Sampras Ready To Make Shock Comeback [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sampras Ready To Make Shock Comeback

angiel
06-30-2007, 07:52 PM
Sampras ready to make shock comeback
Saturday June 30 2007


PETE SAMPRAS is contemplating making a sensational return to Wimbledon next year. The seven-times Wimbledon champion - who retired from top-flight tennis in 2002 - is still only 35, the same age as Jonas Bjorkman, the Swede who reached the last 16 at the French Open this month.


And, significantly, he is the same weight as he was when he stepped off the treadmill, having triumphed at the 2002 US Open for his 14th grand-slam title.

Ian Ritchie, the chief executive of the All England Club, said that the door was open for Sampras. "He's a member and if he ever wanted to come back and play, it is something we'd happily discuss," he said.

Sampras, who is unbeaten on the American 'golden oldies' tour, is clearly funimpressed with the current crop. "I have a hard time watching how these guys play today," he said. "It's just amazing that everyone stays back and hits with so much spin. When you put spin on the ball on grass, it doesn't really do anything."

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 07:54 PM
I'm a huge Pete fan and I hope he doesn't come back. Wimbledon isn't the same anymore, it won't be good for him.

trixtah
06-30-2007, 07:56 PM
This man needs to stay at home. Coming back on the courts is just going to demolish the aura of greatness he created around himself.

LLeytonRules
06-30-2007, 07:57 PM
Pete should stay retired before he gets embarrased in these conditions.

guga2120
06-30-2007, 07:57 PM
that would not be a smart move at all for him.

trixtah
06-30-2007, 07:59 PM
significantly, he is the same weight as he was when he stepped off the treadmill

....three days ago

NYCtennisfan
06-30-2007, 08:00 PM
Pete ending his playing days with a win at the Open adds to his legacy, his greatness. How many players end their careers with a win? Nobody does. It will be humiliating for him to come back and get passed left and right by some nobody.

Marek.
06-30-2007, 08:01 PM
Pete ending his playing days with a win at the Open adds to his legacy, his greatness. How many players end their careers with a win? Nobody does. It will be humiliating for him to come back and get passed left and right by some nobody.

Yeah, it would be pretty pathetic if he came back only to lose to some claycourter in the first round.

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 08:02 PM
Sampras says the grass doesn't take spin. That was true in the '90s. Now it's taking spin, some players are even using kick serves. Time for him to wake up.

Or Levy
06-30-2007, 08:02 PM
Maybe, with protected seeding, he could have done some damage, but with a WC, he could play a person like Roddick in the first round, and that would be it.

StevoTG
06-30-2007, 08:03 PM
I reckon he might do well, but probably not live up to the standards he has set for himself in the past so if he is going to play I hope he views it as a relaxed add-on to his career and not expect too much of himself.

MCL
06-30-2007, 08:04 PM
:smash: Hopefully he'll do what Michael Jordan couldn't -- stay retired.

DDrago2
06-30-2007, 08:06 PM
Sampras, who is unbeaten on the American 'golden oldies' tour, is clearly funimpressed with the current crop. "I have a hard time watching how these guys play today," he said. "It's just amazing that everyone stays back and hits with so much spin. When you put spin on the ball on grass, it doesn't really do anything."

Since Raffa fans already busted the myth about grass being slower than it was - it is as fast as it was ofcourse, he should return and show those top spiners what is the real grass tennis.

G4.
06-30-2007, 08:11 PM
Does he really want to lose to some mug named Monfils or Verdasco

jmosh
06-30-2007, 08:14 PM
I think he should come back! He would obviously be overwhelmed and wouldn't win majors, but I think it would be good for the sport to have him back.

sykotique
06-30-2007, 08:15 PM
Not. Bloody. Likely.

Kuhne
06-30-2007, 08:21 PM
have you seen his wife? thats a calendar year SLAM right there if you get my meaning, no need to leave the house for sampras

aramis
06-30-2007, 08:23 PM
I really miss his serve. Even if the grass is different now I still think with such a massive bomb of a serve, you can still effectively S&V. Having said that, not many top athletes get to have the storybook ending Pete got so I don't think he should risk. Set up some exhibition matches maybe for some fun.

Burrow
06-30-2007, 08:23 PM
It would be so cool to see him back, it would be unimaginable. If he works hard he might be able to do well.

Kitty de Sade
06-30-2007, 08:25 PM
I couldn't be a bigger Sampras supporter if I tried, but this is just not a good thing. It's a wonderful thought, but not a realistic one, especially at this point.

He's a champion, and should remain as such. To risk a possible defeat at that hands of an unknown? No bueno. Some of us have yet to recover from the Bastl debaucle five years ago. ;)

Dina
06-30-2007, 08:26 PM
he could still win a few rounds but that's it, mind you that is still pretty good for someone whose been in retirement for 4 years, I don't know why he would want to

aramis
06-30-2007, 08:27 PM
Just hypothetically, here, they say the grass responds to topspin better than ever, so shouldn't that also make Pete's serve even more dangerous? IIRC he could generate some massive RPM on that shot.

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 08:28 PM
Sampras was more of a slice user than topspin user. An example of topspin server is Roddick.

Kitty de Sade
06-30-2007, 08:30 PM
I really have to stop reading this thread- it's bad for my health. I start to fall into the hypotheticals and think...:eek:

"Yeah, YEAH, maybe he could do x,y, and z. Maybe he could pull off the shocker of 2008, Rocky Balboa style!" :lol:

Eden
06-30-2007, 08:33 PM
As the real question is probably how he would do against his successor in Wimbledon they should choose grass as the surface for his exhibition matches against Roger in the end of the year.

It's nice to see that they leave a door open for Pete at Wimbledon, but he had the perfect ending to his career with winning the US Open against his biggest rival Agassi. It can't get any better than this for him.

RonE
06-30-2007, 08:34 PM
Pete ending his playing days with a win at the Open adds to his legacy, his greatness. How many players end their careers with a win? Nobody does. It will be humiliating for him to come back and get passed left and right by some nobody.

Exactly. I was a huge Pete fan back in the day but this ego trip of his will only end up in him getting embarrassed :rolleyes: :smash:

Sampras says the grass doesn't take spin. That was true in the '90s. Now it's taking spin, some players are even using kick serves. Time for him to wake up.

