Flashback to 1996 ATP Championships

There has been a touch of nostalgia surrounding the recent Nitto ATP Finals in London. It was announced before the draw took place that the groups would be named after Pete Sampras and Boris Becker in honour of the great matches they played in the ATP Championships, not only against each other but their consistent success at the tournament. Between 1990 and 1999 they appeared in eight of the ten finals winning seven and played each other in the 1994 and 1996 finals.  Sampras wrote a piece on the ATP website reminiscing about that 1996 final and Sky Sports put highlights of the match on their website. The perfect situation for one of my flashbacks as this is considered the greatest ever indoor match.

The 1996 edition of the ATP Championships is significant. It was the first of four years the tournament would be played in Hanover, Germany; moving from Frankfurt where it was held at the Festhalle. The venue was built for Expo 2000 which was a world trade fair that would be held between June and October 2000.  1996 was also the last year the tournament would be played on indoor carpet, from 1997 the surface moved to indoor hardcourt; this was a change that was unanimously voted for by the players. There is always the perception that surfaces magically slowed down in the 2000s after the millennium but this was an ongoing process from the mid 1990s onwards. Becker got incredible home support so it was always difficult for his opponents as he was one of the best indoor players in the world.

The players qualified for this event were:

1.  Pete Sampras 
2.  Michael Chang 
3.  Yevgeny Kafelnikov
4.  Goran Ivanišević 
5.  Thomas Muster 
6.  Boris Becker 
7.  Andre Agassi 
8.  Richard Krajicek 
9.  Thomas Enqvist (alternate)

As always with indoor tournaments, the surface favours attacking players but not necessarily, as Agassi won the event in 1990 and was losing finalist in 1999 and 2000. Jim Courier was finalist in 1991 and 1992, whilst Chang lost to Becker in the previous final in 1995 after beating Sampras in the semifinal.  It was a surface (taraflex) that gave everyone an opportunity to play good on it.

In the semifinals, Becker beat Krajicek in three very tight sets. Krajicek won the first set tiebreak, Becker responded taking the second set tiebreak and broke quite late on to take the third set 6:3. The second semifinal had a very similar pattern between Sampras and Ivanisevic. Ivanisevic took the first set tiebreak; Sampras responded taking the second set tiebreak and made a breakthrough late on to take the third set 7:5.  With four big servers, you would expect lots of tiebreaks.

However, the Germans and the sports world in general got the final they wanted, the two best indoor players who won the last two ATP championships, Sampras v Becker was a rivalry that produced some of the best tennis of that era and they contested many finals between each other on all surfaces; hardcourts, grass, clay and indoor carpet. What marked this rivalry out from the others was the fact that both players were comfortable from the baseline.  For instance, had Ivanisevic played Krajicek in the final, there would have been minimal to no rallies whatsoever; both Sampras and Becker were ultimate examples of all court players.  Becker also went into this match having won their previous two meetings, in the round robin of the championships and the final in Stuttgart a month before; the first time Becker beat Sampras in a final. What was interesting about that final was that it was a five set battle with no tiebreaks and quite a lot of breaks of serves, the first set alone had three breaks; the surface was described beforehand as a deliberately slower indoor carpet surface.

The venue was packed and you could feel the buzz well before the first ball was struck, and the way the match began clearly indicated it would be a great one as Becker hit four aces in a row in the first game!  I haven’t seen anyone start a match with four aces before and I haven’t seen it since. This might have surprised Sampras because he got broken quite early on at 2:1 and was under immediate pressure, Sampras was not a big fan of having to deal with the raucous German crowd but he dealt with it before, knowing that at the end of the day they appreciated good tennis and were fans of his; but this was Boris! Plus with Sampras being the top dog, they were like the 12th man on the pitch for Becker.  The great and the good were also in attendance, including then Formula 1 Chief Bernie Ecclestone, pop icons Seal and Lionel Ritchie, members of the rock group Scorpions among others. Becker served for the set and finished it with a rally which epitomised their tennis. A rally where both players stretched each other out on the court, I always liken a rally like this to noughts and crosses, figuring out the puzzle and delivering the killer strike. Sampras stretched Becker out with his famed cross court forehand, Becker responded with a down the line forehand, Sampras then hit a cross court backhand to Becker’s backhand. Becker then saved his best for last with a brilliant off backhand down the line, completely wrong footing Sampras.

The second set tempo was pretty high with Sampras trying his best to respond, in the sixth game Sampras made two break points but was snuffed out by great serving from Becker who won four points in a row from 15:40. In fact Becker was serving at his best, consistently hitting up to 128mph (205kph) but with a lot of spin so very difficult to deal with. There were to be no breaks so this set went to a tiebreak which Sampras took after just one mini break when Sampras hit a great down the line forehand passing shot, Sampras closed out the set with a volley into the open court and then let out a big roar.

The third set also went to a tiebreak, but not before a few dramas along the way, where Sampras had to fight back from 0:30 in the fourth game and save two break points in the sixth game.  However, Sampras served his way out of trouble and the shot making was still of the highest order, with some excellent rallies where both guys were probing the other, trying to create angles or generate short balls which they could use to attack the net and use their touch and athleticism to hit cut off volleys.  The third set tiebreak was very cagey with three mini breaks, which led to Becker double faulting at a critical moment, leaving Sampras to serve out the set with an ace out wide and a backhand passing shot off a Becker chip charge.

Sampras by now would have figured he had control of the match but would have recalled he was two sets to one up in the Stuttgart final and lost. After another intense twelve game battle we were to have a third successive tiebreak. This was the best tiebreak of the lot and with, Sampras reaching match point on his serve at 6:5, you would assume that would have been curtains for Becker but Sampras played a very tentative point and pulled his backhand just wide on the sixth shot... Becker then set up set point with a stunning return of serve then forehand the other way with Sampras out of position, Sampras saved that with a forehand return which was too good for Becker. At 10:10, Becker produced a brilliant backhand cross court drive passing shot which seemed to go at 100mph but Sampras again responded with an equally stunning forehand crosscourt passing shot after a fine rally. After a cluster of match points for one and set points for the other, Sampras messed up his volley which allowed Becker to take the tiebreak 13:11 and take the match to a fifth set, which sent the crowd into raucous raptures.

