Nice Interview With Sampras

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
'I'm done. I've nothing left to give, nothing to prove'
By Neil Harman

Nearly two years on, Pete Sampras breaks his silence to talk about the moment he knew he had to retire

HE SKIPS from his golf buggy in jeans and trainers — country club dress codes are not nearly so strict as they are in England, it seems — and what strikes you first is that Pete Sampras is the personification of contentment. Second is the apparent pleasure he takes from the idea of spending an hour with someone whose job is to pry. Heavens, how he has changed. Retirement suits a 33-year-old, with a second child on the way, who does not have to wrestle with the concept of a mortgage.
It is 19 months since tennis waved off arguably its greatest champion and he has barely said a word to anyone in the sport since. He had never given more of himself than was absolutely necessary when he played with such majesty and that he disappeared from view after a raw night in New York — the image of Sampras, shoulders hunched and eyes watery, as he realised it was all over is still vivid — was not a grand surprise. The Howard Hughes persona sits well with him.

That we are in the Bighorn Golf Club in Palm Desert, California, the town that rubs shoulders with Indian Wells, and that Sampras has no intention of poking his head around the door to see what is going on at the Pacific Life Open, one of the leading events on the tennis calendar, bears this out. Is he not just a bit intrigued?

“No, not really,” he said. “The first time you will see me will be Wimbledon, because that’s the way I want it. That’s the way it should be. Tim Phillips (the All England Club chairman) asked me to come the year after I’d stopped playing, but that was too soon. I would like to go when my son — maybe sons — are older. I’d love to sit with them in the royal box and just watch.

“Remember, tennis had been my whole life, it took me over completely. It was a tough sport, one that showed your true character out there, which I loved. But by the end I was holding on so tight to win that record fourteenth grand-slam (title) and only when I did it, I could breathe again. I was on my last fume against Andre (Agassi) in that fourth set in the (2002 US) Open final. If I hadn’t have served it out when I did, I don’t know what I would have done.”

Sampras did not call it quits on that spectacular night but something inside him said enough was enough. He began withdrawing from tournaments and when he called Paul Annacone, his coach, to his home in Beverly Hills on the proviso of knuckling down to practise for Wimbledon 2003, he knew deep down that he would not be making the journey.

“I thought, OK, this is Wimbledon I’m getting ready for, but on the third day I said: ‘Paul, let’s not kid ourselves, I don’t want to practise. I’m done, I’ve nothing left to give and nothing left to prove to myself.’ That was when I knew I was going to retire, but how would I do it?

“Friends said I should go to New York, to the Open, but I worried about exposing myself emotionally. The USTA said they’d love to honour me there and I thought, umm, OK, I’ll go. I didn’t spend any time before it reflecting on my career, I didn’t know what I’d feel, but on the way to the site, a trip I’d made hundreds of times, it suddenly hit me in the face and in the gut. My career was over.”

What a career: 14 grand-slam triumphs stretching from 1990 to 2002, including seven Wimbledons, and 64 titles in all, winning £25 million in prize-money. Six times in a row he ended the year as the world No 1 and it was all done with a style and self-effacement that made one want to know more.

For this was the inscrutability of Sampras, who found press conferences a chilling experience, who craved universal acknowledgement but preferred no fuss, who would have chosen to lead an anonymous life but who had it in him to be the best in the world at his chosen sport. And who, finally, married an actress and went to live in Los Angeles, one of the few who did both to escape the world rather than show off to it. He lives in a Tudor house on a hill, “tucked away”, he said. Just as he likes it.

He was there after “the surrealism” of Flushing Meadows and his farewell, thrashing around with his feelings. “I had began to resent the sport, I had let it affect me so much,” he said. “I remember playing golf with (Jimmy) Connors and he said that when you stop you don’t want anything to do with tennis. You don’t want to read about it, watch it, talk about it, you want to get as far away from it as possible. That happened to me.”

He gave a long sigh before adding: “There was no more pressure, no more stress.” But something had to fill the void. “I’ve been playing a ton of golf and my wife is pregnant, so I’ve done a little bit of that . . .” His laughter, something we had longed to hear when he played, filled the air of the Bighorn clubhouse.

“Bridgette and I are remodelling our house,” he said. “It’s taken a lot of time and money. I’ve been asked to play some (tennis) but I’m not interested. Nothing prepares you for stopping, there is no book on how to retire. Has it really been nearly three years?

“I’ve had my camp-feverish moments — what am I going to do today? I’ve started working out, spending a lot of time with my wife and kid and that’s fine, but I’ve always been a focused, competitive athlete. There will be nothing ever to replace what I had in tennis. I’m still going through the transition.

