We’ve all lived through Roger Federer’s reign at Wimbledon, or currently Novak Djokovic’s, but in the 1990s there was a man who took his dominance to another level, losing just one match in eight seasons. His name was Pete Sampras and many criticized him for being boring. Or was he just too good?
The story of Pete Sampras It is exciting no matter what stage you look at, so today we will focus on the consolidation stage. Just to situate ourselves, the American touched the No. 1 in the world for the first time in April 1993, at which time he held a single Grand Slam (US Open 1991). Considering that Jim Courier was four, many still had doubts about who would be the great standard-bearer for that generation, so Sampras focused on resolving this question. His first Wimbledon in 1993 marks the beginning of a new era, that of an insurmountable competitor, with a feeling of absolute control, the Real Champion. She freed herself from the pressure in such a way that she learned to win even on bad days, the most difficult screen to unlock.
After closing the course by winning the US Open, the 1994 calendar started with his first Australian Open. Pete already had four Grand Slams, tying the last three disputed, although his triumph in Rome would not help him maintain the streak in Paris. The fifth would arrive again in London, defending the title for the first time in this category, the date on which he beat Goran Ivanisevic in three sleeves. It wasn’t a very long game, between the two they added 42 aces, the problem was the showiness of the clash. Specifically, the lack of showiness. The monotony became so unbearable that, to this day, experts emphasize that that day lawn tennis changed forever. If Wimbledon couldn’t change the style of its champions, it would have to get its hands on the surface they walked on.
This idea would not reach its ceiling until ten years later, although the germ was there. Fierce criticism was poured on that final, and that the fan was already warned of that outcome. Sampras landed in the AELTC with a record of 49-5 in the 1994 season, with seven titles in eleven tournaments played. Already in Wimbledon, only Todd Martin he was able to scratch him a set in the semifinals, the same one that two weeks ago had surprised him in the Queen’s final. But Pete was going Grand Slam, and that’s how he swept three consecutive top-10s to win. And beware, Goran on grass was anything but comfortable, but the one from Washington had a plan.
THE MOST SUFFERED FINAL… BY THE SPECTATOR
“One of Goran’s great dangers on grass is that he was left-footed, that natural advantage made his first serve even better and more effective than mine. I really think it was, when Goran’s serve was on he was pretty much unstoppable on grass. He was the only guy I played regularly who made me feel like he was at his mercy, I never felt that way against another player at Wimbledon, nor against Boris Becker. However, my second serve was better than Goran’s, so the key to beating him was always catching and punishing his second serve,” Sampras recounts in his memoirs, ‘A champion’s mind’.
“The final was incredibly fast tennis, on a very hot day, with balls flying everywhere at the speed of light,” recalls Pete, who won 91% first-serve points and didn’t have to face any balls. break. “It was a shootout, both of us dodging bullets we could barely see, hoping to hit a lucky return at some point, or to cause a mistake on the opponent. That type of tennis requires a firm hand and intense focus, there I showed that I had a little more stability in the tiebreakers, so after winning two of them, Goran stepped aside”, sums up the champion, who won by 7-6, 7-6 and 6-0.
The poster brought together two great candidates, two of the best on grass, but tactically it was a disaster for the romantics. It was a fight of bombers where no one lost the serve, unable at the same time to hurt the rest. The downpour of comments generated a lot of controversy around that final, even some experts put more drama on it than usual. “Tennis at Wimbledon is in danger of becoming irrelevant”, could be read in a certain column. The evolution of rackets had brought two conflicting consequences: while the players fought to see who could hit the hardest, people slept soundly in the boxes.
THE MATERIALS, GUILTY
However, Sampras was one of those who never took advantage of this new power in the rackets, since he remained faithful to the Wilson Pro Staff 85 until the last days of his career. The American was obsessed with the subject of stringing, to the point of hiring a person who traveled with him and took care of his rackets [Nota para curiosos: Pete encordaba a 32-33k en tierra, a 32k en hierba y a 34k en rápida]. So comfortable was he with this model that he kept it even in the years when he did not reach an agreement with Wilson, playing without receiving a euro in return.
“Looking back, I think switching to a bigger head racket in the later years of my career would have helped me. My racket was great on grass, it was very accurate, but on clay you can benefit from having a bigger margin of error. The sweet spot for my racket was only three or four inches; with a bigger head and different strings, it could have generated a lot more power and spin from the back of the track. I would have played more like the boys of today”, acknowledges the 14-time champion, although we don’t run as much, let’s continue in that summer of 1994.
“My end with Goran was a fiasco, although I still believe that it was more due to the convergence of both styles, since against other rivals the story was very different”, assumes the American. “Of course, I’m not sure that long points increase interest in the game, far from it. Many people complained about the boredom that watching rallies endless, aimless exchanges on clay. No one was excited when two clay-court glories engaged in five-hour duels. Goran and I weren’t the ideal mix at Wimbledon, although we did see each other many times. If we go into detail, they met in two semifinals (1992, 1995) and in two finals (1994, 1998).
