The latest in the ATP’s “uncovered” series features a nice interview with ex/co/forever GOAT Pete Sampras. He talks about his drive to be No. 1, his feelings on Roger Federer breaking his record and his “unbiased” opinion that tennis players are the best athletes in the world. (I agree, Pete!) Look out for the Marat Safin cameo towards the end.

I can’t get over the melancholy in Pete’s voice when he talks about his retired life. “I don’t mind being put off to the side.” Geeze, someone’s channeling Kermit the Frog! (Just substitute the word “retired” for “green.”)

If you’re in the mood for more Pete, click here to check out my piece on him from this year’s Sampras vs. Safin exo: The Unbearable Lightness of Pete: Sampras on Federer, GOAThood and the Good Life.

Pete Sampras and Marat Safin celebrated the start of the LA Tennis Open on Monday with a spirited exhibition, called the “Millenium Challenge.” (I think this references the year 2000 – when a 19 year-old Safin stunned Sampras in the U.S. Open final)

Safin also won last night’s highly-competitive match in a deciding tiebreak: 6-4, 3-6, 10-6. When asked afterwards how it felt playing Pete Sampras again, Marat Safin said, “Too much stress.”

Here’s Marat looking relaxed with doubles partner Igor Kunitsyn and one lucky blonde:

 

Pete Sampras looked fit and ready for a wildcard into the main draw (alas, he says his professional days are over):

 

GTT will be reporting from the LA Tennis Open this week. Click here for the tournament website.

To the die-hard Pete Sampras fans who are mourning the loss of his greatest record – stuck down by Roger Federer at Wimbledon this year – you have reason to cheer! Pete Sampras, at age 37, is still a great champion: humble, thoughtful and just a touch melancholic. Oh, and Sampras can still S&V with the best of them.

Looking tanned and fit, Pete Sampras gave a jovial press conference on Monday, before playing Marat Safin in an exhibition match kicking off this week’s LA Tennis Open. (Safin is also in the main draw of the tournament.) No surprise, almost every single question involved Roger Federer.

An example: “Pete, if you’d known he’d have been in the position to win 15 and maybe a few more, would you have looked at things a little differently? Do you think you would have chased the Grand Slams a bit longer? ”

Pete Sampras: “Me in the nineties? Not knowing the future, I was happy with when I stopped – at 14. It wasn’t a number for me. I wanted Emerson’s record (of 12 Majors). I got it. I wanted to win one more – after two years of not winning a tournament – and then I won the U.S. Open and I was cooked. It wasn’t like, ‘Now I’m at 14, I’m content.’ Emotionally I was spent. I didn’t have much left in the tank.

And when I was done, I felt like I put up some numbers that nobody would touch. Little did I know Roger was going to come along and surpass me in 8 years. He saw 14 as his goal and he’s got 15 and he’s going to go on and win some more. Records are made to be broken. I believe in that. And there’s nothing I can do about it. I can’t pick up my racquet and try to win another major. My days are over. I’m content with the 14 that I have. And I’m amazed with what Roger’s been able to do here. It’s incredible.”

When asked how he would match up against Roger Federer (as opposed to Agassi):

“I think when you have two great players, I think I’d have my fair share of wins and Roger would have had his share. Like me and Andre. I didn’t beat Andre every time. He beat me, just not in the big matches.” (This was followed by awkward silence and then a big grin from Sampras) “Hey have a sense of humor here!”

But come on Pete, how do you really feel about playing Federer?

“Do I think I could beat Roger at my best? There is no reason why I couldn’t. That’s not being cocky. It’s just how I feel.”

And of course Sampras was asked about the Federer twins, Charlene and Myla:

“He’ll be on the road as soon as he can. 40 weeks a year.” (Laughs) “I’m sure they’ll have help. . .I don’t see Roger changing diapers at four in the morning in New York. I really don’t think it will affect his career. It won’t. I mean, it’s a life-changer, but he’s focused on his tennis and he’s got the help of his wife and his parents and whoever else.”

