The match that changed Tennis

The 1994 Wimbledon final between Pete Sampras and Goran Ivanisevic took place on an unusually hot July day for London.   

Beforehand, everybody knew the rallies were going to be short and points quick.  However, no one would have predicted the importance that match would play in the direction of modern tennis.  

The match was won by Sampras in straight sets with a strange scoreline of 7-6 7-6 6-0.  After Ivanisevic lost the two tiebreaks, he crumbled in the 3rd set as Sampras pulled out an array of returns and passing shots.  However, what seemed to get the media going was how the match unfolded, with a series of strong serves, aces, mishit returns or returns into the net on an incredibly regular basis.  

With the temperature around 30 degrees centigrade and the ball flying as a result, there were zero rallies as a consequence.  Ivanisevic hit 25 aces and Sampras 17, whilst many of Sampras’ serves were consistently between 125 and 130 mph (210kph). Due to the very hot weather and the potency of the serves, the ball flew like missiles as each player added topspin at pace, making balls extremely difficult to return.

There had been volley festivals before on finals day.  In 1991 Michael Stich defeated Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg played Becker in three straight finals between 1988 and 1990.  In 1986 and 1987 Ivan Lendl impersonated a serve volleyer and lost to Boris Becker and Pat Cash respectively.  And in 1985 a 17 year old Boris Becker defeated big serving Kevin Curren.  

However, what made this match different was the ability of each player to hit their 2nd serves as good as 1st serves.  Whereas in the past the crowd knew they were going to get some action on the second ball with some great tennis, many 2nd serves in this match went the way a 1st serve would - ace, mishit return or return into the net.

After the final Sampras, interviewed by BBC’s Sue Barker protested this was grass court tennis, that clay tennis could have matches where rallies were too long; and he had been using the same racquet technology for seven years (at that stage) and had not adopted a wide body frame like many of his opponents.

The negative clamour by the media about this final was pretty huge; the game was too quick and too serve dominated they cried, which in turn was killing tennis.  Of course there were no forums, facebook or twitter in 1994 where fans could make their voices heard immediately, but the message by the media (voice of the people) was clear, that was not the tennis the public wanted to see.  The interesting thing was, watching a re-run of the video, the crowd seemed pretty into it, or maybe that was just the tiebreakers…

Looking back, not only was this the beginning of the end of fast grass at Wimbledon, it was also the beginning of the end of fast courts in professional tennis.  The changes were first manifested for 1995 Wimbledon, the committee sanctioned a slower “softer” ball before the tournament, designed to introduce more rallies.  Further changes would take place over subsequent years with changes to the composition and the cut of the grass and further alterations to the Slazenger ball.  This didn’t stop a big server winning the tournament between 1994 and 2001 with Sampras winning in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, Richard Krajicek triumphing in 1996 and Goran Ivanisevic in 2001.

Changes made over time on grass didn’t become apparent until 2002, mainly due to the big servers of the 1990s slowing down or retiring outright. Krajicek got to the quarterfinal as a wildcard but lost in five sets to Xavier Malisse, and in the semifinal Tim Henman got comprehensively outplayed by Lleyton Hewitt.  Hewitt played David Nalbandian in the final, the first all baseline final since the 1970s.  Unlike Borg v Connors where both players tried to get to net as often as possible, these two guys only went to net to shake hands…. 

 

Serve volley on both serves on grass became a philosophy and almost ideology during this era. It became a way of playing that probably was not absolutely necessary but there was a degree of obsession to do it.  By the 1990s grass courts were more than good enough to aid baseline play, in fact, between 1990 and 1999, baseliners played in five of the ten finals.  Andre Agassi won the title in 1992 and played in the 1999 final. Jim Courier played in the 1993 final, Malavai Washington in 1996 and Cedric Pioline played the final in 1997.  

To see how serve volley on both serves became a philosophy on grass only, just three months beforehand, Sampras played Agassi in the Miami final. On a slow hardcourt, Sampras came from a set down to win 5-7 6-3 6-3.  During that match, Sampras stayed back on his 2nd serve throughout the match and stayed back on 1st serve on a number of occasions.  The result was an extremely enjoyable match full of great baseline rallies   No doubt these were the kind of matches the Wimbledon committee wanted, Agassi v Sampras in Wimbledon finals.  

You could argue that surfaces have been slowed too much on the back of the 1994 Wimbledon final.  By the mid 2000s, the ATP, WTA and ITF completely phased out indoor carpet and replaced it with medium paced plexicushion hardcourts.  The ITF also experimented with a larger ball in 2001 to slow the game further and negate advances in string technology.

The argument on the speed of grass was tempered in 2003 when Roger Federer won Wimbledon for the first time, defeating Mark Philippoussis in the final with an adaptation of Sampras’ tactics on hardcourts, which was to serve volley on 1st serve and invariably stay back on 2nd serve.  2003 would be the last ever serve volley final.  

The argument gathered momentum once again in 2008 when Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in five sets in the Wimbledon final to become the first Spanish player to win Wimbledon since 1966.  And with counterpunching players dominating three of the top four positions, the argument that courts are uniformly too slow will not go away anytime soon.

There are a number of things that can be done to encourage more net play or at least a hybrid form of attacking tennis.  Traditionally attacking all court players came out of North America, Northern Europe and Australia; coaches and academies could be encouraged to nurture players who want to play this style if some of the surfaces on tour are sped up somewhat, particularly hardcourts and indoor surfaces.  That would encourage the development of the one hand backhand and all court play.  

It would also be really interesting if a batch of young players were to revive the hybrid tactic of serve volleying on 1st serve and staying back on 2nd serve.  That would add a different dimension, especially on grass. It would take a bit of courage and vision to work at it to become comfortable.  Amelie Mauresmo showed it could be done when she won Wimbledon in 2006 in memorable fashion. 

Things go in cycles, and it could be that at some stage in future, younger players who want to play an attacking style will come through. Clashes in styles of play have made for so many of the greatest matches over the last thirty years.  In the meantime, the repercussions from the infamous 1994 Wimbledon final are still being felt today.