Andrew Castle explains why Pete Sampras puts more extrovert champions in the shade
IT WAS the day before Wimbledon 1989. Jeremy Bates and I had been asked by John Barrett to come along to the Hurlingham garden party to play an exhibition doubles match against a couple of young Americans.
We duly arrived, warmed up and made our way to the court at the appointed hour.
We were introduced to our opponents and play got under way. Four points and one minute later we were sitting at the change-over, impressed. We were facing Jim Courier and Pete Sampras and the latter had just thrown four of the biggest serves right down our throats.
I can’t say I immediately thought Pete was a potential Wimbledon champion; I was too shell-shocked to think anything other than “I hope we can make a contest of this”.
For the record we lost the set 9-8, the crowd enjoyed it and we all departed.
Sampras made a strong impression on me that day. I’d been a pro for three years, but I’d never seen, heard or felt such a pure strike off an opponent’s racket.
Seven years on and Sampras is well on the way to being recognised as the greatest player of all time. Here’s the evidence:
* He was the youngest-ever US Open champion in 1990, defeating Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi in successive rounds. He was 19 years and 28 days old.
* He is the only American to have won three Wimbledons in a row.
* Last year he became the first man since Bjorn Borg to win two Grand Slam events in three straight years by defeating his great rival Agassi at the US Open.
* He’s been year-end No 1 for three years, joining the exclusive club of Lendl, Connors and McEnroe.
* He was unbeaten in Davis Cup play in 1995, steering his side home against the Russians on clay in Moscow.
* He is the all-time money leader, having won over $22-million in prize money.
* Since the inception of the ATP Tour in 1990 he has won more titles (40) than any other player.
Bear those facts in mind when someone says there are no more characters in the game. After all, what is character in sport? Well, Nick Faldo showed it on the final day of the Masters at Augusta, but you didn’t see him making faces at the camera or having a laugh with the galleries.
Paul Gascoigne? Well, he’s not fit to be a ballboy for the likes of Sampras in terms of achievement, but when the ball’s in play and especially if he’s on it, he does show character. Not because he’s crying, swearing or spitting, but because of the results he gets.
What about McEnroe and Nastase? They were entertainers and fantastically gifted men, but they were champions in an age of small-headed rackets and late nights, not titanium wide-bodies and carbo-loading diets.
When McEnroe showed “character” it usually resulted in an abused official and a fine, or worse. They ought to have stamped “unsuitable for children” on tickets for his matches. It was only when he wasn’t ranting and raving that he played his most sublime tennis .
And I’d like to see Nastase climbing into the crowd and clowning around with an umbrella nowadays. The players at the top today, armed with new technology, would ace him, pass him, shake his hand and head for the press conference.
The standard of tennis has risen dramatically over the past decade. Even Borg against McEnroe in the 1980 final — – hardly grainy black and white pictures pulled from a dusty archive —looks like slow motion compared to Wimbledon 1996.
Grass as a playing surface is fast and low-bouncing, and has therefore suffered more than any other in the entertainment stakes. There are fewer rallies than on hard, clay and most indoor courts.
So with fast diminishing margins, Sampras has deeper competition in a faster game played by better athletes.
He demonstrated the depth of his character at the French Open this year. Still shocked at the death through brain cancer of his coach and friend Tim Gullikson, he defeated two-times French champion Sergi Bruguera in five sets in the second round.
In the quarter-final he beat another two- time champion and former World No 1 Jim Courier, also in five sets. Exhausted, he lost his semi-final with Yevgeny Kafelnikov. It was his first clay court tournament of the year.
I will accept the argument that Pete Sampras is not a character, meaning that he is not a flamboyant showman. However, more importantly, he has character. He is already a great tennis player. When his career is over he may be considered the best ever.
Jimmy Connors played over 20 years at the top and won eight Grand Slam titles. Ivan Lendl also won eight. John McEnroe retired with seven. Pete Sampras already has seven. And he’s only 24.
ENDS