Unfortunately the only Sampras vs Federer match

Eleven years ago we unfortunately witnessed the only meeting between the two greatest tennis players of all time. A round of 16 match-up at Wimbledon between the young Swiss promise Roger Federer and defending Champion 7 time winner Pete Sampras. The only reason to rate the match a "Five Star" is because of idealism and pity for what would have been a great rivalry. Reality is, in this match: Federer played well -but not great-, and Sampras did not play good -but not bad-.

Back in 2001, the name of Roger Federer was already among those called to be the next generation of Champions, along with some that lived up to their expectations like Andy Roddick, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Marat Safin and some other guys who didn't get to shine as expected, such as Andreas Vinciguerra and Tommy Haas. There were already comparisons of Federer and Sampras, stating how the Swiss had a great serve and a huge forehand, with an "ok" backhand. Sampras on the other hand was -for lack of a better way to put it-, on his way out. People seem to forget that Sampras struggled for 5 sets in the second round to beat a guy ranked in the #100s-#200s called Barry Cowan -who by the way, nobody ever heard of ever again-. Prior the Federer match, Sampras also had a weird straight-sets victory against Sarjis Sargassian (spelling?), where he kept falling in the court and miss hitting shots everywhere. To me back then, it was clear that the 2001 Wimbledon Champion wasn't going to be Pete Sampras. To get an even better picture: after this loss, Pete also lost in five sets on grass... to Alex Corretja, in a Davis Cup tie. The tennis world had to realize that Pete's dominance at Wimbledon ended in 2000.

Had Sampras won this match against Federer, he probably would have been outsted by Tim Henman in the next round, who was playing great that year. Had he won that match, it would have been Goran Ivanisevic waiting for him in the semis, and had he made it to the finals, it would have been Pat Rafter his executioner. I know this is all speculation and that we will never know, but I'm quite sure any of Tim, Goran or Pat would have defeated Pete at the 2001 Wimbledon.

The first set of the match is kind of a "study my rival" set. At first Sampras plays just like any other day against any other unknown/unheralded rival, but somewhere around the 3-3 score where he saves a triple break point, he realizes that this kid is playing with nothing to lose and this confuses Pete. It seems that from that moment and on, Sampras doesn't know what to do to deal with Roger. Let me put it this way: if Sampras was a 6-speed engine, it looks like Pete is happy playing at 4th gear, meaning that he does the bare minimum to hold serve, but he doesn't do any effort to get a break or put Federer out of his "nothing to lose" mindset. So Sampras appeals to the strategy that had been so successful for him in the past: get to the tie-break, where the rival will likely choke. However Federer doesn't choke at all, as he goes toe to toe with Pete. The tie-break shows proof of the tension and nerves between both players: only 2 passing Winners by Sampras, against 1 by Federer; it also shows Pete arguing a call about a long serve. Overall, the tie-break is well played by both players and after a good display of his future trademark shots, Federer emerges as winner of the first set, when Sampras misses a down the line backhand passing shot. You can see Pete almost getting ready to toss his racket onto the ground, but he manages to contain himself, keeping the posture, elegance and quality of a gentlemen that characterized him. You can't defeat Roger Federer winning 6 out of 18 points at the net... even if he's 19 years old.

From that moment, the fall of Pete Sampras at Wimbledon begins.

Like I said before, he never shifts to 5th gear and is satisfied playing a passive/percentage game, which somehow allows him to win two sets and take the match to a decisive fifth. All through the rest of the match, Federer never gives up, eases down or shows any sign of having a breakdown... at ALL. That's truly remarkable, considering how unexperienced he was back then, the stage where he was and who he was up against. After each loss of a set, Roger regroups himself and starts all over again, as if the match was starting from scratch. The only chance Pete had to win the match came on the fifth set, when on a crucial break point that if converted would have let him serving for the match, he unexplainably backhand-sliced an easy Federer serve (prolly around the 80 mph mark). The ball floated very slowly and fell short right into Federer's forehand, who cold-blooded whipped the crap out of the ball to save the quasi-match point that would have sent him home back to Switzerland.

The quality of the match is mediocre at best. Forget about seeing displays of the 1999 Pete or the 2007 Federer. There are no fantastic or spectacular points through the match. Not one -at least in my opinion-. There are some "yay" or "ooooh" points, but nothing else. You can see some glances of what would come to be Federer's whipping forehand and some flashbacks of Pete's magic shots, but that's about it. At one point the commentator states "Pete must be thinking: I can do this for five sets, let's see if he can". That sentence summarizes the entire match. Pete placed a bet and he lost.

The real sad aspect about the whole thing is that just like my review title says, this was the only match we got to see between Roger and Pete. Honestly, I would have preferred them not meeting at all in their entire careers. This match doesn't do any justice to either of them. It shows an aging Sampras against an underdeveloped Federer.