SE-2003USO-E

ASAP Sports
From the Press Conference at U.S. Open 2003

[Andy Roddick]
August 21, 2003
Q. It was mentioned a second ago, Pete saying farewell, they are going to have a thing for him on Monday night; can you talk about his lasting legacy and what you think it will be?

ANDY RODDICK: I think it will be pretty much what everybody thinks. He was just one of the most graceful players of all time, one of most quietly competitive people of all time. And he's got to be one -- when I think of him, I think of him as one best pressure players of all time. It seemed like the bigger the match was, the better that he played. You know, he just did it all in his own time. He didn't really make a big fuss about things. He just made his name by winning.

Q. Perhaps if I could just ask, is it a surprise to you considering his consistency over two years now?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, but everybody goes through peaks and valleys. I think people are hyping it up a bunch. You know, it's tough to -- Pete is the only guy I've ever seen just win everything for six years. So, who knows.

[Roger Federer]
August 24, 2003
Q. When you were just starting to play tennis, Pete Sampras was winning his first Grand Slam. I suspect you probably saw a lot of Pete Sampras matches as you were growing up. Tomorrow night will be when he says good-bye to tennis. What are your thoughts about Pete Sampras?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, first of all, I would like to say I'm lucky I played him one time. You know, that was always something I've always looked forward to, that I would get that chance. Better for me, it was Centre Court in Wimbledon, plus I beat him in an unbelievable five-set match. But now, you know, it's not a big shock for all of us because he hasn't been playing for over a year. But still, you know, it's a pity, you know, that he's leaving. But, you know, he's older, you know, and it's his decision. And if he's happy this way, we all respect that.

[Mardy Fish]
August 24, 2003
Q. Can you talk a little bit about Sampras and him heading out tomorrow night, what that means to your generation of players, what he meant to your generation of players.

MARDY FISH: Sure. I was lucky enough to get to play him one time in 2001, Indian Wells, in the first round. He beat me, but we played a night match. It was one of the funnest matches that I've ever played just to, you know, one, to be able to play against him -- in my opinion, the greatest player that ever played. But, you know, I mean, I wasn't too -- I'm not too aware of all the tennis history, and I haven't seen too many like old tapes of guys playing, but in my opinion he's the best player that's ever played. Obviously, his Grand Slam records speak for themselves. But he was an amazing player. I used to say sometimes when I'd watch him play on grass, it was just like art in motion, and how he would -- nobody was better than him at Wimbledon. You know, I mean, it will be a cool night, I guess, for him, you know, having so much history here and winning last year. It was an amazing run last year, I don't have to tell you that. It will be pretty cool. I'll definitely be watching.

August 25, 2003
Q. Opening round of the US Open is always special, perhaps even more so today in that it's the end of an era with Pete. Any thoughts on Pete's run, and also you being one of the young Americans.

MARDY FISH: As far as Pete, I mean, I grew up watching him play, winning all those Wimbledons and US Opens and Australian Opens. Grew up idolizing him. Got lucky enough to play him one time. You know, I think if you ask me if there's one person that I would love to play, it would be him, I think. You know, his Grand Slam titles speak for themselves. You know, as far as the guys coming up, you know, there's a lot of talent, but I don't think -- you know, who is to say, but I don't think that we have somebody like that, that's for sure.

Q. What is the one aspect of Pete's game or demeanor that maybe is lost on people that aren't so knowledgeable about tennis but that you really admire and appreciate?

MARDY FISH: You know, I loved watching him. He would always get that one break in a set. I mean, obviously he wouldn't every time. But, you know, you rarely ever saw Pete get like a second break in a set. He just had so much confidence on his serve games to hold serve that, you know, he knew that all he needed was one break. Especially at Wimbledon, all he needed was one break, and he'd pretty much win the set every time.

It was amazing to see somebody just with so much confidence. You know, he didn't have a serve that was like Roddick's or Rusedski's. Actually, Rusedski is a bad example. But like Andy's, just blows it by you. He could hit it if he wanted to, but he took a lot of pace off it and he placed it. There's nobody better, ever.

