Grand finale
As he bows out, it's time to acknowledge Sampras as the best ever
CNNSI
Monday August 25, 2003
Let's make this week's Player of the Week Award an emeritus honor and give it to Pete Sampras, who officially retired last week and will be feted Monday night at the National Tennis Center on the first day of the U.S. Open. Though someone so distrustful of glitz and schmaltz has to be uneasy about being honored in a ceremony that includes the cast of a Broadway musical, we commend Sampras for agreeing to attend the grand sendoff he so thoroughly deserves. Returning to the site of the first and last Grand Slam titles he won -- bookends bracketing a dozen other Majors -- and commanding attention for the first night of the Open is a pitch-perfect ending. For more on Sampras see below. ...
..............................
Now that he is "officially" retired, where do you think Pete Sampras stands in history? How much does not winning the French Open affect his all-time status? Can we now say that he is the best ever? --David Friedman, Great Neck, N.Y.
To answer your question, in reverse order we say: yes; some, but not as much as you'd think; at the top. We hate comparing players from different eras. And we should respectfully pay homage to Rod Laver. But let's stop kidding ourselves. Sampras should be anointed as the best ever. His record 14 Slams is only the half of it. How about Sampras finishing at No.1 for six straight years -- a terminally underrated statistic -- which speaks to his focus, his intensity, his commitment to the inherent excellence of his game, and serves as a fierce rebuttal to questions about his health and fitness? How about Sampras' 14-4 record in Grand Slam finals, a testament to his neurological gifts and ability to elevate his game when the stakes were highest? How about the fact that he won Wimbledon -- rightly or wrongly considered the sport's premiere event --seven times? How about his unparalleled athleticism? As a press room crony once said in making the case that the Pete was the best ever, "God bless Laver, but he didn't hit too many slam dunk overheads or have the serve to ace Agassi 20 times in a match." How about Sampras' 2002 U.S. Open title, which not only bespoke an ability to overcome a slump but, in a weird way, humanized him and made him more sympathetic.
Sampras will always have his detractors. "He didn't win the French," they will say. Though they are right, the event is played on the surface of least significance to Sampras. And he did reach the semis one year and win a Masters Series event on dirt. But, more important, in the face of his other achievements it is a relatively small mark against him. "His Davis Cup commitment was half-hearted," they will say, forgetting that he once single-handedly won the Cup for the U.S. -- on clay, no less. "He was uninspiring," they will complain, never stopping to think 14 Slams ought to be more inspiring than snappy soundbites, loud outfits, look-at-me hairstyles and a manicured image.
Some athletes are regarded as kings while they play and are quickly forgotten once they retire. Sampras will meet the opposite fate. Just as he became more popular as he became more vulnerable, garnering what he was never accorded when he deserved it most, his appeal will grow with time. As men's tennis remains a sea of parity -- the likelihood of any current player winning more than four or five Slams in his career awfully faint -- as even a comprehensively dominating player the likes of Serena Williams can't finish two straight years at No.1, and as player after player retreats at 4-4 in the fifth set, Sampras' star will only shine brighter. Just you wait.