Pete misses the Tourney, but not the pressure [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Pete misses the Tourney, but not the pressure

blueriver
09-14-2004, 02:26 PM
have you guys already read it? Sorry that I am posting an artile, because I really miss him around this time especially after roger collecting the title..

Its a good read! He said he admires Agassi is still playing at the high level, but he wont do the same!


PETE SAMPRAS, Tennis legend

http://www.samprasfanz.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?id=1094792985

Thu, Sep. 09, 2004 By David Martindale

Special to the Star-Telegram


Pete Sampras still misses playing tennis now and then.

He especially misses it at this time of year, as the U.S. Open, a tournament he won five times, is winding to a conclusion.

"But I just don't have it in me anymore to go out and do the things I have to do to win a major," Sampras said. "Playing is the easy part. That's 10 percent of it. The other 90 percent is preparing and training. You wrap your whole year around playing those two weeks.

"That's the hard part. It's a tough way of life. It's a consuming sport. There's no question it took a lot out of me, especially when I was No. 1 in the world. It was a good time, but also stressful."

There's no stress in Sampras' life today. The most work he has done lately was giving an in-depth interview to the Tennis Channel (airing at 6 p.m. Sunday) and doing a few phone interviews -- from the golf course in Palm Desert, Calif. -- to promote the show.

This Tennis Channel interview airs on the second anniversary of your final Grand Slam victory. Does that make you nostalgic? Not really. I do miss it. And I always will miss it. But people ask me, "Are you going to the Open? Are you going to Wimbledon?" And I say, "There's no reason for me to go." There might be a day when I'll want to take my son to watch tennis. But when it's been your life for so long, you almost want to get as far away as possible. I'm still decompressing and not doing anything really with tennis.

What does take up the majority of your days? Do you have a day job? No, I don't have a job. I wake up, and I help out with my boy, and I go to the golf course and play a round of golf and sometimes two rounds of golf. Having not played, I've kind of lost my shape a little bit. So I'm starting to work out a little bit. I've been playing Texas Hold'em with some boys, playing some basketball, spending some time at the beach, trying to stay busy.

And how is your golf game? It's better. I'm a 6. Compared to some of the guys who are really good, like scratch players, I'm not there. Ivan Lendl is like a scratch player.

Have you sneaked a peek at the Open? I've seen some. A little bit of Roger Federer and Andre Agassi and the big boys. It's going to be an interesting second week. I think Andy Roddick can get to the final. I think the winner of Federer-Agassi will get to the final. It's really a pick-'em tournament right now.

Do you have a master plan for the rest of your life? I make it up as I go. I'm kind of waiting for something to fall into my lap. But I also know it doesn't really work that way. It's probably something that I'm going to have to go and create. But, whatever that is, there's one thing that I know, which I learned from tennis, and that's that you can't do it halfway.

Lee
09-14-2004, 04:43 PM
Thanks for the article Joyce.

angiel
09-14-2004, 11:53 PM
I have read the article blueriver but thank you anyway - I really misses Pete too - the game needs him and I think he could still win grand slams if he was playing today.

Amercian tennis is dying out and Andy Roddick can't save it at all - all these years when Pete was playing - the American public ignores him and now that he is gone - there is nobody to fill his shoes - they want him to play.

When they ask Hewitt who could have beaten Roger on sunday - his answer - Pete Sampras - funny dont you think. :eek: :eek:

Mimi
09-15-2004, 04:03 AM
thanks Joyce for the lovely article :wavey:

yes angiel, I am happy that Hewitt said this, I think when Pete at his peak, he can beat Roger, Pete has better serve and has the ability to end the points quickly :wavey: but i do have to admit that Roger has better skill, honestly Pete's backhands sometimes is not good ;)

blueriver
09-15-2004, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I agree with Mimi, Pete Sampras can beat Roger at his peak, but Roger is only 23 years old, he is a legend in the making, Now many people rate him over sampras, that's unacceptable to me! Rod Laver even said he believe roger can win all 4 in one year :mad: :mad:

blueriver
09-15-2004, 02:48 PM
and I agree with angiel about A Rod, I almost lose confidence in him, his game falls apart without his serve...and you cant count on him to give roger trouble..sigh..

