Do you think Federer really gave it his best losing to Sampras in straight sets? Their previous match in Malaysia was very close with Fed winning two tie break sets. The first match in Korea was more one sided in favor of Federer.
It kinda looked like Roger gradually "let" Pete win in the final match. Fed won easily in the first match, much closer in the second match, then BOOM....Pete won the 3rd match. Don't get me wrong, I think Pete is incredible. I just don't think he really has a chance against Fed when Fed is in his prime; just like guys didn't have much of a chance against Pete when he was in his prime. Since Roger only had to win two of the matches to win the series, I think the 3rd match was simply to show the world that Pete is still a great player!
I would have to say Mono and the time it takes to recover had a great deal to do with it. Can't agree more that the two of them are way too competitive to throw a match. The match reinforced my position that serve and volley and chip and charge still has a place in today's game.
You guys are hilarious. They are too competitive to throw a match? Maybe if it was real that would be the case, but this was an exhibition in the middle of god-knows-where Asia... This was obviously promotional. Their sponsors like making money; so do Roger and Pete. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Roger threw the third match. I don't care if he found out he had cancer that day (knock on wood), he still could have beaten Pete EASILY if he wanted to. Pete is old. Are you trying to tell me Roger couldn't have managed to just prolong the points enough to tire Pete out? Pete isn't in match shape, he is a father now. Clearly this was a little hoax. No worries though. Roger is ready to win the U.S. Open for a 6th consecutive time. That's all that really matters.
Especially dated since the most recent reply on 8/29/09 makes reference to Pete being a father, etc. In case the writer of that message isn't up to speed......Roger is married and just had twins.
