Into the Time Capsule

That video of Pete Sampras on the Charlie Rose show is not available yet, so let’s look back in the time capsule to December 19, 1996. The number 1 ranked player is Pete Sampras. He is 25 and has eight majors. You can tell it’s the 1990s because he’s wearing a flannel shirt.

His coach and best friend, Tim Gullickson, passed away on May 3. There’s something about seeing Pete Sampras cry or almost cry that makes me cry buckets. You can tell by the set of his jaw and the look in his eyes that he’s trying to keep it all inside, even before he says his first words in this interview. Tim’s twin brother Tom Gullickson joins him for the interview. Tom was the Davis Cup Captain at the time. The US won the Davis Cup in 1995 behind Pete’s spectacular defeat of the Russians, in Moscow, on clay, where he won both singles matches and the doubles (with Todd Martin). The Russians haven’t lost in Moscow since.

Tom and Pete are on the show to discuss the recently formed Tim and Tom Gullickson Foundation, which is a non-profit that helps families cope with brain cancer. With all the focus on curing these dreadful diseases, the everyday battles of patients and caregivers can get lost. The Gullicksons set out to change that. Tom and Pete were in New York to play in the Foundation’s first benefit, along with Andre Agassi, John McEnroe and Jim Courier.

Beyond that sad event, it’s fun to hear their assessment of Pete’s career so far and how the rest of the field stacked up. Tom and Pete said Agassi could continue be the biggest threat to take the number 1 ranking…if interested and motivated. That proved to be correct.

Pete correctly diagnosed Andre as having a letdown after the 1995 US Open final. As Pete notes, their rivalry was huge in 1995 with commercials and a major media blitz. Everyone hoped it would just continue into 96 and beyond, but it fizzled when Andre went on another one of his walkabouts, to use the Aussie term. This is pretty evident in the brief clip of Agassi at Gullickson’s funeral, with his chubby cheeks and close-cropped head. If you're trying to figure out when a clip or photo of Agassi was taken, his appearance is always a dead giveaway.

As the 96 Olympics coach, Tom noticed that Agassi was highly motivated to win the gold medal and did, then rode the crest of his Olympic win the following week in Cincinnati against a much tougher field. But Andre was just starting his longest slide down the rankings yet. Look for this same dynamic at this summer’s Olympics in Beijing. Tennis’s experience in the modern Olympics has been mixed, with unconventional winners every time. The first person to correctly post the name of the 2004 men’s gold medalist in the comments wins a CounterPuncher t-shirt.

Tom Gullickson will be appearing at the Tennis Masters Series in Cincinnati on July 25.

Pete and Andre did have a few more moments left in their rivalry. And tennis finally got its great men's rivalry from players, styles and countries that were not foreseen back in 1996.

Jim Courier on Charlie Rose Show

Jim Courier appeared on the Charlie Rose show to break down the match, calling it a "revolutionary match" for the sport, especially in the US. Judging by the fact that people are still talking about it a week later, he's right.

Charlie is a true tennis lover.  Sampras was on Friday. We will post the link when it becomes available.

Sampras Reacts to The Match

Bodo wrote a book with Pete Sampras that was published last month. Today he published a short interview with Pete on his blog for Tennis magazine about Pete's reaction to Nadal-Federer.

Two all-time greats, at their prime, playing great on the best court on earth. if you wrote a script it couldn't have been any better - Roger coming back from two sets to love, Nadal showing his heart. . . I thought it was great tennis and great drama.

I think Roger handled himself with a lot of class. What I really liked is that the match goes to show that when you come right down to it, great moments aren't about controversy, and they aren't about personality. They're about two great players who manage to reach beyond the usual audience for the game - that's especially big in this country. It was impressive that two guys who aren't American could capture the American sports fans that way.

I love that his comment was a dig at the personality nonsense that constantly dogged his career.

Sampras texted Federer to offer encouragement:

"Bad luck, too bad there had to be a loser in that one." I said he should take pride in the way he and Rafa are taking the sport way beyond the usual audience. He should feel great about that. He texted me back to say thanks.

I know it was disappointing for him, I'm sure he's still playing that match in his mind. But in years to come, he'll look back on this match and appreciate the moment. No question in my mind about that.

