SI.com, Q&A: PETE SAMPRAS. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

SI.com, Q&A: PETE SAMPRAS.

angiel
02-16-2007, 04:37 PM
Q&A: Pete Sampras

The Pistol raps on his comeback and Roger Federer
Posted: Thursday February 15, 2007 9:24AM;


http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/tennis/01/29/bc.ten.sampras.seniorto.ap/p1_sampras_1222.jpg


Last week Sports Illustrated writer Richard Deitsch interviewed Pete Sampras for the magazine's Q&A. The 35-year-old Hall of Fame tennis player will compete in the Outback Champions Series, an over-30 tour, in Boston from May 2-6. In July he will be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, R.I. Here are additional excerpts from their conversation.

SI: What has retirement been like for you?

Sampras: Retirement is a work in progress. It's not like you can read a book and figure it out. But I realized in 2005 that I needed to start doing something. I wasn't structured at all. I was kind of waking up, playing golf, not really doing much. When I committed to playing a little tennis in some exhibitions, it was the best thing for me. It got me in shape. It got me out of the house. It got me doing something I love to do.

SI: You've committed to playing two events on this tour. Why return to competitive tennis?

Sampras: I talked to Jim Courier a lot over the past year. He was picking my brain on where I was mentally and whether I wanted to play. I just wanted to give it a shot. There's something about playing an event. It was a process getting to a point where I could commit to it and be excited about it. I'm playing Jim and John McEnroe and guys I played during my years. I'm looking forward to it but I had to get to a pretty good place to commit to it and see how it feels. John and Jim said it was a fun week, a competitive week, but's it not the competition I'm looking for. It's having something to prepare for. I have something to look forward to. I can hit a little more. I can get in a little better shape. It's a combination of all those things that give you a little focus. I's not anything like it used to be but something like it used to be.

SI: What happens if you play at higher level in Boston than you expect? Would you be tempted to keep playing?

Sampras: That's a good question. I'm curious myself as to what it will feel like. I will tell you that in the last months I have been hitting the ball better today then I did when I was playing. A lot of it has to do with technology. I'm using a bigger racket. Technology is taking the game to a new level and the last year or so I have taken advantage of that. I am serving just as hard. I'm hitting the ball with more control. I think my racket head has a lot to do with that.

SI: Say you were offered a wild card at an ATP tournament in the next 18 months, would you consider it?

Sampras: The offer is not the problem. It's the desire for me to do it and the grind of it all. People have mentioned to me: You should come back. There's not many great players today and it would be exciting, and give the sport a real shot in the arm. But they haven't walked a mile in my shoes. Realistically, I only play one way. That's to win. I won't jeopardize that feeling to come back just to come back. It has to be for a reason. My competitive side and curious side, I have thought about it. Realistically, it's not going to happen.

SI: You played against Roger Federer once at Wimbledon 2001.

Sampras: And lost 7-5 in the fifth.

SI: Federer will top out at how many majors?

Sampras: I see him getting to 17, 18 or 19 majors. I really do. Who knows how far he can go? He's winning these majors with pretty much ease. He's not challenged much. He's obviously playing great. If there were three or four guys who were pushing him to five sets or beating him a few times over the past year, then anything could happen on the day. But I just find him with that extra gear that no one can hang with him for a long period of time. He can win 17, 18 or 19 majors. He's in the middle of his career and I don't see him slowing down or anyone slowing him down.

SI: What would be your game plan to beat him?

Sampras: I would try to take his timing away and come in and use my serve and aggressive style. He does great things when guys stay back and he can kind of dictate from the back court. I would not want to get into many exchanges like that. I'd try to come in, attack his second serve, really just try to take his rhythm away. That's what I tried to do against all the great baseliners like Courier and Andre Agassi. I would try to overwhelm them with my power and shot-making ability. So I would serve and volley on both serves. I would attack his backhand, which is his weaker side, and go from there. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone who can do that today so he can out-athletic these guys from the back court because of what he can do on the run. Nobody is looking to come in and I think that's the way to beat him.

SI: Would you be okay with Federer passing your Grand Slam majors record?

Sampras: Sure, you would love to have that record but it's true: Records are made to be broken. Players are better today and I believe Roger is going to break my record, Tiger Woods is going top break Jack Nicklaus' record and Barry Bonds is going to break Hank Aaron's record. Unfortunately for me, Roger would only have given me the record for about eight years. But I don't believe in not rooting for him. I've never believed in that. I believe the record will be broken and the person who will break it is a phenomenal player. He is someone who I would want to see do it because I think he is a credit to the game. I think he's a nice guy. He handles himself well on and off the court. He has good temperament there. Those are the things I like in an athlete. He doesn't transcend the sport because of where we are today and all the controversy people want.

SI: When is the last time you spoke with Federer?

Sampras: I talked to him a few days after the Open. I sent him a text to congratulate him. Then we spoke a little bit after that. We had some people who were curious about putting together an exhibition. It ended up not working out but we talked a little about the exhibition and in general. I told him, "Look, I don't know you well but want to tell you I respect your game, the way you handle yourself and that you are credit to the game." I think he gets respect from the media and the fans and I wanted him to know that I was a part of that.

SI: Who do you think is the more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods or Federer?

Sampras: Good question. As far as pure domination, it's hard to say because I find golf harder to dominate than tennis. For Tiger to do what he has done, he has to worry about a field of players but he's not as much in control of how it goes compared to Roger. For Roger, it's just one on one. He has to worry about seven guys and seven guys only. Tiger has to worry about some floater guy shooting 62. Tiger is not as much in control so it tells you what Tiger has done might be more impressive. But at the same time Roger has lost like five matches in the last 18 months. Something ridiculous like that. It's hard to say whether tennis is harder to dominate than golf. I think a lot more crazier things can happen in golf than tennis so I'd lean a little toward Tiger but at the same time Roger has won more than Tiger.

SI: How often do you talk to Andre Agassi?

Sampras: I talked to him a little after the U.S. Open. He invited my wife and me to his foundation dinner so we went and talked and hung out. We promised each other we would stay in touch. I think we have been through too much together and do get along quite well. We both have a wife and two kids. We have a lot in common at this stage in our lives.

SI: Would you describe you and Agassi as friends today?

Sampras: I would. Not anything where we stay in touch week to week, but if he were ever in L.A. or I were in Las Vegas, I think we would reach out to one another just to get together or have our kids play. The great thing that happened with us is that everything we went through, completing for major titles, I think we came out better friends than when we went into it. It's a credit to who we are and what we represent.

SI: How much tennis memorabilia do you own?

Sampras: I have some trophies and eight of my old St. Vincent Wilson racquets. That's about it. I have the net at Wimbledon when I broke the record. But it's in storage [laughs].

SI: Have you ever looked up your wife's (actress Bridgette Wilson-Sampras) page on the IMDb Web site?

Sampras: Absolutely. And I've Googled her.

SI: Before or after you were married?

Sampras: After [laughs].

SI: The one stroke from any player in history you would like to borrow for one match?

Sampras: How about Goran Ivanisevic's serve? On grass. That was pretty rough.

SI: You can be one other athlete for one day, whom do you choose and why?

Sampras: If I could pick anyone I would say Michael Jordan, hitting his last-second shot against Utah in Game Six of the 1998 NBA Finals. That was a great moment and he did in Utah, which was even sweeter.

SI: What's a typical day like for you these days?

Sampras: I'll get up either 7 or 8 and spend some time with my kids before they go to pre-school. Then at 10 to 11 I'll go to the gym and lift some weights or do a run. I might play golf from noon to 4 or 5. Then I'll get back and spend a few hours with my kids before they go to bed. That's kind of a typical day. But I do hit the tennis ball three days a week, maybe from 1:30 to 3. Twice a week I play basketball. I have a little hoop at my house so I'll bring eight guys over to play a little four-on-four. That's a great workout. And I play poker in a home game once a week. I spend a lot of time with my kids. I like taking my older son out to lunch. We go to Beverly Hills to have lunch and we have that time together.

SI: You'll be enshrined in the Hall of Fame in July. Have you started on your speech?

Sampras: I have not started on the speech, but I am thinking about ideas and things I want to say. For me, it's kind of thanking everyone that got me to this point. I'll talk about how I looked at my tennis, different coaches, my family and wife. I have not officially put something down on paper but I want to talk about what the sport meant to me and how I looked at the sport.

SI: Can you go as long as you want?

Sampras: You can as long as you want. I see something like five to 10 minutes.

SI: That seems short.

Sampras: They told me Jimmy Connors did something for 5 to 10 minutes and McEnroe did 40, which is a little long. I want something short and sweet so I can nail some important points.

SI: Would you and your wife ever consider posing for the SI Swimsuit Issue?

Sampras: I don't know. Maybe it's not for us [laughs].

SI: I know you believe Roger will win the French Open. What would that win mean for his career?

Sampras: It would complete it, and not that it's not already complete today. But he was born and raised on clay. The closest I came to clay as a kid was Play-Doh. It was foreign to me. I think his game suits clay pretty well. So I think it is just a matter of time. It's tough because there are really a lot more good clay-court players today then there were 10 years ago. It will be as challenging as it was for me but I think he's more comfortable on clay because he grew up on it.

SI: If we were to ask your friends to describe you in a sentence, what would they say?

Sampras: Kind of a dry sense of humor, sarcastic, a little guarded at first, but once you break that barrier, he's friendly.

SI: Justin Gimelstob wrote a column for SI.com saying he thought you were playing today at a level as high as anyone except Federer.

Sampras: We were talking about the game and the sport. James Blake is No. 6 in the world and I wonder what it would be like to play him at this stage of my life if he gave me a few months to prepare. The serve is something that I still possess and I felt pretty hard to break.

SI: You are 35 -- not that old.

Sampras: It is true. Look at what guys are playing with today. It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. It's something I'll always think about.

SI: Have you ever played golf with Tiger?

Sampras: No, just a few hands of black jack. We were in Las Vegas doing an interview for ESPN and we played black jack and had dinner together.

SI: Anyone our readers would know who plays in your home poker game?

Sampras: Dan Harrington.

SI: The Dan Harrington?

Sampras: Action Dan himself. He's a really nice guy, very smart. We talk a little tennis, and his poker days.

SI: Is it intimidating to play him?

Sampras: I kind of stay away from him when we get into pots. I try to stay clear of him but sometimes you run into him.

SI: Who was the most fun person to make fun of on tour?

Sampras: I was always friendly with Tim Henman. I'd say we'd ribbed each other. I was close to him. I think someone like Gimelstob, I was just mean to in a fun way [laughs].

SI: You and your wife have each now had a Q&A in this space. That probably ranks up there with seven Wimbledons, right?

Sampras: Thanks [laughs]. That is cool.

SI: Is there anyone you have always wanted to meet that you have yet to meet?

Sampras: There's not anyone I am dying to meet. I finally got to meet someone I was in awe of and that was Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam. I'm a huge Pearl Jam fan. I got a chance to to talk to him before a concert. I've met a lot of different people in all walks of life, from sportsman to actors, but he was someone throughout my years, he was a person I wanted to meet.

SI: Could you name every film your wife has appeared in?

Sampras: I can now. When we were first going out, there were some I did not know of. And I know she was in Saved by the Bell. Give me some time and I can think of all of them.:worship: :angel: :D :) :wavey: :)

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 05:30 PM
Bittersweet. He believed, so many people believed, his record would stand the test of time. It might still but it is looking less likely the last year or so.

He is classy in his responses, particularly since it must be a friggin' pain to have to deal with Federer questions in every interview he is giving.

This was unnecessary
Sampras: It is true. Look at what guys are playing with today. It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. It's something I'll always think about.

"A guy like Fernando Gonzo""? What does he mean? Does something about Gonzo's physical shape or ball swing suggest he would NOT get power? :confused:

Tennis Fool
02-16-2007, 06:03 PM
:eek:
Q&A: Pete Sampras

The Pistol raps on his comeback and takes no prisoners
Posted: Thursday February 15, 2007 9:24AM;





Last week Sports Illustrated writer Richard Deitsch interviewed Pete Sampras for the magazine's Q&A. The 35-year-old Hall of Fame tennis player will compete in the Outback Champions Series, an over-30 tour, in Boston from May 2-6. In July he will be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, R.I. Here are additional excerpts from their conversation.

SI: What has retirement been like for you?

Sampras: Boring as hell. That's why I'm back.

SI: You've committed to playing two events on this tour. Why return to competitive tennis?

Sampras: Didn't I just answer this question?

SI: What happens if you play at higher level in Boston than you expect? Would you be tempted to keep playing?

Sampras: I was great once; racquet technology has made me even better. Hell yeah, I'd rock the tour, but you know--I've got my millions and everyone except Roger sucks, so why waste my time?

SI: Say you were offered a wild card at an ATP tournament in the next 18 months, would you consider it?

Sampras: Are you deaf?

SI: You played against Roger Federer once at Wimbledon 2001.

Sampras: Why are you reminding me of that loss?

SI: Federer will top out at how many majors?

Sampras: I see him getting to 17, 18 or 19 majors because of, you know, the clowns he calls "competitors".

SI: What would be your game plan to beat him?

