This is where Pete's weakness on clay comes into play. You can concede clay court season to Sergi Bruguera and Thomas Muster and still finish the year #1, but that won't work against Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, all of whom won career Grand Slams.

If Sampras only ever won two of the four Slams, and never reached the #1 ranking, would anyone regard him as a top 10-of-all-time caliber player?

If Sampras' main competition was Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, and Murray's main competition was Agassi, Rafter, and Ivanisevic, who would have the better record? Would we regard it as obvious that Murray was the greater player?

From 2008-16, Andy Murray's record in Grand Slams was 162-32. The players who knocked him out were: Novak Djokovic (8 times), Rafael Nadal (6), Roger Federer (5), Stan Wawrinka (2), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Nicolas Almagro, Fernando Verdasco, Fernando Gonzalez, Andy Roddick, Marin Cilic, Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer, Grigor Dimitrov, Kevin Anderson, and Kei Nishikori.

From 1992-2000, Pete Sampras' record in Grand Slams was 149-21. The players who knocked him out were: Andre Agassi (3), Stefan Edberg (2), Mark Philippoussis (2), Goran Ivanisevic, Sergi Bruguera, Jim Courier, Jaime Yzaga, Gilbert Schaller, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek, Magnus Norman, Petr Korda, Karol Kucera, Ramon Delgado, Patrick Rafter, Andrei Medvedev, and Marat Safin.

Prime Andy Murray never lost to mediocre players at a major^[5], and most of his losses (19/32) came against the three greatest players in history. Prime Sampras got knocked out of Slams by mediocre players several times^[6], mostly but not exclusively at the French, and almost all of his losses came against players who were very good but not on any all-time top-10 lists.

If we subtract Murray's losses to the Big Three, and Sampras' losses to Agassi, Murray's Grand Slam record in his prime stands at 162-13, with Sampras at 149-18.

4. Peak performance

Pete Sampras' best year was probably 1994. He won the Australian Open and Wimbledon, made the quarters at Roland Garros, and reached the fourth round of the U.S. Open (21-2 overall). He won at Indian Wells and Miami and Rome, and won the ATP Finals. He was ranked #1 throughout the year.

Andy Murray's best year was probably 2016. He won Wimbledon and the Olympics, reached the finals of the Australian and French, and made the quarters at the U.S. Open (23-3 at Slams). He won in Rome and Stockholm and Paris, and won the ATP Finals. He finished as the year-end #1, taking the top rank from Djokovic, who had held it for more than two years in a row.

I would regard those accomplishments as pretty similar, not an obvious edge one way or the other. Again, though, beating players like Djokovic and Nadal is pretty different from beating players like Todd Martin and Goran Ivanisevic. Martin and Ivanisevic were good; Rafa and Joker were legends. Even if you start Pete off at Wimbledon '93, instead of sticking to a calendar year, when you account for the quality of competition I think Murray is ahead. If you rate players mostly on how good they were at their best, Murray's peak is at least as high as Sampras.

Was Andy Murray Better Than Pete Sampras?

I don't know. Maybe. I think he has a case. Murray's prime overlapped entirely with the three best players in history, and Sampras faced the weakest sustained opposition of the Open Era. I think it is totally reasonable to argue that sustaining a top-four ranking for eight years, while playing alongside Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, and never (when healthy) falling behind good-not-great players like del Potro and Tsonga, is more impressive than finishing #1 for six years but sometimes falling behind good-not-great players like Muster and Rios in the rankings.

If you make Sampras play the Big Three every year, does he win more Slams than Murray (3)? I think he probably does. If you let Murray face 1990s-caliber competition, does he win 14 Slams? That seems unlikely. I do think the peripheral stuff, everything besides winning Slams, favors Murray pretty strongly at that point, though. Murray was more consistent than Sampras, who could not win when his serve wasn't working. I have basically no doubt that facing less imposing competition, Murray would make more Grand Slam semifinals than Sampras^[7], and he's already better at Masters events, without any adjustments for the excellence of his competition.

This argument is constructed almost totally around counterfactuals, which seldom lend themselves to a high degree of confidence in the conclusions, and I'm not ready to make any sweeping proclamations. But I think it is pretty easy to argue that Murray was just as good as Sampras, and I don't think an argument that Pete is way ahead would withstand impartial scrutiny. If all you care about is the record, Murray is great but Sampras is clearly better. If you put any stock in power rankings, though, I think they're pretty close to even, and it's not absurd to have Murray slightly ahead.

After writing this, I found an article by ESPN's Bill Connelly making a similar argument. You should check it out!

This article is available free to all visitors, but Sports History relies on reader support. You can leave me a tip if you enjoyed this post, or — better yet — subscribe to the newsletter and keep this work going. Thank you.