Pete Sampras = class act

[drwood]

I gave Sampras too much credit about his statement after losing to Bruguera -- he actually said he'd win that kind of match 9 out of 10 times (instead of 8 out of 10 times).

Just so anyone reading knows that I NEVER make statements about players without EVIDENCE to back them up, here is a reference to that match:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/29/sp...y-sampras.html

The text is below.

Bruguera's Play Insures Meltdown by Sampras
By ROBIN FINN
Published: Saturday, March 29, 1997

The day was steamy and soupy, and the stadium court at the Lipton Championships felt enough like a hot kitchen to Pete Sampras that he plunked an oversized white cap on his head to ward off the tropical sun. But Sampras couldn't handle the heat and surrendered today's semifinal match to the bare-headed, bold-minded Sergi Bruguera of Spain.

The 30th-seeded Bruguera, a two-time French Open champion who last year took a rankings tumble from 13th to 81st, handled Sampras with a combination of baseline patience and intermittent aggression that proved sufficient for a 5-7, 7-6 (7-2), 6-4 comeback against the world's top player. And he accomplished it on a hardcourt surface where Sampras, not the clay-bred Bruguera, ought to have felt more comfortable.

''It's one of the best feelings you can have in tennis, to beat the No. 1 in an important match,'' Bruguera said. Today's coup was the fourth time in Bruguera's career that he had beaten a No. 1 player, and for the third time, that No. 1 player was Sampras.

Bruguera will meet the second-seeded Thomas Muster, who defeated Jim Courier, seeded 22d, 6-3 6-4. Muster is 11-3 against Bruguera. His only previous Lipton final came in 1989, but he suffered a career-threatening knee injury when he was struck by a drunken driver on the eve of his match with Ivan Lendl.

Sampras, the top-seeded player, was off to a career-best 20-1 start in 1997, a season he commenced by capturing his ninth Grand Slam title at the Australian Open, but this afternoon's 2-hour-8-minute stumble made his bright start seem immaterial.

''It's a match I should have won 9 times out of 10,'' said Sampras, who had been counting on making restitution here for his opening-round loss to Bohdan Ulihrach two weeks ago at Indian Wells, Calif.

After skulking away from the court today, Sampras settled into an overstuffed plaid chair in the interview room like an old-timer; his head lolled back, and had the chair boasted a recliner option, he would have availed himself of it.

''I just played a bad match, really disappointing,'' said Sampras, who rated his performance a 4 on a 10-point scale and was especially annoyed by his timidity in the second set's tie breaker.

''He played well and served well, but I kind of let him. And he hit the ball pretty heavy and strong to my backhand.''

After being discombobulated by the desert conditions in Indian Wells, Sampras, twice a Lipton champion, let the humidity here turn his game soggy.

''I could have set up the points a little better and not risked as much,'' said Sampras, a patsy for Bruguera's passing shots whenever he rushed to the net behind a less-than-impeccable approach.

Now 3-2 against Sampras in career confrontations, Bruguera felt today's upset was even more of a stunner than Sampras's five-set demolition-derby victory against the Spaniard at last year's French Open. But Bruguera acknowledged that even though he arrived at this event without lofty expectations, his opening-round ouster of third-seeded Michael Chang hinted of bigger upsets to come.

''That match gave me confidence,'' said Bruguera, whose resume had not offered high points like this since his surprising sleeper run to a silver medal at the Atlanta Olympics.

Today, Sampras's performance was so anemic that even from the service line, a spot where he usually feels competent, he succumbed on all four break points allotted the Spaniard; adding insult to injury, the 26-year-old Bruguera also out-aced him, 10-8.

Sampras was so-so even in the opening set, when he immediately lost his serve in the fourth game with an errant forehand, one of 35 unforced errors, after breaking Bruguera in the third. Sampras broke Bruguera again to take a 6-5 lead and was awarded the set on a questionable call: apparently only Sampras and the officiating staff felt his down-the-middle ace hit the border of the appropriate service box.

