If I were Pete Sampras today I’d break into that endearing half smile I so often did at the end of a phenomenal forehand winner, sometimes unbelievable even to me. If I were Pete Sampras today I’d switch off the CBS telecast, put my arms behind my head, shut my eyes and sigh. If I were Pete Sampras today I’d try to get the full impact of the magnitude of what I have accomplished in my more than illustrious career.
Not that there was ever any question, not that there was ever any contest, not that there was ever any doubt, but today, he has shut up his worst critics for the last time. Today, after all these years people are left with no excuses: the doubts that wouldn’t go away after he won seven Wimbledon titles in eight straight years, the questions that were still prevalent, when he captured his record 14th grand slam after a two-year hiatus, the skepticism that was not erased because he didn’t smile often enough.
He took an injection before almost every match he played during the big W in 2000 and went on to win it. Most people didn’t know because he doesn’t prick and tell. He played his entire career with an inherited blood disorder, but he doesn’t talk about it because it has nothing to do with his tennis. He leaves it to mortal beings to resort to such excuses as health and age and needles.
Not to take anything away from Agassi, he’s had a great career, inspired many and given something to the sport of tennis. But not everyone can be an immortal, not everyone can rise to the occasion and dictate destiny in the way only true genius can. Not everyone can decide on a storybook ending and actually manage to write it.
Just to lay it out for the Agassi-worshipping section of the world, let’s review their final major tournaments. I’m not really trying to rub salt on the wound here, but sometimes you have to break it down for Agassi fans because that sort of unconditional devotion - no questions asked, no answers expected – is often irrational. I have little choice but to assume that when you see endless re-runs and re-plays and highlights of Agassi’s meager wins, when you see people stand in silent ovation for a barely convincing forehand winner (or an opponent’s unforced error) you begin to believe he has done more than he has.
[I sure hope there are no more rain delays through the remainder of the Open cos I couldn’t stand another Agassi-All-day marathon. If anyone’s noticing anything other than his eyes, his playing style is far from entertaining the first time around!]
Anyway, here goes:
Pete Sampras at US Open ’02
1st round: beats Albert Portas 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
2nd round: beats No. 85 Kristian Pless 6-3, 7-5, 6-4
3rd round: beats No. 33 Greg Rusedski 7-6 4-6 7-6 3-6 6-4
4th round: beats No. 3 Tommy Haas 7-5 6-4 6-7 7-5
Quarter Final: beats No. 11 Andy Roddick 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
Semi final: beats No. 24 Sjeng Schalken 7-6, 7-6, 6-2
Final: beats No. 6 Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4
Wins championship
Andre Agassi at US Open '06
1st round: beats No. 75 Andrei Pavel 6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 6-2
2nd round: beats No. 8 Marcos Baghdatis 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 7-5
3rd round: loses to Qualifier Benjamin Becker 5-7, 7-6, 4-6, 5-7
Pete is too noble, too much of a gentleman, too much of a sportsman to do it himself, so let a mortal being do it on his behalf:
Hahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaah
Egotism ....a lifelong romance
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Pete’s last laugh
Posted by Karthika at Sunday, September 03, 2006
Labels: Keeping the Eye on the ball
19 comments:
well said k. Sampras will always and only be appreciated by the people who actually revere tennis. Pete you will be missed, since it was you who told the world that tennis is a passion and not just another sport!
Man, you could do better than to write posts as stale as these. For one, the statistics of their final US Opens is not going to have even an iota of an effect on the Agassi fans. The fact of the matter is that Agassi has been a phenomenal player and a great character, and deserves his own farewell. Sampras, needless to say, had his years of glory too. There is no need for Sampras fans to thump their chests at this point and try to show their "one-upmanship", if I may say so. You devil, I bet you get some sort of a devious joy out of this, don't you. :D
V, absolutely!
Like Pete himself says, “it was a lifestyle choice”. He lived for tennis, and boy, did tennis live bcos of him. He set the bar so high that the sport was floundering for a while after he was gone.