Sampras: I would try to take his timing away and come in and use my serve and aggressive style. He does great things when guys stay back and he can kind of dictate from the back court. I would not want to get into many exchanges like that. I'd try to come in, attack his second serve, really just try to take his rhythm away. That's what I tried to do against all the great baseliners like Courier and Andre Agassi. I would try to overwhelm them with my power and shot-making ability. So I would serve and volley on both serves. I would attack his backhand, which is his weaker side, and go from there. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone who can do that today because they suck.

SI: Would you be okay with Federer passing your Grand Slam majors record?

Sampras: What do you think? Would I be talking with you if I thought it was a good thing?

SI: When is the last time you spoke with Federer?

Sampras: I talked to him a few days after the Open. I sent him a text to congratulate him and remind him that I'm the greatest and he only plays clowns . Then we spoke had some words but settled it like men. I told him, "Look, I don't know you well but want to tell you I respect your game, the way you handle yourself and that you are credit to the game." I think he gets respect from the media and the fans and I wanted him to know that I want to be a part of that--you know, bask in his glory. He shouldn't keep it all to himself.

SI: Who do you think is the more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods or Federer?

Sampras: Tiger Woods, no doubt.

SI: How often do you talk to Andre Agassi?

Sampras: I talked to him a little after the U.S. Open where I retired.

SI: Would you describe you and Agassi as friends today?

Sampras: You really are deaf!

SI: How much tennis memorabilia do you own?

Sampras: I have some trophies--lets see, my 7 Wimbledon crowns, the most in history, my 5 US Open crowns, 2 Australian Opens, and 55 other stellar titles. I also have eight of my old St. Vincent Wilson racquets. That's about it. [laughs]

SI: Have you ever looked up your wife's (actress Bridgette Wilson-Sampras) page on the IMDb Web site?

Sampras: Who? Oh, my wife.

SI: Before or after you were married?

Sampras: Good one [laughs].

SI: The one stroke from any player in history you would like to borrow for one match?

Sampras: You want me to say Roger, but how about Goran Ivanisevic's serve? On grass. That was pretty rough.

SI: You can be one other athlete for one day, whom do you choose and why?

Sampras: If I could pick anyone besides me I would say Michael Jordan,because he's the greatest athlete outside of tennis and in 1998 he went out on top, just like I did.

SI: What's a typical day like for you these days?

Sampras: Preparing for my comeback and talking to people like you.

SI: You'll be enshrined in the Hall of Fame in July. Have you started on your speech?

Sampras: I'll leave that to IMG.

SI: Can you go as long as you want?

Sampras: 10 minutes. I have a lot to say.

SI: That seems short.

Sampras: Really?

SI: Would you and your wife ever consider posing for the SI Swimsuit Issue?

Sampras: My wife? Oh yeah, Bridget.

SI: I know you believe Roger will win the French Open. What would that win mean for his career?

Sampras: It would complete it, and then he can retire and leave my records alone. Just leave them alone, man!

SI: If we were to ask your friends to describe you in a sentence, what would they say?

Sampras: A real cool dude. The greatest.

SI: Justin Gimelstob wrote a column for SI.com saying he thought you were playing today at a level as high as anyone except Federer.

Sampras: Why do you keep bringing up Roger? Can't we talk about someone else, like James Blake? He's a cool guy.

SI: You are 35 -- not that old.

Sampras: Yeah, and I can still rock the tennis court. Look at the clowns playing today. It's crazy that someone like Fernando Gonzalez can even hit with a racket. It's the technology, see. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. That's why I'm back.

SI: Have you ever played golf with Tiger?

Sampras: Didn't you already ask a question about Tiger? Why do you keep bring Tiger and Roger up?

SI: Anyone our readers would know who plays in your home poker game?

Sampras: Dan Harrington.

SI: The Dan Harrington?

Sampras: Another great. Who else would I play with? A clown?

SI: Is it intimidating to play him?

Sampras: Not if I stay clear of him.

SI: Who was the most fun person to make fun of on tour?

Sampras: Tim Henman. You see that guy's teeth? I also rocked his world at Wimbledon. Did the same to Gimelstob. Plus, he has a funny last name. [laughs]

SI: You and your wife have each now had a Q&A in this space. That probably ranks up there with seven Wimbledons, right?

Sampras: Thanks, but not really [laughs].

SI: Is there anyone you have always wanted to meet that you have yet to meet?

Sampras: I've already met myself [laughs].

SI: Could you name every film your wife has appeared in?

Sampras: My wife? Oh, you mean Bridget.

nobama
02-16-2007, 06:32 PM
Bittersweet. He believed, so many people believed, his record would stand the test of time. It might still but it is looking less likely the last year or so.

He is classy in his responses, particularly since it must be a friggin' pain to have to deal with Federer questions in every interview he is giving.

This was unnecessary


"A guy like Fernando Gonzo""? What does he mean? Does something about Gonzo's physical shape or ball swing suggest he would NOT get power? :confused:
I don't know about classy. I think he's clever in the way he gets his digs in. So bascially he's saying the guys out there now (other than Federer) are mediocre but because of racquet technology they're made to look good? Sorry I have a hard time believing racquets changed that much in the past 5-10 years.

Tennis Fool
02-16-2007, 06:42 PM
:confused:

He'z married to Screech?
Didn't you know he costarred in the infamous sex video :eek:

I don't know about classy. I think he's clever in the way he gets his digs in. So bascially he's saying the guys out there now (other than Federer) are mediocre but because of racquet technology they're made to look good? Sorry I have a hard time believing racquets changed that much in the past 5-10 years.
Same thing JMac says.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 06:43 PM
This was unnecessary


"A guy like Fernando Gonzo""? What does he mean? Does something about Gonzo's physical shape or ball swing suggest he would NOT get power? :confused:I think you are maybe misinterpreting it? I read it to just mean sort of like "The power the guys get today is incredible. For example, the power Fernando Gonzalez gets on his forehand is unbelievable" or something like that. It's just a colloquial term in US English, that is how i read it. :shrug:

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 06:58 PM
I think you are maybe misinterpreting it? I read it to just mean sort of like "The power the guys get today is incredible. For example, the power Fernando Gonzalez gets on his forehand is unbelievable" or something like that. It's just a colloquial term in US English, that is how i read it. :shrug:

I see, yes that could be his meaning.

I would accept it more willingly if he had not followed it up immediately with the statement about mediocre players.

It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. It's something I'll always think about.

Beforehand
02-16-2007, 07:03 PM
Yeah, Deb! I tend to agree. "A guy like Fernando Gonzalez" is an efficient way to say "For example, Fernando Gonzalez" in this context.

Beforehand
02-16-2007, 07:07 PM
I would accept it more willingly if he had not followed it up immediately with the statement about mediocre players.
Well...he....um...he...

Fine. He's a jerk! :)

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 07:11 PM
I don't know about classy. I think he's clever in the way he gets his digs in. So bascially he's saying the guys out there now (other than Federer) are mediocre but because of racquet technology they're made to look good? Sorry I have a hard time believing racquets changed that much in the past 5-10 years.

I was referring to classy in the general. He is complimentary to this generation of players. He is always complimentary to Federer, he could take the easy way out and say 'I really don't know him so I can't say what he's like.' It has got to be very annoying when only 3 years out into retirement your record for the ages is suddenly about to go and you have to field questions about the guy. He handles it quite well overall.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 07:14 PM
I see, yes that could be his meaning.

I would accept it more willingly if he had not followed it up immediately with the statement about mediocre players.Well we can go around and around and try to discern what he meant and never know because we can't read his mind. Maybe he just meant that Gonzo isn't like some huge physically imposing guy, which he's not. There are probably dozens of things he could've meant, but I really doubt he meant any kind of insult to gonzo. just my opinion :)

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 07:19 PM
:eek:

Hahahahah! I only just realized that you did not only quote the Angiel post.

World Beater
02-16-2007, 07:26 PM
I think you are maybe misinterpreting it? I read it to just mean sort of like "The power the guys get today is incredible. For example, the power Fernando Gonzalez gets on his forehand is unbelievable" or something like that. It's just a colloquial term in US English, that is how i read it. :shrug:

er...i dont think so...it doesnt sound very positive. there is no reason for him to use fernando gonzalez and then talk about mediocre players the next sentence. one thought does lead to another. fernando is not a good example because he was hitting the ball hard when pete played. i dont think he hits the ball that much harder.

Sjengster
02-16-2007, 07:32 PM
Nobody has the kind of exceptional winner to error stats that Gonzalez had during the AO if they're a mediocre player, and I'm pretty sure that's what Sampras was implying by mentioning the two so close together.

World Beater
02-16-2007, 07:35 PM
Nobody has the kind of exceptional winner to error stats that Gonzalez had during the AO if they're a mediocre player, and I'm pretty sure that's what Sampras was implying by mentioning the two so close together.

in fairness, stefanki took a shot at sampras when he talked about federer saying that in todays game, one wouldnt be able to ride only a serve and a forehand to the top

Sjengster
02-16-2007, 07:39 PM
in fairness, stefanki took a shot at sampras when he talked about federer saying that in todays game, one wouldnt be able to ride only a serve and a forehand to the top

One could almost interpret that as a shot at the pre-Stefanki Gonzalez too.... anyhow a dismissal of Sampras as "serve and forehand" would be inaccurate and unfair, in the same way dismissing current players as robotic power merchants is also unrealistic.

Johnny Groove
02-16-2007, 07:45 PM
Bittersweet. He believed, so many people believed, his record would stand the test of time. It might still but it is looking less likely the last year or so.

He is classy in his responses, particularly since it must be a friggin' pain to have to deal with Federer questions in every interview he is giving.

This was unnecessary


"A guy like Fernando Gonzo""? What does he mean? Does something about Gonzo's physical shape or ball swing suggest he would NOT get power? :confused:

this is not the first time Pete has said something like this. I remember him saying that seeing a "player like Nadal" making the Wimbly finals makes him "lick his lips" at the prospect of playing Wimbly again.

Not exactly complementative

njnetswill
02-16-2007, 07:58 PM
If Pete thinks he is so great he should come back. :o

There is no doubt Sampras was THE player of his generation, but it isn't worth it to keep ratting on the current players when his time has passed. All it does is make him look defensive.

Howard
02-16-2007, 08:08 PM
I don't know about classy. I think he's clever in the way he gets his digs in. So bascially he's saying the guys out there now (other than Federer) are mediocre but because of racquet technology they're made to look good? Sorry I have a hard time believing racquets changed that much in the past 5-10 years.As you get older, you tend to believe that people in your generation were smarter, cuter, more athletic, braver, nicer and just generally better than the current generation. In ten or fifteen years we'll be reminiscing about how much better players of "our" generation were.

nanoman
02-16-2007, 09:54 PM
Pete tried his hardest to act classy, but in some instances he couldn't help himself and his bitterness slipped through.

stebs
02-16-2007, 10:14 PM
I am surprised about the Gonzo comments. It is hard to say whether or not it is a jibe without actually HEARING him speak. However, that is how it looks. Truth be told, up till the final Gonzo played well enough to beat anyone in any era. I'm not even beggining to compare the two but I didn't ever see Sampras post the type of numbers Gonzo did, plus, should be easier for a big server.

Is interesting that he says he would take Goran's serve as the best stroke. I think that's pretty damn complementary for Goran coming from a server like him.

Whistleway
02-16-2007, 10:54 PM
:eek:

Great post. you totally rocked that one. :)

Whistleway
02-16-2007, 10:58 PM
I can't believe how sour Sampras comes across. I use to like him much better when he used to let the racket do the talking. Now it seems like he is just trying so hard to impress... :(

Pigpen Stinks
02-16-2007, 11:18 PM
:confused:

He'z married to Screech?

Actually, I think Pete confused his wife with Oscar worthy actress Tori Spelling.

Henry Chinaski
02-16-2007, 11:25 PM
Pete tried his hardest to act classy, but in some instances he couldn't help himself and his bitterness slipped through.

hehe. nicely put.

marcRD
02-16-2007, 11:59 PM
2002 Miami TMS Gonzalez df Sampras 7-6(1) 6-1

senorgato
02-17-2007, 12:07 AM
Meh. Typical Sampras interview. He tries so hard to sound gracious, but comes off as ego-protective. Of all the "greats" in sports I have to say I like Pete's commentary the least.

SushiMinimal
02-17-2007, 12:52 AM
If the rackets are so good today why there aren't another guys hitting the ball that hard from 1 meter and a half from the baseline like gonzo ???

this gives me an idea: 2002 Miami TMS Gonzalez df Sampras 7-6(1) 6-1

nobama
02-17-2007, 01:56 AM
this is not the first time Pete has said something like this. I remember him saying that seeing a "player like Nadal" making the Wimbly finals makes him "lick his lips" at the prospect of playing Wimbly again.

