SportsBoner.com

With Wimbledon around the corner, and Roger Federer fresh off his complete career Grand Slam victory at Roland Garros, the 2009 French Open champion is poised to break the tie with Pete Sampras’s career Grand Slam wins record when he vies for his 6th overall Wimbledon Title on June 22nd.

Federer’s calm, quiet demeanor coupled with his understated dominance invariably draws comparison to his immediate predecessor, Pete Sampras who also carried himself with a fundamental presence in lieu of any flashiness usually associated with superstars in sports. Although both also share (as of press time) the career Grand Slam record, the similarities end with their tranquil mannerisms.

Pete Sampras’s career spanned in an era where he was a part of an American Tennis reconnaissance in which talented young upstarts like Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, and Michael Chang as well as Sampras brought about a dominance not seen in American tennis since. Whereas Chang’s blazing speed, Courier’s endurance, and Agassi’s excellent return game brought them each success on the court; Sampras’s unmatched serve and volley game distinguished him as one of the best tennis players ever instead of just a great player.

His service and volley game contrasts to the majority of today’s player (as well as Roger Federer) who dig behind the baseline relying on the whip of their forehands and backhand shots. Often one could see Sampras compensate for his average speed by shortening the volley between his opponent by attacking the net. With high, half and shoestring volleys, he was constantly in position to accrue winners without many unforced errors (the equivalent of turnovers in basketball or football). You would know Sampras was dominating or the momentum of the match was turning in his favor when he would unleash his patented devastating overhead smash with his underrated vertical leap.

Where his 1st serve often led to easy ace points, and more importantly to hold service in his matches, this let Pete Sampras exert minimal energy (no need to run around the court chasing after the ball when you can control the game from the serve line) while at the same time mentally and physically wear down his opponents. The accuracy and power of his serves were iconic of his talent on the courts. However what truly made Sampras special was that his 2nd serve (usually for other tennis players a conservative effort to not risk a double fault) was often just as fast and hard if not better than his first serve. This rare aggressiveness kept the pressure on his return opponent, keeping him off balance and often flustered in the face of Sampras’s onslaught. His 2nd serve is cited many times as his most dangerous weapon. Overall this style of play allowed him to extend his playing career as opposed to a more physical career like Michael Chang who eventually lost a step and could no longer depend on his greatest strength to win matches. By keeping his points short, Sampras could play long matches without the onset of fatigue experienced by running all over the court.

At Wimbledon, his favorite place (as evident by the 7 titles and 4 in a row championship wins) to play, his serve was at its most dangerous. On grass, his serve held its speed and kept low in the service box which only augmented his greatest strength. Especially when the grass wore over the course of the match, his serve both 1st or 2nd was essentially unreturnable. Unfortunately this was also his Achille’s heel at the French Open where the unforgiving clay would suck up and slow down any serve neutralizing Sampras’s biggest advantage. As such, a title at Roland Garros is the only thing missing from his already impressive resume.

You could see then how Roger Federer’s gutsy win at the French Open a couple weeks ago exorcised many demons. Federer finally tied Sampras for career Grand Slam titles, he finally captured that elusive French Open title to complete a Career Grand Slam accomplished by only 5 other players, and reestablished himself as the premier men’s tennis player in the world in the face of questions about his waning dominance. Had he had beaten Rafael Nadal on his way to the title, he would have exorcised the biggest demon of all: the very reason Federer had yet won the French until this year, and also the reason he didn’t win an unprecedented 6th Wimbledon in a row.

I grew up thinking Sampras was the ultimate all-around player. From his vaunted serves, his powerful net volleys, and his strong baseline game, he was unmatched in every basic element of the game when viewed in a holistic style. And then I saw Roger Federer play. Although he is more of a baseline enthusiast, Federer’s strengths from top to bottom from serves to return from speed to power cannot be emphasized enough. Tennis great Jimmy Connors once commented, “In an era of specialists – you’re either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist… or you’re Roger Federer”. This perfectly describes everything Federer represents, an all around player on all court-types. Whereas Sampras struggled mightily on clay, Federer is just as good on clay as he is on grass or hard courts. Which makes his consecutive defeats to Nadal in the finals at Roland Garros even more significant.

Unlike Sampras who didn’t have a true rival (arguably Andre Agassi was his rival, but in my unsubstantiated opinion Sampras owned Agassi like Bernard Madoff owned his investors), Federer has a true rival in Nadal. How did I come to this conclusion? Simple. Through the self made-up transitive laws of sports, I have determined that the latter is a gritty rival whereas the former is more of a formality rival on paper. In this sense one can sum up the relationship in terms of basic variables. If Andre Agassi never existed, Pete Sampras would have won about the same number of career grand slams without his fellow American. However, if Sampras had never existed, Agassi might have won substantially more than the 8 career Grand Slams he currently owns. In this sense one’s linear career should continue unimpeded by the existence or nonexistence of the other, whereas the other’s career would have been substantially changed by the absence of a formidable obstacle.

As for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, it could be agreed that both are formidable obstacles of each other. If Nadal never existed, Federer could theoretically have smashed Sampras’s career record 2 years ago (owning multiple French Open titles along the way), and be working on his 20th title this year. If Federer in turn, never existed, Nadal could conceivably impressively have more than his 6 current titles at the still very young age of 23.

What’s great about tennis, is the pure individuality of the sport when it comes to evaluating talent and comparing the legends on the court. The way Agassi validates Sampras (even if Sampras consistently beat Agassi when it mattered most, what mattered most is that Agassi was consistently good enough to be in all those finals matched up against Sampras… make sense?) is similar to the way Federer and Nadal validate each other.

This makes it more disappointing to see Nadal bow out of the French Open early leaving doubts to whether he could have denied Federer his elusive French, and also robs the upcoming Wimbledon of one of tennis’s (other than Federer) most captivating players today. So while it is fun to think of who is better between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras, it is equally as fun positing the current rivals we get to enjoy today. The recent exhibition matches do no justice because a retired Sampras decades older than a Federer in his prime is not indicative of both men’s talent matched head-to-head.

For now, whatever happens Sampras remains a personal favorite of mine, and in my unsolicited opinion the greatest of all time, but Roger Federer is definitely one of the best and if he keeps winning should overtake any doubts. It can be argued that the overall quality of opponents Sampras faced in the 90s were enormously more talented than the field fielded today, but that is an argument for another discussion at another time. Until then I take solace that Pete Sampras is hairier than Roger Federer, although Federer is a spokesman for Gillete razors. The ultimate irony.