I mean, I remember watching him at Saddle Brook when I trained when I was there when I was younger. He trained there. They'd put cones up for the serves. He would knock down the cones in 10 serves. It was amazing.

Q. What is the first memory you have of seeing Pete play?

MARDY FISH: I've watched tapes of him when he won his first US Open. I remember a lot of Wimbledon, when he won all those Wimbledons. I was lucky enough to play him in Indian Wells.

[Lindsay Davenport]
August 25, 2003
Q. How well do you know Pete, if at all?

LINDSAY DAVENPORT: I wouldn't say "well." We're friendly. I think the world of him. He's been very nice to me every time I've seen him and on occasions. I never called him up or...

Q. What does his departure mean to tennis overall?

LINDSAY DAVENPORT: I mean, that's hard to say right now. But I think he's been, you know, the greatest men's player in the last, you know, I don't know how many years. His record's been amazing. I think, you know, he was always kind of compared and locked into a group with Andre, even for a couple years, Courier and Chang. But, you know, all his results and all his Grand Slam titles can speak volumes for what a consistent, great player he was. I think what an unbelievable ending last year, after everyone had written him off for probably two years, he just is so tough and just showed everyone wrong.

[Todd Martin]
August 25, 2003
Q. What impresses you most about Pete Sampras from all the years you've watched? What will be his legacy in your mind?

TODD MARTIN: Well, I think what his legacy will be is how much he won, how many Grand Slams he won especially. As a player, I think his legacy will be his serve and his athleticism. And I think that's an injustice to him. I think Pete knew when to play, when to play better, how to play better, and more than anybody I've ever met. I think that's a skill and a talent that was too often veiled by the accolades that he got for his physical talents. But, you know, at 4-all deuce, he knew what to do and he did it, time after time after time. Boy, it would be nice to walk in those shoes once in a while.

Q. You've known him a long time. Is it emotional for you to see him end it all?

TODD MARTIN: I saw Andy interviewed a couple days ago about it. I thought he answered the question very appropriately. It's been a year, you know. Most of us haven't seen or heard from him in a year. I think it will be enjoyable to see him celebrated and see him put some formality to what we all thought was the truth already. But, you know, emotional, no. The guy ruined parts of my career (laughter).

Q. You mentioned Pete's legacy. What do you think your legacy will be?

TODD MARTIN: The guy that his career was ruined by Pete Sampras (smiling). No, it's... You know what? Legacies are -- I don't know. I think it's a big word for things such as tennis players, or people such as tennis players. I hope my legacy is written after I'm long, long gone, not just no longer playing tennis.

Q. Pete was known, as you were saying, for his great work and his ability to step it up at key moments.

TODD MARTIN: I don't mean to disagree with you. I don't mean that he didn't have great heart. But my comment was he knew when to play better, and he was able to do so. He knew how to lift it. That didn't have much to do with Connors-like tenacity or Chang-like tenacity. I think there's a difference there.

Q. I'll put it a different way. I think you said Pete had many qualities, intangibles, that made him a great champion. In addition to the strokes of Andy Roddick, do you see the potential of him evolving those great intangibles to make him a dominant player over the years?

TODD MARTIN: Well, you know, the games are supremely different. Pete had the ability to play certain points differently than what you saw for a half a set. Andy plays every point . Andy is much more similar to Jim Courier than he is to Pete Sampras. I think it's gonna be really difficult to -- I mean, intensity-wise, emotion-wise, game-wise, weapon-wise, it's much more similar to Jim. But most importantly is Andy plays every point very similarly. Pete would lull you into a sense of security. He'd stay back and hit a few ground strokes, maybe slap a few balls here and there, but at 4-all deuce, second serve, you knew exactly what he was gonna do: he was gonna do everything he could to get to the net on that return and be athletic at the net. Andy's not gonna do that. That's not to say that Andy won't be able to raise his game at the most important points of the match. But it's not gonna be -- presumably it's not gonna be because of strategical changes. It's just gonna be, "Now is a more important part of the match. The same forehand I missed the last game, I'm not gonna miss." I think all great players have that component to their game, and I think Andy's exhibiting it more and more as he goes along.

