quote:

---

Chang moved through the first matches in Paris without much fanfare, until he reached the Round of 16 against Lendl. Chang quickly dropped the first two sets to Lendl, but recovered and was hacking away in the fourth set when he began to cramp. To offset his physical problems, and maybe to give Lendl some, he began slowing down the pace, hitting moon balls deep into Lendl's side of the court, moving the Czech back and forth.

Chang took several breaks to swig down water, ate bananas during changeovers -- and incredibly forced the stoic Lendl into a fifth set.

He broke Lendl three times in the deciding set, and led 4-3. Chang was serving, down 15-30, when he went to the shot that would make Roland Garros gasp and eventually earn him the title.

Still cramping, still barely able to stand, the shot was a simple underhanded serve, a quick flick that took Lendl completely off-guard. Lendl lost the point, then started screaming at the umpire and the French crowd. He found himself down 15-40 in the next game, with a second serve, when Chang stepped inside the baseline, up nearly to the service box, to take the serve.

Lendl was clearly steaming. His serve bounced off the tape, went long and Chang sunk to his knees with the win.

"I was trying to break his concentration," he told Sports Illustrated after the 4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 drainer. "I would do anything to stay out there."

Many saw the underhanded serve and the bold move to take Lendl's serve so close as sheer underhanded sportsmanship. It's a common move nowadays, stepping inside the baseline to try to take serves on the rise. But few ever have stepped that close.

And underhand serves are still a novelty, a trick shot. No one has ever used one in a more important point in a bigger match.

The win over Lendl was instantly a classic, but Chang followed it with the five-setter against the Swede Edberg, winning 6-1, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2, again stepping well inside the baseline to take Edberg's serves.

---

I know Pete Sampras retired this week, as well, but I never had much interest in him. Even if he did win more tournaments, he just never seemed to have the fire that Chang did.

to you Michael Chang.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I was in high school when Chang won the French Open. I had never been a fan of tennis before, but I happened to be watching then. I was amazed. Chang was about my age, and I couldn't believe someone my age was beating the best in the world. He inspired me.

Even though I never saw him do much after that, he remained (and still remains) one of my favorite players, solely on the basis of that tournament.

UofUlawguy
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Chang was always among my favorites and while he was a steady player, it was his caginess that made him great. As he said in an interview once, "Lendl just kept freaking out that this injured, cramping kid was ruining his shot at the open."

He played it to the hilt and he'll be missed. Sampras, ehhh... never did much for me.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

I was in high school when Chang won the French Open.

---

I was barely out of diapers when Chang won the French Open.
 

---

Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
 
When's the last time Chang won anything? Besides a minor tournament? I used to be a really big fan, but he just kept disappointing me with horrible first round losses. I wish he would have retired a few years ago.

Samprass, on the other hand, is the greatest tennis player to ever grace the court. I'm glad he realized he was past his prime; he was able to leave at the top of his career. Heh, if Chang was to do the same, he would have had to retire in 1989, after winning the French.

The US has the beginnings of a great new generation of tennis stars. I think Andy Roddick and James Blake will be the next Samprass and Agassi. Speaking of Agassi, you can never count this guy out. I think he's going to win the US Open this year, and I hope he plays a few more years, because at 33 he's at the top of his game.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Chang hasn't won anything in quite a while. As the serves got bigger, he dropped lower and lower in the rankings. He probably should have retired sooner, but if he was still enjoying the game, why quit?

quote:

---

Samprass, on the other hand, is the greatest tennis player to ever grace the court. I'm glad he realized he was past his prime; he was able to leave at the top of his career.

---

I disagree about this although he has won more than anybody else. Even if he is the best, watching players like Sampras and Lendl is like watching machines play. They have so little fire and emotion in what they do.

I wonder what Agassi could have been like if he had the same focus when he was younger as he has now.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Chang has been my favorite player since I can remember and I was very dissapointed that I wasn't able to get down to Key Biscayne to watch his final match in the Nsadaq-100 against Agassi. Still I think he would have been much better off retiring at least a year earlier. Yet
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
I loved watching Chang. He was only a big guy in his heart, and he still won matches. Men's tennis needs more like him.

Sampras is a robot. He's the reason I only watch women's tennis now.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
You guys are too tough on Sampras. I enjoyed watching him just because of his sheer dominance. And later in his career when he was struggling, it was quite a drama to see if he could get a final slam title.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
While I loved Chang I have to admit its always fun to watch pure excellence like we saw in Sampras at the pinacle of his career.

[ August 29, 2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Chang and Stockton are two of my favorite sports figures. Dirty players? Perhaps. But you got to admire players who play beyond the limits of their god given physical abilities.
 

---