Pete Sampas - an Indepth look at his game Pt 2

We have taken a look at Pete Sampras game by breaking it down into different facets. I will now take a look at how Sampras performed against his main rivals from the era of the 1990s through early 2000s. 

Sampras v Courier

It is interesting to look back on Jim Courier’s reign as number 1 in 1992; a player who made the most of his talent with hard work, Jim was compared to Ivan Lendl during this period – not least by Brad Gilbert in his book called “Winning Ugly”.  Courier used Lendl’s tactic of trying to dominate each match with his forehand and was extremely good on clay as a result. However, Courier did not possess natural athletic ability; therefore once his level started to drop at the young age of 23, he found it hard to get it back.  

You could argue Sampras played a major part in that, because he frustrated Courier a lot in the major tournaments, Sampras was often in Courier’s way and that would frustrate anyone.  Courier won their 1991 US Open quarterfinal and 1994 French quarterfinal but lost at the 1992 US Open semifinal, 1993 Wimbledon final, 1994 Australian Open semifinal,  and 1995 US Open semifinal.   Sampras also came from two sets down to win in the 1995 Australian Open quarterfinal and 1996 French Open quarterfinal.   

Courier often showed his frustration during their matches, but tended to take it out on officials instead, this happened in 1994 in Australia and Miami. As for the Tennis, Sampras forehand could match Courier’s forehand, so that was already one problem for Courier.  Also, Sampras was the better athlete, and was willing to play Courier at his own game, which was to play backhand to backhand, getting it as deep as he could, trying to get Courier to drop the ball short, Courier would run around the backhand a lot, but Sampras often held firm frustrating Courier. 

Sampras said in his book that he targeted Courier’s forehand when serving because of Courier’s extreme grip which closed the racquet face, which meant returning fast sliding serves was a problem for him.  Undoubtedly that frustrated Courier as well as his best weapon was neutralized and that drained his confidence.  The rivalry ended 16 – 4 to Sampras.

  

Sampras v Rafter

  

A fascinating rivalry, because Rafter was a very tough and athletic player who fought to the end, but there were times when Sampras completely dominated Rafter including an 8 match win streak which stretched from 1994 to 1998.  The most interesting aspect was that Sampras returned serve and passed Rafter better than anyone else Rafter faced in his career, including Andre Agassi. The difference Rafter faced between Agassi and Sampras was that Sampras was the better mover across the baseline than Agassi and thus hit better when on the run, consequently came up with incredible passing shots.  An example of this was their 1997 Davis cup semifinal meeting when Sampras put on a master class of returning serve and hitting passing shots in front of a raucous crowd.

Rafter did give Sampras a lot of trouble with the kick serve, but often played Sampras’ backhand into form because he focused so much on it.  Sampras played reverse psychology on Courier by going to his strength, but Rafter often went to Sampras’ perceived weakness and often payed the price.  Rafter did have a surprising 3 match win streak between 1998 and 1999 including the 1998 Cincinnati final and the 1998 US Open semi final. The Cincinnati loss led to some tension between the two men after a disputed call on matchpoint. 

Sampras won the last 4 meetings including the 2000 Wimbledon final, coming from a set down, and their 2001 US Open encounter.  The head to head finished 12 – 4 to Sampras.   

 

Sampras v Hewitt

An interesting rivalry because of the age difference.  And you can see the rivalry had two halves, because Sampras won 4 of the first 5 meetings but Hewitt won the last four meetings to make it 4-5 to Hewitt.

There’s no doubt Hewitt gave Sampras a lot of problems with his speed around the court and his good returning, getting it low to Sampras’ feet when Sampras came in.  Sampras reckoned Hewitt liked the fast courts which helped his game and liked playing attackers / serve volleyers.  I also think that Hewitt caught Sampras at a good time for the 2001 US Open final when Sampras ran out of steam after beating Rafter, Agassi, and Safin back to back, the three former champions in a row. 

Hewitt also took advantage of the fact that Sampras played more at the net later in his career which played into Hewitt’s hands.   Sampras didn’t play from the baseline as much or stay back on his 2nd serve as he did when facing Courier and Chang. However, in their meetings before Sampras’ dip in form post 2000, the Sampras forehand and movement was too much for Hewitt.

