If you want to know what was going through Pete Sampras’ mind when he played, read his book.

Thank heavens for Peter Bodo, the best writer in tennis today. He’s taken what could have been a boring record of greatness and turned it into a fascinating look at the mind of a champion. Bodo is the “written with” guy for Pete Sampras’ book, A Champion’s Mind: Lessons from a Life in Tennis.

Let’s start with the two year process that turned Sampras into a winner. He’d won his first slam at age 19, the 1990 US Open, with no pressure because no one expected him to win. By the time the US Open rolled around again, he was resentful of the pressure that came with the title and when he lost to Jim Courier in the quarterfinals, he made the fateful comment: “I feel like a ton of bricks has been lifted off my shoulders.” A comment, Sampras’ writes, that “…exposed a deep fault in my competitive makeup.”

At the end of 1991, Sampra was thrown into his first Davis Cup match as the number one singles player in the championship final against France and lost both of his matches as the US lost the tie. The 1992 Wimbledon didn’t go too well either, but Sampras reached the final at the US Open against Stefan Edberg where he double faulted to give Edberg a set point then folded to lose the match. He’d played without heart.

By the end of the year, Sampras had figured it out and he summed it up like this: “The truth is that when you’re anywhere but at number one, you can hide.” Players sometimes get to number one and drop back down because they’re not good enough, but there are plenty of talented players who reach number one and decide it’s not worth the ton of bricks. Sampras knew he had exceptional talent but the true test of a competitor was whether he wanted to be number one and take on the pressure of holding on to it once he got there.

In 1992, Sampras won Wimbledon and took the title at the US Open, and, of course, ended up with a record 14 slam titles.

Roger Federer is the closest heir to Sampras and I found myself looking for anything in the book that would help me figure out what’s happening to Federer because that’s what we want to know: Will he figure out how to resurrect his game and get the three slams he needs to pass Sampras’ record? Or will he limp to the end of his career with one or two more slams and go down as Sampras’ equal at best?

For starters, Sampras describes what happens when things start to break down. He had 11 slams in 1998 and needed two more to pass Roy Emerson’s record. He had the energy but he was getting injuries and, worst of all, as he puts it: “the mind just snaps and fails to focus in the correct, relaxed way that helps you win tennis matches.” That’s what you’re seeing with Federer: he doesn’t come through on the big points.

At the end of 1998, Sampras set up a conflict between being number one and winning slams. He had a chance to end the year at number one for the sixth consecutive year to break Jimmy Connors record and he succeeded, but he ran himself ragged in the fall season to do it and it wasn’t just physical. As he got close to the year end championships with number one still undecided, Sampras felt the pressure so acutely that his hair was falling out and, for the first time in his career, he was so frazzled that he unburdened himself to his coach, Paul Annacone.

I’ll get back to that in a minute because it says a lot about the way Sampras dealt with pressure that he’d never expressed vulnerability to his coach before, but Federer had a similar pressure – possibly greater. Sampras was in and out of the number one ranking during that six year period, he reached number one 11 times in his career. Federer, in contrast, held the number one ranking for 237 consecutive weeks with no breaks to relieve the pressure and that had to take a huge toll. There might be some good news, though. After Sampras got his record sixth year number one ranking, he was free to chase his remaining slams and not worry about rankings anymore.

Back to internalizing pressure. Federer is also Sampras’ heir in on court behavior. No showy celebrations, just bat the ball to the side of the court and get on to the next point without showing much displeasure or, worse, disappointment. Sampras wonders whether he should have seen a therapist or been more willing to express his vulnerability to relieve the pressure. I’m assuming Federer has such conversations with his girlfriend Mirka Vavrinec, but he’s also gone long stretches without a coach and it’s a point of pride with him. It might be time to put the pride and his ego aside as Sampras did when he called up Annacone for a last push at a slam after having fired him the year before.

I had some frustrations with the book. Sampras says that his serve just clicked one year, “don’t ask me how.” That’s not good enough. It’s possibly the best serve the game’s ever seen and obviously we want to know how.

There’s also the issue of repaying early mentors. Pete Fischer guided much of Sampras’ early training and though Sampras doesn’t describe their financial arrangement, Fischer did turn up at the Sampras family’s house one day after Sampras starting making money, threw a fit, and made what Sampras thought were absurd demands for compensation. Do you owe mentors a chunk of your earnings after you’ve moved on to work with others? I’d love to hear Bodo’s take on that.