Very true. Once he gets into baseline rallies against any top 50 player he is f*cked :help:

Beforehand
06-30-2007, 08:34 PM
If anything, this would be a welcome rude awakening to anyone still saying he could beat all but 5 or so players on tour.

Beforehand
06-30-2007, 08:36 PM
As the real question is probably how he would do against his successor in Wimbledon they should choose grass as the surface for his exhibition matches against Roger in the end of the year.

I can't even imagine the difference between playing 2001 Roger and 2007 Roger. I mean, I'm not saying "OMG he'll get killed LOL!", but just trying to imagine as any player who hasn't played Roger since 2001, what to expect, and how much better he'd likely be than expected.

Same for Nadal, really. Expecting spin is different than Rafa throwing some of that massive weight of shot at you.

RonE
06-30-2007, 08:36 PM
Funny thing is, I just saw the new Rocky Balboa film- you know, the old Rocky making a comeback for old times sake against the undisputed heavy weight champion of the world and puts up a huge fight. Well for Pete's sake, real life is not Hollywood :rolleyes:

And after a "Hollywood" like ending, retiring on your last grand slam championship match why ruin it?? :smash: :help: :banghead:

NYCtennisfan
06-30-2007, 08:47 PM
I really miss his serve. Even if the grass is different now I still think with such a massive bomb of a serve, you can still effectively S&V. Having said that, not many top athletes get to have the storybook ending Pete got so I don't think he should risk. Set up some exhibition matches maybe for some fun.

He could S & V off of his 1st serve with pretty good success, but would be slow getting to net giving his opponents more looks even when he gets the first serve in. No way would he win 85-90% of the points on 1st serve like he used to. 75% would be pretty good for him. Then he would be royally screwed on his 2nd serve because there is no way he would get to the net quickly enough to be effective.

Then there would be his return game. It was never all that great but now he would not be winning as many serve games with easy putting less pressure on his opponent thereby drawing less errors and mistakes. He couldn't get to the net fast enough to be effective and wouldn't win too many baseline rallies.

trixtah
06-30-2007, 09:09 PM
I think he should come back! He would obviously be overwhelmed and wouldn't win majors, but I think it would be good for the sport to have him back.

to have a champion come back to get dominated up the ass like JMPower and Glenn get dominated on MTF?

angiel
06-30-2007, 09:13 PM
From The Times
June 30, 2007

Speculation rife that SW19 may not have seen the last of Sampras

Neil Harman, Tennis Correspondent

Do not tell Tim Henman because he would probably choke on his Weetybangs, but a certain man with a decent track record on grass still regrets the way he departed the championships and has discussed the idea of righting a wrong.

A rumour doing the rounds yesterday was that Pete Sampras had been offered a wild card into the 2007 tournament, but Ian Ritchie, the chief executive of the All England Club, said that no such thing had happened. “He’s a member, though, and if he ever wanted to come back and play, it is something we’d happily discuss,” Ritchie said.

But who is to say it will not happen next year, or the year after that? The seven-times champion is 35 – the same age as Jonas Björkman, the Swede who reached the semi-finals last year and the last 16 at the French Open this month – and is the same weight as when he stepped off the treadmill, fresh from a stupendous triumph at the 2002 US Open for his fourteenth grand-slam title.

When Sampras returned to competitive action this year, playing Team Tennis for Newport Beach and in the Outback Champions Series – an American “golden oldies” tour in which he is unbeaten – there was a sense that he would not be satisfied merely with hitting a few balls with his old pals, that there was an ulterior motive.

When you hear Sampras speak on the sport’s present trends, it sends a shiver down the spine. “I have a hard time watching how these guys play today,” he said. “It’s just amazing that everyone stays back and hits with so much spin. When you put spin on the ball on grass, it doesn’t really do anything. Slice does, top-spin doesn’t. I was watching [Igor] Andreev playing [James] Blake in the first round and Andreev hits that big top-spin backhand and it just sits up there, waiting to be hit. Granted, the guy is a clay-court player who isn’t real comfortable on grass. But still . . .

“The bottom line is that nobody comes with heat and can back it up.

There’s no Richard Krajicek around to really attack you and take your time away. That’s the key to winning with the serve-and-volley game: deny the other guy his time. Roger [Federer] can win without doing it because he has so much game and such good hands.

“I think the 1990s may have been the toughest time to win Wimbledon. The grass was fast, the balls were fast and there were a lot of guys around who could turn it into a crap-shoot: Stefan [Edberg], Boris [Becker], Goran [Ivanisevic], those guys really made you uncomfortable.

“By contrast, I always loved seeing guys who wanted to play back against me – players who liked to load up and hit their shots. Andre [Agassi] was different because he played up in the court and he played pretty flat, so he was coming to the table with something – an ability not just to keep you from getting in but maybe even push you back. But with other guys who played back, I felt if I could hit one shot and be in there, I’d be in control. And control is what it’s all about.”

A look at the players who have reached the fourth round in the singles this year emphasises that grass has become a surface for all the talents, not the preserve of the serve-and-volley exponent. Juan Carlos Ferrero, who won the French title and reached the final of the US Open in 2003, has made the last 16 for the third time in seven attempts – he is no “stay-away Spaniard”.

Control being the operative word, as Sampras said, it is worth extolling the levels of command Ferrero displayed in his 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, 7-6 victory over James Blake. That the American has not been beyond a quarter-final at this level, given his quality, indicates that he does not quite believe enough, but give Ferrero his due. For a Spaniard to win 19 of 23 points at the net is not a statistic that would immediately be recognisable in his homeland.

Ferrero now plays Janko Tipsarevic, the trail-blazer for the present crop of Serbian tennis vitality and one of three nonseeds left in the top half of the draw. Clubbed together in one portion are three French players – Richard Gasquet, the No 12 seed, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, the last remaining wild card in either draw, and Paul-Henri Mathieu, who is beginning, at 25, to live up to the full range of his talents.

Gasquet against Tsonga has the makings of a minor classic, which is what we had hoped Federer’s meeting with Marat Safin would prove yesterday. Federer won the first set in 19 minutes – “It’s like watching a train wreck,” my Centre Court neighbour said.

