PDA

View Full Version : Pete Sampras speaks on Federer


tenalyser
01-31-2006, 12:44 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5205-2017148,00.html


Sampras is honoured to see Federer follow in his footsteps
From Neil Harman, Tennis Correspondent in Melbourne
Sampras is honoured to see Federer follow in his footsteps


TO ROGER FEDERER, it is a scary coincidence. At 24, Pete Sampras captured his seventh grand-slam tournament, the US Open of 1995, having been crowned the Masters champion in Indian Wells and Key Biscayne the previous year. Federer collected his seventh grand-slam victory here on Sunday and — guess what? — the 24-year-old Swiss is the title-holder of the tennis showpieces of California and Florida.
Scary is right. The timing of their ascent to greatness apart, these are men who can boast an extraordinary range, who play down their talent yet realise how touched they have been, whose demeanours belie fiercely competitive instincts, who appreciate the toil it takes to win. The subtle difference is that Sampras — who won seven more grand-slam tournaments before deciding that he had nowhere else to turn and laid down his rackets — lost in two of his first seven finals. Federer has won them all, losing a mere three sets in the process.



Federer knows that he cannot escape those who will pursue him across the world questioning at each turn if he can match the American’s record 14 grand-slam victories and leave a mark of his own. Three years ago, when Sampras won the US Open for the final time and departed the scene, the logical assumption was that he had set a standard to last for all time.

Sampras did not win the French Open in 13 attempts; Federer has had seven shots and his best is a semi-final appearance last spring. He said that that was the only time he gave himself a legitimate chance on red clay and yet the force was with Rafael Nadal, the teenage Spaniard, who became the champion two days later.

Sampras played Federer once, on Centre Court in the fourth round of 2001, when a teenage Swiss burst the American’s Wimbledon bubble 7-5 in the fifth set. As Federer reaches halfway towards the Holy Grail, Sampras greets his achievements as one would expect, with no envy and recognising what it has required for the present world No 1 to have come even this far.

“I don’t like to be reminded of the time we played at Wimbledon — he beat me fair and square and though it hurt, I knew he was a real talent,” Sampras said. “From what I see, he is able to play at a higher level with less effort than the rest — a bit like me. You see Andy Roddick and it is work. Roddick’s out there grinding, but it doesn’t take a lot of effort for Federer to play great. He is the complete package, head and shoulders over the rest.

“I put up the records and I know that is the most that I could give. If someone breaks those, my hat is off to them because I know what it takes. It seems that Federer has the temperament to stay at the top for as long as he wants.”

Within three hours of going to bed on Sunday evening, Federer was up, bright as a button, to appear on morning TV in Australia. He reiterated that his joy was based, for the large part, in disbelief that he had recovered to defeat Marcos Baghdatis, the Cypriot story of the championship, in four sets. He had practised in Australia over Christmas with Tony Roche, his coach, flown to the Middle East to win Doha, played patchily at Kooyong in the pre-championship exhibition, then had to cope with the excessive demands of being forced to play so many matches under lights.

As the Australian Open squeezes more and more evening sessions into its schedule, so the big boys — ie, Federer — are required to play to sustain viewer figures. “I had so much time to think about my last four matches here,” he said. “It was nerve-racking. I don’t think I’ve ever been as nervous before a grand-slam final. I try to save myself, but it isn’t easy.”

Making it look as though it is, makes Federer the champion he is.

Andri Baghdatis, the mother of Marcos, had an operation yesterday after being taken to hospital during the Australian Open final. She complained of stomach pains early on Sunday that worsened when she saw her son suffer cramp during his defeat by Roger Federer. Doctors diagnosed gallstones and she watched the end of the match from hospital.

FedererUberAlles
01-31-2006, 02:42 AM
I love how he brags about himself nonchalantly. What a bag of ******.

samster
01-31-2006, 04:35 AM
Pete Sampras is conceited. I also hated how he pretended to be sick/tired and then fire away aces and winner in his last U.S. Open against Agassi. What has he contributed to tennis since he retired? Nothing.

laurie
01-31-2006, 04:55 AM
I think both of you are getting carried away. Neal Harman of The Times newspaper always gets interviews with Sampras. I'm sure he called Sampras to get his opinion.

By the way, what do you really expect Sampras to say, someone who has contributed so much, to speak like a nobody who has achieved nothing in life?

If you expect that then you are both been rather silly.

