Of course it was orchestrated. It just annoys me, as the author suggested, that the media pundits are going to go hog wild with this “loss”.

Sean;
Perfect,loved your description.My thoughts exactly.
Roger(on the hair);
‘Well my suggestion to Pete was that he try hair extensions.He could even harvest the hair from his nose,ears,and other body parts to create that natural look;but really without a good razor theres not much he can do fashion-wise.He may be able to serve but he sure is butt ugly.
Yeah Roger is a glutton for punishment!!! Wouldnt you love to know the thinking behind this.Bet you when he gets Pete to Madison Square garden he is going to bagel him good.Just like when he lost to Roddick at Kooyong and came back and butchered him at the Aussie open.I think he loves winding the press up.Must be so much fun.
He’ll figure Pete’s serve out just like Karlovic and Isner and Lopez and Roddick.
Watch the Wimbledon match to see how he got winners in abundance off Pete’s serve.
Im just drooling waiting.How about you?

Sean, for once, I totally agree with you 100%. Like you said, if Roger had won all 3 of these then there would be no expectations for their rematch in New York next year. It would be “so what? Who cares?”… but now that Pete has actually WON one of these - ticket sales will go through the roof! IMG, Pete, and Roger all knew what they were doing…and it worked. lol!

Has this little series put Federer’s price up?

From ‘The Peninsular’ - Qatar English paper re the Qatar Open

The QTF president was addressing a press conference at the Federation premises here yesterday.

On world number one Roger Federer’s chances of playing in the tournament he said: “We tried to get in touch with Federer but his demands for appearance in the tournament exceeded our budget.”

What kind of a person loses a match on purpose? And for money of all things? The greatest player of all times?

Very smart. When there is a debate on whether Federer or Sampras is superior in the history of tennis, Federer decided to loose in straight set to open the debate so that he can cash extra few million $ from a potential rematch.
Given Federer makes around US$10m a year just from the tour (plus much more from sponsors), it makes soooooo much sense for him to loose, so that he can make extra few million dollars from the rematch. Definetly it sounds like a very intelligent choice for Federer. Good job guys!!

spiromilhous you need to take a pil
it’s an exibition not a real game it’s all business.

I was at the match and Federer was serving well with 14 aces (he usually makes less than 10 aces if you actually watches his games).

Given Sean Randall was not even at the match himself and claims that Federer was serving 2nd serve it really amazes me. This shows how suck Sampras was letting Federer hit 14 aces with 2nd serve!!!

Actually maybe Andy Roddick want to make money from a potential rematch too. Roddick actually lost in straight set to Sampras this year (or last year) in a exhibition match if you are even aware of it.

Professional tennis is awesome these days how top players are willing to earn a million buck or two to be embarrased by a 36 years old who hasn’t played professional tennis for 5 years in straight sets!

I asked myself before I saw the result of this match “what would be the point of the 4th exo in March if Roger wins these Asian exos 3-0? Seems the article author thinks along the same lines. And, judging by the fact that Doha can’t afford Roger anymore, then yes, in the end, money is all.

I thought to myself, should I grace this blog with my post? I have already responded to this drivel you call a match report on a credible tennis website.

Then I thought, why not? Might as well let the horse hear it himself.

If Sampras had won just one set and got blown away in the 3rd….you and your ilk would have said, Federer allowed him to win the set. If he won the 1st match, you would have said, Federer was tired from Shanghai and allowed him to win the 1st. If he had won the 2nd, you would have said Federer wants to keep it interesting. I am sure some of your likes out there, have said, Federer let it get to the tiebreak and then finished him off in the 2nd match.
If Pete had won the 3rd, which he duly did, it was clear your likes were always going to say, Federer let him win it because he’d wrapped up the first two matches.

It was a no win situation for Sampras and it shows the humility of the man that he took the challenge up and accepted the invite..and Randall needs to check his facts….Federer could have invited anyone…so it wasn’t an IMG sponsored tour with only IMG players eligible. Sampras has shown what a classy man he is on court and off court because I am sure he knew there would be people like you waiting to say crap.

Anyone who watched all 3 matches can never say what you or this other chap have said. Anyone who understands tennis wouldn’t say what you have said. This is what happens when people best suited to gossip columns like Perezhilton stray into serious talk about sports like Tennis. They lose the plot.

I am not sure the whole of Asia is waiting, holding their breath till November 2008 to see if Federer will get what will then be a 37 year old Sampras back. I mean, that comment is the height of ridiculous…and yet you poke fun at questions Roger might get asked because of this loss? You, Mr Randall, are the one who needs serious tennis lessons, practical and theoritical before you parade yourself on a blog as some kind of tennis pundit.

There is already a match in MSG. Federer could have taken all 3 in Asia and let Pete win that one on his home soil. Afterall, that’s already a done deal… but that story doesn’t suit your ridiculous thoughts does it?!

