Wimbledon - Sampras hails Federer as best ever
Eurosport - Mon, 06 Jul 10:35:00 2009
Pete Sampras paid a surprise first visit to Wimbledon for seven years to watch Roger Federer overtake his record for grand slam wins, and then hailed the Swiss as the game's best-ever player.
Sampras, returning to the club where he won seven titles in a decorated career, arrived unannounced from the US hours before the final showdown and made his unexpected entrance to the club as Federer and American Andy Roddick were knocking up.
Federer's exhausting five-set victory game him his 15th grand slam title, against 14 for Sampras, and the American said the Swiss had settled the debate about the game's greatest.
"The critics say (Rod) Laver, and (Rafa) Nadal beat him a few times in majors, but he's won all the majors, he's going to win a few more here, so in my book he is.
"Roger's a friend, he's a great player, and he is a good guy. He's got 15 now; he can get 17 or 18 majors. If he just keeps it going and stays healthy, he could go to 18, 19, actually.
"The guy's a legend and now he's an icon. He's got 15 majors, that's a lot of majors, that's a lot of work. He's a credit to the game."
Sampras entered the Royal Box with Roddick leading 2-1 in the opening set, waved to acknowledge the crowd's applause and took his place in the front row, a few seats away from other former champions Bjorn Borg and Laver.
Over four breathless hours later, Federer had secured his place at the top of the slams pile and made certain of returning to the world number one spot.
"He's a great guy, he's humble, which I like," Sampras said.
"He's sort of effortless; he doesn't seem like he's working that hard out there.
"He plays at that level so easily, he serves big, he's got a great forehand, his backhand's solid, he's got everything and he's got the belief."
Sampras, sporting a grey suit, light blue shirt and tie, was joined by his wife Bridgette Wilson. They were welcomed by officials at the players' entrance at the All England Club and he was also greeted by women's champion Serena Williams.
Sampras won the Wimbledon title three straight years from 1993 before winning it four times in a row from 1997.
He had not returned to the club since his second-round exit against unseeded Swiss George Bastl on Court Two seven years ago.
The American retired after winning his 14th grand slam title at the 2002 US Open.
Related Stories
This site is Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! and Eurosport. All rights reserved.
- Terms of Service
- Updated Privacy Policy
- Copyright/IP Policy
- Remarks and Suggestions
- Corporate info
- Jobs at Eurosport
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy.
Comment 71 - 90 of 90
Borg was suondly beaten by Mac in the Finals of Wimbledon and the US Open and that is why he reitred. So talk about resilence. So for the ones that comment that he could have won more Slams I seriously doubted. He quited at 26 ( I think he is a quitter). Same with Laver. Nobody pushed him into being a pro. He made his decision. If you like to speculate, then speculate on Rosewall not turning Pro and Newxcombe and Santana ( all playing against Laver in that era and the go figure ( Rosewall soundly beat Laver when he turned pro, after winning his first Grand Slam. So from now on stick to the facts. I am an old guy, and I thin Gonzalez would beat Laver.
A little history is needed here. The GOAT question is practically impossible to answer because of many things, not the least of which has been the fact that Grand Slam tournaments were restricted to amateurs prior to 1968. Many who have followed tennis back many decades will give the nod to Pancho Gonzales; others say Laver. Gonzales dominated the Professional game like no other since then for 12 years in the 50's and was tough as nails, he overwhelmed Trabert, Hoad and Rosewall. in 1971, 41 year old Gonzales even beat 19 year old upstart, Jimmy Connors! The only one who came close to dominating the game imo was Laver. When Laver won his first calendar Grand Slam (1962) as an amateur, the following year he was creamed by professionals Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall so how significant was Rod's 62 slam? That is the very reason Roy Emerson is never mentioned as one of the best despite his 12 slams (all earned as an amateur) and never won a professional tourney. Nevertheless, Laver had awesome lifetime stats, earned the lone professional calendar slam (69) and dominated all players from 64-70 including Roche and Rosewall and played successfully into his late 30's. Had slams allowed professionals to play in the 50's and 60's, Gonzalez certainly would have had over 20 of them and possibly Laver as well. No other players have been so dominating during their era including Sampras and Borg. Fed is rewiritng the reocrds for the open era for sure, and one could also argue that competition has improved making it more difficult to dominate. The one thing we can all say is it is a joy to watch any of the guys mentioned above and in that we can all celebrate!
Not for long Donkey...
Sampras is still the best with seven wombledons!!
This is a bit of silly talk anyway I think as players from different eras and situations are compared, a bit unfairly. Most of us would not have seen Rod Laver and Bill TIlden play and would not understand what is like to play with a wooden racket with cords made of intestine. It reminds me of the FIFA poll on the best player ever held on the internet and of course everyone voted for Maradona over Pelè. Obviously those voters using the Internet were all young probably never saw Pele play. So maybe if we ask a 60 years old who was the best tennis player ever he might have a different view. I am a big fan of Federer and I am glad he's the most successfull player ever but I think
"the best" is a personal choice and for that I put Federer together with the ones I have seen play, Bjorn Borg !