Another controversial ace, this one a blast to the outside corner that appeared both long and wide, delivered Sampras into the second set's tie breaker. But once there, he fizzled.

Bruguera scrambled for every ball, went up by 6-2 when Sampras pushed a lame backhand return long, then evened the match with an ace of his own.

Sampras fell behind by 3-1 in the final set, rallied to 3-3, and lost his serve in the seventh game when Bruguera drilled a consummate backhand pass at break point. Ahead by 5-3, Bruguera began the last game with his 10th and final ace, and Sampras netted a backhand return on Bruguera's first match point.

Photo: Sergi Bruguera of Spain returning a volley at the net from Pete Sampras in their semifinal match yesterday. Bruguera won, 5-7, 7-6 (7-2), 6-4. (Reuters)

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by drwood

The "ten grand slams" was not a joke. As Sampras himself said right after that statement, it was a smartaleck remark -- but he never denied meaning what he said.

To call me a liar is trolling and flaming at its best. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your conclusions about me. Period.

You stated it was the first question he was asked. WRONG. You now ADMIT that in his very next sentence he STATED he was being a smart alec. CORRECT. I said it was meant in a lighthearted manner. IT WAS. The reporters LAUGHED. Sampras then said SAID he was being a "smart ***". HE THEN WENT ON TO say Rafter played similarly to him, and Edberg. I also noted that much of the press conference was about Pete's anger at the line callsa and that he was in a very bad mood. Sampras himself said it was the angriest he's ever been on court. Now, WHICH one of us better reflected the truth? I'll let others decide.

I think it's apparent who has the extreme bias and who is grasping at straws to built a amazingly feeble case. Comparing Sampras to Serena Williams repeatedly. That in itself speaks volumes.

[drwood]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

You stated it was the first question he was asked. WRONG. You now ADMIT that in his very next sentence he STATED he was being a smart alec. CORRECT. I said it was meant in a lighthearted manner. IT WAS. The reporters LAUGHED. Sampras then said SAID he was being a "smart ***". HE THEN WENT ON TO say Rafter played similarly to him, and Edberg. I also noted that much of the press conference was about Pete's anger at the line callsa and that he was in a very bad mood. Sampras himself said it was the angriest he's ever been on court. Now, WHICH one of us better reflected the truth? I'll let others decide.

Pete said that he was being a smart aleck -- I don't curse, so I didn't quote exactly what he said. However, he never denied his true meaning about what he said, and didn't really start caring about the media perception of his feud with Rafter until AFTER Rafter beat him in the US Open SF to win his second straight US Open. Furthemore, Rafter and many other players couldn't stand Pete and his excuses whenever he lost, although Rafter eventually took the initiative to mend fences with Sampras.

Example quote from Rafter about Sampras (can be found on Sampras' Wikipedia bio):
"He really does say some funny things at the wrong time," said Rafter, "We are out there busting our guts and he doesn't show a lot of respect at the end of the day. He tries to play down the reason why he lost, giving no respect to the other player, and that is what really upsets me about him and the reason I try to [anger him] as much as I can." (reference: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/09/sports/sp-50252)

I think it's apparent who has the extreme bias and who is grasping at straws to built a amazingly feeble case. Comparing Sampras to Serena Williams repeatedly. That in itself speaks volumes.

It certainly is apparent who has the extreme bias and is grasping at straws...and its not me. Read the reference I just posted after Pete lost to Bruguera...those comments are just like Serena's after a defeat. That in itself speaks volumes. I am not a distorter of the truth. Period.

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

guys, the media were getting ridiculous around this time.

they just wanted a "fight" between them that just wasn't gonna happen anyway...just a bunch of smartass comments from both of them.

At times reading some magazines I started to get the impression
rafter was more loved in the us than sampras, which is ********.

pete had been top of the tree for a long time..yet I think he felt a little agrieved
at all the "boring sampras wins again" vibe when he was making history out there.

what would the us media give now to have a plyer of pete's calibre?

