Andy Murray v Pete Sampras?
Great Britain
celebrated Andy Murray winning Wimbledon for the second time in his career. A significant victory for Murray, it now puts
him in a slightly elevated status in terms of open era tennis greats. There are a few great players who won two
majors in their career, but not many have won three and stay there. As of now, Andy has the opportunity to win
more majors before his career ends.
However,
Andy’s victory brought out the inevitable comparison of eras from British
journalists who were getting (over) excited about Andy’s success. I read an interesting article by Sean Ingle of the Guardian newspaper. In
the article Sean gave us a variety of statistics which was designed to come to
the conclusion that in any other era Murray would have been a multi grand slam
champion, most likely at Wimbledon. So
far Murray has played in eleven major finals, winning three of them. Eleven finals puts Murray in the top echelons
for appearances in major finals, which is extremely impressive. Three wins is not a good return but this is mitigated
in Sean’s mind by the fact that Murray is playing in the greatest era of
Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Sean Ingle
also canvassed the opinion of Swedish Davis Cup captain Thomas Enqvist who
played in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Thomas thought that during his time nobody could beat Sampras on grass
but due to changes in racquets, strings, the ball and the composition of the
grass with players being “fitter”, the implication that Murray would have been
able to bag a few Wimbledon titles and other major titles during that period.
My mind is
immediately drawn to that quote by the late great commentator Bill Threllfall
“statistics, damned statistics!” Statistics can be used in any way you wish,
and today, statistics is used as the yardstick in tennis media in the most
crazed fashion. In some ways this is
entirely pointless; however, in another way, it might be worth looking at how
Andy matches up with the top grass court player of that era, Pete Sampras. After all, it is clear that if Andy were to
win four to five Wimbledons he would have to beat Sampras on more than one
occasion as he was the man to beat for eight years. Since 2008, Wimbledon has been about three or
four players who are serious contenders.
In the 1990s, there was one man all the other contenders had to get
past. So, I have decided to bite the bait and look
at both players’ strengths and weaknesses in detail. Then we could see perhaps, how a rivalry like
that on grass could have gone.
The first
thing to say is that court speed, racquets, strings and tennis balls are rather
superfluous to this comparison. This is
because the gap between eras is too small; we are not comparing a forty year
decade difference. Both Murray and
Sampras played many of the same adversaries, including Andy Roddick, Lleyton
Hewitt, Roger Federer, Marat Safin, Carlos
Moya and others. In 2001 Sampras easily dismissed Mikael Youzhny at the US
Open; Youzhny is still playing on the tour.
By 1999 Wimbledon was already considered a hard high bouncing grass
court which took a mean kick serve; and Sampras won that tournament relatively
easily. What we need to focus on are four
things: ability, technique, strategy and intangibles.
Let us look
at Andy Murrays’ strengths in detail:
Movement:
This is an
easy one; Murray is in the top five players when it comes to movement, in fact,
in the top two along with Novak Djokovic at this moment in time. Whilst Federer and Nadal were at their peak,
movement was equal but those two players have clearly declined allowing Murray
to move ahead. Murray is probably at his
best on grass as he has demonstrated that throughout his entire career, winning
Queens on five occasions which is a record, and Wimbledon twice and counting on
both fronts.
First Serve
Murray
definitely has one of the best first serves on tour, with the ability to get
the speed up to 135mph. Murray has also
finally added the swing serve down the middle on the ad court; for many years
Murray over relied on the serve to the backhand on the important points, making
him predictable. When Murray gets a high percentage of first serves, he is very
difficult to beat. Rather surprisingly,
Murray’s swing serve on the ad court is barely 115mph. The technical reason is that he collapses on
the shot, it is not a fluid motion, but it is clearly well placed enough to win
some free points.
Return of serve
Along with
Djokovic, Murray has the best return of serve on the tour. In fact, I would argue that Murray is better
at neutralizing the big serve than Djokovic, Djokovic has displayed on a number
of occasions that he can be vulnerable to the big server, we have seen this the
last two years at Wimbledon against Kevin Anderson and Sam Querrey. On grass, the return of serve is one hell of
an asset in any era. Murray is also good
at getting the return back low and implementing the passing shots off both
wings, that’s due to the fact that superior movement counts for so much on the
grass surface and Murray loves to run down everything, much in the way
Angelique Kerber does, he hates anything getting passed him.
