BBC Sport, once in a while, gets a former/current player to answer questions for the readers. McEnroe, Wilander, Evert and co. have been given the honour previously. About a week ago, I noticed that Sergi Bruguera was put in the hot seat this time around.
Sergi wasn't exactly a fan favourite (outside Spain) at any time during his career. Wasn't his fault really. It's just hard to develop fascination for a player that loops the ball over the net the whole live long day. Mind you, I am not accusing him of lack of skills, just a lack of romance. Personally, I was never happy that he blocked Jim Courier's way to a third consecutive French Open in 1993. Anyway, he didn't figure in the top echelons of the game for a very long time for me to hold anything permanent against him.
So, this Sat morning, I woke up and looked up BBC Sport for the latest EPL results. There was a lot of good news there. ManU continued to surge and surprisingly (happily for me), Chelsea didn't score a 1-0 win and instead drew 0-0. The reason for that was soon apparent when I saw that Liverpool had scored two. Obviously, Liverpool had complete access to the pool of two goals that they share for the week. So, overall, good day so far!
As I was ready to look up the the other news, something by the side caught my eye. I read it again to make sure that I was reading right. The headline read 'Federer far better than Sampras'. Okay I know, it isn't exactly a revelation. However, its always good to hear more and more people say it (Sergi says so, in this case). Here I am, getting ready to bash thrash and kick out at my favourite punching bag, but I don't want to be completely biased. So, let me state straight up that it can never be an insult to come out unfavourably in a direct comparison to Roger Federer. Mr.Sampras, you're okay for the moment!
However Sir Sergi (yeah, I just knighted him!) goes further.
'Federer has a better forehand, better backhand, better returning, touch and feel'. Again, common knowledge and well documented!
And then comes something that is well known, but to my inherent dislike, not well documented. 'Sampras had the better serve. That was 90% of his game'. Ohhhh, that's coming out in bold in the best seller of 2040, "SPORTS - since 1994", authored by you-know-who :D:D
Many of the legends of this sport, Lendl, Borg, to name just a couple have their bogey Slams....Wimbledon and the US Open respectively (On a personal note, Agassi is conspicuous in this list by his absence :D:D:D). And it always cracks me up when some 'experts' mention that the French was Sampras' bogey. Get real people! When the US Open is mentioned as Borg's bogey, it refers to the fact that Borg had all the skills to win the Slam but ended up not winning it. And to support the claims, Borg lost FOUR times in the finals there (I think that it was either McEnroe or Connors that he ran into during every single one of those finals). Lendl, after having a complete aversion to grass, dedicated himself to winning Wimbledon and ended up with 2 runner-up plates as well as being a 5 time semifinalist (Applause please..). Hence, to put Sampras (a career clay record of 90-54) in this list has to evoke some laughter in anyone who is student of the game. The only great that Sampras compares with favourably on clay is Boris Becker (ZERO career clay court titles), who was foiled in one clay court final by the man Sampras himself.....LOL...that must have been some tournament! Anyway, is it mere coincidence that at Roland Garros, a place that does not lend itself to serve-putaway tennis, Sampras owns a 24-13 record? Mind you, a big serve still wins you those so called 'cheap points'. It's just that the cheap points don't constitute a majority of the points. OOPS....Achilles heel!
Thus, it becomes hilarious when people put Sampras at the top of a list that contains Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg amongst others (I am not well read about the achievements of Don Budge and co). Laver managed to lose six years of his prime and ended up with 11 Slams. And he also had the small achievement of winning the Grand Slam TWICE! Not even a women's tennis player has done it twice (I mention this because women's tennis until recently would have the same two fighting it out in every final, thus having a good chance of winning each Slam in a year). And while Bjorn Borg didn't win the US Open, which was played on grass at that time, he won Wimbledon and the French in the same year for three consecutive years. Mind boggling just to think about it!
Sampras is great because he made the most of his talents, and it is not his fault that he came up at a time when serve ruled the game (though, I fault him for playing the brand of tennis that pushed me to watch a re-run of our 1983 Cricket World Cup win for the zillionth time when the Wimbledon final was on). However, he fell woefully short of conquering his biggest challenge, while previously, men (and one man might possibly join them soon) have conquered every challenge that this game has to offer. Let's not demean them by short-sightedness/ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
You think it is hilarious that Sampras is compared with Borg and Lendl and Laver? You know what is hilarious?? That you think it is demeaning to them!!! To be compared with a player that won way more grand slams than they could ever have dreamed of and held insurmountable monopoly at the crème-de-la-crème of tennis courts.
