Q: If you were to play Federer on a medium-speed hard court, would you charge the net?
PETE SAMPRAS: I would try. He would be pretty tough to come in on. That was my game against anyone. I tried to come in, tried to attack second serves, stay back some, but I looked to come in. Against Roger, it wouldn’t be different than playing Jim or Andre, to try to come in and take their time away. It’s tough to stay back against Roger. You see what he’s doing against guys who are staying back. He’s just chopping them apart. I would just try to come in and see if he could return well and pass off that backhand, which I’m sure he would probably figure out over time. But my strategy would be to rush him. I would just have to bring in the gas.
Q: Who would win?
PS: It’s hard to say. The game looks a lot faster today. Technology has a bit to do with that versus when I played in the mid ‘90s. He beat me that one time at Wimbledon, but he’s gotten better since then. I don’t think one guy would have dominated the other. I would have had my fair share of wins, and he would have had his fair share of wins. Our games are pretty similar, but I would look to come in more, [and be] more of an attacking player, whereas he’s a bit of a slasher, a shot-maker. It would have been a great clash to see us in our primes. What Roger is doing that I never did is dominate the way he is. He’s lost five matches in two years. That’s unheard of. But my game was too big to be dominated by someone when I was on, when my serve was on. I felt unbeatable.
Q: Would you try to put him on the defensive?
PS: I would. Easier said than done. He moves so well and he’s so good off both sides and serves so well. I would try to rush him and do my best. It would be tough because he moves well. He can get to a lot of serves and a lot of volleys. He can do some great things when he’s on the run. It is hard to say what would happen. When I came into the game McEnroe was going out. People wondered how we would play. But we just kind of missed each other by a few years. Same thing happened with Roger and I.
Q: When you played Federer that one time at Wimbledon [a 7-6(7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7(2), 7-5 loss], did you have an inkling of how good he was going to turn out be?
PS: I did. I felt he was pretty special back then. He was hitting great shots. It really surprised me, kind of caught me off guard. I heard of him and his game. First time I played him, I was very, very impressed. He ended up losing the next match against [Tim] Henman. That was just a sign of his inconsistency at the time. But the game was there. Over the past four or five years he has figured out what he has to do. He’s a lot more secure in his game. He has an aura about him that guys fear. Just a remarkable player. Even when I played him at Wimbledon, there were signs of it. Now he’s honed it in and has become a lot more consistent. But back then I knew he was special.
Q: When you walked away from the game, the 14 Grand Slam wins looked untouchable, a DiMaggio-type number. Did you ever imagine anybody chasing it down this quickly?
PS: I thought it would take longer than seven or eight years [laughs]. Looks like it’s going to happen. I see him passing me in the next couple years and even taking it to 17 or 18 majors. I don’t see two or three guys threatening him. He’s just going to get better. Guys are going to have their moments against him, but he’s got that extra gear that other guys don’t have. Even when he’s not playing that well he just seems to find a way to win. I don’t see anyone pushing him. I just see him winning 17, 18, 19 majors. He has 10 already and he is in the middle of his career. But I did think 14 would be a tough number to surpass. But he came in at the right time. I don’t see him stopping now.
Q: Do you enjoy watching him on TV?
PS: I’m a fan of his game, his temperament, the way he handles himself on and off the court. I do picture myself how I would play him. Now that I’m sitting on my couch watching, I just kind of marvel at the things he’s able to do. Great mover, does great things off both sides of the court, can come in when he has to, and has a pretty big first serve. He has the whole package. There’s nothing he can’t do. I just love it. He just makes it look easy. He’s smooth, a great athlete.
Q: People say there’s a lack of buzz around Federer. Perhaps it’s the effortlessness with which he plays. Does that work against him?
PS: To some extent in this country. He’s Swiss. He might not transcend the sport like an American would or a couple Americans would. But he’s a great guy. He’s low-key. To some extent in this country we need more controversy, more story in there, whereas Roger is more businesslike. He goes out there and dominates. I held that for a few years in the ‘90s, made it look too easy or dominated. A rivalry would help. Hopefully, one of the Americans, either Blake or Roddick, can push him more to get more attention. But what he’s doing, he does get plenty of good press, especially with what Tiger is doing. It invites comparison. There’s a lot of news there. It’s amazing what he’s been able to do and how consistent he’s been. He’s not an American. He’s not going to totally transcend the sport here. He needs help. Even Nadal can help him add a bit of competition, especially when it comes to the majors. Roddick is the main guy that could transcend it if he could push him more. If Roddick competed harder against him in Australia, maybe he’d beat him, people in this country would have obviously heard about it, because it would have been big news. It could have developed into something bigger.
Q: Assuming your attacking game is a natural antidote for Federer, do you see that style making a slight return, or is it extinct?
PS: It’s extinct. I see a lot of big servers who aren’t looking to come in. You look at Wimbledon the last few years. Even Federer to some extent isn’t looking to come in. Everyone is staying back, hitting big groundstrokes. A lot of it is technology. These young guys are growing up with big rackets and strings. They don’t really learn how to hit a proper volley. I learned with a wood racket, so I had to have the right technique. Guys are hitting big, a lot of spin, a lot of control. You don’t see anyone attacking Roger. He’s dictating from the backcourt. That’s always the best contrast, having a serve-and-voller playing against a baseliner. It’s a good clash. I don’t see it changing. I don’t see serve-and-volleyers coming up. It’s extinct. It’s sad.

 

© 2007 INSIDE TENNIS All rights reserved.
All photographs, text and graphics, appearing on the Inside Tennis web site are protected by copyright.
Any republication, retransmission or reproduction or other use is prohibited without express written permission of Inside Tennis.