Who do you think cares who wins these exhos as far as the viewing public are concerned? Do you think the public bought the tickets because they thought a 36 year old, 5 yrs retired Sampras would beat Federer? They bought it to see greatness on court. Tennis purists knew Federer couldn’t blow Sampras away. Sampras is too good a tennis player for that to happen.

It was an exho. Nobody was going to kill themselves on court over it but Federer and Sampras played real matches and none wanted to lose. I don’t think a player who gloats about beating a man in his backyard is going to want to lose a match, not even a set, on a global televised show to that same man, because we know Roger is paranoid…he himself knows what some will say…

Nobody is reading anything into it…only Mr Randall and Federer fans who are pre-empting what some might say this does to the image of the current crop.

The simple truth is that if you are a true tennis follower, you wouldn’t have needed a 36 year old Sampras to take out Federer in straight sets on a quick indoor court to tell you about the state of Federers competitors. All you had to do was follow tennis all through the year…and Bobs your uncle.

I have said my piece. I wont make this site a habit though it looks like you need all the hits you can get.

The only way Sampras had a chance in this match was for them to play it on the fastest indoor surface available…and they did.

Let Pete try to come back and play on the regular ATP tour today and he won’t find any tournament where the surface is as fast as they played in these exhibition matches. Reality would set back in.

The surface in the last exhibition was used in many tournaments when Pete played and actually it was killing tennis with the booming serve, no return, no rallies.. That is why they slowed the game down. Unfortunately, today, I think it is too slow so they need to find a compromise to speed the courts up just a little more - but not like they were in Pete’s day.

As Pete himself said after the match today “Let’s not get carried away”.

P.S. Lexi - you said it was a no-win situation for Sampras? I disagree. It was a win-win situation for Sampras. No one expected him to win so if he lost - big deal; but if he won - wow!

It was a no-win for Federer. Everyone expected him to win so if he won - big deal. If he lost - wow!

‘Sean, for once, I totally agree with you 100%. Like you said, if Roger had won all 3 of these then there would be no expectations for their rematch in New York next year. It would be “so what? Who cares?”… but now that Pete has actually WON one of these - ticket sales will go through the roof! IMG, Pete, and Roger all knew what they were doing…and it worked. lol!’ quoted FoT

OK SO ‘IF FEDERER LOST - WOW’… i dont get it, i thought you said Federer deliberately lost to earn a few million dollars in a rematch… so its a no-win situation for Federer in which he has to win, but at the same time he wanted to loose so that people will debate if he is crap for a few million bucks… wow i think i am so stupid, i really dont get this

I don’t think Roger Federer would ever let any player win regardless of money. He does not need the money and cannot stand to lose. He has been like this since he was 12. He is very similar to Michael Jordan and TIger Woods in this fashion. The fact of the matter is that a faster surface can let an older player with a serve and volley game play at a very high level if they are in shape. Pete finished the last 5 years of his career with a serve and volley mentality. The opponent strategy was to keep him on the court, figure out how to get the serve back, and keep each point at 4 + shots. The only surface Pete could possibly compete on today would be Wimbledon. Could he do a full tournament? Not sure but I think with the shape he is in now, he probably could and if this was his only tournament each year. I have watched him play locally in the Los Angeles area with top 10 players on tour and he looks pretty dominant. He also trained a year for these matches so its not like he is in bad shape. He probably is in better shape then his last year on tour. Other players who rely on the baseline game could not succeed after retirement. Agassi is a good example. Pete however will remain competitive probably for another 3-4 years. When the serve goes, then no doubt it would not be a realistic expectation to ever beat a current top 10. It makes me laugh to those who think Roger would ever let up to make money. Michael Jordan would not even let his kids or wife beat him at ping pong. Competitors would rather win any day than making $ to add to their pot of gold. Pete beat him today on a fast service. Roger said he would beat the top 5 on fast surfaces.

That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard any tennis journalist/writer say - that Federer let Sampras win the last exibition match just for the cash. (By the way, what cash? Do you really think Federer cares for that cash? Do you know in how many other ways he is making millions of dollars a year apart from his match wins?) You people don’t realize how much pride Federer has. He would never lose on purpose to Sampras as he doesn’t want people to have any doubt that he is the greatest of all time. (He is smart enough to know that people will start wondering if he is really the greatest of all time in case he loses to Sampras.) That Swiss guy is full of pride but some of you still don’t get it. Too bad!

ya i think if they gave him a wildcard to the us open and wimby next year it wud be good fun just as long as they didnt put him in rogers quarter it wud be entertaining

Sean,
You Fed fans can’t just take a defeat even if it is in an exhibition. The Almighty has to “let” the other one win. I think the title is just too fuuny.

These matches don’t count for anything. Sampras and Fed get paid for their Christmas holidays and say bye and go their separate ways. Neither Fed’s wins over Sampras, nor Sampras’s win over Fed are no big deal if the fans don’t make it one. The press is different. They have to make money.

I have to add that I don’t agree that Fed was supposed to win twice and “let” Sampras win once. I think they get paid to come and play but they are more relaxed because it is not an official match.