It was fitting such a high quality final would go to a fifth set.  Both guys were feeling the pressure, each having to get out of love 30 situations early on the fifth set and then after a long 9th game which had four deuces, Sampras got the decisive breakthrough with a backhand down the line passing shot. At 40:15 in the tenth game, Becker saved yet another match point with a stinging crosscourt backhand. The final point of the match summed up the contest, a 24 shot rally where both guys tried to stretch and manoeuvre each other out of position, Becker finally hitting his down the line backhand into the net.  The best thing about it was the embrace at the net and crowd reaction, both players knew they were involved in something special which lasted just over 4 hours. 

I think Sampras summed it up nicely when the ZDF interviewer suggested Sampras and Becker should play each other more often, to which Sampras replied “maybe not in Germany”. Tongue in cheek as he previously acknowledged the fairness of the German fans even though they were raucous and chanting Becker’s name at vital periods.

I would have preferred to use the statistics from the ZDF broadcast but I didn't capture it therefore provide the stats from the ATP website. Sampras served at 64% first serves, and won 79% of those deliveries. Sampras won 58% of his 2nd serves and hit 15 aces which is very good. Sampras also won 41% of returns on Becker’s 2nd serve converting one of five break point opportunities. Meanwhile, Becker served 59% first serves and won 90% of those points. Becker hit double the aces at 30 and won 59% of his 2nd serve points. Becker won 42% of 2nd serve return points and converted one of five break point opportunities. All in all a very high quality match reflected in the statistics.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/1996/605/MS001/match-stats

Sampras and Becker played each other on nineteen occasions over an eight year period. Six of those matches were finals including Italian Open, Wimbledon, Stuttgart (Masters) and World Championships. The age difference between them was three years and eight months; which is no real difference at all as for instance there was an eight year difference between Lendl and Becker, and today Federer has a six year age difference on Murray and Djokovic. Becker is famously quoted about Sampras "Sometimes I think he forgot the difference between his first serve and his second serve."

The ATP Next Gen Championships Conundrum

2017 has proved a very interesting year for mens tennis.  We have seen a revival of two of the games greats in Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal

This came almost out of the blue and quite unexpected as the clock was turned back; because not since 2010 has Roger and Rafa won all of the grand slam tournaments in a single season and occupied the top two positions in world tennis. Let us consider that the top two players are 31 and 36 years old respectively.

This is ironic as this is the first year the “Next Gen” ATP championships take place in Milan in early November. A tournament devised by the ATP who recognises that there is a problem in mens tennis. That problem being there seems to be no new stars coming through and that has to be addressed in some way.  Many of the changes that have been implemented by the ATP over the last 15 to 20 years have allowed those at the top to stay at the top even longer than in previous generations, which has left a vacuum and dearth of players coming through.  Changes such as the slowing down of hardcourts and grass courts, the removal of indoor carpet from the circuit, the increase in the seeding system and the inflation of ranking points for Masters and Grand slam victories meant that it has become very difficult for young players to penetrate the top positions especially as the changes have directly contributed to a convergence in style of play.  The media have focused so much on the “Big Four” that the casual tennis fan and general public have no idea who the younger players are or indeed the players just below the top level. So, who qualifies to participate in the Next Gen championships?

• ·         The best 7 singles players on the ATP tour age 21 and under by stint of ranking.
• ·         One space reserved for a wildcard pick

However it doesn’t stop there, the ATP sees this as an ideal opportunity to use the tournament to trial some potential changes to the tour in future years. 

• ·     Matches will be best of five sets
• ·     Sets will be first to four games
• ·     Tiebreak at 3:3
• ·      No ad scoring (receivers choice)
• ·      No Lets
• ·      A shot clock to ensure 25 second rule
• ·      One medical timeout per match
• ·      Coaches will be able to talk to players
• ·      There will be no Line Judges, Hawkeye technology to call lines

The players qualified for the inaugural tournament are:

Andrey Rublev, Karen Khachanov, Dennis Shapovalov, Jared Donaldson, Borna Coric, Hyeon Chung, Damil Medvedev and wildcard is Gianluigi Quinzi. 

Alexander Zverev qualified for the ATP World Tour finals in London so is the only young player competing and winning tournaments at the highest level.

The first inclination is that this tournament appears to be a gimmick; and the criticism of the draw in Milan over the weekend doesn’t help matters at all.  However, rather interestingly and surprisingly, the tournament is using these players as guinea pigs to trial changes that we might see in future years. I suppose using young players in this exercise is the best way to go about it as younger minds are usually open to changes or trying things out. Having said that, such potentially profound changes usually take place in trials at much lower levels, away from public view in most sports.

The key question is why are the ATP doing this?  As an indication of how things have changed, at the age of 21, Roger Federer was being openly questioned as to whether he had what it takes to be a champion. Similarly, when Andre Agassi won Wimbledon at the age of 22 he was almost written off at that stage as an underachiever. Today, players aged 25 are considered “young”. There have been campaigns before to promote young talent to the public such as the “New Balls” campaign in 2001 to promote Safin, Hewitt, Federer, Roddick, Haas and Kuerten.  The last player under the age of 21 to win a major tournament was Novak Djokovic when he won the Australian Open in 2008.