And if you thought Sampras won 14 career grand slam titles by merely serving an ace and then sitting with the ball boys while the rest of the match played itself, you really need to go and get some serious tennis lessons.
I don’t understand this obsession with the Sampras stumble on clay. When a player is as invincible as he was, the rest of human kind has to find something wrong with him, doesn’t it? He was either cold or boring or ‘he didn’t win the French’!
The more specific a sporting talent is, the more extraordinary it tends to be, bcos of the focus. We all know there is a world of difference between grass-court and clay-court tennis – very different skills, very different styles. The reason Sampras was so invincible on grass is ironically, also the reason why he could never make it on clay – his impeccable serve-volley style. Sampras’ focus was Wimbledon (quite obvious from the observation that he lost just one match there in a total of 57 matches in 8 straight years, isn’t it?) and the gap b/w the French and Wimbledon is 3 weeks. True, all those players you mention won on clay, but did they also win almost 7 straight championships at Wimbledon while doing that? When someone does manage to do that, then you can laugh at Pete.
I’d much rather watch God in action at Wimbledon year after year than a mediocre player like Agassi just barely make it to the trophy on clay and grass. Sport is not just about winning, it is about winning well.
I think there is a very good chance that Federer will beat Sampras’ record (mainly cos he should be winning the French anytime soon and he is much more competent on hard courts than pete was) but that doesn’t take anything away from Sampras’ genius. Much as I worship Roger, I’d rather watch Pete at the big W. There isn’t, never was and probably never will be a player with the invincibility Sampras displayed on grass. If that isn’t qualification for him to top that list you mention, I don’t know what is.
Katrix
Once the red mist (in your case, it's probably 'green grass' mist:) ) descends down one's eyes, it's hard to separate logic and sentiment. Anyway, I'm going to tackle your reply paragraph by paragraph to enable clarity and also, to make use of the opportunity ;)
1st para...Borg and Lendl had their 'bogey' Slams and I did explain what a bogey Slam is. Now, do you want me to say that the French was Sampras' bogey? Being a sane person, I really can't do that. Let me know if you actually do. If you do, then we can get into a detailed discussion of records at 'bogey' Slams. The 'hilarious' part was putting Sampras over Laver and Borg. I did not mention Lendl in this context. And did you just say that Laver and Borg couldn't dream of winning 14? Granted they did not. But it needs repetition here that Laver lost FIVE (and not SIX an mentioned previously) years of his career to the professional era and ended up with 11. And Borg, retired when he was 26 years old. So, to mention that 14 was insurmountable to them (particularly Laver) is like saying that 'Bradman is head and shoulders above the rest only because he never played one dayers', IMO. Here comes an FYI...Borg won 5 consecutive Wimbledons, thus leading to a 41 consecutive wins there (lost in the final to McEnroe at the following Wimbledon). And all this when he was an expert baseliner. That is D-O-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N spelt out for you! Did someone mention winning well? I add 'winning when the odds are stacked AGAINST you and not FOR you'!!!
If your reasoning for greatness is 7 > 5, 14 > 11, and 'almost 57' > 41, then just do not waste your time reading further. Let me douse your curiosity by mentioning that I haven't done magic and turned around that inequality in the following paragraphs :)
2nd para...I would have to assume that you made that point as a retaliation to me quoting Bruguera and also mentioning the fact that at the French 'cheap points' do not constitute majority of points. I realise that my point needs rephrasing, coz, for Sampras, the cheap points constituted a majority of the points there too. It's just that when that is the case, it's not enough to win the Slam :)....or many times, not enough to get past 2nd round :D. I also need to inform you that more than two months prior to your comment, I had decided to take up some tennis lessons this summer :) Though, not for the reason that you mentioned! Anyway, aces don't win matches. But they do come close to doing so. You need another example...Ivanisevic, that gifted all round player, would have possibly won a total of FOUR Wimbledons in the absence of Sampras! Now, please oh please, don't make me explain why Ivanisevic isn't an all round player! He was an awesome bloke though. Anticipating a riposte with the total number of points won versus aces in a match which Sampras won, here is a FYI...'cheap points' refer to aces and service winners. And this isn't taking into account those innumerable 'shoulder high putaway volleys' that his serve generated. PERSONALLY, I do not like Sampras simply because I was never ever enamoured by a big serve. To me, that was/is the sole reason for tennis losing a whole lot of its charm and skill. However, that's a personal opinion. And I WOULDN'T/COULDN'T hold an 'unmatchable serve enabled Wimbledon domination' against Sampras if he had manged to do well at the French which asks a lot other questions of your skills. However, his miserable failure there, means that I can never ever put him UP THERE...specifically so, when there are others who have managed domination at places that do not favour their skill.
