Mailbag: The Legacy of Pete Sampras in 2020

Plus discussion on the upcoming (and canceled) tournaments on U.S. soil in the coming weeks, electronic line-calling and more.

Hope everyone is healthy, safe, sane, and wearing a damn mask.

• Steve Flink is next up on the podcast, talking about Pete Sampras and his new book, Greatness Revisited.

• As we noted yesterday, the Citi Open has cancelled for 2020. It will be interesting to see how this impacts the U.S. Open—still a going concern as we write this—and whether/which players from Europe will come here for three weeks of taxing hard court tennis, only to return home for another slate of events and a major.

• Moving west, the Lexington event is not only on, but will be headlined by Serena Williams. At least for now. Imagine this: a first-year event in central Kentucky might be the biggest tennis tournament played on U.S. soil in 2020.

• On Monday I tweeted that Chad Wolf, the acting head of Homeland Security, is not only a former tennis player—who currently seems to have a UTR ranking—but has played a behind-the-scenes role, advising events and overseas players on getting into the country. Some of you interpreted this as a joke. It was not.

• Here’s some non-tennis content on Hungary and its slide into populist autocracy.

• Why vaccine skepticism is so deeply problematic. This needs to be linked in the next ATP Tour newsletter.

Onward….

Mailbag

Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at jon_wertheim@yahoo.com or tweet him @jon_wertheim.

Jon, I was watching Wimbledon highlights on YouTube and it occurred to me, we never hear much about Pete Sampras. What’s he up to these days?
—Jeff T.

• Where’s Pete Sampras? He’s playing Coriolanus in a community theater. (That was a joke.) Let’s make this Pete Sampras Week, tied to our conversation with Steve Flink, the new Sampras chronicler. It was 20 years ago this week, Pete Sampras won Wimbledon to lay claim to his 13th major, eclipsing Roy Emerson. This was one of those thought-to-be-untouchable records. While the term had yet to poison our vocabulary, Sampras was destined to go down as the GOAT of men’s tennis.

You imagine this conversation between Sampras and a tennis soothsayer.

“Here’s the good news: you will win one more major—your home major!— in the most dramatic way possible. You will rise from the dead to beat your rival. And then you will retire, the rare athlete who conforms to cliché and goes out on top.”

“Awesome.”

“It gets better. You will have a wonderful family and live a charmed life. You’ll sell one mansion to Adam Levine…”

“Who?”

“Maroon Five front-man? No? Not so much? Never mind. Not relevant. You’ll sell one mansion to this Levine guy and move to an even more palatial spread. You’ll golf at BelAir and spend time with your kids and avoid the public eye.”

“Awesome. What could possibly be the bad news?”

“Um, well, er…you know the whole ‘All-time Major record thing?’”

“Yeah.”

“Twenty years from now three different guys will eclipse you.”

In 2020, what are we to make of Sampras? He has provided little help, which is part of the issue. We’ve spoken in the past about how a player’s visibility post-career can color their legacy. Sampras, suffice to say, is closer to Steffi Graf than to John McEnroe. And, yes, he has been nudged off the medal stand by the Big Three.

Still, I would submit that Sampras holds up just fine. If he’s been eclipsed numerically, he is still the gold standard not just for his era, but as a champion who met the moments, who avoided—happily—the trappings of celebrity—and gave a primer on quiet grace, from his breakthrough to his dignified exit. As three players have passed him in the left lane, he has been nothing but gracious and well-wishing, not a trace of bitterness. If he kept a subterranean profile in retirement—for a good laugh, note his Twitter account—he has stayed true to himself and his values.

The guy retired as a titan. And his status has not been diminished in the slightest. Neither has his respect level among his peers. Now go read Flink’s book.