Why is it deemed necessary for young players to have their own tournament?  That’s why we have junior tennis for precisely that reason. I am not sure how this tournament will help these guys take on the big players on the tour.  The ATP should focus on ways to make the tour more interesting and diverse and encourage different styles of play.  The only way to achieve that is make the surfaces different speeds for a few select tournaments; and as ex-champion Thomas Muster pointed out, sanction a lighter ball on the slower surfaces which will allow winners to be hit more readily and not reward defence at all times.

We will watch this week’s events with interest to see who comes out as the winner. The big question will be whether the inaugural winner of this event will take confidence into Masters and grand slam tournaments in 2018, which is what it should be all about.  Also, the other question has to be how many of these ideas are the ATP intending to introduce to the tour in the next two to three seasons?  Right now there is a big difference between the grand slam tournaments run by the ITF and ATP tournaments. Bar the US Open the majors do not have no ad scoring for doubles and no champions’ tiebreak.  

This is a reminder that the ATP and WTA must never be allowed to usurp the ITF and gain control of the grand slam tournaments.

Flashback to 2004 US Open Semifinal

In my series of US Open matches flashbacks, we go to 2004 this time and take a closer look at the semifinal between Elena Dementieva and Jennifer Capriati.

2004 was the year the Russians dominated the grand slam scene, winning three of the four major tournaments at the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Just one year before, the Belgians dominated with Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters contesting the French, US Open and 2004 Australian Open finals. Therefore in the space of 12 months, the Belgians and Russians took over completely from the Americans. Prior to mid-2003, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Venus and Serena Williams won all of the majors from the turn of the millennium bar Mary Pierce who won the 2000 French Open final.

In 2004, the semifinals were a battle between the Americans and the Russians; surprisingly the Russians came out on top. Surprising because Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capriati were both multi grand slam champions and former number 1 players; playing on their home turf. The one area where the Russians had the edge was athleticism around the court. The first semifinal between Lindsay Davenport and Svetlana Kuznetsova was a three set battle and a really fast match, Davenport took the first set but Kuznetsova at the age of 19 came back and won the next two sets surprisingly comfortably to reach her first final. The second semifinal was bound to provide fireworks as Jennifer was always a crowd favourite and Elena was one of the most exciting and infuriating players on the tour at this stage. Jennifer went into this match having lost three previous semifinals at the Open. In 1991 Jennifer lost to Monica Seles, ten years later in 2001 to Venus Williams and 2003 to Justine Henin, two of defeats ending with third set tiebreaks against Seles and Henin. However, on this occasion Jennifer was bound to like her chances with a head to head lead of 3:0 going into the match.

The match began with Elena serving first and holding her serve very easily. That would be an unusual occurrence because by this stage of her career Elena had the most bizarre technical deficiencies I have ever seen from a professional tennis player. On both courts Elena threw the ball so far to the right she was literally flinging herself to serve on each occasion, there was virtually no backhand or body serve on either court.  The first time I saw Elena play was in 2000 and then I saw her play live in Wimbledon in 2002 against Henin, there was no clue that Elena would end up with such serving issues.

In contrast, Jennifer started badly and was three points down in her first service game and subsequently broken to love.  Fifteen minutes later, Jennifer was completely out of the set with a washout. Elena made only three unforced errors and hit winner after winner, and went to net on a number of occasions. In contrast, Jennifer was backing off, not creating any angles and instead of taking advantage of the few mid court balls that came her way, backed off to the baseline instead of following into net to put the pressure on Elena. The ball was doing some funny things so perhaps the wind was swirling around the court; there was a lot of rain and very windy conditions that year.  

Jennifer knew she needed to improve in the 2nd set if she wanted to make it a match, she was not showing any real frustration thus not panicking.  Jennifer held her first service game to love which got a huge cheer from the crowd; at 1:2 Jennifer finally got her first break as Elena started to lose control of her shots which were now going out instead of going in for clean winners.  Jennifer broke again at 4:2 and was able to serve out the set. By this stage Elena’s game was all over the place with a combination of missed easy smashes and wild errors, Elena’s unforced error count went up to 18 in the 2nd set, which will give an indication of how out of control her game became.

With a score of 6:0 2:6, this set things up nicely for the deciding set with Jennifer back in the match, anything was possible but what we got was one of the craziest sets ever seen on a tennis court.  Jennifer got the first jump in the 3rd set converting on her second opportunity, hitting a lovely forehand into the corner on Elena’s forehand wing.  Unfortunately for Jennifer, she got broken back immediately with play that was a little too passive and so we went, another break for Jennifer to 2:1 then broken back again for 2:2!  By now, Elena’s amateurish serve was really getting on Jennifer’s nerves; every serve was to the forehand on both courts with not a single serve to the backhand first or second. Rather amusingly, one serve was called a let by the Umpire who then called “2nd serve” but corrected herself and called “1st serve” to giggles from the crowd, the serve was so slow it was perfectly understandable the Umpire wasn’t concentrating. Jennifer tried everything, big returns, hit and charge the net, very frustrating to deal with such a bad delivery over and over again. And yet, if that’s not bad enough, Elena was probably the best player in the world at moving around the baseline and fighting because of her poor serve, so there was a lot for Jennifer to deal with.

Jennifer did find a way to break again at 3:3 but lost her serve again!  Elena then got to 5:4 and Jennifer served to stay in the match, which she did with relative ease!  Maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise because the match was absolutely crazy with a completely energised New York crowd; Jennifer was always one of those players who got the crowd going with her emotions. Jennifer wasn’t done though and after yet another incredibly attritional game with fabulous long rallies, Jennifer was able to break again and serve for the match!  But guess what? Yep, you guessed it Jennifer couldn’t hold.  In fact there were two of the most incredible points at 15 all and 15:30 where each time Jennifer literally smashed the ball straight at Elena at the net and she won both the points! One of the shots could have put her in hospital if she wasn’t quick enough to get out of the way and hit the volley whilst screaming at the same time, no doubt fearing a potential injury.  That was enough to get into Jennifer’s head and she doubled faulted on the second breakpoint and we were into a tiebreak. 

