You may ask yourself, 'If this man is indeed the best all-round male tennis player of all time, then why are his matches so forgettable?' Well, there are many factors to this mystery, and it may be more complex than you thought.

Style of Play

He is a pure serve-volleyer, in that his games go much like this:

1. Serve
2. Return by other player
3. Volley into other area of court that the other player cannot reach
4. Win point
5. Repeat until game is won

Or alternatively:

1. Serve
2. Win point
3. Repeat until game is won

Or even:

1. Receive serve
2. Make a cracking return
3. Win point
4. Repeat until game is won

Unfortunately, this leads to a rather tedious and repetitive game. There are no long rallies, no clever shots. However, this could be said of all serve-volleyers, such as Pat Rafter or Tim Henman; but their matches are arguably, much more exciting to watch, so there must be other factors involved.

His Tennis

Although he is widely regarded as the best all-rounder, there are aspects of his game which he is not the world's best at.

The Serve

For pace, Greg Rusedski and Mark Philippoussis are far more powerful. For disguise and pinpoint accuracy, Goran Ivanisevic has the serve to end all serves.

The Return of Serve

Andre Agassi is agreed to have the best return of serve in the world.

The Groundstrokes

For many, Bjorn Borg has yet to be surpassed in terms of the quality of his groundstrokes. Currently, Gustavo 'Guga' Kuerten has the best groundstrokes in the world.

The Volley

Take your pick out of Tim Henman, Stefan Edburg and John McEnroe.

The Athleticism

Pat Rafter is the most athletic player in recent memory.

The Mindset

This is the only aspect in which it is widely regarded that Sampras is best at, but since Wimbledon 2001, it could be argued that Ivanisevic is much more determined.

So how come he is so unbeatable? Well, it is because of this; although he is not the best at a certain aspect, he is equally good at all of them. No one has brought all the aspects of the game together better than Sampras.

It works the other way too. For example; although Rusedski has the warhammer serve, he lacks the concentration. Although Rafter has the athleticism, he has the injuries that arise from that. Although Ivanisevic has the accuracy, he has the split personality.

In this sense, Sampras is a 'perfect' tennis player; and that is why you forget his matches.

The Crowd: Flaws Make for an Exciting Match

Tennis is a spectator sport, and spectators like to be entertained. If they know that a player is good at one thing, but know that the opponent is either stronger or better in another area, it interests the crowd to see how they will overcome that flaw.

Example One: Different Styles - Rafter v Agassi, Rafter to serve

Rafter is a pure serve-volleyer. Agassi has the best return of serve in the world. Thus, Rafter cannot rely on the strength of his serve as Agassi will make an unforgiving return and probably win the point. So, this is a problem that Rafter has to solve, 'How do I get my serve past the best returner of serve in the world?' This is also a question the crowd will want to know the answer to.

Example Two: Unpredictability - Ivanisevic v Rafter

This is a different scenario, as both are serve-volleyers. Both are equal in ability. However, as Ivanisevic is such an unpredictable character, you never quite know whether today he is unplayably deadly, or mad, bad and dangerous to know. It is that sort of unpredictability that the crowd like to see.

As Sampras has no obvious flaws, his matches tend have less of that questioning expectation - 'will he/won't he?'. In his case, it is more, 'he will'. Even if he fails, he fails at a constant rate, in a consistent manner.

The Crowd: Corporate Hospitality Seats

The crowd can be decisive, no more so than in the Ivanisevic v Rafter match, where all the seats were open to the queuing public on 'People's Monday'. However, had it run on time, noon on a Sunday, the players would have walked out onto a half-deserted Centre Court. Why? Well it is because the corporate spectators haven't finished lunch.

Rude though it may seem, it is a common sight. Grand Slam organisers gain a lot of revenue from this. However, what they gain in revenue, they lose in excitement. A pumped-up crowd has a positive effect on the players. All of Sampras' matches have run on time, so unfortunately, the crowd has never been too enthusiastic.

That is not to say that the blame lies solely on the crowd. It works the other way too. Pumped-up players lead to a pumped-up crowd. When Sampras gets into 'The Zone', he is hardly 'pumped-up'.

'The Zone'

It is quite easy to see when Sampras is in this deadly unplayable mode - there is a calm, methodical deliverance to his shots with rarely any emotion expressed. It is a 'go in and get the job done' mentality which he gets into so easily that makes him the best in the world. Unlike, say McEnroe or more recently, Ivanisevic, where 'The Zone' for them is so much harder to reach. This creates a sense of danger, a real frisson that the crowd senses, and this feeds-back onto the players. When they do reach 'The Zone', there is a sense of relief. When they leave it, there is a desire for them to get back there, for them to struggle to reach it again. In other words, they have the opportunity to get behind a player. Arguably something which you cannot do with Sampras.

Fitness

It has been said that there is no glamour in the world of tennis, with no globally agreed 'good-looking' tennis stars. However, since the arrival of Anna Kournikova, this has all changed.

It is widely agreed that the majority of males who go to watch her matches are probably not necessarily admiring her for the athleticism of her game, but probably admiring her more aesthetic qualities. The same could be said of the Men's game, eg, with Pat Rafter, Jan-Michael Gambill and Marat Safin. They are obviously good tennis players, with the techincal skills and flair they bring to the game. Also, you could say that the majority of females who go to their matches are also admiring them for their good ball control.

It is not that Sampras is not 'good-looking', as that is a very subjective term. It is not that he is not a so-called 'fit' tennis star, as again, that is a very subjective term. It is just that people do not tend to go to his matches to watch aspects of his physique. There is no other reason to watch him, and as outlined before, as his game is rather boring to watch, this just adds to the lack of memorable features of his gameplay.

What can be done?

It may be asking a bit much of the great man to alter his playing style, as that is what makes him so successful, and also what he is famous for. There is really only one thing that can be easily altered about Sampras' matches, and that is the crowd. The only real option is to either make matches start later so that people can finish lunch, or to reduce the number of corporate hospitality seats and increase the number sold to the queuing public. The result is a much more exciting match, again, a good example of this is the Rafter v Ivanisevic match.

Another thing that can be done, but with a little more difficulty, is to set up matches between Sampras and a crowd-pulling player such as Agassi. At least then there is a 50% chance that something interesting will happen, maybe the odd profanity uttered, racquet smashed or the odd insult thrown at the umpire.

However, currently, the only solution is to wait until Sampras leaves professional tennis altogether and hope that the new breed of tennis stars; ie at the time of writing; Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin, recognises this issue and deals with it in a suitably spectaular way.