And with that, Grant's Tomb exits the front page.

My only solace is that this is a really interesting post.

Great photo, Pete! Interesting to read these comments from Pete S. Thanks!

I find it interesting that these two guys had the vision to step out of the ordinary to set something up that was obviously enjoyable to everyone involved. And Roger - able to separate the match from the opportunity to get to know an idol and one gets the idea he really enjoys playing tennis and in that respect the opportunity to play Pete Sampras. For Pete, kudos to taking the chance, putting in the work to compete and for being open to the experience.

I am sure Fed came away with some serious learning from a player, who I always considered a master at dealing with both expectation and pressure. Something the fed does well but will only face more of--

Now this is the type of post that reminds me why I lurk on this board... Terrific!

There is another bombastic news for this season: Myskina is pregnant!!!!!!!!!

"And with that, Grant's Tomb exits the front page."

LOL. Who ended up being buried there anyway?

Great piece, Pete. Let the wars begin on this one. :)

Grant's Tomb is buried now? *sniffle*

I like the way Sampras described these exos. I don't have anything to add to that except thanks, Pete!

Nice to hear Pete revealing a warmer side. While he was never necessarily cold, you never got the feeling he was chummy with anyone (as he admits above).

He's totally right about the current state of the game, too. When you think about it, there isn't too much separating Ferrer from Hewitt from Davydenko from Roddick from Robredo from Blake from Nalbandian...

Yeah, I liked that part too, Ryan. Where he said he never really hung out with other players. Interesting. :)

I am one of the skeptics that thought Pete's win over Rog was a publicity ploy. However, Sampras strikes me as a decent fellow that has no reason to lie about the match so I will take him at his word. Pretty impressive win regardless of the ultrafast surface.

Looking forward to the book next year. Keep up the hard work Pete, it would be real sweet to have it in time for the Big "W".

Great piece, Pete. I enjoy reading about the mutual respect between the two greatest players I've seen. Also liked Pete's reaction to Federer's backhand flick - cool to see that he admires that shot just like many fans do.

This entry reminded me of something I was thinking not long ago after watching some YouTube vid of Rafa playing video games with some of the other Spanish guys. The current players seem to be a lot more comfortable being competitive, but not driven in the way some of the last generation players were. The high level of psychological gamesmanship demonstrated by the likes of Mac, Connors, et. al doesn't seem evident at all now. These guys seem more like the companionable barnstormers of the 60s. Seems rather poignant to think of Sampras having never (or rarely) being invited to share a meal or informal time with his biggest competition strictly because of the "adversarial code". Much less sharing a plane to the next tournament with your biggest rival, and to all accounts having a grand time doing it.

Nadiafan,
What site did the news of Myskina being pregnant come from? 'Cuz that is indeed more news from "out of the blue"

Interesting point, Mlelly. I wonder how much of that is generational, how much is due to the prize money differences now, and how much is just individual personalities.

Personally, the chummyness of Roger and Rafa kinda makes me nauseous. :) Makes for much more fun entertainment watching Lendl and Mac, knowing they couldn't stand each other.

From russian web site

http://www.tden.ru/articles/stars/023635/
four months pregnant

Sherlock: I don't know whether "nauseous" is the word, but I'm not enamoured of the friendliness between Rafa and Federer, or various other"rivals" either. All this "embracing at the net" in recent years - I know it's a sign of the times, but a bit of animiosity can be very entertaining (that Rafa-Soderling Wimby match was riveting to watch back on recording, after missing the animosity when I saw it live).

Pete's right about Roger's backhand flick ... it's deadly.

And I love his last comment, "Let's face it, when I play him, he's going to do what he does and I'm going to do what I do. It's not real complicated." That's so simple, it's downright profound.

I still think '08 is going to be a helluva season.

good article , Pete
so like the rest of us Sampras is amazed by the flicking backhand- well it is a terrific shot
Still, I always have an uneasy feeling when players from the past talk about what was going on "n their day"
It's the same feeling I got when my parents ( or grandparents) talked about the hardships of their youth in an effort to make me see how easy I have it.
Every generation of players has their challenges -
That is what makes the comparison of players from different eras so complicated.

Anyone, including Sampras, who believes that Federer was trying very hard to win is not a student of the game. Federer's overall effort was at about 70%, Sampras was above 100% in those exibitions.

I have been to the Sampras-McEnroe exhibitions, as well as others like it and they all have one thing in common....they purposefully keep it close, and have a general plan as to the results. If they played seriously, Sampras would KILL McEnroe abot 6-1, 6-1. Yet in the exhibitions they're playing three sets each time. So I put no stock in the fact the Sampras won one of the exhibitions, they probably planned it that way.

"Anyone, including Sampras, who believes that Federer was trying very hard to win is not a student of the game. Federer's overall effort was at about 70%, Sampras was above 100% in those exibitions."

'Student of the game' and 'student of math' being mutually exclusive, of course.

Interesting... I wonder if generally the players in Pete's "generation" were not as likely to call each other up and hang out, or if that was more of a Pete thing. He wasn't the type you assumed would be hanging at the hotel bar every night, for sure. But even back then, groups of players from countries such as the Spaniards always seemed pretty friendly with each other.

You have to wonder to what degree Pete thinks of a comeback. Beating Fed, even in an exo, must confirm his belief that he could still beat the majority of players out there on a given day. He was so competitive, it must be hard to get the juices flowing a little bit but not try to go full blast again.

Great article, Pete.

Do you know if Pete and Roger discussed their one real tour match, the 2001 Wimbledon match-up? I would love to know what they had to say to each other about that one. Talk about serve and volley, vicious returning, and a great match all around.....exos are fun, but this was the real deal.

Nice picture - looks like it was taken at the Thanksgiving dinner Fed put on for Pete.

I watched one of th expo matches (7-6, 7-6 Federer win) - looked as if Roger was playing with intent put not all out with a vengence - it was also clear that Pete's serve is still very difficult to read as well as being extremely accurate - hit many lines.

Jenn,

After watching his post-exo interviews, I don't think Pete wants to return to the lifestyle required to compete at that level ... the hours of training and the traveling. I think he likes his new life. A bit of competitive tennis here and there (exos and the champions tour) seems just right for him.