Not exactly complementativeYes he did say that. And last year when he played that exhibition with Ginepri when he was asked about Nadal he said he was a "great clay courter", but the way he said it was a bit dismissive. Like as if being great on clay was some how inferior to being great on another surface.

kobulingam
02-17-2007, 02:06 AM
With all the whining he has been doing, and the trashing of current
tennis players, Sampras is losing respect from both fans and players
alike. Pete should realize that he can either come back to the tour
and put an end to the debate on who is a superior player, or should
shut up instead of responding to the stupid questions that the media
throws at him about Federer and other players. I used to like Sampras,
but he is sounding more and more like a big time loser with all the
mouthing off he has been doing lately. What a shame?. The Rod-dicks
and Gimbel-Pricks losing to him does not meet shit. If that makes him
think he has still got game, let him come on back to the tour and
prove it. Or, shut the fuck up.

kobulingam
02-17-2007, 02:17 AM
I don't know about classy. I think he's clever in the way he gets his digs in. So bascially he's saying the guys out there now (other than Federer) are mediocre but because of racquet technology they're made to look good? Sorry I have a hard time believing racquets changed that much in the past 5-10 years.


Baby Fed must have had access to a futuristic racquet when he beat Federer, no?

BigAlbinoDonky
02-17-2007, 02:24 AM
Sampras is right, Gonzalez is a clown and has no place among the top in the sport. Unfortunately for tennis, he REALLY IS one of the best around, which is ridiculous. It's things like this that make tennis the 84th biggest sport in America. Sampras should come back and lay the smack down on everyone(except Federer because he would just get embarrassed) to prove what a bunch of clowns are on tour today.

yeahright
02-17-2007, 02:49 AM
I don't think he meant to diss Gonzo.

The media keeps asking him Roger questions so what could he do. Yeah, maybe he could just say, "Why do you keep bringing Roger up?" :lol:

aneevar
02-17-2007, 05:41 AM
Give Sampy a break guys . Just Imagine urself in his shoes n u will see that he is acting reasonably well . What do u want him to say - "Roger is 10 times better than me " - U cant x pect that .

Mimi
02-17-2007, 06:25 AM
excellent response:worship: , i doubt those who keep on critising pete will act 1/10 as classy as him when being asked these never ending roger etc questions liked pete :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

angiel: i really wish you not to post these pete related threads in general messages but to post them in pete 's forum instead, I know that you are doing this for good purpose, but obviously many people do not appreciate, and see, how many critics pete got after you posted these threads? sorry if i sound too rude

Give Sampy a break guys . Just Imagine urself in his shoes n u will see that he is acting reasonably well . What do u want him to say - "Roger is 10 times better than me " - U cant x pect that .

Kolya
02-17-2007, 06:59 AM
Nice interview.

Sampras is a very good golfer, playing off 1 I think.

Hugh Jaas
02-17-2007, 07:04 AM
this guy should put the money where his mouth is and take a W/C into wimbledon this year if he thinks the tour is a piece of cack, those old farts would give him one for sure. Otherwise he is just another sore looser american firing his mouth off.

Bibberz
02-17-2007, 07:53 AM
Stone me, what a life. Let me get this straight--he: (1) plays with his kids; (2) plays in the gym; (3) plays golf; (4) plays tennis; and (5) plays with his kids some more. It doesn't get much better than that.

As long as we're parsing his words this closely, it's worth noting that Sampras singled James Blake out more than anyone else--he was only talking about a "guy like Fernando Gonzalez." There is a difference.

I wish Sampras could join the DC team and potentially play a dead-rubber. Too bad there's no room on the roster and he'd never agree to it....

Marine
02-17-2007, 08:37 AM
Great interview. Thanks.
I don't see what's shoking in his answers. He's honest. He doesn't say Federer is much better than hom, normal, it's not true. And he seems to have a lot of respect for him. Still as classy for me :D

Jaap
02-17-2007, 08:44 AM
Sampras is right, guys like James Blake, Boredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Gonzalez don't belong in the top 10, you know that this era is weak when you see perennial losers like these occupying the top 10. I wouldn't put it past Pete to comeback and whip all of these losers asses.

almouchie
02-17-2007, 09:53 AM
THANKA Angiel for posting it
great interview

almouchie
02-17-2007, 09:58 AM
excellent response:worship: , i doubt those who keep on critising pete will act 1/10 as classy as him when being asked these never ending roger etc questions liked pete :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

angiel: i really wish you not to post these pete related threads in general messages but to post them in pete 's forum instead, I know that you are doing this for good purpose, but obviously many people do not appreciate, and see, how many critics pete got after you posted these threads? sorry if i sound too rude

i have to disagree with u
with all the talk of federer & pete

reading about pete news is definitely News for general posts
U cant expect to have only federer news in general
& simply becoz Sampras is retired , his news has to be in his forum
people dissing pete, are just jealous,
most players would kill or dream to have a legendary career as PETE

bokehlicious
02-17-2007, 09:59 AM
SI: Anyone our readers would know who plays in your home poker game?

Sampras: Dan Harrington.

SI: The Dan Harrington?

Sampras: Action Dan himself. He's a really nice guy, very smart. We talk a little tennis, and his poker days.

SI: Is it intimidating to play him?

Sampras: I kind of stay away from him when we get into pots. I try to stay clear of him but sometimes you run into him.

Pete's always been clever :worship:

almouchie
02-17-2007, 10:02 AM
this guy should put the money where his mouth is and take a W/C into wimbledon this year if he thinks the tour is a piece of cack, those old farts would give him one for sure. Otherwise he is just another sore looser american firing his mouth off.

for your info
if there is anyone who may be reluctuant to having an exhibition
between pete & roger
its more likely to be the latter

be realistic at 35 yrs & 5 years retired, u cant expect him to go back
what for anyways
If PEte is a loser, than you must be the BIGEST clueless ever to know about tennis
i dont mind criticism but at least let that be constructiuon
& blabbing ur keyboard
:) :D

marcRD
02-17-2007, 12:27 PM
Retired players should promote tennis, not talk about players today as mediocre.
Listen to Rod Laver, the man said one real grand slam in this era would be worth as much as both his because of the competition which is alot better today than in his era.

That is a man with no ego, not afraid of his records to be broken. Rod Laver knows what he did was amazing and nothing will take it away from him, he will still be a legend. Sampras wants to be more than a legend, he wants to be remembered as the best. Federer is going to pass him and break all records and it will nto be because of the weak era, but because Federer is great.

No one repeats that much that this era is weak. Sampras says so in every single interview he is asked about Federer. It is just so bitter of him (even if it would been true). HE should be a gentleman like Laver and other all time greats.

Yoda
02-17-2007, 02:23 PM
Retired players should promote tennis, not talk about players today as mediocre.
Listen to Rod Laver, the man said one real grand slam in this era would be worth as much as both his because of the competition which is alot better today than in his era.

That is a man with no ego, not afraid of his records to be broken. Rod Laver knows what he did was amazing and nothing will take it away from him, he will still be a legend. Sampras wants to be more than a legend, he wants to be remembered as the best. Federer is going to pass him and break all records and it will nto be because of the weak era, but because Federer is great.

No one repeats that much that this era is weak. Sampras says so in every single interview he is asked about Federer. It is just so bitter of him (even if it would been true). HE should be a gentleman like Laver and other all time greats.

good post.

Corey Feldman
02-17-2007, 02:32 PM
always nice to hear from the great man :hatoff:
i really wish he would come back to Wimbledon... as a fan, commentator .. something.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
02-17-2007, 03:27 PM
Pete got taken out by "Baby-Fed" on Centre Court. Now "Jesus-Fed" is going to annihilate all his records and Pete simply cannot take it. He tried his level best to act gracious, but just can't help himself - the bitterness and jealousy comes through every time. I agree that Laver has a lot more class.

buzz
02-17-2007, 03:45 PM
well Laver is a lot older, and I believe the older you get the easier it is to handle these things classy

nanoman
02-17-2007, 04:11 PM
Pete has done nothing to elevate the sport of tennis and he knows it. The fear of having to change his name to Pete Who after Fed wins his 15th Slam is the reason he is in constant defensive mode.

nisha
02-17-2007, 05:32 PM
i have always found pete boring!!!, so this isnt surprising. simply having more slams doesnt mean your are a better player but roger is closing that on him too. at the end of the day most people would agree, compared to pete... roger is in a world of his own, and to give the credit to racket technology is ungracious and stupid. pete was a great player, but i think agassi was a BETTER player as he kept up the "newer" generation of players longer!

Byrd
02-17-2007, 05:53 PM
Pete and Roddick should make a club for people fed up of rogers dominance, pun intended.

Corey Feldman
02-17-2007, 06:40 PM
I know its not easy for Sampras to accept he will be passed so quickly, and he has to diss today's game just to make his records look more impressive but i do believe he respects Federer and knows/accepts that fed is a better player than he was.

Federer will never get proper recognition in america because they just dont get it when a 'foreigner' dominates the sport, its all about them and their glory days of the 80's, 90's.
to them tennis is inferior now that there is no Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Mcenroe, Connors sweeping the majors every year.
This mighty fed guy is only winning slams all the time because the rest of the world sucks, to them.
Pete is not that ignorant, but the fact is he couldnt dominate as much as Fed did in a 4 year stretch, looking back that makes his era look more competative - because he lost once in a while, the reality of that is he just wasnt as good at dominating all the time as Rogi is.

Peoples
02-17-2007, 07:31 PM
Look at the clowns playing today. It's crazy that someone like Fernando Gonzalez can even hit with a racket. It's the technology, see. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. That's why I'm back.


:haha:

Marine
02-17-2007, 07:32 PM
It's easier for Laver to say Fed's better, he didn't play him, and it's not his generation, we can't compare with Sampras.
I just think people forget quickly. Sampras was on another planet when he played Agassi etc... but it seems nobody remembers his amazing matches.
People who disliked him as a player just continue to dislike him as a man, that's all. :rolleyes:

BigAlbinoDonky
02-17-2007, 08:27 PM
Pete got taken out by "Baby-Fed" on Centre Court. Now "Jesus-Fed" is going to annihilate all his records and Pete simply cannot take it. He tried his level best to act gracious, but just can't help himself - the bitterness and jealousy comes through every time. I agree that Laver has a lot more class.

I'm glad you learned how to read. Where do you see that Pete "simply cannot take" his records being broken? He seems to completely realize this, and he isn't crying about it. Pete does want to be remembered as the greatest ever, what man who works his ass off and dominates like no other(up to that point) doesn't? He realizes that Roger is doing the same thing, only in a weaker pool of talent. There's nothing wrong with Pete bringing this to our attention. Rod Lover is a joke, don't bring him into a discussion about Sampras/Federer, true warriors of the game.

angiel
02-19-2007, 07:02 PM
I can't believe how sour Sampras comes across. I use to like him much better when he used to let the racket do the talking. Now it seems like he is just trying so hard to impress... :(


You know, I find is funny that everything Pete say you have a problem, and if it was said by someone else you would not have a problem with it, do you know that we are all entitled to our opinons.:sad: :sad:

angiel
02-19-2007, 07:17 PM
Pete has done nothing to elevate the sport of tennis and he knows it. The fear of having to change his name to Pete Who after Fed wins his 15th Slam is the reason he is in constant defensive mode.



And what has Federer done to elevates it so far, not a damm thing, so leave Pete alone, you are just green with envy of the great man.:devil: :mad: :o

tangerine_dream
02-19-2007, 07:23 PM
Good interview with Petey. I'm not surprised to see the paranoid Fedtards all up in arms overreacting and misconstruing everything he says as being some kind of veiled diss to today's players. I saw nothing sinister behind his gracious words. :shrug:

I'm looking forward to seeing what damage Pete can do on the seniors tour (hopefully take care of baby Rios who has no business being on the senior tour to begin with).

Fed=ATPTourkilla
02-19-2007, 08:36 PM
I'm glad you learned how to read. Where do you see that Pete "simply cannot take" his records being broken? He seems to completely realize this, and he isn't crying about it.

Oh yes he is. :) When his records go, he won't be remembered as #1 any more. So he has to pretend that the records aren't really going, that Fed's records are somehow "fake." Where do I see this? In just about everything he says. There are sly little digs all over the place - you don't have to look hard! (and other interviews have been worse than this one - at least here he pretends to be gracious). Examples of "sly little digs":

"People have mentioned to me: You should come back. There's not many great players today"

"He's winning these majors with pretty much ease. He's not challenged much."

"If there were three or four guys who were pushing him..."

"I don't see him slowing down or anyone slowing him down." (liked this one - "or anyone slowing him down") :)

"I would attack his backhand, which is his weaker side, and go from there. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone who can do that today" - this one is particularly silly as there are several players on tour with better backhands than Pete who have tried and failed to break down Fed's B/H. I mean Hewitt used to out-backhand Pete for god's sake. Federer's B/H is far superior to Pete's.

"James Blake is No. 6 in the world and I wonder what it would be like to play him at this stage of my life if he gave me a few months to prepare." - Translation: Even at 35 I can beat that sucker. Well, put your money where your mouth is, then! The Wimbledon W/C is waiting for you. If it is true that you can take out the world #6, you can certainly do some damage there. Better than being a bitter old man sniping from the sidelines.

"It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better..." Translation: He is a mediocre player with a good racquet. I don't think this one is really on. Gonzo is not mediocre, he was posting winner/ UE stats at the AO that I can't remember Pete ever getting close to (although of course it may just be the racquet!)