Sampras says his own sons are his favorite “project” now that he’s retired. Otherwise, he’s still looking for stuff to do:

“6 and 3 year old kids. It’s a lot of work there. I’m working on my golf came. (My handicap is) 4. I’m trying to keep busy. Playing a little bit is good for me. Keeps me in shape. Keeps me focused preparing for something – which I need. It’s a work in progress. I’m looking for things to do. Any tennis pro goes through it. McEnroe’s still playing when he’s 50. It’s a nice place to be, but at the same time I think a man works. And I’ve worked my whole life. And now I’m retired. I’m kind of settling into it.”

Settling into retirement, huh? Really? Because about an hour later Sampras was pushing Marat to the brink of a smashed racquet. From his first service game, Pete was hitting serves in the high 120s. On one early point, he blasted a 130 m.p.h. serve, dashed in and sent Marat scrambling with a ripping forehand deep into the corner of the court.

These guys had come to play – not hit and giggle. Just check out Pete’s guns in his Rafa-style sleeveless top!

(Before the match, Safin popped into Pete’s press conference. Pete asked for mercy, “I need to hit a few.” Safin answered: “You will, you will, don’t worry.”)

And hit they did.

In his press conference, Sampras outlined his strategy against Roger Federer: “I would bring in the gas. Bring all the power I had and mix it up.  Go to his backhand, just figure it out. Chip and charge, come in, put pressure on him.” That’s what he did against Safin – substitute forehand for backhand – and it almost worked. And this is a guy who claims to pick up a racquet every three months or so.

After losing the first set 4-6, Sampras broke Safin’s first service game of the second set with a series of aggressive net approaches and the kinds of textbook perfect volleys I didn’t think still existed. He then consolidated the break with a 129 m.p.h. serve to go up 3-0. He won the second set 3-6, but Safin found another gear in the “match-deciding tiebreak,” taking it 10-6 and winning the match.

Afterwards, Marat was his usual gracious self, thanking Sampras for not playing his best in the 2000 U.S. Open final: “Thanks to him, I had a great career. Now I’m retiring and will be chilling like him.”

(Random note: Could Safin be planning that Hollywood career we’ve all been hoping for? He told the crowd after the match: “Maybe L.A. will become a second home someday.” YES!)

Safin left court quickly, he had to play main draw doubles later. (He and Igor Kunitsyn went on to beat the team of Baghdatis/Sela.)

Pete Sampras stayed to be honored with a montage video and a letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (read aloud by a deputy.) Speaking to the crowd, Sampras was about as sentimental as a no-nonsense dude like him could be.

“I miss being really good at something,” he said, when asked about adjusting to retirement.

But looking to the family that surrounded him on court – his parents, his siblings, his wife and two sons – he tried to reassure his fans:

“I have a good life,” he said.

The crowd cheered.

(GTT will be reporting from the LA Tennis Open all tis week. Click here to visit the tournament website. Safin vs. Ginepri tomorrow!)

It’s not easy choosing the G.O.A.T. Like American Lit exams, it’s more essay question than multiple choice. And even if you’re tennis’s answer to Mark Twain, those snarky Sartre-types can always blow smoke in your eyes and snarl: “What a futile exercise. It’s obvious that the G.O.A.T. is a media construct and not reality.”

Can you pick a G.O.A.T. from the choices below?:

1. Big Bill Tilden: He dominated like no other player ever has or maybe ever will. (Yeah, back when players wore pants and sipped brandy between games!)
2. Rod Laver: He won the Grand Slam twice – as an amateur in 1962 and as a pro in 1969 (But 3 of the 4 Majors were on grass! How many would Roger or Pete have won if the surfaces hadn’t changed?)
3. Bjorn Borg: He won six French Open and five consecutive Wimbledon titles. (But he bolted as soon as McEnroe reared his curly head! And he couldn’t master New York, either.)
4. Pete Sampras: He held 14 major titles and was year end No. 1 for six consecutive years – an open era record that Roger will likely never break (The operative word is “held” as in Roger now holds a record 15 major titles – including one at the French Open. The best Pete ever did in Paris was the semi-finals – once.)
5. Roger Federer: 15 majors and counting, career slam, best hair in history. (Oh, and that crappy 7-13 head-to-head against Rafael Nadal.)

Here’s a question to keep those philosophy majors smoking clove cigarettes past their bedtimes:  How can Roger Federer be the greatest of all time, if he isn’t the (undeniable) greatest of his era?

