Re: Seb's Come Back
The summary of the last part:
When he's asked to grade the highlights of his career, he answers that the Bercy title would come first. Then the win over Agassi in the RG QF in 2001. The journalist mentions the presence of Clinton in the crowd and Seb replies that he really couldn't care less about that story and it's just a media thing - there is a discrepancy between what the media say and his own perception.
Then the Davis Cup wins, of course the final in Australia was great, but he has a soft spot for the win over the USA in the SF in RG in 2002. They lost the final in Bercy, but it still was a very strong memory, because of the spirit in the group.
The journalist notices he didn't mention his first big final in Miami in 1999 and his SF in Melbourne. Seb says that those are defeats in his mind and hence not so great. He also wouldn't mention his SF in Wimbledon in 2003 and 2004 for the very same reason. No comparison with the emotions he had in RG or in DC. Sure, the match against Arnaud was very special because it was against his best friend. But it isn't his biggest emotion - not only because he lost, but because he's experienced even bigger things.
His best match ever in his opinion: people often talk about his QF in Melbourne in 2001 against Moya (he won 6-1 6-4 6-2). It's weird because he doesn't have such amazing memories of the match. Maybe because he was so into it. He rather remembers a QF against Agassi in Houston in 2005. He won the last two sets 6-1 6-2 making only one unforced error in those two sets and hitting pretty much only winners. Agassi told him afterwards that he was playing even better than in RG.
The biggest regret: to not have won a Slam, obviously. He did everything to achieve it.
But he would have signed immediately for this kind of career when he was young. So few people were believing in him back then. He was lucky to work with the right people at the right moment, Fritz and Deblicker in particular.
Then he talks about the fact that he was fired from the INSEP at the age of 17 because he was too short, how tough it was, but it also was a motivation for him to prove them wrong, etc.
His reputation of being a bit lazy: he sounds really annoyed by it because it's completely wrong, he was working so hard, he was one of the first players to have a big structure around him with a coach, a condition trainer, a physio. This wrong image probably comes from the fact that people talked more about his talent. But it's deceptive. The same thing happens with Fed, people only talk about his technique. But Fed also is an incredible athlete, he makes it look easy because he has such an awesome footwork. With Nadal, it's the other way around, people only mention his physical strength and underestimate his talent, which is huge. One side always overshadows the other.
The journalist says people will always remember him for his awesome touch on his FH side. He says it's funny because his BH used to be his main strength when he was young, actually. He was more reliable and had more power with his BH. He was missing so much with his FH. But he was able to stabilize it with the passing years and it became his main weapon indeed.
The last question is about the comparison between the Sampras-Agassi and the Fed-Nadal eras. He says that the Fed-Nadal finals are awesome, but he thinks that the other players were stronger at the time of Sampras and Agassi, which also is the reason why Fed-Nadal played so many finals.
If there's one point in particular which is more interesting for you and you'd like to have an exact translation of what he says, just ask.
Last edited by Truc; 07-16-2010 at 11:40 AM.