When, at the start of the first match, I saw that Roger was sporting his Rolex, which he never wears in regular Tour matches, I thought that we'd be in for some exo-type playing from him. I was wrong. After watching all three matches, I am convinced that TMF played as well as he could given the fast court, Pete's still very present skills and his very different type of game, and the fact that Roger had just completed a long and gruelling season.

I do not expect that, in March, a rested twenty-something Roger, playing at the height of his dominating career, would lose to the thirty-something Sampras. That's why I still haven't made up my mind about whether I'll attend the MSG match although I plan to be in NYC on March 10.

I watched the matches. For whatever reason, Rog was not playing at his all. He may have been tired, or perhaps he was trying to be respectful and pulled back a little, but he was not 100%. No disrespect to Pete, but I really don't like it when former players start (albeit obliquely) criticizing the level of play of the current players. Serve and volley is just not a style that would be as effective in today's game. Technology and changing styles have made it somewhat obsolete.

MWC hath spoken, I guess that ends that. . .

And Dave, nobody criticized anybody. The game is what it is, one generation to the next. Nothing at all wrong with identifying and contemplating the differences.

i loved this post, pete. thanks. can't wait for the book.

Well, your friend shows up. And she's wearing something... interesting. So what do you do?

Every day, we work within the boundaries of etiquette and socially acceptable behavior. If Federer had come to the exos and demonstrated that he was obviously goofing off, shame on him. If Sampras had arrived obviously unfit and out of practice, shame on him. If Federer had played as if it were the final of a major tournament, he might have gone 6-2, 6-3 - and what would be the honor in that?

Instead, both men had the chance to (literally) show off - exhibit - their skill. And, as a bonus, the two men had a chance to hang out together. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

I don't find the respect or friendship shown between two opponents odd. I come from a rugby sporting culture where you enjoy (literally) knocking lumps off your opponents, then drinking together. Give no quarter while you're playing and ask none: but enjoy the shared fraternity afterwards. Victories don't last, but neither do defeats. The play's the thing.

"And Dave, nobody criticized anybody. The game is what it is, one generation to the next. Nothing at all wrong with identifying and contemplating the differences."

I think when you've heard "player X should get to the net more often" and "this generation of players is so passive" from retired players for the umpteenth time you run the risk of becoming overly sensitive to generational comparisons.

i will only point this out which people have already mentoned, roger wanted to play the matches, he did not want to lose the matches or the series. Pete wanted to play the matches and he did not want to lose every match in straight sets.
Before anyone starts comparing current Pete with current Roger, what do you think would happen if Pete decided to play the US O next year and both Rog and Pete met? even if it was the first round? still a fast surface? add to that the chance that Roger was playing to beat Petes record? Any guess as to how that match might go?

As to how fed would hold up against Pete if both were in their primes, i feel that Roger has shown he can adapt to the game, started out s & v and plays a variety game from the baseline.
Had Sampras started his career at the same time as rog, he probably would have won early on but faded away as the courts and other conditions changed, I say this, based on his inability to make any impression at the French.

If Fed started his career at the same time as Pete, it would have been much closer and probably Pete would end up having a few more wimbys than Roger but Roger would have beaten Pete at ther locations and split the USO equally. Oveall, level or very close.

Just opinionating (if thats the right word) ofcourse.

Hmmmm. . . Grant, who have we been hearing that from in this generation "for the umpteenth time" ? Agassi? Chang? Rafter? Courier? Sampras?

I'd like to know, because I haven't heard it that much, actually. Although I did hear that the one guy who said Roger should get to the net more is that banker dude/buddy who sort of coaches him. And apparently, when he said that, Roger paid heed.

So what do we do, issue a gag order on discussing the state of the game by players of another generation? Even an overlapping generation? This isn't like the late, great Don Budge saying he could whip Connors or McEnroe (which he did say, and often, much to everyone's consternation), after all.

Pete is the most successful player of his generation, and one of the all-time greats. He is Roger's contemporary, for all practical purposes. Are you suggesting that he's not qualified to have an opinion here (a position which of course assumes that you, by contrast, are qualified to have an opinion on the matter)?

I'm fascinated by how the logic in this plays out, so pray, tell . . .

I just can't get seem to get the image of Sampras losing to Warburg twice in WTT and almost losing to Todd Martin on the Outback Tour. When you see Sampras in those matches and then watch Federer's match again Ferrer the week before the exos it's just hard for me to believe Federer didn't let Sampras win the last one out of respect...and, of course, to keep some interest in the March Exo.

Federerfan: all I can say is this isn't about who's better, or who would whip who if pigs could fly and/or these guys met at their peaks, in an important tournament. I often wish some people would unnerstan that.

Tim, I think the difference has to do with the word you used, "respect." The fact is, Pete cared when it came to playing Federer, and he bothered to work himself into shape and focus on those matches - silly and meaningless as they might have been. I also think that the "fix" theory kind of makes both players seem kind of corrupt, and I like to think that both Pete and Roger are better than that. But also, I have always said that I wouldn't confuse any of these exos with, say, a Wimbledon final.

You have to look at athe exos as kind of an archaeological find - it's silly to start screaming, "but that dinosaur couldn't have et this dinosaur" based on your preconceptions and prior knowledge of dinosaurs. The thing to do is study the the site and fossil evidence and go where the science takes you - wherever that is.

Hi Pete,

I'm curious ... how does the length of time it took to write this book compare with the others you've written? It seems like it's come together rather quickly. Was it easier or more difficult than you anticipated?

"it's silly to start screaming, "but that dinosaur couldn't have et this dinosaur"

Pete: I think the Tyrannosaurus rex KADs would beg to differ ...

I think the key word Sampras used was "we played on a really fast court". I understand the courts they played on in the exho was a fast as they could possibly get them. So my question now is - what current tournament is played on a court like that? Zero! That's why a full serve/volley type player today has trouble because the courts are slower and the balls are heavier. There is a reason there are no pure s/v players today. They'd get killeld with these slow clay-hard courts now.

Everything goes in stages. In the early days everyone served/volleyed until the courts became so fast that tennis was boring. Now some are saying the courts are too slow and everyone plays the same (back court tennis). I wish there was a medium, but having watched both styles, I do like seeing rallies over just a service winner all the time.