Pete believes Roger still would win seven out of ten meetings with Nadal on grass. I'm not surprised he feels that way. I'm thinking maybe it's four times out of ten but his larger point is right on target: this is not the end for Roger, it's just the beginning of a tougher ride. Pete provided extra reassurance for all the crushed Fed fans; he still expects Roger to break his grand slam record:

Oh, absolutely. It's inevitable. He'll be in contention for all the majors, and he'll win a few more Wimbledons and U.S. Opens before he's done - no doubt in my mind.

What major will you be attending next?

The one where Roger is poised to break my record. I'm kind of selfish about it, though - I told Roger that if that happens to be at the Australian Open, I may not make the trip. It's far, I've logged a lot of miles in my life going to tennis tournaments. I half-kiddingly told him he'll have to do it at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, so now we'll just have to see what happens. Emotionally, I'd like to see him do it at either of those two places, preferably Wimbledon. And I want to be there out of respect for him, but I also would like to go back to Wimbledon someday, because I love that place.

Mr. Pete Sampras, always a class act.

Bodo, by the way, finally decided that Federer finally had his "warrior moment" last weekend. You may recall Bodo's rants about what a ball of wuss Federer was and how manly Nadal is in comparison. Bodo is bothered by Fed's hair, his stylish clothing and his total domination of men's tennis. The domination wasn't enough for Bodo because, gosh darnit, Federer seems like a wimpy little Euro. Bodo, much like Don Imus loves to wax poetic about his testosterone-filled ranch but spends most of his life living in Manhattan. I'm so happy he's concluded that Roger is indeed a man.

Because of my love for Pete Sampras I have to buy the Bodo book, so I need to get my (B)dodo bashing in now so I can give it an honest review.

Oh by the way....Henin Retired

While I was watching and not writing, Justine Henin abruptly retired, just one week after waxing poetic about how much she was looking forward to the French Open. This one was a shocker, but somehow also not. Justine was always the type of player you couldn’t read, she was famously closed off from the world ever since falling out with her family after her mother died from cancer when Justine was a girl. Justine, the oldest, left to train with Carlos Rodriguez and didn’t talk to her four siblings or her father for a decade. In recent years Rodriguez’s hold on Justine became more and more svengali-like, even driving a wedge between Justine and her ex-husband. In the aftermath of that divorce from her husband, Justine and her family reconciled, about a year ago this spring. For much of the rest of the year Justine reasserted her dominance.

The Rationale

Why am I mentioning this now? It’s the reason she quit. She simply (she says) decided she wanted to spend time with them every day and not on the tennis tour. She said she wanted to be there when her siblings came and went to school. Hmmm… My first thought was “why not take a break?” She could easily have skipped the rest of the year and then reevaluated. True, McEnroe was never the same player when he did it, but other players returned after long hiatuses to claim grand slam titles (Jennifer Capriati and Monica Seles). It’s hard for me believe that a player as young and accomplished as Henin won’t simply wake up two years from now bored out of her mind from waiting around for her siblings to come home from school.

“I Could Beat That Girl Like a Drum”

Plus there is the “I could beat that girl with my eyes closed” factor. This is the x-factor that drives athletes who quit too soon to come back. It even tortures those who quit at the right time. The reason Pete Sampras goes crazy during Wimbledon is because he sees these baseliners rallying eight feet behind the baseline on grass and thinks “that guy? I could beat him like a drum.” But he quit at the right time, so he will never comeback.

A Break from the Selfish

Many players, from Pete Sampras to Andre Agassi to Chris Evert, say that to be a great champion you have to be selfish. And when they finally jump off the train that is the pro tennis tour it’s because the price on their family has become too much. Everyone’s schedule depends on the player. You want to see your friends or parents? They have to come to you since you’re never home. You don’t play with your kids because you have to rest your back. You can’t go to the Eiffel Tower with your spouse because you have to save your energy. What’s more, athletes that truly devote their full powers to the game demand a lot from themselves. I thought it was shocking when Pete Sampras said he was so happy when he retired to just be able to drink a beer and not worry about it. He couldn’t drink a beer?? Well, people who are in truly peak physical condition live that kind of lifestyle.