Sampras v Krajicek

  

Krajicek was a great player, if a little underrated due to the fact he had a lot of injuries and only won 1 Major title.  Krajicek was 6 ft 5 but was still able to win Super Nines (Masters 1000) tournaments in Stuttgart and Miami, plus clay tournaments in Barcelona and got to the final in Rome in 1996.  Krajicek was an all round player with a good ground game and moved very well for a very tall player.  Krajicek is most remembered as the man to break Sampras’ Wimbledon run at the 1996 quarterfinal stage, which Krajicek won in straight sets; that would be the only loss Sampras suffered in 8 years.

Krajicek was able to get to Sampras’ backhand probably more than any other player,  Krajicek put more slice on his serve more often and into the body, so the ball jumped at Sampras a lot as opposed to slow kickers which can sit up waiting to be punished if not executed properly, Krajieck had a great serve and very good volleys.  At one stage the head to head was 6-2 to Krajicek with a four match win streak between 1994 and 1998.  However, Sampras won the last 2 meetings in Cincinnati in 1999 and the US Open in 2000 to make it a more respectable 4-6 to Krajicek.  The tiebreak in the 2nd set of their 2000 US Open quarterfinal is one of Sampras’ most memorable moments in his long career. 

 

Sampras v Becker

One of the best rivalries, two of the best players of the open era who had an attacking game but liked to play from the baseline, their matches combined great serving, great returning, great passing shots, great rallies and great athleticism, all court tennis at it’s best

Their rivalry is fondly remembered in Germany where so many of those matches took place.  The 1996 ATP Masters final which went to five sets and was 4 hours long is considered the finest indoor match of the Open era. Their 1995 Wimbledon final was remarkable because Sampras hit 29 passing shot winners and made less than 15 unforced errors the entire match – Sampras was unbeatable that day.

The rivalry finished 12- 7 to Sampras, many of those matches taking place at the semi final and final stages of tournaments in Germany, Indianapolis, Wimbledon and the Italian Open. Becker’s career spanned two eras from McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander to Agassi, Sampras and Courier.  However, it is interesting to note that there is only just over a 3 year age difference between the two men, Becker blossomed incredibly early at age 17, something which will unlikely to happen again in mens tennis.

 

Sampras v Edberg

This rivalry was very close, they both liked to attack, although at this stage, Sampras liked to stay back a lot and Edberg exploited that, especially in their 1992 US Open final.  It is interesting that in 2000 and 2001, Sampras would decide to do to other players what Edberg did to him in 1992 and 1993, which is to chip and charge a lot and try to destabilise him.  Sampras did have the 1992 US Open final in his hands but blew it when serving for the 3rd set and got broken, and then seemed to lose heart for the rest of the match.  

Sampras also described in his book that Edberg’s forehand was better than it looked, he called it an “odd shovelling motion”.  Their matches were great to watch, Edberg didn’t rally as well as Becker but he had a great backhand and was a very smooth mover. Their rivalry ended 8 -6 to Sampras but Edberg won the 1992 US Open final and 1993 Australian Open semi final:

Sampras v Ivanisevic

Sampras sums this rivalry up better than anyone – they were a bad match up!    Two guys with big serves, this is what a lot of people remember about Wimbledon, which is unfair to both men, because Sampras played remarkable Tennis in the 1995, 1999 and 2000 Wimbledon finals and Ivanisevic played an amazing final in 2001 against Rafter,

But the 1994 final in 30 degree heat (very unusual for London) and with the ball flying, that match was the beginning of the end for fast grass, they slowed things down from 1995 onwards but the differences were not really manifested until around 2002 when all of the 1990s attacking players were slowly retiring, leaving it to the baseline generation.

These two guys played each other 18 times with Sampras having a 12- 6 edge, but unfortunately none of their matches are particularly memorable, other than the 1998 Wimbledon final which Sampras won in 5 sets, Sampras was so tense that Ivanisevic was able to make it a long match, but couldn’t take the initiative to win the title.  

 

Sampras v Agassi

Sampras’ most famous rivalry and infamous rivalry considering their fall outs post retirement.  These two players produced some of the best Tennis ever seen, especially on Hardcourts between 1994 and 1995.  The rivalry was renewed in 1999 but Sampras had a distinct edge despite Agassi’s resurgence winning 4 out of the 5 matches including the 1999 Wimbledon and ATP Championships finals.

Sampras reckons he’s the better mover and more athletic than Agassi, so felt he was able to compete in the baseline rallies and hold his own.  Agassi played a bit different from Courier, Agassi liked to control the middle of the court, so Sampras’ job was always to try to get Agassi out of that comfort and into the corners of the court often, Sampras also played great on the run so he had an edge there as well.  Agassi gave Sampras trouble with the kick serve but not as much trouble as Richard Krajicek because Sampras could always float the return back and if it was deep enough then he was in business. 

