| {mosimage} |
There are the great sportsmen |
|
|
|
When I think of Pete Sampras, the first word which comes to my mind is clinical. The second, a term Vijay Amritaraj often used when he spoke about Sampras, is champion.
In sport, there is always the contemporary versus past debate. We always like to ponder over and even conclude, wherever possible, who is/was the greatest ever.
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 will emerge to be as good or even better than a Bobby Fischer, Mohammad Ali, Nadia Comaneci or a Don Bradman?
Aren’t all sporting competitions about finding out who the best is given the time and place? So dwelling over the greatest exponent over the ages 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 while some will argue that Michael Jordan was the greatest as he changed the face of basketball others will go for Mohammad Ali as his influence stretched beyond sport itself. Yet others will vouch for Bradman as his domination over cricketers, both past and present, is so overwhelming.
Pistol Pete
Pete 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 eight 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 statistic which also shows how great Sampras was and how hard fought his triumphs were.
In an era when men’s tennis was more cut throat than ever before, Sampras finished six consecutive years as world number one, the best by any player since the rankings came into being. His achievements and his dominance outshine every one in the open era. Mind you this includes McEnroe, Bjorg, Becker and Agassi.
Today, we see another dominant champion in Roger 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? Perhaps therein lies the challenge to Federer’s claims to complete domination.
The Federer versus Sampras debate should emerge in the years to come and promises to be intriguing. Till then, we should not do injustice to either by comparing.
Hot Rod
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 the professional-amateur imborglio 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. Laver won all of them in a single year. Twice!
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 of wood and power took a back seat to finesse.
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.
So far we have spoken statistics. What about the Sampras game?
While art and game play appeal to us on a different level, we cannot but help being judgmental on game plays. Results do not carry with them the bias of judgments and are thus more vital indicators while commenting on players and comparing them to others if used properly.
But there is more to a champion than just the end product of results and trophies
The Sampras Game
Champions and champion teams know how to win the big points, big games and big tournaments consistently. This is the reason why any Sampras retrospective will not be complete without talking about the Sampras serve.
The 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 never seal the clutch points consistently. The inconsistency in execution along with a much less all round game, meant fewer tournament wins.
The Mind
Mental strength is key for champions. Sampras always hid his weaknesses and his pain. The Sampras logic was – ‘Let the opponent see nothing’.
Sampras perfected this. He radiated an invincible aura around himself on every surface except clay. He was in fact so emotionless that it disgusted McEnroe – some one who thrived on showing emotions on court.
Of course anyone as expressive as the great McEnroe can today safely expect to sit out a few tournaments on bans. Jeff Tarango will vouch for that. 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.
Perfect Legacy
Sampras, in my book, had the perfect career. He was shocked when he won the first US Open title and he was relieved to thwart 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 however remains a blemish. It is a blemish Sampras can live with although it has haunted him throughout his career. It is some thing he gave his best shot at but could not win.
That is not some thing which diminishes Sampras’ achievements though. His record Wimbledon titles, six-time year-end top ranking and his record Grand slam titles are adequate testimony to the greatness of the man.
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. Now how many champions can say that!?
(Pratyush Khaitan is a young entrepreneur. Off the clock, he is a sports writer, movie buff and keen photographer. He analyses sports at Sportolysis.)
({mhauthor})
Also by
- Consultation Freeze - September 4th, 2006
- Need for Speed - August 28th, 2006
- Meals on wheels - August 14th, 2006
- Whither tomorrow - August 7th, 2006
- Bombay Dreams - August 7th, 2006