“The ironic thing is that sport exposed me more than anything else in life. I had only known one thing since I was 8 years old and once I got serious there was no hiding place, which is why I love the home I have now.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
“In tennis, no one takes your shots. As defensively reserved as I am, I had to cope with layers being peeled away from me, with what happened in Moscow (when he overcame terrible cramps to lead the United States to victory in the Davis Cup final in 1995), Australia (when he cried his eyes out on the realisation that Tim Gullikson, his coach, was dying in 1995) and the US Open (when he vomited on court playing Alex Corretja in 1996 and was accused of faking).

“I had no control over these things and that is what sport did to me. But I had a desire to be the best and I was willing to sacrifice everything to make it.

“There were great high points — winning Wimbledon (in 2000) when my parents were there for the first time and sharing that with them. The 2002 US Open was for my wife, who was pregnant with Christian and yet was being blamed for what had gone wrong with my tennis over the two previous years.

“They (the press) said I got married and I was lazy, but I was just tired. The low point in life was dealing with Tim’s death, because death is something I’d never confronted before. It has been nine years and I still think of him constantly. In tennis, it was losing to (George) Bastl at Wimbledon in 2002. Do you know what was weird? I got to the press conference and I could feel I was going to cry. I got home and I did cry. I was so hurt, so sad, so very sad. It was the lowest I’d been as a tennis player.”

During that match, Sampras prised a letter from his racket bag and read it over and over. In it, Bridgette professed her love for him, whatever the result. It did not matter to her. He welled up.

That Sampras married an actress is hard to reconcile. “You have to find the right actress,” he said. “If Bridgette had been a glitzy glamour girl, I wouldn’t have gone out with her and certainly not married her. Once I got to know her family, where she came from, what she was like, I was totally comfortable. I couldn’t have lasted two dates if it involved being dragged from premiere to premiere.”

Sampras yearned acceptance, but his introvert nature had little appeal to the outside world. “I always wondered why, instead of taking me for what I am, it was always about what I’m not,” he said. “They didn’t want the reserved, quiet guy, they wanted me to do or say something to make their jobs easier. Do I feel the mainstream media didn’t appreciate me? Absolutely.

“From grand slams two ’til nine I got a reasonable response, nothing great; then from nine and ten onwards, as the record got closer, I found more people willing to appreciate. I was one of those who was happy to let my racket do the talking in a society that wanted more than just a great tennis player. I became very sensitive early on but it got to the point where, sure, I cared, but I just cared less.”

Today he will play a round of golf — he has a handicap of six — take Christian, his “extremely energetic” 2-year-old, to the range, work out for a couple of hours, then have a quiet dinner with Bridgette. No rush. No bother.

He has financial interests in Tennis magazine and the embryonic Tennis Channel, he may put some cash into NetJet, a company involved in private jets (not bad for someone who, when he won his first tournament in Philadelphia in 1990, feared the plane might crash and he would not be able to spend his $130,000 winner’s cheque).

He plays Texas Hold ’Em, the popular poker variety, a couple of times a week with his country club set. Pistol Pete to Poker Pete. Quite some transformation. Quite some man.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5205-1531700_2,00.html
 

Andy Hewitt

Professional
Ahhh nice article. I had read that the same thing happens to good soccer players in Europe when they retire. One thing i noticed was that vommiting incident where people said he faked it. My dad used to watch tennis alot and I saw that and I asked why he was vommiting and he told me that Sampras was faking it, lol.
But man... what a baby cry.
 

arosen

Hall of Fame
Nice article, Kevin. Sampras was probably one of the most commited athletes ever. Tennis, nothing else, 25 years of it. All day every day. I am bored with his personality, but I deeply respect the depth of his commitment to tennis.
 

VictorS.

Professional
Excellent read. I don't want to get too off-topic, but after reading this article...you really get the sense that tennis was obviously consuming but also very stressful for sampras. However, from the outside looking in....I don't see federer in that same state of mind. In a sense, it's almost like he coasts by winning grand slam titles. Even when Sampras was winning grand slam titles....it really seemed like he had to labor for it.
 
You know I'm glad that Sampras and Bridgette are still doing well.