Safin pulled out as many stops as he could, spun his racket repeatedly into the turf and kept trying to use his cross-court forehand to peg Federer back deeply enough to be able to hurt him. The trick worked a few times, but never enough. Tommy Haas, of Germany, is next in line.

Federer, having extended his grass-court winning streak to 51 matches, is among those who have tried to persuade Sampras to give this gig another go, without giving his reasons. Maybe he is as fascinated as the rest of us to see if the legend could be extended.

Eric Butorac and Jamie Murray are beginning to build a little legend of their own on the doubles court. Booty and Stretch, to given them their stage names, defeated the No 7 seeds, Jonathan Erlich and Andy Ram, of Israel, in four sets to earn a third-round place in only their second grand-slam tournament together. Butorac, of Croatian descent, jokes that he’d really like to be British. Now where’s that LTA dotted line?

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 09:15 PM
Projecting what happens to you on others ain't gonna help you. Wait some time, the nurses will soon be there to put the electrodes on you.

gusman890
06-30-2007, 09:16 PM
Pistol Pete ending Federer's grass reign :)

Tutu
06-30-2007, 09:51 PM
he lets hope he doesnt come back..

kobulingam
06-30-2007, 10:01 PM
Pete ending his playing days with a win at the Open adds to his legacy, his greatness. How many players end their careers with a win?

Just like Jordan's amazing finish (winning 6th championship on his clutch shot).... later Jordan fucked it up by coming out of retirement.

Jordan needs to call Sampras and tell him "NO."

Warrior
06-30-2007, 10:04 PM
He can comeback to the Wimbledon, if he wants to. Just don't return to French Open!:lol:

bokehlicious
06-30-2007, 10:10 PM
He can comeback to the Wimbledon, if he wants to. Just don't return to French Open!:lol:

He should focus on clay, come back in Paris, win the French and go back to retirement :cool: :o

Warrior
06-30-2007, 10:18 PM
He should focus on clay, come back in Paris, win the French and go back to retirement :cool: :o

That won't happen, unless all of the top 100 withdraws!

scoobs
06-30-2007, 10:20 PM
Pete honey, I love you but don't.

Let it be.

You don't have any wrongs to right here, you don't have anything to prove and however well you did on a comeback, anything short of winning the title will still not be enough, so why do it?

Pete had a wonderful career, he achieved nearly everything you can achieve and left with a final Grand Slam title under his belt. He left winning and that's perfect.

He has no wrongs to right at Wimbledon. The manner he went out to Bastl was a shame but takes nothing away from the previous 10 years of excellence on grass.

It would be more fitting to come back, maybe play in the 35s invitational doubles, take a bow from the fans on Centre Court who never got a chance to really wish him a fond farewell back then, and leave it there. His time was wonderful and I still miss him, but his time has passed. Winning 2 or 3 rounds at Wimbledon wouldn't change that.

goldenlox
06-30-2007, 10:22 PM
Pete can't stand watching Roger beat all these baseliners at Wimbledon. But Pete can't stop it from happening. He can beat some of these baseliners, but he ain't beating Fed.

marcRD
06-30-2007, 10:29 PM
Nadal-Sampras 1st round would be interesting to say the least.

World Beater
06-30-2007, 10:29 PM
am i missing something? nowhere in any of the articles does pete actually say he would consider the possibility of coming back.

All he is doing is crapping on the current generation of players as usual and consequently extolling his own.

At least pete admitted that the grass WAS FAST and IT ISNT NOW.

sykotique
06-30-2007, 10:29 PM
Doesn't make any sense. He's 35, the grass is slower and the frank truth is that unless he's in Davydenko's 1/8 of the draw, he wouldn't get out of the 4th round.

Byrd
06-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Sampras' propaganda minister Angiel working her magic.

AndyUK
06-30-2007, 10:32 PM
I'd love to see him return for Wimbledon, but that's me as a Sampras mark speaking. In reality, it probably isn't the greatest idea for him.

But if he wants to return, there's nothing stopping him.

World Beater
06-30-2007, 10:40 PM
Nadal-Sampras 1st round would be interesting to say the least.

yes.

but consider the fact that pete sampras lost to ALEX CORRETJA on grass.

he also had a tough time against the moonballing sergi bruguera on hardcourts.

now there is no comparison between nadal and these spaniards.

if anything, there would be new interest in tennis and i think it would generate excitement if pete tried to come back. I would be excited to see him back, so i hope he does - win or lose.

at the end of the day, if pete gets whipped, we can all say HE'S OLD. He hasnt got that much to lose. He will still be regarded as one of the greatest on grass

goldenlox
06-30-2007, 10:43 PM
I don't think it would generate excitement. No one thinks he would win Wimbledon anymore. And if her wins a few rounds, it makes the sport look bad.

I remember Navratilova's comeback. No excitement. And she was probably still top 20, top 10 in doubles. She took a set off Hantuchova and she was about 45.

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 10:47 PM
Corretja was more talented than Nadal.

World Beater
06-30-2007, 10:48 PM
Corretja was more talented than Nadal.

are you going to go one step further and say that corretja is a better player than nadal

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 10:54 PM
are you going to go one step further and say that corretja is a better player than nadal

Corretja was less of a moonballer and he played great claycourters. Nadal plays clay-clowns, so you can't compare.

Roddickominator
06-30-2007, 10:54 PM
Just like Jordan's amazing finish (winning 6th championship on his clutch shot).... later Jordan fucked it up by coming out of retirement.

Jordan needs to call Sampras and tell him "NO."

What did Jordan "fuck up"? He's still considered the greatest basketball player, if not the greatest athlete, of all time. That game-winning shot against the Utah Jazz still lives in history as the biggest defining moment for Jordan. I don't see how it affects his legacy at all. If Sampras wants to come back to Wimbledon to make up for his last trip there, then that's fine by me. If guys like Arthur and Bjorkman can still make it to the Round of 16 or semis....then an in-form Pete could be nice to watch.

marcRD
06-30-2007, 10:55 PM
Corretja was more talented than Nadal.

Hate has clearly blinded you. :lol:

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 10:57 PM
Hate has clearly blinded you. :lol:

:rolleyes: back that up with facts. Nadal would never take Federer to a fifth set at the US, and Corretja did against Sampras.