I'm just glad Pete and Roger had a chance to get to know each other better. People who say Roger is boring or has no personality need to read more about what the players say about him. We don't see this part of his personality on court (the funny, joking side of Roger), but it's there and there is a reason he keeps winning the player's Sportsmanship award every year and there is a reason that I have not read one player on tour that does not like Roger. He is a credit to tennis and a great #1 player for the sport of tennis.

Hi Tangi - Writing a book with/for someone is always a pretty nice gig - mainly you need to get the information down pat and then nail the person's sensibility and voice.

Although we're not by any means home free yet, I think it went smoothly for a few reasons: Pete is very much a "cut to the chase" guy (We didn't have to spend 10 hours and kill a bottle of Chianti talking about how he really felt about his father; he told me in 10 minutes, choice anecdotes and all).

Also, the book is very closely targeted on Pete's life and times in tennis; not a lot of gossipy stuff or anything like that to track down, vet and publish.

Finally, since so little of Pete's story was ever really told, just walking the reader through his career - how he got great, what it took to stay great, how he amassed his records etc - will be (I hope) interesting reading. It probably helped that i knew Pete well (for a journo) going into the project, and that we had a real comfort zone with each other.

The one thing I feel pretty sure I can say about Pete Sampras is that there is absolutely no BS about him. He's a straight shooter; what you see is what you get.

I didn't put this in the post above (I forgot), but it is so typical of the entire Pete Sampras saga and persona: I asked him if his dad had watched the Asian exos and Pete replied, "Naw, he doesn't have Tennis Channel."

> Their styles are too similar, and they play right into TMF's hands.

To sit in the room and talk to Pete about Roger has to be an otherworldly moment. [Droools.] And to be so able to add to the conversation as you are. [Doffs chapeau.]

Both of these men are indescribable geniuses. They'd have risen to the top of most anything they tried, but they both rode roughshod over the best of the best in this one sport - and you get to sit around and listen to Pete reminisce about talking shop with Roger. Who cares who'd've won? How do you get Pete of the TWibe's job!? Dude. That is soooooo cool.

If I were to venture into the "who'd've won" arena, though, I'd have to think hard about the shoulda, woulda, coulda post. Neither of these two men would settle for anything less than top dog, but either could have cracked. One of them would come out on top, and in a big way. I think it would come down to who could get into the other's head, and once done it, he'd stay there for a long, long time. I bet it would look a lot like Rafa/Roger or Andre/Pete. And in a battle of whose head is tougher under pressure, I'd have a hard time betting against Sampras.

FoT - you are right on. I actually deleted a comment before you posted yours (didn't want to be a thread hog) essentially saying that any discussion of the exos MUST begin and end with a consideration of the surface speed. It was amazing to me that few of the comments to that point seemed to factor that in. The truth is, on a fast indoor surface, I can see a John Isner or Ivo Karlovic beating TMF - never mind Pete Sampras. Oh well. . .

In my view, the notion that exo matches are generally fixed to some degree does not make the players corrupt; it simply reflects the reality of exos. It makes sense that IMG would tell Federer and Sampras that 3-0 for either player will end up killing any excitement that there might be for future exos between these guys or other similarly situated players. Exos are pure entertainment and money for 99% of the population as well as the rich people and companies organizing them. Then, of course, there are the rest us who actually watch these exos to see Sampras unwind on his amazing serve and Federer hit his "how is that even possible" shots.

Thanks Pete! We agree! That's one of the reasons I'm not leaning to the ATP speeding up the courts too much. Personally, I would hate to see Isner and Karlovic winning all those titles they probably would win... I don't like this type of player...that's why I hate when Roger has to play them!

Okay, I went back and put in the anecdote in the post proper. It was just too good to leave out.. .

What's wrong with a big serving guy winning tournaments because their serve keeps the rally's short, ala Tiger Woods in golf, or Andy Roddick a few years ago...John Isner challenging Federer, and becoming a major force on the ATP Tour would do good things for the game.

Ok, maybe the Tiger Woods thing needs clarification, but his long drives changed the game and courses, but golf is no worse off because of it...

Sorry, Tim, I think that fixing is corrupt, even in an exo, and I do know that it has been done and still believe Pete and Roger are above it, even though I don't believe either of them see the match as a life-or-death matter, which does influence the affair.

And FoT, even when the courts were fast, the big servers who actuallly stink didn't win any more often than clay courters who actually stink won on clay. Great players win tournaments, period. It always amazes me that Wimbledon has produced (probably) the fewest "surprise" champions of any event - yet if you looked at the importance of the serve there (esp. before they slowed the balls and courts), logic would say that big-serving nobodies would have won the event left and right. it was exactly the opposite, though.

That's a nice pic of the 2 of them-- Billie Jean mentioned how unreal the men's game might have been had the 2 meteoric careers of Raj and Pete intersected more than they actually did-- all those great Wimby Finals we never got to see... I'd love to see Pete play the grass court 2 week "season" and go on to Wimby in 08. I'm very intrigued thinking about a Pete-Rafa grass court match up. Pete- please convince the "other Pete" to play some pro ball next year- I mean really, Fabrice is still playing and Andre just retired a little over a year ago- plus the grass is a bit easier on the body.

Point well taken, Pete. I will add, however, that the selection of the fast surface in the final match COULD theoretically have made it much easier to fix the match. In other words, if Sampras had beaten Federer on a slower surface it might have looked a little too similar to some of Davydenko's recent matches. I apologize for dragging Davydenko back into this, but I am still not even close to convinced that nothing was going on there.

Speaking of match-fixing, has anyone ever heard or read about Kafelnikov's betting habits during his own career? I am good friends with a very good good Russian player who played college tennis for a top school in the states, and he told me he knew "for a fact" that Kafelnikov fixed matches throughout his career. This is probably just stupid rumor-mongering, but I'm just curious if anyone else has heard anything about this...

The exhibitions are business propositions between the two players. They are played solely for the entertainment of the fans. How can anyone here insinuate that a match in which Pete Sampras grabs a ball kid to play a point against Federer, is in fact a "serious match" with both players performing at their peaks? It is for sheer entertainment. Are SOME of the points serious? yes. But the entirety of the match and exhibition tour is not. They (any exhibition players) feel it a duty to ensure that the matches are close so that the fans get their money's worth. I think we're just grasping at straws due the never ending GOAT discussions, and trying to make more out of an exhibition match than is really there.