Honestly, I was always skeptical from a time I saw Bridgette years ago on a talk show, they quizzed her with a few questions about tennis. She already had given the impression of being kind of shallow and vacuous....but I was holding off judgement, after all it's a celebrity talk show and she is an actress....impossible to say if was the "real" her. She blew almost all the questions about tennis, including "what is the only grand slam Pete Sampras has never won?"......she had NO CLUE.....that made me wonder is she was using a celebrity marriage for her own hidden agenda....but I hoped to be wrong.
 

alan-n

Professional
VictorS. said:
Excellent read. I don't want to get too off-topic, but after reading this article...you really get the sense that tennis was obviously consuming but also very stressful for sampras. However, from the outside looking in....I don't see federer in that same state of mind. In a sense, it's almost like he coasts by winning grand slam titles. Even when Sampras was winning grand slam titles....it really seemed like he had to labor for it.

Not just this but the American press can be an source of stress for any pro athelete. They just like to take pots shots where they can, I sense that coming from a small country, the press in Switzerland are more appretiative of Federer... Unlike the American press who wrote rediculous articles and took pots shots at Pete especially when he was in a slump.
 

35ft6

Legend
Datacipher said:
You know I'm glad that Sampras and Bridgette are still doing well.

Honestly, I was always skeptical from a time I saw Bridgette years ago on a talk show, they quizzed her with a few questions about tennis. She already had given the impression of being kind of shallow and vacuous....but I was holding off judgement, after all it's a celebrity talk show and she is an actress....impossible to say if was the "real" her. She blew almost all the questions about tennis, including "what is the only grand slam Pete Sampras has never won?"......she had NO CLUE.....that made me wonder is she was using a celebrity marriage for her own hidden agenda....but I hoped to be wrong.
You could easily interpret this as a plus. If she were a fangirl, you'd have to wonder. If she wanted to marry somebody to further her acting career, she could have done a whole lot better than Sampras. As far along as she already was, I see no way he could have really helped her at all.
 

Stuck

Rookie
I see what your saying VictorS about Fed cruising through slams, but Sampras did that too. 96 Ausi Open destroying Moya in final, Wimbledon he would always cruise through in the prime of his career. Fed is amazing no doubt. But lets see if he can withstand this amazing play for more than 5 years like Pete, and he will also have to win 15 Grand Slams including the French to be considered better than Sampras. I like using the Labron James comparison, Labron might be better than Jordan, but he has lots of championships to win to be compared to him. Fed only has 5 slams and we'll have to wait and see if he can stay healthy and committed enough to break Pete's record. In my mind Pete is the man, and I would take Sampras' game in his prime, over Feds!
 

VictorS.

Professional
Stuck said:
I see what your saying VictorS about Fed cruising through slams, but Sampras did that too. 96 Ausi Open destroying Moya in final, Wimbledon he would always cruise through in the prime of his career. Fed is amazing no doubt. But lets see if he can withstand this amazing play for more than 5 years like Pete, and he will also have to win 15 Grand Slams including the French to be considered better than Sampras. I like using the Labron James comparison, Labron might be better than Jordan, but he has lots of championships to win to be compared to him. Fed only has 5 slams and we'll have to wait and see if he can stay healthy and committed enough to break Pete's record. In my mind Pete is the man, and I would take Sampras' game in his prime, over Feds!

It's nice to see some guys finally giving Federer some trouble (ie Ljubicic, Safin, and JCF). But for the most part, Sampras usually had to fight for his titles. Even at Wimbledon, it never seemed to be a sure thing, especially when he was going against guys like Ivanisevic and Rafter.

BTW....MJ>>> Lebron. Just my opinion though.
 
L

laurie

Guest
I've been reading Tennis Confidential - what an excellent book. In the Sampras interview, which is also excellent, the interviewer pointed out to Sampras that in the twelve slams he'd won (at the time the book was put together in 2000), he only dropped 5 sets in the finals! this is some of the scorelines from those finals.

1990 v Agassi - 6:4, 6:3, 6:2
1994 Wimbledon v Goran - 7:6, 7:6, 6:0
1995 Wimbledon v Becker - 6:7, 6:2, 6:4,6:2
1996 US Open v Chang - 6:1, 6:4,7:6,
1997 Aus Open v Moya - 6:2,6:4,6:2
1997 Wimbledon v Pioline - 6:4,6:2,6:4
1993 US Open v Pioline - 6:4,6:4,6:3
1999 Wimbledon v Agassi - 6:3,6:4,7:5
1994 Aus Open v Martin - 7:6, 6:4,6:4

These scorelines don't suggest struggle. Having seen at all bar 1993 Pioline match up. In some of those matches he destroyed his opponent.
 

spirit

Rookie
Stuck said:
Fed only has 5 slams and we'll have to wait and see if he can stay healthy and committed enough to break Pete's record. In my mind Pete is the man, and I would take Sampras' game in his prime, over Feds!

