|
Everything is more commercialized. He stated with humor that if he had met his favorite hollywood buddy Luke Wilson earlier in life, he would never have won so many Grand Slam events. Sampras talks about thalassmia, an iron deficiency, that caused him occasionally to weaken in tough matches under hot conditions. And, if they got into a war of court coverage, he would beat Agassi. He feels misunderstood and advances the merit of discipline and self-control over the out-of-control tantrums of McEnroe and Connors who now dare give him advice on the matter. But, he will soon become the best grass court player of the Open era with seven Wimbledon titles.
Sampras take is that no one thought Laver was boring. In his mid teens, Pete Fischer, a successful doctor and early coach of Sampras, convinces him to completely change his game. Another surprise is that Sampras did go through the Nick Bolitieri Tennis Academy (NBTA). They are all idiosyncratic, complex, multidimensional personalities. They rarely did. With his one-handed backhand he was defenseless against high bouncing heavy topspin shots. He won't dominate the game readily and will suffer many set backs including two bad losses in the Davis Cup final vs France against two players he should have beaten (Leconte and Forget).
As a second tier group, he names: Connors, McEnroe, and Agassi. About the Sampras-Agassi rivalry and their respective giftedness, Sampras states Agassi had the best eye-hand coordination and was an unrivaled ball striker. But, their convergence to the top will inevitably turn them into rivals. Sampras was part of the U.S. Both Nadal and Federer do play this new style of grass court tennis. Sampras sole dedication to the game is full of sacrifice. He indicates how after his "boring" 1994 Wimbledon win over Goran Ivanisevic that amounted to just a contest of aces, Wimbledon decided to slow down the game by using softer balls and a different grass that would favor longer rallies.
This will have a material impact, as nowadays Wimbledon champions never rush the net on their second serve and win the match more by riffling groundstrokes than volleys. He will be blamed for being boring and unemotional. But, this book is like an insider's 6 hour interview with him. They were all good buddies. Fischer is unperturbed and tells Sampras and family to keep their eyes on long term objective and forget about Junior rankings that are meaningless. But, Sampras serve-and-volley game is the exact antithesis of the NBTA mold of baseliners (Agassi, Courier, Arias, Krickstein).
He also states why he never mastered clay courts. Fischer convinces Sampras and his family to abandon his two-hand backhand and change from a baseliner to a serve-and-volleyer. This book written with Peter Bodo is excellent. He also will not win another Grand Slam tournament until he is 22. He states that is why Federer has fits against Nadal on clay. But, Sampras had a fast-twitch-muscle advantage. His tennis was enough entertainment. Sampras earlier already mentioned him in his top 5 picks.
And, you had no doubt here was a guy who had it all and will be a formidable force. A few names come to mind: Gerulaitis, Nastase, Vilas, Phillippousis, Safin, among others.Sampras career takes off when at 19 he wins the 1990 US Open by beating in succession Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi. It will take him many tries before he finally wins Wimbledon at 22. Bodo is a great tennis writer as he demonstrated with Inside tennis: A season on the pro tour and THE COURTS OF BABYLON: TALES OF GREED AND GLORY IN A HARSH NEW WORLD OF PROFESSI.
He states that Ivan Lendl is the most underestimated player of the Open era. Nadal being a lefthander makes it even worst for Federer.In the conversation for the greatest in the Open era his choices are: Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Roger Federer, and him. It is hard to believe that Sampras grew up as a baseliner with a two-hand backhand. great generation of young prodigies including Courier, Agassi, and Chang.
Sampras is so reclusive. Sampras will experience a lifelong awkward relationship with the Media. The rest is history. If you like this biography, I also strongly recommend McEnroe's You Cannot Be Serious," Nastase's Mr Nastase: The Autobiography and Becker's The Player: The Autobiography. As a shy provincial teenager, he was not ready for that.
All the major channels want to interview him. Sampras tennis life is full of surprises. Sampras transition period is challenging and his ranking in the Juniors plumets. After this peak experience (winning the US Open at 19), it will take Sampras a long time to find his groove.
This was the case during his famous match with Corretja in the US Open quarters in 1996, when he vomited on the court but still manage to win in 5 long sets and collapsed right after the match. The public want drama not just great tennis as in yesteryears. Sampras shares how challenging the aftermath of this glorious moment was. All of a sudden, he is a cover page nationwide celebrity. The Appendix when he analyzes his record and the profile of his main rivals is very interesting. This makes you wonder how many great talents out there did not fulfill their potential due to hedonism. He felt he was much faster. Fischer envisions that by doing so Sampras will win more Grand Slams than anyone else.
But, times have changed. I remember seeing some of those matches, including the final. How did Sampras serve-and-volley game survived intact at the NBTA.Even more surprising, Sampras hates grass at first. It made it challenging for them to play together as a team in Davis Cup.
But his opinions of other major players in his era are very very interesting. It is true that there is not much Pete can tell you about his personality cause, as he said himself, he is a boring tennis kid. I finished this book in two nights and still wanted more. This is the best tennis player's biography I've ever read, even better than McEnroe's "Serious".
He already had enough money. For such a poorly written book, how come it's rated 4.5 stars. He is a great player, if not the greatest. Not only that, the English in this book would make even a foreigner like me laugh.
Sports is an amazing human invention. And that co-author. But he is not a writer, and shouldn't even bother with this. Once you are a star, you can do nothing wrong.
I have nothing against Pete. like McEnroe said: "You cannot be serious". Your fans are always behind you. There is no depth in this book.
I guess it is one of the keys of Pete's formidable success: his game did not force him to think much, and that matches what the fantastic book, "The inner game of tennis" recommends.A good example is his explanation about his backhand. It all revolves around a strong first (and second) serve (yes, and an unbelievable forhand).But, perhaps that's the way to really be a champion. There is very little depth in the analysis of the different periods of Sampras ascension to the top, of his matches and opponents, of his strategies, and of his dilemmas. but it just happened that he suddenly had a good one-hand backhand (well, a decent one).Just a weird (for me) comment he makes: He says that the Aussi guy Philippoussi was one of the most talented players on the circuit. If you are a tennis fan, you're gonna enjoy reading this book as it describes an interesting period in the history of the game.
Yes, he had a great serve and strong forhand (like Pete), but I saw him play many times and he could not keep his backhand in the court more than 2 times in a row.(a bit like Karlovic). like his unbelievable serve. There is very little thinking of strategy in Pete's book (as in Pete's game). Not much thinking, and things just happen (but you first need to have the kind of serve that Pete had - a real "gift"). Pete happened to have a 2-hand backhand at the beginning of his career. This is a very interesting event, which I suppose many of us would be interested in hearing, but again.
It will remind you the opposition that existed at the time, from the perspective of Pete Sampras. To Pete's credit, he does try (or is it his co-writer ). yes, he had difficulties at the beginning (losing to Chang). But you are also going to understand pretty fast that the book's content is much like Pete Sampras's game: it all happens frustratingly simply. Since this did not match his style and his willingness to win Wimbledon, he was forced to move to a one-hand backhand, with the obvious problems this can cause. Compare this to Brad Gilbert's book (winning ugly) or even Mc Enroe's "You can't be serious" books which really make you enter their world.
It just happens. to add some psychological depth to his book, but this has very little strength.
I would have liked a glimpse deeper inside the soul of Pete Sampras, still, the match descriptions make this book another Bodo book worth getting. I love Pete Bodo (co-author), and I read his columns on tennis.com and espn whenever possible. I've thoroughly enjoyed some of Bodo's other books which give insightful views inside the tour and the minds and inner workings of the players.
|