World Beater
06-30-2007, 11:09 PM
What did Jordan "fuck up"? He's still considered the greatest basketball player, if not the greatest athlete, of all time. That game-winning shot against the Utah Jazz still lives in history as the biggest defining moment for Jordan. I don't see how it affects his legacy at all. If Sampras wants to come back to Wimbledon to make up for his last trip there, then that's fine by me. If guys like Arthur and Bjorkman can still make it to the Round of 16 or semis....then an in-form Pete could be nice to watch.

exactly:D

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 11:12 PM
In fact, Borg made a ridiculous comeback and he's still remembered as one of the greatest... so I don't know to which extent an embarassment at this comeback would reflect on his references for the future.

marcRD
06-30-2007, 11:20 PM
:rolleyes: back that up with facts. Nadal would never take Federer to a fifth set at the US, and Corretja did against Sampras.

You cant decide who is the better player based on one match. Corretja would not beat Federer of today on clay, certanly not 3 straight times atleast. Many players took Sampras to 5 sets, he was not as impossible to beat as Federer is. In the same usopen Jiri Novak took Samrpas to 5 sets, the same year Philipousis beat Sampras in straight sets in AO and Krajicek in straight sets in wimbledon.

So is Jiri Novak a better player than NAdal? Philipousis? Hrbaty? Costa? Korda? Magnus Larsson? Kafenikov? Yzaga?

All these players took Sampras to 5 sets or even beat him between 94-97 on hardcourt/grass grand slams

Sofyaxo
06-30-2007, 11:24 PM
This is always going around as a rumor. It cycles. Of course I think Pete has a lot to do with those rumors.

The game is different from when he was on grass. I don't think it would be good for him to go out there and embarrass himself. He couldn't go out there and dominate no matter how much he thinks he can.

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 11:39 PM
You cant decide who is the better player based on one match. Corretja would not beat Federer of today on clay, certanly not 3 straight times atleast. Many players took Sampras to 5 sets, he was not as impossible to beat as Federer is. In the same usopen Jiri Novak took Samrpas to 5 sets, the same year Philipousis beat Sampras in straight sets in AO and Krajicek in straight sets in wimbledon.

So is Jiri Novak a better player than NAdal? Philipousis? Hrbaty? Costa? Korda? Magnus Larsson? Kafenikov? Yzaga?

All these players took Sampras to 5 sets or even beat him between 94-97 on hardcourt/grass grand slams

I'm talking about the US, not clay, not the AO, not Wimbledon.

They took Sampras, the best player of the time, to 5. Nadal only defeats Federer on clay, in other surfaces has no chance and loses to Gucciones, Mahuts, Waskes.

guga2120
06-30-2007, 11:44 PM
Wow, Mirnyi you turned a thread about Pete Sampras into one about Nadal, well done.

Nadal only defeats Federer on clay, in other surfaces has no chance what is his H2H w/ him on hardcourts?


Corretja was more talented than Nadal. .:spit:

Byrd
06-30-2007, 11:47 PM
Corretja was probably more talented than Nadal, but it doesn't make him as effective as the pig.

gusman890
06-30-2007, 11:48 PM
Corretja does have more talent than nadal.

Without Nadal's athletic ability, he wouldnt be where he is.

World Beater
06-30-2007, 11:49 PM
i cant believe what im reading here. :retard:

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 11:52 PM
i cant believe what im reading here. :retard:

Corretja is more talented than Nadal. That's a fact. He wasn't as physically developed, probably because he didn't want to take some "measures" like the pig.

World Beater
06-30-2007, 11:54 PM
Corretja is more talented than Nadal. That's a fact. He wasn't as physically developed, probably because he didn't want to take some "measures" like the pig.

thats a part of talent too. Its not just technique. you need to have strength and speed to hit incredible shots.

GlennMirnyi
06-30-2007, 11:58 PM
thats a part of talent too. Its not just technique. you need to have strength and speed to hit incredible shots.

:bs:

Anyone can take "measures" to become physically advanced. Talent is something you can't develop, you're born with it. Corretja had a pretty decent touch. Nadal holds his racket as if it were a baseball bat.

Byrd
06-30-2007, 11:59 PM
thats a part of talent too. Its not just technique. you need to have strength and speed to hit incredible shots.

Physique isn't part of talent Lol, its more to do with genetics, in which Nadal was handed some pretty good genes. Look at Rochus as a prime example, has bucket loads of talent but height, a genetic factor acts as a limiting factor. Hitting incredible shots has nothing to do with power & strength if you your technically good you can pull off the same shots to an extent, but being physically gifted helps.

GlennMirnyi
07-01-2007, 12:03 AM
Rios could pull magnific shots and he was as physically developed as a boarding schoolgirl.

s.m.
07-01-2007, 12:06 AM
it would be good if he came back and show how the new generation sucks, but it´s risky for his legacy

Jimnik
07-01-2007, 12:07 AM
Why not? Losing to Bastl was pretty much the worst possible ending to his Wimby career. I don't think he has much to lose.

guga2120
07-01-2007, 12:08 AM
what does Nadal's talent vs Corretja's have to do with Sampras, Why do you always bring up Nadal? You must love him.

GlennMirnyi
07-01-2007, 12:14 AM
It wasn't me who put Nadal in this conversation, dopetard.

Andre'sNo1Fan
07-01-2007, 12:17 AM
what does Nadal's talent vs Corretja's have to do with Sampras, Why do you always bring up Nadal? You must love him.
I was also wondering what Corretja or Nadal had to do with Sampras. The obsession with Nadal will spread to any thread, it seems.

Maybe I'll start bringing into every thread how talented Miryni is, and who is more talented than him. Mind you the answer is not very, and too many players....so that would be pointless.

Andre♥
07-01-2007, 12:19 AM
Nadal is a great player, but he isn't that talented. But he compensates that by being one hell of a athlete.



Pete, don't do it. Please. I will cry while watching him being defeated by a journeyman like Udomchoke or Dlouhy in the first round of Wimbledon.

GlennMirnyi
07-01-2007, 12:21 AM
I was also wondering what Corretja or Nadal had to do with Sampras. The obsession with Nadal will spread to any thread, it seems.

Maybe I'll start bringing into every thread how talented Miryni is, and who is more talented than him. Mind you the answer is not very, and too many players....so that would be pointless.

There it is the fangirl. Don't put your stupid head where you're not called, this thread isn't about your idol.