And to rebut an earlier comment, "fixing" exhibition matches by the players involved is not corrupt. Like I said they aren't serious, real matches. Its all about marketing. Think about. If Fed goes out and blows out Sampras in the first match, who cares to watch the 2nd and the third. If Sampras blows out Federer then who's going to bother watching the ATP tour henceforth? It is purely a mechanism for entertainment, and a vehicle for the players involved to make some extra money and increase fan support.

Pete,

Wondering if you could plan the seed of having Sampras play doubles with Federer at Indian Wells? Pete will be in shape for the exo near that time, and certainly those two all time greats could do better than Roger and Allegro. I think it would make great fan interest. I cannot see them losing serve and they would probably break at least once a set even against the top teams, many of whom have players who are as old as Pete and nowhere near his skill level.

Please.

That would be a way Sampras could sort of ease back into form.

Couple of other thoughts on Pete's win in China besides what has been said. If Gonzales could win against top players into his 40's , why is it strange to think that a 36 year old Sampras could be formidable? Many of the doubles players at Shanghai were at least Pete's age and none of them has his game (except the Bryans may have an equal net game or better at the moment).

And the Sampras in that last exo was night and day from the one I saw in WTT events. His serve was back close to his former glory and he moved and volleyed well. No, I don't think he could beat Roger at all in any ATP event, but I doubt anyone seeded would want to play him at Wimbledon if he had played two warm-up tourneys (and if they did not open the balls until the match).

My take on the matches between Sampras and Federer is that they were not fixed. With that said, I am sure that Sampras was much more motivated to prepare for them and was more rested. Fed must have been physically and mentally tired.

When Fed is not playing his best, others players can beat him, so I see no reason why Sampras could not. I do think that Roger made the effort, but I do not think that he was playing his best.

Pete - great read - thanks ever so much! can't wait for the book to come out. Funny, i watched the first exo, where pete looked a bit off, not so much in the rhythm and the last, with both men paying hard, not to die but definately going for it. What struck me was the level of play, but more importantly, how much they seemed to enjoy it.

Face it - how many times do they get to play someone of their own level just for fun? The reality is - there's just not many guys at the level of these 2.

What a cute picture of the both of them above, and nice article, Pete.

Personally, I believe that had Pete and Roger's peak came more at the same time, Pete would have been the bigger loser, at least when it come to the quest for number 1 - If only for all those clay points Roger could have collected while Pete could not.

Ah, Mr. Bodo--'twill be a fine day when that autobiography hits the shelves. Can't wait. (And kudos, BTW, for giving a nod to Larry McMurtry's books in one of your prior posts--classic, classic, classic. A man who champions "Lonesome Dove" is a man for any and all seasons, on any planet, in any galaxy, in any universe).

My thought is that Sampras has proved himself to be a class-act above and beyond duty's "call," for giving the props to Federer that he's giving.

Face it: it can't be easy to be the (arguable) GOAT and then witness a player--barely one generation removed--so swiftly "becoming" the GOAT. Sampras is no-nonsense, and then some. His acceptance of TMF's seemingly inevitable usurpation of GOAT-ness also tells us something very important: Sampras loves the sport with mind-boggling devotion. The sport comes first. Not the "personality." Not Sampras. The sport comes first.

That is refreshing, and swaggeringly honorable, to say the least.

I can't imagine Agassi (for all of his well-earned gifts of diplomacy) ceding "all-time" territory with Sampras's unique "manliness" (if Agassi were in a similar position, mind you).

Such a scenario doesn't happen often. Not in the men's sphere. All the more astonishing that, since the advent of the Open era, we've seen almost impossible neck-and-necks like Navratilova and Evert (with 18 Slams apiece) followed immediately by the more mind-frazzling superiority of Graf. [Though, I do believe that Graf would have ended-up in the same sort of tie with Seles for cumulative Slam titles, had Seles not been "punctured" for the purpose of...well, Graf.]

All of this underscores the uniqueness and (to my mind) peculiar superiority of the men's game. Yeah, yeah--a sin to compare them. But...is it really?

Sampras has got nerve (commendable nerve) for particpating in these exos with TMF. I applaud him. I'm convinced that no other player, in a similar ~historical~ position, would have ventured into those waters.

If these particular matches had been Grand Slam contests...yeah, Sampras would be toast. But in the giddy, bizarre world of exo-matches, he more than proved his honor. So did TMF.

Start editing, redacting, & contemplating, Mr. Bodo! This upcoming book will be *THE* tennis-book of the year, and I want to see some much-deserved awards for the effort. In fact, I predict many. No one "plays modern tennis" like Sampras...and no one "writes modern tennis" like Bodo.

So there.

Fact: The speed of the court in Macao was super-fast, and favored Pete ... in fact, any huge server, including Karlovic and Isner would have been very effective on such a surface, and would have given Roger some trouble.

Fact: Roger was playing well below par. He wasn't really "geared" up for the third exo match, believing that he could squeak out a win without having to go full-throttle. He was visibly taken aback by a fully-charged Sampras. Pete, on the other hand, was determined to salvage pride.

Fact: A serve-and-volley style would be very effective on such a fast surface as the one in Macao. Not so on the slower playing surfaces on the pro tour (just try it against Nadal, Ferrer, et al and see how many times you're going to get passed). Unless ... you had a serve like Sampras ... in which case, you're going to be hard to break no matter what.

NOT a Fact: Federer would be a sitting duck against serve and volley players like Sampras.

Sampras keeps bringing up the fact that S&V, net-rushing players would be able to beat Federer, and the players of today are "ill-equipped" to do so. Well, we all know how Federer fared against exactly such a player, on the center court of Wimbledon, in 2001. His opponent had 13 grand slam titles to his name (at the time), and was the favorite to win Wimbledon that year ! Hmmmm ... what was the guy's name, I wonder?

I rest my case !!!

I didn't really have time to digest the post last night. But have just read it again this morning.

I miss having Pete Sampras around. Having watched him throughout his career, as a personality I initially found it hard to warm to him - tennis is a very individual sport, and so much of it is mental that I seem to need some kind of "hook" to draw me in as an observer. As time went by, I did come to appreciate a lot about Sampras - how could I not, when I'm a self-confessed fan of his style of play? So many of the Sampras-Agassi encounters were gems. And watching him move around the court - oh, how I miss seeing Sampras put away overheads! In addition, the more I watched him, particularly towards the end of his career when there were some struggles for him to overcome, I did warm to him. I recall reading at the time about the start of his relationship with Bridgette, after at least one failed relationship that cut him somewhat, and the delightfully old-fashioned way in which they didn't live together before marrying, which rather signalled something about his personality, and the value he places on that relationship. In fact, all I really have against the guy is that he was a huge roadblock for Tim Henman at Wimbledon!