Pete Sampras, who has praised Roger’s accomplishments, was recently asked about the Roger-Rafa G.O.A.T. conundrum. And I think he’s stumped:

“I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It’s hard to answer that. I don’t know how to answer it. You know, it’s not done yet.  Roger’s career isn’t done yet. He’s going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. . .It would have bothered me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors.” (via tennis.com)

Just for the record: Sampras was 20-14 over Agassi, including a 6-3 head-to-head in slams.

Okay, maybe Pete’s on to something – maybe it’s just a matter of time before Roger turns that head-to-head around, dominates Rafa from the clay of Monte Carlo to the Cincinnati hard courts and treats his Spanish rival like Lleyton Hewitt in the US Open final. Or – and this seems more likely – things will continue more as less as they have been, with Roger winning some and losing more (and more) as he enters his twilight years on tour. And who knows how many majors Rafa will win before he’s forced to replace his knees with ball bearings? Few could argue Rafa’s G.O.A.T.ness if (still a big IF) he surpasses Roger’s trophy count.

This is about the time when I bum a cig and go brood in the corner. G.O.A.T., schmoat, as Descartes would say.

What do you think?

G.O.A.T. line up: Getty Images via the Sydney Morning Herald.

I said it on Twitter and I’ll say it again: If last year’s Wimbledon final was Shakespeare, this year’s was Die Hard. That’s what you get when Andy Roddick plays Rafael Nadal’s understudy. And I say understudy not out of disrespect, but because until a few weeks ago, Rafa was the favorite to make the Wimbledon final.  Sometimes understudies can steal the show.  And yes, it came down to sudden death.

Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick 16-14 in the fifth set in 4 hours and 16 minutes.  The stat of the match? Roger Federer hit almost double the aces: a career high of 50 vs. Roddick’s 27. They both hit 4 double faults.

Here’s the Smartest Press Conference Question of the tournament:

Q. A lot of people thought this was going to be about your big serve, Roger’s getting around the court, his ability to hit passing shots. Clearly that wasn’t really the theme there when you look at how well you played from the baseline and how well he served, did that surprise you at all?

ANDY RODDICK: You know, I don’t know. You know, he served great. I didn’t get a lot of looks at seconds. I felt like when we were in rallies for the last couple sets, I was actually doing all right and holding my own, if not more.

You know, but he just served great. He did what he had to. If he wouldn’t have served as well, I’d probably be sitting here in a better mood.

I love Andy Roddick for hating to lose. Like Roger last year and great champions before, a hard fought loss isn’t enough for the American:

Q. How would you describe what you did today?

ANDY RODDICK: I lost.

Q. Does it hurt more though when you’re that close and it’s that long, 95 minutes the last set? How does this compare to the other ones?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I think so. I think it’s worse.

I think we all saw how badly Roddick wanted this title, whether he was choking 4 set points in the second set tie breaker or holding tough in the fourth and fifth sets. This wasn’t a “I’m just happy to be here” kind of match.

Andy, the Classy American, acknowledged Federer’s own battle toughness:

Q. Roger is such a tough opponent. What qualities make him so outstanding?

ANDY RODDICK: I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know where to start there. You know, he just makes it real tough. You know, he was having trouble picking up my serve today for the first time ever. He just stayed the course.

You know, you didn’t even get a sense that he was even really frustrated by it. He kind of stayed the course and just toughed it out. He gets a lot of credit for a lot of things, but not a lot of the time is how many matches he kind of digs deep and toughs out. He doesn’t get a lot of credit for that because it looks easy to him a lot of the times.

But he definitely stuck in there today.

The feelings were mutual – with Roger Federer crediting Andy Roddick for pushing him to the limit and acknowledging that the final results can be “cruel”:

Q. What are your feelings for Andy now?

ROGER FEDERER: It’s hard. Sports or tennis is cruel sometimes. We know it. I went through some five‑setters in Grand Slam finals, too and ended up losing. It’s hard, you know.

But I think he did great, you know. He’s not going to let his head hang down. I think he’s gonna come back strong and play great in the States. I think it’s one of the best matches we played against each other. Of course, conditions were very quick today.

But he played well. You know, I really thought I had to play my very, very best to come through.

I’m not sure if Roger played his very best. I think Andy defused Roger’s A-game and made him play more cautiously than normal. It could have gone either way in the end, and Roger was lucky to be serving first in the final set. I’m a Fed Fan but I’m also a realist, and just like last year, it came down to the wire.