Fatmike
01-31-2006, 05:03 AM
What has he contributed to tennis since he retired? Nothing.

so what

rommil
01-31-2006, 05:08 AM
I know Sampras has a very good record in the history books and even if Federer quits tennis at this very moment, Federer is , in my opinion, a better player. Pete made mention in the interview how Federer seems to do everything with ease, just like him. This maybe true to a degree but I think when Pete was on top, he seemed like he poured all his heart and time to maintaining his ranking, he himself said that he had to sacrifice a lot. Federer on the other hand seems like he has got a lot of time to do other things and he seems very sincere about them too. Not talking about some charity that he is obligated to show up. It just seemed like it was a lot of effort for Sampras.

laurie
01-31-2006, 05:13 AM
Many many Sampras wins looked pretty damned easy to me. I'm talking hundreds. He won almost 800 matches.

Dolfan
01-31-2006, 05:31 AM
Pete had more hard court competition with AA , Chang , Edberg and becker . AA and Safin are the only attacking player's that can hurt Fed.

VGP
01-31-2006, 05:31 AM
Either those are old quotes or Sampras has been saying the same thing for over a year. What else does he have to say? He could just be echoing the same words that McEnroe, Courier, Connors, Laver et al. have been saying about Federer.

Sampras' game was easy at times, and effortful at times. Remember, he has thalassemia minor. He perfected his serve to carry him through matches. There were those special occasions that Sampras really dug deep to pull off some matches. As it stands now, Federer rarely puts himself in those situations. We'll just have to see what the rest of his career presents.

For Federer, a lot of people are duped into thinking that his game takes little effort. He's like a dancer or something. It's great to watch, but I'm sure that it takes A LOT of effort to do what he does. His "work" compared to Roddick's as Sampras says is relative. Plus, keep in mind the mental toll of staying on top. Sampras was playing for the record books. Federer can now think of doing the same if he stays healthy.

Federer doesn't take it for granted. His emotional speech at the trophy ceremony at the AO is the most recent example.

LN_Dad
01-31-2006, 05:58 AM
To me, Sampras was a "pro" in the strict sense of the word that he treated it as as a job and doesn't have a lot of passion for it. He expects a full stadium when he plays but rarely if ever shows up to watch an ATP event after he retired. Notice how he hasn't shown any interest in playing on the senior tour; he's just sick of his old "job".

arnz
01-31-2006, 06:07 AM
I love how he brags about himself nonchalantly. What a bag of ******.

These are the kinds of statements that are all over the pro players forum that makes me scratch my head.

Why are people so upset with some players. Last I heard, Sampras never killed anyone, nor did he steal or commit criminal acts. He was a tennis player, a very good one. I didn't like his style of play, it was boring, but for me to call somebody a ****** bag, I would have to know that person personally and know first hand they have done something really bad.

Its just funny to me

tennisboy21
01-31-2006, 06:13 AM
sampras and federer can be arrogant if they like, i think they deserve that. but i dont think there rude, sampras is just telling it how it it.

they are the choosen ones and are better than us

matchpoint
01-31-2006, 06:46 AM
These are the kinds of statements that are all over the pro players forum that makes me scratch my head.

Why are people so upset with some players. Last I heard, Sampras never killed anyone, nor did he steal or commit criminal acts. He was a tennis player, a very good one. I didn't like his style of play, it was boring, but for me to call somebody a ****** bag, I would have to know that person personally and know first hand they have done something really bad.

Its just funny to me

Exactly, I think i've seen more arrogant posters here than many tennis players that i've seen.

VGP
01-31-2006, 07:04 AM
...He was a tennis player, a very good one. ...

Kind of an understatement....

rommil
01-31-2006, 07:34 AM
Many many Sampras wins looked pretty damned easy to me. I'm talking hundreds. He won almost 800 matches.
I agree but that is not the point i was driving. It seemed to me that for Pete it entailed a lot of sacrifices , effort and dedication to be number 1 and he looked it too. Federer seem to be a bit laid back on it. Maybe it helps that his gf is with him all the time.

VGP
01-31-2006, 08:20 AM
I agree but that is not the point i was driving. It seemed to me that for Pete it entailed a lot of sacrifices , effort and dedication to be number 1 and he looked it too. Federer seem to be a bit laid back on it. Maybe it helps that his gf is with him all the time.

Perhaps Federer's just learning from Sampras' example.

Having more of a balanced life. Even though he's been winning almost every tournament he plays, peaking for the slams. Always looking to fine tune his game.

