Pete Sampras: Federer Can Take My Records

Sugar-coated, empty compliments from one celebrity to another might be the way things are done in nearby Hollywood, but there was no doubting that this was Mr Sincere talking tennis from his mansion in Beverly Hills. Such were the affectionate words from Pete Sampras that you would not be that surprised if he was a fully paid-up member of the Roger Federer Appreciation Society, right down to owning a cowbell or two.

From Beverly Hills to Basle, the admiration between tennis champions was obvious. Federer is collecting grand slam titles the way Maria Sharapova collects postage stamps - with enthusiasm. And so there is every chance that, in the 2008 season, Federer will equal Sampras' record of 14 slam titles. Possibly even break it. But don't expect Sampras to be grumpy about losing his record, about losing the place in history he spent all his life working to achieve. Sampras is pleased that the man tearing strips off his record is someone such as Federer. "Roger is going to make some history in 2008. The history books will soon all be his," Sampras said.

And 'Pistol Pete' did not hold back, claiming that the world had never seen anything like his friend Federer.

"What Roger has been doing the last three years or so has been nothing short of phenomenal - I think he has been the most dominant individual sportsman in the history of mankind. I can't think of anyone in an individual sport who has even got close to what Roger has done the last few years," Sampras said of the Swiss, who goes into next month's Australian Open with 12 majors to his name.

"But I don't think that Roger is at all comfortable with how great he is. Roger and I were talking about this a few weeks ago, the debate about who is the greatest tennis player in history, and he found the whole conversation really uncomfortable.

"Roger isn't playing tennis for the limelight, for the pat on the back and for the medal at the end of the race. He plays tennis because he loves tennis, and he is competitive when he gets out there on the court, but I don't think he's doing it for the praise and to be called the greatest. All he wants to do is get out there and play tennis, and that's what I love about Roger, that you can see he loves the game."

They became buddies during the 2007 season, with Federer popping round to hit a few balls on a court in Sampras' back garden in the spring. Unfortunately, history does not record whether Sampras' wife, the Hollywood actress Bridgette Wilson, served them homemade lemonade between games. Anyway, that was when the bond began, and in the autumn Federer and Sampras played a series of exhibition matches across Asia, a mini-tour which suggested that Sampras could possibly still be ranked in the world's top 10.

Sampras said: "When Roger came to my house, it was great. We had a hit for a few hours, played a few points, did some drills, and spoke about tennis, about the different generations. But it was probably only in Asia that I got to know him that well. We hung out a ton there, and there was a connection between us.

"Roger is such a great guy, and we had a lot of laughs over dinners. He is a funny guy, he likes his jokes, and is a bit of a prankster.

"I think that's a side of him which he likes to keep private. All those things that people do say about Roger, they are all true - he is a humble guy, he's down to earth. I love the way he handles himself. Tennis couldn't have a better ambassador."

On quitting the sport, Sampras must have thought his record was as safe as a Swiss bank vault. "Did I want my record to stand forever? Absolutely. Having the record was something I really strove for, and worked so hard for, but I really don't mind that it's someone like Roger breaking my record."

It was as recently as the 2002 US Open that Sampras won the last of his 14 slams. But Federer won his first major, the Wimbledon title, the following season, and has since established a strong-arm hold on men's tennis. Sampras said: "Roger's the favourite for the Australian Open, so that's 13, and he has a good chance of winning the French Open, even though he's never done that before, and so he could equal my record in Paris. And he could break it on Centre Court at Wimbledon, which would be something.

"If he doesn't win the French Open, then he will probably break it at the US Open.

"I don't think it's a shoo-in, and there is a lot more work for him to do, but I think he has a great chance of doing it in 2008. The story for the last few years has been Roger breaking all the records - during 2007, he beat the Jimmy Connors record for most consecutive weeks at No 1, and soon the grand slam record is going to be his as well. Soon all the records are going to be his, and I'm pleased for him. He is dominating the sport more than I ever did, more than anyone ever has."

Sampras said he could not think of a way to improve Federer's tennis. "Roger has got no holes in his game, he's got the whole package, and he rarely has an off-day, and even then he usually finds a way to win.

"Our games are different as I used to take more risks, so I probably had more off-days. There are a few players who have gone toe-to-toe with him, such as [Rafael] Nadal and [Novak] Djokovic, but Roger always seems to have something extra when it really matters, especially at the grand slams. He's got another gear."