But it’s not Bodo’s book, it’s Sampras’ book, and as much as we spend entire media sessions trying to pick apart the minds of players who do everything in their power to keep the contents of those minds hidden – mostly from other players, we often don’t get very far and we have to wait until the player feels like telling us.

It’s time for the ATP Fantasy Tennis Season so check out our Fantasy Tennis Guide. You’ll find Fast Facts, Strategies, and Statistics to help you play the game.

Sign up and join our subleague! It’s called tennisdiary.com. We send weekly email updates to all subleague members before the submission deadline.

Pay attention! This week’s submission deadline is Sunday, August 17, 10am (EST) in the U.S./4pm (CET) in Europe.

This week we have the last tuneup event before the US Open in New Haven. It’s a 48 player event and we need eight players for our fantasy team so let’s pick the quarterfinalists.

New Haven draw (hard court, first prize: $94000)

Fernando Verdasco is the top seed and I’m concerned about Eduardo Schwank who’s in his section. Schwank is going to be a good all court player but he’s not eligible for fantasy tennis because he wasn’t in the top 100 when the fantasy tennis season started. Verdasco is my pick.

Agustin Calleri reached the quarterfinals in two of the three hard courts events he’s played this year and he beat Robby Ginepri here last year. Juan Monaco has the most promise of anyone in this section, but he’s been injured a lot and he just missed eight weeks before losing a first round match at the Olympics. He’s also 1-4 against Calleri so I’m going with Calleri.

Juan Martin Del Potro just won his 17th straight game and he’s the first player in the Open Era to win his first three tournaments consecutively. I’m assuming he entered all three hard court tournaments leading up to the US Open because he didn’t expect to win the first one and still be alive for the semifinals in the second. He skipped the Toronto and Cincinnati Masters events after winning consecutive clay court events in Kitzbuhel and Stuttgart and the US Open starts next week, so I expect him to withdraw from New Haven.

Marcel Granollers and Steve Darcis have one main draw hard court win between them. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez is slightly better on hard court than Chris Guccione so I’m picking Garcia-Lopez. If you do pick Del Potro, be sure the look at the draw before submitting your picks.

Marc Gicquel should be able to beat Albert Montanes on hard court but Mardy Fish should be able to beat Gicquel. Fish is inconsistent but he did reach the semifinals at Los Angeles and he reached the final here last year so I’m picking Fish.

Marin Cilic has beaten Fernando Gonzalez and Andy Roddick on hard court this year and he reached the quarterfinals in Toronto. Arnaud Clement beat him at Wimbledon but Clement is 2-5 on hard court this year. Cilic also beat Viktor Troicki on hard court in Chennai and he’s 2-0 over Melzer on fast courts with both victories coming this year. Melzer did reach the quarterfinals at the Olympics so he’s a valid pick, but Cilic is my pick.

Igor Andreev is the obvious choice in the next section – he reached the third round in Toronto, Cincinnati, and the Olympics, and he beat Oliver Rochus here in their only meeting three years ago – but I used him up in the clay court season so I need to pick between Victor Hanescu and Denis Gremelmayr. Hanescu beat Gremelmayr on hard court last year though it took three sets. I’d love to pick Gremelmayr because he reached the semifinals at Los Angeles and he’s won 58% of his hard court events while Hanescu has won only one third of his, but Gremelamayr isn’t eligible for fantasy tennis so I’m going to hope for a miracle and pick Hanescu.

Potito Starace took a set off Rafael Nadal at the Olympics but Andreas Seppi is the best Italian hard court player. Nicolas Lapentti reached the quarterfinals in Cincinnati and he beat Marin Cilic and David Ferrer to get there. This is a tough choice because Seppi is the more consistent player. Seppi reached the second round or better in six hard court events while all of Lapentti’s wins on hard court were in Cincinnati. I’m taking Seppi.

The two tall ones, Ivo Karlovic and John Isner, will play in the first round. Karlovic got to the semifinals in Cincinnati and he reached the semifinals here last year while Isner is having a disappointing year. Can Karlovic beat Jose Acasuso? Yes he can, he beat him on the way to that semifinal in Cincinnati so Karlovic is my pick.