I've seen him being interviewed quite a few times, including one of those "specials" the BBC keeps up its sleeve for rain delays during Wimbledon, and he comes across exactly as you describe him, Pete - direct, not particularly extroverted. Not effusive in discussing his emotions when winning, but quite clear that the experiences were deeply felt.

It's unfortunate that the Federer-Sampras exos were not shown on TV in the UK, because I surely would have watched them for the chance to see Pete again. When he appears on the seniors circuit, it's not on the BlackRock Tour, so he hasn't played here in the UK. I'd love to see him here at some stage, close to the scene of some of his greatest sporting triumphs.

By the time he came to win his final, 14th Slam, I felt very emotional - coming after a period when he had struggled to reach his previous heights. I really didn't expect to see that record fall, potentially so soon - of course, it hasn't fallen yet.

I also found myself nodding at his analysis of today's game, and the reasons that the likes of David Ferrer don't have the weapons to hurt Federer consistently. Could that be because I'm I've never warmed to Federer? Well, some people might see it that way, but the technical points Pete Sampras makes feel instinctively right to me. Because of his dominance, I've probably seen more of Federer's matches in recent years than of any other player, and there are a proportion of them I don't watch now, because the result feels so predictable, even if he is predictably great in the execution. And I guess, this is part of the reason why they feel that way.

Regarding Federer playing Karlovic, I was there in person to see them face off on a slow hard court in Paris recently, and one interesting thing about that is that the match, unlike their previous encounter in Basel, contained no tiebreak sets (score 6-3, 3-6, 6-3). (Amusingly, when Karlovic took the second set after breaking Federer, neither player realised that the set was over - both looked as though they were about to carry on playing the next game). I guess the point is, even on a relatively slow court, Karlovic's serve was enough of a weapon to keep him in contention over three sets, while Federer's own serve was less effective than it can be on a faster court. Given that Karlovic has won tournaments on hard courts, grass and clay this year, I'd conclude that the serve is intimidating enough whatever surface he is on, while agreeing that it's potentially more deadly on faster courts. Actually, count me as one of those who enjoys seeing someone like Karlovic on the tour, because it's interesting to see how other players deal with that unique serve of his, while he's not exactly averse to serving and volleying. If other players don't like to play him, he must be doing something right.

Past legends have played similar exos with then reigning #1's...case in point...laver played against Borg and Connors...Sampras is without doubt one of the all time greats but quite simply INCAPABLE of playing a game that is as beautiful as the one that Roger plays right now...after watching several hours of tennis video , it is easy to see the level of talent that Laver and Federer inherently possess.. Laver and Roger , both of whom are obviously kinesthetic learners , have such an awareness of spatial dimension , that they conjure shots that are conceived in that realm and execute it thanks to their unmatched ability...Sampras plays big shots , simple shots , but big shots...he takes the time away from the other player by overpowering them...it is only obvious that when he is made to play in a surface that is a lot slower he is not even half the player that he is on fast courts...NOT the case with Roger and Laver...At their prime , Roger will be pushed in the fastest of courts by Pete but I don't give Pete , a one trick pony (make that two trick) , any chance in other courts...

Crazy-for-Rog: One match, a five-set thriller, that could have gone either way? You rest a case on that? I could rest a case for a great potential rivalry on that same match, in a parallel universe.

I only react because there seem to be a number of observers who feel that Sampras is somehow being unrealistic in his assessments; who seem to be so focused on how great Federer is, and putting his case for greatness, that anyone who seems to challenge this, even if it's not the intention, and is done with genuine analytical purpose, ends up getting hauled over the coals. I speak from experience.

Really, whatever I think means little in the overall scheme of things, but I'd have said that, if it's done sincerely and with respect for the game (and I see no evidence to the contrary other than the mutterings of some Federer fans who seem to think Pete S is bitter about his record being in jeopardy, which is no evidence at all) that Pete Sampras has every right to express a view on this subject and have it taken seriously. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't have some validity or be worthy of analysis.

Did Sampras (or anyone) say that Federer would be a sitting duck for S&V players? Really, exaggeration and setting up straw horses for easy demolition just creates sound and fury where there's none.

Pete,

Thank you for a great post. I like the camaraderie among athletes competing against each other in the same sport discipline. This spirit of friendly good-fellowship adds a new dimension to their personalities and it shows the ultimated prove of proffesionalism.

The fact that Roger is well-liked, even appreciated, by his fellow and ex-fellow tennis players despite losing to him on a consistent basis is a testament to his and their love for this sport named tennis.
Roger's charm is his most underrated weapon.

Pete,
My response is a little late. I know Pete S. is being diplomatic and would not openly criticize Fed, especially since they seem to have developed a bit of a friendship. But, I have heard him, and others (players and writers) constantly talking about how it's "a shame" that players don't serve and volley anymore. Or "if I were playing Roger", etc.etc. I've gotten the feeling listening to Pete S. in the past that there's a little bit of legacy protecting going on, which is fine. To have accomplished so much and see it eclipsed in such a short time has to be a little frustrating, but it still seems like criticism to me, semantics aside.

Any idea that Roger wan't trying against Pete is silly.....after he squeaked by at six and six (8-6 in one tie breaker), he had to know his all-time repuatation wwa on the line...and THAT would motivate him more than anything else. Pete just flat beathim on the fast court, and may beat him again in NYC. The physical game may deteriorate a little by 35, but the mental and strategic game improve. Pete never gives anything way. He plays dumb, but he is a smart tennis cookie, do not doubt it. If there were more serve and volleyers around, think pat Rafter or Pat Cash, Roger would not be in the winner's circle as consistently as he is.

We'll never know for sure how much Roger was trying, but one thing's for sure Pete will keep telling himself, and anyone else who will listen, that Roger was trying, that the matches were competitive. The guy is delusional - so is Bodo (who just happens to be assisting Pete with his autobiography - hmmm, no favoratism there then...). I guess if it helps Pete sleep better at night thinking these matches were for real, then let him think that

I think I might have liked Sampras more during his career if he had been the type to simply hang out with other players and have fun. It's nice to hear that he can appreciate it now that he's retired.