Fed wins millions a year. How many monies do you need to convince him to lose a match?

Well, at least Fed fans don’t go whimpering on endlessly about injury, real or imagined, when their darling Rafa hits the dust.

oopsy. Should have said: as Nadal fans do, etc

So the trolls on Sampras’ side are working overtime to let the world know the mighty Federer lost to Sampras in an exhibition match that they claim both players took very seriously.

Trolls on Federer’s side are also working overtime to do damage control.

Why?

Isn’t it enough for use to be grateful that two of the greatest players in tennis strutted their stuff in a friendly match. Does Federer have to win every match they play just bacause he is at his peak and Sampras isn’t?

Get over it guys. Sampras’ fans would like to claim now that Federer would not have won his 12 grand slams had Sampras been around.

Maybe not. But, by the same token, would Sampras’ have won his 14 slams if Federer had been around during his time? Think about it. The only time they met professionally was at Wimbledon, Sampras’ best surface. He was the defending champion for three years running. Federer was practically unknown. Sampras was arguably just past his peak. Federer was nowhere close to his peak. Sampras was playing on Centercourt for the hundredth time. For federer, it was his first appearance on the hallowed court. Sampras had the “fear” factor working in his favor. How can anybody walk on to the centercourt thinking he had any chance against Sampras?

And yet, Federer won, beating Sampras at his own “serve-and-volley” type of game, just in case you forgot that Federer served and volleyed the whole match.

So who cares if either of the two greats wins or loses in an exhibition match. Get over it. No matter what kind of spin you want to put on it, it’s not the real thing.

It’so true, Fed let Sampras win, so the next time, he invites him to play in an exhibition, he would say yes to it. Just imagine, if Fed won everything, there would never be the next time, Sampras would not be interested at playing. It’s so simple. By the way, Fed wore his wacth while playing, and he lowered the pace of his serve by a margin during the game in macau (he let Sampras read his serve).

Wow. Really? Are you all serious? Has anyone here ever even stepped on a tennis court? I mean cmon!!! Sean, you’re wrong, Federer didn’t lose for money, he would never do that. And he didn’t lose on purpose, he would never do that either. BUT!! Sampras a top 5 player? Federer’s competition being weak? Are you people serious? Oh no!! Sampras is 36! He’s so old how can he even walk? Agassi was 36 when he retired and he was still competing with the best of them!! Has everyone forgotten that Baghdatis match? Sampras is one of the greatest players of all time!! 5 years off the tour and he’s gonna forget how to play? He’s been practicing for the last 2 years. This year he’s only been playing against some of the best players to ever step on the court on the senior tour. But just because Federer is the dominant number 1 he’s leagues above Sampras? His forehand will go in more or something? This is an exhibition. That means that it’s basically a practice match that’s televised, like Kooyong. And for any person, not just a great champion, whether they’re practicing or playing in the final of Wimbledon, they’re gonna wanna win. But in the end it is practice. Losing doesn’t make either of them any less of players. So Sampras played a little better than Federer in practice today, so what? 16, 17, and 18 year old players sometimes find that the best hitting partners are 45 year old guys who kick the junior’s asses 6-1 6-1. No one cries about that. So Sampras edges Federer out and suddenly Federer and his era suck? Or suddenly Federer let Sampras win for MONEY of all things? No one ever lets anyone win, ever. And just because Federer lost a practice match doesn’t mean his era sucks. Maybe if someone hear actually played tennis they’d understand. And Sean stop making stuff up.

grendel
I understand your misery. no need to take it out on Nadal. It was just an exhibition match. you can relax!

Even if Fed did not LET Pete win (and I doubt that Fed would LET anybody beat him), this loss to Sampras is no more significant — in the grand scheme of things — than any of the other 9 (?) losses Fed had this year. It really isn’t.

Looking at the big picture tennis needs more publicity. Roger and Pete aren’t doing this to stuff their stockings for the holidays. Maybe, they saw an opportunity to grow the game. For those who watched the matches the crowd was there and they loved it. In times where tennis finds the Russian Mafia involved in match fixing, Hingis doing coke, and Haas being poisoned wouldn’t it be nice to think that Roger and Pete were doing some good. Regadless of who wins, doesn’t the game of tennis win?

Well said Jason Alfrey, very well said. In the end, if only we could avoid all this petty arguing about who’s better and who let who win, it’s really a win for tennis. And this is an unbelievably insignificant loss because there really were no stakes. No title, no points, no ranking or anything. But if you count this, then Federer has lost 12 times this year (Kooyong and the Battle of the Surfaces). But really I think it should be clarified that 11 of these losses were insignificant. The loss to Nadal at the French is huge no matter what. Any loss for Federer at any of the slams would be and will be huge, especially at the French.

All I can say that all this tournament did for me was lose a little bit of respect for Federer. If he were doing this for some charity, it would have been OK. But this is all about money. His integrity has diminished in my eyes.

