No happy ending

By George Soules Sports Central Columnist

The last time I wrote about Pete Sampras, readers of my column came out of the woodwork to assail me.

"You'd better take a look at this," said the site's webmaster in reaction to the avalanche of criticism my article netted.

My main point had been that on the eve of Wimbledon 2001, Sampras had seen better days and that he was no longer a "top contender" for any title, except maybe Wimbledon.

At that juncture, Sampras had not won a tournament since Wimbledon 2000, where the tennis gods appeared out of nowhere amidst London's overcast skies to permit Pistol Pete to triumph over Pat Rafter for his 13th Grand Slam win, clinching the all-time record.

Maybe Sampras should have retired on the sacred spot, clutching the hallowed plate, his parents and beautiful blond girlfriend cheering in the stands, since it would have made for a nice, clean Hollywood exit, rather than the degrading mess that has followed.

First, came the near-horror of a thrashing by Marat Safin in the finals of the 2000 U.S. Open, a debacle that left Sampras downcast and conceding that Safin was the future of tennis, an uncommon testimonial coming from such a prideful champion.

It turned out that Safin wasn't as superlative as that moment in New York's afternoon sun had indicated. During the following 2001 season, the talented Russian showed again and again just how fatal notices of bright promise can often be.

Then came Wimbledon 2001, with Sampras, after the usual first or second round exit at the French Open, prepared to defend his honor as the seven-time champion practically invincible on the grass of Centre Court.

In the fourth round, however, the tennis deities never showed in a five-set loss to Switzerland's Roger Federer, a former Wimbledon junior champion.

Sure, Sampras could have won that match, should have even, but he didn't. This time, the shock and disappointment on his visage was close to tragic, the cloak completely torn off.

So it was somewhat surprising to critics and fans that Sampras was able to mount a more than reasonable comeback, defeating his principal nemesis of the '90s, Andre Agassi, in the quarterfinals of that fall's U.S. Open, then easily avenging his defeat to Safin in the semis before taking on 20-year-old Australian Lleyton Hewitt in the final.

Again, the odds were in favor of Sampras, the veteran champ, pitted against an untested foe (in Grand Slam finals at least).

But history, as they say, repeats itself.

Sampras, as an unheralded 19-year-old had taken on the aging master, John McEnroe, in the semis of the 1990 U.S. Open, and in his decisive victory established that the guard had changed.

The first set against Hewitt was tense and tight, but when the Aussie took the tiebreaker, it was all downhill for the increasingly dispirited Pete.

Afterwards, Sampras said that he wished he had Hewitt's youthful legs. That was pretty much what Ken Rosewall felt, at 39, when he lost to a rambunctious 21-year-old named Jimmy Connors in the finals of the 1974 U.S. Open.

The other week Sampras, now 30, lost to number one Hewitt again, this time in the semifinals of Indian Wells. He followed that up with a defeat in the first round at Key Biscayne, this time at the hands of 62nd-ranked Fernando Gonzalez, a 21-year-old Chilean.

This marked the 24th straight tournament Sampras has failed to win, the longest drought since he won his first ATP event in 1990.

Sampras, it seems, can no longer turn back Father Time. And every time he loses, the reminder is the same: youth over age, youth over experience, and most poignantly, youth over legend.

That may not be always true in Hollywood, but in big-time tennis, it is almost always true.

Article courtesy of Sports Central.