When I think of Pete Sampras, the first word which comes to my mind is clinical. The second, which Vijay Amritraj often reffered Sampras with, is champion. In sport, there is always the contemporary versus past debate. We always like to ponder over and even conclude wherever possible who the greatest ever has been. Is Tiger Woods better than Jack Nicklaus? Is the recent Australian cricket team even better than the invincibles of 1948 and the West Indies of the 80s? Did Lance Armstrong do enough to become the best ever in his sport? Is there ever going to be some one who is going to emerge as good as a Bobby Fischer, Mohammad Ali, Nadia Comaneci or a Don Bradman?

Aren’t all sporting competitions set to find out who the best is given the time and place? So dwelling over the greatest over eras is only natural. We even compare the greatest of various sports to try and evaluate the greatest sports persons to have graced us with their presence. So some one will argue that Michael Jordan was the greatest as he changed the face of basketball while others will go for Mohammad Ali as he stretched beyond sport itself while yet others while vouch for Bradman as his margin over cricketers in any era is vastly bigger compared to any sportsperson in his or her sport.

Sampras too, will always find a place in such a debate. Perhaps being a part of such a debate is the essence of greatness itself. Modern tennis has become as competitive as golf. It is nearly impossible for a golfer to win 3-4 majors a year unless, of course, he is Tiger Woods - and even Tiger cannot do it year in and year out. The year Sampras retired and the year preceding that saw 8 different grand slam champions in Men’s tennis – the maximum possible in the given period. This illustrates best how competitive men’s tennis has become. It is a stat which also shows how great Sampras was.

In an era when men’s tennis was more cut throat than ever before, Sampras finished 6 consecutive years as world number 1, the best by any one since the rankings came into being. His achievements and his dominance outshine every one in the open era including McEnroe, Bjorg, Becker and Agassi. Today, we see another dominant champion in Federer. Federer showed glimpses of what was to come at the young age of 19 when he defeated Sampras in his own backyard at Wimbledon. Federer has the added advantage of being superb on clay but can he ride over the Nadal challenge? The Federer versus Sampras debate should come into the picture a few years later and promises to be intriguing. Till then, we should not do injustice to either one of the two by comparing.

If we leave Federer aside, the only person who can keep his own against Sampras is the legendary Rod Laver. Missing the intermediate years due to professional-amateur tennis clash Laver won all 4 grand slams in 1962 and 1969. Only 5 people have been able to win each of the 4 grand slams at least once. It is statistic which highlights Laver’s achievements better than most numbers can. He could have easily won more grand slams, perhaps more than Sampras could ever hope to win. Laver encompasses another era of tennis - an era when rackets were made made of wood and power was not as impactful. Perhaps it would be best to say that pre 1970, Laver was the best. Post 1970, Sampras has been the greatest. (I see a lot of people staring and saying Federer is better already. Too early to make an evaluation on that is my retort.) There will never be any end to the debate of who is the best and both champions are equally deserving of their places in history.

I have stressed on statistics so far rather than speaking on the Sampras game if you have noticed keenly. While art and game play appeal to us on a different level, we cannot but help being judgemental on game plays. Results do not carry with them the bias of judgements and are thus more vital indicators while commenting on players and comparing them to others if used properly. As in life, in sport too results count and what is remembered more than any thing else. Champions and champion teams know how to win the big points, big games and big tournaments while showing tremendous levels of consistency. This is the reason why any Sampras piece will not be complete without talking on the Sampras serve.

Whenever the clutch points came up – as they often do in close battles, the Sampras serve delivered. Whether it was close to the ‘t’ right down the middle or near the side line, it was unplayable. Opponents knew the serve would come at the crucial junctures and yet they had no answer. People regard Ivanisevic as the greatest server from the 90s. A small section would even go for Greg Rusedski. However, while their serves were faster and they delivered more aces, they could not deliver the serve always when it mattered. The inconsistency in execution along with a much less all round game of course, meant fewer tournament wins.

Mental strength is key for champions as well. Sampras believed strongly on not showing that he was in pain to his opponents. The Sampras logic was – ‘they should not get even the slightest hint that I have a weakness.’ Sampras perfected this and his did successfully manage to build an invincible aura around himself on surfaces except clay. He was in fact so emotionless that it disgusted McEnroe – some one who thrived on showing emotions on court. Any one who tries to express himself like McEnroe did in his time can expect tournament bans now (As Jeff Tarango found out a few years back). It suited McEnroe to play the way he did and it suited Sampras to play in his way. The talk that he was bad for the sport is some thing I have always found amusing.

Sampras had the perfect career according to me. He was shocked when he won the first US Open title and he was relieved to shut the mouth of his critics when he won it for the last time. He did reach the semis of the French once and the quarters twice. Not winning the French though remains a blemish. It’s a blemish Sampras can live with although it has haunted him throughout his career. Its some thing he gave his best shot and could not win. Thats not some thing which haunts Sampras achievments though. His record Wimbledon titles, 6 time year end ranking and his record Grand slam titles are achievments enough.

Sampras retired without much fanfare, just like he lived throughout his career - away from the controversy and yet in the limelight. He remains a unique champion. More loved around the world than his home nation. How many champions can say that!?

This entry was posted on Monday, June 5th, 2006 at 4:46 pm and is filed under Tennis. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.