In July of 2000, I counted down the points as Pete Sampras served out the fourth set of the Wimbledon Championship. Going into that event, he had 12 major titles to his name, tied with Roy Emerson’s record of 33 years.
When Patrick Rafter’s final forehand return landed wide of the right doubles alley, Sampras became, in the words of Dick Enberg, tennis’ “grandest champion.”
At that point I’d been a tennis player and fan for a little more than 10 years, and for me Sampras defined what a player was supposed to be. Though Californian, the Pistol’s professionalism, stoicism, and determination appealed greatly to the Midwestern sense of work ethic I’d been taught as a youth.
He added one more major title before his career ended and was a deserving record-holder. I felt good about how his achievements, not to mention his game, would hold up against players of any generation.
That said, nine years later, I’m certain that Sampras can no longer be called the greatest player of the Open Era. Roger Federer has topped Sampras’ mark of 14 through his Wimbledon victory, but in my eyes he sealed the top spot in June by winning Roland Garros, a place where the Pistol never triumphed.
I’m still partial to Sampras because he dominated during my formative years, and he still deserves a greater measure of respect than he has gotten. All too often, supporters of one player believe that defending the merits of their man means attacking the qualities of the other.
The Fed’s on-court accomplishments are greater than Sampras, but it’s not because the Pistol’s era was weak—the competition always does look thin when one guy won’t let the others have a piece of the pie.
It’s also not because Sampras’ game was one-dimensional—critics tend only to remember the great American’s power because he had more of it than most opponents could handle.
Federer is greater than Sampras simply because he’s greater. The qualities that made the Pistol great are also present in the Great Swiss, only more so.
Both men were dominant at the US Open and Wimbledon, but Sampras never won five in a row at either event. Both men were comparatively weaker on clay, but Sampras never won on French clay, much less reached four consecutive finals.
Furthermore, from a shot-for-shot perspective, the Pistol’s only real advantages over the Swiss are the second serve and the running forehand (note the “running” designation). From most other positions, Federer’s forehand is more effective, as are his backhand, his movement, and especially his return of serve.
Any difference in quality between the volleys and first serves of the two is negligible. In fact, it was fitting that, in the match where Federer broke Sampras’ record, he hit 50 aces, a far greater single match total than the Pistol ever hit (of course, Sampras never played a 16-14 fifth set on grass).
80 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete