A Champion's Mind - Pete Sampras

PATRICK RAFTER (12–4) . . . Pat was a great volleyer who took me out of my comfort zone and forced me
to hit too many passing shots and thread-the-needle service returns. In terms of hard-charging opponents, I
preferred to play Stefan Edberg, even though Edberg won more Grand Slam titles and had a better record.
With Edberg, you knew where the serve was going and you knew he was coming to the net. You knew
what you had to do, and if you didn’t execute it well enough, you lost. End of story.
With Pat it was different; he mixed it up a lot more, especially with his serve. He kept you on edge,
made you get into guessing games. The serve to the body is one of the most neglected shots in tennis;
everybody, including me, likes to smoke aces or unreturnables to the corners. But the kick serve to the
body is a great tool, and Pat was a master at it. The way to beat Pat was to make him play. He liked set
pieces—kicker to the backhand, first volley crosscourt, second volley (or overhead) for the winner. If you
could disrupt the pattern and find a way to make him play points, you could get on top of him.
Pat won the U.S. Open twice, and in one stretch at Wimbledon he made the semis followed by two
straight finals (he lost to me in one, then became the foil for Goran Ivanisevic’s long-delayed triumph at
Wimbledon). Pat retired—prematurely, many thought—shortly after that loss to Goran. But Pat was like
one of those NFL running backs who averages six or seven yards per carry for five or six years and
suddenly falls off the radar, averaging one and a half for the next few years. That happens because those
backs just get beat up and softened up; they lose a little something. That’s what I think happened to Pat.
Pat had to work very hard to win his matches, for reasons having to do with his style and technique.
Many of the things I said about Lleyton Hewitt apply to Rafter as well, although they had very different
styles and did their grinding in dramatically different ways. Rafter was a serve-and-volley daredevil, a
great mover and athlete always flying around the court, lunging, spearing volleys, making those jointbruising
changes of direction. It’s just awfully difficult to work that hard for four or five years and keep
coming back for more.
Pat won matches by attacking the net and then, when receiving, scraping by from the backcourt, always
looking for a way to get to the net. He hit his kicker with a lot of effort, kind of contorted. It wasn’t as
limber and easy a delivery as Edberg’s. He worked very hard to hold, because even though he loved to
rush the net, he didn’t have a huge serve—hence the reliance on the kicker (or American twist). Unlike
other successful attackers, Pat couldn’t pop the aces and service winners to make his life easier. Pat
fought and struggled for everything he got.
MARCELO RIOS (2–0) . . . Rios was an odd one, a surly, strange sort of guy who had a lot of talent but
seemed a misfit and an outsider on the tour. It’s hard to enjoy life and survive on the tour that way. Rios
moved in an easy, natural way, with a terrific two-handed backhand and great shotmaking ability. He was
like a left-handed Andre Agassi. He was a great striker of the ball and could take it early, but he didn’t
serve as big as Andre and his game lacked the heft that made you feel like you were really in trouble. I
always felt like Rios had nothing that could hurt me.
Still, Rios was very creative and “handsy”—he could change direction and pace on his shots with ease,
and he just had a nice feel for the ball, and the game in general. Some people touted Rios as the Second
Coming, but I never saw that. He was extremely talented, but that took you only so far. Rios held the
number one ranking briefly, although he never won a major. He made my life truly miserable in 1998
when I was trying to lock up that record sixth-straight year-end-number-one ranking.
MARAT SAFIN (3–4) . . . Marat played a great match against me in the U.S. Open final of 2000 to put up one
of the most impressive Grand Slam wins in ages. Marat is a big, powerful guy who moves awfully well
for a man of his size. His forehand is huge and his backhand is heavy and solid. He can volley, and
probably should attack more than he does on fast surfaces. When he’s on, he’s just fierce; for a while, he
was the only guy who could give Roger Federer a run for his money—and he could do it on most surfaces.