April 22, 2009
Has Pete Sampras Taken Matters Into His Own Hands?
By Aaron Kumar
When Pete Sampras hit a back-hand volley into the open court to defeat Andre Agassi in four sets at the 2002 US Open and claim his 14th Grand Slam title, an all-time record, many believed that the American had reached heights which would be insurmountable.
Sampras did not play another professional match. He started to train for Wimbledon 2003, but realised that he had accomplished all that he had wanted to in a sport that he dominated for so long.
Ironically, a 21-year-old Roger Federer won his first Grand Slam title at Wimbledon in 2003. Federer's triumph on the hallowed turf signalled the start of four years of dominance for the maestro from Switzerland.
Such was the ease and regularity with which Federer was winning majors that he seemed to be breaking records every time he took to the court. On two occasions, in 2006 and 2007, he came within one match of winning all four majors in a calendar year.
It seemed to be just a matter of time before Federer surpassed Sampras to become the most prolific Grand Slam winner of all time. With the rate at which Federer was winning majors, many experts were predicting he would cruise past 14 majors and find himself with over 20 by the time he retired.
Federer won the US Open in 2007 (his 11th Grand Slam title), and at the age of 26, he still appeared to be on course to break the most prestigious record in the game.
However at the end of 2007, Federer suffered back-to-back defeats to an inspired David Nalbandian at the Madrid and Paris Masters Series events. Nalbandian would go on to win both titles.
Although much was made of these two losses, I did not see them as a major set back. Afterall, we should remember that in Federer's early days, Nalbandian was his nemesis --- and in Madrid and Paris he also beat Novak Djokovic (once) and Rafael Nadal (twice).
Federer was able to put his performances in Madrid and Paris behind him as he went to Shanghai. He recovered from a loss in the group stages to Fernando Gonzalez to win the Masters Cup for the fourth time.
Order was restored --- or so it seemed.
After the Masters Cup, Federer stayed in the Far East for three exhibition matches against Sampras. While many were excited about these three contests between two living legends, there were those who did not see the point of a world No.1 player who is hardly losing to any current to players, taking on a player (albeit a great one) who has been retired for the best part of five years. Just how would these matches be competitive?
One match into the series and it appeared as though Federer would dominate the three encounters just like he had been at the majors. The world No.1 won convincingly 6-3, 6-4.
The second match was somewhat closer, as Sampras managed to take both sets to tiebreaks although he still lost in straight sets.
In the third and final match Sampras managed to pull off the unthinkable: He beat Roger Federer in straight sets, 7-6, 6-4. Sampras rolled back the clock with some sublime volleying as well as deadly accurate serving.
Having watched that match over and over again, there is no doubt in my mind that Sampras earned this victory. He was covering the nets and reading the game just like he was when he was at the top of the game.
I have heard the theory that Federer didn't try as he didnt want to make Sampras look bad. But if you watch the match, you will see that Federer played some amazing tennis. It was just a question of not being good enough on the big points.
Furthermore, given the debate there has been as to is the greatest, does anyone one really believe that Federer would have really wanted to lose to a player that was five years retired? I think we all know the answer to that question.
The duo met again in Madison Square Garden early last year in a match that was billed "Clash of the Time". Even though Federer did win the match on a final set tiebreak, Sampras was up 5-2 in the final set --- it was perhaps a bit too close for comfort.
Since the four matches that Federer and Sampras have played, Federer has only won one Grand Slam, and no Masters 1000 titles. He has gone from looking to certainly break Sampras's record, to seeming as though he may fall just short.
John McEnroe has gone on record saying that he believes that Federer's loss to Sampras and the close nature of the matches that he did win against the American legend, has given other players on the tour confidence that Federer is not invincible afterall.
It seems to me that Sampras has taken matters into his own hands.
The American may have done enough to protect his own prestigious record.
Author Poll
Has Pete Sampras protected his own record by beating Roger Federer?
Yes 26.5%
No 73.5%
Total votes: 49