People used to say Roger is the next Sampras, now they are more keen to see him breaking Sampras's records, that's sad for me

angiel
09-15-2004, 08:10 PM
:mad: Nobody is rating Roger over Pete - I read those articles too guys - and no mimi, Roger dont have better skills than Pete - you dont win 14 slams without having skills and you dont end the year as world No.1 without having skills - People saying he can breaks Pete records is not saying he his better than Pete at all - read those articles again will you.

I am sure they were saying the same thing when Pete was in is prime - and they will say the same thing tomorrow if somebody comes along and upset federer - it is the norm for people to speculate - Rod laver saying he can win the 4 slams is not saying he is better than Pete - no way.

Roger is only 23, so what - Pete won is 4th slam when he was only 22 years old - Pete is way ahead of federer in achievemnets at the same age - go check his record and you will see.

Roger is a legend in the making yo say - what do you think Pete Sampras is - he is already a legend guys - he is the best tennis player to pick up a racket - and Roger will have to surpass him before he can be even call a legend.

Do you think winning 4 slams make you great - if that was so roger would be greater than Laver, Borg, McEnroe and all the other greats of the game - do you think he his greater than these guys - please give me a break about greatness.

Nobody is keen to see him break Pete's records - name me one person who is? - at lot of people dont believe he will do so.

So will you please stop worrying yourselves about Roger breaking Pete record or being better than he is - he is not one iota better than pete was - or ever will be.

Pete is the king of swing - not Federer. :eek: :p

Mimi
09-16-2004, 03:56 AM
hello Joyce :D

what a beautiful avator :worship:

yes its strange that roger has no injuries as others like Ferrero etc :confused: , yes roger is definitely at his peak :mad: :mad:

Mimi
09-16-2004, 03:59 AM
i feel more comfortable after reading angiel's post :worship: , mimi is still worrying, i am sorry :o . But to say fairly, pete had lessor great rivals, at his time, not so much tennis players as today :confused: so roger has to face more competition :wavey:

i hope rod laver's words will not come true :devil: :devil:

angiel
09-16-2004, 09:47 PM
You are so wrong mimi - Pete has more rivals when he was play - there is no one to challenge federer today - dont make me laugh mimi - what competition is Roger facing - he is competing against himself - take a look at the 90's player to today's player- and see who were more competitive - Pete and company by a long shot.

There was more depth in men's tennis during the 90's - what you have today are all one style players - playing the same way and no consistencies from the top players.

Show me the great rivalries of today men's - you dont have one - that is what the sport is lacking today.

Roger Federer needs competition to make that happen - Pete has it with Andre - McEnroe has it with Borg - and I could go on and on.

Men's tennis is weak mimi. :o :o

Mimi
09-17-2004, 03:25 AM
hey angiel, i understand what you said, but what i mean is that now there are more people play tennis than at Pete's time, so basically roger has to face more players :wavey: , but just that he seems more dominating than pete coz pete has some rivals who can beat him but roger is unbeatable, halfly is because his rivals are not strong enough, halfly is because he is too good :mad: :mad: .

i don't like roger's domination :mad: :mad:

blueriver
09-17-2004, 08:54 AM
Yeah, I dont like it either, I feel more relieaved after reading you guys' posts! yeah, pete is the king of swing..He is best foReVeR

Lalitha
09-17-2004, 11:51 AM
Amercian tennis is dying out and Andy Roddick can't save it at all - all these years when Pete was playing - the American public ignores him and now that he is gone - there is nobody to fill his shoes - they want him to play.


So true Angiel, I once remember Pete saying that he received more fan mails while he was out of tennis (for a year after winning his last slam) than he had received before.