Feketepuss
02-19-2007, 08:45 PM
He comments about Gonzo were outrageous I think.

Sampras's problem is that post tennis, he has no life. Sure, he can live like a king until his dying days but mentally, it's unhealthy especially for someone who led a highly structured disciplined life. All he can do is bitch and protect his status in the record books because the past is all he has. It's a pretty sad predicament I think. Contrast him with Lance Armstrong who went from cycling training to full time cancer awareness work. Lance has a new life and isn't bitching about the past. Pete is a hollow shell sadly and interviews like these will become all the more common.

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-19-2007, 08:56 PM
Oh yes he is. :) When his records go, he won't be remembered as #1 any more. So he has to pretend that the records aren't really going, that Fed's records are somehow "fake." Where do I see this? In just about everything he says. There are sly little digs all over the place - you don't have to look hard! (and other interviews have been worse than this one - at least here he pretends to be gracious). Examples of "sly little digs":

"People have mentioned to me: You should come back. There's not many great players today"

"He's winning these majors with pretty much ease. He's not challenged much."

"If there were three or four guys who were pushing him..."

"I don't see him slowing down or anyone slowing him down." (liked this one - "or anyone slowing him down") :)

"I would attack his backhand, which is his weaker side, and go from there. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone who can do that today" - this one is particularly silly as there are several players on tour with better backhands than Pete who have tried and failed to break down Fed's B/H. I mean Hewitt used to out-backhand Pete for god's sake. Federer's B/H is far superior to Pete's.

"James Blake is No. 6 in the world and I wonder what it would be like to play him at this stage of my life if he gave me a few months to prepare." - Translation: Even at 35 I can beat that sucker. Well, put your money where your mouth is, then! The Wimbledon W/C is waiting for you. If it is true that you can take out the world #6, you can certainly do some damage there. Better than being a bitter old man sniping from the sidelines.

"It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better..." Translation: He is a mediocre player with a good racquet. I don't think this one is really on. Gonzo is not mediocre, he was posting winner/ UE stats at the AO that I can't remember Pete ever getting close to (although of course it may just be the racquet!)
It amazes me how much time people like you spend on things so trivial.

kobulingam
02-19-2007, 09:40 PM
Pete has done nothing to elevate the sport of tennis and he knows it. The fear of having to change his name to Pete Who after Fed wins his 15th Slam is the reason he is in constant defensive mode.

Yeah, and Sampras still has every single penny he earned on the tour and through endorsements. He still takes the free meals, etc. offered to him at restaraunts. He donates nothing, and never participated in charity events (until he recently started showing up to some events Agassi was organizing... I wonder how much appearance fee he got)?

He's a selfish bastard with a giant ego. He doesn't care about anyone except himself.

kobulingam
02-19-2007, 09:42 PM
i have always found pete boring!!!, so this isnt surprising. simply having more slams doesnt mean your are a better player but roger is closing that on him too. at the end of the day most people would agree, compared to pete... roger is in a world of his own, and to give the credit to racket technology is ungracious and stupid. pete was a great player, but i think agassi was a BETTER player as he kept up the "newer" generation of players longer!

I bet you Pete had access to better racquet technology when Baby Fed beat his ass down at Wimbledon. Agree?

kobulingam
02-19-2007, 09:45 PM
And what has Federer done to elevates it so far, not a damm thing, so leave Pete alone, you are just green with envy of the great man.:devil: :mad: :o

Federer does more around the world in a year than Sampras has dreamt of doing in his life. That's the truth.

It's a well known fact that Sampras is a selfish bastard. He's almost as money hungry as he is ego hungry.

marcRD
02-19-2007, 09:46 PM
This is sadly Sampras competitive nature speaking, I think he is a nice guy with an enormeous competitive nature and the way he talks about players today is the only way he can get it out of his system, his lust to compete against them must be spoken out as he ant compete against them any longer. He fought so hard to get all those records and to see them broken by Federer so fast and he cant do anything about them. The only way for him to compete against Federer is to speak bad about his opponents.

I am sure Gonzalez or Blake who are the ones Sampras really is insulting badly (aswell as Nadal in earlier interviews) would accept an exhibition and Sampras could have all time he wants to prepare. That would maybe stop all this btching from Sampras about these mediocre players.

kobulingam
02-19-2007, 09:51 PM
This is sadly Sampras competitive nature speaking, I think he is a nice guy with an enormeous competitive nature and the way he talks about players today is the only way he can get it out of his system, his lust to compete against them must be spoken out as he ant compete against them any longer. He fought so hard to get all those records and to see them broken by Federer so fast and he cant do anything about them. The only way for him to compete against Federer is to speak bad about his opponents.

I am sure Gonzalez or Blake who are the ones Sampras really is insulting badly (aswell as Nadal in earlier interviews) would accept an exhibition and Sampras could have all time he wants to prepare. That would maybe stop all this btching from Sampras about these mediocre players.


I would love to see Sampras (even go back a few years to get Peak Sampras via a time machine) face Nadal on clay.

Or Levy
02-19-2007, 09:52 PM
I think his main problem is boredom. His schedual made me want to kinda cry for him! How can a guy as young as 35 sit on his ass like that all day. I mean, he is *35*!!! I don't know, start a charity, go back to school? coach?

I just found it kind of depressing.

World Beater
02-19-2007, 09:53 PM
This is sadly Sampras competitive nature speaking, I think he is a nice guy with an enormeous competitive nature and the way he talks about players today is the only way he can get it out of his system, his lust to compete against them must be spoken out as he ant compete against them any longer. He fought so hard to get all those records and to see them broken by Federer so fast and he cant do anything about them. The only way for him to compete against Federer is to speak bad about his opponents.

I am sure Gonzalez or Blake who are the ones Sampras really is insulting badly (aswell as Nadal in earlier interviews) would accept an exhibition and Sampras could have all time he wants to prepare. That would maybe stop all this btching from Sampras about these mediocre players.

yep...agree...pete is not a bad guy but he does have a large ego. who can blame him? he won 14 slams after all. dlol...believe me past greats in other sports ARE MUCH WORSE. michael jordan, anyone? although considering he was way more legendary than sampras, he is still isnt as annoyed by the current generation combined with the fact that nobody is close to coming his achievements.

World Beater
02-19-2007, 09:54 PM
the funny thing is that pete forgets he lost to george bastl on grass. dlol...and he thinks he can beat nadal. in his prime , for sure...but now?

LMAO

World Beater
02-19-2007, 09:57 PM
It amazes me how much time people like you spend on things so trivial.

:haha:

:haha:

Bremen
02-19-2007, 10:10 PM
It amazes me how much time people like you spend on things so trivial.

You're here too aren't you?:cuckoo:

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-19-2007, 10:15 PM
You're here too aren't you?:cuckoo:
I'm not writing essays about a comment someone made, and what it actually means. I couldn't give a flying f.. what it actually means. I concentrate on the tennis, not some garbage talk.

BigAlbinoDonky
02-19-2007, 10:15 PM
Yeah, and Sampras still has every single penny he earned on the tour and through endorsements. He still takes the free meals, etc. offered to him at restaraunts. He donates nothing, and never participated in charity events (until he recently started showing up to some events Agassi was organizing... I wonder how much appearance fee he got)?

He's a selfish bastard with a giant ego. He doesn't care about anyone except himself.

Lmao....and you're Canadian. Owned.

And what percentage of $$$ do YOU give to charity Mr. Holier Than Thou?

Apemant
02-19-2007, 10:18 PM
Good interview with Petey. I'm not surprised to see the paranoid Fedtards all up in arms overreacting and misconstruing everything he says as being some kind of veiled diss to today's players. I saw nothing sinister behind his gracious words. :shrug:


Saying how the racquet technology turns mediocre players into great ones is the epitome of class and grace. As is the claim that noone today is capable of attacking Fed's BH - implying that he would've done it any better. That's pure BS.

But I don't hold it against Sampras; he is still too young to act as an old wiseman who doesn't mind the youngsters get better than him. The way Fed's looming over all of his records still very much hurts his pride. It's also very much human. Noone's gonna hang him for that.

Bremen
02-19-2007, 10:22 PM
I'm not writing essays about a comment someone made, and what it actually means. I couldn't give a flying f.. what it actually means. I concentrate on the tennis, not some garbage talk.

Ok well you're still 'wasting' your time here...

Apemant
02-19-2007, 10:23 PM
I would love to see Sampras (even go back a few years to get Peak Sampras via a time machine) face Nadal on clay.

Now c'mon, that's cruel. :devil:

But on grass, yes, I don't think it's so far fetched that even today's Pete would do some damage on a fast grass (not last year's Wimby though). His S&V was perfectly suited for that, and he would probably be able to recollect some of his old skills even now.

kobulingam
02-19-2007, 10:25 PM
Lmao....and you're Canadian. Owned.

And what percentage of $$$ do YOU give to charity Mr. Holier Than Thou?

Pardon?

I'm doing my masters and current have over 50k in debt and only have enough income (ontop of loans) to barely survive. But since you asked, I volunteer at the local foodbank and recently gave $300 to them.

So what is that... 300 divided by 0 = infinity % ????????

This isn't about me. This is about Sampras. People say Sampras did more than Federer- I ask what??? What did he do???? He's a selfish bastard who still has every single penny he's made.

Lee
02-19-2007, 10:28 PM
This isn't about me. This is about Sampras. People say Sampras did more than Federer- I ask what??? What did he do???? He's a selfish bastard who still has every single penny he's made.

Wow, I don't know Pete Sampras hires you as his accountant to file his tax return.

BigAlbinoDonky
02-19-2007, 10:30 PM
Pardon?

I'm doing my masters and current have over 50k in debt and only have enough income (ontop of loans) to barely survive. But since you asked, I volunteer at the local foodbank and recently gave $300 to them.

So what is that... 300 divided by 0 = infinity % ????????

This isn't about me. This is about Sampras. People say Sampras did more than Federer- I ask what??? What did he do???? He's a selfish bastard who still has every single penny he's made.

Oh imagine that, you're "doing" your masters and they're paying you for it so you can get out of debt? Your masters are merciful indeed. So you're not only an idiot, giving money that you don't have to people and working for free despite being far in debt, you also give less to the community than that horrible selfish bastard Pete Sampras. Only a Canadian would brag about this.

Lee
02-19-2007, 10:33 PM
Oh imagine that, you're "doing" your masters and they're paying you for it so you can get out of debt? Your masters are merciful indeed. So you're not only an idiot, giving money that you don't have to people and working for free despite being far in debt, you also give less to the community than that horrible selfish bastard Pete Sampras. Only a Canadian would brag about this.

Please don't group all Canadians. That poster doesn't represent all Canadians. Just like some posters here are idiots, but that doesn't mean their fellow countrymen here are idiot.

BigAlbinoDonky
02-19-2007, 10:41 PM
Please don't group all Canadians. That poster doesn't represent all Canadians. Just like some posters here are idiots, but that doesn't mean their fellow countrymen here are idiot.

I sure hope not.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
02-19-2007, 10:44 PM
Pardon?

I'm doing my masters and current have over 50k in debt and only have enough income (ontop of loans) to barely survive. But since you asked, I volunteer at the local foodbank and recently gave $300 to them.

So what is that... 300 divided by 0 = infinity % ????????

This isn't about me. This is about Sampras. People say Sampras did more than Federer- I ask what??? What did he do???? He's a selfish bastard who still has every single penny he's made.

I think that's taking it a bit far. I think Pete is a bit frustrated and embittered but I don't think he's completely evil. :)

trixtah
02-19-2007, 11:46 PM
Sampras is right, guys like James Blake, Boredo, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Gonzalez don't belong in the top 10, you know that this era is weak when you see perennial losers like these occupying the top 10. I wouldn't put it past Pete to comeback and whip all of these losers asses.

you've never held a racket in your life, have you?

world beater: nice tttriple post!

Sampras comes off as a sour old man because obviously he thrives on people kissing his ass. Now that everyone's lips are firmly planted on Federer's ass, he's jealous. I was walking near his car in Westwood with some friends--on the sidewalk--and he came out and told us to "get the fuck away" from his shitmobile. Not a good impression. True story. I don't care if he was having a bad day, but as a widely known face, acting like a dick is not a good thing to do. As for whoever it was comparing Federer's off court to Sampras? WTf?! Open your eyes and take off your rose colored glasses, possibly with sampras' name engraved

Corey Feldman
02-19-2007, 11:52 PM
not that i think any of the top10 players are clowns, but the top10 in Sampras' era was never always filled with the all time greats either..
blame the fedtards for everything,
talk about selective reading.
you do get some right Egits around here, as the irish would say :rolleyes:

some ppl cant even see when ex-players take digs at the tour they left and that made them, sad.
and i like Sampras btw.

nobama
02-20-2007, 12:13 AM
Good interview with Petey. I'm not surprised to see the paranoid Fedtards all up in arms overreacting and misconstruing everything he says as being some kind of veiled diss to today's players. I saw nothing sinister behind his gracious words. :shrug: :haha: Can you be more predictable. Yep everyone who disagrees with Pete is a 'fedtard.' :rolleyes:

Bremen
02-20-2007, 03:50 AM
:haha: Can you be more predictable. Yep everyone who disagrees with Pete is a 'fedtard.' :rolleyes:

Pretty much:rolleyes:

kobulingam
02-20-2007, 04:57 AM
I think that's taking it a bit far. I think Pete is a bit frustrated and embittered but I don't think he's completely evil. :)


Not completely, but many have complained how cheap and selfish he is. He has been known to be rude to waitresses (even when he's getting a free meal) and a really cheap tipper.

