Happy 50th birthday, Pete Sampras

Underrated Traits of the Greats: Pete Sampras' smooth movement

In the history of tennis, only three men have won Grand Slam singles titles in their teens, 20s and 30s. One is still active: Rafael Nadal. The second is the remarkable Australian, Ken Rosewall.

The third turns 50 today. Pete Sampras won 14 Grand Slam singles titles and finished as year-end No. 1 a record six straight times.

Of Sampras’ 14 majors, two were bookends to a brilliant career. In one sense, each was a surprise; in another, not at all.

At the 1990 US Open, the 19-year-old Sampras was seeded 12th. Later he called what happened over the next two weeks, “a case of a pup going through a zone.” Sampras caught fire, most notably when, in the last three rounds, he beat three men who collectively won 23 Grand Slam singles titles. Down went Ivan Lendl in a five-set quarterfinal. In the semis, it took Sampras four sets to subdue John McEnroe. The spirit of improvement continued in the final, Sampras earning a straight-set victory over Andre Agassi to become the youngest man to ever win the US Open.

Twelve years later, Sampras was 31, seeded 17th in New York and had not won a tournament for more than two years. Yet once again he turned Flushing Meadows upside down. And once again, Sampras' opponent in the final was the man who’d ultimately become his fiercest rival, the remarkable Agassi. This time it took four sets, Sampras winning what proved the last match of his career.

But of course, it was the 12 majors Sampras won in his 20s that made him a titan. Over an eight-year period, from 1993 to 2000, Sampras was tennis’ premier clutch performer, repeatedly winning matches with the crisp attacking game he’d built on the hardcourts of Southern California.

One way to best grasp Sampras’ excellence is to explore the fingerprints he left on the three geniuses who followed him: Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and Nadal.

The year Djokovic turned six years old, he saw Sampras beat Jim Courier in the 1993 Wimbledon final. In Steve Flink’s book, Pete Sampras: Greatness Revisited, Djokovic says, “I was impressed with his skills and composure and watching him play. On the most sacred court in tennis, I fell in love with it all.”

It hardly matters that their playing styles are different. What Djokovic took away from Sampras was something even more mystical.

“I really feel like that day when I saw Sampras, he gave me great power,” he said. “It was as if he had received information about it. It is something that cannot be explained. It is a very deep feeling. But, for me, Pete was the reference.”

With Federer, the stylistic affinity is quite clear. Liquid-smooth movement, a silky service motion and exemplary sportsmanship are among the more visible three attributes these two have in common.

“Everybody knows what a hero he is to me and how much I admire what he’s been able to achieve,” Federer said nearly a decade ago.

I really feel like that day when I saw Sampras, he gave me great power ... It is something that cannot be explained. It is a very deep feeling. But, for me, Pete was the reference. Novak Djokovic

Like Sampras, Federer is known for winning points in lightning-like fashion, an asset that greatly helped Sampras win seven Wimbledon titles and Federer take eight.

Federer also has the unique achievement of being the only one of these three men to have competed versus Sampras. Their only meeting came in the round of 16 at Wimbledon in 2001. Federer won it, 7-5 in the fifth—as vivid a changing-of-the-guard moment as tennis has ever seen.

Said the 19-year-old Federer that day, “Well, sometimes it was weird, you know, I look on the other side of the net, I saw him, sometimes I was like, it's just true, you know, kind of that this is happening now, that I'm playing against him. But then it just goes away, this feeling. You think about your serve, where you're going to go, then it's like playing against maybe some other player, you know. But obviously something special for me to play Pete.”

And what about Nadal? After all, what is the similarity between a gritty lefthander who’s dominated Roland Garros and a sleek Californian who looked to end points as quickly as possible?

The connection comes when you see how each relished the chance to compete in high-stakes situations. Like Sampras, Nadal’s self-belief is off-the-charts. Like Sampras, Nadal has frequently played his best tennis when it matters most. And so, the two share this attribute: Players you’d most want to play for the fate of the planet.

Nearly 20 years after Sampras left tennis, his legacy echoes loudly.