Sampras Cements Legacy
September 9, 2002
On Sunday night, 12 years after beating Andre Agassi to win his first Grand Slam singles title, Pete Sampras topped Agassi again for his record 14th Slam. CNNSI.com talked to Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim about the continued excellence of this thirtysomething duo.
CNNSI.com: First of all, how astonishing is it that Sampras and Agassi simply reached the U.S. Open final?
Jon Wertheim: If you had layed odds on these two guys making the final, your winner's check would be more than Sampras'. It's just remarkable. Especially given where Sampras' game was two weeks ago, for him to get to the final is amazing. Agassi is still in Grand Slam shape, but Sampras is the real surprise.
CNNSI.com: Why was Sampras able to get off to such an impressive start? His serve was blistering, and Agassi just didn't seem to have it.
Wertheim: Sampras owes an assist to Lleyton Hewitt. Everybody makes a big deal out of the fact that, unlike Sampras, Agassi makes fitness a priority. But in the first two sets, Sampras clearly had fresher legs. It might have been a matter of beating Sjeng Schalken in three sets in Saturday's first semifinal, rather than Hewitt in four sets in the second semifinal, but Sampras was moving much better. He looked nothing like he did at Wimbledon. Between Wimbledon and the Open, Sampras apparently did a lot to get in better shape.
The first two sets were almost like the women's final Saturday night, with one player serving much better and putting all the pressure on the other.
CNNSI.com: How does this victory help Sampras' case as the best player in history?
Wertheim: He's the all-time great. This seals it. Twelve years of sustained excellence with bookend U.S. Open titles, coming back from that kind of a slump ...
CNNSI.com: What about the naysayers who point to his failures at the French Open?
Wertheim: Twelve years between hard-court Slams is pretty impressive. More than the 14 total Slams and the six years at No. 1, this sort of run -- with 12 years in between Grand Slam titles -- should do it.
CNNSI.com: How was Sampras able to go more than two years without winning a tournament, and then come back to take a Slam?
Wertheim: He said it was a confidence thing, and I guess he was right. We all rolled our eyes when he lost to Paul-Henri Mathieu on Long Island and then said, "I'm going to the Open, where I've done some damage." But that tells us something about how well athletes know themselves and their bodies. On paper, Sampras would've been lucky to win a few rounds. All credit to him.
CNNSI.com: In the big picture, is it good for American tennis to have these two sticking around, or is their presence impeding the development of younger players?
Wertheim: I think in general, it would have been nice in a different way
had Andy Roddick been in the final. But to sort of send these guys off,
in the oldest U.S. Open final, for them to show they can still hang in their
30s, they've been playing each other for 20 years -- it's not just two veterans.
This was really special. At the same time, had the final been Roddick-Hewitt,
I'm not sure we would have complained.
CNNSI.com: Do you see Sampras hanging up his racket now? He's said he would play another year, but what does he have left to prove?
Wertheim: It goes both ways. There would be something poetic in Pete going out on top. But he said that he would make a decision in December of 2003, and if can still bring it like this, still be on top of his game, why not play a few more Slams? I think he'll cut back his schedule, not play the Houstons and San Joses. But if can home in on the Slams, throw in a couple matches here and there, some Davis Cup, why not give it another year?