WTT is really making the most of COVID. Great venue and setting. Strong field because players don't have any other options. Exciting matches and great TV coverage. Good stuff. Any idea how much the players are paid? Bonus for winning the championship?
—Mr. Nolan

• a) Credit for World Team Tennis. The tennis has been strong (h/t a 37-year-old mother of three named Kim Clijsters.) From reports I’ve gotten, the players are having a great time. When a player breached the COVID-19 protocols, she was booted from the fun like Violet Beauregarde.

b) My moles tell me: Players get a regular season salary. Top four teams advance to the playoffs. Semifinals, $125K. Runner-up, $250K. Winner, $500K. In total, there is $5M in salary and post-season prize money.

Roland Garros: Move out of my way. USTA: Someone has to pay for us not buying insurance. Novak Djokovic: lots of errors in goodwill. Wimbledon: class act. To put them together as tennis…Come on Jon! The first two are dumb acts, third is senseless, fourth is classy. Sorry, can’t share your giddiness.
—Paleque

• Backstory: A few weeks ago, I noted that, despite the obvious unforced errors, overall I thought tennis has acquitted itself well in the pandemic.

I was surprised how many of you took issue with that. But I’m inclined to—and here we use a voguish phrase of 2020—double down. Again, no doubt that there have been some whiffs. The Adria tour was an unmitigated disaster, a failure of leadership that put lives at risk. Sascha Zverev did not cover himself in glory. John Isner lost a lot of fans with his social media posts about rioting and Coronabros.

Here’s what I’ve also seen: Players—starting with Djokovic—taking it upon themselves to be charitable and look after their colleagues. All manner of fundraisers from Nadal and his millions to lesser-known players making personalized videos for COVID-19 Relief. By many accounts, as the tours discuss a merger, there has been more ATP/WTA collaboration since March than there’s been in the last decade combined. Players and former players—ages Coco Gauff to Billie Jean King—have been eloquent and outspoken about social justice. Entrepreneurs have put on events and tried to use this period to experiment with format upgrades. My colleagues at Tennis Channel have continued with programming and off-beat ideas to ensure that the sport stays relevant (and good people remain employed.) The USTA has shown a flexibility and proactive disposition not always in evidence, trying desperately to stage the U.S. Open under safe (and data-driven) conditions.

Let’s dispense with the idea that anyone should be blamed for lacking pandemic insurance. No one had COVID-19 on their Apocalypse bingo card. And let’s not pretend that other sports and sectors have made all the right calls either.

I know that the initial thought about how sports (including tennis) should come back was how can it be done safely. We have seen lots of ways it could and couldn't be done so far. The common theme is frequent testing. This made total sense when these plans were first enacted. However, as the U.S. has seen more and more cases, testing and testing supplies (kits, PPE, labs, etc.) are going to be (and many have already become) too busy to handle the testing need for the general population. So, at what point does tennis and all of sports need to answer and justify their usage of these supplies for their athletes that may be in short supply in the future, and should sports be taking a stand on this issue sooner rather than later?
—Tony C, Wisconsin

• Great question. I would submit that there is an ethical duty to hold off on sports when so much of the country suffers. And, specifically, there is a duty to hold off on sports when they require testing resources—both quantity and speed—better used on the population at large.

One point about the U.S. that I’m stressing if I’m the USTA: New York is not the rest of the country. Cases are dwindling and life is snapping back to some variation of normal. I’m writing this sentence from Lower Manhattan. The idea of some yahoo walking into a store and declining to wear a mask because it is an abridgment of freedom? Inconceivable.

What are your thoughts on the electronic line-calling we see in Berlin this week, and other events in prior weeks? I love it, and it sure reduces the number of challenges we see, and thus the match has better continuity. You have to wonder if the chair umpires are next!
—Jon B., Seattle

• Like most people, I have concerns with automation and the jobs they devour. But it’s hard for me to take a stand against improved accuracy. Whether it’s in/out, balls/strikes or accidents on the road, wouldn’t you want to embrace any innovation that cuts down on human error and behavioral bias?

One argument against electronic line-calling that I find especially distasteful: “It bleaches the personality from the sport. Tennis was so much more popular when John McEnroe was railing against officials.” To me this A) is unethical. We should not be accommodating error for the entertainment generated, and B) undercuts the seriousness of the sport. If tennis is serious business, with great financial gain riding on match results—and it is—we should be demanding maximum accuracy.