Under Paul Annacone in the later years, Sampras moved away from the idea of running around the backhand to hit forehand returns, to either driving the backhand return more or chipping and charging.  Sampras also started hitting the 2nd serve bigger and coming in much more often.  So unlike Courier and Chang, Agassi saw different sides to Sampras because they both lasted longer on the tour.

They played at all of the slams.  Agassi won the meetings at the French and Australian Open, Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open.  The matches in Australia were close and could have gone either way.  Sampras also beat Agassi on clay twice but Agassi never beat Sampras on grass.  On hard court it was neck and neck.  Their rivalry ended 20 – 14 to Sampras

The contrast in styles and the baseline rallies was the best part of their rivalry, especially between 1994 to 1995, and 1999 to 2002. In 1999, even though Sampras won 4 out of their 5 meetings, the Tennis was of the highest quality.

Sampras v Henman

Probably a non rivalry, but Henman did make it to two Wimbledon semi finals and took a set off Sampras each time, winning the 1st set in the 1999 Wimbledon semi final when Sampras was distinctly tense.  Henman had the crowd on his side and gave a good account of himself but never looked he was going to win either match.

Henman has claimed that Sampras didn’t return serve that well and you could always take him to tiebreaks.  Well, Henman clearly wasn’t able to get to a tiebreak in two Wimbledon semifinals and in fact, Sampras always had the upper hand on Henman’s 2nd serve, Henman didn’t have much to hurt Sampras other than a few nice shots here and there, he didn’t serve big enough or get enough cheap points or aces, Henman was often under the cosh.  The rivalry ended 6-1 to Sampras with Henman winning their last ever meeting in Cincinnati in 2000.

One match sums up their rivalry, the 1998 Vienna quarterfinal.  Sampras won the match 6-0 6-3 in 50 minutes, breaking Henman 5 times but Henman never saw a breakpoint, Sampras played amazing Tennis, right in the zone, Henman had no answer.

 

Sampras v Chang

 

This is strangely familiar to a rivalry that would take place 10 years later – Federer v Hewitt. Sampras beat Chang in the juniors, then changed from his two handed backhand and Chang started beating him; this went on to the seniors, Chang winning their first 6 meetings on the tour.

 It all turned around in 1993 when Sampras beat Chang at the US Open quarterfinal.  Chang won the first set tiebreak 7-0, Sampras won the 2nd set tiebreak, then the 3rd and 4th sets 6-1 6-1.   

At one stage, Sampras won 10 games in a row, you have never seen Chang so absolutely dominated off the ground for an hour, Sampras ran Chang ragged all over the court with winners everywhere, it was breath taking Tennis, in the course of that match, McEnroe said it was rare to see a serve and volleyer have such an all round game from the baseline as well.  Illie Nastase made a famous quote where he said it was the best Hardcourt Tennis he’d witness at that stage. 

Chang  won one more match after that and the rivalry ended 12 – 8 to Sampras including a comprehensive US Open final win in 1996 in straight sets. 

Other notable Sampras rivalries include:

Ivan Lendl, Michael Stich, Mark Phillippoussis,  Marat Safin, Thomas Muster, Gustavo Kuerten  and Yfevgeny Kafelnikov.

Pete Sampras - An Indepth look at his game

The grasscourt season has begun and Wimbledon is not too far away.  It is an opportunity to take a look at one of the great grasscourt players and tennis legends.  This article will look at Pete Sampras’ game in detail, and the next article will concentrate on Sampras’ main rivals throughout his career. 

Pete’s Serve

This is one of Sampras’ most recognisable shots; many regard him as having the greatest serve in the game’s history.  A study was conducted at the 1998 US Open which showed that despite speeds upwards of 120mph, Sampras was able to generate up to 4260rpms; and up to 5357rpms on the 2nd serve, far above any other player.  Other players who served at similar speeds had far less RPMs on the serve on average.  See study here

This is one of the reasons why Sampras’ serve was so good, he possessed the ability to generate slice and topspin in equal measure and sometimes combined the two at the same time.  Sampras was also considered to have the best 2nd serve in the business, he was able to produce fast, deep serves into all corners of the box and into the body at speeds of up to 120mph loaded with spin, no matter how used an opponent was to anticipating, it was still difficult to deal with.