I still think his effortless game takes a lot of effort to pull off.

southerntennis
01-31-2006, 08:35 AM
Sampras will be the best tennis player there ever is or was. Federer is good but will never live up to Pete. Federer is very cocky you just dont see it on an interview on TV. Who has Federer beaten in a final that is good?

Moose Malloy
01-31-2006, 08:36 AM
Fed sobs uncontrollably after every slam win. Clearly he's pretty stressed out by his achievements as well.
Also Fed seems to play 100% at every event. Thats not a good formula for longevity. I think he will have a Borg-like career(very high peaks, but not as much longevity as Lendl, Sampras)
It takes a lot work to play Fed's game. He's always at the baseline. I don't think he can keep winning this much when he slows down(to me he looked slower in Australia than he did in '04)

federerhoogenbandfan
01-31-2006, 08:39 AM
Pete had more hard court competition with AA , Chang , Edberg and becker . AA and Safin are the only attacking player's that can hurt Fed.

Chang an attacking player, LOL! Chang was just a lesser version of Hewitt(when Hewitt is in form that is like he was in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005).

federerhoogenbandfan
01-31-2006, 08:42 AM
Fed sobs uncontrollably after every slam win. Clearly he's pretty stressed out by his achievements as well.
Also Fed seems to play 100% at every event. Thats not a good formula for longevity. I think he will have a Borg-like career(very high peaks, but not as much longevity as Lendl, Sampras)
It takes a lot work to play Fed's game. He's always at the baseline. I don't think he can keep winning this much when he slows down(to me he looked slower in Australia than he did in '04)

I think he can get away with that for another year or two, but I agree in a couple years he will have to learn to distribute his energy more from event to event, giving more for the more important events. He tries to win every tournament, Sampras did too I suppose, but he didnt exert himself the same way for smaller events as the grand slams. Fed will have to do that in a couple years time as well, since he will be getting past his mid-20s by then. Hopefully he will be coming in even more than he does now to shorten points as well.

tenalyser
01-31-2006, 08:47 AM
Sampras will be the best tennis player there ever is or was. Federer is good but will never live up to Pete. Federer is very cocky you just dont see it on an interview on TV. Who has Federer beaten in a final that is good?

:rolleyes: Roddick, Safin, Agassi, ljubicic, hewitt, Nadal do you want me to go on?

AAAA
01-31-2006, 08:53 AM
When Sampras was in his prime the grass and hard courts were generally much faster so it was relatively much easier for an attacking player like Sampras to keep the points short and reduce wear and tear on the body.

Federer and other current attacking players do not have the advantage of faster courts so they have no choice but to play longer rallies. The conditions now are physically more wearing.

armand
01-31-2006, 08:56 AM
"[Federer]then had to cope with the excessive demands of being forced to play so many matches under lights."
Is this dude kidding? As if playing in the under the hot Australian summer sun would've been better. This guy's reaching.Roddick, Safin, Agassi, ljubicic, hewitt, Nadal do you want me to go on?Correct, they are good. However the players Pete had to play were better. Much better.

laurie
01-31-2006, 10:06 AM
You guys are right. Thats why Federer has Tony Roche on board. Over the next couple of years he will try to adapt his game even more and use his volleying skills which I think are excellent.

I think playing on faster surfaces can wear the body down just as slower surfaces. Just look at some of the extensive injuries the attackers got. A high level of athleticism and quickness of speed and thought is required to play that kind of game.

Krajicek, Phillipousis, Sampras, Rafter, Ivanesivic, Rusedski, Becker all had major injury problems.

Off the top of my head I can think of Goran's shoulder, Rafter's shoulder, Sampras' back, Becker's wrist, Krajicek's knees and elbows, Phillipousis' knees, Rusedski's back.

And look at Henman now.
Playing a high risk game on faster surfaces can also be problematic.

federerer
01-31-2006, 10:17 AM
The game changes and evolves. I think Sampras would have a tougher time in todays game because the surfaces seem slower in general. This would hurt sampras in 2 ways:

1. his attacking game would be nullified a bit.
2. the game would place more of a premium on fitness. Sampras worked his *** off but I always feel that fitness was sampras's weakness (genetic factors mainly).

It's too bad sampras and fed weren't in their prime at the same time...

One clear advantage I see for fed is that he seems to love the game more than sampras and love being #1. Sampras may have been more driven, but he didn't seem to enjoy it as much as fed does. Over the course of 6 years I think it takes a toll.

jgunnink
01-31-2006, 10:33 AM
Pete Sampras is the greatest serve and volley player in the history of the game, hands down. Federer will never match his skill at the net. But Sampras was never as good as Federer in so many other ways.