As we know, the US Open is the only major which has a deciding set tiebreak. In some ways  it is great and brings the match to a climax but in many ways it is not great at all as it robs the crowd of a clear winner, and we should realise the tiebreak is often a lottery. Everything was going fine but at 3:2 Jennifer hit a forehand wide then on the next point Elena hit a clean forehand winning return. So that should have been that at 5:2 but Elena lost the next two points on her serve so we were back at 5:4.  Jennifer played a good point but didn’t hit the volley out of Elena’s reach who hit a forehand down the line to set up match point. Next point match was over after Elena hit an inside out backhand winner down the line out of Jennifer’s reach.  A slightly sad ending but great for Elena who didn’t really celebrate, maybe she was drained after such a long battle, the third set was considerably longer than the first two put together.

The statistics for this match are incredible as you can see.  Jennifer only hit 15 winners whilst Elena hit 44, three times more winners. Elena also went to 44 times and won 30 points which is brilliant statistic. In a three set match, a serve volleyer would got to net around 40 to 50 times so frankly that is quite astonishing that a baseline player went to net so often; Elena’s momentum often took her forward and a fast court suited her style.  Jennifer on the other hand went to net 23 times and won 15 points which isn’t bad.  What makes this match so bizarre is that Jennifer had all the chances in the 3rd set to win the match outright but the statistics clearly demonstrate Elena was the one making the play and going for outright winners and forcing the issue at the net.  So, who really deserved to win this great match? 

On analysing the match, my feeling was Jennifer was a bit too passive throughout and was not prepared to hit into the corners often enough to make Elena stretch, that will explain two things, the first being the low winners count and the second being the fact that every time she broke in the third set, she was broken back immediately as she became too cautious with a lead.  In 2005 I read the wonderful book by Michael Mewshaw called “Ladies of the Court, Grace and Disgrace on the Womens Tour” covering the 1991 season. After Jennifer lost to Monica Seles, Jennifer went into the press conference and said she should have been “more aggressive”.  Michael Mewshaw wondered “how? Rip up the net post and brain Monica?” However, watching a rerun of this match I understand what Jennifer meant in 1991, she was not willing to take chances when it mattered, her play was too cautious. This is an area people who watch tennis get confused, as they often equate someone with hitting the ball very hard as being aggressive but of course there is a lot more to it than that, it comes down to tactics and courage and willingness to go for broke when the score is close, that makes the difference.  For whatever reason, in the semifinals of the US Open, Jennifer was not able to make it happen.

Jennifer’s career was virtually over soon after this tournament, I don’t recall her retiring officially but she suffered serious shoulder problems and she never really got back onto a tennis court.  Elena did play for a few years, she also had more opportunities to win a major tournament but her serve let her down at bad moments her entire career.  Having said that, she was an exciting player to watch and this was one of the matches of the noughties.

Flashback to 2000 US Open Quarterfinal

Every now and again I like to have a look at some of the classic matches of yesteryear.  This time we go back to the year 2000 and one of the classic rivalries of the previous generation between Pete Sampras and Richard Krajicek. Their last ever meeting took place at the quarterfinal stage of the US Open in the year 2000; and it turned out to be a brilliant match but so different to the type of tennis we see today. Also surprising is that they never played each other again, despite the fact that both players retired in 2003.

Their previous meeting took place at the quarterfinal stage of the 1999 ATP championships in Cincinnati, and before that they met in the 1999 Miami Open also at the quarterfinal stage. Interestingly, their meeting in 1998 Stuttgart Super Nine (Masters) took place in the quarterfinal and their famous Wimbledon encounter in 1996 was also a quarterfinal. They played a lot of quarterfinals! The winner of these matches either went on to the final or won the tournament so each player got a lot of confidence out of beating the other.  In their 1999 Cincinnati quarterfinal, David Mercer said on Eurosport that “they might be destined for another showdown at the US Open”. He was right but the match took place a year later, mainly because Sampras damaged his back on the eve of the tournament in 1999 and had to pull out.

This match is worth looking at because the tactics are so interesting, probably one of the last ever serve volley matches at the highest level.  In 2001 Sampras played Pat Rafter at the US Open and I don’t recall a match in 2002 at the Open between two serve volley players.  Had this match being played in 1999 and not 2000, it would have been a serve volley match but with tactical differences.  In their Cincinnati meeting in 1999, Sampras stayed back on his 2nd serve regularly intending to get some rallies going, however in 2000 Sampras more or less jettisoned the tactic of staying back on 2nd serve on hardcourts.  Who knows why, although in 1999 Krajicek chipped charged the Sampras 2nd serve often, forcing him to hit a lot of passing shots so maybe he wanted to avoid that scenario. As far as serve volley goes, I always enjoyed watching two serve volleyers play each other on hardcourts more than on grass. It could be that back then it was less of a pure serve volley battle but more of an all court match up. We just have to think back to the incredible battles between Sampras and Boris Becker for instance; on hardcourts and indoors players were more inclined to engage in longer rallies than they were on grass, which was perceived to have more bad bounces so getting to net was paramount in the eyes of a serve volleyer.

In this particular match, both players served and volleyed on both serves the entire match, Sampras stayed back on 2nd serve once and Krajicek skied the return so it didn’t count. Sampras went into this particular match not having much of a hardcourt season, getting knocked out early in Toronto to Marat Safin and in Cincinnati to Tim Henman. Meanwhile Krajicek took out Henman in the 3rd round of the US Open coming from two sets to one down to win in five. To put into context, Krajicek was the Juan Martin Del Potro of his day, a tall talented player who suffered a lot of injuries; consequently a top player could get him early in tournaments making him a threat. When Krajicek was at his best he was very difficult to beat and had a great running forehand plus one of the best serves of his generation, to go along with excellent volleying technique and reflexes around the net.