I guess we have to wait for the book to come out to find out how and whether it was rigged;Rene Stauffer’s tell all follow up “Quest for Perfection 2″.That’ll be a secret worth telling.

No, Zola, no misery - sorry. I actually predicted Sampras had a good chance. And expressed disbelief that Fed “let” Sampras win. And it’s not Nadal I was referring to. It was you, dear Zola, you and your chums - you’re the ones who always have a ready excuse when poor old Rafa troops disconsolately off the court. If it’s not injury, it’s tiredness, or perhaps the inexplicable hand of God, who doesn’t even exist anyway …. know what I mean?

b.t.w., several of Fed’s losses were certainly significant, not just RG. The loss to Nadal at Monte Carlo was a wake up call. As, more significantly, was the loss to Djokovic - also significant as a portent for the future, you can be sure Fed is now very aware indeed of a (fit and rested) Djokovic. And the losses to Nalbandian, given the sheer quality of play and the threat that Nalbandian represents, were of course significant. Everyone is waiting to see how Nalbandian does at AO. And, such is the mercurial nature of this strange fellow - tennis experts are just as much in the dark as the rest of us.

For those of you who doubt that Federer would lose on purpose, just remember his Kooyoung match before the Aussie where he played a different style against Roddick so that Roddick wouldn’t get a look at his ‘A’ game. Federer makes plenty of money, but not nearly enough for his status as the #1 player. He has turned down Davis cup matches in order to play Dubai, just for the big payday. I watched the match. I am a 5.0 player, and I am very familiar with Federer’s game. He was not playing anywhere near his best. If this is because he tanked it intentionally, or he just wasn’t willing to push himself and risk injury, I don’t know. I am not one of those who will make excuses for every Fed loss, but losing to a guy 10 years past his prime? Come on. This is marketing, pure and simple.

One more thought. Before every match, both Fed and Sampras made very prescient comments. They seemed to predict the outcome of the next match with great accuracy. I don’t think it’s coincidence.

Haha. I’m not saying you’re wrong but I didn’t see the second 2 matches. How is Federer playing differently? I mean what is it that he’s doing that isn’t his usual style? Again I’m not saying I’m disagreeing with you I just wanna know what it is out of sheer curiosity. I don’t believe for a second that Federer is in tennis for the money. I’m not trying to uphold some perfect image of him or anything, it’s just that from what I’ve read, seen, and heard, Federer plays tennis because he loves the game. His top priority is playing, then winning, then making money. Obviously money is important, he wouldn’t be a pro if there wasn’t any money in it. He said he doesn’t play Davis Cup because he wants to focus on being number 1, but that arguement doesn’t work for Dubai because Dubai isn’t that big of an event to effect his ranking. In this case I do believe Federer is being selfish. I don’t think he goes to Dubai for the money I think he’s just overly obsessed with it and would rather spend his time there than some random third world country trying to get or keep his team in the world group. I think Davis Cup is beyond important despite it’s current shameful status and I wish Federer would step up to the plate and atleast show some passion for it, even if he doesn’t win it.

umm, sure there is cash involved but i highly doubt its exactly “choreographed” that’d be nearly impossible with tennis. and sure there is money involved but i also think both want to do this for the fun of it i mean, I’d pay to play a point with either one -_-’ and they are/were number one so its natural they’d like to play each other and for the public to want to see.

Don’t they have serve speed stats for the match? That would quantify how much of a chance Federer was giving Sampras with his serves.

It was pretty clear that on Fed’s service games he was being pretty generous. Sampras was serving well, and I think Federer legitimately didn’t have too many chances on Sampras’s service games.

Still, it was an entertaining set of matches and I’m glad they did it. I definitely enjoyed all three. (They got better and better.)

The hype and sarcasm that I read in the posts aside, the facts are that Sampras serves and volleys better than anyone, and his spin and slice and makes Federer “hit up” which he is not used to, add to that his still great serve, and you have a person who is difficult to beat in a one match venue - of course he is to old and slow now to play a whole tourney - but he beat Federer because of the above and if you can’t seal with it - too bad

Dubai pays Fed a million just to show up. I don’t think he plays just for money either, but lets not kid ourselves. Anyone who does anything at that level is conscious of money. Remember, these players have a limited life span. Even if he remains healthy, Fed, as well as all players, don’t have long to save up money to maintain a certain lifestyle for the rest of their lives.He will certainly never again make as much money as he does now. So money HAS to be a factor. It should not diminish anyone’s standing. It’s just a reality of life.

As far as how he played different, he was moving slower, he was not hitting as deep, or at the extreme angles that he normally does. I don’t think it was the surface, as Shanghai is also very fast. He just seemed not to be hitting the low percentage shots he normally does. Again, whether this was because he was consciously trying to give Pete a win, or just not willing to put himself at risk by going all out for an exhibition, I don’t know.

I do not know if the match was orchestrated or not. I have only seen highlights from the first match and it did seem far less intense than a regular match, but there were good shots hit by both guys. As for the money issue, both guys have a chance to promote the sport in a part of the world where tennis is booming - that is a good thing. Both guys are likely funneling money into their charitable activities - that is a good thing. Tennis getting attention in the world wide mainstream media - that is a good thing. Beyond that any complaints?