Andre'sNo1Fan
07-01-2007, 12:22 AM
Physique isn't part of talent Lol, its more to do with genetics, in which Nadal was handed some pretty good genes.
:retard:

What a pathetic statement. People are born with talent, just the same way they are born with a certain physique. If Nadal is lucky to get good genes, then I would say anyone with half decent talent is very lucky to be born with that. Its funny how a clown like you can fit arguments to suit your likes and dislikes. Maybe you should go back to school (thats if you're not still there).

caleb_123
07-01-2007, 12:23 AM
ah maybe pete should think about it and stay retired, if he does play its his ego pushing him he might get a rude shock in the first round if he plays.
Then again he might shock everyone and play well who knows but history is against him at the moment, anyone remember borg short comeback?

Andre'sNo1Fan
07-01-2007, 12:25 AM
[offtopic]

Nadal is a great player, but he isn't that talented. But he compensates that by being one hell of an athlete.
I don't know why Michael Johnson didn't take up tennis, seeing as you don't need much talent as long as you're a good athlete. :retard: Keep the crap coming, haters.

DDrago2
07-01-2007, 12:27 AM
Eventual 2008 Sampras return could be a good test to see how much tennis changed. Maybe some would be surprised on bad or a good way. That would be a heroic move from Sampras anyway

GlennMirnyi
07-01-2007, 12:30 AM
:retard:

What a pathetic statement. People are born with talent, just the same way they are born with a certain physique. If Nadal is lucky to get good genes, then I would say anyone with half decent talent is very lucky to be born with that. Its funny how a clown like you can fit arguments to suit your likes and dislikes. Maybe you should go back to school (thats if you're not still there).

I don't know why Michael Johnson didn't take up tennis, seeing as you don't need much talent as long as you're a good athlete. :retard: Keep the crap coming, haters.

How can you even dare to talk about tennis talent.

"Coria is the most talented player in the world"

"Serving isn't a tennis talent"

Taking steroids is talent now? :retard:

dkw
07-01-2007, 12:42 AM
*cough* Michael Jordan *cough*

Consigliere
07-01-2007, 03:30 AM
ummm he didnt even say he wanted to play next year.

World Beater
07-01-2007, 03:36 AM
Physique isn't part of talent Lol, its more to do with genetics, in which Nadal was handed some pretty good genes. Look at Rochus as a prime example, has bucket loads of talent but height, a genetic factor acts as a limiting factor. Hitting incredible shots has nothing to do with power & strength if you your technically good you can pull off the same shots to an extent, but being physically gifted helps.

well, i was including physique with talent since you are essentially born with both and your environement shapes both as well. And yes being athletic has everything to do with hitting leaning bh passing shot versus not getting to the ball at all. Power many times is an important part of hitting an incredible shot, and everyone needs strength not just technique.

of course, if you believe nadal is talented physically by doping as glennmirnyi asserts...then yeah. maybe he isnt that talented.

Tnn74
07-01-2007, 03:44 AM
:smash: Hopefully he'll do what Michael Jordan couldn't -- stay retired.

:haha: :lol:

Loftra
07-01-2007, 07:28 AM
Would be nice to have Pete in the draw to take out some irrelevant moonballers.

lazyman
07-01-2007, 07:32 AM
yeah getting sampras back would be interesting dout it will actually happen though

nanoman
07-01-2007, 08:01 AM
From The Times
June 30, 2007

Speculation rife that SW19 may not have seen the last of Sampras

Neil Harman, Tennis Correspondent

.........

There’s no Richard Krajicek around to really attack you and take your time away. That’s the key to winning with the serve-and-volley game: deny the other guy his time. Roger [Federer] can win without doing it because he has so much game and such good hands.

“I think the 1990s may have been the toughest time to win Wimbledon. The grass was fast, the balls were fast and there were a lot of guys around who could turn it into a crap-shoot: Stefan [Edberg], Boris [Becker], Goran [Ivanisevic], those guys really made you uncomfortable.

“By contrast, I always loved seeing guys who wanted to play back against me – players who liked to load up and hit their shots. Andre [Agassi] was different because he played up in the court and he played pretty flat, so he was coming to the table with something – an ability not just to keep you from getting in but maybe even push you back. But with other guys who played back, I felt if I could hit one shot and be in there, I’d be in control. And control is what it’s all about.”

........


HolyFckingSh1t !!!:haha: :haha: :haha:

With Fed being The Ego King, I guess that makes Pete The Ego GOD.

BlueSwan
07-01-2007, 08:01 AM
Honestly, if he came back for Wimbledon next year and lost in the first round to Hernandez, would it ruin his legacy? Would it even cause a small dent in his legacy? I really don't think so. Nobody can expect even the greatest of champions to come back middle-aged and 6 years out of retirement and do much damage. I think it would be fun and I don't think he would lose to Hernandez. Infact, I think he would do well. Even a R16 appearance would be a bit of a triumph, I think, and that's certainly not inconceivable at all.

BlueSwan
07-01-2007, 08:05 AM
I think Sampras' idea that you can beat Federer by taking his time away is fundamentally wrong, given that Federer can play faster than anyone in the history of the game. He has proven that time and time again by demolishing big serving grass specialists. Infact, the way to beat Federer is by grinding - and grinding exceptionally well and hoping that Federer is slightly off. Basically only Nadal and Canas have been able to pull off that strategy and Nadal is the only player with a prayer if Federer is not slightly off.

pistolmarat
07-01-2007, 08:18 AM
I'd like to see that, same time I can't believe it'd actually happen.

Doggy
07-01-2007, 01:51 PM
if he wants to come back, then let him come back. gosh, you guys are soooo afraid of failure!! why is the world full of such pantsies? ....pshhhh. get a hold of yourself!

cc2monac
07-01-2007, 01:57 PM
I'm sure if he comes back it's because he is sure he can still win...or at least he realy believes he can...it can be great for tennis even if I agree with all those who said that he'll loose and that this will not be good for the great memories he left behind him...just imagine if he win again! he will realy remains as the greatest champion ever! go pete!