Competitive Voids All Around

It’s hard for athletes to replace competition in their lives, even if they played past their prime. So we have people like Michael Jordan making a comeback, buying into two basketball franchises (and mostly failing). Even Sampras has opened up about the difficulty of transition between tennis and not tennis. When he retired he was spent, but he’s also said after the first year or so it felt abnormal to be retired at 32. The main reason he came back to play the senior tour was because, in his words “a man has to work. I don’t want my kids to think retiring at 32 is normal.”

Justine was more committed to tennis than any current women’s player (by a country mile). That’s why she was a dominant number 1. So it is perfectly natural for a woman who lived in an intense tennis-only training vaccum since she was 8 years old to want and need a break from endless travel, endless training, endless focus. But if I were to bet on whether Justine would make a comeback, I’d vote yes.

Her retirement leaves the WTA Tour with voids all around. With the demise of Henin they lose the one and only top woman who made tennis her priority. Later on in the week, if time permits, I’ll go into what a disaster this is for women’s tennis, if and how they can rebound and why I still believe pouring your all into the game is the way to go, even if it results in a few early retirements.

For now though, I would like to reflect on Justine’s game.

A Player’s Player

In some sense, Henin was a player’s player. In reading her tennis-obituaries this week I was struck by a quote from one of her first appearances in the US Open, when she beat Anna Kournikova. Henin was 18 at the time, and she said this:

I think I am here to play tennis, is the best important in my life. I think [Anna is] a really nice girl. She likes her look, and everybody likes her look. But I am not here to do cinema. I am here to play tennis and I think that's the best important.

As SI’s Jon Wertheim pointed out, in this she was true to herself until the end. Justine didn’t really care what you thought of her, didn’t care if in her rivalry with Clijsters she was referred to as The Mean One, didn’t care if her rivals were busy making cameo appearances on sitcoms or posing for Playboy. She already knew what some players, like Andre Agassi, take forever to discover: it’s ok to be just a tennis player. It gave you everything you have. Some players never learn.

Her game was wonderful to watch. People are saying she’s the last 5’5 champion. Probably, but then again I wouldn’t be too sure to rule out another shorty. Although her peers all played versions of Big Babe Tennis (term coined by Mary Carillo, not by me), Henin could hit the ball with great power. But she had variety and was teriffically accurate, and that set her apart from the others.

Mentally she was also steely tough. At least until a few years ago when all sorts of weird and unsportsmanlike conduct started creeping into her matches, much like the other women of her generation. Wertheim wrote that Henin looked steely one minute but looking to her coach in the stands the next, at once mentally tough and weak. I think he’s right but that’s overstating it. She was the only player on the women’s side who was steely and mentally tough. Looking to the coach was, in my opinin, more her way of letting off steam than anything else.

I’ll miss someone whose sense of professionalism – while not up to the standard we used to see in women’s tennis – was at least strong enough to get her to make tennis her priority. But above all, I’ll miss that searing one-handed backhand that was one of the best the women’s game has ever seen.

New Blood

Oz has come and gone but I didn't want to forget about Joker's victory over Tsonga to win the title. 

Tsonga has all the tools. Now comes the hard part: dealing with sudden fame, learning about consistency, figuring out how to use all those tools to win matches, and staying healthy.  To be fair we really ought to evaluate him 18 months from now to see how he handles himself.

Joker's straight-set domination of Federer was shocking. However, I did predict his ascent to the top of tennis. Hey, I'm wrong enough to make sure I point out that when I'm right, I'm right. When I first decided Joker was going to insert himself into the debate between Nadal and Federer, it seemed a little preposterous. The Mighty Fed and Nadal have such a rivalry, and their tennis is so many levels above everyone else it seemed hard to imagine anyone else joining the party. But when I saw him win Miami and I heard him talk, I just knew that the Serb with the unpronounceable name had the game and charisma to be an unlikely star.

