Did Pete Sampras retire to early!?

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

I thought about this...Agassi retired at 35, Connors was close to 40, Mcenroe in his mid 30`s,Lendl in his mid 30`s,Federer has stated that he wants to play well in to his 30`s...Pete just turned 31 when he retired...do u guys think that he regrets his decision??

 

[AgassiFan4Life]

I think he retired just in time and it was very fitting for him to go out with a slam the way he did. Only thing I didn't like was that he beat my boy Agassi in that final.

 

[zagor]

Pete didn't really retire in 2002(when he was 31),he was still supposed to play some events in 2003 but kepte withdrawing and when Wimbledon came he just felt it was enough.Anyway I don't know,I would have prefered to see him play a few more years and especially didn't like the fact that the last match he played at Wimbledon was that horrible loss to Bastl,I mean the guy's a grass GOAT(IMO).

 

[Nadalfan89]

I think so.

He could've won another Wimbledon and USO imo.

 

[CountryHillbilly]

Maybe he should have lasted until 2004. I'm not sure what he could have won in those days.

Can't you concentrate enough to spell the title of the thread correctly?

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

I think so.

He could've won another Wimbledon and USO imo.

Yeah, have to agree with that. At least Wimbledon

 

[theroleoftheunderdog]

nope

10char

 

[akv89]

I think so.

He could've won another Wimbledon and USO imo.

Maybe the 2003 USO. But Pete retired just as Roger was beginning to enter his prime. I don't see Pete in his mid-30's being able to beat Roger at either Wimbledon or the USO, which he most likely would have to do considering that Federer's been in every Wimbledon final since '03 (the year after Pete's retirement) and won every USO since '04.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Maybe he should have lasted until 2004. I'm not sure what he could have won in those days.

Can't you concentrate enough to spell the title of the thread correctly?

Whats wrong with it??:?

 

[drwood]

Yeah, have to agree with that. At least Wimbledon

NO WAY....remember his last Wimbledon match? No way he could go through the grind of winning 7 matches in a row, even on grass. 2002 was the perfect ending.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

NO WAY....remember his last Wimbledon match? No way he could go through the grind of winning 7 matches in a row, even on grass. 2002 was the perfect ending.

Ok,maybe u r right, but he played vs Bastl at co no 2 which he was very upset about, at the Wimby CC he wouldnt have lost to Bastl imo, and Us Open 2003 was won by Roddick, he could have had a good run there maybe, anyway, its fun to speculate. Maybe he retired at the right time.

 

[raffi!]

Whats wrong with it??:?

It reads, "Did Pete Sampras retire to early!?"

It should read, "Did Pete Sampris Retire Too Early?!"

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

It reads, "Did Pete Sampras retire to early!?"

It should read, "Did Pete Sampris Retire Too Early?!"

Oh...wow...thats really big...TERRIBLE mistace! How could I?

 

[フェデラー]

Oh...wow...thats really big...TERRIBLE mistace! How could I?

Mistake




..

 

[tennisNoob78]

It reads, "Did Pete Sampras retire to early!?"

It should read, "Did Pete Sampris Retire Too Early?!"

Lol, more corrections ...

Sampris -> Sampras

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Well, I imagine he could plausibly have won another Slam or two had he kept playing a couple more years or so, and might still hold the Grand Slam record today as a result. Certainly if his primary goal was to squeeze out every last bit of greatness he could before he retired, then I do think he retired too soon, but if he felt like he'd done enough and wanted to go out on top, then certainly there was no better time than that. Basically, it depends on what standards one is using, and those standards can only be chosen by Sampras himself.

 

[Agassifan]

I think he retired just in time and it was very fitting for him to go out with a slam the way he did. Only thing I didn't like was that he beat my boy Agassi in that final.

ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Deleted member 21996]

So can we get back to the topic under debate and give up on spelling contests?

Sampras retired in his own timming, but i could have seen a few more events... namely a SW19 good run, say a semi or a quarter!

sugestion to TMOP : next time create a thread in swedish and watch the critics melt...

 

[marc45]

i would have liked to see him give the new technology a chance, both racquet and strings...he won that last u.s. open caveman-style when it comes to equipment..of course as a fan i never wanted him to stop

 

[Chadwixx]

Fed still uses the same racket i think. Anyone?