3rd para...You didn't state it against me, but I need to issue a clarification that I don't hold him being cold or boring on court against him, simply because I don't care. And also I wouldn't hold the 'didn't win the French' against him, if people weren't putting him over Laver and Borg. If Sampras was mentioned as the greatest Wimbledon champion, then, I wouldn't hold not winning the French against him (I still would hold Borg against him). Duhhh...It is that simple. I simply do not understand you not understanding this.
4th para...I believe that some of my arguments for your 4th para have already been mentioned in my previous 2 paras. But as you so perfectly put it, the French and Wimbledon ask as diversely differing skills as possible of a champion. And so, shouldn't the supposedly greatest player of all time be able to conquer the greatest challenge this game has to offer? Well, not necessary actually, Coz, someone has to be greatest and what if no one can do it. Therein lies the answer....CHAMPIONS have done it previously! Thus, I rate them higher. I get the impression that you hinted that it was Sampras' focus on Wimbledon that led to his repeated French humiliation and not his lack of skills to succeed. Let me know if that is what you meant.
5th para...hehe...I request a description for 'barely winning' before I answer this paragraph. And FYI, my answer would be a blogpost rather than a comment.
6th para...a preference to watch someone is OBVIOUSLY your choice. Though, I wonder what could make you watch Sampras over Federer at W (argument?). Just puzzling to me. Throw some light if you can. Also, wonder what you feel about the 4th round encounter between the two at W'2001? Anyway, there has been (Borg), there possibly is (Federer) and there will be (in case you oppose this, Nirmal Shekhar is best equipped you to cousel you otherwise...hehe)invincible champions on grass. So, the while the slippery grass can fasttrack a few things, it is still 'slippery', remember? So, the ladder just does not reach the top :D
The best thing about sport is that you judge talent based on impartial numbers instead of subjective parameters like beauty, prejudice and perspective -- where contemporaries face off on the same court with similar weaponry. Where they change sides so each is subject to the same wind and sun, where they decide draws so each faces a near-equal level of competition, where each is given an equal chance at offense and defense...
If you want me to say that Sampras didn’t win on clay, sure, Sampras didn’t win on clay. But I don’t know where you got the idea that the best tennis player is judged on account of where he wins rather than how much he wins. In other words, you are saying that as long as a player has won a measly couple times on clay and then another measly couple on grass and hard courts, that makes him a great player.
To me, a couple times can happen if he was merely fortunate, the draw was in his favor, a fierce competitor was injured, he got a lucky break of serve, and of course, he played well enough to make use of all the odds in his favor. But year after year, time after time, trophy after trophy can only happen with true genius :) Therein lies my answer to your question.
As for Borg and Laver, they were no doubt exceptional players in their time, truly among the all-time greats, but Sampras wins, merely on account of consistency, number and insurmountability. You could give me a whole bunch of “if- only”s for why either of them could have unseated Sampras, the fact is that they didn’t. And I’d rather see talent without having to use my creative imagination or probability theory :D
The Sampras defense rests, bcos I have spent the last decade making a case for the God of tennis and wondering why there is even a need to make a case for a talent so implicit, a genius so peerless, a number so daunting. And I see the world accepting Roger’s domination even before he has proven himself. Is it cos he talks, cos he smiles, cos he gives interviews? I’ll never know. It remains to be seen if Federer can unseat Sampras from his throne, but till he does, Pete will remain the greatest tennis player to have ever walked the earth :)
Federer's lacquer coming off a little in front of your eyes there Katrix? :-)
DSpo: You make the serve sound so easy. All Sampras has to do is toss the ball up, and a service winner/ace results is it? You almost make it look like Sampras needs to apologize to the tennis world for having a potent serve...
There's still a whole bunch of strategy involved.The placement - is so darn difficult to get right. Sampras could hit the corners just as easily as he could hit down the middle, and he had incredible variety - not just with his placement but also with his pace.
You also make it sound like a shoulder-high volley just happens just like that. The serve needs to be placed in such a way that it leads to a defensive shot, and the best many of his opponents could do was throw back a weak return. In the serve-and-volley game, this is what is expected. Just because you did not find lengthy, scintillating rallies does not anything away from the genius of the man or his tennis acumen.