Many observers are now noting that it's hard to remember another 20-year old with a such a complete game. Joker was already a mega-star in Serbia so I doubt his win will affect his ability to get through life. His work ethic is already phenomenal and he's not satisfied with one grand slam. As he said two years ago, his goal is to be number 1. To do that in this era you really have to want it, because Fed and Nadal aren't going anywhere. Having Joker get some of the attention will probably temporarily help Nadal, who has some issues in his game that he needs to work through. It takes the pressure off Rafa to be Fed's main rival. But clay is just around the corner for him so he will be fine. Fed, however, may not get his mojo back until Wimbledon.

Speaking of Wimby, Joker had this to say:

“And Wimbledon? My first memory of tennis was watching Pete Sampras lift the trophy. I think I was 6. I felt I should have been in the finals last year, but I was hurt. I have always imagined myself as Sampras.

“To be Australian Open champion is wonderful; to win Wimbledon, that would be amazing.”

Oz is Over; (B)dodo was Quiet

The 2008 Australian Open is over and Dodo was unusually quiet, for two reasons. First, no one paid for him to fly his sorry ass to Oz. Second, he is writing a book with Pete Sampras. Yes, I've known about it for a while now. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

I hate the word "interesting."

Now Dodo did have a little macho-outbreak after Fed won that five-set marathon against Janko Tipsarevic (this blog's favorite player). Dodo said this was Fed's first "warrior moment." This is a reference to an argument that went on for weeks on his blog, after one of his attacks on Fed's masculinity. You know, attacking Fed for not having won a match after being down a few sets is suspiciously like those people who are always pointing out that Tiger Woods has never had a big comeback on the last day of a major....

Of course he hasn't -- that's because he's usually winning by more than 8 shots, fools!

Earlier this week Dodo did come up with a fine post about what Fed's loss to this blog's other favorite player--new champion Novak Djokovic--means. It was measured, as it noted that Fed is far from done, but it is the biggest evidence yet that Fed is going to be in for some rough times. Rough compared to the smooth waters he usually cruises. 

Look, Fed is still going to break Sampras' record. His reign, which includes many stunning statistics (like the 10-straight slam finals) has been unprecedented because it has been so long. Other players have had spectacular years. John McEnroe in 1984, for example. To sustain that level of play for 4 YEARS is something no one thought possible. In my estimation, 75 percent of that accomplishment is all Fed. The other 25 percent is due to what Bodo called the "seam" that occurred when Sampras and Agassi were gone, and Lleyton Hewitt was on top. Bodo correctly notes that Federer pushed Hewitt out of the picture, but that the next generation of greats wasn't yet mature. (A similar situation happened when Hingis was number 1). 

I thought Bodo was right-on with his assessment. He did not say "the sky is falling" he just noted that Fed can't play untouchable tennis forever. But Dodo's groupies did not like that, oh no, what a bunch of whiny Fed Kool-Aid Drinkers (I can't take credit for that; KAD is a term of art on that overly chummy blog). They've lost their shizz over this one.

Tsonga Resembles Sampras, Plus Notes on Rafa and Roger

This brief video shows Tsonga's Samprasian tendencies. His instinct is to follow huge groundstrokes into the net. This aggression is important against Nadal. In fact, last year Sampras said he didn't understand why Roger stayed at the baseline during his clashes with Nadal, since the way to neutralize him was to blast him off the court. A few months later, Roger looked more like Pete than ever, in the fifth set of his final against Nadal. Nadal was winning but Roger just controlled that set with his serve. He didn't allow Nadal to touch the ball.

But we are here to analyze Tsonga's game. Onward:

First point. Ali in the far court. He punishes Nadal with a wicked forehand. He takes the return shot and slams it crosscourt. Then he does the very Samprasian move of following that stroke into the net. Where he hits a beautiful volley.

Point two. Ali still in the far court. They trade a few groundstrokes and then Ali smashes a forehand, blowing Nadal off the court. It takes a special player to hit a clean winner from that position.

Third point. Ali serving. He hits a pretty good crosscourt backhand and then takes Nadals reply and pushes a backhand down the line. Then he moves to the net and hits a gorgeous, almost behind-the-back touch volley.

Fourth point. Ali serving. He hits a strong first serve. Nadal's return is a bit short and Ali pummels it for a forehand winner...All while moving to the net. Attack, attack, attack. That was Pete Sampras. He could hang at the baseline and hit winners, but he was always looking to take control of the point.