Then Roger Federer came along. Let’s hope he can hold the candle for a long time to come :)
Atool,
lol, I know, this was REALLY below the belt. But I couldn’t help it! In fact I was thinking of letting it go but then I heard the inundations of eulogies and epithets and tears at Flushing & it drove me up the wall. (I did get my last laugh already when I was on the grounds at Flushing during the final of USO’02 and Sampras won against all odds when most people were clearly rooting for the lesser player :))
I’m not just being mean; I honestly don’t get why people worship Andre – his game leaves a lot to be desired (it hasn’t really improved over two decades), he doesn’t have an impressive winning record (8 majors over 20 yrs is mediocre at best), and it is not even like he makes up by being charming or funny (a la Roddick/McEnroe); so, if it’s just cos he’s ‘a nice person’, well, there are a zillion nice people in the world...
Last night, Johnny Mac hit the nail on the head (as he always does); on being questioned as to which category he’d put Agassi as a tennis player he said the greatest were/are Sampras, Laver and Federer. Agassi might come just after them because of his hard work (note: not talent or greatness).
I will make my peace with that :)
That said, congrats to Andre on a reasonably good career :)
I must say that your posts on Pete and Roger of late leave a lot to be desired. It seems you are falling into the trap of praising your heroes by denigrating their opponents (Andre in this case, Nadal otherwise). Anybody with an iota of common sense knows Pete and Roger stand above everyone else and Roger will most probably be up there by himself pretty soon. But this hardly takes away from the achievements of other players or the right of fans to appreciate those achievements. Pete's day has come and gone. This was Agassi's swansong and for what it matters, he bowed out gracefully.
C'mon Katrix, you know as well as anyone that no one seriously thinks Agassi was a better player than Sampras. Like Atul says, you can do better. And since nothing but tennis seems to inspire you to write these days, I'm going to force the issue and tag you to write about something else - wildlife (and NO tennis references allowed).
Sid,
First off, I am not trying to denigrate Agassi (I don’t have to do it; check his record ;)). It’s jus that such instances make you reminisce more on the greatness of Sampras. Every time you see a sportsman leave, you tend to think about his accomplishments – and the things he couldn’t accomplish. And I can’t help but think back to Pete and wonder how he – and he alone – could achieve those miracles. It must have taken an extra something – something over & above the mortal greatness of Edberg/Mac/Borg/Agassi.
Secondly, there is enough Agassi touting going around, so a few posts reminding people of the eternal great is going to do no harm; like Atool says this post will have no effect on Agassi-fans (they obviously don’t get tennis ;)). And if Andre-maniacs can go on and on about Sampras not winning the French, I can surely talk about the much more decisive 14 vs. 8 can’t I?
I cant stand this recurring mentality of touting the pedestrian cos humankind is too de-settled by the supernatural – a supernatural that actually exists as opposed to angels that fly in heaven!
Nadal plays tennis like a dog going after a ball – he has no finesse nor strategy. He mucks up the sport, as do most counter-punchers. Have you heard me say anything derogatory about Baghdatis, Gasquet, McEnroe or Safin (the last of whom can boast of beating both my sporting idols on more than one occasion)? If you play the sport right, I have no problems with it. Those that taint it, however, won’t escape my castigation. I love tennis too much :D
Hey, you can’t tag me without writing a post yourself!!! That ain’t blogging etiquette! And what kinda humdrum topic is that anyway? If it was eating wildlife, I would have humored ya. Now, I’ll jus wait for you to do the honors :)
"I cant stand this recurring mentality of touting the pedestrian"
-- Pedestrian? Agassi? There is something seriously wrong with you here. I am not the one to get into the gory statistical details, but I got to say it nevertheless. For a man who is the only player in the open era to have won every Grand Slam singles title, the Masters, the Davis Cup, and the Olympic gold medal - the word pedestrian is nothing short of an absolute insult. For the life of me, you certainly will not achieve so much at this level of tennis, if you are a pedestrian player. Agassi has consistently been the best returner in the game, in an era where first serve speeds have been sky-rocketing like anything, and then who's to forget those stunning passing shots year after year. It beggars belief, why a player of such a calibre would be pedestrian and boring, even though he may not qualify as one of your angels on a tennis court. Just for the record, may I add that being cool or hep or nice, has nothing to do with my perception of Agassi, so these things are plain irrelevant. The real story is that he was a serious competitor for most of his career, barring the early years, and I really have a hard time understanding why people still regard him as just a "trend-setter" and not a champion tennis player with such remarkable wins under his belt.
