by S.Kannan, HindustanTimes
August 23 , 2003
What�s the difference between a winner and a champion? If you asked even a tennis tyro that question, the obvious answer would be Pete Sampras.
As the 32-year-old American makes that one last appearance on the tennis court at the Arthur Ashe Stadium in noisy New York on Monday, you would not get to see those blistering aces or crunching volleys, but perhaps just a few quick words. A wave to fans, a goodbye.
For a man who strode like a colossus and literally had the world at his feet, retirement was never really far away, the moment winning at The Championships (Wimbledon) ceased to be a habit for him. The mecca of Tennis was the scene of a record seven singles titles.
They say, as long as one is winning, the joy is unlimited and there is no dearth of motivation. It was so true of Sampras. He had almost stopped bothering about playing a certain number of weeks on the ATP Tour because of his innumerable flirtations with injury.
All that mattered for Sampras was doing well at the Majors, which is why he could won a record 14 Grand Slam titles. When he surpassed Roy Emerson�s Grand Slam record in July 2000 at Wimbledon, the signs of emotion from Pistol Pete were quite unusual. After all, it was a very rare moment �- the reclusive champion had even invited even his parents over from the United States for the occasion.
Those fortunate enough to see vintage Sampras in action in that final against Pat Rafter will vouch for how tough the quiet American was when it came to handling innumerable rain delays with history beckoning. Greats like John McEnroe rave that Sampras was born for Wimbledon�s grass.
Quite arguably, the biggest win which Sampras achieved was at the US Open last year, the same venue where he won his first Grand Slam title in 1990. Having played so little in 2002 �- he was dumped by little known George Bastil in the second round at Wimbledon �- Sampras was never the favourite at Flushing Meadows.
But the man�s hunger for another Slam was always there, and that he beat none other than old rival Andre Agassi made it all the more special.
So rivetting was the decade-long Sampras-Agassi rivalry, that even the middle class fan never minded paying that extra buck to watch the two slug it out in true Wild West fashion.
If one could actually criticise Sampras, it would be on two counts. The first, he never gave Davis Cup the priority which it deserved simply because it fitted with great difficulty into his schedule. Second, he did not play as much doubles as he could have. After all, past greats from his own country like McEnroe did manage to find time to represent the country.
When champions call it a day, it comes after a lot of deliberation, and not just because the money at stake is huge. If Sampras has taken this decision to retire �- it would have come after a lot of discussion and debate with his wife Bridgette Wilson. He would be the last person on earth to ever talk of a comeback.
Then again, in an era when player�s can go to any extent to win a point, Sampras was the perfect gentleman. He rarely disputed line calls and treated the umpires sitting in the chair as umpire with utmost respect.
Oh yes, somewhere in Paris, you might still have the odd clay court fan wondering aloud whether Sampras was really the all-time great he is called because he never won at Roland Garros. If he had won there as well, his Grand Slam tally would have been even higher. But the critic would be the aberration. For most of the world, he was and will always remain Pistol Pete. Player extraordinaire, champion of champions and simply a joy to watch.