The Rise and Fall of Pete Sampras

Pete Sampras came out of nowhere to win the US Open in 1990. This could have been a fluke win or, much like Wilander, it could have ushered the precocious start to a brilliant career. In that run, he beat McEnroe and Lendl and also Agassi in the final. It turns out that it was the second, and Sampras was to have one of the best careers ever.

Sampras relied on a huge first serve, which he could produce aces seemingly at will, or at least whenever he was in danger of losing his serve. His biggest rival was Andre Agassi, but Agassi often fell short to Sampras, unable to have a serve that would bother Sampras nor able to handle the Sampras serve. Agassi's accomplishments would have been even greater if he could have solved Sampras.

Sampras played his best at Wimbledon, winning seven Wimbledons. Despite his powerful game, Sampras's body seemed rather fragile. More than any other player, Sampras focused on the Grand Slams, often losing warmup tournaments, never having the kind of domination on the tour that, say, McEnroe had in 1984, when he lost only 3 matches all year.

Perhaps the indication that Sampras was unable to deal with the punishing rigors of the tour was a change in strategy. Sampras, who was a reasonable baseliner, at least as long as the rallies didn't get too long (he was known for a memorable 21 stroke rally against Agassi at the US Open, which he won), began to serve and volley more and more.

2001 was basically the beginning of the end for Sampras. He reached the US Open final but otherwise lost early in the other Grand Slams, including the one and only meeting with Roger Federer in the fourth round of Wimbledon (a sign of struggle may have been a five set win by Sampras in the second round, a long match for a player that was so dominant on grass). The following year, the US Open was his last hurrah, as he won the US Open over Agassi. Again, he lost early at Wimbledon, this time to unheralded George Bastl.

While Agassi's ups and downs in his career may have actually allowed him to play much longer, Sampras's continued excellence took a toll on his body. He found it hard to keep his speed up as he got older, and eventually faded having not won a tournament (other than the US Open) for two years during 2001-2002.

Agassi also faded, but at least it could be attributed to a nagging back injury that eventually forced him to retire in 2006, having had a longer career by about 5 years than his rival Sampras. And unlike Sampras, Agassi had a career Grand Slam, having won all four majors.

Sampras only reached the French semis once, usually losing early in the French. The year he got to the semis (1996), he lost in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon. Sampras may have made a deliberate calculation in his mind to not try to win the French so that he wouldn't tire himself for Wimbledon, giving himself the best chance to win he could. One never knows. He might have won 8 Wimbledons in a row had he tried to lose earlier in 1996 at the French.

That year, Sampras played three tough five setters winning one over former champ, Sergei Bruguera, then fellow Americans, Todd Martin and Jim Courier. He lost tamely to Yevgeny Kafelnikov who went on to win the French that year.

Basically, Sampras's game collapsed in 2001 with his one bright moment at the 2002 US Open. His falloff was nearly as dramatic as Wilander, who had a brilliant year in 1988, coming short of a Grand Slam (he never was competitive at Wimbledon, though) and then fading badly, though still staying on tour for another 8 years, playing mediocre tennis for half his career, as the power tennis style of Agassi, Lendl, and Becker became the norm and Wilander was unable to handle this new style.

Perhaps the rigors of playing at the top can take their toll on the body and mind which is why some players don't simply fade into mediocrity but dive headlong into it.