The Man:Age - 36
Retired - 5 years ago (and hasn't played any competitive tennis since)
Grand Slam Titles - 14
Wimbledon Titles - 7
Last Title Won - US Open, 2002
Name - Pete Sampras
His Opponent:
Age - 26
Retired - 2 years from now, probably :P
Grand Slam Titles - 12
Current Rank - 1
Last Title Won - Masters Series (less than a week ago)
Name - Roger Federer
Now, when these two men take on each other in a tennis court, you can expect even hardcore Sampras fans to think that Federer would beat Sampras 999 out of 1000 times. If it's a 3-match series, they can be excused for thinking that the odds of Sampras winning 1 set is about 1 in a hundred. Now, if you had told them that Sampras actually won 2 out of 6 sets, won one out of 3 matches, 3 out of the 6 sets were tie-breakers of which if Sampras had won all three, he would have also won the 3 match series 2-1, they'll tell you they knew he was capable of doing it :P
I believed that Sampras would win the third match after he lost the second one in 2 heart-breaking tie-breakers, and he did. Some people are so convinced about the invincibility of Federer that this will not change their opinion one bit....but for people like me who believe that Sampras is way better than Federer, well, it doesn't change our opinion one bit either.
Bow to the King, the only KING! B-)
24 comments:
wow! couldnt believe Pistol Pete won the third! pete rocks any time any day!!
Siva- yupp. idha sonnadhukku onakku bonus...enjoy!
First Set- Tie-Break
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3940449649941278831
Second Set- Last Two Games
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4017598084745354665
just watched it on youtube.. what a match, what a man!
well said...
I still remember Pete's last Winbledon game when he lost to the then new entrant, perhaps unseeded, Federer. One of the rare occasions during which I actually cried!!! He is simply the best!
Siva- yupp B-)
Heretic- He is!
Ahem. I beg to differ! Die hard Sampras loyalist that I was, I had to set my initial doubts to rest after watching Federer in Wimbledon 2007 Finals against Nadal. I would say, there is only one Master of the game for one era. Until yesterday it was Pete. Today it is Federer (He is the God of tennis right now. Look at his power play!how can you think otherwise?!?!). At some point of time in the past I was hoping the future would belong to Marat Safin. Big diappointment there!
You may pounce on me and dice me to pieces - But for me, the best?- Federer it is!
Harini - naan-laam previous generation :P
tennis ceased to exist after Pete retired. :P
[quote] Harini - naan-laam previous generation :P
[/quote] What a comforting thing to say :) way to go pal. gopal.
any way did you see fed? he had his frickin watch on!! and he was smiling and giggling thruout. They played in places traditionally not known for tennis events, to promote teh game. if pete had gone down horribly, it wouldnt be that much of an advert for the game would it? He played well. it felt good seeing him after such a long time.
but come on, we will only know the difference after atleast three more years, then we can do a win/loss comparison.
Ram: Nan-laam previous^2 generation;)
- loved every player that played perfect serve and volley at Wimbledon : Mac, Edberg, Becker (always thought Edberg was more elegant than Becker) and Pete. Pete was Tennis God - watched that Grand-slam where he cried his way to win against Courier ("Win for Tim" thing), blasting aces and winners and Courier off the court. One of the most poignant, yet triumphant thing you would see in a sport....
...yet, I'm a big big fan of Fedex. His all-court play is amazing and some of his shots are out of the world. His play on either hand is almost flawless, when its in top-gear. Yet my biggest peeve re Fedex is that he doesn't play at the net as much as he ought to - just to prove he isn't bad there either. But as he says, Wimbledon courts have become slower by the day and net-play is almost impossible.
To me both are greats; if they were contemporaries, it would have been amazing few years. Fortunately (or unfortunately) there weren't - now they have 25 Grand slams between them.
ps: Regardless, the only time they played competitive tennis, you know who won :) That ought to count for something
pps: The 3-match thing was exhibition; and Fedex had already won 2-0. Wouldn't give a lot of credence to the results anyways.
In any case Fedex himself hold Pete in awe...
Heretic - hehe. that'd be too harsh- i still love the sport ;)
Durbha - you can give a 100 reasons...but to me, Pete beat Federer rather than Federer lost to Pete.
Gautham - welcome here. same answer....you can make all your claims...but Pete emerged the winner despite being off from tennis for so long and despite being 10 years older than Federer. I can bet on Federer winning zero grand slams after he is 29. wanna take it? ;)
Ramesh: Feel that Fed will will win a grandslam even at the age of 29 :)..shouldn't be a problem as he is taking good care of himself playing selectively..
ram, not taking that bet. Simply because at 29 Fed may not have the motivation to play on, as he may have, hopefully, overhauled Pete's 14 by then...
Ramesh - welcome here. Let's see.
Gautham - good choice!
Ok I take that Bet, depending on Whats on the Line?
well, i'll be Ram and you'll be Durbha for the rest of our lives. Deal? ;)
That statement is loaded. So lets rephrase it.
if( he plays competetive tennis at the top level till he is 31, like pete did) && (he does not win any of the four grand slams between 29-31 )
then
ill sign as Durbha on your Blogs. And just to make the deal sweeter for you, in all my written correspondence with you.
Deal?
Deal. ofcourse, am not responsible if he misses one or two of those 12 grand slams. i hope you won't complain either.
good point. lets say if he plays 10/12 we still have a bet. but what if he does win one or more of those?
Dont say you can continue to be ram too. that is the default any way, so think of something else.
this is one of those All-In bets for me. you can call me whatever you like if he wins one :D
see the telugu movie titled "challenge" [ chiranjeevi]. or its tamil equivalent.
why?
The villian challenges the hero to a bet without telling his side of the deal. ie what if he loses:) and ofcourse as it has to happen in movies, he does lose. just remembered that.. not insinuating any thing here.. i saw it recently, so remembered.
The Ram will win ;)
Post a Comment