Americans!, they always realise the worth of it when they lose it. No offence, but only after 9/11 incident, they realised the value of life.

angiel
09-17-2004, 08:23 PM
Amen to that lalitha - couldn't agree more - it takes the 9/11 incedent to let them see that there is another world out there - and that we are all from the same planet.

No Mimi - there are not more people playing tennis today than say five years ago - what we have is less good players than before - Roger is playing in an era when the competition is far less than before - that why he will dominate if they let him do so.

He may seem dominating because nobody is challenging him - but he is not more dominat - Pete faces stiffer competition than Federer and still comes out on top - so tell me who is better - Roger or Pete?

The less competition you have the more you seem to be dominating - but it is not so all the time.

Mimi - Roger has rivals - name me one if you can.

Roger Federer has not done nothing that Pete has not done - at the the same age - only win 3 slams in a year. :mad: :mad:

Mimi
10-15-2004, 04:29 AM
ummm, i think the players today may be better than the players when pete faced at his time coz with better conditioning and racket :confused:

so in my opinion, roger has to face better players than Pete :confused:

cos you know roddick etc very powerful while at pete's time, only Mark P/Richard K powerful :confused:

while pete only has to face Agassi/Chang who were "weaker" than him, as for Boris Becker, he is too old for pete :wavey:

you know i love pete more but just that i want to be fair, i find Roger, who without a coach can win so many, is a mircale :confused:

hey he now has 4, i reemmber pete won 6 when he was exactly 24, but roger will only turn 24 next august, so the chicken heart mimi has some worries :sad: :mad:

Lalitha
10-15-2004, 03:23 PM
haha, mimi, you and your worries - even Pete won't be thinking of his records.

angiel
10-15-2004, 08:18 PM
Mimi - you are wrong on all that you have said - please tell me who has Roger face that is stronger than him in tennis today - today's player are no where stronger or better than the 90's players - the only power player today is Roddick.

No has Roger face better players today - men tennis is at is weakest right now - read most of the comments written about tennis lately - and they will tell you the same thing.

Mimi you seem to just start watching tennis or something - you say Pete only face Andre and Chang - please wake up will you - what about Courier, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg,and I could name you more.

Mimi Pete won his six slam long before he turns 24- you need to read more about Pete my dear.

There is nobody challenging Federer in tennis today and you call that better tennis - give me a break will you - and the racket are the same as the 90's and conditioning start long before Federer time - it start from Lendl days - so tell me something better will you.

You call Andy powerful and he couldn't beat T. Johnannson at the US Open - Roddick is nowhere as powerful as Pete at his peak - Pete Sampras has the best serve in tennis - powerful serve dont mean the best serve Mimi and that all Andy has.

Let me tell you again - mens tennis is at it's weakest and nowhere is Roger playing better players today - the players of the 90's are far better than who is playing right now.

Roger is not the first player to play without a coach Mimi - it use to happen before - and he is not doing anything that has not been done before - Mat wilander won 3 slams in 1988 - so get real will you - Pete has won 10 titles in one year before - so Roger is not the first to do so.

angiel
10-15-2004, 09:17 PM
Mimi Pete won his 6 slam at 23+11 months - Roger won 4 at 23 years. :p

Mimi
10-16-2004, 03:47 AM
i think pete does worry a bit, but may be he is not, lol :devil: :devil:

haha, mimi, you and your worries - even Pete won't be thinking of his records.

Mimi
10-16-2004, 03:49 AM
thanks a lot angiel for your detailed reply, mimi has to find some time to digest and understand it :worship: :worship:

angiel
10-16-2004, 05:00 AM
no Mimi - Lalitha is right Pete is not worrying about his records - for what reason? Roger or anybody else is the ones who has to break them - dont they so why should he worry about them. :D

Pete has better things to do than worry about those records - he dont need to. ;)

Another thing mimi - about which era plays the better tennis - add up the total number of grand slams won in Pete's era to the numbers won in Federer era to date - and you will see that Pete era is way ahead of Federer's. :eek: :wavey:

