Samprasfanz

[May. 16, 2003 MELISSA ISAACSON, Chicago Tribune] He never did cozy up to the idea of retirement and perhaps he never will.

But Pete Sampras always had a much better feel for his internal clock than any expert or opponent ever did, and so we watch now as he orchestrates the close of his career in his own way, in his own time and yes, on his own terms.

The end for one of the greatest tennis players of all time appears to be in sight with Sampras’ withdrawal from Wimbledon this week. He had pulled out of every event he was scheduled to play this year, so the significance of Sampras missing Wimbledon should not be lost, and not simply because it is where he won half of his 14 grand slam titles.

This will be the first summer in 14 years he will not enter the hallowed grounds of the All England Club, a place that showcased Sampras at his very best and ultimately exposed him at his worst.

Never before had a tournament and a surface so suited a player and his skills as the grass courts caressed Sampras. His commanding serve and graceful volleys were embraced by the people and the place in a way that bonded them together and made it, for a time, impossible to imagine him losing there.

But after he won his last Wimbledon title in 2000 over Patrick Rafter, there was a five-set, fourth-round loss to Roger Federer in 2001. Then last year a second-round defeat by George Bastl, a little-known player on a lesser-known outside court that seemed as insulting to Sampras’ legacy as his performance.

Tennis finesse was suddenly as outdated as a wooden racket, Sampras’ demise reflecting the sad state of the men’s game. Still, one month short of his 31st birthday, Sampras was not ready to retire, ignoring such suggestions that came even as he defeated Greg Rusedski in a third-round, five-set thriller that fall at the U.S. Open.

“He’s a step and a half slow coming to the net . . . he’s just not the same player,” Rusedski said, expressing doubt that Sampras would win another match. “I mean, he’s a great player from the past.”

Rusedski was right, and deep down maybe Sampras knew it. But the truly great ones are those who can will themselves to win even when they have no business performing at such a level anymore. That is precisely what Sampras did in his stirring march to the final, where he would defeat longtime rival Andre Agassi for his fifth U.S. Open title.

“To beat a rival like Andre in a major tournament at the U.S. Open, a storybook ending, it might be nice to stop,” Sampras said at the time.

But he was no more certain than we were. For Sampras, retirement was not going to come with one final pronouncement but the way we see it playing out now, in dribs and drabs, the decision ultimately making itself so he didn’t have to.

He always said he would quit when he didn’t feel like playing anymore and not because his skills had diminished. But he may be wondering now that he has apparently taken his last pass at Wimbledon if indeed, he had created that perfect ending last fall.

He should know that it’s really about what he created at so many points along the way.

It is about what he did as a scrawny 19-year-old who scarcely knew how special it was to win his first grand slam title, unleashing his grace and power to defeat a shaggy-haired 20-year-old Agassi in straight sets at the 1990 U.S. Open.

And it is about what he did as a 31-year-old when he beat 19-year-old phenom Andy Roddick in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open last fall, teaching the future of American men’s tennis that great players are not created in a cacophonous overnight racket but rather in a smooth simmer over time. It is about the ease with which Sampras took apart nearly all who tried to return his serve at Wimbledon, and the mental toughness that filled the gaps.

And more than anything, it is about the strength it takes to walk away.