I felt a few
years ago that Murray stood too far back on return of serve, allowing a top
class server like Federer to serve wide into the corners giving him no
chance. There is no point being the best
returner of serve in the world if you cannot get the ball back into play on a
consistent basis. However, I have
noticed this year Murray has been standing in more, and really stepping in on
the 2nd serve and going after it, frankly that is the tactic he needs to use if
he wants to win more major titles.
Backhand
Murray has
one of the best two handers on the tour.
It is his most reliable shot and he has one of the best backhands down
the line. The one problem Murray has is
his propensity to push the ball down the middle of the court, which he has to
work hard to avoid.
Determination
One of
Murray’s key assets. Murray is a
talented player but is not blessed with natural weapons. Therefore he has had to work extremely hard
to get to the top of mens tennis, or at least near the top, he has yet to
conquer the number 1 position. Determination
has carried him a long way in terms of professionalism, looking after his body,
being disciplined and really building his stamina up from the player who often
seemed short of staying power in five set matches.
Now let us
look at Andy’s weaknesses
Second serve
This is the
key reason Murray has lost eight out of eleven major finals so far. Murray gets away with hitting soft 2nd serves
against most players on the tour but comes unstuck against the very best
players in the world. However, that is
what being in major finals is all about, facing the best players in the
world. Murray has been extremely
vulnerable to being attacked, and in the three finals Murray lost to Roger
Federer, Federer attacked Murray with the chip and charge tactic, something
Federer hardly ever uses against other opponents. Murray has improved his 2nd serve
considerably in the last year and this paid dividends in Wimbledon this year
against Milos Raonic in the final. Murray has to remind himself to hit deep 2nd
serves in the box at a speed of at least 90mph.
Forehand grip
Murray has
had a tendency to pull on this particular shot, often dropping the ball short,
making him vulnerable to being attacked.
Murray also went short on his crosscourt forehand in the rallies on many
occasions, a no-no against the very best players in the world. Lendl has worked hard on getting Murray to
improve his forehand and be braver, hit into the corners.
Smashes
For some
reason, like Novak Djokovic, Murray has one of the weakest smashes in the mens
game. For a player who is considered one
of the quickest and most athletic, I find this unexplainable, and therefore
will not even try to explain it.
Now, let us
look at Pete Sampras’ strengths
Serve
Not a lot to
be said, one of the best serves and the best 2nd serve in history under
pressure. Measurements showed on some serves
upward of 120mph, Sampras was imparting over 4000rpms on the ball, which is
astonishing and unprecedented, see study here.
The ball is very heavy, like a great fast bowler in cricket. The
interesting thing is Sampras could swing the serves on the line time and again,
frustrating his opponents. The other
interesting thing is Sampras serve on the ad court was often coming in between
125mph and 135 mph, with slice and hitting the line, whereas Murray barely gets
above 115mph. This is important because prior to 2000, the speed of serves were
timed 20 feet away from contact point. A
115mph serve in the 1990s is not a 115mph serve today.
Return of Serve
It has always
been the case, everyone talks about the Sampras serve, but that doesn’t mean
his return of serve was not a strength. Sampras’
strengths on return was his ability to up his level and break serve when his
opponent was least expecting. He often coasted
on a few service games which lulled his opponent into a false sense of
security. Sampras also had a few
strategies up his sleeve; he could chip the return on his backhand, drive the
return or employ the chip and charge. In
the first part of his career, Sampras liked to run around his backhand to hit
the forehand return but changed to the chip and charge in the latter part of
his career on the ad court. Against serve volleyers Sampras was very good at
getting the return to feet then implementing the passing shot. If Sampras was in the mood, he would go after
every return game; the match was often on his racquet, not the opponent.
Movement
Sampras was
the number one player when it came to movement in the 1990s, hence the reason
he was ranked number 1 for over 270 weeks through that decade. Sampras was the best at turning defence into
attack and due to his strong baseline game, could stay in rallies until he got
a short ball he could attack with.
Sampras was also one of the quickest players of that era along with
Michael Chang, Sergei Brugera and Patrick Rafter. Sampras had the best athleticism on the tour,
the greatest overhead smash (including the famous slam dunk) and high backhand
volley, a shot we don’t see as much today, probably because players are not
coming to net as often and opponents are not hitting the topspin lob as much as
in the past.
Forehand
One of the
best forehands and the best running forehand in the open era, often employing
the banana shot, more associated with a lefty, Jeff Tarango claims to have
taught Sampras that shot when they were teenagers, putting sidespin on the
ball, a shot Nadal uses a lot himself down the line as a lefty. Unlike Murray who often hit his forehand
short, Sampras hit the forehand very deep which really comes through the court,
Sampras’ forehand is very similar to Ivan Lendl’s. Lendl had the best forehand in the open era
until Federer claimed that mantle in the 2000s.