None of the players, including king Roger, is used to serve and volly tennis. Very interesting to watch.

What makes Roger so incredible beyond the fact that he is such a phenomenal tennis player is how incredible well-rounded he is. I recall hearing him talk one morning on CNBC regarding his endorsement deals, charity work, and marking strategy generally. Beyond that, he is always doing photo shoots, interviews, mingling with the high Fashion and Hollywood, and promoting the game in every imaginable way. Not to mention the fact that his unparalleled dominance (among all sports) has been the source of renewed interest in tennis by otherwise non-tennis fans.

In my opinion, this is the other glaring hole in Pete’s resume. Prely from the perspective of a tennis player, I personally can’t fault Pete for his total focus on just playing the game. His serve and volley game was beautiful in its shear power. However, from the perspective of a general sports fan, Pete did nothing for the popularity of the sport. McEnroe, Nastase, Gueralitis, Connors, etc. have all succeeded in this regard.

After how Federer tactfully played out each of the three exos it is clear that he is not only one of the greatest players ever, but the one of the greatest ambassadors the sport has ever had.

See, that’s why I’m saying this is just practice. They’re just hitting! That’s all it is! If you’re playing for score someone’s gotta win eventually. But still the goal is to practice not to show someone that you can hit this crazy shot and that crazy shot. Not only was it practice, but it was also for fun. It was for the good of the sport. There really shouldn’t be any complaints. Unfortunately you have people who are gonna come out and say Federer sucks and others who are gonna say Federer’s giving matches away. When will this end??

Regarding his significant losses: Grendel you’re right, Djokovic and Nalbandian clearly established themselves as threats in the future. Djokovic is likely, Nalbandian… not so much (I mean there’s really no way to know what’s gonna happen with him). But I mean for Federer in the long run it wasn’t a big deal to lose those matches. People won’t look back on those and say “Well if only Roger had beaten Djokovic in that Montreal final he would’ve been forever known as the GOAT”, same for the Nalbandian losses. People haven’t stopped saying that since his loss to Nadal LAST year at the french!!

I’m so damn excited for next year. We’ve pretty much seen a glimpse of all the great stuff we can expect next year. Federer still has the ultimate gear that Sean had been dismissing only a few months eariler. Nalbandian seems to have finally hit his peak and is now a contender for any title. Djokovic is f*cking closing in on NADAL. More of the same from Nadal, I expect. Great first half, mediocre second half. Then there’s Gasquet. Will he get motivated and atleast try to establish himself as a legitamate future top 1? I doubt it but I would love to see it happen. But what I’m most excited for is Murray. When he wasn’t injured for 4 months he was playing great tennis. If he plays a whole year next year? Top 5 without a doubt. Breakthrough slam for him? Could be any of them but I think he’s gonna run into Federer in the final. I don’t see anyone toppling Federer in a slam final next year (except Nadal at the French). So unfortunately none of the first time slam finalists will be able to go 7-0 in their first 7 slam finals like TMF did. But 2009 I definetly see Murray and Djokovic grabbing the first of several slams. And who can forget? 2008 OLYMPICS!!! GO SAFIN!!!

Again, these matches were for entertaiment and successful at that. There will be the debate of who is the greatest of all time in the future. Even when Pete broke the records he was not in many eyes the best ever, so leave it as it is. I have to say if it weren’t for the Conners, McEnroe, Borg and Lendl I would not be involved in the game of tennis. Imagine if Pete didn’t play to inspire such players like Federer? Without any of these idols(I include everyone) would any of us care to even play the sport? Even Sean needs to take a look in the mirror and find the reason why he’s in the line of work that he does. I want to thank all the greats for their years of dedication and entertainment because of them,I am who I am.

Well, the two are reported to be friends and in this venture are business partners. Sampras winning the third match certainly sets things up nicely for March 10, when the two are supposed to play again at Madison Square Garden.

Keeping things close is good for ticket sales, no?

Sean, love your article.

I also agree with Dave. Good comments and makes the most sense.

Yes money is the final reality. Nonetheless they are all human, GOATs are human too.

Folks, I was in Macau and watched the match in person. It was NOT a serious match–nowhere near that. Both players were laughing from time to time and playing hijinks throughout the match. When they hit a shot wide, it was always out by like three feet. There was almost never an on-the-line shot. You never see that in a real professional match. They were both making faces at the audience from time to time with mock gestures of frustration or excitement. Pete hit several shots from between his legs just to draw laughs. Once when Roger was getting ready to serve, Pete handed his racket to a ball boy to return Roger’s serve. It was pure fun, and not a serious match on either player’s part. Anyone who thought there was a real match is just woefully misguided.

As a Brit, I can’t resist reminding people of this: After Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon, who beat Fed in the next round? Dear old Tim Henman!

