Well, frankly, you're talking about the 3 game series: which Federer won, easily.
You're telling less than half the story in that post. But that's ok. I suspect Tennis isn't your favourite sport. But it is mine!
The point of giving Sampras a match in that exhibition was because the whole event was mainly for shits and giggles, and not the intention of being a total whitewash and schooling a now, what, nearly 40 year old Sampras? (which in a serious match it would have been). But what's the point in that? For anyone? Have you never seen a Tennis exhibition match?
Those are the matches designed for pure entertainment (where McEnroe shouts "you cannot be serious", the players do ridiculous shots, imitate each other etc) I don't know if you've noticed, but Tennis is a game of sportsmanship. Humiliating Sampras 3 love was not in any way the point of the event.
So no, that is a victory that is a entirely irrelevant, frankly.
It was probably agreed to before they walked on court.
But, in fairness, and there's no doubt about it, Sampras was amazing. Especially compared to the mostly shitty players of his day (Agassi was on a downward slope for a long time for much of Sampras' career and the rest of the pack were predominantly one dimensional ace hitters - YAWN). Although, Ace hitting was also a big Sampras play, as was all top flight men's tennis then. Despite my full acknowledgement that Sampras was a fantastic player, he also existed in a period of mens tennis where there were no other
real competitors up to matching his level. You see this in Boxing all the time, and other sports. Sampras' huge Open victory tally is largely due to this. Frankly.
Ivan Lendl was not the best tennis player ever, yet was number one for longer than McEnroe, or Borg, or Connors. That doesn't mean he was better than them in their prime - he wasn't (He did beat an ageing McEnroe at one point (1985 Us open?), but that's not really the same as say...this final of Wimbledon that we just experienced). (Although Lendl was still amazing). (in Boxing, you wouldn't say that Kelly Pavlik was the best ever Middleweight, because Middleweight Boxing is fucked atm. He's not on the level of say...Roberto Duran, or Sugar Ray Leonard.)
The tennis Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/any top 20 player plays now is substantially more talented and enjoyable tennis than that played ten years ago - that's a basic fact of reality that anyone who knows anything about tennis acknowledges. It's not up for discussion, because the discussion is ridiculous. It's better in virtually every way except passion, which remains a constant in all sports. But still, in terms of skill, fitness, tactics and greatness it truly is a golden age right now for tennis, and not the doldrums of Ace hitting that existed when Sampras was number 1.
Nationality/pride in your previous heroes has little to do with this reality.
The courts and such have been slowed down specifically because mens tennis was becoming somewhat of a joke. But frankly, the only people still whining about men's tennis being "ace related boredom" are those that haven't watched a match since Sampras played.
I'm honestly not trying to detract from the brilliance of Sampras, and he was brilliant, absolutely fantastic, in the somewhat lowly period of men's tennis of the 1990's - but really, if Sampras was at his prime nowadays, he wouldn't be able to trouble either Nadal or Federer, even on a bad day. Especially with the courts as they are now. I play, watch and coach
a lot of tennis, believe me, it's an educated guess. Or don't, I don't really give a shit.
So, no, the Sampras "victory" over Federer was pretty much for show, ultimately.
I'm being realistic about it btw, I loved Sampras and what he achieved was amazing, but that doesn't mean I have to delude myself into thinking that Sampras was ever on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And frankly, if Federer, or Nadal had played Sampras in a proper match 10 years ago, they probably still would have demolished him. The tennis being played now is virtually unrivalled in the history of the game. But its one of those things that can not ever be proven, so believe whatever you want if it makes you happy
And if you don't believe me, just because on a different sub forum on a different subject I happen to think that US foreign policy is fucking retarded just because it actually is, then just spent some time in a month or so listening to the commentators in the upcoming US open for an hour.
None of this explains the capris pants though!