Fifth point. Ali serving. Hits a crosscourt serve that has Nadal on the run, hits a strong forehand to the opposite court, pushing Nadal way behind the baseline. Jo moves to the net and finishes with an overhead. Look at the way Nadal is the one on the string, reacting to Jo. Usually Nadal is the one who is running his opponents off the court. 

Sixth point. Ace. Significantly, it is out wide, with more spin than pace. Pete did this too. He could throw the heater down the middle and follow it with an off-pace serve that curled away from the returner. 

Now watch it all again and just watch Tsonga's feet. Remind you of anyone? Sampras just danced around the court, he almost resembled a tap dancer at times. His footwork was so relaxed, it was like watching someone skip from shot to shot. I always thought he looked cool out there. Oh, to have your tennis game look so effortless.

It all looks so simple, doesn't it? Although today's players are all-court players, there's often little rhyme or reason to their movement around the court. I keep thinking that the guy who changes his game to a more focused attack will have great success. Pete Sampras thinks so too, and some have speculated that he told Roger that when they played those exhibitions in Malaysia last year. 

It seems funny to be saying Roger needs to change his game. But Tiger Woods broke down his entire swing after winning his first few majors. Why? Building it for the long haul, staying in front of the competition. Last year there were a few cracks in Roger. Back to back losses to Canas in the spring; back to back losses to Nalbandian in the winter. Plus Nadal. Don't misunderstand me, Roger is still superb, but he knows his competitors are raising their game. I totally agree with Pete Sampras that Roger would be brilliant as a more traditional serve and volleyer. He surely has the ability.

In Roger's first couple of matches in Australia he came to net more than ever before. But he reverted a bit against Tipsarevic in that five-setter. I think Roger understands that he has to tweak his approach to stay far ahead of the pack. I've always argued that his serve was underutilized. Well he used it in that Tipsaravic match as well, to the tune of more than 35 aces, the most in his career. So we may be seeing Federer's game evolve. 

Good Bodo, Bad Bodo

I told you will give credit when it is due. Over at ESPN.com, Bodo wrote a short post about legendary tennis coach Robert Landsdorp and his ties to second round opponents Lindsay Davenport and Maria Sharapova. Landsdorp also schooled Tracy Austin and Pete Sampras on their groundstrokes. 

Of the four players, Sharapova is the odd woman out and just as that thought entered my mind, Bodo concurred:

Davenport might be Lansdorp's greatest success story, because he shaped her game in a way that minimized her liabilities (relatively poor mobility and a surprising degree of awkwardness in someone with such great hand-eye coordination) and maximized her assets. He once told me "the thing with Lindsay is that if she had a coach who was heavy into top spin, she would never have seen the top 50, no matter how much desire she had. She was kind of lucky that I taught a flatter game. Lindsay surprised me when she won her first pro event at 16, on clay. I was like, 'How the hell did you win a clay-court tournament?'"

---

As a Lansdorp project, Sharapova is not nearly as fully realized. The stroking discipline we saw in the built-by-Landsdorp ground games of Davenport, Austin and Sampras are fitful in Sharapova. Maybe that's what she gets for hedging her bet and coyly playing Bollettieri and Lansdorp off each other, while Uri (Sharapov) claimed exclusive coach status. The most successful players who were developed by Lansdorp are, not coincidentally, the ones who most completely trusted his abilities.

Sharapova is capable of blasting Davenport off the court (remember, at 31, Lindsay is 11 years older than Maria), but I like Davenport's chances if stroking consistency and discipline become issues.

He's right-on with this analysis. Sharapova has so much ability but half the time she can't hit the broad side of a barn. Only an egomaniacal tennis parent would think he knows more than Landsdorp. (In the same article Sampras says if he wanted his kid to learn groundstrokes he would send him to Robert Landsdorp).

Landsorp's comments about Davenport bear repeating because Lindsay's flatter groundstrokes are indeed unusual in this topspin obsessed era. We wish more coaches would bother developing a game to match the player instead of a one-size-fits-all, hit-the-ball-as-hard-as-you-can, never go to net, grunt-and-squeal game. Fortunately this problem is mostly on the women's side of the net now. Here's hoping they grow out of it, and soon.