User ID 29337
07-01-2007, 02:27 PM
While personally I would love to see him comeback and win, I don't know if he can compete with the caliber of guys that are out there. I would love him to come back and say take a wimbledon or a french but I don't see how realistically he could do it. He'd probably end up getting beaten in a lower round and that would forever ruin the memory of his greatness.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
07-01-2007, 02:42 PM
I think Sampras' idea that you can beat Federer by taking his time away is fundamentally wrong, given that Federer can play faster than anyone in the history of the game. He has proven that time and time again by demolishing big serving grass specialists. Infact, the way to beat Federer is by grinding - and grinding exceptionally well and hoping that Federer is slightly off. Basically only Nadal and Canas have been able to pull off that strategy and Nadal is the only player with a prayer if Federer is not slightly off.

I agree, it's complete bullcrap. Time after time Roger has cleaned up against power players. His ability to tame big servers and power hitters is second to none. It's the Nadal/ Canas grinders who have caused him trouble.

This "taking away his time" idea is just Sampras' ego talking. What Pete actually means is "I could take this sucker out no problem with my attacking game." It's complete bull - the reality is that attacking players are the ones Roger likes playing most. And he talks about Edberg and Becker turning it into a "crapshoot" - but these guys were not up to the standard of today. Edberg had a 90mph serve for god's sake, today's power hitters would have blasted him off the court.

Pete needs to stop this bitter sniping before his reputation disappears altogether.

Jlee
07-01-2007, 02:47 PM
That would be the biggest mistake of his life. How can he even think ending his career on such a low? He won the USO, you don't come out of retirement so that people will always remember you in a different way...a losing way.

Wimbledon has changed, he's older than he was and he was losing to some of the modern players back then. He would have no shot.

aramis
07-01-2007, 03:56 PM
I think Sampras' idea that you can beat Federer by taking his time away is fundamentally wrong, given that Federer can play faster than anyone in the history of the game. He has proven that time and time again by demolishing big serving grass specialists. Infact, the way to beat Federer is by grinding - and grinding exceptionally well and hoping that Federer is slightly off. Basically only Nadal and Canas have been able to pull off that strategy and Nadal is the only player with a prayer if Federer is not slightly off.

Assuming Sampras were still strong enough to rush the net on most serves (maybe he is?), I don't think Roger would have an easy time. Sure he can return big serves pretty easily, but guys like Roddick don't come into the net so Roger basically just floats the return deep, it's not like he's blasting winners off of them. I don't think that type of return would work against a net-rushing Sampras. All hypothetical of course.

jeevs
07-01-2007, 04:46 PM
That would be the biggest mistake of his life. How can he even think ending his career on such a low? He won the USO, you don't come out of retirement so that people will always remember you in a different way...a losing way.

Wimbledon has changed, he's older than he was and he was losing to some of the modern players back then. He would have no shot.

The thing is that Sampras actually never said that he is making a come back...
Here is the original article by Peter Bodo....
http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2007/06/pete-on-w.html

John Curry, the former All-England Club (Wimbledon) chairman called Pete a few weeks ago and asked if he'd be interested in a wild card for this year's event. Pete didn't have to think twice: He politely declined.

I wasn't tempted at all, although it would be interesting to see if the grass is slower, like everyone says. You know, I think I could still compete there, but the real problem is that there are so few guys in the draw who I've played. I never liked playing guys for the first time. It was always a bit of a struggle.

It took me a little while to figure guys out, so going out there could would be uncomfortable and distracting. I need to know the kind of ball a guy hits to be really effective against him. I think Roger (Federer) is similar to me that way, and it helps explain why it took him a while to get into a comfort zone. Once he had a few years experience to figure out most of the guys, he saw what they had and knew how to beat them. It makes it a lot easier when you know what kind of stuff your opponent is going to bring. Believe me, that's huge. A lot of tennis is that kind of problem solving. You play a guy once and, win or lose, you know the two or three things you need to do in the future.

Pete has watched a little of Wimbledon, and he misses the place. He says he can sit in his chair, close his eyes, and conjure up the exact feeling he had - the nervous anticipation - walking out on Centre Court to play a final. You may have noticed that a locker room attendant walks onto Centre Court with the players for the final, carrying their bags. Ir's a detail that was always fraught with existential significance for Sampras.

It's like you're just walking out there, like naked, and you think, "Well, this is it. . .'" You don't even have that security of lugging that bag, having something to hold onto. You're just like. . walking out there, to meet fate. It's unnerving, in cool kind of way.

Last year, when serving-and-volleying U.S. player Robert Kendrick pushed Rafael Nadal to the limit, we had a spirited debate here about the viability of the attacking game at today's Wimbledon, against today's baseline players. I think the fact that Nadal subsequently reached the final only made Kendrick's performance more impressive. This was no attacking player beating up on some helpless clay-court expert. An attacker can still win Wimbledon; It's something I believed then, and still believe now. The problem is that nobody is attacking (see Ray Stonada's entry, below). Here are Sampras's thoughts on the subject:

I have a hard time watching how these guys play today. It's just amazing that everyone stays back, and hits with so much spin and everything. When you put spin on the ball on grass, it doesn't really do anything. Well, slice does, but topspin doesn't. I was watching (Igor) Andreev playing (James) Blake and Andreev hits that big topspin backhand and - god - it just sits up there, waiting to be hit. Granted the guy is a clay-court player who isn't real comfortable on grass. Fair enough.But still. . .

The bottom line is that nobody comes with heat, and can back it up. There's no Richard Krajicek around to really attack you and take your time away. That's they key to winning with the serve-and-volley game: Deny the other guy his time. Roger can win without doing it because he has so much game and such good hands.

I think the 1990s may have been the toughest time to win Wimbledon. The grass was fast, the balls were fast, and there were a lot of guys around who could turn it into a craps-shoot: Stefan (Edberg), Boris (Becker), Goran (Ivanisevic), Krajicek. . . Those guys really made you uncomfortable. By contrast, I always loved seeing guys who wanted to play back against me - players who liked to load up and hit their shots. Andre (Agassi) was different, because he played up in the court and he played pretty flat, so he was coming to the table with something - an ability not just to keep you from getting in but maybe even push you back. But with other guys who played back, I felt if I could hit one shot and be in there, I'd be in control. And control is what it's all about.