What a great post, Pete. I'm really looking forward to reading your book. I wasn't really a die-hard Sampras fan during his heyday, but I always knew he was special and enjoyed watching him play--esp. against Andre. Pete had the power but also the deft elegance...both qualities that I so admire in Federer today. Over the years, I came to greatly admire Pete, the man---his grief at the loss of a close friend, the huge heart he displayed in playing for his country, his love of the history of the game and admiration for the greats who played before him (Laver), and his love and defense of his wife, who was blamed for his game going south at the end of his career. Then, to watch him blubbering while trying to deliver his speech at his induction into the Tennis Hall of Fame at Newport was just icing on the cake. You can draw comparisons with Roger on all of these points...Roger's love of the history of the game, the loss of his close friend, Peter Carter, the love and devotion to a great woman at his side, the effortless play, the blubbering when The Rocket handed him his Australian trophy...and then that great photo of Pete and Roger together. They look just so natural together...and it speaks a thousand words.

Thanks again, Pete!

that photo is evidently a Thanksgiving meal Roger arranged for Pete being a Yank. I think it was a great learning experience for Roger as, in my opinion, no one dealt with expectation and pressure better than Pete S. I also agree with Pete, what could be more fun than traveling around Asia playing well attended exos and making a new friend.

We often hear of the pressure at the top, how lonely it is in that elevated place. Given Fed's comments on how much Tiger has helped him understand the dynamics, it makes sense Pete has much to provide. It seems a very healthy way to learn about, understand and cope with being number one in a sport where anything but a title is a failure. Also how to manage the second half of a career. Being friends with people who have been there and understand that experience.

Maplesugar, you are eloquent today! :-)

Pete- one thing I wonder about Sampras (I am a KAD): he comes across at times as a "one-dimensional jock," but at times is quite expressive and intuitive.. Does he have depth and doesn't quite know how to express it?

Oh yeah, I want to see Pete's response to ndk! It's a great question.

Posted by Tokyo Tom (tt) 12/21/2007 @ 9:14 AM
that photo is evidently a Thanksgiving meal Roger arranged for Pete being a Yank.

------

You mean Bridgette didn't cook it for Roger?!

I saw the photo before and the explaination was Roger knew it was Thanksgiving (I do not think Ms. Samp was there) so arranged a "suprise" dinner with Turkey and what one would expect for Pete.
Thought it very considerate at the time.

"It's funny, but I don't think I ever did that once in my playing days - just called a guy to see if he wanted to hang out some. This was a different situation, but still. . . the whole exo tour had that nice feeling of camaraderie. We traveled together, we ate together, we got to know each other pretty well. Roger is an easy guy to talk to."

I am reluctant to read too much into this quote.

It's striking to note that Sampras is comparing two different tennis decades, or eras, while knowing his place in one and trying to sort out his place in the other.

So the exo wasn't nearly as insular as the Tour was? No surprise there. I can't speak for Sampras, but if *I* was locked in an insane asylum with 128 other crazy people just waiting to put a knife into my back, the last thing I'd want to do is turn to one of them and say "hey, let's have a few beers and hang out!".

Sampras held a lesser chokehold on titles then, than Federer does today. So the 90's tour was, quite possibly, more competitive for Sampras than it currently is for Federer. The more competition for the big prize, the less camaraderie -- an easy equation to grasp. You see it in local bars during tournaments all the time -- the top seeds sequester themselves in semi-secluded booths with their "teams", while the journeymen throw back a few and play pool with each other.

It must be difficult for Sampras to have Federer come along so quickly on the heels of his career. Sampras can't help but admire the guy, but at the same time, he probably is a bit sad to see the eventuality of all of his records being smashed, one by one, in the future.

I suppose my question is, is Sampras okay with the thought of being a graceful #2, after being the undisputed, dominant #1 for such a relatively short period?

It's sheer conjecture but I say, no, I don't think he's happy with that thought. I think Sampras is still competing to hold onto #1 with his mind, even if he cannot with his body due to natural ageing.

Oh god not another boring Pete/Roger story to make the Federer fanboys go into convulsions of hysteria. *rolls eyes*

ndk....thanks, my friend! I hope the question you posed gets an answer...I'd be v. interested.

Happy holidays to you...and to all a good night. Sorry, it's a character flaw.

My Secret Santa gave me a wonderful bottle of red wine...I hestitate to say that it's a California Merlot (Toasted Head) for fear what you wine snobs will think...and a bottle of emu body lotion. I was afraid to ask if an emu had to give up its life so that my hands could feel so smooth...but I digress.

Steggy,

I think Pete would be having a harder time watching his records fall if it were to someone he didn't like or respect. He said several years ago already on TTC that he enjoyed watching Roger's game and that he liked the way he handled himself on and off the court ... that Roger reminded him of himself in that way. I'm sure the fact that Roger is very respectful of Pete and gives him his due has to help, too. It would be much harder to swallow if the guy smashing his records would say, "Pete, who?"

But having said all that, I think you're right, Steggy ... this can't be easy for Pete. It speaks well of him that he is handling it gracefully.

It's no surprise Sampras, one of the top 3 greatest of all time, beat Federer in an exho, where both men will probably be at a more even keel mentally.

If they played in a 5 set Grand Slam match where Fderer's title is at stake, I think that is when Sampras would begin to feel the same pressure as all other players who take on the Fed.