The match was played at night which gave an immediate edge to Sampras, putting aside the fact that Krajicek was probably the player he feared most at that stage of his career. The match started well for both guys, shadow boxing is the phrase that springs to mind as both tried to play themselves into form, neither really going after a break of serve early on, trying to find their timing. Krajicek hit the first quality winner in the fifth game of the first set, a cross court forehand followed by a brilliant crosscourt backhand passing shot on the run. Considering Richard is 6 ft. 5 inches (1m 95) and had to get down low, it was really well played and he got a good round of applause. The point by Sampras to close out the game really showed the capabilities of these players. Sampras missed the first serve and had to hit a second, Krajicek returned with his backhand and the ball was onto him before he could even get the swing going and it ricocheted off his racquet, as Krajicek walked off he looked at the speed gun, which said 111mph (179 kph).  A topspin kicker 2nd serve at 111mph :-0

The first serious issue occurred at 4:4 in the first set. Sampras was serving and everything was going fine at 30 love. Four points later Sampras found his serve was broken which left Krajicek serving for the first set, which he did to love. In their 1999 Cincinnati encounter, David Mercer queried whether breaks between the two players occurred early in matches, which co commentator Frew McMillan pointed out that he thought breaks occurred towards the end of sets due to the added pressure of holding serve, knowing any mistake and the other guy had the serve to close it out. It happened in the 10th game of the Cincinnati quarterfinal, Sampras hit three passing shots and the set was over, and the same happened here, Krajicek took his opportunity and that was it.

The 2nd set started with Krajicek in the ascendancy, he hit a great backhand passing shot which ricocheted off the net but would have been a winner anyway, that brought up 15:40 on the Sampras serve. Sampras was however able to serve his way out of trouble and in the next game had Krajicek at love 30 after actively encouraging the crowd to get behind him after a great inside out forehand passing shot. However, Krajicek came up with two of the best volleys you will ever see off two brilliant passing shots almost down at Krajicek’s feet. Krajicek closed out the game with an ace, putting Sampras under pressure again.  Before Sampras knew it he was break point down again but saved it with quality play.  That did not deter Krajieck, who hit a great backhand return but Sampras saved another break point. This went on for five deuces until Sampras eventually succumbed to Krajicek’s quality returns and passing shots.

The situation at 2:1 in the second set was looking rosy for Krajicek and grim for Sampras. Three minutes later, Sampras turned the situation around completely with three great returns in a row and it was back to 2:2. After a rather amusing sequence where Krajicek wanted a camera man removed and had towel string in his hair which amused the crowd, the rest of the set was quite entertaining and ended up in a tiebreak. This is where the match really exploded with one of the great comeback tiebreaks of the Open era. Krajicek asserted his superiority early on with yet another incredible backhand down the line passing shot.  After another scorching backhand, Sampras found himself down 2:6 and staring defeat in the face, coming back from two sets down against Krajicek would have been an extremely unlikely proposition. To save the first set point, Sampras hit a drop volley off a low return, any other player 2:6 down wouldn’t dream of taking such a risk.  That’s where Sampras took things to another level. At 3:6, Krajicek missed his first serve on the advantage court; the memo has always been to serve to Sampras’ backhand because he didn’t like it above the shoulder. However, for some reason Krajicek chose to serve to Sampras’ forehand, which he connected with and it floated in, I am not sure whether Krajicek left it on purpose. 

It could be that Krajicek tried to catch Sampras off guard but it didn’t work at such a crucial moment.  The next point is the one that got the crowd completely energised. Krajicek hit a big serve down the middle to Sampras’ backhand which Sampras blocked, Krajicek hit a great volley and Sampras answered with a brilliant crosscourt backhand passing shot off a very low ball, a clenched fist and with the crowd going crazy, tennis at its very best. Sampras then saved the final set point and then created his own; by now the crowd was besides themselves with excitement, as Krajicek stepped up to serve to save the set, confusion and bemusement was written all over his face. He served another first serve down the middle and Sampras hit a clean return winner with his forehand. Set over at 8:6 with people literally jumping up and down in the stands, an almighty roar by Sampras and a great climax to an incredible tiebreak. 

Ironically, two months earlier in the Wimbledon final, Sampras came from 4:1 down against Rafter in the second set tiebreak to win it 7:5 and level the match, Sampras just knew how to raise his level and take advantage of doubt in the mind of the opponent.  The only other time I saw a player come from 2:6 down to win 8:6 was the 1990 French Open final when Monica Seles came back to defeat Steffi Graf.

By this stage Richard Krajicek was shell shocked and despite starting the 3rd set with a love service game, found himself a break down early after another Sampras running forehand passing shot. One break was decisive and Sampras took the third set 6:4. The fourth set turned out to be another battle early as Krajicek tried to get back in the match. However, after constant return pressure by Sampras who really had his eye in, he broke Krajicek early after creating another batch of break points, Krajicek saved two but couldn’t save a third, double faulting at the crucial moment. Two games later, Sampras found himself under pressure again, having to save two break points after a brilliant Krajicek backhand crosscourt passing shot. Sampras managed to get through the game and Krajicek visibly tired suffering mental fatigue with the constant return pressure, making simple volley errors and was broken to love leaving Sampras to serve out the match;; which he did with his fastest serves of the match at 132mph (214kph) much to the delight of the crowd who stayed in for the late finish. The match finished 4:6, 7:6, 6:4, 6:2.

This match is remarkable for a number of reasons. First of all, the match stats are incredible, which you can see below.  Sampras served 67% first serves, exactly two thirds of his 1st serves in the box at an average speed of 188 kpmh. Sampras hit 46 winners and only 19 unforced errors, converting four of six break point opportunities. Out of those 46 winners only six were aces, we don’t have the stats for passing shot winners but there were a lot. Meanwhile Krajicek served 23 aces, hit 49 winners and 16 unforced errors, converting two of eight break point opportunities. On each side of the court there were over double the winners to unforced error ratio. Krajicek will feel he let the match slip in the second set tiebreak but Sampras was capable of taking his game to different heights at the drop of a hat.