You can compare the two players on their records (maybe the way you would compare Tiger Woods with Jack Nicklaus) but that's just out of curiosity to see if Federer can match Pete's number.

Outside of that, I wouldn't call their games similar. Roger has defined the new generation of player, even beyond what any of us could have imagined, and while it seems interesting to ask Pete what he thinks, I'm not sure it matters that much. The truths are self-evident.

Geezer Guy
01-31-2006, 10:45 AM
Sampras played Federer once, on Centre Court in the fourth round of 2001, when a teenage Swiss burst the American’s Wimbledon bubble 7-5 in the fifth set. ... “I don’t like to be reminded of the time we played at Wimbledon — he beat me fair and square and though it hurt, I knew he was a real talent,” Sampras said.

That would have been very near the end of Sampras's career, and problably before Fed had won much if anything. I remember that match... People were going like "Who's this no-name kid that beat Pete at Wimbledon?" and Pete's going "Hey, this guys is going to be VERY good someday.".

If would have been great if they could have played when they were in their prime. Actually, that sounds like it would have been a great match - it would be good if they'd replay that on ESPN Clasics.

vllockhart
01-31-2006, 10:58 AM
I love how he brags about himself nonchalantly. What a bag of ******.

Why be such a hater? He deserves to brag. He deserves to pat himself on the back.

chaognosis
01-31-2006, 11:03 AM
"[Federer]then had to cope with the excessive demands of being forced to play so many matches under lights."
Is this dude kidding? As if playing in the under the hot Australian summer sun would've been better. This guy's reaching.Correct, they are good. However the players Pete had to play were better. Much better.

Hm... seems you can look at this two ways. Perhaps Sampras's opponents only LOOKED better because Sampras didn't humiliate them as thoroughly on court.

Chadwixx
01-31-2006, 11:22 AM
Sampras worked his *** off

You may wanna talk to some of his old hitting partners. He was hardly a hard worker.


Chang, courier, and agassi? Are great players? Those guys would get smoked today. Dementiava serves harder than chang, and agassi was a career choker, if he would have sack'd up in some of those finals (especially the last us open where he tanked) sampras would have been around 9 gs's.

Take a look at the players pete faced in some of these finals, 8 times agassi, 2 time pioline, and martin. Then compare that to the players borg was defeating. Real greats, guys who actually win and arent career finalists.

FedererUberAlles
01-31-2006, 11:37 AM
Why be such a hater? He deserves to brag. He deserves to pat himself on the back.

I'm fine with him bragging about himself, but he can't compliment someone else without bolstering his own reputation to their level of compliment or above.

random1
01-31-2006, 11:58 AM
You may wanna talk to some of his old hitting partners. He was hardly a hard worker.


Chang, courier, and agassi? Are great players? Those guys would get smoked today. Dementiava serves harder than chang, and agassi was a career choker, if he would have sack'd up in some of those finals (especially the last us open where he tanked) sampras would have been around 9 gs's.

Take a look at the players pete faced in some of these finals, 8 times agassi, 2 time pioline, and martin. Then compare that to the players borg was defeating. Real greats, guys who actually win and arent career finalists.
Yup, great post.

Sampras also played Becker, who was past his prime, and is IMO the most over-rated player in tennis. Beat Goran twice, the man with no mental stability and no game outside of his serve. Moya once as well. Hardly a list of the all-time greats.

Someone earlier mentioned Chang, Becker, AA and Edberg. Aside from Agassi, Sampras played those guys once each in finals. Does anyone here think Chang is a truly great player, or one who would have given Fed any trouble at all? Becker I mentioned above. And Sampras lost to Edberg in the one final they played.

Fed's played AA in a final, Hewitt, Roddick twice, and Safin. We all saw what Safin and Hewitt did to Sampras in GS finals. And Roddick is at least comparable to Becker and Ivanisevic...

urban
01-31-2006, 11:59 AM
Some remarks seem to indicate, that this Wimbledon loss to Federer does needle Sampras more than a bit. Not that i give this match much importance, if one will compare the two. But this 1-0 record will stand forever, and it was on Pete's home court.

drexeler
01-31-2006, 12:09 PM
Whenever there is a thread about Sampras/Federer, each player's fans try to denigrate the other by saying "He faced nobodies". I believe both of them are so far above everyone else that they would have cleaned up no matter who they faced. The only difference seems to be that Fed is remarkably consistent in minor tourneys (like Lendl) as well as slams (like Sampras).

