Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
|
Joined
·
14,288 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I like the way Sampras retired after winning a slam title.
The last match of his career was the US Open title.
History will remember Sampras retired with something still left in the tank (even if some say he had almost nothing left in the tank).
It can forever be argued that he could have won more slams.

I know some people don't agree with that, but nobody can rule out the possibility Sampras would have won another Wimbledon and maybe another US Open or more.
Nobody can rule out the possibility of him getting an easy draw at the AO and winning it again etc.

And memories of Sampras will fade and disappear so eventually people in year 2100 will simply say "He retired after winning the US Open?".....And there will be no limit to what they think he could have won if he'd continued, because by then players will easily be playing until age 45 or 50.

If Federer retired at 2017 Australian Open, there would be no limit to what people would imagine he had left in the tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
And memories of Sampras will fade and disappear so eventually people in year 2100 will simply say "He retired after winning the US Open?".....And there will be no limit to what they think he could have won if he'd continued, because by then players will easily be playing until age 45 or 50.
I would say that almost nobody will be talking about Sampras in the year 2100. In fact, I'd say that few people will even be talking about Federer or Nadal. The attitude will probably be something like, "Yeah, I think I've heard of those dudes, but didn't they go out with the dinosaurs?" :grin2:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,063 Posts
No, because there's WTF at the end of the year -- you can have a chance of another big title with fewer competitors (and with margin of error being a Round Robin), while you would think it would be appropriate to just finish the season as a whole (and have a homecoming celebration).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,283 Posts
No, the best way to retire is when you no longer have the passion for the game. Sampras didn’t have any passion left after he won his final US Open. I’m sure he didn’t go into that tournament thinking if I win this, it’s over. I’m sure he intended to carry on playing, especially to give Wimbledon another shot. But like I said, his motivation had disappeared and he retired a year later without playing another match. I can bet my house that he regrets that decision badly, because his slam record was broken by not one, but two guys in the next 15 years.
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,288 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Nadal could have retired in 2011, he said he lost his passion that year.
He also said that he didn't give full effort in the 2015 Roland Garros QF (vs Djokovic).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
And memories of Sampras will fade and disappear so eventually people in year 2100 will simply say "He retired after winning the US Open?".....And there will be no limit to what they think he could have won if he'd continued, because by then players will easily be playing until age 45 or 50.

If Federer retired at 2017 Australian Open, there would be no limit to what people would imagine he had left in the tank.
No limit? Hardly. Sampras didn't announce his retirement until August 2003, just before the US Open, having not competed in any tour events for 12 months, but even in 2001 he hadn't won a single title and his rank had dropped to No. 10, his lowest since 1989.

As for Federer, he was 35 and hadn't won a GS for 4½ years, so if he had retired after the 2017 AO, people would naturally have been surprised but would rightly have realised that his GS-winning days were limited. TBH, even as a Federer fan, I didn't expect him to successfully defend his AO title.