He's also known as someone who hates helping the less fortunate (which would improve Tennis' image like "NBA CARES" does for the NBA). Someone said Federer did less than Sampras outside of tennis matches, which is absolutely ridiculous.

kobulingam
02-20-2007, 05:03 AM
Oh imagine that, you're "doing" your masters and they're paying you for it so you can get out of debt? Your masters are merciful indeed. So you're not only an idiot, giving money that you don't have to people and working for free despite being far in debt, you also give less to the community than that horrible selfish bastard Pete Sampras. Only a Canadian would brag about this.

Bragging about what? I'm not using my real name in this forum, what kind of credit am I getting for responding honestly to your dumb question about the % of my income I donate.

My debt is from my undergraduate years not from Grad school. Now I don't make enough to pay down my undergrad debt. And you call me dumb for giving money, well guess what there are a lot of people worse off than me. Even in a first world country like Canada/USA, there are people struggling to find meals.

You brought me into the discussion needlessly. You can't defend the accusations I made of Sampras, so you find some way to attack me (pathetic attempt).

It's "WELL KNOWN" that Sampras didn't give 2 pieces of monkey shit for the less fortunate. He is also known as condescending, rude, and in possession of a giant EGO.

oz_boz
02-20-2007, 09:25 AM
Good interview with Petey. I'm not surprised to see the paranoid Fedtards all up in arms overreacting and misconstruing everything he says as being some kind of veiled diss to today's players. I saw nothing sinister behind his gracious words. :shrug:

Fedtards like Blaze-2004 you mean?

I also think he seems to take a few digs into today's game, mentioning mediocre players looking good and such. Sounds a tad bitter to me.

If he thinks that tennis is easier to dominate today he's probably wrong - it's just different. After all he played in an era that suited his game perfectly - fast surfaces, rackets not allowing good returners to dominate. Nowadays you must have a great baseline game with superb attack and defense, hence Federer's success. I believe Roger could have won a lot in the 90's (since he proved successful in S&V earlier in his career), but probably not as much as now. Same for Sampras, he won a lot that he likely wouldn't have if he played 10 years later.

Players like Nadal in Wimbly final? *cough* MaliVai *cough*

nobama
02-20-2007, 11:35 AM
Fedtards like Blaze-2004 you mean?

I also think he seems to take a few digs into today's game, mentioning mediocre players looking good and such. Sounds a tad bitter to me.
She throws the term 'fedtard' around and then never backs it up when challenged. I'm sure everyone at somepoint has been labeled a 'fedtard' by tangy. :lol:

Pete's good at getting subtle digs in, backhanded complements. He's probably just bitter or jealous because everyone's kissing Roger's ass now.

Bremen
02-20-2007, 01:05 PM
She throws the term 'fedtard' around and then never backs it up when challenged. I'm sure everyone at somepoint has been labeled a 'fedtard' by tangy. :lol:

Pete's good at getting subtle digs in, backhanded complements. He's probably just bitter or jealous because everyone's kissing Roger's ass now.

Didn't she invent the term? I guess she's entitled...

Xristos
02-20-2007, 01:19 PM
Pete will win Wimbly in 08.

JackPumpkinHead
02-20-2007, 02:25 PM
The thing about racket technology is not that it makes mediocre players good and good players great, thats all relative. Its not like only the top 25 get to use the new rackets, all players get the benefit of using them and some still suck.

THe new rackets argument about how it helps Feds domination is stupid, that argument would only work if he was the only player with a new racket. Since all players get to use those rackets its all relative.

angiel
02-20-2007, 03:07 PM
Bragging about what? I'm not using my real name in this forum, what kind of credit am I getting for responding honestly to your dumb question about the % of my income I donate.

My debt is from my undergraduate years not from Grad school. Now I don't make enough to pay down my undergrad debt. And you call me dumb for giving money, well guess what there are a lot of people worse off than me. Even in a first world country like Canada/USA, there are people struggling to find meals.

You brought me into the discussion needlessly. You can't defend the accusations I made of Sampras, so you find some way to attack me (pathetic attempt).

It's "WELL KNOWN" that Sampras didn't give 2 pieces of monkey shit for the less fortunate. He is also known as condescending, rude, and in possession of a giant EGO.


How much of your money you gave away and how large is your EGO, if you live in a glass you should not throw stone, and I guess you care about the less fortunate, right.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

angiel
02-20-2007, 03:12 PM
She throws the term 'fedtard' around and then never backs it up when challenged. I'm sure everyone at somepoint has been labeled a 'fedtard' by tangy. :lol:

Pete's good at getting subtle digs in, backhanded complements. He's probably just bitter or jealous because everyone's kissing Roger's ass now.



The only one kissing Roger ass is you my dear friend.:rolleyes: :devil: :mad:

angiel
02-20-2007, 03:22 PM
Not completely, but many have complained how cheap and selfish he is. He has been known to be rude to waitresses (even when he's getting a free meal) and a really cheap tipper.

He's also known as someone who hates helping the less fortunate (which would improve Tennis' image like "NBA CARES" does for the NBA). Someone said Federer did less than Sampras outside of tennis matches, which is absolutely ridiculous.



For a person who is ranting about how bad Pete Sampras is, you sure seen to know a lot about his personal life, do you live with him? I have to wonder??:confused: :confused: :(

nobama
02-20-2007, 03:30 PM
The only one kissing Roger ass is you my dear friend.:rolleyes: :devil: :mad:Ha, you're funny. I guess you didn't know that Mats Wilander said in the most recent issue of Tennis magazine that he thinks Roger is better than Pete. And this from Andre Agassi:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/sports/tennis/17agassi.html?em&ex=1171861200&en=a9a7d8451253cfdb&ei=5087%0A
Agassi took a break from his schedule to watch nearly all of the Australian Open, marveling at the dominance of the champion, Roger Federer.

“The guy’s the best in the world at four or five areas of the game,” Agassi said. “That’s absurd.”

Agassi said he did not think Federer’s lack of competition took away from the drama. “If anyone knows about sports, they know they’re watching history,” he said.

Agassi said he could not wait for the French Open, the only Grand Slam event Federer has not won.

And Laver quoted recently:
“Records are there to be equalled and broken,” said the man whose Grand Slams in the amateur days of 1962 and in 1969 after tennis went open are revered as the sport’s greatest accomplishments. “If Roger could pull it off — and he has every chance — I intend to be one of the first people shaking his hand. That would make me extremely proud.”

“Roger is my type of guy,” said the 68-year-old. “I feel at ease with him when we sit and talk. He’s a nice quiet individual. He’s maturing every year, in fact every week, and just enjoys the sport. It’s clear he loves the life and is prepared to work hard, not just to maintain his standard but to improve his level. He is so good, he could begin to think he’s above everyone else, but he views himself as part of this great sport, and that’s something I respect.

“Do I see anything of myself in him? I’m a lefty and he’s a righty. But he plays the game in the style I like to see it played, using that lovely one-handed backhand that enables him to have such a variety of shots. It’s not easy to play, which is why so few players use it. But it gives you the ability to invent shots. It’s the way the game was meant to be played, although there have been many great double-handers, such as Connors and Borg. But when you study the way Roger plays, it seems effortless. Plus he goes about his business in the way I tried to do.”

And Ken Rosewall after the AO:
Rosewall was chuffed to meet the champion, saying: "I feel honoured that my name should be mentioned in the same breath as Roger Federer."

Rosewall played five matches in the 1971 open at Kooyong after receiving a first-round bye in a 64-man draw. He said he couldn't compare his efforts to Federer's.

"The way he plays is unbelievable," Rosewall said. "While Roger Federer remains fit, keen and eager to win, he'll be a tough player to beat. And while I had my good years and played good tennis, I was not like Roger Federer. He has every shot in the book, and he does it awfully well."

Those are just recent comments. But if that isn't ass kissing I don't know what is.

angiel
02-20-2007, 04:05 PM
Sampras Could Still Reach Wimbledon Second Week, Annacone Says

By Ravi Ubha

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Pete Sampras could reach at least the second week of Wimbledon if he decided to come out of retirement, the record 14-time Grand Slam champion's former coach said.

``If he had the right lead-in and the right practice, there's not a lot of guys I would feel uncomfortable about him playing,'' Paul Annacone, who coached Sampras for more than six years, said in an interview.

After quitting tennis in 2002, the 35-year-old Sampras faced fellow American Robby Ginepri in an exhibition in April and played World Team Tennis, a pro league, in July. Last month, Sampras announced he would play seniors tennis by committing to an Outback Series tournament in Boston in May and last week added an event in Charlotte in September.

Sampras, who won half his majors on the grass courts of Wimbledon, still has the game to make the round of 16 at the All England Club, according to Annacone.

``I have absolutely no problem saying that, given the draw and some other stuff, but I don't think that would be a stretch at all,'' he said.

Sampras won 64 titles and earned more than $43 million in prize money in 14 years, capping his career by defeating Andre Agassi in New York for a fifth U.S. Open title. This July, he'll be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

Since quitting the game, Sampras said he's spent much of his time playing golf in California and spending time with his two sons, four-year-old Christian and 1 1/2-year-old Ryan.

Ruled Out Return

Kevin Callanan, Sampras's agent, couldn't be reached for comment about Annacone's remarks. Sampras last month ruled out a return to Wimbledon -- and the professional circuit -- though added he would have a chance on grass with his serve-and-volley game because most players now stay on the baseline rather than come to the net.

Rafael Nadal, the two-time defending French Open champion on clay, reached the 2006 Wimbledon final by sticking to the baseline before he was eventually beaten by top-ranked Roger Federer, who captured a fourth straight title.

The men's tour ``is a whole different lifestyle and I'm done with that,'' Sampras said in a Jan. 30 conference call. ``That being said, I am hitting the ball pretty well. I've been hitting pretty consistently for the past six months. I can still play at a pretty good level.''

Annacone, who coaches four-time Wimbledon semifinalist Tim Henman part-time and became a men's coach with the U.K.'s Lawn Tennis Association in November, watched Sampras play four or five times last fall.

``Since last September he's put a lot more emphasis in getting into shape,'' Annacone said. ``If Pete was playing on grass for one tournament, there's not a lot of guys who I would favor over him.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Ravi Ubha in London at rubha@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: February 19, 2007 21:39 EST

angiel
02-20-2007, 04:29 PM
Ha, you're funny. I guess you didn't know that Mats Wilander said in the most recent issue of Tennis magazine that he thinks Roger is better than Pete. And this from Andre Agassi:



And Laver quoted recently:


And Ken Rosewall after the AO:


Those are just recent comments. But if that isn't ass kissing I don't know what is.


So because Mats Wilander say so it is so, and his he kissing Roger ass and is andre kissing Roger ass also, get real will you.

You love to quote all these comments from former players, like their opinions are gospel truth, they use to say the same thing about Pete Sampras not so long ago, so nothing new in their comments.

maldini
02-20-2007, 04:35 PM
well i'm not so sure about that, he'd have to practise a lot....
i mean he even lost to bastl there back in 2002 :o

stebs
02-20-2007, 04:42 PM
All this talk is total rubbish. We saw what Sampras has left on grass courts in the last few years of his career. Being taken to five by Barry Cowan. Losing a set at Queens to Arvind Parmar. Defeat to George Bastl.

The game would be too much for him now days. Any decent player would demolish him.

Bobby
02-20-2007, 04:46 PM
I think speculation like this leads nowhere. He was great, but hasn't been playing for a while. It's like asking who would win, Nadal or Borg. Nobody knows.

R.Federer
02-20-2007, 04:48 PM
It's like asking who would win, Nadal or Borg. Nobody knows.

On grass or clay? ;)

Ariadne
02-20-2007, 04:52 PM
Why are posts like these not relegated to the Sampras forum?

RonE
02-20-2007, 05:15 PM
I loved Sampras he was my favourite player back in the day. But seriously, all this talk about how he could give Roger a run for his money, how he would be "licking his chops" against the likes of Nadal, how he could do well on grass again... Either go out there and do the deed or just stop talking about it.

Piss or get off the pot!

adee-gee
02-20-2007, 05:16 PM
Why are posts like these not relegated to the Sampras forum?
Why don't you ask the same question about the 10,000 Federer threads? :retard:

cmurray
02-20-2007, 05:21 PM
I loved Sampras he was my favourite player back in the day. But seriously, all this talk about how he could give Roger a run for his money, how he would be "licking his chops" against the likes of Nadal, how he could do well on grass again... Either go out there and do the deed or just stop talking about it.

Piss or get off the pot!

Indeed. As others have pointed out - Bastl anyone?????

And I can say with absolute certainty that he wouldn't get anywhere NEAR Federer on grass. He couldn't beat him when he was playing better and Roger was playing worse....why would anyone think he'd have a better shot at it now? And honestly, I'm not altogether certain that he would beat Rafa either.