I agree. This 3 or now 4 match exhibition is all about the money and to keep tennis in then lime light. It was never anything more than that. Exhibition tennis is nothing more than a glorified practice session for CASH!

Sampras is regularly humbled in WTT matches, by Rick de Voest and Sam Warburg, challenger tour players. He can’t even put their serves in play. He is taken to a 10-8 supertiebreaker by Todd Martin on the senior tour. These holiday IMG events would have been less obvious to all but the most simple of minds if Pete had been kept retired until these matches. I’ve seen him in person, de Voest and Warburg have no trouble with his serve, and you think a guy who can return Roddick’s isn’t at their level?

Colin,

Let us remind you of this, dear old Tim Henman never won Wimbledon. Pete Sampras won it 7 times and Roger Federer won it 5 times. Enough said.

Reading these comments I’d say the marketing gurus at IMG did a great job in an improtant market for the sport. As for the players being paid–why shouldn’t they be paid? Nobody complains when they are paid to advertise razor blades, watches and other consumer products. Why in the world shouldn’t they be paid to advertise tennis?

Of course I wasn’t trying to suggest Henman was in the class of the other two, but it does make the point that he was pretty useful at his best, which he never seemed able to sustain over several days.
Oddly, he beat Fed a number of times, until Roger, so to speak, became Roger. Nadal’s early successes make some people a bit too critical of others who take longer to mature. After all, it took Federer a while to get to the very top.

Well Henman used to legitametly own Federer. I’d say it pretty much proves that the serve and volley technique is a very good tactic against Federer, like Sampras says. But Federer did turn that record around and Henman retired with a 6-7 record against Roger. The thing I kinda don’t get though is that a lot of the times Henman beat Federer the matches were extremely close, especially that Wimbledon match. It may have been a 4 setter but Henman only won 2 more points. Maybe it shows that Federer was fragile during crunch time. And the turn around I think proves that Federer is just a genius when it comes to figuring out his opponents. He has so many shots and back in the day he didn’t know what to do but now he knows exactly what shot to hit. Plus the surfaces are slower so maybe that’s it too.

the real issue is pete’s gnarley beard . . . he looks like bluto. get that man a sailor’s cap

Well, first off, you can never have enough money. Just ask John Roth of Nortel or Kenneth Lay of Enron. They had more money than you could ever want but they still wanted more. Most millionaires don’t give up on making money because other people think they should be financially comfortable. That’s just not how greed works. And athletes and their agents are greedy. Make no mistake about it.

I’m not really sure what to take out of this result. I didn’t see the match. But, Roger did say that Sampras’ serve was tough to read. A sentiment of many players who’ve played Pete in the past. And on a very fast court, with the velocity and control Sampras has on his serve, you could see this match not being one full of service breaks. And it’s one thing for Fed to puff his serve in. It’s another thing for him to get consistently get back a very potent serve. He has less control of that. And this year, Fed has struggled more with big serving guys like Isner, Karlovic, Roddick, Djokovic and yes…even Sampras.

I suspect Sampras won this match they way he did many matches in his career. Hold serve, get one break here and there and seal the deal in sets that are close in score. Personally, I’ve always thought that Pete Sampras & Boris Becker were two of the very best “fast carpet” players in the history of the sport. Their weapons were/are so well suited to this type of gunslinger, on the edge type of match where there aren’t any long rallies.

I’m not sure what value there is in Federer letting Sampras win. Money aside, he is a competitor. I don’t think he would let Sampras win. That should run contrary to a champion’s nature. Then again, who knows. All I know is this…if I were Sampras playing Fed at MSG, I’d want the surface playing as fast as a sheet of ice. And with the MSG being the home of the Rangers, this may just be a possibility.

Wow, this writer has wrapped things up nicely for himself so that his world makes sense. It may cause the writer an identity crisis to actually think outside of their childish patterns

lool thats the next surface for tennis gentlemen…tennis on ice!!!! wow that wud be sumtin they cud play in those boots with little picks at the bottom and it wud be fantastic however i foresee a lot of injury.

Rafafan,

Well why not,

Nadal and Federer already played a lame match on half red clay half grass in Spain. Anything is possible.

Another thing, holding this Sampras/Federer exhibition match in Madison Square Gardens may rekindle some old tennis memories there. I believe in time, the ATP may switch the master’s final back there if London proves to be a failure. Maybe this match is sending out feelers to see how the U.S. fans will embrace tennis back in New York outside of the U.S Open again.

Colin,

I knew what you meant. I was just playing with you.

Peace!

Well this blog certainly generated some heat! I guess IMG et al accomplished their mission.

There was a notice at my HK club that a Saturday workout for juniors was canceled because so many members were going to see “two of the greatest players ever” in Macau. I think that notice says it all and for most people, they go their money’s worth.

On to ‘08 and the heat.

Sean: YOur column is not worthy of comment. It belittles Federer - simply to maintain your image of him.