NDK: It is very difficult to find the precise words to answer your question, but I'll try (I have to write an ESPN post this morning, too): Pete is very much a what you see is what you get person. Ted Williams once reportedly said that all he ever wanted out of life is that, when he walks down the street, people will point and say, "there goes the greatest hitter who ever lived." Pete is kind of like that. As far as his "feelings" go, he's one of those people who doesn't feel comfortable or obliged to demonstrate them; I think the book will make clear the degree to which he has - or lacks - "deep emotions". I'll let Pete's experience on that front speak for itself in those pages. One thing you have to keep in mind, though, is that embracing the discipline Pete took on and dedicating himself to his quest so totally is a mission that is bound to mark a man, make him seem different from those around him, even if he is a "regular" guy in so many ways. One thing I especially like about Pete is that he has a great bullspit detector, and while i've heard him say dumb things, and silly things, and youthfully arrogant things, I've never heard him say anything that struck me as fundamentally dishonest or calculated. If you spend a little time with Pete, and if you're like-minded, you can actually communicate with very few words because there isn't a great deal of ambiguity and, as the book will amply show, Pete has never, ever believed in making things seem bigger than they are, and he's always chose to downplay rather than over-dramatize everything in his life and career. Pete is one of those very quiet people who are capable of greatness and who has always been content to let his actions speak for themselves. I don't know, think fighter pilot rather than poet.

tangi: Hrm, well, I dunno about it being "harder" -- were I in that situation, I'd be grinding my teeth (to keep myself from snarling) if I actually liked or respected the guy who decided to take my favorite pair of shoes. In the end, I don't think it matters much if you respect your successor or not. You're now #2 and they're #1. Naughty or nice won't change those numbers on a list somewhere, you know? I suppose the difference is in how that change is rationalized.

Bear in mind I'm also conscious of the fact that Federer *can't* publicly slag Sampras off, even if he wanted to -- he'd get fined by the ATP for not playing nice (love their playground rules) and then the press would grind Fed's bones to make their daily bread. :)

Dave, what on earth is wrong with people regretting that serve and volley isn't played anymore? Or expressing their opinions on the way styles change? I mean, Roger KAD's are always rhapsodizing about "beautiful" tennis, but isn't it beautiful to have a variety of styles and approaches in tennis? Wasn't it beautiful to watch Edberg glide to the net to chip off a backhand volley, or is "beauty" something that only Federer has, or personifies?

There are far more interesting and productive things to contemplate here, like, to what degree is the death of serve and volley the product of style/technique, as opposed to the gradual slowing of the surfaces in the past 15 or so years.

Sorry, M.Y., but the single, solitary thing I take from your comment above is that you have absolutely not a clue of what it actually means to achieve something. And I feel kind of badly for you about that.

Pete: Sampras always struck me as someone who goes by the old Mark Twain quote - "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

The one thing that bothers me about Pete's resurfacing in this way, with his increased commentary (usually critical) of today's game, and now with the exos with roger, is the sense I get that he would NOT be doing any of this were it not for Roger's extraordinary achievements coming so soon after Pete's retirement.

Here's a guy who positively killed himself, with end-of-year tournament binges to get that year-end number 1 position, and who became obsessed with gettting the Slam record. He achieves it all, and what happens? The ink is not yet dry in all those stories about the storied Sampras and along comes Roger who over a four year period manages to eclipse anything Sampras ever did. He wins 3 slams a year, and effortelessly racks up Number 1 status each year without having to troll for points in indoor fast-court tourneys the way Pete had to. How does Pete react?

The clue to the fact that his current "comeback" to the game (both playing and commenting) is all due to Roger's ascendancy, and that fact that it all happening so soon after his retirement clearly rankles him in a big way, is that for the first few years after his retirement, before Roger's unprecedented streak, he kept completely out of view. Why? He had done what he wanted to do, and with that tunnel-vision of his couldn't have cared less what happened to the game. I submit that had Roger not come along, that would still be his attitude (would he feel the need for Bodo, do you think?). His newfound interest is all tied to an inability to gracefully accept what Roger has done and is doing. It's the same kind of attitude that drives someone like McEnroe to continue to push himself into any current tennis debate. It's always about Mcenroe even when we're talking about today's players. Pete is not in Mac's class when it comes to lack of class, clearly. There's a very short list that fits in that category. But the motivation, it seems to me, is the same: a fundamental lack of generosity when it comes to the achievements of those who follow in your footsteps and take the hard-earned limelight from you.

His comments on the exos, with the emphasis on how Roger had to be playing to win is part of that lack of generosity. Think of it, if you really care about the game what is to be gained by Pete suggesting to the tennis loving public that the man who is clearly today's best palyer, still at his peak, and a candidate for best player ever, can be "beaten" by a former great player and a candidate for best player ever, who, however, has been retired for over five years from competitive tennis? Why the implication has to be that if Pete, retired for some time, can still beat Roger than Roger can't be that good, not as good as Pete certainly. Roger, of course, will never have the opportunity of playing a youthful Pete when Roger is 5 years retired, so the Goat debate is over, no?

What Pete should be saying about the exos, if he were truly graceful and accepting of his status as a retired elder, is the following: "Look, Roger is a better player than me right now. I'm retired and not in shape to play him competitively. At my peak, I would have given him a run. Not now. Exos are different than real matches. For me, of course, I had to approach them with maximum effort cause otherwise i'd run the risk of being embarrassed. Roger is in a different position. There is nothing for him to win. If he kills me, he embarrasses me, and I don't think he wants that. And he does not need to worry about me embarrasing him if he takes the foot off the pedal. So, given the speed of the courts in particular, I don't think you can or should read much into the results. Forget what Roger says, he's being nice, I know that if I were in his shoes I would not be going all out, and would not be fretting over a meaningles loss. Enjoy the show."

That is not the approach he is taking. He WANTS us to read things into the exo results, like "hey, roger's is not all that, Pete can still beat him". I know Pete thinks Pete is cool, but I don't think that's cool at all.

Pete, it's good to have you post on your blog more now... this is one thing I have truly missed!

Rosangel,

You say you warmed to Sampras towards the end of his career when there were some struggles for him to overcome. Perhaps you'll have a change of heart where Roger is concerned when he reaches that stage in his career and begins to struggle? I'm also wondering if the fact that Roger has been a roadblock for Rafa at Wimbledon the way Sampras was for Henman is a big part of the reason you don't like him?

I understand that not everyone is going to be a Roger fan, and if you're not, it is boring/predictable to watch him win all the time. I guess what perplexes me is your intense dislike for him as a person, when by all accounts he is kind, warm and respectful to others and generally liked by all on tour. To say you don't feel a connection to him or that he doesn't trip your trigger is one thing ... I totally get that concept, (we all are "tripped" by different personalities/people/things), but to say that he leaves you cold as a person (as you stated last week on another thread), well, I was a bit taken aback by that, I must admit. Your choice of words just struck me as very harsh, that's all.