Look at all the love fed recieved the last couple of years...he isn't even american.

As much as I respect pete...I think he was arrogant at times...but that's
waht champions have to be...

some people on here go on about arrogance as if it's 100% bad.

Take fed's comments on murray after losing to him dubai 08 for example.

fed..after losing pretty much full out said murray isn't winning anything playing the way he does. now in a way..that's hugely arrogant statement.

so what? arrogance for the top guys is ok....you could tell by demeanor etc
both fed and pete have a healthy dose a good sporting arrogance.
you gotta go out there thinking crush opponent...self-doubt is bad.

[drwood]

Originally Posted by obsessedtennisfandisorder

guys, the media were getting ridiculous around this time.

they just wanted a "fight" between them that just wasn't gonna happen anyway...just a bunch of smartass comments from both of them.

At times reading some magazines I started to get the impression
rafter was more loved in the us than sampras, which is ********.

pete had been top of the tree for a long time..yet I think he felt a little agrieved
at all the "boring sampras wins again" vibe when he was making history out there.

what would the us media give now to have a plyer of pete's calibre?

Look at all the love fed recieved the last couple of years...he isn't even american.

As much as I respect pete...I think he was arrogant at times...but that's
waht champions have to be...

some people on here go on about arrogance as if it's 100% bad.

Take fed's comments on murray after losing to him dubai 08 for example.

fed..after losing pretty much full out said murray isn't winning anything playing the way he does. now in a way..that's hugely arrogant statement.

so what? arrogance for the top guys is ok....you could tell by demeanor etc
both fed and pete have a healthy dose a good sporting arrogance.
you gotta go out there thinking crush opponent...self-doubt is bad.

The perfect attitude of a champion is extreme self-confidence without arrogance. The problem is that extreme self-confidence can spill over into arrogance if its not checked; however its better to be arrogant than timid in order to consistently win, so many champions don't mind being arrogant. But if you're confident without being arrogant, you won't underestimate opponents and will reach the height of your potential.

If Americans like Fed more than Pete, its b/c Pete always treated the media as the enemy (until Fed started breaking his records), while Fed has always been gracious and giving of his time to the media -- you reap what you sow. Pete tended to play the victim mentality with the media -- i.e. "they don't like me because I don't yell and scream like McEnroe; woe is me" when the truth was if he had humbled himself before them the way Federer has, they would have loved him a lot more. That being said, the media still treated Sampras very well for most of his career by constantly downplaying his failures on clay, especially since he was the only top American of his generation to never win the French or even make a French final.

I loved Pete's game, it was so effortless and based on short points that it was easy to conceive of as boring to those who weren't true tennis fans. However, if he had been more willing to be an ambassador of tennis, the "boring" label wouldn't have stuck to him so easily.

[Bhagi Katbamna]

"Instead of asking for blessings for the rest of the family or whatever, I just said, 'Um, oh, bless you'," Rafter said. "I've walked out to see Pete, my brother, and I've gone, 'Oh Pete, I think I've just messed up'. I don't know if he [the Pope] heard me. And Pete goes, 'You're supposed to call him Your Holiness'; I called him Your Honour. And I said, well, I just blessed the Pope."

That's hilarious.

Actually I think Sampras is more classy than Jordan. Look at their Hall-Of-Fame induction speeches. Sampras seems genuinely humbled to receive that honor whereas Jordan uses his speech to get back at people and coaches who he thought had crossed him in the past.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

First, the quote about Rafter was simply due to repeated questioning about Rafter. It irritated Pete that suddenly a guy with one slam is all reporters were asking him about. Nevertheless, it was a a slip by Sampras. However, I think, if anything, Sampras was overly generous to his opponents.