Hope you are safe and well. Aside from the fact that this morning I watched Haas play live tennis this morning (not Bobby, Jimmy, or Freddy, but 42-year-old Tommy Haas…somewhere Papa Djokovic is yelling at the TV telling the old man to stop being so selfish and stay retired), I wondered whether we are closer to moving away from linesmen and women at major events. Leaving aside the added costs of having a Hawk-Eye-type system make line calls (and it seems fair from an equity standpoint that ALL courts have access to that technology), have we seen the beginning of the end of the lines(wo)men?
—Duane W.

• Bring on the robots.

I assume a player who misses a sanctioned tour event because of health concerns or travel restrictions related to COVID-19 will take a hit in the rankings. Unlike hospital workers, tennis players are not essential employees, and it doesn't seem right to ask them to take risks those of us working from home aren't facing. I seem to recall the WTA put in a system that tries not to penalize players who take a leave for maternity. Maybe the WTA and ATP should do the same for player rankings during the pandemic.
—Patrick Ross

• The tinkering to the rankings reflects your concern. The bigger concern, and one that comes up on virtually every ATP call: what do we do about players who WANT to play and are not able because of travel restrictions. Consider the players from Argentina who, I gather, were told months ago that odds were slim they would be allowed to leave their country. Is it fair to hold sanctioned events when some players—through no fault or doing of their own—are able to arrive and others are not?

We say it again: tennis’s international make-up is both its great virtue and great complication. In COVID-19 times, it’s important that the sport can be nimble. Coast is clear in Palermo and Madrid and Paris? Great, we’ll stage events over there. Situation is murkier in China or the U.S.? We’ll tread carefully. The issue is that a global sport, by definition, requires international travel. Getting players from scores of countries—some of them with much higher transmission rates than others; some of them with much stricter travel guidelines than others—is the great complicating factor here.

Hey Jon, do you think that Mahut and Isner could get inducted into the Hall of Fame based on their longest match in history alone? Also, do you feel the U.S. Open will occur this year? Thanks for your time.
—Justin Chaffee

• Are we talking “inducted” as in have their busts alongside Federer and Serena et al? In that case, no. Are we talking “inducted” as in having a special ceremony and perhaps an exhibit? In that case, sure. This was an unforgettable moment that—we could safely say at the time and can now say with certitude—will never be repeated. Why not memorialize it?

Side points:

1) As they walked (or limped) off the court that day, I suspect both knew that, short of winning a major singles title—or curing COVID-19—the topline of their obituary had just been written. Yet one happy dimension of 70-68: both players went on to achieve plenty else. Isner, nearly a decade later, is still the top-ranked American. Mahut would go on to win a career Slam in doubles.

2) I make no secret of my fondness for the Hall of Fame. But a pet peeve of mine is the slashing of the “contributor” category. Especially when so many are uneasy about enshrining players with one major to their name, wouldn’t you want to honor more, not fewer, influencers? I mentioned Vijay Armitraj last week. But Isner/Mahut is a perfect example.

On counting blessings...

If there is one good thing that happened during this time of global pandemic, it's that Wimbledon opened its archive of classic matches, through its official website and Facebook page. And what a treat it was! My favorites? For the highest quality of tennis from start to finish, Novak Djokovic vs. Roger Federer in 2014 and Venus Williams vs. Lindsay Davenport in 2005. In terms of drama, suspense, and greatest moments of triumph, Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer in 2008 and Venus Williams vs. Lindsay Davenport in 2005. Special mention: Goran Ivanisevic vs. Pat Rafter in 2001.
—Nestor Cotiyam, Quezon City, Philippines

• Anything that falls under “good thing happened during this time” we will happily plug.

Finally, Mark Wood take us out:

I didn’t know Dominic Thiem suffered from bad posture but good to know he’s on top of it. (BTW, this was an ad that appeared halfway down your last Mailbag)