How many slams did Pete have at a stage in his career where Federer is now? Is Fed ahead of Pete's schedule? Right now, it looks as though only a career ending (God forbid) injury will derail Feds pursuit of the Sampras records. But we can't know what fate has in store, so let's sit back and enjoy the spectacle. However, it would be more exciting if someone can come along and issue some real challenges to the Fed Express. Safin was up to the task at the AO.
 
35ft6 said:
You could easily interpret this as a plus. If she were a fangirl, you'd have to wonder. If she wanted to marry somebody to further her acting career, she could have done a whole lot better than Sampras. As far along as she already was, I see no way he could have really helped her at all.

Well, I think you're right, it could be seen as a plus in that she wasn't too interested in tennis. But, really, I still wouldnt' interpret it that way(although I don't interpret it in a negative way now either!). You'd just sort of think that by that point, she'd know some basic things about Pete and his accomplishments and his goals. As for her career, I really think it could be seen as a huge plus if she wanted it to be. She wasn't really that "far along"....a B list actress at best....any publicity....and a celebrity marriage is about as big a splash as she could have made....is a good thing in the weird world of Hollywood. There were many who felt Brooke Shields resurgance was in part due to publicity from her Agassi marriage.
 

35ft6

Legend
Stuck said:
I like using the Labron James comparison, Labron might be better than Jordan, but he has lots of championships to win to be compared to him.
The only problem with this analogy is that LeBron is nowhere close to Jordan (although he may be a sicker raw athlete... he's only better if you go by age, and by that standard Hewitt is better than Sampras and Federer) whereas Federer may presently better than Sampras ever was.
Fed only has 5 slams and we'll have to wait and see if he can stay healthy and committed enough to break Pete's record. In my mind Pete is the man, and I would take Sampras' game in his prime, over Feds!
You're nuts, dude. ;)
spirit said:
Right now, it looks as though only a career ending (God forbid) injury will derail Feds pursuit of the Sampras records. But we can't know what fate has in store, so let's sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
Seriously, unless something nuts happens, Federer has the potential to easily break Sampras' record IMO. The wins just come so much easier for him. I'm not just talking score. The emotional, mental, and physical toll the wins take on Federer's body is far less than what Sampras went through.

And I think Federer loves the game far more than Sampras does. Sampras was incredibly driven but there seemed to be very little joy in his life. It's like he had something to prove and he may have been just as driven whether he played basketball or sold Amway. I'm not so sure it was the tennis. And he felt underappreciated, misunderstood, and underpaid, and I think those things also lessened the pro experience for him.

Federer is different. He seems to love tennis... he seems to love being number one... he seems completely comfortable with the press and fans... and I think in the long run these things will only help him in his goal of surpassing Sampras' record.

I think he has too much respect to just come out and admit it, but I think he has every intention in the world of surpassing Sampras. I see the fire in him. Before it was only a matter of whether or not he would have a Sampras like desire to do what it takes to be number one and win slams for 6 or 8 years in a row. I think the desire is there.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
spirit,
Sampras has more slams at this stage of his career than Federer does now(5 vs 4) check out the link at the bottom for more comparison.

data,
With a 2nd kid on the way(& virtually no work since she got pregnant with their first), it's safe to say their relationship is genuine. Though it seems odd that she knows squat about his career, I think Pete prefers it that way. He seemed very consumed by the sport & probably enjoyed spending his time off the court with someone as far from that world as posible. Considering that he doesn't even follow the game anymore or is involved in it in any way, it seems an even better fit.

35ft6,
I agree with you that Fed seems to love the game far more than Sampras. But I don't think he will break Samp's major records(14 slams, 7 wimbledons, 6 years at #1) for one major reason. Federer's game is based on movement. Eventually(in his late 20s probably) he will lose a step. This is inevitable. When Sampras lost a step, he could still contend because of his serve. Federer may look more natural on the court than Sampras, but a more important factor in his career will be the amount of court he has to cover.
If you compare a Sampras GS final vs a Fed GS Final in terms of court coverage there is no comparison. Federer has logged far more miles on the court than Sampras has in his. Eventually those miles catch up.
I'm sure Federer covered more court during one Wimbledon win than Sampras did in 2 of his combined.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html
 

