The Gorilla
Banned
. .
^^^ Sampras took the French very seriously. Just because he didn't win it, doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously.
Sampras never lost focus.
But he didn't "lose focus" and start losing Wimbledons. Wimbledon slowed down, and rendered him irrelevant. His archaic S&V game was completely out of place at the modern, slow courts of Wimby. Suddenly there, just like at the AO and French, he was now target practice for the new era of extreme-grip passing shot monster baseliners. When they slowed it down, he didn't slowly discover it got tougher to win there. He went from reigning decade-long grip of dominance to nobody, instantly. And he never got it back.
But there are plenty of other reasons he must eventually decline -- including a legitimate loss of focus (unlike the made-up one people attribute to Pete to make him look better). It's just a race to see how soon they hit.
Sampras never lost focus.
In his prime, he was the best fastcourt player on the planet, and proved it by winning at both Wimbledon and the USO most of the time. He was never outright dominant year-round like Fed is -- he dominated when the courts were fast, and was less effective at slower venues.
At the end, he was STILL the best fastcourt player on the planet, and proved it by winning the last USO he ever played -- which, by that time, was the only fastcourt slam left.
But he didn't "lose focus" and start losing Wimbledons. Wimbledon slowed down, and rendered him irrelevant. His archaic S&V game was completely out of place at the modern, slow courts of Wimby. Suddenly there, just like at the AO and French, he was now target practice for the new era of extreme-grip passing shot monster baseliners. When they slowed it down, he didn't slowly discover it got tougher to win there. He went from reigning decade-long grip of dominance to nobody, instantly. And he never got it back.
If he'd lost focus, he'd never have won that last Open. What happened, quite simply, is that the game passed him by at all but the fastest venues.
Will that happen to Fed? Doubtful, because his game is versatile enough for him to look dominant on every surface out there right now, from slow to lightning fast. But there are plenty of other reasons he must eventually decline -- including a legitimate loss of focus (unlike the made-up one people attribute to Pete to make him look better). It's just a race to see how soon they hit.
Let's focus our karmic energy on helping Roger win #11 at Roland Garros!
Federer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.
Sampras "lost focus" before his 14th Slam. He retired immediately after his last Slam win.
I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!
When I'm drunk I start hitting on fat chicks, so I excuse you for your careless thoughts...:-(I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!
sampras's played because he enjoyed winning. when he couldn't win, he lost interest. federer simply loves tennis on and off court. he loves the dream life he lives in now.
holy crap that would be amazingFederer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.
^^^ Sampras took the French very seriously. Just because he didn't win it, doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously.
I don't think he will. If Sampras knew that his record would be threatened so early, he wouldn't have skipped the AO or retired that early. It was not that he couldn't do it anymore, it's just he wasn't willing anymore. Fed has the advantage of coming after Sampras in that he can keep on playing until the record is broken and he can learn from Sampras' "mistakes" : take French more seriously; take the none slams more seriously, don't break the record by 1 or 2, beat it by 5 or more.
Federer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.
I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!