Flashback to 1992 US Open final

This week our flashback article focuses on the 1992 US Open between Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras.

There was an interesting backdrop and a lot of factors at play going into this final which made it an historical occasion, a match that had repercussions and seen as a reference point in the recent history of tennis.

The first thing to note is that the final was between the two previous winners of the tournament, Pete Sampras won it in 1990 and Stefan Edberg won in 1991. Whoever won the match would be ranked number 1 in the world and would finish the year as number 1, Edberg was number 2 and Sampras 3 seed. Therefore, already the match had huge importance riding on it.  If Sampras won the match, it would be the first time all four slams would be held by players from the same country, Jim Courier won the Australian and French Open, Andre Agassi won Wimbledon.  Sampras went into the US Open having won Cincinnati and Indianapolis so was well placed to win the tournament. 

However, that wasn’t all; there was a lot more going on in US Open 1992.  Edberg had played three five set matches in a row, and on each occasion was a break down in the fifth set and still won. The three men he beat were Richard Krajicek, Ivan Lendl and Michael Chang in the semifinals.  That was an incredible achievement, and there was to be more, the semifinal against Chang was and still is the longest match in US Open history timed at 5 hrs and 26 minutes!   In that match Edberg hit 18 double faults and had to win in a fifth set tiebreak after coming from 0:3 down in the deciding set. Michael Chang had beaten Edberg in five sets in the 1989 French Open final so this was small revenge for Edberg, but to play Chang for five hours plus in heat and humidity will not be fun because Chang had a great return of serve and would run down everything. This meant that Edberg would have less than 24 hours to recover to play a final the next day.

Meanwhile, Monica Seles and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario had to wait and wait to play their US Open final which Monica eventually won in straight sets. Then, Sampras and Courier came out to play their semifinal in the late evening where the temperature dropped considerably. Sampras defeated Courier in four sets in 2 hrs 40 minutes which finished just before midnight. Sampras, having himself won two five set matches against Todd Martin & Guy Forget earlier in the tournament seemed to suffer cramps towards the end and could hardly serve or play, and had to be put on an intravenous drip after the match… Therefore, both players went into the final with physical issues, on the hardest of surfaces in heat and humidity.  In that case, the most remarkable thing about this match is that the quality of play was almost ridiculously high for three sets with a complete drop off in the fourth.

Please bear in my mind my previous article of the 1991 US Open semfinal where I made the point that during this era it was virtually impossible for a man over the age of 30 to win the US Open. These circumstances bear that out.

One interesting backdrop is that this match was shown live on BBC 2 hosted by Barry Davies with commentary by John Barrett and Mark Cox who were in the Louis Armstrong stadium. This is interesting because I don’t recall the BBC showing too many US Open matches ever and don’t think I ever saw BBC show any US Open matches again.  Sky Sports had the rights to the tournament and I just wonder if they gave the BBC a telling off and warned them not to do it again. After all, if the US Open was live on free to air television, why pay the subscription on satellite?  Anyway, a pity because I was aware BBC had the rights to the US Open during that time because they confirmed that to me in an email in the early 2000s, they made the decision not to cover it on television, just on radio, which is still the case today.

The match started with Sampras serving and holding, the first game going to deuce with Edberg establishing his tactics from the off. Edberg held to love and then Sampras held to fifteen. Right at the start there was a very amusing moment where Sampras served the twister to Edberg’s forehand on the ad court. The ball came to Edberg around shoulder height, he took a swing and it ricocheted off his racquet straight into the crowd, gathering pace off the ricochet, with about six or seven people having to take immediate evasive action. The reaction of the spectators looking across with their mouths open said it all.  The power and spin Sampras puts on his serves means no one is safe, not even over twenty metres away :-0

The first five games went with serve but with Edberg serving at 2:3, 40:15, Sampras hit four returns and passing shots in a row to break serve to go 4:2 up, hitting a brilliant backhand down the line return at shoulder height on break point. Edberg did take the game to deuce when Sampras served for the set but Sampras again came up with some great passing shots including a stinging inside out forehand with Edberg crowding the net, one of the best hard hit forehands I’ve seen anyone hit. Sampras took the set 6:3 in 31 minutes but it is important to note what Edberg was trying to achieve as the set developed. Knowing Sampras stayed back on his 2nd serve a lot, Edberg employed the chip charge tactic, coming in off any short ball which Sampras hit. Now, Sampras 2nd serve is usually very deep, it was not as easy for Edberg to do it directly off the serve, therefore in the rally waited for Sampras to drop the ball relatively short, particularly off the backhand side.  It wasn’t too much of an issue in the first set because Sampras’ passing shots were so good but it would become an issue as the match went on.

That was due to the fact that Edberg had no intention of changing his game plan; his transition to net was a study in grace and beautiful technique, particularly the slice backhand off a high ball and coming in, the American slice as it used to be called.  It also shows the incredible versatility of the Edberg backhand, no doubt Sampras would have wanted to attack as much as Edberg, but Edberg’s backhand was very good, he would loft it deep, forcing Sampras back,  and when he did drop it short Sampras would hit a winner off the ground, instead of going to net. On the other hand, like Lendl, Sampras sometimes dropped the ball slightly short off his backhand, inviting trouble. Perhaps on grass this might not have been an issue as no player would stay back and rally, there were quite a few rallies of 10 plus strokes which simply wouldn’t have happened on grass during that era between two serve volleyers.