35ft6

Legend
Datacipher said:
As for her career, I really think it could be seen as a huge plus if she wanted it to be. She wasn't really that "far along"....a B list actress at best....any publicity....and a celebrity marriage is about as big a splash as she could have made....is a good thing in the weird world of Hollywood. There were many who felt Brooke Shields resurgance was in part due to publicity from her Agassi marriage.
But Brooke Shields and Agassi are a whole 'nother level of celebrity. You really can't compare. Bridgette Wilson's career is not really much hotter now than when she met Pete. She's on that new Stamos show but she's still a solid B or B- list actress. Sampras was dull dull dull. IMO she was taking a risk standing in such close proximity to dullness personified. In Hollywood, even if you marry a really powerful person it's kind of tough to make it on connections alone. That girl who was with Tim Burton for years and years didn't get anywhere. Kate Capshaw isn't the biggest star in the world and Kelly Lynch isn't a superstar either. I'm just writing to hear myself type at this point...
35ft6,
I agree with you that Fed seems to love the game far more than Sampras. But I don't think he will break Samp's major records(14 slams, 7 wimbledons, 6 years at #1) for one major reason. Federer's game is based on movement. Eventually(in his late 20s probably) he will lose a step. This is inevitable. When Sampras lost a step, he could still contend because of his serve. Federer may look more natural on the court than Sampras, but a more important factor in his career will be the amount of court he has to cover.
He may lose a step but I don't think it'll hurt him as much as you seem to. 1) His anticipation is uncanny. Even when he's covering a lot of court he's exerting minimal effort because he's already coasting over to where the ball is heading. It's not like he has perform a series of mad dashes because he's always one step behind. He's always one step ahead.

2) He's super loose. Sampras was an incredible athlete but he wasn't the dancer on court like Federer is. Sampras made tennis look like a sport, whereas Federer makes it look like an art form. Everything, his strokes and movement are never strained. I think I heard once about Borg's incredible heart rate even under pressure and I'd bet Federer is the same way. Anyway, all this calmness equals less wear and tear. For these reasons I think he can age well in the same way McEnroe, an equally flowing player, has. Compare this zen-like calm to Sampras' vomiting, tongue panting, cramping, and crying. :mrgreen:

3) He wins a lot of cheap points. Almost as many as Sampras on some days. In that first set in the finals against Hewitt, he barely broke a sweat.

I'm losing track of what I'm talking about. I'm done.
 
Kevin Patrick said:
data,
With a 2nd kid on the way(& virtually no work since she got pregnant with their first), it's safe to say their relationship is genuine. Though it seems odd that she knows squat about his career, I think Pete prefers it that way. He seemed very consumed by the sport & probably enjoyed spending his time off the court with someone as far from that world as posible. Considering that he doesn't even follow the game anymore or is involved in it in any way, it seems an even better fit.
[/url]

I know and i"m genuinely happy for them. I was worried Pete would end up in the ditch at some point, but I'm glad it didn't and I wish them the best!
 
35ft6 said:
But Brooke Shields and Agassi are a whole 'nother level of celebrity. You really can't compare. Bridgette Wilson's career is not really much hotter now than when she met Pete. She's on that new Stamos show but she's still a solid B or B- list actress. Sampras was dull dull dull. IMO she was taking a risk standing in such close proximity to dullness personified. In Hollywood, even if you marry a really powerful person it's kind of tough to make it on connections alone. That girl who was with Tim Burton for years and years didn't get anywhere. Kate Capshaw isn't the biggest star in the world and Kelly Lynch isn't a superstar either. I'm just writing to hear myself type at this point...
.

Well then, the solution is obvious, she should have married Kournikova! Now that would get some attention! ;-)
 

VictorS.

Professional
The way Federer is rolling right now, it's easy to see him winning quite a few grand slams. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The French is always going to be tough with all the clay court specialists. He may in fact eventually win at roland garros but I don't see it being a tournament he'll win many many times. In addition, there are still plenty of guys who could possibly give Federer some problems. Guys like Ljubicic, Safin, Nalbandian, and maybe even Nadal.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
I didn't realize that Bridgette was on that Stamos show. Maybe she got the part because of her last name. LOL.

35ft6,
Ok you've compared Federer to Borg & McEnroe(two players that relied a lot on their movement)
Borg retired at 26. As to McEnroe 'aging well?" He won his last slam at 25 & reached his last slam final at 26. Federer is 23.
McEnroe suffered many minor injuries in his remaining years(which took away some speed) & was not at peak physical condition in his late 20s.

Yes, Federer anticipates well. But there are still 'mad dashes' when he is on the defense. His game is built on great defense as well as offense. When he loses a step, will he be able to track those balls down? Remember the 45 stroke rally with Hewitt? Would Federer try that hard if he didn't need to?