When it comes to playing until 45 or 50, Bill Tilden retired at the age of 53 and Ken Rosewall at the age of 46, so players may well keep going into their 40s in 2100, but I doubt they'll be winning slams at that age.
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,288 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
No limit? Hardly. Sampras didn't announce his retirement until August 2003, just before the US Open, having not competed in any tour events for 12 months, but even in 2001 he hadn't won a single title and his rank had dropped to No. 10, his lowest since 1989.
That's why I said "even if some say he had almost nothing left in the tank" and "I know some people don't agree with that".
I already accounted for you twice.
And others will say he had more US Opens left in him because he made the USO Final in 2000, USO Final in 2001, and won it 2002.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
That's why I said "even if some say he had almost nothing left in the tank" and "I know some people don't agree with that".
I already accounted for you twice.
And others will say he had more US Opens left in him because he made the USO Final in 2000, USO Final in 2001, and won it 2002.
What you said was, "... there will be no limit to what they think he could have won if he'd continued, because by then players will easily be playing until age 45 or 50", and I was specifically questioning your use of "no limit", as I made clear.
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,288 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
What you said was, "... there will be no limit to what they think he could have won if he'd continued, because by then players will easily be playing until age 45 or 50", and I was specifically questioning your use of "no limit", as I made clear.
I was referring to people in 2100, they'll look at a guy who won the US Open and retired so young, and they'll think he could have won far more if he continued.
Because in 2100, I think players will have longer slam-winning careers.
And I doubt people in 2100 will understand that it was really hard to win slams in your 30s in 2002.
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,288 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
If we're talking about how you FEEL on the day/month you retire, I think winning a slam title (and especially beating your biggest rival in the Final) is the happiest way to retire.
If you retire with a whimper (as most do) its most likely a very sad feeling.
Then again, feelings don't matter, don't last for long, so who cares if its sad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
I was referring to people in 2100, they'll look at a guy who won the US Open and retired so young, and they'll think he could have won far more if he continued.
Because in 2100, I think players will have longer slam-winning careers.
And I doubt people in 2100 will understand that it was really hard to win slams in your 30s in 2002.
Well, that will obviously depend on how much they know about the history of tennis. For example, Lleyton Hewitt, who beat Sampras in straight sets in the 2001 US Open final (7-6 6-1 6-1), won his second and last GS at the age of 21 despite playing into his mid-30s. And moving forward to today, it's going to be very hard for Andy Murray to win any more slams, having last won one at the age of 29. Even in 2100, injuries and motivation will still be key factors, especially for players in their 30s and 40s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,154 Posts
Unless you have the same situation as Bartoli, then no. You dont retire when you still have it in your tank.
Sampras thought that record was his, 14.
He thought 286 is never gonna be broken and many others. Until Fed came along.

Same for Fed, hes been winning but he know Rafa can get some of his records. If he doesnt win this month anything things can go south quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,860 Posts
No, the best way to retire is when you no longer have the passion for the game. Sampras didn’t have any passion left after he won his final US Open. I’m sure he didn’t go into that tournament thinking if I win this, it’s over. I’m sure he intended to carry on playing, especially to give Wimbledon another shot. But like I said, his motivation had disappeared and he retired a year later without playing another match. I can bet my house that he regrets that decision badly, because his slam record was broken by not one, but two guys in the next 15 years.
It's not like he was winning slams left and right when he retired. He could have carried on playing and not win another slam. He was getting spanked by the new generation, Safin in USO 2000, Federer in Wimbledon 2001, Hewitt in USO 2001. And even lost to Bastl at his best slam. He got lucky that he faced Agassi in the USO 2002 and he had his number in faster courts.


Nadal could have retired in 2011, he said he lost his passion that year.
He also said that he didn't give full effort in the 2015 Roland Garros QF (vs Djokovic).

Unbeaten when giving full effort, no?
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,288 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
It's not like he was winning slams left and right when he retired. He could have carried on playing and not win another slam. He was getting spanked by the new generation, Safin in USO 2000, Federer in Wimbledon 2001, Hewitt in USO 2001. And even lost to Bastl at his best slam. He got lucky that he faced Agassi in the USO 2002 and he had his number in faster courts.





Unbeaten when giving full effort, no?
The only time he admitted to not giving full effort was 2015 Roland Garros Djokovic and the 2013 Wimbledon Darcis match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
990 Posts
Depends who it is, a player who is growing tired of the game itself which Sampras possibly could have been could see it as an easy way out, on the other hand you would wonder why somebody would retire despite it being clear they still have it in them to win big titles.

I wouldn't say it's a good idea personally but I can understand why someone would do it, to leave everyone with 1 last reminder of who you were.
 

·
-Lifetime Scientist-
Joined
·
12,191 Posts
The only time he admitted to not giving full effort was 2015 Roland Garros Djokovic and the 2013 Wimbledon Darcis match.
If Nadal did not give full effort in RG'15 it's only because he knew the result was NID. The result was NID because Nadal was playing well below par.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top