Originally Posted by 90's Clay
It was considered an upset and people did expect Pete to win (but they also expected Pete to probably not win wimbledon that year either because of how bad he was playing). Even McEnroe commented I believe that Pete better pick up his play or he isn't winning wimbledon after he needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan. Pete played horrible at wimbledon after 2000. Bottom line.. His days were over.
Sampras won Slams the year before and the year after. Federer was coming off of two 1st round defeats at the previous years' Wimbledons. And he would make it three 1st round defeats the next year, not winning his first Slam until the year after that. Yes, Sampras was far from his prime but Federer was farther still. No one can deny that. But like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras.