Originally Posted by 90's Clay
How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.
Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down
Sampras was the defending champion and was ranked higher, meaning he had a better 12-month season than Federer did leading into Wimbledon 2001. Federer would lose in the 1st round the next year at Wimbledon. Sampras was 29, not 30. Federer was 19. Sampras was the favorite, Federer's win was considered an upset. You're just being dense. Probably on purpose.