Another reason this match stands out because once again it shows on hardcourts how the dynamic changes for two big servers. It would have been very unlikely to see six breaks of serve on a grass court in four sets during this era. You might say there was the predictable tie break, but even that was unpredictable with two breaks in the set and eight points against the serve in the tiebreak.

The rivalry finished 6:4 in Krajicek’s favour, Sampras won the last two meetings in Cincinnati 1999 and the 2000 US Open quarterfinal.

The Murray Kerber Factor

2017 is proving to be a challenging period for the players who hold the world number one position in tennis. Angelique Kerber regained the top ranking from Serena Williams during the clay court season whilst Andy Murray has been struggling to make an impression, with many early exits from tournaments since the season began at the end of December.

What is really interesting is how similar the situation is for both players and I think this is worth exploring further.  The best way to do that would be to chart Angelique’s and Andy’s accent to number 1.

For Angelique, 2016 was a great year; the best year of her career and may turn out to be the best ever year she will experience. Not many players in history have won two grand slam titles in one season and played in three finals. Not only that, Angelique also got to the finals of the Olympics, Cincinnati and the year end championships in Singapore.  The only slight downside would be that she could have won more finals and being more dominant.  To put things into perspective, Angelique was ranked exactly 100 in 2011 and became a top ten player within twelve months and remained more or less a top ten player until her ascent to number 1 in September 2016. It will be safe to say that Angelique dreamed of winning a major title but perhaps never thought of becoming number 1 until last year when the opportunity arose; and we should reflect on some of the recent players who have failed to win a major title including Agnieszka Radwanska, Caroline Wozniacki, Jelena Jankovic and Elena Dementieva. 

So we really have to applaud what Angelique pulled off in 2016, the major finals had brilliant tennis and a lot of drama. Even though the Wimbledon final was only two sets, the tennis by both Angelique and Serena was very high quality.  2016 should be enough to guarantee Angelique a spot in the Hall of Fame in Newport when she is retired from tennis. 

Andy’s ascent to number 1 in the world was slightly different but still impressive. Andy’s problem throughout his career is that he beats the rest but lost consistently to Djokovic, Nadal and Federer is semifinals and finals.  Last year he played great in getting to the final of the French Open, in the semifinal he took out Stan Wawrinka impressively, Stan was defending champion; and in the final he went a set up against Djokovic and looked very dominant whilst Djokovic was understandably nervous. However, early into the 2nd set, Andy backed off which allowed Djokovic to hit deeper and harder shots consistently eventually wearing Andy down and he was unable to respond.

That defeat didn’t deter Andy too much as he went on to win Queens for a fifth time and Wimbledon for a second time defeating Milos Raonic in the final in straight sets. Andy then went on to defend his Olympic title in a marathon final against Juan Martin Del Potro which lasted almost four hours even though it was only four sets! Andy didn’t have a great US Open losing to Nishikori in the quarterfinal but had a very strong end of year, winning indoor tournaments in Beijing, Shanghai, Paris culminating with defeating his nemesis Djokovic in the World Tour Finals and claiming the number 1 spot for the first time in his career.  Again, Andy might have had a dream to be number 1 but it was never really a reality until he found a way to be consistent throughout the season on many surfaces at different times of the year; Andy did that last year for the first time in his career.

What we have is a situation where both Angelique and Andy claimed the number 1 spot for the first time in their careers:

•  Angelique got to number 1 at the age of 28 years and 9 months. Andy got to number at the age of 29 years and five months
•  Both players are the oldest in the open era to be ranked at number 1 for the very first time
•  Both players have built their game on counterpunching first.

So far in 2017, both players have had similar results; both knocked out at the fourth round stage of the Australian Open.  They also struggled during the American hardcourt season in Indian Wells and Miami; and have continued to struggle so far during the clay court season with early exits in Madrid and Rome.  Angelique did get to the final of the Monterrey Open in March but lost in three sets to Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova.  Andy won the Dubai championships defeating Fernando Verdasco in the final. However, the dynamics of their struggles this year is interesting. My feeling is that their style of play, reaching number 1 status at such a late age relatively is contributing to their difficulties of handling the number 1 position in terms of results and dominant performances.

Angelique

I think Angelique has one of the best games on the WTA tour. Angelique is not the tallest at 1m 73 (5ft 8 inches) but is one of quickest athletes who could have excelled in any sport which requires the use of fast twitch fibres. The one area that has let Angelique down throughout her career is her serve, which is the weakest part of her game. The fact that she has won two grand slam titles and reached world number 1 is a testament to how good her overall game is. Angelique’s serve barely gets above 100 mph (160km) and her 2nd serve has been very attackable over the years. Angelique has worked hard to improve her serve which helped her to win the Australian Open in 2016; in her matches against Victoria Azarenka and Serena Williams she hit aces at crucial moments.  Like Rafael Nadal, Angelique is right handed, so serving does not come naturally to her, her serve is similar to Nadal in that she doesn’t extend up, hammer down or snap the wrist, it is more of a guide and a push into the court, hence the lack of power and looseness in the motion.  I have often said that Angelique should use her athleticism around the net more; she has a great smash and volleys well because of her quick reactions. However, like Simona Halep, Angelique is reluctant to go to net to finish points; that could be the difference in her winning more tournaments on a regular basis, along with improving her serve further; which would increase her confidence at a higher level for longer periods.

