Tennis’ Torch
Sampras, Federer, Djokovic: the Grass-Court Gods of Wimbledon
18 years ago, something remarkable happened at Wimbledon.
Pete Sampras lost.
This was remarkable because he had not lost at the tournament in five years — 32 matches — winning four straight titles. But that actually undersells his dominance. Were it not for a 1996 loss to the eventual champion, Richard Krajicek, in the quarterfinals, Sampras would have likely had eight straight Wimbledon titles. So yes, a loss in the fourth round in 2001 was a big deal.
A big enough deal that The New York Times wrote an entire article about the defeat. And that article is fascinating to look back upon now for a few reasons. Chief among them: the almost passing reference to the person who beat Sampras that day. Which, again, was understandable given the story was that the “grass-court god of Wimbledon” had lost in the fourth round, not that some up-and-coming teenager had won the match.
Except that the opponent, the up-and-coming player was a 19-year-old named Roger Federer.
Given that this would be the only professional match the two would ever play, the fact that it was a 3 hour and 41 minute, 5-set epic battle was fitting. As was the fact that it was Federer who stopped Sampras’ streak.
It’s about as close to the proverbial passing of the torch as you can get.
Soon, the 19-year-old Federer was wiping tears from his cheeks after displaying such detached emotion during his 7–6 (7), 5–7, 6–4, 6–7 (2), 7–5 test of nerve. With unflinching returns against Sampras’s mythic serve, with the cool to ward off two break points midway through the fifth set, Federer became the first player to defeat the grass-court god of Wimbledon in 5 years and 32 matches.
I found myself thinking about this today while watching Federer play Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon final. The two have played many times before — the most of any duo in Grand Slam history, in fact — but this match was different. Not just because it was the final of Wimbledon, and not just because it was the longest final in Wimbledon history at 4 hours and 55 minutes. Not even because it was the first fifth-set tie-breaker ever at a men’s Grand Slam final. It just felt like another one of those torch-passing moments.
The context here is far different, of course.
With the victory, Djokovic now has 16 Grand Slam titles. With the loss, Federer remains at 20. The only thing that stands between the two of them is Rafael Nadal at 18. It wasn’t that long ago that it seemed like no one would ever pass Sampras’ Grand Slam mark — see also: the effusive praise in the aforementioned 18 year old article — the fact that three players now have, and that those three have all been battling one another over the past 15 years is one of the most remarkable sports anomalies (accomplishments?) of all time.¹
As was made abundantly clear in the post-match interviews, Federer is now 37 years old.² In the NYT article 18 years ago, the question was if Sampras was on the downslope of his career:
Twenty minutes after his loss, Sampras still had a positive outlook. Although he hadn’t lost before the quarterfinals at Wimbledon since 1991, although his season has been forgettable, Sampras wasn’t ready to ponder the end of his career.
Let’s not get carried away,’’ Sampras said. ‘’I mean, I just lost. I plan on being back for many years. I mean, this is why I play, for these tournaments. There’s no reason to panic and think I can’t come back here and win here again. I feel like I can always win here.’’
At the time of the loss, Sampras was 29 years old. It was a different era.
Alas, it was not meant to be. Despite his comment, Sampras would only play at Wimbledon one more time, the next year, losing in the second round. That same year, he won the US Open, defeating Andre Agassi for his 14th Grand Slam title. He never played a professional match again after that.
Federer has put himself into another class. He has won four Grand Slam titles after the age of 30 — including three in the past three years. But Djokovic is also in that other class now.³ With the win today, he already also has four Grand Slam titles after the age of 30. And he is “only” 32 years old.
At the time of the Federer/Sampras match,⁴ it would have been impossible to extrapolate out that Federer would be the one who would one day pass Sampras’ Grand Slam mark. He was just a kid — albeit an incredibly talented one — playing a god. Federer wouldn’t win his first Grand Slam title — at Wimbledon, of course — for two more years.
And then he didn’t stop. He still hasn’t stopped.
But he will eventually stop. And Djokovic stopped him today. Hopefully not in the same way that Federer stopped Sampras, but we’ll see. Federer played beautifully, but Djokovic played methodically. It was like watching a butterfly get too close to a spider’s web. At first, the wings distorted the threads. Then, trapped, the butterfly almost freed itself. But the spider kept spinning the silk.
This passing of the torch feels pretty apparent. Barring injury, Djokovic now seems like a lock to pass Federer’s Grand Slam mark one day. Surpassing Federer as the new “grass-court god of Wimbledon” — 8 titles there versus Djokovic’s 5 as of today — may be another story.⁵
What a fantastic match today. A reminder of the greatness of the tennis era in which we live. We should all take it in, because it’s not going to last.
¹ Poor Andy Murray. Were he playing in any other era, is there any question that he would have more than three Grand Slam titles? He’s 29–56 versus the “Big Three” — and 5–20 in Grand Slams. Though it has been his body failing him of late… The picture is even more bleak for another three-time winner: Stan Wawrinka. He’s 11–59 against the Big Three — that includes a 3–23 record against his more famous Swiss countryman. (In Grand Slams, he’s 5–14 — thanks largely to a very respectable 3–4 record versus Djokovic.)
² He’s about three months older than me, in fact. Which makes me appreciate what he’s doing even more.
³ Nadal remains in that other class as well, of course, when his health isn’t failing him. He shows absolutely no signs that he won’t keep winning the French Open every year, which alone will eventually also push his past Federer in terms of total Grand Slams.
⁴ Which, as an aside, was two months before the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
⁵ Sampras ended up with seven Wimbledon titles.