Skppr05
01-31-2006, 12:32 PM
Sampras is only saying what he is able to say. That man still holds the record 14 grand slam wins. Federer, no matter what you think of him, still has not beaten it. Don't get me wrong, Federer is amazing but he still only half way through. No matter how each one has won a match they still won and winning is winning, just like 14 grand slams is 14 grand slams

armand
01-31-2006, 12:40 PM
Hm... seems you can look at this two ways. Perhaps Sampras's opponents only LOOKED better because Sampras didn't humiliate them as thoroughly on court.Just look at any Grand Slam draw that Sampras played in and you'd find multiple Slam winners. Sampras entered when the likes of Edberg, Becker, Lendl etc were were winning, and had to deal with Courier, Agassi, Rafter etc in their primes during the middle of his career as well.
Those names mean something and you simply cannot compare them with Federer's competition. I think Federer was extremely fortunate to arrive when he did because now he has a foothold over his 'peers' as none have built up the confidence to win slams with any regularity.

jukka1970
01-31-2006, 12:47 PM
I love how he brags about himself nonchalantly. What a bag of ******.

I couldn't agree more. Sampras is completely conceited. I love how when he was on the tennis channel being interviewed he came out with his most conceited statement. He was asked about Federer, and Sampras said, "he reminds me of me"

LOL, keep dreaming Sampras, every one of your records are about to be rewritten. Can't wait til Federer wins the French Open so we can finally stop talking about this jerk Sampras.

John

Moose Malloy
01-31-2006, 01:23 PM
Some of the hostility here is pretty surprising. This guy was considered so boring & lacking in personality that this was all the press talked about when he played. I guess they didn't catch on to the arrogance that so many of you seem to see. It's like you're talking about McEnroe or Connors. I wish he was as conceited, arrogant as you seem to think, tennis would have been a lot more popular in the 90s if he was.

Most retired tennis players that are still around the game have huge egos. Have you read some of what Navratilova, McEnroe, Wilander,Courier even Cash say? The only reason they are involved in the game is to remind people how good they were & how great tennis was in the time they played. Contrast that to Sampras who now lives a very private life away from the spotlight. Yup, he's a self-centered attention-seeking jerk. And everytime he's interviewed(which isn't often) he has nothing but praise for Federer.

And when he played he had nothing but praise for Rod Laver, constantly saying that he thought he was a much greater player than himself.

what a ******!

tdnxxx444
01-31-2006, 02:25 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely a Federer fan, but it's kind of funny when some people see Sampras make a comment like that, after accentuating Federer's talents -- "From what I see, he is able to play at a higher level with less effort than the rest — a bit like me" -- They call him conceited.

However, on the other hand when Federer says something like -- "'I love watching myself play", -- and other people call him arrogant, they get all defensive. At least stay consistent.

chaognosis
01-31-2006, 02:59 PM
Just look at any Grand Slam draw that Sampras played in and you'd find multiple Slam winners. Sampras entered when the likes of Edberg, Becker, Lendl etc were were winning, and had to deal with Courier, Agassi, Rafter etc in their primes during the middle of his career as well.
Those names mean something and you simply cannot compare them with Federer's competition. I think Federer was extremely fortunate to arrive when he did because now he has a foothold over his 'peers' as none have built up the confidence to win slams with any regularity.

I'm not going to stop you from seeing what you want to see. Just note that Edberg, Becker and Lendl won virtually all of their major titles well before Sampras's "era" began. If you're going to consider Sampras's wins over an aging Lendl significant, then to be fair you have to consider Federer's 1-0 record against an aging Sampras just as significant.

arosen
01-31-2006, 03:42 PM
Sampras will be the best tennis player there ever is or was. Federer is good but will never live up to Pete. Federer is very cocky you just dont see it on an interview on TV. Who has Federer beaten in a final that is good?

Pete was great, but he had way more weaknesses than Fed in his game. Fed is like an upgrade, faster, more versatile, and more effective. Plus, he kicked Pete's arse when they played, and that will stay in the record books FOREVER.

fastdunn
01-31-2006, 05:27 PM
My points:

1. The reverse is also true. If the surface is as fast as before, Federer
would not be able to diminate like 2005. He'll still be a great player
but there would be more of power players in top 20. Even the greatest
player on earth sometimes can not do much against great neutralizing
effect of power game. This is time when players don't play S&V
on grass in Wimbledon. His game is perfect for current state
of ATP tour but I think he would struggle more with big power
playing S&Vers if he played in 90's.