Picks

Here are my picks: Verdasco, Calleri, Guccione, Fish, Cilic, Hanescu, Seppi, Karlovic.

Happy fantasies!

James Blake defeated Roger Federer in the quarterfinals at the Olympics but I’m not digging the tennis event so far.

After James Blake beat Roger Federer in the quarterfinals at the Olympics today, he said he had no idea how he did it then added:

Maybe if you play him enough times, he’s bound to have an off day. He didn’t play his best today, but I felt like I served well when I needed to, especially in that tiebreaker.

Blake did serve well – he faced only one break point and beat Federer in straight sets, 6-4 7-6(2) – but Blake’s statement does seem to epitomize Federer’s current predicament: no slam titles, losses to players like Ivo Karlovic and Gilles Simon, and now no Olympic gold medal after Federer had focused his year on Beijing.

Yes, if you play anyone enough times they’ll have an off day, and, as time goes on, they’ll start having more and more off days. Blake seemed to be saying that he didn’t beat Federer, Federer just didn’t show up. That thought must we wearing away at Federer’s mind, so how will he gather himself for the US Open? Losing the Wimbledon final must have been a huge emotional blow after coming back from two sets down, and being thrashed in the French Open final no doubt felt awful, but at least he reached the final of the last two slams and knowing his propensity for throwing the best face on difficult results, he’s probably telling himself that very thing.

And there’s also the matter of having played in the best match ever in that Wimbledon final. Not a bad way to make a positive out of a negative. As for me, I am not enjoying this thing called the Olympic tennis and now I don’t even have the prospect of the best final ever in the Olympics between Federer and Rafael Nadal. Has there ever been a famous Olympic tennis moment? Anyone know?

In fact, I’m not only not enjoying the Olympic tennis event, it’s irritating me. I find myself complaining about the past-midnight start time for Serena and Venus Williams’ first round doubles match on Tuesday night. Especially after Serena looked lead-footed in a loss to Elena Dementieva today and Venus double faulted nine times in the first set of a loss to Chinese player Li Na. Would the organizers have started a doubles match featuring Li Na after midnight?

Actually, they might have, but I’m whining and sniping because I’m jealous. Not only is my favorite sport declining in popularity in my part of the world – the U.S. – while it’s increasing in popularity in Asia, but it’s not a very popular Olympic sport and, worst of all, my part of the world is declining politically while China is ascending – which was, of course, the point of the beautiful but interminable opening ceremonies.

The whole thing is leaving me out of sorts and even a bit depressed. Take the streaming tennis matches on NBC’s Olympic website. They feel like those soccer games played to empty stadiums as punishment for bad behavior by home fans. Not only are the stands empty, but there’s no commentary either, no verbal commentary anyway.

Actually, there were people in the stands in the early rounds. They all wore yellow t-shirts and cheered for both players. They were like the volunteer seat-fillers at the Oscar ceremony who fill up seats when actors leave to go to the bathroom or receive their statuettes.

And that’s what’s missing. Energy, particularly the partisan version of it. If this was a Davis Cup event, there’d be drums banging and cymbals clashing every time a player won a point. If this was slam, momentum would build over the event until we were glued to the screen for the semifinals. We’d even be arguing about the commentators.

There is a big semifinal coming up. Nadal and Novak Djokovic will meet in the semifinals and one of them will take home a gold or silver medal. Blake will play Fernando Gonzalez. Blake has lost five straight matches to Gonzalez and that is probably a better predictor of the outcome than Blake’s eight straight losses to Federer. You’d think Blake would have lost a ninth time but Federer’s matches are now totally unpredictable.

I will watch the semifinals and finals, but a few years from now, I won’t remember who medaled. Thank heavens the US Open is coming soon. Maybe the biggest tennis event in the US will cheer me up.

Juan Martin Del Potro beat Andy Roddick in the Countrywide Classic final today and one of the “new big” players rises up the rankings.

Three 19 year olds, all tall, all born within a month of each other, all ranked in the top forty on the professional tennis tour: Juan Martin Del Potro, Marin Cilic, and Ernests Gulbis. I haven’t even had time to think about which one would get their first slam or even if one of them would win a slam, and now one of them has broken out.