Q. Do you think he could win this tournament again after what he'd been through for two years?

TODD MARTIN: I would like to say yes, because I think in the numerous times I was asked about Pete's career in those two years, I continued to insist that he had the ability still, just a matter of a few things clicking at the right time, and also a matter of him accepting not breezing through tournaments week in and week out. I was starting to feel less that way by the time the US Open came around last year. But he definitely proved lots of us right and wrong.

Q. Did you factor in the Saturday/Sunday thing, too, it would be a difficult thing for him?

TODD MARTIN: I can't remember what happened. What was the semifinal last year? I can't remember who he played.

Q. Sjeng Schalken.

TODD MARTIN: It was 6, 6 and 0 or something? It was three straight sets maybe, close? Andre was Hewitt and it was a tough four-set match. Well, I think, you know, the Saturday/Sunday, playing early is a lot easier on Saturday. Pete's game fits into that structure or format better. Pretty economical game. Certainly, the result that he had on Saturday was more conducive to performance on Sunday. It's gotten better through the years. It seems like both semifinals are -- I don't know if they did it this way last year -- but both semifinals were back-to-back. Also the final -- football games are getting longer and longer -- so it's nice to start the final a bit late.

Q. You were talking a little bit about being on the court and Pete's titles, but what about his personality? Obviously, he'll still be around, but what will you take away from his personality over the years?

TODD MARTIN: Well, I thought Pete always did a great job of being prepared to play and, you know, I think was able to do what he needed to do off the court in order to be at his best on the court. At times, that meant being one of the guys; at times, that meant doing his own thing and removing himself from or separating himself from some of the others on the tour. I think that just spoke volumes of his love for the competition, the love for the game, and the fact that he kept his eye on the prize.

[Lleyton Hewitt]
August 25, 2003
Q. Could you give a comment about Pete Sampras' retirement?

LLEYTON HEWITT: It was a great ceremony. I was watching it in the locker room, in the gym. For us I think every tennis fan, to actually witness that tonight, I think is incredible. As they all said, everyone who went out there kept saying the kind of guy like Pete Sampras only comes around once probably in our lifetime. I'm fortunate enough, I can boast that I was the last person to beat him here. I'm pretty happy. You know, yeah, if you could write a fairytale ending, I think this is pretty much it. Beating his long-time rival in the US Open final, doesn't get much better.

[Andre Agassi]
August 26, 2003
Q. Was there discussion of you taking part last night physically in the ceremony, being on the court?

ANDRE AGASSI: No. Pete didn't ask me to do it. I mean, if there's anybody that knows what it's like the night before you play, it would be Pete.

Q. Did you watch it on television?

ANDRE AGASSI: Oh, yeah. Sure, I did.

Q. What was your quick reaction as you watched?

ANDRE AGASSI: You know, how do you find words for that, you know? It's a special time to be here and to watch it happen. I mean, I've had the privilege of watching him from the other side of the net so many times, to compete against him, to be pushed by him. So many memorable matches. He's truly deserving of everything that's come his way, especially this, enjoying his family and moving on from the sport. But, you know, it's sad for me. I've been with him a long time.

[Alex Corretja]
August 26, 2003
Q. With Pete Sampras' retirement last night, people were asking about the famous 1996 match. Is that your most memorable match?

ALEX CORRETJA: No. For me it was a huge match. It was the beginning of a nice career for me, I would say. Since that match, I started to play much better. But for me the best moment it was winning, probably when I won the Masters or when we won Davis Cup, when I was winning like a few Masters Series and many other titles. But I learn a lot from that loss, but of course it's not my best memory.

Q. Todd Martin came in yesterday and said Pete Sampras ruined a lot of careers. Do you think if you had won that match that day, your career would be any different?

ALEX CORRETJA: That will be impossible to know. I don't know if on that time I was ready to be on that kind of level. I was pretty young. For me playing on hard courts, it was at the beginning pretty much difficult. It change already. I mean, it brought me to a different step. I don't care about if I would have won. But, of course, sometimes there are winnings or losings that affect yourself. But on that situation, it only gave me confidence. I don't think that was the match that it took me down. It was the opposite: it took me pretty high up.