In the 2008 season Federer could even achieve the 'Golden Slam' - all four majors plus Olympic gold. And Sampras thinks Federer, still only 26, could even reach 20 slams. "Once he breaks the record, it will be interesting to see whether he keeps the motivation and the hunger. I think he will, that he's going to keep on winning. I think he's going to win 17, 18, 19, or maybe 20 slams.
advertisement


"When you are No 1 there are always people after you. You have to spend the whole time fending people off, and however great you are, it can be tough to maintain that. As great as Roger is, that's tough. I've been in that situation before, so I know what it's like. But I think there's definitely a chance that Roger will want to keep going until well into his 30s. He will feel it in his blood when it's time to go."

Does Sampras regard Federer as what Americans call the 'GOAT' (the Greatest Of All Time)? "It's difficult to say who is the greatest tennis player in history. The people who are usually mentioned are Roger, myself and Rod Laver, and I think it's probably one of us three.

"Roger's critics say that he can't be the greatest of all time unless he wins the French Open, but I don't think that's true.

"It's difficult to compare generations, as things have changed so much since Laver's day. Rod was my hero, and I have such great respect for what he did, but I remember him telling me once that he only had to start playing from the fourth round onwards. There's no way that's the case now, as you really have to turn it on from the first round onwards.

"I think there's a chance that people will look back on Roger as the greatest of all time." So says the sage in Beverly Hills.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...V0?xml=/sport/2007/12/18/stsamp118.xml&page=2
 
Last edited:
What else can he say right?

He might be genuine, but if he isn't it's not like he can say anything else regardless or the media will have him for dinner.
 
Good read.

Btw, are there any 'significant' male tennis players' records left for Federer to break besides:

a) Total GS
b) Total YE #1


PLease exclude Laver's 2 Grand Slams becaise I don't think it will ever be matched or broken.
 
Well, there is definitely a clear distinction between the mood that's presented here and what he's said in the past. It almost seems that he did indeed become closer with Roger during the exhibition matches, and is quite comfortable with having his records broken. Certainly, you can't count out the fact that there's a bit of politics and things like that involved, but I would say that this is pretty genuine. Kudos to Pete for being so gracious, and even more respect for humble Roger.

Let's see what 2008 has to bring for Fed!
 
Really, what else can he say? Roger is going to take the record with or without Pete's permission, so he might as well be a gentleman about it.
 
Really, what else can he say? Roger is going to take the record with or without Pete's permission, so he might as well be a gentleman about it.
Well, he can be a jerk and start calling Federer's competition a weak era. That way, people will start talking whether Federer's competition is really that weak, but he chose not to talk about it, so you have to somewhat respect him for that.
 
Well, there is definitely a clear distinction between the mood that's presented here and what he's said in the past. It almost seems that he did indeed become closer with Roger during the exhibition matches, and is quite comfortable with having his records broken. Certainly, you can't count out the fact that there's a bit of politics and things like that involved, but I would say that this is pretty genuine. Kudos to Pete for being so gracious, and even more respect for humble Roger.

Amen! Let this be the last word on these board about it all.
 
Well he certainly said what he meant, he also kept it classy though so props to pete, I think deep down he would like to see him retire tomorrow though...
 
What else can he say right?

He might be genuine, but if he isn't it's not like he can say anything else regardless or the media will have him for dinner.
If there's any bitterness there, I didn't catch it. If he's unhappy with the situation, then it wouldn't be necessary to say all that he did about Federer.

This is pure "class", but I can see the anti-Sampras retards finding something negative in the interview that really isn't there. Can you imagine Jimmy Connors in a similar interview? The reporter would be lucky to get a few monosyllabic grunts from Jimbo.
 
If there's any bitterness there, I didn't catch it. If he's unhappy with the situation, then it wouldn't be necessary to say all that he did about Federer.

This is pure "class", but I can see the anti-Sampras retards finding something negative in the interview that really isn't there. Can you imagine Jimmy Connors in a similar interview? The reporter would be lucky to get a few monosyllabic grunts from Jimbo.

Very true...on all counts.
 
now that he can beat Roger at 36 all of Roger's achievements will also heighten his own status, so he'll be more than happy for Roger to keep breaking every record. lol:-P
 
i still think Pete could beat Federer in their primes. i mean, i don't think Federer could dominate Pete the way he does to these scrubs of today.
Federer even said it himself... he thinks Pete Sampras could seriously be a top 5 player in today's game. and this man has been retired for 5 years.

I even still think Federer wouldn't even be able to dominate Agassi in his prime either!
so there!
 
now that he can beat Roger at 36 all of Roger's achievements will also heighten his own status, so he'll be more than happy for Roger to keep breaking every record. lol:-P

sure, LOL !! unfortunately, nobody in posterity will remember that sampras beat fed in an exo. all they will look at is the slam record. and if fed beats sampras' record, sampras is toast. (just like borg and emerson were once sampras broke their records).
 
i still think Pete could beat Federer in their primes. i mean, i don't think Federer could dominate Pete the way he does to these scrubs of today.
Federer even said it himself... he thinks Pete Sampras could seriously be a top 5 player in today's game. and this man has been retired for 5 years.