Del Potro beat Andy Roddick to win the title at the Countrywide Classic in Los Angeles today and maybe I’ve been spending too much time watching the Olympic opening ceremonies. Maybe the need for each and every event to symbolize a significant passing has gripped my brain. But to my thinking, Del Potro’s victory is significant. Roddick was the big player – literally –when he came along at 6’2”(187cm), but the young trio is part of the new big: Del Potro and Cilic are 6’6”(198cm), and Gulbis, well, he’s an inch taller than Roddick at 6’3”(190cm). Of course size isn’t everything, but these guys move better than the old big too.

Roddick dismissed the notion that a group of young players is now taking over (probably out of frustration at losing the match to one of them) as follows:

I always get a kick out it when everyone acts shocked when young players start winning matches. Like it hasn’t been happening for the last 100 years.

But he did agree on the key point:

I think the biggest thing is that these guys are huge. I remember when I was big, once upon a time. As far as tennis stands, these guys are all six foot six and higher. I think that’s a more interesting story than someone being 19 years old.

Well maybe, but age may be the significance of Del Potro’s win. We’ve been talking about Federer losing the number one ranking but Roddick has slipped down the rankings to number nine because he’s been struggling with injuries. After a very good spring that included beating Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic in Dubai and Federer in Miami, he’s been having some shoulder problems and he had to drop out of Cincinnati after waking up with a stiff neck and shoulder:

He skipped the Olympics to concentrate on the US Open by playing here and in Washington next week and it’s true that he’s played well this year when he’s been healthy, but Andy Murray has already jumped past him to become the fourth best prospect to win the US Open, and Roddick hasn’t reached a semifinal in a slam since the Australian Open last year. This year his slam results consist of a third round at the Australian and a second round at Wimbledon.

I’ll give Roddick a quarterfinal result at the US Open at best and I’m not sure about that. He’ll probably get his ranking up in the fall season but my guess is that he’s more likely to get to the year end championships as the number seven or eighth ranked player, not the sixth or higher ranking he’s had for the past year.

Speaking of symbolism, by the way, potro means colt in Spanish. Besides referring to a young male horse, the word can also mean young and inexperienced. For that reason I thought Del Potro had a chance to beat Roddick today, but I didn’t expect it to be in straight sets and I certainly wasn’t looking for a 6-1 score in the first set. That’s a bit misleading because Roddick couldn’t find his serve and had treatment for lower back stiffness towards the end of the set, but Del Potro was cracking the ball and even Roddick said, “I could have played really well and I’m not sure if it would have mattered.”

I asked Roddick who was more likely to reach a slam out of the tall trio and he chose Del Potro because he plays more consistently. I guess so. Del Potro has now won three straight tournaments and they were the first titles of his career. Has anyone ever done that before? Anyone know?

That kind of streak means that a player has entered the zone and taken up residence and it certainly looked like it today. Calmness is the overarching trait of a player in the zone and Del Potro calmly walked from one end of the baseline to the other even as Roddick improved his serving percentage to almost 70% in the second set while Del Potro’s level of play dipped. You may not play lights out 100% of the time when you’re in the zone, but you don’t care because you know you will be soon enough and that’s what happened in the second set tiebreaker.

Roddick should have had the advantage in the tiebreaker because his serve was working, but with Roddick serving at 2-3, Del Potro got a 135mph (217kph) serve back in play and the two of them rallied until Roddick coughed up a forehand error to go down a minibreak. Roddick lost the next point on his serve too and Del Potro served out to win the match, 6-1, 7-6(2).

I asked Del Potro, as we all did, what precipitated his current streak of excellence and he did give us an answer: he has a new coach as of February, Franco Davin, and he is now much calmer on court. Del Potro speaks English but not well enough to get into the gritty details – what exactly has Davin changed, for instance? I kick myself in situations like this because I don’t speak enough Spanish and I’d really like to pick his brain about it.

Gulbis has already lost his first round match at the Olympics and Cilic is in the middle of his first match as I write this. Del Potro will be the number two seed at Washington next week while Roddick will be the number one seed. We’ll see if the young colt can continue the trend.

NBC is streaming the tennis matches at the Olympics live online. Go here and watch to your heart’s content as soon as the rainstorms end.