Andy

Andy also has one of the very best games on the ATP tour, Andy has worked incredibly hard to get to the level he is at now. Even though Andy is tall at 1m 9 (6ft 3inches) he never developed any natural weapons as a teenager and seemed to thrive on playing a counter puncher’s game where he doesn’t make many mistakes. It is slightly surprising that he took this type of game onto the tour but it has served him well.  However, you have to wonder how more successful Andy could have been particularly in grand slam finals when the minimum requirement is to take your game to your opponent and stay aggressive. Andy’s big problem has been his serve and his 2nd serve in particular, which has been way too attackable over the years, dropping short in the service box around 80mph, that simply won’t work in major finals. In 2008 Andy was quoted as saying that if he served at 75% first serves, he would win almost all of his matches. That was widely reported but I always thought it was a strange philosophy to have and a misguided one at best. That’s because Andy is often serving first serves between 115 to 140mph; at that pace it is almost impossible to serve at 75%, top players tend to serve anywhere from 60 to 66% first serves. Also, to me it immediately sent warning signs that Andy does not want to hit too many 2nd serves but the media never picked up on this. Andy knew deep down that his 2nd serve was not up to scratch and by hitting a very high proportion of 1st serves he would prevent guys attacking his weak second delivery.  One way to negate that is to hit a lot of three quarter pace kick serves, but unlike an Andre Agassi, Murray may not have the strength to do that consistently.

What we have is a situation where two players had a great 2016 and rose to the number 1 ranking which allowed them to fulfil a dream. It is also uncanny how both players were well aware that to make the leap from contender to champion they had to add a more aggressive element to their counterpunching style of play.  Angelique was able to make use of her down the line shots and sometimes attack short balls; Andy used Ivan Lendl’s experience and guidance to add something extra to his game. Ivan faced a lot of quality attacking players in his career and needed to come up with ways to defeat them on a regular basis.  I think the problems both players are having in 2017 stem from their style of play, it is very difficult to stay ahead of the pack with a counterpunching game, and mentally it is too taxing. It is probably more mental than physical because counterpunchers by nature are willing to be out on the court for long periods of time to win matches. However, the burden of being the best player in the world means that players are out to take your scalp and you are obliged to show the world you are the person to beat with dominant performances more often than not.

Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal who can also be classed as counterpunchers learned that to stay at number 1 for any length of time you need to finish matches quickly and save energy for the latter stages. Under Boris Becker, Novak Djokovic perfected the art of quick points, which is something he is not known for as the media never really understood what Becker brought to Djokovic to make the difference.

The challenge is set for both Angelique and Andy to learn from the first half of the year and take that into the grass court and hard court season, surfaces both players do well on, the French Open may have come to soon to turn around their fortunes. The opportunity is there to stay at number 1 throughout the summer if Angelique improves her French Open performance and Andy does not have a disastrous Wimbledon. Let’s see how they go.

Johanna Konta: An In Depth Look At Her Game

Johanna Konta wins Miami Open

The clay court season is underway and we are about to embark on another great period of spring and summer tennis. This is a good opportunity to take a look at the one of the hottest properties on the tour right now in Johanna Konta. 

Johanna has made a dramatic rise up the rankings in the last two seasons to a career high position of seven and recently won the prestigious Miami Open title, one of the biggest titles outside of grand slam level.  Let’s take a look at how Johanna has got to this position, assess her strengths and weaknesses and try to predict how far she can get in her career.

Serve

Johanna possesses one of the better serves on the WTA tour.  Johanna is a tall player at 1m 80 (5 ft. 11) and thus able to extend up and serve well into the corners.  Another asset for Johanna is her ability to consistently produce first serves of over 100mph which keeps her opponents honest more often than not.  As regards to her serving stance and motion, it is one of the more bizarre motions we have witnessed on the tour; which starts off by deliberately twirling her handle on the racquet four times, whilst bouncing the ball four times as high as possible followed with a fifth lower bounce!  Quirky is the phrase that springs to mind but it definitely works for her which is the most important thing.  

Up to this point of the season Johanna has served over 100 aces at an average of just over five aces per match; and due to the pace she generates creates a lot of opportunities for unreturnables from her opponents.  Johanna’s favourite serve on the deuce court is the wide serve to the forehand (for a right hander); a risky play but opens up the court considerably if implemented correctly.  Johanna also serves very well down the middle which is the lowest part of the net, this allows her to win the majority of her service games which stands at 82% at this stage of the season, which is extremely good; however due to the nature of clay court tennis, expect this average to drop slightly over the next few weeks.  On the ad court, Johanna also likes to serve down the middle but in my view she finds this technically more difficult to swing the ball with slice but it is developing nicely now.  As for the 2nd serve, Johanna has a reliable delivery which she uses on the ad court as a kicker more often than not but also can serve into the body as well. So far, Johanna has won 51% of her 2nd serve points which again is quite good; you always need to win at least 50% of 2nd serve deliveries to be really competitive in tennis. The key is depth, serving deep into the box so it doesn’t sit up waiting to be put away.  In summary, Johanna is adept at serving into all four corners of the box and into the body which makes up the six targets of serving to an opponent.

Return of Serve

Johanna likes to play an aggressive game when it comes to return of serve.  So far this mentality has certainly contributed to her success on hardcourts culminating with her biggest title to date in Miami at the beginning of April.  Johanna likes to keep the points fairly short by taking the ball as early as possible and hitting deep returns on both forehand and backhand side, putting her opponent on the defensive.  Hitting deep returns is an excellent tactic in my view as you always leave yourself some margin for error.  If a player goes for winners too often they are prone to making many more errors which leads to frustration.  To validate this, Johanna has won 44% of her return games so far and converted 46% of break point opportunities, two very good statistics.

This is classic hard court tactics which works if implemented well.  Now that we are in the spring / early summer period, it will be interesting to see how Johanna adapts her tactics to clay and grass which both require different methods, or at least an adaptation of a mainstay plan. On clay, Johanna will have to decide whether she will keep her attacking stance or drop off.  Theoretically she should be able to do well as WTA players in general do not hit the kick serve as much, so the ball would not get above her shoulder too often to cause her problems. However, that could be a problem as the rally develops with the cannier players using topspin as a weapon to get the ball to move more off the court. Therefore, Johanna’s return of serve will have to better than on hardcourt to be successful as her movement sideways and coming forward will be more severely tested.