I even still think Federer wouldn't even be able to dominate Agassi in his prime either!
so there!

sure, sure, keep dreaming. :-)

remember: federer 1 sampras 0 ... on centre court, at wimbledon, when sampras was 4-time defending champ.
 
i still think Pete could beat Federer in their primes. i mean, i don't think Federer could dominate Pete the way he does to these scrubs of today.
Federer even said it himself... he thinks Pete Sampras could seriously be a top 5 player in today's game. and this man has been retired for 5 years.

I even still think Federer wouldn't even be able to dominate Agassi in his prime either!
so there!

Even if Sampras had played Federer in their primes and even if he did hold the winning record over him, there's no question that Fed is becoming the greater overall player, and Sampras completely accepts that.

As for Agassi, Fed is the only guy in history who can out-baseline him on a consistent basis, but AA would definitely get a few wins in there. It wouldn't be something pathetic like Roddick's record against Fed.

Those are definitely the two most mouthwatering hypothetical rivalries I can think of.
 
Even if Sampras had played Federer in their primes and even if he did hold the winning record over him, there's no question that Fed is becoming the greater overall player, and Sampras completely accepts that.

As for Agassi, Fed is the only guy in history who can out-baseline him on a consistent basis, but AA would definitely get a few wins in there. It wouldn't be something pathetic like Roddick's record against Fed.

Those are definitely the two most mouthwatering hypothetical rivalries I can think of.

Well, an old Agassi has 8-3 record against Fed. Not so bad for the old man.
 
It's obvious that Fed is 8 and Agassi is 3. I don't have to point out this simple fact. Even idiots know who is 8 and who is 3. I guess some people are just plain dumb... sigh...

Now you're just trying to cover up :)

I saw no sarcasm in your original post or a hint of humor. Its hard to eat humble pie huh?
 
He was saying "It's not so bad for an old man Agassi to have 3 wins on Federer.", not that Agassi was leading their H2H.

But no, Agassi at his prime would not be able to give Federer that many problems. Agassi was a great ball-striker, but not the type of player who gives Fed big problems. I think Sampras would have given Fed some problems, though. Can't say who'd win in their primes....that's a matter of opinion.
 
It's obvious that Fed is 8 and Agassi is 3. I don't have to point out this simple fact. Even idiots know who is 8 and who is 3. I guess some people are just plain dumb... sigh...

Nice try, but it didn't work. 8-3 is NOT the same as 3-8. Incidentally, all of Agassi's wins came before 2003.
 
Well, an old Agassi has 8-3 record against Fed. Not so bad for the old man.

Federer wasnt anywhere near his prime in 2001 and 2002 when he lost those 3 times to Agassi, he was alternating 1st round and 4th round losses at grand slams in fact, and Agassi despite his age was in his prime, Agassi's prime was really 1994-1995 and 1999-2003. Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams in 1999-2003 and had by far the most consistent stretch of results of his whole career. When Federer came into his own and Agassi really was past his prime, Federer won all 8 meetings.

I agree in their mutual primes it would have been a good rivalry, but only in those years Agassi was serious, which were few and far between in his 20s.
 
Agassi was already past his prime when Federer started beating Agassi, on the other hand, Federer was not in his prime when he lost to Andre, so we can't make "prime" excuses because both players never played each other when they are both at their prime.
 
The 2005 US Open was a pretty good indicator of what their rivalry would have been like. Agassi was playing really well - there was a moment there where he looked like he was in his 20's and was just crushing the ball and moving well...then Fed broke back and it was 35 year old Agassi again, groaning and losing his balance whenever he was stretched wide. Fed played amazing tennis.
 
John McEnroe certainly did not think Federer played amazing tennis in the 2005 U.S Open final. He was heavily critical of Federer's play in that match almost the entire way, and he is as big an Agassi supporter as anyone. I thought Federer played pretty well in the first set, second half of the third set, and fourth set. Coincidentally he dominated all those parts of the match. I thought his backhand, returning, and overall game were terrible in the second set and first half of the third set, as did even Agassi supporter John McEnroe in the booth (although he didnt even seem to think Federer was playing that well in the other parts of the match as I did), and coincidentally that is when Agassi was faring well in the match.
 
Well, you can't play your best all the time. I doubt anyone would say Agassi was playing his best in some parts of that match. Then there would be the argument that he couldn't, because Federer wouldn't let him. And then you could go the other way...
 
Well, one thing is very clear. we will have very very exciting 2-3 years from now.

I think Federer will eventually break Pete's records (# of GS, # of years at #1) but I just don't think it's going to be as easy as last 3 years.......
 
Back
Top