I get the impression that some Fed KADS really get under your skin (understandable) and that seems to translate to your feelings about the man himself. (BTW, I would describe myself as a PF -- a passionate fan.)

Ros: Good thoughts in your 3:33 post. I think Sampras' comments regarding the current game are valid. And I say that as a big Federer fan.

This is not to say that Federer wouldn't be able to handle elite level serve and volleyers. I just think that it would take him some time to adapt to handling the cumulative pressure that a great serve and volleyer can put on an opponent with their repeated forays to the net.

Steggy,

Good point. Now that you make it about shoes ... I can't argue with a thing you're saying! LOL But it would have to be worse if your successor didn't respect you. And if you hated him and his game. There must be some wee consolation that his records will at least be in good hands. But I understand your point. :)

great article. After reading the part about Pete having to face more styles than Roger methinks it's time to study this game a little bit further.:)

Pete,

Thanks for expounding on your book "journey" with Pete. I am fascinated by the process, and I look forward to its release. :)

I second FoT ... it is really enjoyable and insightful to have you join the conversation! It's the first time I've seen you do this. I had heard about it, though. :)

Some people think that Roger could not handle top serve-and-volleyers, that he wouldn't win as much as he does if he had to play guys like Rafter and Cash. I don't think that's necessarily the case. He said his idols growing up were Edberg, Sampras, Becker, and he certainly modelled his game after these great champions. Watch the 2001 Wimbledon match with Pete and see how well Roger handled Pete's game and how well he served-and-volleyed himself.

Roger obviously felt that he had to change his style of play somewhat to align himself with the changing conditions in the game. He'll probably start to incorporate more s&v as he gets older to shorten the points a bit.

Pete: Apparently you missed the memo. Federer invented tennis. ;-)

"Hmmmm. . . Grant, who have we been hearing that from in this generation "for the umpteenth time" ? Agassi? Chang? Rafter? Courier? Sampras?"

Given that I not only did not refer to that generation but retired players as a whole, and that I was calling Dave overly sensitive about the whole issue, I think we can leave the poor straw man alone.

"I'd like to know, because I haven't heard it that much, actually."

Let's just say a few years ago I was on the verge of creating a 'McEnroe drinking game', and talk of needing to get to the net figured prominently.

"So what do we do, issue a gag order on discussing the state of the game by players of another generation? Even an overlapping generation?"

Yes, clearly when I was calling Dave overly sensitive this is what I meant.

I actually like such discussion (I particularly LOVE such discussion from players who've played against power baseline), but I can see how it could get under some peoples' skin, how they could see it as criticism, as the past trying to say "my era could beat up your era" to the present. Trust me, I enjoy discussion that can be misconstrued as criticism. I even enjoy criticism. It's all good.

"Are you suggesting that he's not qualified to have an opinion here (a position which of course assumes that you, by contrast, are qualified to have an opinion on the matter)? "

Oh, the strawmanity!

P.S. Loving the feisty responses, however.

"It must be difficult for Sampras to have Federer come along so quickly on the heels of his career. Sampras can't help but admire the guy, but at the same time, he probably is a bit sad to see the eventuality of all of his records being smashed, one by one, in the future."

steggy: I think this is especially so since some of his records (most notably the 6 straight years at #1) were underappreciated.

monterey: I also think that Federer will try to win more points with his serve (which we saw in some of his matches this year) as he gets older.

ajv - another way to look at this is that it's a perfect time for Pete to reappear on the tennis stage - don't you agree that the heating up of the Fed vs. Sampras dialogue has really boosted tennis in general, especially to the public at large?

I think it's perfectly natural for Pete, who took a few years off to decompress and get re-adjusted to regular life, to return to the public eye now. In fact, I wish Fed would play a series of exos against former greats who can still be reasonably competitive. It's wonderful stuff.

And when it comes to what Pete says about TMF and his motivation or desires to win etc. , i think you have to see all this as part of the warrior mentality and dialogue. What would be the point if Pete just sucked up to Roger and said how great he was - or if Roger really went light on him? I say what we got out of Asia exos is the best thing we could have expected - a surprisingly competitive series between to greats, not the equivalent of a late-career tour, featuring lip-synching instead of real singing.

Hey, Grant, thanks - appreciate the way you took my response. What gets me about this discussion is that because talk of serving and volleying is perceived by some to be, somehow, a slight to Federer, the natural solution for that crowd is to discredit that line of discussion. It's tedious, really.

Funny how nobody can/will debate empirical evidence, such as records, but everyone debates to death the vague, annoying title "greatest of all time". Why is that? Nobody here is questioning whether Federer will or won't break the records, but we seem to all be putting our hands into one "better player's" pie..

Pointless though it may be, sometimes I think the game would be be better off if fans would quit debating the greatest apple vs. the greatest orange and just be happy that great fruit exists.

"Sorry, M.Y., but the single, solitary thing I take from your comment above is that you have absolutely not a clue of what it actually means to achieve something. And I feel kind of badly for you about that."

Seriously, this is solid gold. This is the sort of return that begs for a fist pump/"come on!" combo.

steggy: That will never happen.

Sam: I know. We're bored, it's the holidays, the offseason, and to be honest, at least the Fed vs. Sampras arguments are trending more towards discussion than an egg-fight (see Fed vs Nadal). I should count my blessings, really.

I would think that players (like Sampras and a few others) who seemed always to have a girlfriend (or, like Hewitt, a whole family!) in tow as they moved around the world, would have much less need to "hang out with the boys" at the various Tour stops than those who were travelling alone or with just a coach and/or a trainer.

If I remember correctly, Sampras, from very early in his career, always had a girlfriend looking on from the stands in his matches all over the place -- the law student/lawyer followed by one actress followed by another actress.

It seems that discussions in which fans compare the styles and performances of players from different generations invariably descend into discussions of the impossible GOAT topic. I, for one, have decided to avoid that contentious GOAT talk and to focus more on easier GOHT (greatest of his/her time) discussions.

In GOHT discussions, players who were at their peak or descending from that peak are never compared with players who are just starting their careers -- even if they managed to play each other a few or several times in their overlapping careers.

Now...if I can just decide how exactly to pronounce GOHT so that it will never be confused with GOAT....:)

Ruth, you said: "I, for one, have decided to avoid that contentious GOAT talk and to focus more on easier GOHT (greatest of his/her time) discussions."

Thank you for this. :)