Federer needs to be sharp on defense because he can't coast through a set with one break like sampras did. When Pete got a break, the set was over & he rarely exerted himself on return games.
Federer did get broken by Hewitt when he was up a break in the 3rd, right?

"He wins a lot of cheap points. Almost as many as Sampras on some days."

I can assume you haven't seen much of sampras based on that comment.
I read that Kiefer broke Federer twice at love. Federer was broken 3 times in last year's W Final(sampras was broken 3 times total in his 7 W finals). I have seen Sampras win many events without the loss of serve, with players rarely reaching break point.

"Sampras made tennis look like a sport, whereas Federer makes it look like an art form. Everything, his strokes and movement are never strained."

I've never heard anyone imply that Sampras' strokes or movement were 'strained.' Part of the reason Sampras was so unappreciated by american fans & media was that he made it look too easy. It didn't look like he was trying. Agassi, Borg, Connors,& Lendl made tennis 'look like a sport' not Sampras.

Bottomline, Federer works hard for his points, regardless of how 'pretty' he looks while doing it. Time will tell if he can continue to win that way. Now if Roche can get him to serve/volley.....
 

drexeler

Rookie
For Fed to have any realistic chance of catching upto Sampras' record, he must win 4 more slams by end of next year (2006). That would put him in a tie with Sampras (at the same stage) who had 8 by 1996.

After '96, with Annacone aboard, Sampras became a more dedicated S/Ver. He won 6 more slams in his career. This pivotal move can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, you could say, exclusive S/V saved wear & tear and enabled him to pick up 6 slams after 25, by which age many champions were done in their slam winning ways.

On the other hand he won only 2 more non-Wimbledon slams. I think becoming exclusively serve (and volley) reliant deteriorated some of his baseline skills (esp. backhand). From 93-96, he won 3/4 USO, but 97-02, he was 1/5 (skipped '99). From 92-96, he made 3 straight QF and 1 SF at FO. Later it was mostly 1st and 2nd round exits. Won only one more AO afte 96.

So maybe it would still be better for Federer to concentrate on his all-court game (maybe just be a little more aggressive to keep points short).
 

edge

Banned
<<he felt underappreciated, misunderstood, and underpaid, and I think those things also lessened the pro experience for him.>>

The problem with Pete was he didn't have the charisma like most champions of our times. His personality was more suited to the era of his heroes in the 50's and 60's. Don't forget, he left high school and basically hit thousands of tennis balls with a single minded focus. That alone along with his introverted demeanor sealed his fate with the public. On the other hand Roger has more natural charisma on the public arena. He's enjoying the presence of being on center stage much more than Sampras ever did. Keven P. did a nice comparison of the two at the same age. Sampras is far ahead and will be very tough to catch. There's a tendency to remember the most recent achievements as the more remarkable. When Hewitt won the USO & W, many thought that he would cruise through a few more. Now it looks like he'll never win another one (thank goodness).
 

35ft6

Legend
Datacipher said:
Well then, the solution is obvious, she should have married Kournikova! Now that would get some attention! ;-)
That would be totally hawt. I would support that union with all my heart and soul, and I would probably spend a considerable amount of time thinking about it at night. Pants optional. I kid. I kid.
 

35ft6

Legend
Kevin Patrick said:
I didn't realize that Bridgette was on that Stamos show. Maybe she got the part because of her last name. LOL.

35ft6,
Ok you've compared Federer to Borg & McEnroe(two players that relied a lot on their movement)
Borg retired at 26. As to McEnroe 'aging well?" He won his last slam at 25 & reached his last slam final at 26. Federer is 23.
McEnroe suffered many minor injuries in his remaining years(which took away some speed) & was not at peak physical condition in his late 20s.
I'm talking about the way he's so spritely around the court at the ripe young age of 45. Yeah, it seemed dubious when I was typing it but I committed it anyways.

My point is simply that I think his movement is so graceful, natural, and his anticipation is so uncanny, and he's always so relaxed, that I don't think the physical toll on him will be that great. He's not straining out there. But your point is well taken.
I can assume you haven't seen much of sampras based on that comment... I have seen Sampras win many events without the loss of serve, with players rarely reaching break point.
I know that the times I've seen Sampras play, he looked like he was tanking until around 3-3 or 4-4, at which point he came to life just enough to break and serve out the set. I think you're right on this one. Federer almost seems to relish letting the opponent think they're controlling the point only to end the point at the most improbably moment. I remember that 45 shot rally with Hewitt. Sampras would have just lost the point on the 15th stroke.
I've never heard anyone imply that Sampras' strokes or movement were 'strained.'
Compared to Federer, Sampras looked like he was doing some work out there. Sampras was a lot more reactive, whereas a lot of Federer's movement is just flat out preemptive. And watching Sampras get into a backhand exchange was just painful.