Sometimes, Sampras' high kicking second serve was an even more devastating weapon than his first serve - simply because on the faster surfaces, it would skid right off the surface.However, this was also his main weakness on clay. Clay being clay, does not take too well to skiddish strokes (rather it responds much better to shots with a bit of BITE) and this would more often than not result in his second serve sitting up and begging to be put away. Easy points for his opponents.
He also was forced to use tremendous topspin on his shots on clay, especially his backhand, to suit the mindless game of the baseline batters. This meant that he had to stay well behind the baseline to counter the topsin of his opponents, as well as hit the ball with enough of a loop that it would carry it to just beyond the service line, where the ball could then land and have enough time to topspin off the surface.
At the net he is simply unshakeable. However, in order to get from the baseline to the net, he'd have to set up deep approach shots, which was hard to do for from such a distance behind the baseline.
He was tremendous in his ability to outthink his opponents in the blink of an eye, as well as in his ability to pull something out of his hat, when he's staring down a breakpoint or two.
He could almost always find that extra gear.
And c'mon 14 speaks for itself...just like 7 does, on the rolling hills of France. A clear sign of unmistakeable greatness.
FS,
I was jus playing a little block and tackle there to make dream-sporting see the light. Federer is still as phenomenal as he ever was, and when he wins the French this year, I’ll be sure & gloat at ya :D I concede that his genius is over-rated and Sampras’ was under-rated; the geniuses themselves – quite possibly on-par. We’ll know in a few years :)
I know I’d rested my case, but FS jus brought all that nostalgia flooding back! To add one thing to FS’ extensive dissection of the Sampras game, and echoing his point that Pete could literally place the ball on a dime (a task phenomenal in itself), no player throws caution to the wind as much in tennis as the one that leaves the baseline unguarded and rushes to the net – a high-risk, big-stakes game that only comes from the kind of confidence a flawless S-V like Sampras could have. Sampras consistently took that risk, whether he was at matchpoint, breakpoint or 2 sets down in a Wimbledon final. And the S-V game doesn’t just require effortless power, it requires impeccable judgment & an unbelievable level of athleticism, not to mention a kind of elegance that few all-courters display.
Do you remember those fantastic judgement calls by Sampras at the net? He'd be getting close to volleying....think better of it - and let it go. Even as you're wondering what exactly is happening, the ball'd go land mere inches beyond the baseline. I've seen him do that time and again.
Such poetry in motion...
yesssssssss......and i'd have my heart in my mouth, almost ready to let out a curse, but of course, he was right, every single time...
you know what'd have been great with Pete -- that electronic-line-call player challenge thing they have now (debuted at the Nasdaq open); then we'd not jus see him make those awesome judgment calls but actually make the judgment calls
sigh...
Now now...if both of you would stop spilling Sampras drool all over the blog, then I could continue to work in peace and take care of replies later this evening. This is a request aimed at prolonging my corporate career. So, kindly oblige.. :)
FSN
That was indeed impressive. I read your comment a few times and liked the way you technically dissected Sampras' game. Knowing me, you must be wondering where the sarcasm is.....but honestly, I am impressed. Two 'howevers' though.. :)
1) I still hold , you not being able to recall each of Sampras' Slams and his finals' opponents, against you. A devotee should be able to, IMO :)
2) And more relevant to this blog, your commment, I repeat, while fascinating, wasn't exactly relevant to the blog. Except to establish why he couldn't win at Roland Garros and how he was incapable of overcoming the challenge that the surface offered.
Anyway, coming up is some 'my perspective' talk...
I know I sound as though having a brilliant serve is a fault. I have never ever hidden my dislike of an all-powerful serve. However, I do not hold my 'likes' and 'dislikes' as basis for reason. I hope that the blogpost and the comments have coveyed that already.
The serve is an essential component to anyone's game. I has always been the case. It is part of the charm of tennis, wherein, for a specific game, one player has more to lose than the other. In short, an 'essence' of this wonderful sport. But as the power game has evolved, it is inarguable that the serve has become more and more dominant. And I dislike that, because, a serve by itself does not depend too much on the opponent. An ace to a top player is in all likelihood an ace to another. In some ways, it takes away the HtoH duel out in the center. It becomes an all encompassing weapon in one's arsenal that an opponent is completely helpless against. And as has been the case, can lead to complete domination except when the serve itself isn't as effective, wherein the rest of the game lies exposed.