Mimi
10-16-2004, 05:14 AM
roger said he is not worrying about breaking pete's records, may be he is a person of relaxing character, i guess pete is more serious than him :confused:

i don't like roger's era, i hope this era to end soon :mad: :mad:

angiel
10-16-2004, 05:28 AM
mimi, Mimi - have you ever see Pete worry about anything when he was playing - this guy use to play like it was the easiest thing in the world - pete was so laid back that why people say he is boring. :mad:

You dont think Roger would love to break those records mimi - he can say all he wants but he would love to do so - the whole world think he do. :rolleyes:

Roger era will not end soon Mimi - this is how sports goes - every era has someone great and there will be someone to take Roger place when he is through. :p

Mimi
10-16-2004, 05:38 AM
hey, pete's passion was hidden inside, he is very clam on court but he also said that he felt great pressure, thats why he lost so many hairs :sad: :sad:

i watched the wimy 99 final a few days ago, pete was so brillant in that match, backhand was working well :worship: :worship:

i am sure that roger loves to break the records, see, when pete was playing, he just played about 15 tournyes, while roger is so greedy, he plays almost 20 :mad: :mad:

no one is allowed to have an era as long as pete, i love him :mad: :mad:

angiel
10-16-2004, 06:34 AM
I am sure Roger has his passion well hidden too - he lost his hair just breaking those records - thats why. :rolleyes:

Pete was brillant all around - when it came to the biggest matches - he was right on. :D

He was mentally stronger than everybody on the tour. :angel: :worship:

Mimi
10-18-2004, 04:22 AM
hey, Roger still has lots of hairs, when do you see him losing hairs :confused: :confused:

yes he always won in important matches and i think his mental toughness is stronger than Roger :worship: :worship:

WyveN
10-18-2004, 05:31 AM
Another thing mimi - about which era plays the better tennis - add up the total number of grand slams won in Pete's era to the numbers won in Federer era to date - and you will see that Pete era is way ahead of Federer's. :eek: :wavey:

lets have a look at 1997 top 10

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 RAFTER, PATRICK
3 CHANG, MICHAEL
4 BJORKMAN, JONAS
5 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
6 RUSEDSKI, GREG
7 MOYA, CARLOS
8 BRUGUERA, SERGI
9 MUSTER, THOMAS
10 RIOS, MARCELO

It is not exactly frightening.

angiel
10-18-2004, 08:59 PM
Dear WyveN why only 1997 and not exactly frightening you say - you name me the Roger era and it is even worse than 1997 - as I say add up the number of slams in both eras my friend - and even this 1997 top 10 is 100 times better than now.

Dont Kid yourself about not exactly frightening - 6 or 7 of the guys on this list has one at least one slam - check for yourself and see - so come with a better argument will you.

Mimi - I dont mean Roger losing his hair - I am talking about Pete

WyveN
10-19-2004, 01:04 AM
Dear WyveN why only 1997 and not exactly frightening you say - you name me the Roger era and it is even worse than 1997 - as I say add up the number of slams in both eras my friend - and even this 1997 top 10 is 100 times better than now.


In 1997 Pete's top 10 opposition had a total of 6 slams, and 5 of those were won on clay, so only 1 fast court slam winner with a total of 1 slam.


1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 RAFTER, PATRICK 1
3 CHANG, MICHAEL 1
4 BJORKMAN, JONAS
5 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY 1
6 RUSEDSKI, GREG
7 MOYA, CARLOS
8 BRUGUERA, SERGI 2
9 MUSTER, THOMAS 1
10 RIOS, MARCELO

angiel
10-19-2004, 08:41 PM
My dear WyveN do you know what the word era means - I said era - do you understand that - Pete reign for a decade not just 1997 - so will you get real - and what if 5 of these slams was won on clay - what's your point?

6 of them has a least one slam to their name - did they not.

Protest all you want - tennis is a it's weakest today - do you see anyone watching tennis these days - did you see the ratings for the slams finals this year - they are at their lowest.

Dont you think if tennis was better played today - people wouldn't watch it? answer me that.