I enjoy this stuff! Mr. Federer madse it clear that once upon a time he found exhibition matches pointless, even unsavory. Now? He sees them for what they are, a way to promote the sport, to give something back. Pete’s motives, I suspect, are similar, although somewhat tainted by a desire to reclaim past glory. However, the silly analysis of fans talking about serves, volleys etc., etc. is risable (as is the article that set it all off). I think I’ll play both of them next time out. At 62 I’ve got three backhands, three forehands (including a mean slice approach) and a serve that dumfounds me by its total unpredictability (ie. hard to read). Sleep tight tennis fans until the start of the real season.

This whole thing is a marketing ploy. Fed is alot bigger liar and poser than people think. Remember how for the last ten years he has always referred to Edberg and Becker as his idols but never Pete? Now suddenly he’s always referring to Pete as his idol.. “playing agaimst my idol”.. blah… blah..blah, What a phoney. Mirka probably told him to lose. Fed doesn’t care about money? Wasn’t one of the reasons for his break up with Roche about money? How much cash could that have been? Fed took a bullet for Mirka and team IMG. I hope he doesn’t play Rod Laver next.

Sam,

LoL,
Playing Rod Laver. That would be a site!

Honestly folks, if some of you really believe deep down that both Federer and Sampras were giving their all to win these matches, then I would strongly suggest changing the dosage on your meds or checking into a medical clinic ASAP. Seriously. You must be the same people that believe pro wrestling is real.

And the argument that Fed has too much pride to lose on such an occasion is a total bunch of garbage. Hell, as stated earlier the guy lost to Roddick a year ago in Kooyang on the eve of the Australian Open, remember? Where was Fed’s pride then? Nor do I recall Fed being distressed over that loss either.

As for him not needing the money, as some of you point out, that’s also complete bunk. Just because you make a lot of money doesn’t mean you don’t want to make even more.

Imagine if your boss tapped you on the shoulder at work and offered you an additional 15% lump sum of your yearly salary just by trading in one week of your allotted vacation time for an extra week of work, and a chance to make even more the following year. At 15%, regardless of you pay rate, I’m sure many of you would take that deal. I know I would.

Fed made $10 million in prize money this year. If promoters offered Rog $1.5 million (maybe more!) for an extra week of tennis, all expenses paid, to play three matches against Pete, I can see where he might want to sign on the dotted line.

And as mentioned earlier, the event did get people talking and did give tennis some positive publicity, allowing us all a much needed breather from the Dayvdenko/Hingis/Gambling headlines of late.

So in the end I really don’t have any problem with the exos or the outcome. If Fed had won all three I wouldn’t care. If Sampras had won all three I still wouldn’t care. It is what it is, a freaking exhibition that made some lucky people a good chuck of cash.

As Pete said, let’s not get carried away.

Sean, you really missed the mark on this post. I just watched the match again, I don’t think Fed threw the match. Maybe he was playing a little loose, enjoying himself, letting his mind wander a bit to take in the event, but that’s a long way from consciously deciding to tank. Suggesting it, especially in the current betting scandal climate is amateurish blogging. I usually enjoy your writings, even when I don’t agree. But this is time you are crossing the line into slanderous territory. And it makes your tennis knowledge suspect… I fear you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. And that makes me sad for ever following you in the past.

Goodbye, Sean, forever.

Way too dramatic yellowballspanker. Did they really get 1.5 mil?? That’s insane. But I still don’t think Federer threw the match intentionally. It’s like I said before, they were practicing. Even Federer is allowed to lose in practice.

It has been intriguing to see how many different points of view there are, and the queer mix within the mix. Thus both Fed fans and anti Fed chaps (and boy, are some of them anti! you can almost see the bile) push the financial motive to explain Fed’s loss to Sampras. Though of course they are doing it from opposing perspectives. Then again, people from both camps insist money has nothing to do with it. Either Fed was beaten fair and square, or else Fed wasn’t taking it seriously, so it hardly really even counts as a loss.

Some make the more subtle point that whilst Fed didn’t give it away - the competitor in him wouldn’t allow that - nevertheless, he wasn’t zoned in in the way he would be in a proper tourney. That makes sense to me. Whilst not knowing how these things work, I assume geering yourself up psychically for a match/tourney is no simple matter, and can only be done a limited number of times in a season. Look at Djokovic - he was clearly emotionally drained at Shanghai, although physically he was in tiptop shape.

All that said, I would like to suggest that the final match, on March 10, is different. Sampras was thoroughly up for this series (I deduce - couldn’t see the matches), and will certainly be in prime condition for New York. And although Fed obviously has other commitments, I reckon he will be ready for this one too.

Just think: it will not have escaped his notice that certain people in the Sampras camp (not all by any means) are already having a good gloat, with plenty of “I told you so’s” concerning the “weakness of Fed’s competition. Some neutrals are scratching their heads a bit, and even some Fed fans are looking a bit worried, and proclaiming just a little bit too loudly that it’s all nonsense and just a bit of fun. If Federer loses this one, it’s going to affect his reputation, however much his supporters try to down play it. And Fed will be completely aware of this.