2. I can not help niticing another similarity between Federer and Sampras.
In mid 1990s, people complained Sampras didn't seem to care much about
tennis. His non-chalant attitude fulled everybody. People later found out
how big heart he had for tennis. I'm pretty sure Federer puts huge
efforts into tennis and has burning desire to break records....



The game changes and evolves. I think Sampras would have a tougher time in todays game because the surfaces seem slower in general. This would hurt sampras in 2 ways:

1. his attacking game would be nullified a bit.
2. the game would place more of a premium on fitness. Sampras worked his *** off but I always feel that fitness was sampras's weakness (genetic factors mainly).

It's too bad sampras and fed weren't in their prime at the same time...

One clear advantage I see for fed is that he seems to love the game more than sampras and love being #1. Sampras may have been more driven, but he didn't seem to enjoy it as much as fed does. Over the course of 6 years I think it takes a toll.

chess9
01-31-2006, 06:40 PM
Laurie is right. If you are or were great, bragging is ok. It's the bragging by 5.5 wannabes that grates. :) I have tons of respect for Sampras and Federer. And, they are media products, moreso than say Laver, Rosewall, or Hoad. Laver was a firey player, but rarely hot headed or braggy. How did he hit all those topspin backhands with such a small racquet? It can't be done according to the gurus of garbage can lids. :)

-Robert
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

VGP
01-31-2006, 07:01 PM
Pete was great, but he had way more weaknesses than Fed in his game. Fed is like an upgrade, faster, more versatile, and more effective. Plus, he kicked Pete's arse when they played, and that will stay in the record books FOREVER.


I agree that Federer's an upgrade on Sampras. Their games have a lot of similarities. There are differences - keep that in mind.

It's like when the Chinese olympic divers analyzed tapes of Greg Luganis to see what they could improve on.

What I don't agree with is.....since when is 7-5 in the fifth a kicking of the arse?

superman1
01-31-2006, 07:54 PM
He didn't say anything conceited. Anyone with 14 Grand Slams and 6 years at #1 has the right to compare themselves to someone with 7 Slams and 3 years.

fishuuuuu
01-31-2006, 07:57 PM
I'm fine with him bragging about himself, but he can't compliment someone else without bolstering his own reputation to their level of compliment or above.

He set the standard, why shouldn't he bolster his reputation?

Yours!05
01-31-2006, 08:06 PM
gurus of garbage can lids. :)Worth a post of its own.:D

arnz
01-31-2006, 08:29 PM
LMAO at this thread. Most of you are probably little kids, you act like it. this section of the TW forums is definitely not for me. Enjoy:)

RiosTheGenius
01-31-2006, 09:06 PM
Pete Sampras is conceited. I also hated how he pretended to be sick/tired and then fire away aces and winner in his last U.S. Open against Agassi. What has he contributed to tennis since he retired? Nothing.
Mr sampras is one of the few men in tennis history who can be conceited and say whatever he wants because he kicked everyone's butt until he got bored.

as for the USO final, if that was part of his strategy, oh well... it certainly worked and def. Agassi in a very tight match.

Sampras contributed to tennis well enough all along his career to say now ungratefully that he hasn't been around the game since he retired, let the guy have a normal life and appreciate all the awesome tennis he played.

.... oh well, i'm sure some looney will make a comment like this about Federer in the future, some people are just never pleased.

arosen
01-31-2006, 11:28 PM
What I don't agree with is.....since when is 7-5 in the fifth a kicking of the arse?

OK, I was fudging it there, I admit, but only because some of us put Pete on a pedestal and can only see him and noone else, to them there is only one guy at the top - Pete. I strongly feel that Fed is the reason to believe otherwise.

Galactus
02-01-2006, 05:21 AM
Pete Sampras is conceited. I also hated how he pretended to be sick/tired and then fire away aces and winner in his last U.S. Open against Agassi. What has he contributed to tennis since he retired? Nothing.
Same with Bjorn Borg - but he stuill gets adulation....

Chadwixx
02-01-2006, 08:35 AM
6 years at #1

Six years ending the year #1. There is a difference.

Tennis_Goodness
02-12-2006, 03:43 AM
Pete's showing some bravado but that's the type of person he is.