Now you can dismiss all this as a typical "old guy" rant about how much tougher it was in his era, but Pete isn;t that old, and his era is not too long gone - even though the sea change in the nature of the players may suggest it is. It certainly didn't seem to me that Pete had an axe to grind, or that he was trying to blow his own horn or boost his stock; this is a guy who'll admit that Ivanisevic's first serve was superior to his own. This is a guy who has no dog in the fight, just talking about what he sees and how he feels about it. One of the great things about working on this autobiogaphy with Pete has been discovering how much he knows about the game, and how what he knows is so often simple. Smack-your -your-forehead, lightbulb over head, how could I not see that simple.

It can't be the grass, I just don't believe it. It's bullcrap. You can serve and volley on anything. If you go back and watch the tape, you'll see that when Roger beat me at Wimbledon (2001), ending my streak there, he served and volleyed a lot. And he's not doing that anymore.I asked Paul (Annacone, Sampras's former coach) about why Roger wasn't attacking more, and he said the same thing: "It's because the grass is slower." Bull, I said, I'm not buying that. I'm going to ask Roger myself.

So, when Federer worked out with Sampras for a few days before Indian Wells this year, Pete raised the issue. And Roger explained. It was one of those moments: two dominant champions, talking shop.

And, as we all know, what happens in Beverly Hills, stays in Beverly Hills.

nobama
07-01-2007, 05:37 PM
JMac said today Sampras said to him he can't believe how Wimbledon is being played these years and how guys are hitting with so much topspin and winning by staying back. I'm not sure how the court compares today to 2002 when Sampras last played there but a lot of players have commented on how SLOW the grass is playing and how the ball is bouncing higher. Last year Henin and Roddick both said the conditions were more like clay.

This is what Federer said the other day in one of his post match pressers:
ROGER FEDERER: I would like to come to the net much more often. That would be my ideal style of play. Serve and volley maybe a hundred percent of the first serves and once in a while on the second serve just to keep mixing it up. Like this, you'd have so many maybe more, you know, like points sometimes you can't control but you react to them because at the net you'll always have a lot of passing shots, volley winners. Sometimes that's really exciting. I wish I could play much more this way. If I would, I don't think I would win that many matches. That's why I prefer to stay back.

Pfloyd
07-01-2007, 05:44 PM
Let the man play one Wimbledon, big deal.

It's not as if anyone is expecting him to go beyond the 4th round or quarters.

He probably knows that too, deep inside.

If anything, it will be fun to watch. I really don't see why so many people are bitching about seeing him play again.

MCL
07-01-2007, 05:51 PM
I think that Pete, the man, will feel pretty down if he comes back and gets whooped in an early round. His ego is the only thing truly in danger.

(His tennis legacy will only be marred if he tried to comeback fulltime.)

anon57
07-01-2007, 05:55 PM
If he wants to play Wimbledon one more time, that's his decision to make. I don't think a possible come-back at 35even if he doesn't win anything will ruin his legacy, those 14 GS tournaments ain't going anywhere.

goldenlox
07-01-2007, 06:14 PM
If he came back, he wouldn't come close to winning a major. No one would care. I see Tom Jones on tv now. Who gives a crap about comebacks?
It only matters if you're relevant. Sampras no longer is.

Forehander
07-01-2007, 07:37 PM
does sampras want Roger to make him a jacket?

Loremaster
07-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Maybe, with protected seeding, he could have done some damage, but with a WC, he could play a person like Roddick in the first round, and that would be it.

yeah he had negative h-t-h with Andy when he was playing and right now . players like Federer, Hewitt, Roddick would destroy him but I like his chances against ones like Blake, Robredo, Ljubicic, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic on grass

stebs
07-01-2007, 08:42 PM
I'd love to see it happen just to shut up the clowns in these forums that believe he could go deep. 3rd round would be the ABSOLUTE limit if he got into great shape and had a wonder draw.

All these old school players are clowning around, do they really think that if S&V tennis was still a winning gameplan that players wouldn't be doing it more?

This Federer quote on S&V'ing really sums it up

I wish I could play much more this way. If I would, I don't think I would win that many matches. That's why I prefer to stay back.

I know that Roger is no Pistol Pete but he is a pretty damn strong volleyer and why would he lie about this? The older players statements are just absurd sometimes.

Note: When I say older players I am referring more to JMac than anyone else, Pete has shown a little of hurt ego but it is natural for that to happen when people are saying he is no longer the GOAT and such, JMac is really just spouting BS a lot of the time.

stebs
07-01-2007, 08:45 PM
yeah he had negative h-t-h with Andy when he was playing and right now . players like Federer, Hewitt, Roddick would destroy him but I like his chances against ones like Blake, Robredo, Ljubicic, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic on grass

Against Nadal, Blake and Djokovic you like his chances? :lol:

Ljubicic, Robredo and Davydenko struggle with low bounces and big serves so I can at least understand where you are coming from with regards to those but as for the other three that is just embarrasing that you would think that. The level of nostalgia tinted glasses around here is unbeliavable.

marcRD
07-01-2007, 09:15 PM
I think Nadal would beat Sampras in straights but it would still be interesting as Sampras has said he would like his chanses against Nadal and thinks pretty much that he is a claycourt specialist who has no busness in wimbledon.

SwiSha
07-01-2007, 09:21 PM
learn from MJ ... stay the fuck home

stebs
07-01-2007, 09:24 PM
I think Nadal would beat Sampras in straights but it would still be interesting as Sampras has said he would like his chanses against Nadal and thinks pretty much that he is a claycourt specialist who has no busness in wimbledon.

It is ridiculous how these guys who used to be players on tour can have such little perspective. How can they possibly believe that people stay back entirely out of choice. They think Henman stays back on grass because he likes the back of the court?

nobama
07-01-2007, 09:40 PM
It is ridiculous how these guys who used to be players on tour can have such little perspective. How can they possibly believe that people stay back entirely out of choice. They think Henman stays back on grass because he likes the back of the court?No kidding. :lol: I'd love to know if Sampras really believes he could come back and go deep or if it's just the likes of JMac that can't deal with someone else being the "king" of Wimbledon so soon after Pete's reign there and without playing S&V tennis in doing so. :shrug:

Mr. Magassi
07-01-2007, 09:57 PM
stay home sampras...

Roddickominator
07-01-2007, 10:01 PM
You guys will be singing a different tune after Sampras smokes Fed in those exhibitions later this year.