[Jennifer Capriati]
August 26, 2003
Q. Sometimes during Slams you do watch TV. Did you see any of the Pete ceremony last night?

JENNIFER CAPRIATI: Yeah, I watched all of it.

Q. What were your thoughts to see the American tennis community gather around?

JENNIFER CAPRIATI: I think the whole ceremony was amazing and just wonderful and really special. You know, he deserved it. But it was sad, too. You know, it's kind of sad watching it. Really, it's the end. You know, I'm going to miss watching him play.

Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Pete over the years?

JENNIFER CAPRIATI: No, not really, no.

Q. What would you do to get his serve?

JENNIFER CAPRIATI: For his serve?

Q. Yes. Would you kill for his serve?

JENNIFER CAPRIATI: Probably (laughter).

[James Blake]
August 27, 2003
Q. You played like Pete Sampras tonight. Do you have any booster or anything?

JAMES BLAKE: What's that, the jump overhead?

Q. Yeah, yeah.

JAMES BLAKE: That was -- I don't know if I carried it out quite as well as Pete. I have seen some other guys mess that up pretty badly, so at least I didn't shank it. I think it was a pretty important point. It's actually pretty comfortable for me, if you hit a good serve, which Pete does a whole lot more than I do. I get pretty excited when I do it and they just pop it up and I get to jump and have some fun and try to get the crowd into it. You know, they give me such a boost. I got to once in a while give a little something back to make sure they're having a good time. But I'll never be able to do it as well as Pete. There are a lot of things in my game that won't ever be as good as Pete's, and that's probably one of them.

[Jan-Michael Gambill]
August 27, 2003
Q. Do you have any thoughts on Sampras saying good-bye, then Michael Chang?

JAN-MICHAEL GAMBILL: And Jeff Tarango. He's going to play his last event here. I mean, absolutely. Just like Pete said the other night, he doesn't think -- he's not going to say that he's the best player ever. I'm going to say it, I think he is. You know, it's the loss of a great champion. God, I don't think he could have had a better fairytale career, if you want to put it that way. The guy started, won his first tournament here, ended his career winning the tournament again here. He goes out a champion. I really approve of the way that he did that, for a guy who's one of the best athletes, period, in any sport I feel like. He could go back in and lose and lose and lose. They would say, "Why didn't he retire at The Open?" He came out here, proved everybody wrong, did it. It was a pretty neat thing they put on the other night for him. As for Michael, as well, he's done it a little bit different. But he has worked day in and day out. The guy loves the game. I don't think Michael would retire if he was winning a lot of matches right now. I got to know Michael fairly well, and I think he's a really good guy. His whole family have always supported him. He couldn't ask for much more. I wish him the best. He lives up in Seattle, Mercer Island near me. We used to hit once in a while.

[Jimmy Connors]
September 7, 2003
Q. You have played from Rosewall to Agassi. Now that Sampras has retired, do you think we can consider him the best ever? What do you think about his rivalry with Andre?

JIMMY CONNORS: Certainly Pete, in his record and performance over the past 10 years or whatever, is outstanding. Especially his Grand Slam performance. 14 Grand Slams. I think that's the most ever. The way he's played and the way he's carried himself is certainly something he should be proud of.

His rivalry with Agassi is what carried US tennis long after the likes of McEnroe and myself and guys have moved on, which, in turn, created the kind of interest in the game that kept it growing and kept it out there into the public so that you have 25,000 people at this tournament on a daily basis.

So it's rivalries like that that are needed in this game, whether it's Agassi and Sampras, whether it's Roddick and James Blake. But, you know, in my opinion, US rivalries are important, important to the game. Especially important to the US Open.

To have the opportunity to see their best. Now, to have great young players coming from all over the world certainly is just an added opportunity and advantage for every Grand Slam tournament. But for this tournament here, you know, this is where my heart lies now. You have to understand, I'm talking from here at the US Open. The US rivalries and the Agassi-Sampras rivalry has been a huge, huge part of everything that's happened here the last 10, 12 years.