Last of the Champions

Last night, ESPN interviewed Pete Sampras during their coverage of the Australian Open. Despite Sampras speaking at three a.m., his answers were crisp. His opinions were concise and spoken with the precision of his game. As he discussed his career and the state of tennis, I was intrigued by two of his observations.

While most would resent Roger Federer’s assault on their records, Sampras was magnanimous. He respectfully complimented Federer, as the legend he is becoming. However, he also noted the obvious. Whereas Sampras contested Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, and Michael Chang, Federer is sans a competitive lot. While Sampras was the greatest in a golden era, Federer is a luminary amidst the dull.

The absence of a Federer rival has been discussed. While this deficiency does not retract the grand slams he has garnered, the lack does diminish the overall value of his greatness. Sampras defeated three winners, three men who rightfully stand amidst the best. Federer has not, nor is he likely facing a challenge of this magnitude.

Both Sampras and Federer are Hall of Famers. Each is the living personification of the word prodigy. With that stated, Federer’s competition will never rival Sampras’. This is why Federer’s legacy will never rival the man on the phone.