Steffi Graf (Andre Agassi's wife, in case you do not know who she is ;) )was a supreme example of overcoming the challenge of a surface. Her backhand slice (she did not own a backhand topspin, atleast not one that the world knew of) was a potent weapon on grass. It would slide and not get up on that surface. Thus, that, along with many other strengths lead to multiple Wimbledons (6 or 7). However, at the French, the very same weapon blunted by the surface, would stand up ready to be put away. Realising that, Graf, using her athleticism, worked on her inside out forehand and deployed it with devastating effect. Result: atleast 4 French Opens :) Now, that's exactly what I've been talking about. And on another note...is it any surprise to anyone that two modern greats who could play on all surfaces saw it fit to become life partners? hehe...
And last but not least, all this 'gear talk' is fancy and nice to read (for you). However, my perspective on the same subject is a little different (is that a surprise?). On most surfaces a serve perenially in the highest gear did the job. However, when that very same serve, still in highest gear, did not win as many 'cheap points', the cracks in the all round game got ruthlessly exposed. So much for gears...
And seriously, 14 can never speak for itself. Cos, if it did, I would have to accord 12 the same respect. Thus, I declare Roy Emerson to be the second greatest player of all time! Now, you would have to KNOW the history of the game to understand the sarcasm in that ;)
Katrix
Since I have the answers, I'll avoid bluster and stick to point by point argument.
1st para...Here is a quote from Sambit Bal (a cricket writer). He came up with this when asked by a cab driver "Do journalists always write the truth?". It goes 'while facts are incontrovertible, raw facts would often be incomprehensible without perspective, and because perspective cannot be absolutely detached from personal beliefs, it is inevitable that the truth reaches the reader in a somewhat coloured form'. Now, that does not settle anything in my favour but I stand by the verdict that numbers without reason mean zilch. So, if you feel that all those inequalities that I gave you is all there is to being the best, sure, suit yourself. Like I said, I can't argue with math. However, I know and love my sports way more than that!
2nd para...A big thanks for saying that Sampras didn't win on clay. It was a real nailbiter there! Phewww.... :) Anyway, I got the idea that winning everywhere is very important by reading a lot about the history of the game and a big hint was when most players refuse to even contemplate winning on all surfaces. That kind of gave me an idea that that could be important. Plus watching a player who could be unbeatable on a specific surface but a total novice on another (Sampras, Kuerten, Ivanisevic etc etc) made me realise the challenge in this game. And then comes the list of all time greats that failed to conquer this challenge. I MADE UP my mind! It also strikes me as hypocritical when someone keeps talking about a creme-de-la-creme place of tennis and then wonders why people worry about where someone wins.
btw...Did you just call two GRAND SLAMS measly? Do you even comprehend a GRAND SLAM? And someone did that TWICE!!! Or were you referring to Borg's FIVE Wimbledons and SIX French Opens? ohhhh, I know....6 < 7 and sure 5 < 7 too.
3rd para...the 'fortune' card is the easiest and favourite one to play when there is a lack of logic. Easy and simple, but does the job. So, FORTUNE can win you 5 Wimbledons, but not 7 is the reasoning I suppose. Well, honestly, I don't know how to argue with that. But I wonder what you think of a player that tries to win something year after year and but fails miserably. Was it fortune working the other way around?...misfortune, so to speak. I BET it was!!!
And I still wonder which question of mine you were answering there...
4th para...11 Slams in 8 years of professional tennis (Borg) and the other dude (Laver) lost 5 years of his career and ended up with 11. I hope that you can match atleast Sampras' consistency, if not Borg's, with your words! And here's another clarification to your 'convenient misinterpretation'. I mentioned the 'if-only's as an FYI to the 'couldn't dream of 14' phrase that you used in your first comment. So, kindly erase the thought that these 'if-only's are the reason I use for putting Borg and Laver at the top. Their HAVE-DONE-IT list speaks for themselves. Another FYI...I NEVER EVER base my arguments on luck, fortune, wind was strong factors. They might be add-ons, but never ever the basis. I leave that to you. That seems to be your forte. You should have noticed! :D
5th para...I really wonder who this 'world' really is. You know, this 'world' that ooohs and aaahs everytime Federer walks to the court. I think I know this 'world'. Here's a hint: This 'world' has in the past indicated that he/she appreciated 'not relying on cheap aces' :)
As I read through your blogposts and your comments, I can't help but wonder about the 'complete disconnect' in logic and reason when the protagonists differ. It just adds ammunition to my long held belief that when 'God' comes into the picture, logic and reason take a beating :D
I think you will agree that the quality of opposition (since you claim to know the history of the sport you will know what I'm talking about) that Emerson faced, is not exactly the quality of opposition that Pete Sampras had to face.