WyveN
10-20-2004, 02:17 AM
My dear WyveN do you know what the word era means - I said era - do you understand that - Pete reign for a decade not just 1997 - so will you get real - and what if 5 of these slams was won on clay - what's your point?


That at fast court slams Sampras faced fairly weak opposition.


Protest all you want - tennis is a it's weakest today - do you see anyone watching tennis these days - did you see the ratings for the slams finals this year - they are at their lowest.

Dont you think if tennis was better played today - people wouldn't watch it? answer me that.


The funny thing about this is that it was during the Sampras-Agassi era that people basically stopped watching tennis and the ratings took a nosedive.
Plus I think you are talking about America, while tennis is struggling there it is still extremely popular in places like Australia & France and the best it has ever been in places like Spain and Argentina.

The ratings were strong in America during the Mcenroe, Connors, Lendl, Borg days.

angiel
10-20-2004, 08:26 PM
If what you say is true - why are people not watching the game today - please explain that to me my dear - so stop speaking nonsense my dear friend - the rating during the Sampras-Agassi era was 100 times better than what we are having now - dont we. :devil:

If the rating is weak in the US I dont think it is much better anywhere else - you need the US to sell the game. :mad:

And you still have not answer my question because you can't - it is not better today than the 90's. :o

You are a real damm fool - with that lame excuse about fast court tennis - weaker opposition - if you dont have anything better to come with get lost will you. :mad:

WyveN
10-21-2004, 02:12 AM
If what you say is true - why are people not watching the game today - please explain that to me my dear - so stop speaking nonsense my dear friend - the rating during the Sampras-Agassi era was 100 times better than what we are having now - dont we. :devil:


No it wasn't. Sampras was American so of course he got ratings higher in USA then Federer.
And no the rating was not 100 times better then now back then, worldwide the ratings are probably better now.


If the rating is weak in the US I dont think it is much better anywhere else - you need the US to sell the game. :mad:


In a lot of Europe countries, tennis ratings are as good as ever



You are a real damm fool - with that lame excuse about fast court tennis - weaker opposition - if you dont have anything better to come with get lost will you. :mad:


You are declaring the tennis standard higher in the 90s then now based on American tv ratings, that is just crazy.

Does that mean Agassi was a better player then Sampras? Agassi was more popular, attracted bigger crowds and got the higher tv ratings.

Mimi
10-21-2004, 07:47 AM
just difference in opinion ;)

angiel, don't be angry, and please don't call WyveN a fool, this is not nice, my dear friend :p :wavey:

angiel
10-21-2004, 07:31 PM
mimi - why are you taking up for this guy - it is people like him who are always putting down Pete Sampras - difference of opinions my foot.

WyveN only answer what he feels like in my post - but never the question I ask - and dont be daff - I am not declaring that tennis standard is higher because of TV ratings - but people will watch if they see good tennis been played and a lot of that was done in the 90's.

Popularity does not mean good tennis - so please dont come with Andre my friend - and do you think if Andre didn't have the greatest player to rival - he would have got high ratings - ask yourself that next time.

And if you didn't know my dear - Pete got higher rating outside of the US than in - see you dont even know what you are talking about.

I say beeter tennis - not popularity contest.

WyveN
10-22-2004, 12:42 AM
mimi - why are you taking up for this guy - it is people like him who are always putting down Pete Sampras - difference of opinions my foot.


I haven't put Pete down, just disagreed that the standard in the 1990s was higher then it is now. I am a fan of both Pete and Roger and putting Roger's success down to him not having any real competition is totally wrong.


WyveN only answer what he feels like in my post - but never the question I ask - and dont be daff - I am not declaring that tennis standard is higher because of TV ratings - but people will watch if they see good tennis been played and a lot of that was done in the 90's.


Answer me this. Why were more people watching tennis in the 1980s then in the 1990s?
Does that mean tennis quality decreased from 1980s to 1990s and now to the 2000s?
So tennis is going down in quality?


Popularity does not mean good tennis - so please dont come with Andre my friend - and do you think if Andre didn't have the greatest player to rival - he would have got high ratings - ask yourself that next time.


