What’s worse than being forgotten? Being told you won’t be… then being forgotten anyway. When Pete Sampras retired in 2003, he was proclaimed by many the greatest tennis player ever. Today there remains a small amount of debate over the greatest player, but the experts all agree it ain’t the Greek. Sampras’ primary claim to supremacy was his unprecedented 14 Grand Slam titles. Thanks to a Swiss headband-wearer, 14 is not only precedented, but passe.

Yes, Roger Federer has now won 16 Grand Slam titles, including a French Open (something Pete never accomplished) and, as an added whammy, holds a 1-0 career record against the former King of Swing. Plus while Pete stumbled to his 14th title and then went into retirement, Federer is the number one player in the world and has won four of the last six Slams, losing five-setters in the finals of the other two. The question is not, “Is Roger better than Pete?” — we have our answer — but “Can Roger be better than Pete in every possible way?” (Probably!)

Without the stats to back him up any more, Pete is left with the intangibles. John McEnroe won a relatively middling seven Slams, but people loved watching him play inspired tennis/ act like a total jackass so much he’ll always be remembered. At this point old rival Andre Agassi swoops in to consign Pete to oblivion. Andre’s autobiography Open references everything from Pete’s “spectacular lack of inspiration” to his cheapness (it seems being a parking valet for Pete is not the cushy gig you’d expect) and frankly, I can’t say I’m surprised. I used to spend summers in Ireland, and I remember gathering with fans to watch Wimbledon and the general consensus of the Irish and Brits was that they enjoyed watching everyone except Pete, whom they found insanely boring with his magnificent serve and total absence of human emotion (except, ironically, during his heated matches with Andre).

Pete has complained about Andre’s book, while pointedly noting he has not and will not read it. He’s missing out. It’s tennis’ The Boys of Summer (and its Ball Four as well), vividly and often hilariously written by Agassi and J.R. Moehringer. It further establishes Andre as one of the unique figures in tennis and sports in general. While during his career he often seemed like an underachiever with his eight Grand Slams compared to Pete’s record-setting 14, unlike Pete, Andre won on every surface and picked up a gold medal at the Olympics (then, for good measure, married a woman who’d done the same, in Steffi Graf). Now that Andre and Pete have both been bested, suddenly things look a little more even, with the final verdict Pete was best on grass, Andre was best on clay, and on the hard courts you had a match.

Incidentally, if Pete ever looks at more of Andre’s book, he will find that though he takes a few hits, on the whole Andre has a tremendous amount of respect for him, and while “I envy Pete’s dullness” isn’t the sort of thing to make a man swell with pride, in context it’s a genuine tribute to Pete’s ability to stay motivated and consistently win big matches (albeit often in not terribly interesting, San Antonio Spurs-esque fashion). Unfortunately, Pete would also see that Andre writes of Roger Federer with pure reverence, noting he plays at a level Andre can barely comprehend. No such language is used on Pete.

And so Roger replaces Pete, as Babe Ruth replaced Ty Cobb (and as Ty replaced the guy before him), and the world moves on.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: sports // Add Comment »