What makes Sampras serve stand out was the thought process behind it, along with the ability to hit flat, slice and kick serves with the same ball toss.  On the deuce court, Sampras liked to go to the forehand to open up the court for the next shot.  Going to the forehand is always a risky shot but you have to take risks to win.  Pete discussed in his book that by going to an opponent’s strength, you can break it down – a tactic he often used against Jim Courier who closed the racquet face due to his extreme grip.

Sampras’ serve really came into its own on the ad court.  The ad court is the decision court where games are won and lost and breakpoints saved. Sampras stood very close to the centre line and with the same ball toss, often slightly behind him or above his head, could hit it out wide to the backhand or go down the middle.  When he went down the middle, he often came over it with topspin whilst adding slice, so the ball straightened after pitching, going away from the opponents’ forehand but getting up high – anywhere between 110 to 135mph.  He was capable of hitting 2nd serves there at 120mph on the line.  

Many players’ serve angles in to the returners’ forehand because they stand further away from the cenrtre line so they have to add more sidespin than slice.  The ball may be fast but it’s easier to return if they don’t place it well.  With that serve to the forehand Sampras really upped the ante often, challenging the opponent to come up with something, often they couldn’t. 

 

The other benefit of this tactic was reverse psychology, when the opponent was anticipating and covering the forehand side, Sampras would go to the backhand and the ace count would rise.

Of the current generation, Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova have studied the Sampras serve and implemented it into their games, particularly the slice serve to the forehand on the ad court.  Juan Martin Del Potro, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic have also studied that particular serve, but none of these players hit it with the same effectiveness, power or precision.  However, young up and coming player Milos Raonic has perfected that technique.

Pete’s Return of Serve

Sampras’ return of serve went through a few different phases throughout his long career.  In 1990 when he won the US Open as a 19 year old, he employed two strategies.  One was to drive the backhand return for winners or as a set up to dominate the point, the other was to run around the backhand to hit forehands on the ad court.  Sampras’ grasscourt game improved when he modified his returns and shortened his swing path to take account of the faster surface.  The forehand return certainly became one of the great shots of the 1990s because he could hit clean winners off it with a shortened swing which looked spectacular off fast serves.

In his later years he employed the chip and charge tactic a lot more, especially between 2000 and 2002 (a Paul Annacone influence).  One thing Sampras always said, it is the return of serve which wins Wimbledon.  This is something a lot of people and media never focus on; there have been many players over the years who serve just as fast or faster on grass such as Ivo Karlovic, Kevin Curren, Mark Philippoussis, Greg Rusedski, Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Andy Roddick.  However, many fancied players have never won Wimbledon because they do not return serve as well and are not athletic enough to get around the court and create opportunities.

Pete also knew when to step up return games, if he wanted to crush an opponent, he would go after them every game, if he wanted to conserve energy, he would focus on certain games to raise his returning level, he was a smart player.

Pete’s Forehand

Sampras has what is considered to be one of the best forehands in the history of modern tennis.  On any surface, Sampras was capable of generating considerable power with a strong amount of topspin.  However, Sampras also created incredible angles with his forehand and possessed the greatest running forehand in modern tennis, either down the line or crosscourt.

Along with Jim Courier, Sampras modelled his forehand strategy on Ivan Lendl.  This was to cover the backhand side to enable him to hit the inside out forehand or inside in forehand (down the line) to dictate play.  Sampras often banked on his athleticism to get to any balls down the line on his forehand side which he could counter down the line or crosscourt for winners or to get into an offensive position in the rally.  During the mid 1990s, Sampras would often go to the squash shot on hardcourts to keep the rally going when really stretched. 

Sampras used a conventional eastern forehand grip (some observers say semi western).  Not that it matters because it was a conventional grip which allowed him to deal with both high and low shots.  In fact, on lower bouncing surfaces, the eastern grip came into its own on short mid court balls which require a lot of topspin for clearance and pace to get it away from the opponent; this was a speciality of Sampras.  The 1998 US Open study showed that Sampras generated up to 3409rpms on his forehand.  Sampras generated more topspin on average on his shots than his contemporaries such as Andre Agassi or Tim Henman.  The most amazing thing is the pace Sampras was able to generate while using topspin for control with reasonably good net clearance; it is also worth noting that Sampras exclusively used natural gut on his strings.

Along with Andre Agassi, Sampras had the best forehand return of serve throughout the 1990s, particularly on the ad court.