Pete is retired yet Andre is still by far the most popular tennis player.


And if you didn't know my dear - Pete got higher rating outside of the US than in - see you dont even know what you are talking about.


Got any proof of this?
Weren't you the one who said US ratings determine world wide ratings?

angiel
10-22-2004, 08:36 PM
You are a fan of Pete you say - you could have fool me.

And you are contridicting yourself - in your post you tell me that during the Agassi-Sampras era tennis took a nosedive and has not recover from it - now you are telling Pete has retired yet Agassi is the most popular player - then tell me this my friend - why is tennis not back to the 80's popularity as you claim - if he is the most popular.

If you think more people watch tennis in the 80's than in the 90's because of it's quality - think again - most of that has to do with the personalities that was playing at that time my dear friend - in the 80's the more you could get into people faces, talk the most trash, act the spoil brats and get up with all kinds of antics - was the more people think you are cool - just pick up one of the trashy magazine WyveN contraversies sellings.

Tell me who is Roger competition - and if Andre is so popular - why is tennis still in the dolldrum.

WyveN
10-23-2004, 03:11 AM
You are a fan of Pete you say - you could have fool me.


Because I don't consider Pete's competition 1000 times harder then Roger's?


then tell me this my friend - why is tennis not back to the 80's popularity as you claim - if he is the most popular.


He is the most popular out of the current generation, mainly because he has been around for close to 20 years while guys like Federer and Roddick have just started their career.



If you think more people watch tennis in the 80's than in the 90's because of it's quality - think again - most of that has to do with the personalities that was playing at that time my dear friend - in the 80's the more you could get into people faces, talk the most trash, act the spoil brats and get up with all kinds of antics - was the more people think you are cool - just pick up one of the trashy magazine WyveN contraversies sellings.

Tell me who is Roger competition - and if Andre is so popular - why is tennis still in the dolldrum.

You are correct. Tennis is in the dolldrum's because of a lack of truly marketable personalities, not because of a lack of qualities. Federer plays tennis as well as anyone in the history of the sport, and is amazing to watch but he will never reach the popularity of the American starts of the 1980s.

Federer has plenty of competition. Even Pete has said that it was far harder to win slams in the late 1990s then it was in the early 1990s as the standard has dramatically improved.

Lalitha
10-23-2004, 09:04 AM
comeon you two! Stop it. Don't make this place a horrible one.

Angiel & Wyven - you both are entitled to your opinion. Please don't fight.

angiel
10-23-2004, 07:51 PM
Then please tell me who are is competition then - you have not say so yet just skirting the answer. :( :eek:

Roger didn't won a slam in the late 90's - did he? so you see I am right the competition was stronger then - he won his first slam in 2003 my friend, 2003 if you forgot.

He didn't even reach a slam finals in the late 90's - where as Pete Sampras has manage to reach a finals every year between 1992 - 2002 and won a least one for 8 straight years. :mad:

WyveN Andre is not popular as you claim - because he is around for the past 20 years my friend - but because of all the antics he used to get up to in his earlier days - and Andre is not the current generation at all - he is only still playing. :mad:

And as you say - if Andre is so much popular - why is tennis in a doldrum then - I dont understand you - if it is a lack of marketing personalities - isn't he a marketing personality - please answer me that will you. :confused:

Read the following stories below this post will you.

angiel
10-23-2004, 08:09 PM
Really, it was as simple as that. With Sampras, it has always been as simple as that. Of all the great sportsmen we might have seen in the high noon of modern professional sport, there is no more uncomplicated legend than Sampras. He is a simple genius - if this is a contradiction in terms, then so be it. He is the boy-next-door who became one of the true giants of modern sport and never lost his boy-next-door simplicity and humility.

The problem is, of course, with us - with the fans, with the media, with everybody who follows sport. In a world of Maradonas and Laras and Tysons, we have come to expect the greatest of sporting icons - well, we seem to almost will them to - to be complicated two-faced supermen.