The point is that, as a result of that 1994 final, the circuit decided to bet on softer and slower balls, in addition to developing a new mixture of grass with the aim of slowing down the courts a bit. The intention was to make a more playable surface, friendlier for long exchanges.
THE BORING WAS SAMPRAS, NOT THE GRASS
What Pete did not expect was that the revulsion caused by that final would end up splashing directly on him. “Sampras is boring, he is a threat to the game with his dominance”, exclaimed the English press. Could the No. 1 in the world really bring something negative to his sport? “In my career I was accused of playing brilliant tennis that won many minds but didn’t win hearts. After that final, I remember one of the tabloids in the UK ran the following headline: ‘SAMPRAZZZZZZZZ‘. They had educated me to win games, that’s what counts. It wasn’t about making a scandal, or attracting attention while walking on the court, but now it turned out that being good was boring, it was even a threat to tennis.
The provocations were no longer aimed solely at his tennis, but went directly to his personality, to punish his way of behaving on the court. I’m not lying when I say that Sampras had a hard time for a while, especially in press conferences, where he was always on the defensive, justifying his character. His greatest virtue self control, was sold as an absence of emotion, accusing him of having horchata blood. Of course he had emotions! The difference is that he handled them like nobody else, wasn’t that what it consisted of? McEnroe, Connors or Becker earned less than him, but had legions of fans at his feet simply for freely expressing their emotions. What the fans did not know is that they needed to do it to play well, to get their best tennis. And what did Pete think? “I never regretted or envied that, but I did feel that the media could have done more to appreciate who I was.”.
The American did not feel valued enough, but that never made him rethink anything. In fact, it was quite the opposite. “If you want to be great you must eliminate your own problems and play with a clear mind, the fight must only be against your opponent. The John McEnroes of this world are the exception, not the rule. In my career, I always took the emotional outbursts of my rivals as an opportunity in my favor, if a guy started to lose control I knew it was because my game had reached his mind, ”he writes in his autobiography. That was his philosophy, that of an exemplary athlete, although from the outside they did not know how to understand it. He was so aware of his abilities that since he was a child he focused on taking advantage of that gift, on working hard so as not to spill a drop of talent, a plan that was always channeled through self-control. That was his model to embrace success… and it didn’t go bad.
THE ANECDOTE WITH MCENROE
Not so famous was a (dis)encounter that occurred some time later between Pete Sampras and John McEnroe in a changing room. But weren’t they friends? And so much so that they were, but the oldest, already retired at that time, crossed the line in a column in Time, where he hit his compatriot for his lack of charisma. He criticized him for being boring, even dared to leave him some advice in writing, so that he would show ‘more personality’. You can imagine what was the reaction of ‘Pistol’.
“Who says that the tennis player is obliged to show his personality? I wasn’t in tennis to win popularity contests, or to show how interesting I was as a person, or to be an artist. I was in tennis to reach my highest level and win titles. Tennis was my first love and also my professional job, I never confused it with show business. If I wasn’t going to be remembered for my game, then I wanted to be remembered for the way I carried myself. If he wasn’t going to be remembered for that either, then he didn’t want to be remembered for that.”, says the one from Washington in his book.
With this he got to frivolize a lot, even inside the locker room. Mythical were some declarations of Andre Agassi –his nemesis in every way– about the abysmal difference that existed between them. “No one should be ranked #1 if they look like they just hung from a tree.”, the one from Las Vegas mocked the appearance of his close rival. That was the biggest rivalry of the 90s, although it was Andre who knew how to extrapolate it also at the media level. “I think our worst nightmares would be to wake up the next morning and be the other”, Agassi came to throw him, always with that rogue touch in his words.
Andre talked too much, maybe that’s why Pete never wanted to play along. But with McEnroe it was different, John’s words did bother him, until the Wimbledon dressing room brought them together later to seal peace. “Pete, no offense, I just want you to do this, show a little more of this, do a little more of that…”. Basically, she was asking him to be more like him and not be so boring. Sampras does not reveal what his response was but, knowing that they were good friends and that they had played together, we can guarantee that Pete once again pulled his famous self-control to not get angry anymore and to recover the cordiality at that very moment.
That was Pete Sampras, not only a great champion, the best of his generation, he was also a discreet, introverted and excessively shy person. Even if a cannibal lived inside. “Then, as the years went by, I started to get more excited on the court, which I showed in different ways, including some of which I’m sure John approved of. But in general I remained quite reserved. My biggest version of a primitive impulse or scream was simply raising my fist above my head. That was all the message I needed to send.”
2023-07-16 09:00:45
#Pete #Sampras #accused #boring #good
