Yesterday was a big throwback day because three former NBA all stars were in the news for considering or making comebacks. The biggest story is Reggie Miller contemplating a comeback with the Boston Celtics. Penny Hardaway already signed with the Miami Heat while Allan Houston is looking at several teams as he considers a return to NBA action.
But before I jump into the NBA comebacks, I'd like to make a little Throwback Thursday dedication to Pete Sampras. He came out of retirement to play team tennis and senior events but does not seem to want to return to the regular ATP tour. I was browsing YouTube last night and stumbled upon this video.
For anyone who has become enamored with Roger Federer and amazed by what he can do, just remember that Pete Sampras is the best ever. He made Agassi look like a fool! Of course I'm not trying to take away from Federer's consistent dominance of the sport in recent years because that would be more foolish than Agassi's strategy in the video clip. Although no strategy could have been effective against Pete at that point. But I digress. Federer is great, but Sampras was the best against some of the best of all time. Nadal doesn't measure up to Agassi, Roddick doesn't measure up to Ivanisevic, and Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin don't play at the level they did six or seven years ago.
Now that we're clear on that, let's move on to basketball. Starting with Penny Hardaway, I suppose from the Miami Heat stand point he replaces Eddie Jones who was recently signed by the Dallas Mavericks. He also may play a larger role if James Posey goes elsewhere via free agency. But from Penny's standpoint I think the decision to come back is based on not wanting to end his career with a bitter taste in his mouth left there by the futility and frustration of playing for the New York Knicks. He gets a chance to reunite with Shaq and with a healthy Dwyane Wade, a chance at an NBA title. All around, not a bad move for either side, as Penny is only 36 and might be fresh after taking a year and a half to rest those creaky knees.
Let's move on to Reggie Miller. My friends all know me as the biggest Reggie Miller fan in existence. It would be hard to see Reggie in anything but Indiana blue and yellow. But does this make sense for Reggie? It's understandable for a player who spent 18 seasons in the NBA to miss the atmosphere and camaraderie of an NBA locker room. Reggie was offered a deal last year from the Mavs and smartly rejected that offer. Although Reggie would not have been intimidated by Steven Jackson's defense in the playoffs and probably would have lit up the Warriors. But Reggie made the right choice. He retired with dignity and respect and he should probably stay retired. The only thing that might justify him coming back is if he hit the game winning shots that clinched the NBA championship for the Celtics. Otherwise he would be thrown into the Karl Malone-Gary Payton category. Whether that criticism would be just or not is irrelevant because the similarities would be too obvious to overlook. So Reggie, we loved you for what you did and you have nothing to prove to anyone else. If Reggie wants to play for the love of the game, I would not protest. Jerry Rice is my all time favorite football player and I respect that he continued to play because he loved what he was doing. But there is no reason to play if winning a championship in one season is the goal. The Celtics chances with or without Reggie are good, but at 42 years old, how many seasons can Reggie offer to the Celtics?
Now, Allan Houston. Oh Allan Houston, the streakiest of shooters, the overpaid, the injured, the retired. I think Allan Houston wakes up every morning and wishes he was Grant Hill. I'm not sure, but I think I'd rather have Grant Hill's ankles than Allan Houston's knees. But an old Allan Houston means a less reliable shot and therefore a streakier shooter. There are plenty of young guys in the league that can provide that service. He was never much of a leader because the Knicks always had Patrick Ewing. I doubt he can jump very high anymore. Why are we even talking about this? STAY RETIRED ALLAN!
where to go from here
16 years ago
3 comments:
Koobers - your tennis comments are crazy. Yes, Sampras made Agassi look silly. Yes, Sampras made a lot of people look silly. It's the same thing Federer does all the time too -- just watching Federer, you can just tell he's something special, the same way with Pete. You forget all too easily the number of opponents Federer just demolishes. This year is supposedly an off-year for Fed and he's 39-5 with 4 titles and 2 grand slams. He set the record for most weeks in a row as #1. In 2006, he was 90-5 with 12 titles; in 2005, 80-4 with 11 titles; in 2004, 70-5 with 11 titles. His winning percentage is higher than pete's (79 - 77%).
To your other point, about competition. Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time -- and one of the best all-court players. There's some competition. Roddick would have won more titles had Federer not been around -- can you say the same about Ivanisevic? absolutely not. You have Davydenko, Hewitt (at a higher level a couple of years ago) plus Djokavic and a number of other really good players. They all seem ordinary because Federer beats them consistently -- because he's an all-time great, like Pete. To say Pete is better and played in a better era while one has finished and we are in the midst of the other seems to be a poor comparison. Give it a couple years. When Roger has 15 or more majors and every other record out there, then we can talk...
p.s. Reggie would not have torched Stephen Jackson -- Dallas couldn't run plays for Reggie to get open.
Yeah, about the Sampras-Federer debate, I feel like we have to give it a little bit of time (point Howard).
And Federer's competition isn't that bad... On the hardcourts of Montreal just last weekend, Fed lost to Djokovic in the finals (by the way, that will not happen at the U.S. Open in a couple of weeks).
And Nadal has given Fed some big tests (he hasn't passed them at the French... yet. So, I think it's a pretty close call right now.
If Federer can get a title at the French (which I think he eventually will), he will have that on Sampras who never could do it (or even get to the finals for that matter).
Howie and Nat, I think it may be too early to say who is the best of all time. I would even concede that Federer has been more dominant over a short period of time than Sampras was. But as far as overall competition, I think it's important to consider that Sampras and Agassi and company were up against some of the legends of the game in the early nineties. Although most of those players were in the later stages of their careers, Sampras had to face Connors, Becker, Lendl, etc during the early years of his career. And he had some success against them. Fed clearly had to deal with Sampras and Agassi and nobody will forget the legendary Fed vs. Sampras match (which Federer won) at Wimbledon. But to say Federer's competition is as good as Sampras's is not true in my opinion. For every Roddick and Djokovic there's a Michael Stich, Michael Chang, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Rafter, Muster, and several others who had the skill set to threaten Sampras. In today's game you don't see players with a complete game. They have one huge weapon that they set up from the baseline. Against a great player like Federer, those players with fewer weapons can be exposed. The game has changed since Sampras won his first slam and he was able to be effective in both the new and old age of tennis. I would argue that Federer would have been a great third champion in the Agassi-Sampras era and may have been able to take away from some of Sampras's accomplishments. But Federer is more dominant now because of weaker competition.
Another reason I would give the edge to Sampras is that it took him less time to get to the top. Federer turned pro in 1998. He did not win his first grand slam even until 2003 at Wimbledon. Sampras on the other hand, turned pro in 1988 and won his first slam in 1990 at the US Open. I know it would be hard to argue that his early struggles should discount Federer's current greatness. But at the same time, you have to wonder why Federer was not successful from 1998-2003. The truth is, he had flaws in his game that Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt and others could take advantage of. As he improved, his good competition aged, and the game changed, Federer was able to dominate.
Those are my arguments for Pete over Roger. Clearly, a lot of this debate is also sifting through personal bias. But at the end of this era of tennis (post Federer) i would like to see how they compare. For now I'm sticking with Pistol Pete.
Post a Comment