He made Sampras look positively <b>old</b> today. A great win for a promising young tennis player. Ol' Pistol Pete is definitely on the decline now. In fact, although he isn't quite there yet, he is coming dangerously close to "washed up" status.
NEW YORK -- Eleven years ago, to the day, 19-year-old Pete Sampras, a lithe serve-and-volley assassin, won the first of his record 13 Grand Slam singles titles here at the U.S. Open. His past two visits to this ultimate stage, however, have ended in disaster, even humiliation. Sampras' volleys have been sluggish, his confidence tepid -- the only thing served has been youth. A year ago it was Russian Marat Safin, 20, who blinded Sampras in straight sets. This time it was another 20-year-old, Australia's Lleyton Hewitt, who torched Sampras 7-6 (4), 6-1, 6-1 in Sunday's somber U.S. Open final. Sampras, now 30, looked even older and outmatched than he did last year. Against Safin, he won 10 games; Hewitt only gave him eight. And now, after a magnificent run through three former champions, the haunting question will beg itself again: Is Pete Sampras finished? For the record, Sampras has now gone 18 tournaments without a title, a streak that encompasses a staggering 427 days. For the first time since 1992, Sampras will not bring a Grand Slam trophy home. "He was unbelievable," said a downcast Sampras. "The kid is so quick ... it's unbelievable. Those legs, I wish I had some of those legs for this old guy. "But, I lost to a great champion. You're going to see this Lleyton Hewitt guy for the next 10 years -- like you saw me." Was it a coincidence or poignant that Sampras actually referred to himself in the past tense? For Hewitt, it was the logical progression after reaching last year's semifinal here, where he lost to Sampras. "It's unbelievable," Hewitt said. "I've dreamt of this moment and being out here in a Grand Slam final. It hasn't sunk in yet. "I got a bit lucky out there. I was seeing the ball really well. It's a real dream come true." It was the 17th Grand Slam final for the No. 10-seeded Sampras and only the first for No. 4 Hewitt, but you never would have known it. Sampras had held serve in 87 consecutive games coming into the match, but Hewitt managed six breaks in Sampras' 13 service games. <b><u>The key to Sampras' game has always been his serve</b></u>, but he's backed it up with a stout volley or two or three. Sampras, who had been volleying well all through the fortnight, was not sharp against Hewitt. He looked sluggish, particularly on his initial volley. Was it the emotional and physical toll of defeating former champions Patrick Rafter, Andre Agassi and Marat Safin? Or was it that Hewitt runs down balls so quickly and applies relentless pressure? Or, perhaps, both of the above. Sampras came into the match with that amazing string of service holds, but Hewitt ended it on the very first game. He smoked a second serve return down the line with a vicious forehand for a surprise break. Of course, Sampras returned the favor immediately, breaking Hewitt at love. Both players were, understandably, nervous in the early going. The swirling winds made it difficult to get a feel for the court. Sampras' strategy was to take something off his legendary heat and move the ball around on the hustling Hewitt, and it took some time to get the groundstrokes calibrated. Inevitably, the feeling-out process ended in a first-set tiebreaker. When the two met a year ago in the U.S. Open semifinals, Hewitt actually held a set point in the opening tiebreaker. He wound up losing in a straight-sets match that was decided by another tiebreaker. Sampras opened with <b>a classic big serve</b> out wide, but Hewitt surprised him by tracking it down and cracking a return that left Sampras with a tough forehand volley. He dumped it into the net and a tone had been set. The decisive stroke was a backhand pass down the line that gave Hewitt a 5-3 lead lead. Set point was a spirited affair, but Sampras' backhand volley -- which had been working well to that point -- sailed long. Hewitt consistently hounded <b>Sampras' usually secure serve</b> and, finally, broke through in the fourth game. It wasn't a fluke, either; he stroked no fewer than five winners in the four-deuce game. The last two points, however, were identical backhand volleys into the net from Sampras, who stubbornly kept serving to Hewitt's well-honed backhand. That gave Hewitt a 3-1 lead, which he easily built to 4-1. Sampras' next serve was the beginning of the end. Sampras, one of the best serve-and-volleyers ever, didn't always follow his first serve to net. Hewitt broke him again, for the third time in nine service games, and served out the second set. It was, technically, a perfect set for Hewitt. He lost only three points on his serve and made a single unforced error. The third amounted, really, to piling on. Hewitt broke Sampras' serve at will and watched Sampras hit volley after volley off the court. On match point -- tellingly on Sampras' serve -- Hewitt crushed a first serve with a backhand cross-court winner. In his excitement, he slipped and fell on his back, even as he pumped his fists. It was the only time all day he was at a disadvantage. "It was a good run," Sampras said. "Unfortunately, I ran into a young guy that was a little bit too good. The way he returned and passed, was the best I've ever seen." http://espn.go.com/tennis/usopen01/s/2001/0909/1249915.html
That's my point. You stated that Pete was closing in on "washed up" status, yet he thoroughly outplayed Safin who is very young.