But hold on here. I dont remember much of Steffi Graf's game - but I do remember that she won a lot of points on her serve as well, and this in an era when women's tennis was known for its long rallies, and weak serves. [Martina was a sublime exception]. She did not exactly play the mindless baseline game as well. However....she would surely not have won as many titles as she did, if Herr Gunther hadn't done what she probably paid/laid him to do.
Monica Seles OWNED Her in the early 90's...and would have continued to - sadly that wasn't the case.
Also, you must rememember that in that era of women's tennis that I refer to - there were not a whole lot of powerful players. Steffi was arguably one the most powerful and athletic players out there [Even Gabriela Sabatini who was my absolute favorite and a complete dreamboat, doesn't FIGURE in this]
She used that incredible forehand of hers, especially by running around her backhand constantly, to devastating effect. Since we are always drawing comparisons between Sampras and Federer (or, for some strange reason Sampras & Agassi) let us also compare her with today's greats.
I'm not sure if she could have outblasted Sharapova, outrun Kim Clijsters, or outwitted Martina Hingis.Even that totem pole that walks around - formerly at no.1 might have given her a hard time (although I dont see with WHAT).
As for my analysis on Sampras' game - I was only trying to tell you that it wasn't because he couldn't NOT play at Roland Garros- but because his play was not suited to clay. [and if you go back and read my comment you will see why].
Hmm...if he couldn't play at Roland Garros - maybe there was something wrong with his game? Let me think....oh he has 14 GRAND SLAMS, that too in the PROFESSIONAL ERA. If TWO GRAND SLAMS are such a big deal, imagine successfully DEFENDING a Grand slam multiple times.I'm sure you are aware of all this, so reserve the sarcasm - I am pointing it out to reiterate my arguments.
Flashback: 4th round, Wimbledon 2001: An almost Samprasian forehand down the line – only it wasn’t from Sampras but from that arrogant, pompous 19-year old across from him. And then he sank to the ground. And with it so did my heart ;) Sorry about the melodrama, but that’s exactly how it unfolded. The devastation in the face of my hero of a decade was almost heart-wrenching. I never believed it could happen till the fraction of the second the ball actually touched the ground.
I sat in shock for about an hour and sulked for about 2 weeks and probably would not have hesitated to punch Roger in the face if he had had the misfortune of being geographically closeby...Sampras winning Wimbledon was that important to me :)
So, can it be summed up in the number 14? Hell, no. Can it be explained by FS’ technical analysis of his game? Fascinating as that was, not entirely.
So, I cannot explain to you why Sampras is the greatest player the world has ever seen. I don’t have proof of it other than the record books and what’s in my head. You’d have to have sat there on the couch yourself, clenching your fists, holding your breath, and sighing at the shot that seemingly had no chance of making it but just nicked the line, the one that he apparently missed but dropped just wide, the light caress that sent the ball just over the net, made more fascinating by the all-powerful forehand crosscourt to follow, his ability to always be mentally three steps ahead of his opponent, his push-button switching on of the higher gear at 0-40 and 2 sets down... Now, if only you hadn’t flipped to that World Cup re-run ;)
Hell, I probably wouldn’t have left a burning building...
Was he god? I don’t know. Depends on what god is...but in my teens, when I was uncertain about most things in life, including the existence/non-existence of a God, I could tell you with a great deal of certainty who would win Wimbledon that year :) And boy, was I right, almost every single time...
Switching off the right side of my brain, now getting down to the logical part :)
A couple grand slams is not measly in itself, but in the face of people that have doubts about a player who has 14 to his name, I would imagine it is. And since a couple grand slams is a Herculean task like you say it is (and I concur), I am sure you’ll agree with me that the 3 grand slams laver/borg would have needed to win to have matched up to Sampras is something ‘they couldn’t dream of’.
If a ball didn’t ever sit at the net for a fraction of a second before arbitrarily picking a side to drop to, if a linesman never made a wrong call, if the winds never went over 5 mph, if the rains didn’t come bearing down on center court every june, I’d agree with you that fortune doesn’t play a big role in sport. But unfortunately it does, especially when 5-set matches are often determined by a single point. When you win 7 times in 8 years, it’s hard to believe that you jus got lucky. Once or twice in a decade...hmmm, well maybe (that sentence had Agassi written all over it. I wasn’t talking about the all-time greats, Laver or Borg).