Fergie
02-20-2007, 05:29 PM
Why are posts like these not relegated to the Sampras forum?

The same thread is already there :p

bigbhoy
02-20-2007, 05:30 PM
All this talk is total rubbish. We saw what Sampras has left on grass courts in the last few years of his career. Being taken to five by Barry Cowan. Losing a set at Queens to Arvind Parmar. Defeat to George Bastl.

The game would be too much for him now days. Any decent player would demolish him.

You only need to watch 'Rocky Balboa' to see what old-timers could do against the modern day champs.

He could comeback at Wimbledon, take the game to all the young guns, beat them all hands down then reach the final. He would obviously play Federer. They'd get 2 sets each, then Fed would win the 5th set tie-break 7-5. The crowd would go wild & applause would spill outside with all those watching on the monitors around the complex.

Sampras would bow to the standing ovation he's getting, take off his shirt & throw it into the crowd. He'd run over to Federer, they'd cry & have a little cuddle. Federer would choke on his chest hair & croak it after a few secs of breathing in nothing but thick Sampras carpet.

Therefore they'd have no option but to default it & award the trophy to Sampras. Thus, he'd win Wimbledon one last time! :worship:

Byrd
02-20-2007, 05:33 PM
You only need to watch 'Rocky Balboa' to see what old-timers could do against the modern day champs.

He could comeback at Wimbledon, take the game to all the young guns, beat them all hands down then reach the final. He would obviously play Federer. They'd get 2 sets each, then Fed would win the 5th set tie-break 7-5. The crowd would go wild & applause would spill outside with all those watching on the monitors around the complex.

Sampras would bow to the standing ovation he's getting, take off his shirt & throw it into the crowd. He'd run over to Federer, they'd cry & have a little cuddle. Federer would choke on his chest hair & croak it after a few secs of breathing in nothing but thick Sampras carpet.

Therefore they'd have no option but to default it & award the trophy to Sampras. Thus, he'd win Wimbledon one last time! :worship:


You watch too many films, the real scenario, sampras plays 1st round and loses to diego hartfield in straight sets, END.

Action Jackson
02-20-2007, 05:35 PM
You mean Sampras's flight to London will reach Wimbledon by the 2nd week?

Ariadne
02-20-2007, 05:39 PM
The same thread is already there :p

Then that would make this one redundant. ;)

R.Federer
02-20-2007, 06:07 PM
Annacone is doing a disservice to Sampras by talking like this. It just makes people perceive Sampras and the Sampras machine trying to make some inroads to remind people how great Sampras was. No one doubts his place in the game. But constant reminders to the public only serve to erode this and replace it with suspicions that he is embittered somehow.

Bremen
02-20-2007, 06:10 PM
Annacone is doing a disservice to Sampras by talking like this. It just makes people perceive Sampras and the Sampras machine trying to make some inroads to remind people how great Sampras was. No one doubts his place in the game. But constant reminders to the public only serve to erode this and replace it with suspicions that he is embittered somehow.

R.Federer...is that a young Fed with Jimmy Connors??? What a cute picture! Do you have a larger version somewhere...thanks!

nobama
02-20-2007, 06:16 PM
So because Mats Wilander say so it is so, and his he kissing Roger ass and is andre kissing Roger ass also, get real will you.

You love to quote all these comments from former players, like their opinions are gospel truth, they use to say the same thing about Pete Sampras not so long ago, so nothing new in their comments.
I'm just responding to your post that I'm the only one who kisses Roger's ass. Clearly that's not the case. I have no doubt that these guys were kissing Pete's ass back in the day. And Pete can't handle the fact that they've found someone new to gush over.

Jim Courier
02-20-2007, 06:50 PM
He could comeback at Wimbledon, take the game to all the young guns, beat them all hands down then reach the final. He would obviously play Federer. They'd get 2 sets each, then Fed would win the 5th set tie-break 7-5.
It will be a dark day when there is a 5th set breaker at Wimbledon.

Corey Feldman
02-20-2007, 10:00 PM
You watch too many films, the real scenario, sampras plays 1st round and loses to diego hartfield in straight sets, END.:lol:
not the end...
next Hartfield beats Federer in the qfs, Rascon in the semis and then Oscar Hernandez in the final of Wimbledon.

Corey Feldman
02-20-2007, 10:03 PM
Pete might actually do well at wimby if he came back, he's still young enough... maybe after a few matches.
thing is, he did retire on a high - just winning a slam.
but no way would he be back in contention for majors imo.

he should never have retired in the first place when he did, its not like he sucked.
a bit too carried away with the story book ending if you ask me, and now 5 years down the line... perhaps he's feeling the affect of it.

Raquel
02-20-2007, 11:41 PM
Pete's a legend obviously, but there does seem to be a bit of resentment towards Roger and the game today. I don't think you have to be nit picking too hard to see it either. Look at this quote in the answer about how to beat Roger - "I would attack his backhand, which is his weaker side, and go from there. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone who can do that today so he can out-athletic these guys from the back court because of what he can do on the run."

Unfortunately? Obviously he thinks it's "unfortunate" that Roger is winning so much and that not enough people are playing the game he thinks will beat Roger.

Also to say going to the net is the way to beat Roger - it's not that clear cut. Andy Roddick played a game similar to the way Pete describes against Roger at the Australian Open and won only 9 of 31 net approaches, so it's not like Roger can't handle having to come up with passing shots.

As for his comments on Blake and Gonzalez, as someone said - either do the deed or say nothing. It's easy to say it but the reality might be very different. Justin Gimelstob says Pete is playing at a level higher than anyone except Roger, but in that article he was basing that on Pete "dominating exhibitions" against Ginepri and Roddick. How seriously can you take those results? And can you really compare those performances from Roddick and Ginepri in exhibitions to what Pete would face if he competitively played Nadal or Roddick or any of the other top 10 guys, who he is apparently playing at a higher level than, in a Grand Slam match?

spencercarlos
02-21-2007, 12:18 AM
Q&A: Pete Sampras

[I]The Pistol raps on his comeback and Roger Federer
SI: What happens if you play at higher level in Boston than you expect? Would you be tempted to keep playing?

Sampras: That's a good question. I'm curious myself as to what it will feel like. I will tell you that in the last months I have been hitting the ball better today then I did when I was playing. A lot of it has to do with technology. I'm using a bigger racket. Technology is taking the game to a new level and the last year or so I have taken advantage of that. I am serving just as hard. I'm hitting the ball with more control. I think my racket head has a lot to do with that.

Yes for sure you are hitting better now than before :rolleyes:


SI: You played against Roger Federer once at Wimbledon 2001.

Sampras: And lost 7-5 in the fifth.

SI: What would be your game plan to beat him?

Sampras: I would try to take his timing away and come in and use my serve and aggressive style.

Yes because at Wimbledon 2001 you played Federer from the back of the court and lost 7-5 in the third :rolleyes:


SI: Who do you think is the more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods or Federer?

Sampras: Good question. As far as pure domination, it's hard to say because I find golf harder to dominate than tennis. For Tiger to do what he has done, he has to worry about a field of players but he's not as much in control of how it goes compared to Roger. For Roger, it's just one on one. He has to worry about seven guys and seven guys only.

One of the most ridiculous remarks ever. In golf you perform and do your stuff alone, the other guys don`t affect your performance at all, while in tennis the other player´s game does. There is no comparisson :rolleyes:



SI: You are 35 -- not that old.

Sampras: It is true. Look at what guys are playing with today. It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. It's something I'll always think about.
Yeah Pete first Federer has no competition, no rackets are making Federer play better. :rolleyes:
And for the record Gonzalez has been known as the hardest hitter of the ball since 2002. Safin blew him off the court with his sheer power in 2000 Usopen and Australian Open 2002.
Very ridiculous indeed.

World Beater
02-21-2007, 04:10 AM
the funny thing is that superior raquet technology was available when pete was playing... he was just so adamant about his using his stone age st.vincent raquet frame. dlol...wilson hated him for it because he wouldnt subscribe to paint jobs.

calvinhobbes
02-21-2007, 05:13 AM
Every man has the inalienable right to his own nostalgia. Every human being must stay silent when nostalgia speaks. Nostalgia is as respectable as is death.:o :o :o

nobama
02-21-2007, 08:03 AM
the funny thing is that superior raquet technology was available when pete was playing... he was just so adamant about his using his stone age st.vincent raquet frame. dlol...wilson hated him for it because he wouldnt subscribe to paint jobs.And hasn't Pete said he wished he would have used a bigger racquet on clay?

angiel
02-21-2007, 02:32 PM
the funny thing is that superior raquet technology was available when pete was playing... he was just so adamant about his using his stone age st.vincent raquet frame. dlol...wilson hated him for it because he wouldnt subscribe to paint jobs.



:) :D I fine it so funny that all of you are ranting and raging about what Pete Sampras have to say in his interview, then guys you are all looking like fools, because if Roger Federer and the others guys on the ATP tour are doing so great, what Pete have to say should not matter are touch so much nerves here, and it surely did, so guess what, what he said have some truth to it and a lot of us here dont like to hear the truth,.....:eek: :eek:

angiel
02-21-2007, 02:58 PM
Arguments Says:

Pete was great, Roger is great as well. The only difference is that Roger when he retires will be called the greatest player of all time, Pete will be one of the greats. I am a sampras fan, and I grew up watching Sampras play. When sampras says the competition was tough back in his time, he is absolutely correct, and if you disagree I am not sure why anyone would think that. Back in pete era, there used to serve and volley, and baseline players as well. Tennis had more variety, now it is just power tennis and who can hit the bigger forehand. One of the reasons I love Rog play because we can actually see some shot making, other matches are just bang bang tennis.

What makes a great athlete truly great is their hunger to compete and win. Their unwillingness to want to share their glory, that is what makes them special. Whether it is Tiger or Schumacher they played to be the best, Schumacher was not subtle he was more arrogant and did whatever it takes to win. Tiger is more gracious, but any great athlete from any sport if you look at their history has that fire in them to be the best.

Sampras was the best in his era. If Fed is going to beat him and be the best. Do you honestly believe Pete shouldnt feel an ounce of sadness. He is after all human, 14 was good enough, I thought that record would hold for a long time, but a new guy comes in makes his achievements look so petty and everyone has forgotten what pete did.

Despite all that Pete is as gracious can be. What is wrong with Pete thinking that he could give Fed a run for his money. Whether this is true or realistic or not it is not important, but the point is Pete knows his abilities better than anyone else. He has every right to believe in himself. Who are we judge and say that he cant dream about the fact he and Fed would have had great rivalry.

What would he have liked him to say. Pete: I know I suck, Fed is just so much better than me, he would kick my butt, he is the best. Even if this is the truth, why should he say this, belief is what makes a champion a true champion.

I think people are just trying to dig up controversy with what Pete is saying. Pete is reflecting on his era and his thoughts as a tennis player. He has earned that much right after achieving so much, we should let him speak his mind.


Posted February 21st, 2007 at 3:28 am

World Beater
02-21-2007, 07:18 PM
:) :D I fine it so funny that all of you are ranting and raging about what Pete Sampras have to say in his interview, then guys you are all looking like fools, because if Roger Federer and the others guys on the ATP tour are doing so great, what Pete have to say should not matter are touch so much nerves here, and it surely did, so guess what, what he said have some truth to it and a lot of us here dont like to hear the truth,.....:eek: :eek:

:haha:

:awww:

if you are going to post a thread, people are going to comment on it...its a message board after all. the only person raging and ranting is you...im the one laughing however. some valid points have been put forward on both sides of the argument, but you only seem to be receptive to only one side....did you honestly expect the love for sampras to gush through on gm...if thats your expectation, you should put this in the sampras subforum.

TennisLurker
02-21-2007, 08:22 PM
Federer´s domination is so absolute, that one could argue comparing Fed to Navratilova or Graf makes more sense than comparing him to Sampras.

I watched tennis all the 90´s and there were always players that gave Sampras problems like Ferreira, Korda, Krajicek, no one gives Federer problems, maybe Nadal but he has been out of form lately.
Most players felt that at least with Sampras they could stay on the court, and maybe take him to a tie break and win there, or get a lucky break, with Federer most players think they dont have a chance and try to not be anihilated or get trashed, Federer loses less time per year than Sampras in his best years, Sampras was upset more often.

Federer is also a much much much better clay courter than Pete, Fed is in fact one of the best players on clay in the world, he would probably still be one of the best players in the world on glass, volcanic rocks or ice.

I dont think there is lack of depth nowadays, Federer and Agassi have played plenty of times, and who cant see Federer beating Chang, Courier, Ivanisevic etc?

kapranos
02-21-2007, 08:25 PM
There is no debate: Federer's toe is greater than Sampras.

And Sampras needs to STFU, because we don't want to hear about him. His 1-dimensional game allowed him to win Wimbledon 20 times, but he's useless on clay, because on clay you need to know how to play tennis to win.

World Beater
02-21-2007, 08:57 PM
There is no debate: Federer's toe is greater than Sampras.

And Sampras needs to STFU, because we don't want to hear about him. His 1-dimensional game allowed him to win Wimbledon 20 times, but he's useless on clay, because on clay you need to know how to play tennis to win.