"Nadal plays tennis like a dog going after a ball – he has no finesse nor strategy"
-- Yet another insult. I haven't seen much of Nadal except for this year's Wimbledon, where incidentally he had one of his best runs. All I know that he attacked the net more than Federer did, and at one point in the match, mixed his shots so well, that Federer was almost clueless. That Nadal eventually lost, is a moot point; the truth is that he gave it all, pushed Federer at his own game, and played some vintage tennis that was not expected of him at all. Labeling him as mucking up the sport is - for lack of a better word - a downright phobic attitude towards a player, who happens to play fair and competitive tennis. Besides, the contrasting styles of Federer and Nadal make for extremely interesting tennis, and a potential rivalry that can only be good for the sport, even though the rivalry may not always be seen at all the four Slams. Your comment is unfair and premature at the same time, given that Nadal is so young.
I accept that we all have our own personal favorite players and opinions on their brand of tennis. But to go to such lengths as to qualify "greatness" at the "expense" of another player, is, to me, pedestrian. In this example, it is Sampras (or Federer for that matter), who is unquestionably a "great", but who you repeatedly keep potraying as the "supernatural", at the "expense" of a terrific player and competitor like Agassi; and moreover, to the extent of ridiculing Agassi and belittling his achievements. Furthermore, I still don't see why Sampras' case has to be pushed so much. I am sure he has enough fans around the world that are willing to die for him and have written tomes on him, and built temples and created pedestals. It is certainly not the case as if he is devoid of fan following. I am not quite sure why folks have to place Him on the podium, and at the same time, freely mouth at another successful fellow champion and do everything to try and bring him down by comparing him to Him.
Look's who's talking about being "irrational" NOW. Honestly, for all your supposed "love" and pretty fine articulation on the topic of tennis in the past few months, there are posts like these that really make no sense whatsoever.
Oh yes. Sid's right on, by the way. Before you start getting even more delusional with your old age, I say cut down on that frickin beer, and write on ANYthing but tennis. Please.
Atool, as you well know my blog doesn’t claim to be uncontroversial or unbiased. It’s a bit like Fox news – take it or leave it (or hate it, as the case may be :)). I’m neither changing anything nor resorting to topics that don’t hold my fancy at any given time.
That said, the popular opinion if you've noticed (in the US in particular and among tennis fans in general) is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting. Most tennis fans seem to like Agassi more than Sampras to the extent of under-rating Pete. Pete could well be one of the most under-rated athletes of all time, despite having dominated a sport like few in recent memory.
Standing alone, Agassi can lay claim to being one of the great athletes of all time. My argument is that he is but pedestrian when compared to Sampras and there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. It is that mentality that I cannot stand - the most active tennis bloggers out there will tell you who’s more popular (a fact even more evident at USO’02).
In any case, I heaved a sigh of relief after chancing upon this Time Mag poll.
I still think it cant be that close considering the huge gap in their records, but thank god, there is at least some sense left in the world.
Go back and read my post on the big W final; I gave Rafa more than his due. I wasn’t too impressed with his game on grass but at the US open his playing style seems to have improved a whole heckuva lot. He is actually thinking on court, which is a first for him. Try comparing his game with his peers like Baghdatis & Gasquet & you will know what I am talking about – the mind-game, judgment, aggression, shot-making, grace, which are what make tennis so different from other sports. It is not just about winning (even for a person that extols a 14-time champion :)). History shows that relative late bloomers (who also tend to be aggressive players as opposed to defensive baseliners cos it takes that much longer to perfect the sport) are more consistent and more dominant over the long run.
As for old age – yeah, it’s come a-knocking! I seem to be losing interest in things too quickly – tennis as you can see, is not one of ‘em :D
LOL! I got here via blogexplosion, and really enjoyed the article. I am sending it to my Dad, who is a huge Sampras fan.