Or, in the least, we expect them to give us a lot more than what their primary -and perhaps only - role would suggest they would. Yes, Sampras is a great tennis player. And yes, Sampras plays great tennis. The question is, is that all there is to him?

Spoilt by the likes of Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, many of us no longer seem to be able to yearn for the purists' joy derived from sporting excellence. Led down the garden path by greedy image makers in a multi-million dollar business, we have come to believe that great sportsmen, as entertainers, should have "personality" - which, almost always, means they have to be brash and offensive.

Would Sampras be perceived as a greater champion than he is if he were to make finger gestures to the crowds a la Connors? Would he be a bigger megastar than he is if he were to blow kisses north, west, south and east on the courts after each victory a la Agassi?

Yes, of course, he would be. Perhaps he could have earned a few million more in endorsements and made a lot more headlines for the wrong reasons. But that is not what Sampras wanted. He never played for the millions, nor for the headlines.

(This is some quotes from an article written about Pete Sampras in 2000, by a journalist from India, please take your time to read it my friend - before you go running off your mouth about who is more popular or who people is watching in tennis). :) :D :angel: :worship: :wavey:

angiel
10-23-2004, 09:57 PM
"Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving." (Othello, Act II, Scene 3).

Superstar Pete Sampras reigns in an era when the muddled sports world celebrates anti-heroes rather than heroes and exalts personality above character. Strangely, the media act as accomplices in this farce. ESPN's so-called tribute to Sampras as one of the 50 greatest athletes of the century downplayed his virtues and belabored the "boring" image he has never shed despite its patent falseness.

Boring -- compared to what and whom? Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist and ear-biting fighter? Dennis Rodman, a cross-dressing psycho notorious for thuggish playing tactics and going AWOL? Latrell Sprewell, who sued rather than repented after attacking his coach? Europe's legions of drug-taking cyclists? Or even tennis' shamelessly boorish John McEnroe? The list of sports' louts grows, while attention seldom focuses on the good guys.

It's high time to note "Sweet Pete's" admirable traits and contributions to society, let alone sports. So, in the spirit of fairness, I offer reasons why we should love, or at least like, sport's most unsung hero.

:) :D :cool: :angel: :wavey:

WyveN
10-25-2004, 03:50 PM
Then please tell me who are is competition then - you have not say so yet just skirting the answer. :( :eek:


This year in slams Roger has beaten the likes of Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick & Safin. Believe it or not that is competition. He has also beaten the likes of Coria, Moya & Gaudio on clay.


Roger didn't won a slam in the late 90's - did he? so you see I am right the competition was stronger then - he won his first slam in 2003 my friend, 2003 if you forgot.


This discussion is getting stupid, in the late 90s Roger was 16-17.


He didn't even reach a slam finals in the late 90's - where as Pete Sampras has manage to reach a finals every year between 1992 - 2002 and won a least one for 8 straight years. :mad:


Roger and Pete won their first Wimbledon at exactly the same age.
At the current age Roger is at, Pete had 1 extra slam. I don't see how you can conclude which era was tougher to play in.


WyveN Andre is not popular as you claim - because he is around for the past 20 years my friend - but because of all the antics he used to get up to in his earlier days - and Andre is not the current generation at all - he is only still playing. :mad:

And as you say - if Andre is so much popular - why is tennis in a doldrum then - I dont understand you - if it is a lack of marketing personalities - isn't he a marketing personality - please answer me that will you. :confused:


You are the one who said popularity is caused by the level of tennis played, I disagreed. All this talk about Andre's popularity due to marketing etc is irrelevant.

I think this discussion has lost any meaning so I wont respond any longer.

angiel
10-25-2004, 08:34 PM
I never said no such thing - you was the one who brought up Andre and the 80's to make your point - we were here discussing Pete Sampras because this is his board - and we are is fans - if you dont like what you see here that your business - happy riddiance to you. :mad: :devil:

And if you dont know my friend - there are popularity & there are popularity, thank you. :mad: