Although Roger Federer probably wasn’t at 100 per-cent effectiveness, focus and strength, it is apparent that Pete Sampras still can compete with the game’s top player(s) in an exhibition format.

If Pistol Pete, at 36 and not in top match condition, had to work his way through seven matches over a Grand Slam fortnight, I don’t think there is any way he could win or go too far - even at Wimbledon with its short points and the emphasis on serving, one of his greatest strengths.

But in a one or two-match format he is still formidable due to his huge first AND second serve, his big forehand, size and athletic ability, big-match experience and ability to raise his level on the most important points. After all, that is what usually sets the top players apart due to the game’s unique scoring system. The players at the top who play the biggest points best almost always win, be it in tiebreakers or ad games.

'The Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe-Jimmy Connors era was the peak of tennis in terms of competitiveness, skill and mental toughness'


Against Federer, Sampras showed his forehand still to be very heavy and penetrating, and the Swiss master had trouble handling and reading his serve as well. Many times Federer was frozen or leaning the wrong way as Pistol Pete’s serve whizzed by.

He seemed unable to tell where Sampras’ serve was headed, partly because the American varied his angles and targets well, and also because of a lack of match play against Pete that would have allowed him to anticipate his shots more readily. Before the two embarked on their three-match tour, they had only played each other once, when Federer ended the veteran’s Wimbledon win streak in 2001.

At the time, Sampras prophetically predicted that Federer would become the next superstar of tennis, although it would take a few years before he would realise his enormous potential. Because Pete is Roger’s idol, it probably was hard for him to play all-out all the time against someone who hasn’t been on the tour in several years, too. Particularly after a long, grueling tennis season.

After rallying from 3-4 down to win the first set of their opening match, Federer rolled on to win nine of the last 12 games as Sampras clearly lacked that big-match play edge to his game. His solid play on the senior tour did not quite prepare him for the higher level that Federer plays on.

But in match two, Sampras began to hit his stride yet couldn’t overcome Roger in a tiebreaker. In match three, Pete finally broke through mentally and physically. His huge running forehand is still one of the best in the world, as is his second serve. Pete played the big points well in the tiebreakers, which he won both sets the third time around.

Sampras is a little mentally tougher than Federer, and I see that as the only real chink in his armour. Roger has not really been challenged consistently by any foe. When he is expected to win and gets in a close match he tends to tighten up some still, like in the 2004 Olympics. He still wins a lot of matches by opponents being intimidated and losing close matches because of that, his skill level and grace, and seeming unflappable invincibility.

Sampras was hardened by the death of his coach Tim Gullikson at a crucial formative point in mid-career, and that event really spurred him on to be more serious and tough about his game. Rivalries with Andre Agassi, Patrick Rafter and other fine Americans like Jim Courier and Michael Chang also made him mentally tougher than Federer, who lacks such foes and is so smooth he makes things look too easy.

I contend that the Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe-Jimmy Connors era (and throw in Guillermo Vilas on clay) was the peak of tennis in terms of competitiveness, skill and mental toughness. The points had to be constructed better due to less power and it’s unlikely that there ever was a time when so many truly great players were at or near the peak of their game at the same time.

Although it helped push them, it also limited the number of Grand Slam titles each won. Had they played in a lesser-crowded field at the top such as now (and all played the Australian annually), each of the three would have won many more Slams.

Part 2

What would happen if an all-time (open era) round-robin tennis tournament were held on different surfaces?
Choosing the top eight players on grass, hard court and clay is the first task.

Here is my list on grass: Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors (apologies to John Newcombe, Stan Smith, Rafter, Goran Ivanisevic)

On clay: Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Gustavo Kuerten, Thomas Muster, Sergi Bruguera, Jim Courier, Rafael Nadal (apologies to Courier, Chang and Agassi).

And on hard courts: Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Roger Federer, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker.

Note that no player made all three surface lists. Rod Laver is the only man to win the Grand Slam (twice, in 1962 and 1969) in the past 70 years, although in his time all but the French Open were played on grass. So he played very little on hard courts. As such, it is a little harder to judge his game, plus I never saw him live due to my youth and his age. Agassi won the career slam. Sampras, Federer (at least not yet) and McEnroe never won the French clay.

Each player would play everyone else once on each surface, best three out of five, to determine seeding for a single-elimination tourney. Here is what I think might ensue:

Grass: Sampras #1, Laver #2, McEnroe #3, Federer #4, Becker #5, Borg #6, Connors #7, Edberg #8. Quarter-finals: Sampras 3 sets, Edberg 1; Laver 3 sets, Connors 2; McEnroe 3 sets, Borg 2; Federer 3 sets, Becker 2. Semi-finals: Sampras 3, Federer 2; McEnroe 3, Laver 2. Final: Sampras 3, McEnroe 2

Clay: Borg #1, Nadal #2, Vilas #3; Wilander #4; Lendl #5; Kuerten #6; Muster #7; Bruguera #8. Quarter-finals: Borg 3 sets, Bruguera  1; Nadal 3 sets, Muster 2; Wilander 3 sets, Kuerten 1; Muster 3 sets, Lendl 2. Semi-finals: Borg 3, Muster 1; Nadal 3, Wilander 2. Final: Borg 3, Nadal 2

Hard:  Sampras #1, Federer #2, Lendl #3, Connors #4, Agassi #5, McEnroe #6, Edberg #7, Becker #8.
Quarter-finals: Sampras 3, Becker 1; Federer 3, Edberg 2; McEnroe 3, Lendl 2; Connors 3, Agassi 2. Semi-finals: Sampras 3, Connors 2; Federer 3, McEnroe 2;.Final: Federer 3, Sampras 2.

Or if you took the top eight consensus players and made them play on all three surfaces, what would happen?
The top eight - Sampras, Federer, Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Borg, Lendl (just missed-Becker, Edberg). Sampras-#1 on grass, # 2 hard court, #8 on clay = 11 total score;  Federer-#4 on grass, #1 hard court, #5 on clay=10; McEnroe-#2 on grass, #4 hard court, #6 clay=12; Connors-#6 grass, #3 hard court, #7 clay=16; Laver-#4 grass, #3 clay, #6 hard=14; Borg-#5 grass, # #1 clay, #8 hard=14; Lendl-#8 grass, #3 clay, #5 hard=16; Agassi-#7 grass, #6 hard, #4 clay=17.

Overall rankings - peak: 1) Federer 2) Sampras 3) McEnroe 4) Borg 5) Laver 6) Connors 7) Agassi
8) Lendl. Overall rankings - career: 1) Connors 2) Sampras 3) Borg 4) Agassi 5) Federer 6) Laver 7) McEnroe 8) Lendl.

Mental toughness: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Agassi. Athleticism: 1) Borg
2) Sampras 3) Federer 4) Connors 5) Laver 6) McEnroe 7) Lendl 8) Agassi: Speed/Fitness: 1) Borg 2) Federer 3) Connors 4) Laver 5) Sampras 6) McEnroe 7) Agassi 8) Lendl. Serve: 1) Sampras 2) McEnroe 3) Federer 4) Laver. Volleying: 1) McEnroe 2) Laver 3) Sampras. Shot making: 1) Federer 2) McEnroe 3) Agassi.

Tennis intelligence: 1) McEnroe 2) Borg. Competitiveness: 1) Connors (the Pete Rose of tennis) 2) Borg
3 McEnroe. Best rivalries: 1) Borg v McEnroe 2) Borg v Connors 3) Sampras v Agassi 4) McEnroe v Connors
5) Federer v Nadal.