Or maybe it came down to destiny:

Q. Your first Grand Slam title was Wimbledon. Now your 15th is Wimbledon. Both titles are memorable. Do you feel destiny or anything?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, I’m happy I broke the record here in some ways, you know, because this is always the tournament that’s meant the most to me because of what we spoke about with my heroes and idols being so successful here.

So it definitely feels like it’s come full circle for me, you know, starting it here and ending it here. Of course, my career is far from over. But it’s also nice to think especially so many legends were sitting there today. You know, especially Pete, you know, who I had a great time with in Asia a short while ago.

I know how much the record meant to him and he knows how much the record means to me. In a way, I still feel like we share it, you know, just because he was such a wonderful champion. He still has one up against me here at Wimbledon. It’s nice, you know, that he shows appreciation for what I’m doing, and it’s just great seeing so many, you know, legends coming out and enjoying my tennis or our tennis today.

I don’t know how to say. I used to get nervous when a friend would come watch me play as a kid, and then it was my parents, and then it was legends and people I really ‑‑ who meant something. Today it’s okay. Today anybody can come and watch me play. I don’t get nervous anymore. Today with Pete it was a bit special, you know. When he walked in and I saw him for the first time, I did get more nervous actually.

Q. He got here late actually.

ROGER FEDERER: I said hello to him, too, which is unusual. But I thought, I don’t want to be rude, you know (laughter)

The final image many of us have from the finals is Roger standing with the All Time Greats – Pete Sampras, Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg. Yes, Roger’s made it to the summit – surpassing Pete’s all-time record of 14 majors. Fed Fans, enjoy your celebrations! But really, do we need to look at numbers and record books to prove a player’s greatness? Just think of Andy Roddick – still a “one slam wonder” but obviously much more than that. Like Roger said, tennis is cruel, especially when destiny hinges on just a couple of points. It’s too bad that Andy Roddick couldn’t have been in the photo, too.

In the end, this final is a repeat of last year’s in one important way: Tennis wins. An epic battle between two well matched, noble opponents. Transcendence in victory and dignity in defeat, however crushing defeat may be. I’ll close the same way I started – with an under 140 character bromide: High five tennis fans. We picked the best sport.

At some point this blog will stop obsessing over Roger Federer (at least for a post or two!) But right now the mainstream media is making it really hard to stop. Here’s a funny, strange, Nole-esque, ad from Nike celebrating Federer’s 14th Major:

Hope Pete doesn’t mind. . .

There were so many questions going into the French Open this year, like “will Rafa lose a set?” and “which half will Djokovic be in?” and “Roger’s win in Madrid was a fluke, wasn’t it?”

Only the bravest Fed Fanatics were willing to raise their hands and ask, in embarrassed tones usually reserved for asking teacher for a potty break:

“So why can’t Roger win Roland Garros this year?”

Turns out he could. And now that this question is answered, another one is, too:

Roger Federer IS the Greatest Of All Time.

And it’s not just John McEnroe who’s saying it.

Pete Sampras: “Now that he’s won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game.”

Andy Roddick via Twitter: “That’s an unreal accomplishment and puts and end to the GOAT question in my humble opinion.”

Legend Roy Emerson (another career Slammer): “I believe he is [the greatest]. Now that he’s won a major on all surfaces, you can’t really argue with it.”

Roger Federer (via The Telegraph): “I don’t know if we’ll ever know who is the greatest of all-time, but I’m very proud to be up there. How well did I do? Good, great, very great or medium, I don’t know. It’s for others to decide.”

Roger answered some other big questions at Monday’s post-tournament press conference in Paris.

Can he win another RG title?:

“I’m sure I’m going to enjoy Paris even more in the future. Because the pressure is off, and everything that comes now here is going to be much more fun.”

Can he keep this up?

“I can’t answer the question if I’ll be able to continue playing well, but I don’t see a reason why not. I’m in great shape. I’m motivated. I’m hungry to play, and I’m excited to be becoming a dad and seeing Mirka happy and the baby happy. I’m sure it’s only going to help me play good tennis.”

What will keep him motivated, given all his success?

