This is one thought that's been itching to get out for quite sometime. And it concerns the two greats of lawn tennis, namely Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. Having played soccer for good 10 years tennis always seemed a boring sport till I happen to catch on TV a match between Sampras and Boris Becker. Becker was sent packing in 4 sets and it turned out to be Becker's last match. It was Pete's calm and respectful demeanour that captivated me instantly and I knew I'd found an idol. I began to identify with Pete Sampras and followed his on-court travails.
He was more than a tennis champion. On the other hand, he was only tennis champion. Unlike Agassi(I started liking Agassi only from '99 when he fought against the odds), Sampras's focus was tennis. He pursued excellence in tennis single-mindedly. He was a favourite because on court I never saw him showing his emotions. And I firmly believe that you're not supposed to show fake emotions for the sake of it. Be what you are and not fall prey to creating an image for the sake of others. And the facts that he was as-you-see-me and never showed disrespect to his opponents were enough to endear him more to me. I admired him as silently as he went about etching greatness against his name on every leaf of tennis history. Just like silence sometimes conveys more than words, his racquet instead of his vocal chords said everything he wanted on the tennis court.
His wimbledon triumph in 2000 when he was carrying a leg-injury was an indication of his dominance over the lesser mortals in tennis at that time.
But it was after a final appearance in US Open that year that he seemed to others old enough to be beaten. Critics pounced all of a sudden as they often do to bring down the greatest. It's a failing of human mind that it sometimes want to be big by belittling the others. In one of my hindi books in school I read
"Badi lakeer ko mita kar hi chhoti lakeer badi banti hai" (A small line becomes big only by erasing the bigger line)
2001 went by without a grand slam for Pete as was 2002 threatening to. He reached the final of 2002 US Open as he did last two years. Everyone in the way was dispatched. I was badly praying Pete to come out on top this time and on his own terms. Show everyone why you' re the greatest ever to pick up the racquet. On the other side of the net was standing Andre who always seemed to bring out the best in Pete. He did that again and that cost him dearly. Andre must had wanted to say the words that Agent Smith said to Neo in The Matrix Revolutions "Why Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you refuse to give in? Why do you persist?".
Sampras had better of Agassi and I was delighted. My greatest did a Phoenix. That he hung up the shoes after that is another way of saying "It's for me to decide when and how I wanna say 'So Long!'". So long, Pete. It symbolised to me the triumph of human spirit, triumph of will and belief in self.
JUST WHEN the world was thinking he left a void in men's tennis came up another star who answers to the name of Roger Federer. Pistol Pete's legacy was to be inherited by Fedex. He's dominating the tennis like Pete did, rather more than Pete did(going by the percentages!).
Now it's here that I turn a bit green. I recognize that it's not good but then I cover it up by taking it as my resistance to change. A human after all. I like Federer a lot, his flowing tennis, his off-court demeanour. But I simply get anti-Federer only when he's accumulating the Grand Slams. But that won't prevent a good Roger to get more slams than Pete Sampras. He's too good for the crowd playing right now. I admire him though. I should like him for his on/off court behaviour is as quite dignified as Pete's on court(who off-court was seldom in news).
Mind says Federer would definitely create/break lots of records and surpass Sampras, but heart doesn't want him to. He's so good a tennis player and so good a person that it's kind of sin to think the way I think. But still ............. :D ...can't help it....
On another note, when one talks of Sampras and Federer one can't stop comparing the two. Without wanting to reason(I've my own and people opposing it have their own), I think Pete is better than Roger at Wimbledon, US Open and equal at Australian Open. At French, Roger would beat Pete more often than not. Before Roger came up, I doggedly believed Sampras to be greatest and best....of all times. All the talks of "you can't compare players from different eras" seemed cliched.
But you know what! I've resigned to seek solace in believing the cliche now :-) . And this not for pretence or for not acknowledging Roger's greatness. But because I do have started to believe that it's the most rightful way of looking at things. Ofcourse, everyone hails the rising sun.
They did that to Pete. They did the same to Laver and Borg before Pete. And they are doing the same to Roger now.
For me, Roger might go on to be the best but Pete would remain the greatest. After all it's not easy to forget the first love, is it?
Pete rocked and Roger rocks! Wish they could have played against each other in their primes.
Roger is nonetheless a great player and as great a human.