Pete’s backhand

A shot that was often described as a weakness by the media, especially later in his career. However, it was seen as more reliable than his forehand in his early years on the tour.  It was a very good shot and of course everything is relative.  On clay he didn’t like it up high but not many players do, many players with two hands struggle up there, Kim Clijsters being one example. .  Sampras liked to trade topspin backhands with the likes of Andre Agassi and Jim Courier in the backhand to backhand corner (diagonal), probing for an opening. 

Compared to Roger Federer who employs a similar strategy today, Sampras hit his backhands higher over the net with more loop, to get the ball as deep as possible, trying to illicit a short ball he could attack with either a forehand or slice and approach to the net.  Sampras also liked the slice / topspin strategy which worked very well, keeping it low, then the topspin jumping higher off the court, something Amelie Mauresmo used particularly well against Kim Clijsters in recent years.

There are two things which made Sampras’ game superior.  One was the drive backhand return of serve which could get the point on his terms, the other was the backhand down the line.  In Sampras’ best performances, the backhand down the line was always a crucial shot.

Pete’s passing shots

This is one of the key reasons Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times in an era of attacking players.  He was able to return serve and hit passing shots better than his rivals of that era on grass and it showcased his counterpunching skills. Sampras had the ability to hit any pass backhand and forehand down the line, cross court and lob, or go to the body opening up the next shot.

Sampras’ passing shots came to the fore in the 1990 US Open seminal against John McEnroe.  In that match, Sampras hit 27 passing shots in 4 sets, clearly surprising McEnroe who wasn’t expecting that kind of tennis.  In the 1995 Wimbledon final against Boris Becker, Sampras hit 29 passing shots and in the 2000 final against Rafter, Sampras hit 23 passing shots and around 14 return winners.

Pete’s Movement

Pete was a very smooth mover around the court.  And in his book he discussed why he often felt he had the measure of Andre Agassi, he said that he moved better than Agassi and therefore in the baseline rallies he could hold his own and often come out on top.  Fred Perry’s quote sums it up best “ Sampras moves like oil, you don’t hear him, you just hear the other guy, and the other guys losing”.  The only surface where Sampras probably didn’t move as well was on clay, compared to grass, hardcourts, rebound ace and indoor carpet. 

Pete’s Volleys and Overheads

During the 1990s era, Stefan Edberg and Patrick Rafter had better volleys. However, Sampras was not far off their level and certainly possessed the best forehand volley because of his firm wrist, but Edberg and Rafter had better overall volleys.  Sampras came into his own on half volleys and stop volleys, Due to his athleticism he came up with amazing volley winners out of nothing, often leaving his opponent dumbfounded.  Recently, Petra Kvitova in the womens game has been coming up with amazing volleys on faster surfaces.

As for overheads, Sampras probably has the best one ever seen on a consistent basis.  Not too many players got lobs over him, his athleticism up there was incredible and his slam dunk a signature shot.  The late commentator Bill Threlfall once said of Sampras “he has rubber legs!”

Pete’s game under Tim Gullickson

Sampras started work with Tim Gullickson in the beginning of 1992 after parting company with Joe Brandi.  Gullickson worked on improving Sampras’ grass game and worked on making Sampras an all round player, an all court player, cutting down on unforced errors and playing more patiently from the baseline.  They also worked hard on Sampras’ clay court game, in view of attempting to win the French Open. 

During that period of Sampras’ development, on hardcourts and other surfaces, Sampras served volleyed on 1st serve and stayed back on 2nd serve.  Many matches as a result gave the impression Sampras was playing from the baseline.  His average 1st serve percentage was usually quite low, just over 50 % first serves in, so on half of his serves he would play from the back.  I would assume had Sampras grown up in today’s slower conditions, he would stay back all the time.

Pete’s game under Paul Annacone

Paul Annacone became Sampras’ full time coach in 1996 after the passing of Tim Gullickson.  And as the late 1990s went on, Sampras’ game started to evolve into a more aggressive one.  He started coming to net more on his 2nd serve and started serving bigger more often.  By 2000, Sampras was a full time serve and volleyer on all surfaces.   Sampras’ return game also changed.  The tactic of running around the backhand to hit forehand was jettisoned for the chip and charge, a tactic he hardly employed previously.   An interesting thing to note is that Sampras’ contemporaries had more or less left the scene including Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Thomas Muster, Sergei Brugera, players he had a lot of battles with from the baseline. 

Due to Sampras’ change in tactics and philosophy on the game, his claycourt game suffered as a result as the big game didn’t really work on the slow surface, and surface speeds were much more diverse then compared to today’s conditions where all surfaces play at a similar medium pace.