LMAO

:haha:

World Beater
02-21-2007, 09:02 PM
Federer´s domination is so absolute, that one could argue comparing Fed to Navratilova or Graf makes more sense than comparing him to Sampras.

I watched tennis all the 90´s and there were always players that gave Sampras problems like Ferreira, Korda, Krajicek, no one gives Federer problems, maybe Nadal but he has been out of form lately.
Most players felt that at least with Sampras they could stay on the court, and maybe take him to a tie break and win there, or get a lucky break, with Federer most players think they dont have a chance and try to not be anihilated or get trashed, Federer loses less time per year than Sampras in his best years, Sampras was upset more often.

Federer is also a much much much better clay courter than Pete, Fed is in fact one of the best players on clay in the world, he would probably still be one of the best players in the world on glass, volcanic rocks or ice.

I dont think there is lack of depth nowadays, Federer and Agassi have played plenty of times, and who cant see Federer beating Chang, Courier, Ivanisevic etc?

federer vs goran...when fed was a baby...
2001 Milan
Italy Carpet Q Federer 6-4 6-4
Stats
2000 London
England Hard R16 Federer 7-5 6-3
Stats

baby federer vs chang
2002 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R64 Federer 6-3 6-1 6-3
Stats
2002 Australian Open
Australia Hard R128 Federer 6-4 6-4 6-3
Stats
2001 Monte Carlo TMS
Monaco Clay R64 Federer 6-4 6-3
Stats
2000 Halle
Germany Grass Q Chang 7-5 6-2
Stats
2000 Australian Open
Australia Hard R128 Federer 6-4 6-4 7-6(5)
Stats

kobulingam
02-21-2007, 09:43 PM
federer vs goran...when fed was a baby...
2001 Milan
Italy Carpet Q Federer 6-4 6-4
Stats
2000 London
England Hard R16 Federer 7-5 6-3
Stats

baby federer vs chang
2002 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R64 Federer 6-3 6-1 6-3
Stats
2002 Australian Open
Australia Hard R128 Federer 6-4 6-4 6-3
Stats
2001 Monte Carlo TMS
Monaco Clay R64 Federer 6-4 6-3
Stats
2000 Halle
Germany Grass Q Chang 7-5 6-2
Stats
2000 Australian Open
Australia Hard R128 Federer 6-4 6-4 7-6(5)
Stats


Who cares about Goran and Chang? The main point is that Samrpas would have beat the living crap out of Baby Fed on any surface. And on grass he would have layed a 6-0,6-0,6-0 beatdown on him.

Byrd
02-21-2007, 09:53 PM
^Lol at the Irony in this post, Sampras beatdown on baby fed on grass, lololol

kapranos
02-21-2007, 09:58 PM
^Lol at the Irony in this post, Sampras beatdown on baby fed on grass, lololol

Didn't Federer wipe the floor with Sampras at Wimbledon years ago? Imagine what he would do now.

Byrd
02-21-2007, 10:03 PM
Didn't Federer wipe the floor with Sampras at Wimbledon years ago? Imagine what he would do now.

Yeh thats the irony in what he posted, when fed was young he beat him at wimbledon, yet according to him he would lose 6-0 6-0 6-0 :p

Apemant
02-21-2007, 10:24 PM
Yeh thats the irony in what he posted, when fed was young he beat him at wimbledon, yet according to him he would lose 6-0 6-0 6-0 :p

Actually, his post was sarcastic... I just wanted to reply to him saying that he should make the sarcasm more obvious, else someone might take him seriously :devil:

Byrd
02-21-2007, 10:27 PM
Actually, his post was sarcastic... I just wanted to reply to him saying that he should make the sarcasm more obvious, else someone might take him seriously :devil:

He needs a bit more practice it seems :p

World Beater
02-21-2007, 11:10 PM
:yeah: Actually, his post was sarcastic... I just wanted to reply to him saying that he should make the sarcasm more obvious, else someone might take him seriously :devil:

tangerine_dream
02-22-2007, 01:40 AM
mirkaland and angiel totally deserve one another. :lol:

I'm sure everyone at somepoint has been labeled a 'fedtard' by tangy. :lol:
The only people I call Fedtards are Fedtards like yourself who have clearly earned the label.

Corey Feldman
02-22-2007, 01:59 AM
Didn't Federer wipe the floor with Sampras at Wimbledon years ago? Imagine what he would do now.7-6 5-7 6-4 6-7 7-5 win was hardly a floor wiping.

nobama
02-22-2007, 05:52 AM
mirkaland and angiel totally deserve one another. :lol:


The only people I call Fedtards are Fedtards like yourself who have clearly earned the label.
:bs:

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 08:14 AM
Arguments Says:

Pete was great, Roger is great as well. The only difference is that Roger when he retires will be called the greatest player of all time, Pete will be one of the greats. I am a sampras fan, and I grew up watching Sampras play. When sampras says the competition was tough back in his time, he is absolutely correct, and if you disagree I am not sure why anyone would think that. Back in pete era, there used to serve and volley, and baseline players as well. Tennis had more variety, now it is just power tennis and who can hit the bigger forehand. One of the reasons I love Rog play because we can actually see some shot making, other matches are just bang bang tennis.

What makes a great athlete truly great is their hunger to compete and win. Their unwillingness to want to share their glory, that is what makes them special. Whether it is Tiger or Schumacher they played to be the best, Schumacher was not subtle he was more arrogant and did whatever it takes to win. Tiger is more gracious, but any great athlete from any sport if you look at their history has that fire in them to be the best.

Sampras was the best in his era. If Fed is going to beat him and be the best. Do you honestly believe Pete shouldnt feel an ounce of sadness. He is after all human, 14 was good enough, I thought that record would hold for a long time, but a new guy comes in makes his achievements look so petty and everyone has forgotten what pete did.

Despite all that Pete is as gracious can be. What is wrong with Pete thinking that he could give Fed a run for his money. Whether this is true or realistic or not it is not important, but the point is Pete knows his abilities better than anyone else. He has every right to believe in himself. Who are we judge and say that he cant dream about the fact he and Fed would have had great rivalry.

What would he have liked him to say. Pete: I know I suck, Fed is just so much better than me, he would kick my butt, he is the best. Even if this is the truth, why should he say this, belief is what makes a champion a true champion.

I think people are just trying to dig up controversy with what Pete is saying. Pete is reflecting on his era and his thoughts as a tennis player. He has earned that much right after achieving so much, we should let him speak his mind.


Posted February 21st, 2007 at 3:28 am

Nice post.

I agree with there being more variety in the 90's, but that doesn't mean Pete would dominate now. His game was tailor made for the mostly faster surfaces of then, and smaller rackets that didn't allow the great returns of now - Murray beating Roddick for example. I definitely believe Pete benefited from playing in the 90's, just as Roger does now.

To those complaining about the weak era of now: wait until the era is gone and over - another ten years that is, when the Nadal generation has stopped doing any damage. Before that, such judgements are premature.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
02-22-2007, 10:50 AM
mirkaland and angiel totally deserve one another. :lol:

The only people I call Fedtards are Fedtards like yourself who have clearly earned the label.

I'm very proud to be called a Fedtard. I don't know why you're so bothered about it, Mirkaland. :D

angiel
02-22-2007, 05:48 PM
Pete Sampras discusses Fatherhood and a Playdate with Andre Agassi.

Celebrity Baby Blog
By Joyce, CBB Correspondent
Feb 21, 07.



Tennis ace Pete Sampras, who will temporarily come out of retirement this spring to compete in an over-30 tour, recently did a Q&A with Sports Illustrated and talked about retired life as a father - to sons Christian Charles, 4, and Ryan Nikolaos, 18 months, with wife, actress Bridgette Wilson-Sampras - and why he wants to meet up with Andre Agassi again.


A typical day for Pete, who retired from the ATP tour in 2003 after winning a record 14 grand slams, is still full of athletic activities, but revolves around his children as well. He wakes up at 7 or 8 and spends time with his sons before they go to pre-school. During the day, Pete, 35, plays golf, tennis three times a week, basketball twice a week, hits the gym and unwinds with a game of poker. When 5 o'clock rolls around though, he's back home.

I'll get back and spend a few hours with my kids before they go to bed...I spend a lot of time with my kids. I like taking my older son out to lunch. We go to Beverly Hills to have lunch and we have that time together.

The 7-time Wimbledon champ also hopes to make time for Andre, his former friendly archrival - not for a tennis match, but rather for their kids.

I would [describe us as friends today]. Not anything where we stay in touch week to week, but if he were ever in L.A. or I were in Las Vegas, I think we would reach out to one another just to get together or have our kids play. The great thing that happened with us is that everything we went through, completing for major titles, I think we came out better friends than when we went into it. It's a credit to who we are and what we represent.

Andre, who won eight majors, is married to another tennis great, 22-time grand slam champion Steffi Graf, and the couple has two children, son Jaden Gil, 5, and daughter, Jaz Elle, 3.

Pete will return to the court on May 2nd in the Outback Champions Series in Boston and will be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in July.

Source: Sports Illustrated

angiel
02-22-2007, 05:50 PM
I'm very proud to be called a Fedtard. I don't know why you're so bothered about it, Mirkaland. :D



Of course you are,:o :o :devil: :mad:

angiel
02-22-2007, 05:59 PM
:haha:

:awww:

if you are going to post a thread, people are going to comment on it...its a message board after all. the only person raging and ranting is you...im the one laughing however. some valid points have been put forward on both sides of the argument, but you only seem to be receptive to only one side....did you honestly expect the love for sampras to gush through on gm...if thats your expectation, you should put this in the sampras subforum.



I never know that you and Roger Federer own this board, it would seem so my dear friend, and did i hit a nerve with you, good and you cant get rid of me that easily, i am here to stay, and are you the kettle calling the pot black, your are doing the same as i do, if that is what i am doing as you say, seeing only one side of the argument, you are on Roger side and i am on Pete, thank you.:p :p :p

Bremen
02-23-2007, 04:24 AM
I never know that you and Roger Federer own this board, it would seem so my dear friend, and did i hit a nerve with you, good and you cant get rid of me that easily, i am here to stay, and are you the kettle calling the pot black, your are doing the same as i do, if that is what i am doing as you say, seeing only one side of the argument, you are on Roger side and i am on Pete, thank you.:p :p :p

Bump

Hugh Jaas
02-23-2007, 02:32 PM
this is coming from a guy that has a losing record against hewitt when hewitt didnt even have a serve. seen how hewitts going lately? seen how federer has embarassed him the last few years, a double bagel in a slam final no less? get a grip ego boy.

its interesting how for someone who is supposed to be one of the greatest ever, he has a terrible record at the french. being no 1 gives u the easiest draws in the universe as well…the thing about clay is, because it nullifies serves it tends to really show who the good tennis players are, because they dont rely on free points.

are you sampras lovers are smoking crack, he could NEVER challenge the top players (athletes not jouneyman hackers in he 90's)today

nobama
02-23-2007, 03:31 PM
being no 1 gives u the easiest draws in the universe as well:confused:

Hugh Jaas
02-23-2007, 04:02 PM
:confused:

does no1 seed play no2 seed in the first found of a gs?

No. you just answered your own question

angiel
02-23-2007, 04:08 PM
[QUOTE=Hugh Jaas;4923449]this is coming from a guy that has a losing record against hewitt when hewitt didnt even have a serve. seen how hewitts going lately? seen how federer has embarassed him the last few years, a double bagel in a slam final no less? get a grip ego boy.

its interesting how for someone who is supposed to be one of the greatest ever, he has a terrible record at the french. being no 1 gives u the easiest draws in the universe as well…the thing about clay is, because it nullifies serves it tends to really show who the good tennis players are, because they dont rely on free points.

are you sampras lovers are smoking crack, he could NEVER challenge the top players (athletes not jouneyman hackers in he 90's)today


Who is talking rubbish now, because guess what my friend Roger has not win the French Open neither:mad: :eek: who has a big ego then.:o

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-23-2007, 04:36 PM
this is coming from a guy that has a losing record against hewitt when hewitt didnt even have a serve. seen how hewitts going lately? seen how federer has embarassed him the last few years, a double bagel in a slam final no less? get a grip ego boy.

its interesting how for someone who is supposed to be one of the greatest ever, he has a terrible record at the french. being no 1 gives u the easiest draws in the universe as well…the thing about clay is, because it nullifies serves it tends to really show who the good tennis players are, because they dont rely on free points.

are you sampras lovers are smoking crack, he could NEVER challenge the top players (athletes not jouneyman hackers in he 90's)today
You do realise that the depth of tennis now, is not nearly as good as in the 1990s.

I wish people would stop going on about some random Wimbeldon match in 2001, this was the same Sampras who lost to Bastl in 2002. He was past it then, if you think thats a good measure of anything then you're deluded.

yonexforever
02-23-2007, 04:37 PM
PETE IS HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING THAT EGO IN CHECK.
THAT WAS A SWIPE AT GONZO, JUST LIKE THERE WAS A SWIPE AT HIS REFERENCING JAMES BLAKE AT NUMBER 6 AS HE ANSWERED ABOUT WHETHER HE COULD COME BACK.

