How Fragile Pete could be physically didnt help pete's career at times. At times he could be injury prone. Which cost him a few slams that should or could have been his. 1999 USO considering the way he was playing in 99 and suffered a herniated disc, 94 USO vs. Yzaga, 98 USO against Rafter, 00 AO which he suffered a torn hip flexor. Not to mention Thalassemia Minor which hurt his stamina a bit. This was obvious at the 96 French Open when there was nothing left in the tank during his match with Kafelnikov after he defeated Courier and Bruguera and possibly against Hewitt in 01 which after the first set he looked like he was ready to throw in the towel losing 1-6, 1-6 after going through that brutal draw
Um, the French Open played very fast that year, unusually fast. Maybe he shouldn't have had such a tough time putting those guys away then to get to Kafelnikov, it's not like Bruguera was exactly in great shape that match either. He's not the only one who didn't have something left in the tank after tough matches or coming off injury. YES, he was influenced by injury and his energy sapping disease, but you're not going to see Rios or Krajicek or Guga or Norman crying him a river. You can't win as many slams as he did being THAT fragile. It's just not possible, to do that he would have had to have been a whole above everyone else in level and that's not the case. Yes, he was an incredible player, but it's not like other guys couldn't even hang with him. This is why Rafter took issue with Sampras. He felt like Sampras never wanted to give guys any credit for when they beat him. Yes, you're a GREAT player was his point, but come on....
The reality is EVERY pro player has to deal with injuries, not just Sampras. And yes, he had a condition, yes it sapped his energy. But then again, well, he was also blessesd with fast-twitch muscles galore. Those were his genetics, what can you say? Those were the cards he was dealt, and he made the most of it. It's not like he was born without a hand like Jim Abbott, the former Angels pitcher....
Sampras is NOT the only one who coulda/woulda/shouda won more slams you do know if not for the injury bug or being petered out. Heck, that poor Chang...he was born with this poor affliction of being short, of only being 5'6" (his real height). Poor, poor guy, being one of the most successful short guys of all time. How unfair that if he weren't born with that short gene condition, you could conceivably conjecture that HE would be the greatest of all time, that he would have won tons more slams than the measly little one that he did.
Yeah, yeah, it's probably true; but by the same token, Mr. Man upstairs also gave Chang something called LEGS and the one of the toughest tennis MINDS of all time. Yeah, he got the short end of the stick sure, but somewhere out there there's a thousands od other short guys who are rolling their eyes saying, man, I try just as hard as him, but I don't RUN as fast as him, I don't have the hand-eye coordination of him, etc.
Look, Bruguera had a great 97 Lipton. You could argue that man, he ran out of gas against Muster in the finals. You could clearly see that he was COMPLETELY out of gas after the first set and at the end of the first set. That if it weren't for that he was actually playing better than Muster and should have won that first set, that tie-break was HIS I tell you. It's not fair that it over one hundred degrees on court that day, that just the day before he had to be Sampras in a tight, three-set thriller in the same scorching heat. It's not fair that his body didn't have enough time to recover fully. Man, it's not fair that fates were against him...but why would you? He ran out of gas, Muster didn't. That's life. If he didn't want to run out of gas, maybe he should have put away Sampras earlier, he shouldn't have lost that first set. Point is, that's his OWN fault. Quality of competition has nothing to do with it. You're dealt the cards your dealt when the draw is made, you either beat them or you don't, if you run out of energy later because of expending too much energy early, that's your OWN fault AND it's also to the CREDIT of your opponents for pushing you that hard in the first place.
Chang has a good about this when looking back. When asked do you wish you maybe had it a little easier as your grand slam finals' opponents, that maybe you would have won more than one slam, that if it weren't for the greatest of all time standing in your way, you would have got the #1 ranking?
And he said, absolutely not, no, without any hesitation. He said, his thing was always you know I know I'm gonna try the hardest that I can try, and if I lose in the end, that was God's will. I tried the best that I could try, and I have no regrets looking back. Why would I want EASIER opponents in grand slam finals? He said, the fun is in the CHALLENGE. Of challenging yourself, that you want the biggest challenge possible to overcome. If you don't do it, ok, fine, so long as you gave it your personal best, you tried your hardest, there's nothing you can do in the end, but years later you can sleep easy about that.
Furthemore, I don't think Hewitt gets enough credit on here for his late career victories over Sampras. Yes, Sampras was pooped out, yes he was past his prime, but you still have to give the man credit. Believe it or not his game had matured to, not only that but his CONFIDENCE had peaked. That's HUGE in this sport. Match are often swung by the player who exudes confidence that's not faked. Just ask Sampras about how effective that can be.
Hewitt matched up VERY well with Sampras. Look what he did to Henman as well. Hewitt's passes at his peak were amongst the greatest of all time. He also had foot speed that KILLS at his peak. He was so mentally ALERT, that combined with his foot speed is EXACTLY what you want against serve and volleyers. Against volleyers you need to be SUPER alert to get early jumps on the ball. That split second difference in alertness is the difference between getting passed clean or a clean volley winner.
Hewitt's return of serve is WITHOUT DISPUTE among the best this game has ever seen at his best. I mean he had several attributes you NEED to combat someone with Sampras' attributes. It's not saying who's the better player overall, it's just pointing out the OBVIOUS. Hewitt at his peak was no ordinary grinder, ESEPCIALLY against guys who dared challengeh is passing ability. Hewitt didn't like high bouncing topspin balls, that was well-known...Sampras didn't hit those kind of balls. Hewitt LOVED a target...Sampras gave that to him. Hewitt fed off pace, he liked hard flat balls and his rigid stroking technique was DESIGNED to counteract such shots. Many of Sampras' attributes played into Hewitt's attributes. No one denies that Sampras isn't the better player overall, I'm just denying that Hewitt didn't match up well with Sampras. Doesn't mean Sampras couldn't beat him, but there are worse style matchups to be had for Hewitt's particular game.