“Pleasure and desire before everything. Now I can play freely. What am I still missing in my list of achievements? More Grand Slams, of course. But also a gold medal in singles at the Olympics. The Davis Cup is also in the future. It will become more clear after Wimbledon, The U.S. Open and the birth of my child. I have nothing to prove.” (translated from French via Tribune de Geneve)

And who does Roger think is the favorite for the Wimbledon title?

“I do think I’m the favorite actually with the success I’ve had and how close I came again last year.”

So there you have it, Roger Federer is the man who has everything – including all the answers.

How do you answer the question?:

Roger quotes via NYTimes

Player quotes via tennis.com

The GOAT tells it like it is photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images via Daylife

There is a great piece by Christopher Clarey in today’s NYT, titled “Federer Struggles With His Altered World.”

Some sensitive types might want to avoid it, thinking that it’s just another obituary for Roger’s career. But it isn’t. It brings perspective to Roger’s current slump and includes some great quotes from Paul Annacone, Pete Sampras’s ex-coach.

Here are some choice excerpts, but please click here to read the whole article.

On tennis, the cruelest sport:

One of the best and cruelest aspects of tennis is that there is nowhere to hide. You might be an all-time great, even the all-time great, and yet you are only as effective as the forehands, backhands and decisions you are making on any given day.

On the racquet smashing:

It required great effort for Federer to cure himself of the on-court tantrums of his youth. To see him resume breaking rackets now, after all these years of self-control, was like watching the owner of a health food store start fumbling through his desk drawer for a long-lost pack of cigarettes.

Paul Annacone on the Sampras-Federer connection:

“There are definitely some parallels,” said Paul Annacone, Sampras’s longtime coach, in an interview this week. “Just as it was for Pete, it’s a particularly interesting, challenging time in Roger’s career. But I would look at it with Roger in the same way as for Pete. For guys like that, it is daunting but not that daunting. They are so skilled they can adjust, but a lot of the adjustment is mental.”

Paul Annacone for coach!

“He may choose to keep doing what he’s been doing and not tweaking, and that’s his choice as a champion,” Annacone said. “But for me it would be a shame. If you have a lot of weapons in your arsenal and choose not to use them, what’s the point in having them? It’s a matter of managing them a bit differently than he did a few years ago.”

Seriously, can Roger pick up the phone and get Annacone on the next flight to Monte Carlo?

Photo: Frank Fife/AFP/Getty Images via ESPN

About a week ago I told my tennis teacher at the Y that I had scored some free tickets to the Courier/Sampras exo that was taking place at the Home Depot Center on the first night of the JP Morgan Chase Open in Carson. I looked at him expectantly, thinking he would say “Cool, I’ll see you there – got my tickets weeks ago!” Instead, he shook his greying ponytail, rolled his eyes and said, “Ye-ahhh, I’m not touchin’ that one.”

“Humph,” I thought, peeved, “jealous, maybe, that I got such a hot ticket?”

But after cringing through last night’s “hit and giggle,” I understand Coach Robb completely.

First of all, in my naivete, I envisioned the stands packed to SRO, with crazed fans leading the foot stomps and hand claps in a spontaneous “We will ROCK you” lead up. Instead, the stands were about three-quarters filled, old Pearl Jam was playing over the loudspeaker, and most people were looking pretty distracted – “Hey, is that Pete Sampras? What happened to his hair?”

Yes, after a bit of tired “Let me hear you cheer!!!!!!” build up from the guest MC person, who I honestly cannot identify, the two tennis superstars stode out of the tunnel and took to the court. As a side note, I admit that the MC may have been ever-so-slightly C List, and I did like his little “Pete, I was at your Bar Mitvah!” quip, upon mentioning that Pete and he shared some Jewish heritage. (Later Courier made a kind of “eww” comment when the MC guy asked him on a changeover why he was losing so bad – Courier won only one game in the first set – and Courier said, pretty nonsensically, “I guess it’s because I’m not Jewish.” MC-man retorted, “Hey, is that Mel Gibson in your box?”)

I’m getting too distracted by the MC, although for me that was one of the main problems with the exo – too much MC’ing – but I’m digressing. So when Pete came out, with mid-growth-cycle Chia Pet scalp, the crowd did cheer pretty loudly, obviously relishing the nostalgia of seeing “the GREATEST player of all time, blah blah” on the court again. Jim got slightly less applause, but the crowd tried not to be too rude, at least at the beginning. It was strange for me, seeing these players I watched all the time when I was a kid, and realizing now that I really couldn’t remember much about them.