HE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE CAN BE NASTY(in a playful way) TO A GUY LIKE GIMELSTOB WHO IS A JERK.

I THINK PETE IS PROBABLY SMARTING THAT HIS ONE MATCH TO FEDERER HE LOST AT WIMBLEDON OF ALL PLACES, AND NEVER GOT ANOTHER CRACK AT HIM.

THEMS THE BREAKS PETE.. SETTLE INTO RETIREMENT GRACEFULLY WITHOUT REGRET AND SNIPING.

Eden
02-23-2007, 04:55 PM
I wish people would stop going on about some random Wimbeldon match in 2001, this was the same Sampras who lost to Bastl in 2002. He was past it then, if you think thats a good measure of anything then you're deluded.

Yes, he was indeed so past that he was able to win another Slam the next year, beating two top 10 players on the way :eek: . What was Sampras win at the US Open 2002 then? Luck? Bad competition?

Sampras was always focused on the big tournaments in that stage of his career when he had to play Roger at Wimbledon. We won't know how the tournament would have went if he wouldn't have lost to Roger. Mayhe he had been able to go for his 8th title.

nobama
02-23-2007, 06:05 PM
does no1 seed play no2 seed in the first found of a gs?

No. you just answered your own questionAnd you think they should? Seeds are where they are beause they earned it.

marcRD
02-23-2007, 06:20 PM
You do realise that the depth of tennis now, is not nearly as good as in the 1990s.

I wish people would stop going on about some random Wimbeldon match in 2001, this was the same Sampras who lost to Bastl in 2002. He was past it then, if you think thats a good measure of anything then you're deluded.

There is no logical way to proof that. In fact there is no logical explanation why tennis would all suddenly lose depth while there are more people who play tennis today than 15 years ago, there are more money in the game today, the players are better equipped with everyone in the top 100 having own physios and the game has also become more international. So why would it all suddenly drop in depth?

The only differense between today and the 90s is that old players cant keep up with the young players and stop playing at 25 to 30 (exception Agassi), while in the 90s the depth was so bad that old players like Lendl and Mcenroe hanged around in the tour to win some extra cash. Sure it made Sampras victories more impressive, he won against Ivan Lendl, Mcenroe and Edberg when all of them where way past their prime.

It would be like Federer beating Sampras and Agassi all the time today, which he did.

Comparing how many grand slams Sampras opponents won against today is very illogical as they might only have won grand slams because Sampras wasnt good enought to stop them doing so while Federer stops his opponents from winning anything (or the opponents where better in Sampras time so they beat him more often, while Federers opponents are weak and cant beat him, how can you possibly know which one is true or if both are not true??). Also Agassi was only a 3 time grand slam champ until 99, which is not much different from Safin, Hewitt and Nadal. Who knows if they will turn out to win as many GS as Agassi?


In fact I have no real proof why depth is better today than 10 years ago except that it would be statisticaly normal that the depth of the game increases as the sport becomes richer and the amount of kids playing the game increases. All different players can do in the end of the day is to dominate their generation, Federer might not have been as good playing with old raquets and having to pass the big servers of the 90s (with todays raquets he would have destroyed them with passing shots). Sampras would today have no chance playing serve and volley against modern raquet technology against great serve returners and passers like Federer, Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian.

angiel
02-23-2007, 07:01 PM
There is no logical way to proof that. In fact there is no logical explanation why tennis would all suddenly lose depth while there are more people who play tennis today than 15 years ago, there are more money in the game today, the players are better equipped with everyone in the top 100 having own physios and the game has also become more international. So why would it all suddenly drop in depth?

The only differense between today and the 90s is that old players cant keep up with the young players and stop playing at 25 to 30 (exception Agassi), while in the 90s the depth was so bad that old players like Lendl and Mcenroe hanged around in the tour to win some extra cash. Sure it made Sampras victories more impressive, he won against Ivan Lendl, Mcenroe and Edberg when all of them where way past their prime.

It would be like Federer beating Sampras and Agassi all the time today, which he did.

Comparing how many grand slams Sampras opponents won against today is very illogical as they might only have won grand slams because Sampras wasnt good enought to stop them doing so while Federer stops his opponents from winning anything (or the opponents where better in Sampras time so they beat him more often, while Federers opponents are weak and cant beat him, how can you possibly know which one is true or if both are not true??). Also Agassi was only a 3 time grand slam champ until 99, which is not much different from Safin, Hewitt and Nadal. Who knows if they will turn out to win as many GS as Agassi?


In fact I have no real proof why depth is better today than 10 years ago except that it would be statisticaly normal that the depth of the game increases as the sport becomes richer and the amount of kids playing the game increases. All different players can do in the end of the day is to dominate their generation, Federer might not have been as good playing with old raquets and having to pass the big servers of the 90s (with todays raquets he would have destroyed them with passing shots). Sampras would today have no chance playing serve and volley against modern raquet technology against great serve returners and passers like Federer, Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian.



You have just prove Pete's argument my friend, about today's mediocre players and I qoute "Sampras would today would have no chance playing serve and volley against modern raquet technology against great serve returners and passers like Federer, hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian".:eek: :eek: :D

R.Federer
02-23-2007, 07:11 PM
You have just prove Pete's argument my friend, about today's mediocre players and I qoute "Sampras would today would have no chance playing serve and volley against modern raquet technology against great serve returners and passers like Federer, hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian".:eek: :eek: :D

It is not proof, I think that was just his opinion.

In any case, that was what MarcRD was doing -- he is saying that Sampras was the best in his generation, Federer is the best in his generation. Cannot compare across generations because there are many differences including racket technology. However, he does make a very good point that the tour is more likely to get deeper as more people pick up rackets and more people enter the tour. So that would suggest that Federer is more dominant in his era than Sampras was in his.

marcRD
02-23-2007, 08:57 PM
You have just prove Pete's argument my friend, about today's mediocre players and I qoute "Sampras would today would have no chance playing serve and volley against modern raquet technology against great serve returners and passers like Federer, hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian".:eek: :eek: :D

That was not proof but my own opinion. No one plays serve volley anymore, not because of some crazy coincidence but because it doesnt work anymore. You will get passed over and over again with the amazing spin players can pun on the ball with their raquet. Also the big servers dont dominate like they did in the 90s because players return better today big serves.

marcRD
02-23-2007, 09:07 PM
Watch Sampras play Hewitt, Safin or Federer in USopen and wimbledon. He wasnt even old (29-30), the same age Agassi was when he won 3 grand slams out of 4 1999. It wasnt age which retired Sampras it was the young players with their much greater passing shots and spins.

Sampras played the perfect time to dominate with his style, the raquets allowed those incredible servers to dominate and where not good enought for great baseline players to get the ball back and pass. If Sampras would have played with wood raquet I am sure he would fail to dominate. Had he played today I think the guys could return his serve and pass him.

HE played in the perfect era for him to dominate, while Federer has a more adaptable style so I am pretty sure he could play in any era (Laver also thinks he would play great with a wooden raquet).

R.Federer
02-23-2007, 09:11 PM
Watch Sampras play Hewitt, Safin or Federer in USopen and wimbledon. He wasnt even old (29-30), the same age Agassi was when he won 3 grand slams out of 4 1999. It wasnt age which retired Sampras it was the young players with their much greater passing shots and spins.

To be fair, Agassi is a poor comparison because his lost years permitted him to preserve himself better for the long haul. 29-30 is not peak physical time for players who have been on the tour since 18, 19 years of age. Especially for someone who played year in year out, with so few withdrawals over the years. I would not go so far as saying he was half a step slow ;) but it wasn't just the agility of the younger players that highlighted his decline.

marcRD
02-23-2007, 09:54 PM
To be fair, Agassi is a poor comparison because his lost years permitted him to preserve himself better for the long haul. 29-30 is not peak physical time for players who have been on the tour since 18, 19 years of age. Especially for someone who played year in year out, with so few withdrawals over the years. I would not go so far as saying he was half a step slow ;) but it wasn't just the agility of the younger players that highlighted his decline.

That theory doesnt hold because Agassi began playing tennis at a younger age than Sampras and he played many more tournaments than Sampras. At the age of 29 both played about the same amount of matches, but Agassi was ofcourse fresher maybe because of his small physic, still Sampras wasnt far beyond his peak.

Truth is that Sampras had real problems with the young guys beyond age, I mean he was bagelled by Hewitt on fast courts! Bagelled by a 19 year old when he was 29 and still had it in him to win a grand slam?

Ofcourse he had a problem with Hewitt, beyond beeing slightly beyond his peak. He lost to him 4 times in a row on grass and fast hardcourts in united states often by humiliating straight set wins. Imagine if Hewitt would have beaten Agassi to get to the USopen final 2002, he would have destroyed Sampras! Sampras had no clue how to beat Hewitt, Hewitt just sliced back all those serves and passed him in the 2nd shot.

The other guys had not matured as fast as Hewitt, but still all of the fab4 have winning h2h against Sampras.

IF you want proof that serve and volley doesnt work today, just look at Tim Henman whose game was 100% serve volley in the old days. Today he had to do a total remake on his game to make it work against todays topspin raquets. At best you can sneak to the net to surprise your opponent but most of the time it is suicide to play serve and volley on all your serves, no one would even think about doing that on all your 2nd serves. Federer has also given up serve and volley and so have Ancic and others who had great potential to be great serve and volley players.

angiel
02-24-2007, 06:29 PM
That theory doesnt hold because Agassi began playing tennis at a younger age than Sampras and he played many more tournaments than Sampras. At the age of 29 both played about the same amount of matches, but Agassi was ofcourse fresher maybe because of his small physic, still Sampras wasnt far beyond his peak.

Truth is that Sampras had real problems with the young guys beyond age, I mean he was bagelled by Hewitt on fast courts! Bagelled by a 19 year old when he was 29 and still had it in him to win a grand slam?

Ofcourse he had a problem with Hewitt, beyond beeing slightly beyond his peak. He lost to him 4 times in a row on grass and fast hardcourts in united states often by humiliating straight set wins. Imagine if Hewitt would have beaten Agassi to get to the USopen final 2002, he would have destroyed Sampras! Sampras had no clue how to beat Hewitt, Hewitt just sliced back all those serves and passed him in the 2nd shot.

The other guys had not matured as fast as Hewitt, but still all of the fab4 have winning h2h against Sampras.

IF you want proof that serve and volley doesnt work today, just look at Tim Henman whose game was 100% serve volley in the old days. Today he had to do a total remake on his game to make it work against todays topspin raquets. At best you can sneak to the net to surprise your opponent but most of the time it is suicide to play serve and volley on all your serves, no one would even think about doing that on all your 2nd serves. Federer has also given up serve and volley and so have Ancic and others who had great potential to be great serve and volley players.


My friend, it seem like you are talkng off of your head and not making any sense at all, Roger was never a serve and volley player in any shape are form, and serve and volley doesn't work today you say, but is that really true? are is that tennis is so weak now so everyone is playing the same way and wont try something else........... And has for Andre and Pete, that I really have to shake my head about, with your nonsense, when you cant find anything to combat others you make up stupidity.:o :o :o :sad: :sad:

stebs
02-24-2007, 07:35 PM
My friend, it seem like you are talkng off of your head and not making any sense at all, Roger was never a serve and volley player in any shape are form,
In his youth days it seemed as though he was headed in that direction on fast surfaces. In his first few Wimbledons he serve volleyed.

and serve and volley doesn't work today you say, but is that really true? are is that tennis is so weak now so everyone is playing the same way and wont try something else...........
This is the biggest load of BS you've posted for a while angiel. I was beggining to miss it.

Of course it doesn't work nowadays. Look at Henmans career. Never a world beater of course but he was a top player and a top serve and volleyer. His volley was certainly comprable to Sampras but his head and serve let him down. Anyway, he is a natural serve and volley player but nowadays he stays back most of the time. Ask yourself why that is? The reason Sampras retired when he did was arguably because returners were getting too good which is why most of the upcoming generation at that time destroyed him. Hewitt for instance.
And has for Andre and Pete, that I really have to shake my head about, with your nonsense, when you cant find anything to combat others you make up stupidity.:o :o :o :sad: :sad:

You need to swallow your pride and let it go. Pete's retired and he may well be the GOAT right now so I don't know where the compaining comes from. He's not God and he had flaws in his game. Grow up.

bounccer
02-16-2013, 12:49 PM
Dedicaded to Orangeball

Roy Emerson
02-16-2013, 02:57 PM
SI: Federer will top out at how many majors?

Sampras: I see him getting to 17, 18 or 19 majors. I really do. Who knows how far he can go? He's winning these majors with pretty much ease. He's not challenged much. He's obviously playing great. If there were three or four guys who were pushing him to five sets or beating him a few times over the past year, then anything could happen on the day. But I just find him with that extra gear that no one can hang with him for a long period of time. He can win 17, 18 or 19 majors. He's in the middle of his career and I don't see him slowing down or anyone slowing him down.


Spot on.:yeah:

RagingLamb
02-16-2013, 03:38 PM
Sampras obviously knows his tennis.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through past posts as well. A nice reminder of what the mood of the forum was back then.