Determination
Sampras won
the US Open as a teenager beating Thomas Muster, Ivan Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi
in a row. Therefore, Sampras knew from
an early age he had talent to burn, it was a matter of putting it together to
dominate. Sampras reached the number 1
ranking in April 1993 at the age of 21. To
put in perspective, a 21 year old tennis player today is considered at the same
stage a 17 year old would have been considered in past eras. I think it is easier to acquire determination
quickly when you know you have the talent to beat the other players on a
regular basis.
Weaknesses
Whenever the
Sampras game comes up for discussion, two things are mentioned, Sampras’ game
on clay and the high ball to the backhand, which was accentuated on clay,
especially in the rallies if the clay courter was running around his backhand
to hit loopy forehand drives to Sampras‘ backhand. That was Sampras’ only real weakness. Unlike a player such as Grigor Dimitrov who
has serious issues with his backhand, Sampras hit his backhand deep, and had
excellent passing shots off that wing, which Rafter and Becker could attest
to. But that is the one area players
could look to attack on a regular basis.
The interesting thing here is that Murray’s groundstrokes simply are not
heavy enough to threaten the Sampras backhand. Like Djokovic, Sampras was a bit
more uneasy against power players like Marat Safin.
The Intangibles.
The mistake
that is always made, and will be continued to be made by journalists, is reckoning
that Murray is great at getting big serves back and thus controlling the match,
that is true up to a point. However, Murray struggles mightily against the
Federer serve, because Federer moves the ball around the box beautifully and
into the corners. Plus Federer backs up his serve with good movement, great
groundstrokes and good volleying. Agassi
once noted that Sampras does not serve as big as Australian Wayne Arthurs did back then,
but backed up his serve better than anyone he ever played. Therefore on hardcourts he backed up his
serve with movement, staying back and coming in, and on grass coming in all of
the time. And Sampras can match Murray in the movement department anytime on
grass, being competitive in the baseline rallies. The trick is not to win every rally in the
match, but to win the rallies that matter in the important points, Sampras was one
of the best at doing that. This is another reason why straight up statistics
can be so misleading; it is a cover for those who don’t want to partake in
observational analysis.
Here is another
area where there is great confusion. By definition, in the 1990s there should
have been a different winner at Wimbledon every year, there were so many big
and great servers out there, it should have been shared out: Goran Ivanisevic,
Richard Krajicek, Mark Philippoussis, Greg Rusedski, Michael Stich, Boris
Becker, and Patrick Rafter. But Sampras won it seven times. How come? Because Sampras bridged the gap with his
rivals by having a better return of serve, better movement and better passing
shots. Sampras was also at his very best
against counterpunchers; he enjoyed playing them as they didn’t have much to
hurt him with. A player like Rusedski
never made a single semifinal at Wimbledon, and he was considered a grass court
specialist.
There are two
matches that stick out for me when it comes to gauging Andy Murray’s chances in
the 1990s. The first is Sampras v Henman
in the 1999 semifinal, the second being Federer v Murray from the 2012
final. The common denominator is Paul
Annacone, who was the coach in both of those matches. The tactics and the way the matches unfolded are
remarkably similar. Both Henman and
Murray got the early upper hand after an exchange of breaks of serve, Henman
and Murray won the first set, Sampras and Federer won the second set right at
the death and then slowly took control of the match. Both Sampras and Federer put pressure on
their opponent at the net and both really grappled control by punishing the 2nd
serve. And on both occasions Sampras and
Federer had the edge in the groundstroke department, reaping more havoc, even
if the stats would show the other guy won a higher percentage of rallies. Both matches finished with four set victories
and no tiebreaks, the bottom line was that the more talented player came
through because they had more options.
In the 1990s
on grass, I am struggling to see where Murray would be a multi champion at
Wimbledon. Winning the tournament once,
why not? Murray is a counterpuncher and
during that period, counterpunchers on a whole did not win the tournament. Andre
Agassi won in 1992 but Agassi is much more than a counterpuncher, Agassi was
one of the most aggressive returners on the planet.
We must remember, the game Murray has
acquired is not good enough to be number for long periods in any era, it is not
aggressive enough and his 2nd serve has been too weak. If Murray can get to number 1 and win a few
more majors at the tail end of his career, it will be one hell of a testament
to determination.
Comments
Post a Comment