Huh? Since i got to college I haven't been able to keep up with most sports (esp. tennis). Can you fill me in?
"The little boy was...serving well, he was...vollying well, so you know what you guys do next year? Be sure not to serve fried Kangaroo or Fosters, or whatever the hell those people eat!" Fuzzy Zoeller But really though, He kicked some serious ass. So the kid is only 20, lets hope he'll learn from his racist slip of the tongue mistakes. Why the hell did Pete keep coming to the net!!? OVer and over, you figure after the first 20 times he lost points at the net, he'd try and change strategy a bit. oh well, too late now!
He wanted a black line judge replaced because he thought he was biased against him because his opponent was black.
The unfortunate thing about the whole Hewitt/line judge situation is that the chair umpire DID switch him. In that respect, the chair umpire was tacitly accepting Hewitt's argument that the line judge was acting prejudice towards Hewitt. The chair umpire should have said, "I see no reason to switch judges. I have also seen no reason to overrule him."
One good match (or three for that matter) does not a champion make. The bottom line is that Pete hasn't won anything for a year and a half. He also isn't getting any younger. I can't believe you are trying to argue that his career isn't on the decline. Who knows though, maybe he'll have a few more productive years yet....... ..... in the Senior's league.
There was a little more to it than that... The line judge made a call that went against Hewitt twice (ball hit roughly the same disputed place twice)... Hewitt looked to the umpire and asked sarcastically," Do you see the similarity?" Hewitt maintained afterwards that he was referring to the similar calls, not that the line judge and player were both black... Perhaps, he was just covering his ass, but that was his defense of the whole situation... is there another incident in question?
The actual incident was that the same line judge called two foot faults against Hewitt in the match against Blake. If I am not mistaken, the same line judge called a foot fault against Hewitt in his match with Sampras yesterday. There was a black line judge on Hewitt's side when the foot fault was called and the judge looked like the same one that called his other foot faults. Blake showed a lot of class as he heard what Hewitt said (as he said it) and shrugged it off. It would have been poetic justice for Blake to complain about any white judge that made a call against him.
Rocketman95 Its good to see that, while the US Open Officials saw fit to exonerate Hewitt, you guys can condemn him as a racist. It was an indiscretion that was inconclusively accused of being racial. If I was in the public spotlight, I would try to never put myself in a position like Hewitt's, where something I say [i[could[/i] be construed racist, but then everything I say is not on public record. Hewitt says it wasn't racist, Blake accepted it, and there is no way you can conclusively say that it was. It should not overshadow an incredible performance - give the guy the benefit of the doubt. mr_oily Question is, will Fuzzy Zoeller (and you for that matter) learn from his prejudicial slip of tongue? As for Sampras - a tough draw for him - beating Rafter, Agassi and Safin in the three proceeding games. He was just out of gas in the final. I fear it might have been his last chance at a Grand Slam. The fact that he was uncharacteristically gracious in defeat was surprising too
The Open response (including the on the court official) is a disgrace. No way should he have let that pass. No way the tournament should have let it pass. Ludicrous! Maybe Richard Williams is more correct that people give him credit for being. I was ashamed that our national tournament would allow such a CLASSLESS and RACIST utterance to go unchallenged. Hewitt may be a fine tennis player, but he's shown us a side that can't be written off as 'youthful indiscretion.' I wish Blake had walked over and punched Hewitt right in the face.
