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

[TennezSport]

People also forget that Sampras was battling a rare mediteranian blood disease that robbed him of energy, which got worse as he got older. He knew that it would be near impossible to continue at a high level of play with the condition.

Cheers, TennezSport

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

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

for Pete, yes.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by TennezSport

People also forget that Sampras was battling a rare mediteranian blood disease that robbed him of energy, which got worse as he got older. He knew that it would be near impossible to continue at a high level of play with the condition.

Cheers, TennezSport

Yep, Pete was so good that people forgot that he had Thalassemia. Most mortals wouldn't even become pro with that type of disorder, but Pete was an exception. He was so good that Thalassemia didn't stop him from becoming #1 and one of the greatest player of all time.

[Strobe Lights]

I don't see it as a mistake at all.

His motivation for the day-to-day grind of the tour was no longer there and, heading into that US Open, he had not won a title in over two years (previous was Wimbledon 2000).

He played a great tournament and found himself in the final against his greatest rival. Your final match being a Major win in your home country, to tie Connors for most Open-era US Open titles, against your biggest rival sounds like a fairytale. He took a year to officially decide, but I think he realised it was the perfect way to bow out.

He had the highest number of Majors and it is not as if he was going to win the French. For most, he was the greatest player of the Open era at his retirement. For me, he was second only to Borg and the greatest fast-court player of the Open era. Not too shabby.

People spend so much time on here dismissing whoever they don't regard as the absolute best as if they are a joke. Now with Federer having surpassed Sampras in the eyes of most, people think he should have continued. I strongly disagree.

A superlative career with a spectacular finalé, the likes of which we will possibly never see again. It will always be one of those great sporting moments.

[Blocker]

If you read his book, you'll learn that he had nothing to prove to anyone but he knew he still had one more slam left in him. His last 2 years on the tour was all about winning that last slam he knew he had, so when he won it, he had nothing left to prove to the world and more importantly to himself. The next morning after he won the USO he was on a high, he was basically on a high until the AO, then he had no motivation to play that and pulled out. He was totally content.

At that stage he had pretty much done it all, except win the FO, but he had resigned himself to not winning that 5 years earlier, but was no big deal to him because everyone since Laver had failed to win a career slam. But, he had the most slams, the most Wimbledons, a record 6 years ending number 1 and he had the best of his main rivals. What else was there for him to achieve?

Plus, he was in a serious relationship at that time too.

[mxmx]

Maybe Sampras just needed a holiday and had to come out of retirement...Jordan like :P

I read open and enjoyed it. Sampras' book any good?

[jorel]

Originally Posted by mistik

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.

i believe courier summed it up best..

Pete just wasnt putting the work in"
and sampras himself said that he lost the motivation for the offcourt training

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Sampras felt he had given his all to his career, and wanted to leave on top--winning a major. It be pointless to continue in major after major, revealing to all the worlds that many have your number and your "prime" is just a distant memory of the past. Think of Federer: he barely won another major after two year bust, and then USO '12, AO '13arrived and passed, with Federer's skills dulled in both. then, there was the Olympics, where he was soundly defeated. He is at the exact point of Sampras--more or less--and needs to consider his legacy.

[dman72]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Sampras felt he had given his all to his career, and wanted to leave on top--winning a major. It be pointless to continue in major after major, revealing to all the worlds that many have your number and your "prime" is just a distant memory of the past. Think of Federer: he barely won another major after two year bust, and then USO '12, AO '13arrived and passed, with Federer's skills dulled in both. then, there was the Olympics, where he was soundly defeated. He is at the exact point of Sampras--more or less--and needs to consider his legacy.

Hiis legacy means continuing to get to the semi-finals on a regular basis.

It's another record that you will never see the likes or Rafa achieve as his body breaks down, and it remains to be seen if Djokovic can pull off anything remotely similar.

I'd say as long as he can stay in the top 5, what reason is there for Fed to stop unless he just gets tired of the grind? Since he still has just as much if not more hope of knocking off the other top 3 in comparison to the rest of the field, he can help to preserve his own legacy.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Sampras felt he had given his all to his career, and wanted to leave on top--winning a major. It be pointless to continue in major after major, revealing to all the worlds that many have your number and your "prime" is just a distant memory of the past. Think of Federer: he barely won another major after two year bust, and then USO '12, AO '13arrived and passed, with Federer's skills dulled in both. then, there was the Olympics, where he was soundly defeated. He is at the exact point of Sampras--more or less--and needs to consider his legacy.

It's a common misconception that Sampras retired after winning 2002 USO (left at the top), he was announcing his participation in many tourneys next year but was pulling out eventually out of each one (like say Nadal did since Wimbledon last year), it wasn't until Wimbledon was around the corner and Sampras couldn't motivate himself to train even for his most beloved tourney that he decided to call it quits.

[rkelley]

Sampras was tired. He'd done everything he wanted to do and from what I could tell as a fan the passion wasn't there anymore. Who can blame the guy. It's a grind to maintain the insanely high level that a top pro is at. He was 30 something and wanted to do some other things.

I agree that the game was still in his body. He could still win majors. But if the heart's not there even he wasn't good enough to make that happen. Kudos to him for leaving on his terms.

Fed, OTOH, seems to still just love the process. He loves playing. I think the other guys have caught up to his crazy high level, but that's not a knock on him. There are three people on this entire planet that can get on a tennis court with him and have an honest expectation that they might win. Everyone else is basically bracket filler, and these are some incredible players like Tsonga, Del Potro, etc. But to date, besides Del Potro once, they haven't gotten it done at a slam. The big four all got a slam last year, and Murray got the gold, Fed the silver, and Djokovic almost the bronze. Seems like we've reached parity, not a decline for Fed. By the time the semis of a slam happen, it's the same four guys for the most part.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Sampras felt he had given his all to his career, and wanted to leave on top--winning a major. It be pointless to continue in major after major, revealing to all the worlds that many have your number and your "prime" is just a distant memory of the past. Think of Federer: he barely won another major after two year bust, and then USO '12, AO '13arrived and passed, with Federer's skills dulled in both. then, there was the Olympics, where he was soundly defeated. He is at the exact point of Sampras--more or less--and needs to consider his legacy.

But Roger continue to play and won Wimbledon, his 17th slams. He also reclaimed the #1 ranking and broke Sampras 286 weeks at #1. The more he play, the more he's adding more to his legacy, thus, distance himself more from the pack.

[wangs78]

Originally Posted by mistik

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.

I agree. Sampras was burned out, yes, but some of that was because he felt like his place in the record books was secure. He had no idea that someone (guess who, haha) would come along and within 10 years erase Sampras' name from the top of most of the record lists. He had he known that I think he might have stuck around another 2-3 years to try to steal a couple of Slams.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by dman72

Hiis legacy means continuing to get to the semi-finals on a regular basis.

That's no legacy. He's already won majors, so what are essentially third-place finishes are not some high achievement for Federer.