Sampras Beating Federer

Some folks just can't let things happen the way they happen. Via the Dysfunctional Tennis Blog: Federer Lets Sampras Win.

Oh, so Pete can't win, can he? Because even if he does win you won't let him have won. So he either loses or doesn't win, right?

Here he is at 36 years old and has has just beaten the best player in the world, and you have to deny him his victory. That sucks.

Sure, the series was interesting to watch, fun to speculate the “what ifs”, but as I’ve said before, the only thing this it proves (or proved) is that both Federer and Sampras like the cash.

Wrong. The series proves that Sampras' game and Federer's game match up pretty well against each other. Wouldn't it be great if they were closer in age so we could see them compete against each other in major tournaments?

But some folks are driven on the winds of change like weathervanes. Sampras was around for only six months when they all pontificated that he was the GOAT. And then and he wasn't gone for six months months before the stampede turned and started pontificating that Federer is the GOAT.

Jeez, they all sound like caucus of crows darkening the trees in the fall. Guess what, folks? These know-it-alls don't know what they say they know. They never saw Bjorn Borg, Stan Smith, Rod Laver, Jack Kramer, Fred Perry, or Bill Tilden play, but they think they know who the GOAT is. Yes, I know I'm supposed to pretend I never thought of that.

And like who really cares, anyway?

But I digress. Let's look at that again:

Sure, the series was interesting to watch, fun to speculate the “what ifs”, but as I’ve said before, the only thing this it proves (or proved) is that both Federer and Sampras like the cash.

Fully bake that thought. Do either of these guys need the cash? It makes no sense to say that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer go all the way to China to play an exhibition match just for the cash. When have we seen them chasing cash?

Yes, their track record. Always check out the target's track record before you accuse them of something. How Pete and Roger have behaved in the past is relevant. They are among the last players you could accuse of chasing cash. And people who've never chased cash before don't suddenly become different persons and start doing it overnight. So, that is an accusation that just won't stick to these two men.

Then Randall torpedoes his own assertion by continuing:

Federer has to be some sort of glutton for punishment. He really does. By losing last night he’s now opened himself up to even more vomit-inducing press questions in the coming months on the Great Debate.

Exactly. Thanks for winning my case by giving him a huge motive for wanting to win that match.

Roger had powerful motive to refuse to even play Sampras. This is hard to explain as anything other than a fine sense of sportsmanship in Roger, in taking on the challenge. Pete has nothing to lose in losing but Roger does.

So just what was the motivation behind Federer deciding to lose the finale, and lose in straight sets? Simple. It’s good for business.

Where is all this omniscience coming from these days? Is God passing it out to his favorites so they can be just like him, able to read minds?

Sampras beat Federer. Repeat it 99 times. It won't kill you. This is no great surprise, because the previous match had been very close.

You're accusing Fed of fraud. On what grounds? What evidence? Just divining, that's all. It is wrong to ever puposely lose a contest like a tennis match. But most people are too thoughtless to think a minute and realize that these days.

Roger Federer ain't one of them though. And Pete would rightly be insulted by Roger throwing the match.

What's more, people were betting on this match. That's match-fixing you're accusing Roger of. You say he did it for money and that he lost because it would be "good for business," like some pool sharp who throws a few games to sucker big betting.

Federer doesn't deserve such wild accusations. There is zero REASON or EVIDENCE for believing these things about him. He just lost a tennis match. That's possible, you know.

This is getting like politics, where everything that happens must prove your firmly held beliefs or you will twist the facts until it does.

Technorati Tags: tennis