Now days I know the height/weight stats of half the top 20, and start conversations about Hingis’s court coverage and Santoro’s double handed forehand, but when I was obsessed with Pete, circa 15 years old – my priorities were different. I can still remember that first girlfriend he had (the older one with the long brown hair and beige suits) – because I was so jealous of her. If only Pete could be my boyfriend! Sheesh, puberty. Yes I vaguely remember cheering at the television as he hit those nasty serves and hit those exciting running forehands on the way to a Wimbledon title, but to be honest, I really can’t remember his game like I ought to. And Jim Courier, who looked much, much bigger in real life than I had imagined him from the t.v., is more familiar to me now because of his annoying “I just read the Thesauraus” commentary than because of anything he accomplished during his pro years. Of course I remember the red hair and the baseball cap, and stories that he went jogging with a big boulder dragging behind him, but that’s about all.

Part of this describes what made the match a little depressing – it was like watching a mid-life crisis in warp speed. Pete’s only 34, rich, and with a beautiful family, but for some reason I felt sorry for him. He’s said he’s come back to tennis because he’s bored – nothing better to do – and because he feels he never enjoyed the relationship great players can have with fans – basically a take-to-the bottle combo of regret mixed with ennui, like an ex homecoming queen in Texas who can only sit in the empty kitchen of her McMansion, drink a bottle of Reunite, and wonder where the time went.

Anyways, maybe it was the full head of wavy hair, the errect posture, and the buff upper body, but when he first walked out last night I leaned toward my husband and said, “I’m picking Courier.” The guy just seemed less pathetic, since in a way he’s had less to lose and less to pine for over the past few years.

But Pete’s play put an end to all of my amature psycho-analysis. What the hell did I know? Courier joked before the first point (Pete served first), “Bet it comes in at 140 (m.p.h.)” and he wasn’t too far off. Pete was serving consistently in the 120s from the first game, with his fastest serve of the match (I believe) coming in at 137 mph. I knew he’d been playing some WTT, but man, with the serves, volleys and forehand, it was almost like he never left. I felt giddy when someone in the crowd yelled, “WILDCARD!”

After the first few games, with Pete dominating and the MC guy playing the bratty brother on changeovers (I did laugh, when Courier snarkily deflected a rude question by commenting that the MC smelled good, and he answered, “Yes, I smell good because I just hugged Pete, and Pete’s wearing Elizabeth Taylor’s White Diamonds), I realized that exos suck. My coach, in his infinite wisdom, was right to keep his distance – I couldn’t take anymore fake posturing from the players, another “Just win a game, Jim!” from the audience or another apologetic smile after a Sampras winner.

I wanted it to be serious, damn it, I wanted it to mean something! And the other people in the crowd, even as we cynically hoped Sampras would let Courier into it in the second set, were probably right there with me. I mean, the guys were playing hard, sure, but then was Courier losing because he was being too casual or because Pete was just that good? Pete didn’t really let it happen too much, but when he did lose a point on his serve, was it because of Courier’s good play or out of pity? If the match turned around in the second (which it didn’t – Pete broke in the first game of the second set and didn’t falter on serve, winning it 6-4) was it just Pete’s way of playing to the crowd – giving us that third set we craved?

But it didn’t happen. Poor Jim was unable to log a fifth career victory against Pete (who already had sixteen wins over Courier). As Jim said, Pete was just too good. “He was hitting second serves around 115mph,” Courier said to MC man after the match, “the voices around me were echoing my thoughts exactly – Just win a game, JIM!”

Yes, the crowd was a bit cruel, another yucky exo charicataristic, I think, along with all the flash photography. A few nasty favorites included “I don’t wanna go home yet, JIM!” and to Pete, “You’re the second greatest ever!” The latter comment really got me – what did the beer-sopped spectator mean by that? Was he a big Graf, Laver or Fed fan? I mean, Pete still has the record for most major single titles – 14 I believe, including those 7 Wimbledons. So what gives?

But there I go feeling sorry for Pete again! And after he creamed his opponent in straight sets.