I can tell you that Todd Woodbridge (who wrote as much in his autobiography), Pat Rafter, Mark Woodforde, Jason Stoltenberg, Mark Philippouissis and the rest of the Australian players of his era DID NOT consider Pete to be anything resembling generous to his opponents. On the contrary, they considered him to be an 'okay bloke' but a bit 'up himself'.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by obsessedtennisfandisorder

guys, the media were getting ridiculous around this time.

they just wanted a "fight" between them that just wasn't gonna happen anyway...just a bunch of smartass comments from both of them.

At times reading some magazines I started to get the impression
rafter was more loved in the us than sampras, which is ********.

pete had been top of the tree for a long time..yet I think he felt a little agrieved
at all the "boring sampras wins again" vibe when he was making history out there.

what would the us media give now to have a plyer of pete's calibre?

Look at all the love fed recieved the last couple of years...he isn't even american.

As much as I respect pete...I think he was arrogant at times...but that's
waht champions have to be...

some people on here go on about arrogance as if it's 100% bad.

Take fed's comments on murray after losing to him dubai 08 for example.

fed..after losing pretty much full out said murray isn't winning anything playing the way he does. now in a way..that's hugely arrogant statement.

so what? arrogance for the top guys is ok....you could tell by demeanor etc
both fed and pete have a healthy dose a good sporting arrogance.
you gotta go out there thinking crush opponent...self-doubt is bad.

Agree with this. That certain bit of arrogance is necessary

But it was pete's fault as much as it was media's that he was considered to be 'boring', well maybe media played a bigger part, but pete contributed quite a bit to it as well.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by obsessedtennisfandisorder

guys, the media were getting ridiculous around this time.

they just wanted a "fight" between them that just wasn't gonna happen anyway...just a bunch of smartass comments from both of them.

At times reading some magazines I started to get the impression
rafter was more loved in the us than sampras, which is ********.

pete had been top of the tree for a long time..yet I think he felt a little agrieved
at all the "boring sampras wins again" vibe when he was making history out there.

what would the us media give now to have a plyer of pete's calibre?

Look at all the love fed recieved the last couple of years...he isn't even american.

As much as I respect pete...I think he was arrogant at times...but that's
waht champions have to be...

some people on here go on about arrogance as if it's 100% bad.

Take fed's comments on murray after losing to him dubai 08 for example.

fed..after losing pretty much full out said murray isn't winning anything playing the way he does. now in a way..that's hugely arrogant statement.

so what? arrogance for the top guys is ok....you could tell by demeanor etc
both fed and pete have a healthy dose a good sporting arrogance.
you gotta go out there thinking crush opponent...self-doubt is bad.

Bold #1: Perhaps Pete was boring. The serve fests in the 90s were boring

Bold #2: the media would give nothing NOW for a player of pete's caliber; in fact, they have someone who is of better caliber than Pete .

Bold #3: Perhaps Fed is loved more because he is that good, and well-mannered. He is very well received in every country that he plays in. The french treat him like their own, the wimby crowd treats him very well.. See a pattern here? It's not the media, its the person....

[hoodjem]

I've always thought that Sampras was/is a class act. But picking Fed at the 2009 USO (or not picking Fed) had nothing to do with it.

I guess it means Sampra didn't think all that highly of DelPo's game, which I would argue has little to do with being a "class act."

[drwood]

Azzurri, as much as we've disagreed on other topics, I was impressed with your defense of Chang versus Safin in the other thread. Nice job.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by drwood

No, the quote about Rafter was the first question he was asked after the match, and he responded "Ten grand slams". He then went on to say that Rafter was lucky to win the match and that Rafter wasn't truly great until he won a second slam title -- VERY Serenaesque there.

I notice you didn't even try to defend Pete's arrogance after he lost to Bruguera on HC in 97...smart move.