Andrew, good to know! As you can see this post would cater exclusively to Sampras fans :)
You have NO idea how refreshing it was to see something about Pete again! I have missed him so much in the tennis news. For me, Pete represented something far more and far deeper than his tennis game. There was something about his spirit, his character. I came in late in his career so I missed a lot. But I didn't miss his classic match against Currier in Australia after his coach had collapsed and there was suspicion of something serious. I didn't miss sever other heart-gripping matches. Maybe that's it. There was often something heart-gripping about the man. Today I am watching Gasquet, Nadal, Murray and Berdych with interest. But, so far, there is no one who carries with him the depth of heart that I saw in Pete Sampras. Like I said, I miss him terribly. Thank you for the tribute and thanks to my son for letting me know about it.
Thanks! Always wonderful to hear from a fellow Sampras fan :)
It’s funny you should mention it cos I often look back to that ’95 Sampras-Courier clash at the Australian open as unmistakable proof that Pete is the greatest sportsman ever. How much it should take to be in sheer mental agony and still win a thrilling 5-setter against a competent opponent, after being 2 sets down!!! And his 2000 Wimbledon run was pure genius. Apparently the injection for his ankle injury kept wearing off bcos of all the rain delays, so he literally played on one leg.
Yeah, much as I am besotted with Federer’s playing style, Pete represents far more than the sport of tennis – it was undeniably a passion for him, a way of life. Today, I think Baghdatis, Gasquet, Berdych and Murray hold a lot of promise; I’m not a big fan of defensive baseliners like Nadal and Monfils. They are rarely consistent and not always a pleasure to watch! You’re right though, styles apart, it’s all about the heart in individual sport, and boy, did Pete put his heart where his racket was!
On the BBC website, I came across this piece of text:
Pete Sampras was the greatest player of his generation, but he admits he might not have been without a genuine rival. "Andre made me a better player," said Sampras after beating Agassi in the 2002 US Open final, the last match of his career. "Borg and McEnroe needed each other. I needed Andre. He was the only guy who forced me to add things to my game." Agassi summed up their rivalry thus: "We're opposite in everything we do. We're two styles going against each other. Every point, something special seems like it can happen. There's been nothing in my career that compares to playing against Pete."
That's interesting...I never knew they said these things about each other. Considering they met only 9 times in Grand Slams, I think most of us would regret not having seen them together more often on a tennis court.
But the fact that Sampras himself had so much to say about Agassi makes my case as an Agassi fan a little stronger if you may, and at the same time makes your comment about "Agassi being pedestrian when compared to Sampras" impossible to digest. :)
Oh well...this leaves me with not much more to say. And for now, Federer and Blake are grabbing my attention.
yeah, every goliath needs a david to make him look bigger :)
the fed-blake match left a lot to be desired, no? I dunno why Roger insists on playing run-of-the-mill tennis till presented with a tight corner...
Yeah nothing too great. It's typical I guess - Roger losing either the 2nd or 3rd set against some quality players, but coming up with something extra special in the 4th to seal the match. We need more 5-setters.
This Blake dude does have a ripping one-handed backhand though. A sight to behold.
Not that I am a big Agassi fan, but their head-to-head records (http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/Sampras-Agassi_HH.htm) give enough indication that they were fairly evenly matched. No doubt Sampras was a better player, but an all time 20-14 record and an all-time finals record of 9-7 seems to suggest a healthy rivalry as opposed to 'Supernatural' vs. 'Pedestrian'
Actually, head-to-head records aside (because I know this is going to bring up injuries and injections in the picture), I can't imagine a better compliment for Agassi, coming from the Master himself.
Who really cares what Jimmy Roberts and John McEnroe have to say (and all the small fans), when Pete himself has given the ultimate testimonial. :)
And I reiterate, my point has never been to question Sampras and his game, but for people to give Agassi his due and not just typecast him as a showman in tennis.
Atool, I think what Agassi is best known for is his evolution from “image is everything” to giving up the bells and whistles and actually beginning to focus on the sport. Sampras was a genius from the get-go. Giving Agassi due credit, he was the best rival Pete had; Pete was the best player tennis had (same could be said now for Rog and Rafa).
Sid, their head-to-head in majors is 6:3, in major finals, 4:1, Sampras leading, of course. Also, Sampras won all 4 of their meetings at the USO; even the crowds could not help him pull it off. H-to-H in non-majors is not quite as telling, bcos with majors it is safe to assume that both of them were playing, and playing their best tennis at that.
Post a Comment