Sampras retirement after he won 02 US Open was a big mistake.
 

I really think that Roger today and before him Agassi is a proof that you can still play some great tennis and be competitive as you get older.I know that Sampras have some early defeats in majors as he gets older but there was still some great tennis left in him after he won his last slam in 2002 Us Open.Sampras could still play some great tennis in 2003 and he might steal some slams against Agassi in AO or more likely 03 Us Open against Roddick. I think on his good day he would still be a more threat to Fed in Wimbledon than the likes of Roddick or Philipossis.I think Roger knows that he is going to lose more than he wins against the likes Nadal,Djokovic and Murray but he still competitive and he can still win like he did in last years Wimbledon, after having not win a slam since his 2010 AO.In a way that is good to see Federer not doing the same mistake like Pete done after he won 2002 Us open.Even at some point someone break his record he wont have any regrets that ı could have done a little bit more,because he is giving himself every possible chance before saying goodby.

As long as Pete walked way from the game when Pete thought it was right, then no mistake was made.

He was tired of the day to day grind. He didn't enjoy it anymore.

what can you do (on the tour) against lack of motivation ?
he probably wasn't going to win much if he didn't want to play...

it's an important factor in the decline of champions.

I think touring pros are more likely than many to retire at the right time because most hang out almost daily with someone who faced the same decision himself -- the coach. That's some good experience to call on to help you decide.

OH trust me best way to bow out. He was mentally out of it, he didnt want to play. Annacone himself said Sampras was way more mentally fatigued than fed. Fed still has motivation like a 22 year old

Unlike Federer, he wasn't consistently getting into the deeper round of the slam, so no, it wasn't a mistake to retire. He was struggling to win even the mickey mouse tournament.

I strongly disagree with you. Sampras lost to George Bastl at Wimbledon and had not won a tournament all year. His confidence was at an all time low going into the US Open. The magic returned over the course of the 2 weeks. Sampras beat top players like Rusedski, Haas, Roddick and of course his greatest rival, Agassi in the finals to win. He was able to rise to the occasion 1 more time. Sampras could not have scripted a better ending to his career.

No way... Pete did it right.

Could he have possibly won another major? Sure.

2002 definitely would've had some openings... by 2003 though he wouldn't have won squat.

I think Pete might have played another season if he wouldn't have won the USO...

But that draw went absolutely perfect and he won.. and he knew he was damn lucky to get that win..... rarely will anyone be lucky enough to do it that way again.


Too many careers end in the way Venus Williams, Lleyton Hewitt, or Michael Jordan did... with a lot of losing.. hanging on too long.

I can only hope that Federer and Nadal leave in a similar fashion... but since Pete's the exception... i bet they leave under circumstances that involve losing and/or injury...

Sure would suck to see federer end his career on an injury.

I understand he couldn't retire after this year's wimby with being #1 and the olympics coming up.... but I would be 100% happy IF he were to win another major and insta-retired on that high note.... or at least retired at the end of the season where he won said major.

When you don't want it badly anymore....there's nothing you can do.

When you go out in the morning to train and you feel you don't want to be there and do that anymore....there's little you can do.

When you have lost the motivation, hope you find another thing in life.

Not everybody has fire inside that last forever like a Connors, Rosewall, Agassi,...(Federer now)...

Looking back yes.. But at the time he had whiped out most of the records and there was no rival in sight that challenged his legacy as he disposed them all

I agree with you. Sampras was clearly struggling all year.

It's not really a bad thread. I can understand the OP looking at the situation in hindsight, comparing Sampras to Federer at his current age. But Federer is still a threat to win any tournament. That was not the case in 2002 with Sampras.

At the time, it looked like the Sampras 14 singles Slam record was safe for years. When you compare Sampras to Borg, then it is crystal clear that Borg had a lot more to offer. Considering he was 26 when he retired. But on the other hand, I'm judging Borg. Borg had his reasons to retire and obviously they meant something to him.

Just like Roger and Agassi are proof that if you're a top player, you can win the FO? oh wait...

Sampras is not as good as Federer. He was basically given a free pass by his next gen (Kuerten, Kafelnikov.. really?). If they were as good as Gen X+1 for Federer, Sampras would be languishing in single-digits in slams. Agassi was able to play into his 30s because he had very little mileage in his mid-20s. it's not rocket science.

It's not about being a top player, it's about champion's pride.

Love them or hate them Fed and Agassi had too much pride to be irrelevant on a major surface.

Doesn't this suggest that Gen X+1 is not all that good?

Oh please .. in what sense his draw was perfect?

Just how do you know? I think you're writing fiction here too..

People talk about lack of motivation but is it fact or speculation? Pete retired because he wasn't winning ...

For tennis fans, it was terrible, for the rest of "his" life, it was a good decision.
I have seen Sampras, Courier, Agassi when they were young and old, none of them walk the same anymore. Tennis is very rough on the body.

i am pete sampras

pics or didn't happen