You may be right. I don't know. Maybe I'm not remembering Sampras correctly. He was never my favorite player, that's for sure.
 

sarpmas

Rookie
35ft6 said:
Seriously, unless something nuts happens, Federer has the potential to easily break Sampras' record IMO. The wins just come so much easier for him. I'm not just talking score. The emotional, mental, and physical toll the wins take on Federer's body is far less than what Sampras went through.

Actually, winning does come quite easily for Sampras, thanks to his seemingly unbreakable serve. Score may looked tight, but Sampras usually cruised through his, as well as his opponent's service game UNTIL the most crucial moment where he would pick up his game and get the break he needed. I'm not surprised some of his 'tight' 4 setters lasted much shorter than others 3 setters, and thus, the toll on Sampras's body is also far less than you expected.

35ft6 said:
And I think Federer loves the game far more than Sampras does. Sampras was incredibly driven but there seemed to be very little joy in his life. It's like he had something to prove and he may have been just as driven whether he played basketball or sold Amway. I'm not so sure it was the tennis. And he felt underappreciated, misunderstood, and underpaid, and I think those things also lessened the pro experience for him.

Federer is different. He seems to love tennis... he seems to love being number one... he seems completely comfortable with the press and fans... and I think in the long run these things will only help him in his goal of surpassing Sampras' record.

The thing is, LOVE and DRIVE go hand in hand. Without LOVE, no matter how driven you are, it is quite unlikely that Sampras can be so dominant in a highly competitive pro tennis circuit.

Of course Federer appears to be loving every moment now, that's because he's enjoying the fruit of his amazing accomplishment just 1 year ago, and also the flattening praise from the media, fans, peers and past greats. However, there are still tons of tennis ahead of him, supposed people start resenting his dominance a few years down the road or he's in a mini slump and people start writing him off, will these negativity corrupt his love and drive for the game? Only time will tell...

35ft6 said:
I think he has too much respect to just come out and admit it, but I think he has every intention in the world of surpassing Sampras. I see the fire in him. Before it was only a matter of whether or not he would have a Sampras like desire to do what it takes to be number one and win slams for 6 or 8 years in a row. I think the desire is there.

Frankly, if there is anyone I wish to break Sampras's record, it'll be Federer. I just hoped he doesn't get over-confidence or unknowingly put too much pressure on himself and steer himself off course to whatever great things he is capable of achieving.
 

bertrevert

Legend
I've got to admit that the earlier Federer, the one that got a bit tight, that seemed a bit more fragile, was still a ton of fun to watch -angles, improvisation, sheer fun. I love when the camera gets court side, at player level, and you can see 2 uncanny things about his game:

1. uncanny anticipation
2. incredible disguise of shots

That's not how I think of Sampras at all. Federer delivers surprises that come from these 2 points. You become glued because you don't know what's going to happen next. Sampras was a more dominant player (think Wimby vs. Agassi) plainly without surprise and innovation - he didn't need to!
 

35ft6

Legend
sarpmas said:
The thing is, LOVE and DRIVE go hand in hand. Without LOVE, no matter how driven you are, it is quite unlikely that Sampras can be so dominant in a highly competitive pro tennis circuit.
I think Sampras enjoyed competing but he wasn't down with the whole professional tennis, celebrity experience. He's a bit of an awkward fellow. I just get this feeling that Federer enjoys the whole experience a whole lot more than Sampras ever did.
 
L

laurie

Guest
With some of the comments I've been reading, it reaffirms my belief that a proper comparison cannot be made because people have forgotten Sampras' shot making ability and smooth movement. That will continue unless they actually see footage of Sampras from the past. I think 1990 US Open would be a good place to start. I think in America the tennis channel can help. By showing past Sampras matches people would be able to make a proper comparison to Federer and not perceived comparisons which right now is really rife.
 

sliceroni

Hall of Fame
Agree w/ 35ft6, Sampras made it look easy but Fed makes it looks easier and more natural. Fed expends much less energy on court than Sampras did in his prime. S&V tennis takes it's toll on the body, seems like 29-31 yrs is the avg retirement age for s&v players recently. Fed can take the ball early just as good, if not better, than Agassi and has better instincts and anticipation so I predict some longevity for the Fedmeister.
 

johnmcc516

Semi-Pro
Sampras always destroyed Agassi at Wimbledon, but I cheered for Agassi as hard as I could anyway. I've always like Agassi more than Sampras.
 

sarpmas

Rookie
I totally echoed what laurie said. If you would watch some of Sampras's past footages, you will find that lots of compliments given to Federer now is exactly what Sampras was getting in his prime.