Unlike Sampras, Michael Jordan was a complete player and never constantly had apologists excusing away his glaring shortcomings the way the tennis media did with Sampras on clay. Now Jordan as a person is a terrible role model c/w with Sampras, but as an athlete, there's no comparison between the two.

so now you are comparing two different sports??? maybe you would not know this, but tennis and basketball are different sports...UNLIKE Pete, MJ needed a multitude of other players to win 6 titles..but Pete needed just himself to win 14. again, another clueless post.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by coyfish

I agree nowadays Pete is much more gracefull / refined but . . . Back in his playing days he was arrogant especially when he lost. Quite a drama king at times. I don't think hes anymore classy than your average top 10.

Not to mention Pete has stated that he could win a prime fed vs prime sampras matchup. However confident you may be thats just not something you say publicly imo. Its as crazy as calling Fed the GOAT.

I don't think Fed and Sampras are "friends." I think there is just a mutual respect based on each others careers.

no one but Pete and Fed know their relationship. Pete did come to the W finals for Fed..that shows something.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by World Beater

comparing jordan to sampras? lawl.

I had a good laugh myself. unreal.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by Bhagi Katbamna

That's hilarious.

Actually I think Sampras is more classy than Jordan. Look at their Hall-Of-Fame induction speeches. Sampras seems genuinely humbled to receive that honor whereas Jordan uses his speech to get back at people and coaches who he thought had crossed him in the past.

well said. MJ is a huge jerk, maybe the biggest jerk in sports. Pete has shown class, while MJ is a..JERK as usual.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by drwood

Azzurri, as much as we've disagreed on other topics, I was impressed with your defense of Chang versus Safin in the other thread. Nice job.

not sure why you are so anti-sampras.

the Chang-Safin...is that thread still going???

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

well said. MJ is a huge jerk, maybe the biggest jerk in sports. Pete has shown class, while MJ is a..JERK as usual.

Well lets be fair. MJ was (and still is, even if retired) probably the most popular living sportsman on the planet. He was an aloof man who got more attention than he ever wanted. He also lost his dad, the person who influenced him most, and went through a horribly demoralizing divorce. The guy is now a bitter, lonely man, but he isn't an arsehole. I would fault the Hero Machine moreso than the hero.

BTW . . . . biggest jerk in sports is ridiculous. There are thousands worse. Jordan has lived a fairly ego-driven life but in the panetheon of despicable athletes there have been drug addicts, murderers, rapists, etc. Jordan's antics pale in comparison.

[coyfish]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

no one but Pete and Fed know their relationship. Pete did come to the W finals for Fed..that shows something.

Yes only pete and fed know their relationship so im not sure why all the people defending sampras love to say they are friends. Like somehow that makes either one of them more or less "classy." I think pete came to the finals to see his record be broken more than for federer. Regardless thats not important.


I think most of the people in these forums are young and don't even remember Sampras when he played. They just see him in a suit being interviewed and it screams class.

Not sure if this thread is pertaining to sampras NOW or back during his career. Or both . . .

Back in his day he had his share of tantrums and drama just like any other. I don't think he stands out.

[drwood]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

not sure why you are so anti-sampras.

the Chang-Safin...is that thread still going???

I'm not anti-Sampras. I'm just willing to tell the truth about him -- both the good and the bad -- just like I am with Federer and Nadal. No difference.

The Chang-Safin thread was revived today.

[drwood]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

so now you are comparing two different sports??? maybe you would not know this, but tennis and basketball are different sports...UNLIKE Pete, MJ needed a multitude of other players to win 6 titles..but Pete needed just himself to win 14. again, another clueless post.

Pete just needed himself? Right. That's why he never did anything on grass until Gullickson taught him how to return serve on grass. Try again.

Basketball and tennis are two different sports -- however in his sport MJ is unquestionably the GOAT. There are clear reasons to argue against Pete in tennis -- most glaringly his average (for a GOAT candidate) record on clay. Not so for MJ...he had no weaknesses in his sport.

MJ is clearly a much bigger jerk than Sampras, but Sampras could be a jerk as well, especially when he was losing.

I respect Sampras' career and loved his game -- I never thought his game was boring at all -- a dominant serve is a beautiful thing to watch.