The silence that follows a thunderbolt is often more frightening than the deafening roar of the sky. The pin-drop silence that hung in the air on that overcast day when a 19-year old sprightly Swiss lad ended what had been a decade long domination of Pete Sampras at Wimbledon was one such instance. The people at Centre Court could not believe what they had seen for as far as they were concerned, 'Pistol' Pete was not only invincible, but he was as close to God as any human being could get. Between 1993 and 2000, Sampras had lost only once in the meadows of Wimbledon and that was to an out and out serve-volleyer in Richard Krajicek in 1996, who eventually went on to win the coveted title that year. But, how dare this unheralded Swiss come from nowhere and dethrone the man whom they had loved and cheered and who had in turn regaled them with some awe-inspiring display of tennis.
Although it was hard to assimilate that history was made on that day and an epoch in modern tennis came to an end, the spectators managed to come to terms with it. But, what escaped them was underlying significance of a match that had irrevocably altered the course of history and that in two years’ time, they would come to love and worship the very same man who had dislodged their hero from his pedestal.
For close to a decade, victory against Sampras at the Wimbledon had eluded some of the greatest Tennis players ever: Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Andre Agassi to name but a few. It was not for nought that he was christened "Pistol" Pete. His serve was a veritable missile fired from a height of close to ten feet and it was, more often than not, meticulously placed. The lightning quick serve, if returned, was followed by a surreptitious approach to the net which in turn preceded what was in all fairness the one gaping flaw in Sampras' game: The first volley. Reckoned as one of the most formidable players at the net though he is, Sampras never could manage to pull off a winning volley off his very first shot at the net. A weakness not many players managed to exploit fruitfully. But, once the rather ordinary volley came back, Sampras dispatched it with consummate ease, without any hassles. So absolute was his domination at Wimbledon that even some of the fastest servers like Greg Rusdeski, Goran Ivanesevic among others could do little but watch Sampras saunter to victory in her Majesty's gardens.
Apart from his formidable serve and his equally effective game at the net, Sampras also boasted a wide array of ground strokes in his repertoire. Not the most elegant of players from the back of the Tennis court, Sampras was never the less extremely effective. He had a thundering forehand and an equally effective single-handed backhand. It were these attributes that enabled Sampras to get his hands around the US Open title a stunning five times and he also managed to triumph at the Rod Laver Arena in Australia twice. Among the few in the 1990s who really gave Sampras a run for his money not just at Wimbledon but in other Grand Slams as well were Mark Philippoussis, whom the American held in very high regard, Yevegny Kaffelnikov of Russia and of course Krajicek who managed to beat Sampras six out of ten times.
His game was ill-suited to the Parisian clay and not surprisingly, his record at Roland Garros is not too flattering to the Champion. With immense difficulty, he did manage to go to the semi-finals of the French Open in 1996 where he was undone by eventual Champion, Kaffelnikov. His failure to achieve the career Grand Slam is something that his detractors have also held against him. It did not help matters either when his arch-rival and close friend, Agassi triumphed at Roland Garros in 1999 and achieved the distinction that had eluded Sampras.
Time often impresses upon humans that it is supreme but every so often it decides to do so in a manner that is so dramatic that posterity is unlikely to forget even if it is wont to. Sampras' defeat to Federer was one such instance. Pushing 30, Sampras had pulverised most of his opponents up till the fourth round of Wimbledon 2001 and had shown no outward signs of his advanced age. Age, his fans believed was just another number and time, they believed affected lesser mortals. Therein lies the irony of that unforgettable match of the English summer. Sampras wasn't defeated by his nemesis, Agassi, who was pushing 31 neither did he fall to the big serving Croat, Ivanisevic, whom he had defeated in two Wimbledon finals but he was shown the door by a young ebullient Swiss lad who had, as fate would have it grown up drinking the sight of Sampras demolish his opponents at Wimbledon. Time was mutely telling Sampras: Your time is up, my friend.
But, Sampras showed that he still had fire left in him by winning what was the last of his 14 Grand Slams a year and a few months later in America. But, Sampras knew that his tryst with the game was at an end and he retired at the Arthur Ashe stadium an year after he had decimated Agassi in the finals at the same venue.
His retirement coincided with Federer's inexorable rise in the world of Tennis. Federer, returning to Wimbledon in 2003, a year after he had been trounced by Mario Ancic of Croatia, beat Philippoussis, who seemed to be in the form of his life that year to win the first of his seven Wimbledon crowns. En route to the final, Federer beat Andy Roddick in the semi-final thereby laying the foundation for what was probably the most lop-sided rivalry in the history of Tennis. Philippoussis, who had prevailed over Agassi in a marathon encounter, came into the final full of hope, albeit as the underdog. "The Scud", as he was popularly known, was serving splendidly and had managed to curb his error-prone game to a small extent. Even a decade after his defeat, Philippoussis finds it hard to fathom what went wrong that day. Did he misfire or was Federer really invulnerable? It was, in truth, a bit of both.
To say Philippoussis choked would be harsh, but he was slightly more erratic and was missing volleys that he ought to have finished without blinking an eye. But, the sublime Federer seized the initiative early in the match and gave the Australian little to no chance of making a comeback and approximately two hours later, when the referee announced: "Game, set, match and Championship Federer", the world beheld a giant who would go down in the annals of History as the (Indisputably) greatest player in Tennis. The game of tennis has seen its fair share of players who despite being immensely talented failed to garner results which would have ensured their names being carved in the History books. Often, these incredibly gifted players are erratic and tend to get carried away when logic would dictate them to remain calm and try nothing extravagant. Federer's first Wimbledon finalist, Philippoussis was one such player. But, Federer was one of those players who managed to temper his phenomenal talent with a calm disposition.
Critics have always held that Federer's backhand is slightly deficient in comparison with his near perfect forehand. But, the very same critics had to eat their words after Federer sent a running backhand pass against his nemesis, Rafael Nadal in a match no true Tennis fan is likely to forget: The 2008 Wimbledon final. Facing a Championship point, Federer played a shot whose impact on the grass of Wimbledon is sure to resonate across endless abyss of time. To borrow Neil Armstrong's immortal quote: "One shot by Federer and a giant leap for the world of tennis". He lost the match, but in its aftermath, there was little doubt as to who really was the greatest player of all time. Even ten years after his maiden Grand Slam triumph and a dozen years since his epic triumph against Sampras, Federer continues to hold the patrons of the game in thrall with his intoxicating display of Tennis.
Had it not been for the man who not only halted Sampras on his favourite playing surface but also usurped his place in the pantheon of all-time greats, the American would have probably gone down as the greatest grass-courtier in the histor