Let's not forget he retired at 25 !
federer is the greatest of all, he's already achieved what sampras did plus winnig roland garros, the big difference between the two is that roger is very good clay court player (he's lost 2 RG finals only to nadal) while sampras suffered many humiliating early round exits to lowly ranked players. i cam't see why he should not be considered the greatest of all time
***BREAKING NEWS: young parisian Mathieu Montcourt,24,has passed away this morning from a pulmonary embolism.He had lost to Stepanek in the 2nd round of this year's Roland Garros***
gloriaanuga comment 84.
What that person probably meant was that Federer was originally No. 1 for 237 consecutive weeks. An all time record. Wheras Pete Sampras record is 102 from 1996-1998.
gloriaanuga comment 84.
What that person probably meant was that Federer was originally No. 1 for 237 consecutive weeks. An all time record. Wheras Pete Sampras record is 102 from 1996-1998.
RE-COMMENT NO 66,HERVE A- SAMPRAS WAS NO1 FOR 6 YEARS........WHILE ROGER FEDERER WAS NO 1 FOR 4 YEARS. GO GOOGLE IT.....OR LOG INTO ATP WEBSITE.
Re the GOAT, If Sampras, McEnroe, Borg et al who actually played the game at the highest level, unlike The Reed's ,Castles etc pronounce Federer as the greatest player of all time, then perhaps their opinion should be taken over all the sportswriters, hacks etc who ply their trade and mention that his titles are devalued because Nadal was not there. Nadal is a great player, but the required physicality of his game has brought injuries which have excluded him from tournaments, unlike Federer who has been mostly injury free because of the nature of his game. Does the head to head meeting between Fed and Nadal favour Nadal, Yes of course, but so did Fed's over Roddick by 18-2, did anyone expect the match we got on Sunday, I think not, and Roddick was not expected to trouble Murray given their recent head to heads. What is the most important factor in any tournament is that you can only play who turns up, and then beat the facing opponent on the day. Something which Federer did on Sunday, any other argument is academic consisting mostly of the conjecture of 'what if ' These are questions which cannot be answered and therefore have no real merit except perhaps to show where loyalties lie.
Re the GOAT, If Sampras, McEnroe, Borg et al who actually played the game at the highest level, unlike The Reed's ,Castles etc pronounce Federer as the greatest player of all time, then perhaps their opinion should be taken over all the sportswriters, hacks etc who ply their trade and mention that his titles are devalued because Nadal was not there. Nadal is a great player, but the physicality of his game has brought injuries which have excluded him from tournaments, unlike Federer who has been mostly injury free because of the nature of his game. Does the head to head meeting between Fed and Nadal favour Nadal, Yes of course, but so did Fed's over Roddick by 18-2, did anyone expect the match we got on Sunday, I think not. What is the most important factor in any tournament is that you can only play who turns up, and then beat the facing opponent. Something which Federer did on Sunday, any other argument is academic consisting mostly of the conjecture of 'what if ' These are questions which cannot be answered and therefore have no real merit except perhaps to show where loyalties lie.
@@HERVE A RE COMMENT NO 66.........GO AND GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT,FEDERER DID NOT STAY LONGER AS NO 1 IN THE WORLD,SAMPRAS WAS,SAMPRAS WAS NO 1 FOR 6 YEARS WHILE ROGER WAS JUST ABOUT 4 YEARS........HE IS GOOD BUT WAS NOT NO 1 MORE THAN SAMPRAS.
Recently, I discovered a hot place – SeekTall Co m -- where many sexy tall singles who like sports and chatting there. I'm an open minded girl from UK, I also like discuss sports and love with tall guys on it.
Sorry pundits/Federer fans... Presently, I don't consider him the greatest yet,I think "Pistol" Pete Sampras pulled his trigger too quick to say he is the GREATEST...I partially agree with Rod Laver to dismiss the honor to him, coz he was not given the chance (remember 5 years he was banned from playing)and not fair to compare his generation to this generation... Until He (Federer)dominates the Spanish Matador Rafael Nadal or 'Andy "Manny" Murray for that matter, in the head to head match-up! Then I consider him "THE GREATEST"---SORRY THAT'S MY RULE...
Roger is at the pinnacle, not only of his career, but also of Tennis as a sport. Nadal will come back but having punished his knees, which will no doubt recover for lesser mortals, I reckon that he will never be able to play again CONTINUOUSLY with the same intensity that propelled him to Nr. 1 !
In the final analysis the body can only take so much & ( unfortunately ) tennis has reached that level.
Murray, take a leaf out of Federer's book...if you want a long sustained and successful career. Fed knows when he is beaten by a shot ....he has learnt that even making an impossible return successfully, it is highly likely ( 4 times out of 5 )to be beaten by the opponent,
Federer the gratest champion, hailed not just by Pete but all the previous legends.
Now what does that say.
Roger, the greatest of all time. All hail the king
ALL TENNIS MATCHES ON INTERNET: AUSTRALIAN OPEN, WIMBLEDON, ROLAND GARROS, US OPEN, , DAVIS CUP , FED CUP, ATP INTERNATIONAL SERIES, MASTERS SERIES, ATP CHALLENGER SERIES, ATP FUTURES SERIES AND MUCH MORE
Federer is the greatest player to play the game thus far in history,however as history always shows another greater talent will emerge to overtake his incredible achievements.
Please login to post a comment
Not already a Yahoo! user ? Sign up to get a free Yahoo! Account