People get too hung up on the word “exhibition”. It is, after all, only a word, and language does not define reality. That’s the wrong way round, you know. This final match is a one off, and of course financial considerations are not irrelevant (when are they ever?), but my own personal opinion, for what it is worth (but I’m guessing quite a few people will share my view), is that, almost by accident, this match is going to be real. And something, I don’t know what, will hang on it. Even if the motive behind the whole thing was initially benevolent (charity, advert for the sport in Asia) or malevolent (designed to enrich even further people who are already far too rich), events on the ground have somehow changed the meaning of it, in a way which was perhaps not entirely forseeable.

Those who (like me) believe in the cock up theory of history will know what I mean.

Sean, whether or not you are right in principle, it is a mistake to compare the Roddick exho with the Sampras one. Everyone knows Fed has Roddick’s number, so he can certainly be relaxed about losing there. Just not the case w.r.t.Sampras. That’s unknown (and very sensitive) territory.

What does it cost to book MSG in March and give the players a nice gaurantee? If Fed sweeps Sampras in Asia then there’s ho-hum interest and the promoter(IMG?)loses a big chunk of change So, surpise, suprise Sampras wins one. To quote one of my favorite SNL characters “How CONVEEENIENT!”

I don’t understand why Federer’s competition is always attacked. Sampras even admitted that there is so much more depth in the top 100 than there was 10 years ago. The criticisms are regarding those in the top 10. I don’t think the current top 10 is bad or anything, but if you look at a lot of them and how mentally weak and inconsistent they are, it’s no wonder Sampras says such things. But Federer losing to Sampras in this match doesn’t mean that Federer’s competition sucks and he would never dominate if it was better. Most of the top 10 is weak BECAUSE of Federer. When Federer’s playing his best we’ve all seen that there’s just no safe zone to go with him. You can’t hit it to his backhand or forehand or volleys and hope he misses. His serve becomes ridiculously unpredictable and difficult to return. So when Gasquet, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Blake, Djokovic, Nadal, Ferrer, and Nalbandian face this undeniable God of Tennis, how can they not collapse? How can they not be afraid? Roddick and Davydenko are strong against other players. So is Nadal, Djokovic, and Ferrer. Even Gonzalez believes in himself against other players and we know Nalbandian is full of confidence. Even Baghdatis is a strong player until he plays Federer.

If Becker, Edberg and Sampras played in this time, I have no doubt they’d be great players. When you’re that talented there’s no reason you can’t use your talents at any time. But think about how they would end up after 5 years of meeting Federer in slam finals and semis. They’d probably give up their serve and volley games, too, because they’d get sick of seeing impossible shots fly past them every other point.

And if Federer played in Sampras’s time, would he not be great? He’s clearly a great baseliner but he most certainly would’ve been a great serve and volleyer, too. The most significant thing about Federer’s win over Sampras was the fact that it was a pure serve and volley match. Even if Federer had lost that it still was mad close. Obviously Federer isn’t facing multiple slam champions. If Federer wasn’t around there would be a few multiple slam winners. Nadal would have 5 slams, Roddick would have 4, Hewitt would have 4, Safin would have 3, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and Djokovic would each have 1. Hell even Agassi would have had a 9th. And I’m not even gonna bother thinking “what if they lost to someone else in the final” because each and every one of those players was on fire coming into that final but Federer was a giant bucket of water that put out that fire.

Yet so many people say how bad Federer’s competition is and blah blah blah. If his competition was SO bad they would never have been able to create the most complete player in history. You don’t need competition to show that Federer has every shot in the book and then some.

here’s a very interesting article…..

Federer: The Rivalries
by Ruggers: 2007 PG Champion 24 November 2007

Let us look at Federer’s major rivalries; From his clashes with the great Agassi in his latter years, to the tussles against fellow Grand Slam champions, to the battles against the young ones.

What is Federer’s greatest rivalry? What is the most intriguing?

There may be some who will belittle such rivals, but let us recall McEnroe’s words: “I just think that there is more depth in the game today than there was in Sampras’s era”

——-
Roger Federer, Selected H2Hs (age 26)

1. Past Generation
- Leads H2H against Andre Agassi 8-3(age 37)
Sampras retired but Agassi played on and aged between 28 to 35 played Federer 11 times. The Swiss met the tennis legend three times at the US Open losing the first encounter in 2001, winning the next in a five-set tussle in 2004 and beating him in the final in 2005.

2. “New Generation”
- Leads H2H against Andy Roddick 15-1 (age 25)
- Leads H2H against Juan Carlos Ferrero 9-3 (age 27)
- Leads H2H against Lleyton Hewitt 13-7 (age 26)
- Leads H2H against Marat Safin 8-2 (age 27)
The big-server, the huge forehand, the counter-puncher, the power-player. Here are all former World No. 1s, all Grand Slam winners, all tipped for greater success. Yet Federer would rise above them and dominate the H2H series against them.

- Level H2H against David Nalbandian 8-8 (age 25)