As for perspective and prejudice always playing a role in sporting judgment, I couldn’t agree more. How else do you explain the fact that the world still hasn’t come to terms with Pete’s genius? :)
I used the term “cheap ace” (which I later admitted was a misnomer ;)) in the context of Federer’s invincibility. Ruthless domination, like the kind Sampras displayed on fast courts can only come if you are a big server. Roger almost manages to display an invincibility close to Sampras’ without having to rely on a big serve or a S-V game – and therein lies his greatness :)
Only 3 words for you:
Australian Open 2005.
Roger's not up there, just yet.I dont care how many Slams he has at his age. Let him face quality opposition, and clinically & consistently put them away.Also, lets wait for him to face a HEALTHY and FIT Safin in a slam again.
And I have three in turn: Australian Open 2004, where Federer beat a HEALTHY and FIT Safin in straight sets.
Let me also remind you that Roger had a matchpoint against Safin in the '05 Oz Open and saved 6 matchpoints. Safin, I think, has won only twice in 8 meetings b/w the two.
So, Safin, while clearly the only player with the game to beat Federer, always seems to come up short.
FSN
I can't agree with someone who spat out something at random. So, while the truth is that Emerson faced poor quality of opposition, I know for a fact that you don't know why that was the case. Care to guess?
Anyway, I did not compare Emerson and Sampras. Since you felt that 14 spoke for itself, then I felt that 12 does too. Which helped you realise that 'while facts are incontrovertible, raw facts would often be incomprehensible without perspective'. JOB DONE (I hope...)!
Again, the point about Steffi was made to show how someone overcame her weakness to conquer her weakest surface. First time around, when Seles BEAT her in the finals, she wasn't employing an inside out forehand. However, when they played in 1992, she had mastered it and lost a classic, 10-8 in the final set.
Your comparison of Graf and Sharapova was childish or probably 'hormone'ish. How late was it qwhen you sent out this comment ;)
Anyway, like you said, Graf belonged to a different era of women's tennis. And you JUST CANNOT play a hypothetical HtoH game across eras. Coz, if you did, then Venus Williams of today would defeat the Rod Laver of yesteryear. Does that make her the greater of the two? So, we compare the achievement of each player and try to figure out whose is the greatest.
When I said that he could not play at Roland Garros, obviously there is some reason for it. So, since his game didn't lend itself to clay and he couldn't do anything about it, he miserably failed there. As simple as that! Explaining the reason for his failure there (unless it was a medical condition), doesn't add much to this debate.
Katrix
The right side is all yours. And good for you. However, I can't understand all that stuff in light of the Federer eulogizing that I have been hearing from you....I really can't. Would like to hear your perspective on that. And this is strictly outside the debate :)
‘Explaining the reason for his failure there (unless it was a medical condition), doesn't add much to this debate.’
Of course it adds to the debate:
Sampras grew up playing serve-volley tennis and he performed magic with it. He wasn’t changing his flawless style bcos some lousy surface wouldn’t allow it – he would choose the surface that would do justice to it and not deprive the world of the artful orchestration only a serve volleyer can perform on grass.
And while we are on the subject of medical conditions, though I never like to play the injury/weakness/illness card – Sampras had B-thalassemia, a disease that affects respiration – reason why he had his mouth open when he played – and reason why the beauty-savvy world called him a bulldog (if only they would look at the beauty of the game rather than that of the player)....Sampras never mentioned his condition, cos he didn’t have to rely on it to make excuses for his failures, cos he didn’t have any. That’s what I mean when I say unconditional tennis greats....
FSN and Katrix
Both of you made specific comments regarding winning two Grand Slams that I had some trouble comprehending. I really couldn't believe that I was reading right. Anyway, I looked back at my 'btw...Did you just call two GRAND SLAMS measly? Do you even comprehend a GRAND SLAM? And someone did that TWICE!!!'. I thought that it was obvious that I was referring to Laver and thus, everyone knew about the GRAND SLAM that I was referring to. But maybe I wasn't very clear.
So, let me state it....LAVER won THE GRAND SLAM twice! which refers to winning all the Four Grand Slams in a year!! And he ended up missing out on 5 years of his career. While Borg, won 11 and retired by the time he was 26. And he played at the AUS Open ONCE! So, Katrix, your comment about 'couldn't dream of' sounds hollow. And FSN, I sincerely hope that you didn't compare winning THE GRAND SLAM twice to defending a Slam multiple times.
Katrix
Putting down Grand Slam victories to fortune, under the pretext of line calls, net chords etc, obviously sits well on you, however, that same theory can be extended to being born in a certain era that lended itself to 'serve your way to glory', or having the fortune of playing at a time when he did not having a consistent grass court rival. Fortune plays a part of every single phase of everyday life and it is pitiful when someone uses that as the reasoning against achievements.