Marek.
07-01-2007, 10:12 PM
I think Nadal would beat Sampras in straights but it would still be interesting as Sampras has said he would like his chanses against Nadal and thinks pretty much that he is a claycourt specialist who has no busness in wimbledon.

I would like to see that too just so Pete realizes how slow the grass is. The ball just sits up giving Nadal plenty of time to hit a passing shot which Sampras would have no chance of getting a racquet on.

You guys will be singing a different tune after Sampras smokes Fed in those exhibitions later this year.

:lol: Who cares about a stupid exho? Of course the matches are going to be close with Sampras probably winning one or two.

tennisrocks123
07-01-2007, 10:16 PM
hmm, strange to think about

robinhood
07-01-2007, 10:36 PM
COME BACK, PETE!!!!!!!

If he wants to risk any embarassment he might suffer, then who is to say he can't come back?
I'd love to see him back in Wimbledon again.
Win or lose, I don't think anything will diminish what he has already accomplished.

megadeth
07-01-2007, 10:50 PM
just think of the storyline, pete will want to prevent fed from winning his 6th wimby ;)

StevoTG
07-01-2007, 10:57 PM
While I've already given my divided view on a Sampras comeback I would like to point out that even if he did come back and not do well at all, like robinhood already said, nothing can take away from what he's already accomplished.

Scotso
07-01-2007, 11:01 PM
Even if he played and lost in the first round, it wouldn't hurt his "legacy." Nothing can chance the fact that he won all those tournaments and had all that success.

Who cares about his final match being a US Open win? Why does it matter? If he wants to play and would have fun, he should do it.

If I could play at that level, I wouldn't quit until I could no longer win a match in futures qualifying.

Scotso
07-01-2007, 11:04 PM
:lol: Who cares about a stupid exho? Of course the matches are going to be close with Sampras probably winning one or two.

Yeah, right. Federer's ego wouldn't allow him to let someone beat him.

goldenlox
07-01-2007, 11:04 PM
He's watching his legacy go up in smoke. He never made a French Open final. And he didn't have a Nadal around.
His legacy was hanging around to break a phony record, held by Emerson. A phony record.
The best players from that time weren't allowed in the majors.
Sampras didn't know who Pancho Gonzales was. That's Sampras' legacy.

Ays25
07-01-2007, 11:14 PM
sampras isnt idiot
he wont comeback
but if he was playing he would still be in top 16

beecharmer
07-01-2007, 11:41 PM
He's always been hugely concerned with the GOAT debate and he knows Federer has basically over-taken him there. If he lost to Bastl on the "good" grass what does that say?

RagingLamb
07-02-2007, 12:04 AM
I like how nobody commented on this:

Federer, having extended his grass-court winning streak to 51 matches, is among those who have tried to persuade Sampras to give this gig another go, without giving his reasons. Maybe he is as fascinated as the rest of us to see if the legend could be extended.

Another thing no one seems to have noticed is the quote in the article post by Jeevs; that he's not tempted at all to come back to Wimbledon.

Pete's not coming back. not as a player anyway.

Marek.
07-02-2007, 12:34 AM
Yeah, right. Federer's ego wouldn't allow him to let someone beat him.

Kooyong?

Forehander
07-02-2007, 01:12 AM
Kooyong?

well Kooyoung didn't count though lol. you don't lose any points or ruin the head to head

Marek.
07-02-2007, 01:20 AM
well Kooyoung didn't count though lol. you don't lose any points or ruin the head to head

Losing an exho to Sampras won't ruin anything either. If they play more than once Sampras will probably win at least one match.

Beforehand
07-02-2007, 03:10 AM
I think Sampras' idea that you can beat Federer by taking his time away is fundamentally wrong, given that Federer can play faster than anyone in the history of the game. He has proven that time and time again by demolishing big serving grass specialists. Infact, the way to beat Federer is by grinding - and grinding exceptionally well and hoping that Federer is slightly off. Basically only Nadal and Canas have been able to pull off that strategy and Nadal is the only player with a prayer if Federer is not slightly off.
You know, Sampras isn't the only one who says that, and I get annoyed every time I hear it. I just don't think that someone coming in and taking time away from Federer is the greatest thing on Earth to do. He hits better than ALMOST anyone on the run, and better than anyone from low to the ground. He has quick reflexes and I just don't see too much someone could do to keep from getting passed time after time. And especially off-clay, where he's much more confident and serves well, I just don't see how someone would get into enough games to defeat him.

Beforehand
07-02-2007, 03:16 AM
I'd like to see Nadal against just about any old-school player who thinks Wimbledon can be won easily if people would just serve and volley. Though I think the grass looks a little quicker this year than it did last year (which isn't really saying much), it would be great for the players to see exactly how much the grass is taking spin and Nadal's shots. Even though I'm not a huge Nadal fan, I think the way he plays is very entertaining, and it would give me great joy to watch him pass all of these people who are absolutely convinced that people just stay back on the grass for the hell of it.

angiel
07-03-2007, 11:15 PM
Come and play Pete and let all these people rages on.:worship: :worship: :wavey: :D :) :cool:

switz
07-03-2007, 11:27 PM
oh good please no. i wouldn't mind Sampras making a fool of himself but let's just avoid it all together.

Sampras had to channel all his greatness to win that last US Open and it was the perfect finish. Let's not forget though that his results leading up to that were not impressive at all - i mean he lost to Bastl at Wimbledon :o

I guess it's his life though :)

switz
07-03-2007, 11:28 PM
oh and where was there actually any comment in that article that suggested he was making a comeback :confused: i very much doubt it's true

RagingLamb
07-03-2007, 11:30 PM
oh and where was there actually any comment in that article that suggested he was making a comeback :confused: i very much doubt it's true

exactly, and in fact if you read the more complete interview posted by jeevs, you'll realize that he said the exact opposite, that he does not want to come back at all.

Lee
07-03-2007, 11:50 PM
Sampras coming back to play Wimbledon is just wishful thinking of some people.

Pete had stated many many times when the question was raised about his coming back to the circuit that he would not commit himself to the physical level to play 5 sets tennis for 2 weeks. He's happy to play in the senior circuit where he plays 2 sets and superTB for the 3rd set because he won't even want to play actual best of 3 tennis.