In 2016 Johanna had a mixed grass court period, she reached the semifinal of Eastbourne and played a very close three setter against Dominika Cibulkova but at Wimbledon lost in the 2nd round to Eugenie Bouchard.  However, taking the ball early on return of serve on grass should be a useful tactic.

Forehand

This is one of the vital improvements Johanna has made in her game, to have a more reliable forehand; this has helped her to shoot up the rankings over the last twenty four months. 

Johanna uses a semi western grip on the forehand and for a long period this has been a shaky shot, but in recent times Johanna has worked hard to make it more stable so it doesn’t break down under pressure, either from her opponents who attack it consistently or from nerves in a tight situation score wise. One way to deal with that is to hit through the nerves, which may explain Johann’s willingness to go for her shots as often as possible.  I would like to see Johanna hit the forehand down the line more often to open up the court and attack the net; I would also like to see her hit the inside out forehand more and make more use of angles, although that might require her to slightly adjust her court position. With Johanna’s athleticism that shouldn’t be a problem if she wants to make her forehand a bigger weapon. 

Backhand

Like most modern players this is Johanna’s more reliable shot and sets up a lot of her points and ultimately wins on the WTA tour. As mentioned earlier, Johanna is very good at using the backhand to hit penetrating returns which allow her to open up the court.  In the rallies Johanna is good at using the backhand as a shot which can be used to attack the defences of her opponent and to take advantage of short balls to attack the net. Johanna is also adept at taking one hand off to use the slice to stay in the rally when stretched. I do get the feeling Johanna is a little too impatient at times and wants to go for the killer shot too quickly, a certain lack of compromise. However, there are times when compromising is necessary, especially if you want to be a top five or number one player; simply because your opponents are capable of doing to you what you are trying to do to them.  One way to guard against that is by being a bit more strategic, probing a few more shots then look for the shorter ball to attack. 

  

Volleys & Overheads

Johanna plays an aggressive game and likes to come forward to finish points when the opportunity presents itself.  I would say Johanna’s volleys are adequate and technically slightly not quite up to scratch.  Like most modern players it could be the racquet which is an issue or Johanna did not learn to apply slice to volleys to keep them low.  I mention the racquet because like Garbine Muguruza, Johanna uses a large Babolat frame. Garbine for instance, wants to come forward as often as possible and frankly has terrible technique on the volley. It could be that the large Babolat frame does not lend itself to good volleying technique yet so many top players use that frame.  Having said that, Karolina Pliskova also uses a Babolat Pure Drive and has good volleying skills. 

In many ways, the volley is the like the serve, the more you work at it and practice it, the better technically skilled you become with it which can make the difference in a tight match. No better example than Serena Williams’ serve, the best serve in the game which has helped her to win countless matches when she was getting outplayed from the baseline. I get the feeling many players including Johanna have not worked on their volleying skills enough in their formative years which becomes an issue as pro players at the top level.

I would like to see Johanna put slice on her volleys more often to keep the ball low, especially on hard courts, and rely less on the swing volley. However, that is unlikely as most modern players rely on the swing volley even though it often doesn’t work.

At 1m 80, Johanna has the attributes and athleticism to have a good overhead; the key will be tracking back and getting her feet into position, everything else takes care of itself.

Movement

This is one of the key areas which will determine how far a player can progress in their career. The better the movement, the more likely they are to be successful. Success is relative to the player and can mean different things to different people.  In Johanna’s case, she has stated she wants to get to number 1 in the world at some point in her career, preferably sooner than later. With that in mind she is on the right track as her movement has improved significantly over the last 18 months.  This is manifested in her hardcourt results which I would say is probably her favourite surface as she has faith in the bounce; very similar to Kim Clijsters and Andre Agassi who won the majority of their tournaments on hardcourts.

Johanna’s footwork is extremely busy at all times which suggest to me she is a very hard worker.  However, there are still some areas where she can improve her movement.  Even though Johanna’s footwork is busy, I feel she can use her athleticism more to move around the ball to create more on the forehand side, especially down the line and inside out; this would take her game to a higher level.  The ball can be a bit too close and a lot rallies take place down the middle of the court. This is a trait of many modern WTA players who want to stand their ground close to the baseline; the ball is coming fast and they don’t have time to move out of the way, so “muscle” the ball often.  It works up to the point but the best players have the best movement and create angles more often, they do that by playing the court a bit more diagonally, allowing them to hit the forehand down the line or cross court (inside out). To use that play you have to be able to attack the net or be able to cover your forehand if your opponent hits down the line to your forehand

I noticed this last year during Wimbledon when Johanna lost to Eugenie Bouchard in the 2nd round.  Johanna often seemed rushed and not set to hit her shots freely, the ball was coming onto her too quickly. That wasn’t because Eugenie was hitting the ball at the speed of light but Johanna wasn’t moving well enough to make room for her shots. 

I think to be successful on grass Johanna will have to move better so she has more time to set up her shots and not feel rushed.  On clay, so far Johanna’s slightly over aggressive game is not a good fit. Johanna will have to be more patient, play with a bit more strategy and create more openings to attack short balls or use the drop shot. At this stage of her career, Johanna’s game is very hard court centric.

Conclusion

Johanna Konta has the mentality to be the best player in the world, I have no doubt about that.  Up to this point, Johanna has done very well to become a top ten player with the opportunity to go further up the rankings over the next twelve months. To achieve that aim, Johanna needs to acquire more all-round skills but she is a good learner so that shouldn’t be a problem.  The next three majors for 2017 will give us an indication of Johanna’s progress to become the best in the business.