'He wasn’t changing his flawless style bcos some lousy surface wouldn’t allow it – he would choose the surface that would do justice to it and not deprive the world of the artful orchestration only a serve volleyer can perform on grass' - He couldn't conquer something with his game. And so instead of making modifications that are needed to win, he decided that the SURFACE wasn't worthy of it. Yep, I am CONVINCED! Can't argue with that!!! And anyway, since this argument is more about Sampras rather than what you say, let me give him his due that he indeed tried to conquer it by playing from the baseline and moving in later, but failed in his attempt.
So, Sampras never mentioned it, but still you happen to know about about it huh? Interesting to hear that. Anyway, Sampras unconditionally mentioning an injury after almost every single of his Grand Slam loss is something that I am well aware of. But I need to do my research before I present that with proof in a blogpost, so, until that, I'll rest my argument.
I vaguely remember this big debate about one of the Williams sisters and if she could play and beat somebody from the men's Tour. Turned out she couldn't. Apparenly the male player thrashed her and was yawning in between sets or something like that. One of the commentators (That female commentator who LISPS a lot) I think mentioned this during the US open last year. I need to do more research on this,but a preliminary search on google revealed nothing.
Laver won it only once, since we are comparing professional players here.
When I said poor quality of opposition, I assumed that you would make the reference to Emerson playing only with amateur players (before the OPEN era) - sad to see that things need to be spelled out for you.
FSN
Serena it was, I think. And she played this German dude Kaarsten Braasch, who was ranked 200 at that time. I recall reading an article which went as follows. Remember that this happened during Williams' pomp. So, during some tournament, she walked into the players lounge and happily pronounced that she could beat the the men's No.200 ranked player. Coincidentally, Mr.Braasch was sitting right there and accepted the challenge. And he proceeded to beat her easily (6-3, if my memory serves me right). Not sure if he yawned during the break, but this dude once, during some other match, smoked during a break! (DISCLAIMER: Everything is from memory, and due to the nature of the event, everything is vague)
Anyway, I assume that you brought up the whole thing because of the 'Venus could beat Laver' statement of mine. Again, it appears that you have forgotten the 'era difference' that I was referring to here. Admittedly, we will never know and possibly, Laver might still be too good for Venus. However, the point was about how we cannot compare different players across eras by seeing how their games would match against each other. We know for a fact that Andy Roddick would thrash Rod Laver!
I think that you have the misunderstood the pro/amateur transition of tennis. In 1962, when all the Slams were amateur events, all the top players were also amateurs. Which is when Laver won THE GRAND SLAM. He then turned pro along with several others while the Slams remained amateur events. The staus remained unchanged until 1968, when finally, pros were allowed to play the Slams. And then, Laver won THE GRAND SLAM again in 1969. So, with respect to Laver, I don't think that the pro/amateur argument matters, except that he lost 5 yrs of his career to it!
Emerson, on the other hand, did not turn pro like most of the top players at that time, and won most of his Slams during the 1963-67 period. Thus, he has never been discussed seriously when the talk is about all-time greats :)
From what I recall vaguely, WHen emerson won some of his titles, ALL THE BEST PLAYERS WERE NOT AMATEURS. Some of them had turned professional already,and were not able to compete in any of the grand slam events. I remember something on ESPN classic a while ago about this. I also remember that in a couple of his grand slam victories, he beat ROD LAVER.
The thing about that period and the so called 'transition' was that the best players turned professional, but ironically were not allowed to compete in the slams until the open era in 68.
That does not mean there were no professional players before then.
dreamsporting,
since you compare a physical injury to the body to a serious disease like thalassemia, it's quite obvious you dont know what it is.
Thalassemia is a genetic blood disorder which doese not allow people to make enough hemoglobin, which causes severe anemia. When there is not enough hemoglobin in the red blood cells, oxygen cannot get to all parts of the body. organs are starved of oxygen and cannot function properly. Normal people with thalassemia struggle even with minor physical exercise; Pete played 5-set matches that extended for hours...
And he never mentioned his condition till he broke the grand slam record. and you're worried about him complaining of physical injuries after winning championships??? (on that subject, i dont recall him doing that more than a couple times in his career)
Katrix
That's too much biology! Anyway, I did not know that he had that. And even now, since Sampras did play 5 set matches in his career, it is fairly obvious that he didn't suffer too badly from this disease.
Also, I wasn't comparing injury and disease, just wanted to make it clear that Sampras was very well versed in the art of giving excuse for defeats (Like I said, a post on that, some other time).
Post a Comment