It is really no coincidence that people like to compare Sampras and Federer, in terms of tennis abilities, they are truly outstanding, brilliant all-courters. Despite the similarity, I do find subtle differences between their game.

Sampras's game is more aggressive whereas Federer's game is more touch. Sampras is extremely efficient, usually overpowers his opponents without expanding too much unnecessary energy. Federer tends to mix up the rhythm of the game with slices and angles, catching his opponents off guard. It may even appears that he is toying with his opponents. This is also a reason why I believe many find Federer's game flashier because this type of play may seem to put him on the defensive, but this false perception will soon disappear due to Federer's uncanny ability to turn defense into offense with some magical stroke of genius. Personally, I find Sampras running fh and slam dunk overheads equally flashy. :)

A much underrated part of Sampras game is his movement. It's his smooth movement around the court combined with his no-nonsense style of play and classical strokes that make his game looks so easy. Unfortunately, some may find it boring *scratch head*! Federer, similarly excellent in movement, also makes the game looked easy, but is visually more beautiful because more touch is involved.

Relatively, Sampras's game display more power than feel while Federer's display more feel than power.

PS: laurie, I have to commend you in your 'little debate' in the BBC website regarding Sampras vs Federer. Fantastic job!
 
L

laurie

Guest
My goodness Sarpmas, thanks a lot! You might have seen I managed to at least get some people there at least think about their thoughts. They have been approaching the argument from one point of view but | seem to managed to get them to look at things from both perspectives. I'm quite proud about that. I suppose there are a lot of people out there who share our views but don't put their neck on the line. But I also try to put reasonable arguments and not beat people with my opinions.
 

sarpmas

Rookie
You're most welcome, laurie! I really thought you can read my mind in your posts! You basically stopped me from posting in the BBC site because whatever I'm trying to say, you've perfected it in your replies! Any reply from me will simply be redundant! :)
 

bertrevert

Legend
I've got to admit there's some stunning analysis on these boards and far be it for me to stumble into that.

But this thread started with an honest interview. An interview with Sampras the man. And that man's attitudes haven't changed. He remains uninterested in tennis on TV. That's not what it is to someone who has played top-deck. He is uninterested in the media circus. It's not that we've forgotten how he played. We just can only go on what we see on TV and sometimes it beggars belief that that is all we have to go on. I've seem Sampras play live on grass once (Queens, UK) and he was magnificent. If ever there was a man that looked at ease on the slick mid-afternoon, slightly-cloudy, slight-springy turf that day he was that guy. Nothing was hard. And that ball was hit so hard. Everyone has their impressions. But to compare Federe versus Sampras is valuable because everyone is eecited by Fed's play and the possible or probable comparisons. It is a thread worth pursuing.
 

edge

Banned
Sampras' old school game recalls the French adage that says,"the more things change, the more things remain the same." When my son was learning to play tournament tennis, his old school South African coach switched him from a 2 handed BH to a one handed BH at the age of 8 to mold him to be an attacker in the Sampras mold. 99% of the local pros would tell my son that his approach was wrong, outmolded, old-fashioned and was a losing game plan in today's fast paced game. These pros wanted my son to switch back to a 2 handed BH and stay on the baseline focusing on hitting inside out FH's with a western grip. For the next few years, my son saw alot of backhands as everyone was picking on a weak and young one handed BH. By the time he was 12, he was #1 in his section and top 40 in the USTA national Rankings. At 14, he is still #1 in his section and top 50 in the country and he still has a year left in his age group. His one handed BH is one of the best BH's around. He hits it harder with more angle than the other 2 handers. He can slice it, chip it, flatten it out, rip it....it's a versatile weapon. This is what Federer has that mostly all the 2 handed guys don't have, a versatile weapon on the BH side. Sampras had it also but more power, less finesse. When Gilbert told Agassi to pick on Sampras BH in the last US Open Final, after Sampras repeated hit winners after awhile, Agassi looked up At Gilbert as if to say, "are you sure I should pick on his <weak> BH?" Plus ça change, plus c'est le meme chose.
 
Top