Pistol Pete Joins the Immortals
September 9, 2002
The annoying thing about sporting legends is that they tear up the form book and make a mockery of history. That's what makes them legends. Way back in 1990, an untried teenager really shouldn't have beaten Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi in successive matches to become the youngest US Open champion ever. By the same token, a broken-down old has-been should not have won the same tournament again late last night. But that's Pete Sampras for you. Throughout his career, he's made a habit of leaving the experts with egg on their faces.
As with Sampras's first US Open title, last night's four-set final triumph over Agassi was a victory without precedent. Remember that the American had not won a tournament of any kind since pocketing his seventh Wimbledon more than two years ago. At 31, he was skidding down the rankings; mauled by the younger generation who'd usurped him (Lleyton Hewitt, Roger Federer, Marit Safin) and ambushed by underlings who wanted his balding scalp in their trophy cabinet.
After his unceremonious bundling out of this year's Wimbledon (knocked out in round two by Edward Bastl, a "lucky loser" from qualifying), it seemed all over bar the shouting. Sampras, it was said, was spent, obsolete, a shot fighter. Yevgeny Kafelnikov even suggested that tennis's most successful player risked ruining his reputation by sticking around. Most thought he should have retired back in 2000.
As such, Sampras came into this year's Open as a rank outsider. Greg Rusedski almost nailed him in round three, and later dismissed his conquerer as "a player from the past". Sampras, said Greg, wouldn't last another round.
How wrong can you be? The next night, Sampras battled past third-seeded Tommy Haas. Incredibly, he then swatted America's rising star Andy Roddick (who he'd lost to in two previous matches). By the time he reached the semis, Sampras had the look of destiny about him. His climactic besting of old rival Andre Agassi was a finale that might have been dreamed up by a Hollywood screenwriter.
What Sampras's win shows is that - pound for pound - the man remains the most complete, natural and purely gifted player in the game. Mentally he may be more inconsistent, while his hunger has surely been dulled by a personal fortune estimated at $60m. But put him on a big stage, with the weight of history on his shoulders, and he's still the one to beat.
The significance of last night's win is hard to overstate. Judged on sporting terms alone, it bears comparison with 1974's Rumble in the Jungle. Like Ali in Zaire, Sampras wasn't given a hope of victory. Like Ali, this over-the-hill icon proceeded to rebound off the ropes to reclaim all his old firepower and guile.
And yet the reserved, remorseless Sampras does not lend himself to such hyperbole. Therefore, let's simply file this record-breaking 14th Grand Slam title as just another head-scratchingly unlikely moment in a career that has defied all predictions. Chances are that the 2002 US Open title will stand as Pete Sampras's glorious swan-song. Almost certainly he'll never win another. All the same, you'd be a fool to bet against him.