We have never really gotten to the bottom of this. So I’m getting to the bottom of it.
In 2007 Sampras defeated Federer in an exhibition match in Macau. Yes it was just an exhibition, but so was the Drako v Rocky fight in Moscow. Notwithstanding, no current professional tour player in their right mind, least of all the world number 1 at the time, would want to lose to a player who was 5 years retired.
Sampras won the match 7-6 6-4.
The match has been referred to on here every now and again, and every time it is, Federer fans dismiss it by asserting that Federer did not try 100 per cent or he outright tanked. These claims of tanking have never been proved nor have they really been challenged. So I’m challenging them. IMO, if you’re not playing 100 per cent, you’re tanking, unless the reason is due to injury. Some conspiracy theorists have even suggested that it was part of the contractual arrangement that Federer give a match to Sampras. This flies in the face of everything Federer stands for with respect to his professionalism, ethics and values, ie soliciting himself to tank a match for a pay cheque. So I do not believe that for a second.
By rights, Federer should have swept the three match series 3 and 0, swept the sets 6 and 0 and there should have been 1 or 2 bagels amongst that 6 and 0 set scoreline. Remember, not only was Sampras 5 years retired, he was also 12-13 years past his prime.
So, did Federer tank or not? If you believe he tanked, which includes not giving 100 per cent, what evidence do you have to support this?
If your tanking claim cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is just that, a claim, then I’m calling b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t on your claim.
In 2007 Sampras defeated Federer in an exhibition match in Macau. Yes it was just an exhibition, but so was the Drako v Rocky fight in Moscow. Notwithstanding, no current professional tour player in their right mind, least of all the world number 1 at the time, would want to lose to a player who was 5 years retired.
Sampras won the match 7-6 6-4.
The match has been referred to on here every now and again, and every time it is, Federer fans dismiss it by asserting that Federer did not try 100 per cent or he outright tanked. These claims of tanking have never been proved nor have they really been challenged. So I’m challenging them. IMO, if you’re not playing 100 per cent, you’re tanking, unless the reason is due to injury. Some conspiracy theorists have even suggested that it was part of the contractual arrangement that Federer give a match to Sampras. This flies in the face of everything Federer stands for with respect to his professionalism, ethics and values, ie soliciting himself to tank a match for a pay cheque. So I do not believe that for a second.
By rights, Federer should have swept the three match series 3 and 0, swept the sets 6 and 0 and there should have been 1 or 2 bagels amongst that 6 and 0 set scoreline. Remember, not only was Sampras 5 years retired, he was also 12-13 years past his prime.
So, did Federer tank or not? If you believe he tanked, which includes not giving 100 per cent, what evidence do you have to support this?
If your tanking claim cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is just that, a claim, then I’m calling b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t on your claim.