 

[asafi2]

It reads, "Did Pete Sampras retire to early!?"

It should read, "Did Pete Sampris Retire Too Early?!"

Ha you guys are correcting a guy who probably knows more languages than you...

 

[marc45]

Fed still uses the same racket i think. Anyone?

bigger than pete's old one, but i think pete's new one is similar to roger's now, though i'll leave that to the tech heads...i do believe roger has some synthetic string one way though, not straight gut like pete used..techies?

 

[GameSampras]

Good question..


Looking back, I think Pete now wishes he would have tried and manage another Wimbeldon or USO or two if possible even he knew then what he knew now. That someone was going to in only 7 years break his GS record.

At the time though, I think Sampras was content going out the way he did. Breaking the record and retiring after winning the USO against his main rival nearly a decade. Thats a way to go out. But if he could have stuck around and managed another 3-4, I think his record still would have been safe. But Im sure he was burned to a crisp with the grind of the tour.

If anything I wished Pete wouldnt have essentially gave up on the French Open title after 1996.

 

[grafselesfan]

It is hard to say. At times I think he did. On the other hand his last 2 years on tour were horrible for his standards, and he seemed clearly well past his prime, so having the opportunity to retire on top when you are overall struggling so much and seem clearly past your prime, it might have been for the best. I often wondered though if he wasnt capable of more of the kind of tennis he showed at the 2001 and 2002 U.S Opens more often but couldnt find the right motivation. I almost wish he had a crystal ball of Federer eclipsing his slam record only 7-9 years later if he had retired after 2002 and maybe that would have lit a spark and we could have seen more of the real Pete for another couple years.

 

[NonP]

Good question..


Looking back, I think Pete now wishes he would have tried and manage another Wimbeldon or USO or two if possible even he knew then what he knew now. That someone was going to in only 7 years break his GS record.

At the time though, I think Sampras was content going out the way he did. Breaking the record and retiring after winning the USO against his main rival nearly a decade. Thats a way to go out. But if he could have stuck around and managed another 3-4, I think his record still would have been safe. But Im sure he was burned to a crisp with the grind of the tour.

If anything I wished Pete wouldnt have essentially gave up on the French Open title after 1996.

GameSampras, Pete "gave up" on the FO after 1998, not '96. He talks about this in his book, but suffice it to say for now that after the '98 FO his mindset was "Let's go out, do my best and see what happens" rather than "I'm going to show them that I'm Pete Sampras." And I maintain that it was the '97 FO, not '96, that was his best chance at the elusive career Grand Slam. Too bad his stomach acted up at the most inopportune time back then.

As to the main question, dunno. Pete might well have bagged one or two more majors, but not many more than that. Besides this is largely wishful thinking.

 

[egn]

No it was perfect. Sampras had really fallen out of the top 10 and slam contention. He was titleless for 2 years had posted his worst seasons since 1990. He was no longer a contendor on his favorite surface grass and outside of the fast hardcourts he had become basically a non-factor sadly. It was just his desire, his home crowd, his wanting one more that kept him going at the US Open. It was amazing that he made 3 straight finals while everything else was going horribly wrong and it was a perfect ending. He was right back where he started. Andre Agassi. US Open final. Nobody expected him to really do it again. It was just everything clicked. It was a sad day but it was great and it was an amazing moment.

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

Yes of course!

I would of liked to see Federer give him some more lessons and it would be nice to see Nadal give him 3 bagels in under an hour on clay (Of course thats if he could make it past the first round vs a player ranked 200+!). Also it would be interesting if Karlovic vs Sampras would be more boring then Karlovic vs Roddick.

 

[grafrules]

No. Sampras is an amazing player of course but he wasnt the same player anymore. His 2002 was a complete disaester, even 2001 was outside the U.S Open. He pulled that U.S Open title out of the hat, it was the absolute best note to retire on since he clearly wasnt that player on a regular basis any longer. As he said in his autobiography he that rare chance for an athlete to end his career on the ultimate high and he took it, and based on his overall 2001-2002 that shot to do so may have never come up again.