Posted on: August 24th, 2003
Sampras was the equal of my idol Laver
- petepage[August 24, 2003 John McEnroe] I have to admit to being a little surprised that Pete Sampras has taken the decision to retire, but then I'm not very big on retirements, having never taken the trouble to announce my own. Technically speaking, I still haven't retired, but I never had the chance to go out on a high note as Sampras has, as the US Open champion - albeit one year late.
At a special ceremony at Flushing Meadows tomorrow night the curtain will be officially brought down on the career of one of the all-time greats, thereby upstaging, not for the first time but probably the last, Michael Chang. Poor Chang, who is on something of a farewell tour this year, seems to have spent his entire career in the shadow of Sampras and his contemporaries Jim Courier and Andre Agassi.
I never saw Don Budge, Fred Perry or Lew Hoad play, but I have either watched or played against the greatest players of the open era and, for me, Sampras ranks alongside my idol Rod Laver as the greatest of that period.
I am loathe to put anyone ahead of a player who twice achieved the Grand Slam as Laver did - not to mention one who was a fellow leftie - but Sampras, the 14-time slam winner, was at least the Australian's equal in terms of ability.
In fact, if they could have played each other in their prime, I've no doubt Sampras would have won more often. He had all the shots and was also a much better athlete than people gave him credit for. If his volleying was not quite as good as the rest of his game when he started, it was at least as good long before the end of it. It was the same with the mental side of his game; he knew what he had to do to develop.
Like Ivan Lendl, he learned to become very strong mentally. One of his greatest qualities was his ability to play at his own rhythm. He was seldom ever forced out of his comfort zone, which is quite a feat.
Never was that more obvious than in the last match he played, in last year's US Open final, when he made someone as experienced and able as Agassi look like a statue for the first two sets. He could paralyse an opponent, as Andy Roddick, also at the US Open last year, would testify.
His body language was deceptive. Sometimes his head would go down and he would slouch around the court looking for all the world like a beaten player, which is something he never was. He had the ability to hang around in a match until things eventually went his way and, even when he was suffering physically, he was always capable of pulling something out of the fire with his extraordinary serve.
He and Boris Becker must have been the toughest guys to break in Wimbledon history when they were on their game. Not only did they have great first serves, but they also had the guts to go for it on the second.
I remember thinking when I played Sampras, 'How can he serve so big and place the ball so close to the line, and mix up his spins?' It was so difficult to put together enough points in a game to break him. It puts pressure on you to a point where if you don't feel downright inadequate, you certainly feel overwhelmed.
Wimbledon was perfect for Sampras both physically and mentally; a quiet setting before knowledgeable crowds in what is, let's face it, the world's best tennis stadium. No wonder he had so much success there. I don't think he ever left his Wimbledon house when he was playing there. You can call it boring or whatever you want to, but it can work. By not having any off-court problems, it was one less issue to deal with.
Having someone like Sampras dominating at a time when the game's popularity was under threat from other sports was unfortunate timing. In a one-on-one sport you desperately want personalities and it wasn't Pete's style to reach out. I
t wasn't all his fault, though. Tennis, in general, has shut itself off and paid the price. Players have got to make themselves more available to the media. If racing car drivers can be interviewed, as they are in the States, shortly before going out to race and putting their lives at risk, I am sure tennis players can be interviewed before doing nothing more dangerous than stepping on to a tennis court.
None of that detracts from my disappointment at seeing Pete go - particularly now that I don't have to play him any more - when he still has a few more years left in him. After all, he is still only 32. It is a surprise to me because tennis has been Sampras's whole life. It just goes to show that as great a player as he is, it still takes an enormous amount of effort and planning to get into a position where he can have a chance of winning.
For the first time in his life he has something else vying for his attention, namely his new wife and first child. I think he felt that he didn't want to give the same commitment to tennis nor could he. I can relate to that situation.
When I had kids I still wanted to be No 1 again but I didn't want to do it at the risk of being a lousy father and husband. I tried to do it in a way where I could be good at both, but it's very difficult to pull that off. As they say, when you get to 30 as a sportsman you have to work twice as hard just to stay where you are.
It's doubtful whether anyone for the foreseeable future will dominate the sport to the extent that Sampras has done. That is not to say I don't see certain individuals winning multiple slams.
Recent Headlines
April 01, 2012
November 20, 2011
October 29, 2011
October 01, 2011
July 13, 2011
- "Li Na and Friends" to square off with Sampras and others at two-day tennis event in Wuhan - petepage
June 18, 2011
May 04, 2011
Back to News