This meant that Edberg was still coming, creating opportunities, Sampras forced into being counterpuncher for a lot of the final. At 2:3 in the second set, Sampras had to come from 0: 40 down to hold serve, including a flicked volley forehand winner from his corner of the court to the other side of the baseline which was described by John Barret as the shot of the tournament; if it was a groundstroke it would have been described as a running forehand crosscourt winner considering the angle. Another rally at 4:4 included a Sampras inside out forehand winner on the 13th stroke when he was in his doubles tramlines and hit a clean winner the other way, top players today simply do not hit risky shots like that.

Despite these brilliant moments by Sampras, that was the beauty of the Edberg game plan, because at 4:5 and 40:15 up, Sampras lost his serve and the set, having to hit another inside out forehand after Edberg hit a brilliant sliced approach shot and put a brilliant volley the other way off a dipping ball, a thorough examination of his technique which he passed as he missed a few already off similar situations.

After one hour and twenty minutes the match was level with Sampras immediately creating a 0:40 opportunity to break back which Edberg escaped.  I recall the Australian commentator and ex player Fred Stolle once saying that in mens tennis, the odds of holding serve from 0:40 down are still sixty to forty in favour of the server, and it happened twice in this match in the space of 30 minutes by both players.

The third set again had some remarkable tennis full of interesting rallies and incredible athleticism, especially from Edberg who made some incredible cut off volleys from some very hard hit Sampras shots, Sampras even hit a few lob winners to try to get Edberg off the net. The Swedish fans supporting Edberg were also loud, chanting every time he won a point forcing a woman in the crowd to shout out “shut up already!” Sampras persisted in staying back on his serve, allowing Edberg to attack him as soon as the ball dropped relatively short. Sampras was not used to that as those groundstrokes would have been deep enough against any other opponent in the world at that stage.  With clear physical fatigue setting in from the night before, Sampras broke serve at 4:5 to serve for the set and go two sets to one up, but unusually, Sampras got broken back and eventually the set went to a tie break. The tiebreak included some dramatic points and both men were extremely tense, both hitting double faults at bad moments.  Sampras saved the first set point with a crosscourt backhand passing shot that dipped so low on Edberg it turned him inside out and he landed straight into the net, Edberg secured the set after Sampras couldn’t hit the backhand winner off a volley approach. The third set lasting one hour. 

The fourth set was absolutely no contest. Sampras was completely disheartened after throwing away the third set and packed it in, so to speak with Edberg running to a 4:0 lead in less than fifteen minutes.  Sampras did save two break points at the start of the fourth set but on the third served a double fault, probably knowing Edberg would attack him and served too deep.  Therefore, what looked like would become one of the great US Open finals fizzled out with Edberg taking the fourth set 6:2 in double quick time. 

This match was a triumph for Edberg who won a tournament he looked like he had no right to win, especially considering the semifinal lasted 5 hrs plus. Also, it appeared this tournament took its toll because Edberg was never the same player at grand slam level again; he did reach the Australian Open final in 1993 but lost to Jim Courier, whom he had a great rivalry with.  However, this match was clearly hampered by two players who were not one hundred percent physically and probably cost us of a truly great final.  The poor scheduling by the US Open organisers played a part in that, and as in previous years, there were clear complaints and condemnation by the players about that system they operated in. It is still incredible to think this didn’t change until 2008 when the final had to be held on the third Monday.

Sampras always sited that this match as the one that made him hate to lose future grand slam finals as he felt he threw this match away. However, I also think the tactics Edberg employed forced Sampras to rethink his own tactics in later years, especially under Paul Annacone. Sampras turned from an almost counterpuncher in this match into the most aggressive of punchers by the end of his career, employing the chip charge tactic and floating the backhand much higher over the net, which gave him more time to get to net.  It didn’t happen overnight though, more like nine years, it wasn’t until 2000 and 2001 we saw the Edberg tactics employed by Sampras exclusively on hardcourts. I think Edberg was much better suited to employing those tactics, Sampras’ strengths were the serve and big groundstrokes and athleticism around the net, Edberg was more smooth and natural as it was his main staple to success.

Flashback to 2009 US Open 4th round

We continue to look at some of the interesting matches that have taken place over the years during the North American hardcourt season. This week we take a look at the 2009 US Open 4th round between Kim Clijsters and Venus Williams.

The talk going into this match mainly centred on Kim Clijsters, a player who retired two years earlier, got married, had a child and then returned to the tour in summer of 2009 at the grand old age of 26. Let’s just say times were a little different in the 1990s and noughties when it was normal for players to retire in their mid to late 20s. Kim received wildcards to the Canadian Open, Cincinnati and the US Open and was an extremely dangerous player who favoured hardcourts above all other surfaces.

Meanwhile, Venus Williams went into the match as slight favourite, but by no means clear favourite considering Kim Clijsters’ pedigree in the game. In fact, the last time Kim played the US Open, she won it in 2005, defeating Venus in three sets in the quarterfinal along the way; however Clijsters didn’t defend the title in 2006 due to injury. Rather surprisingly, Venus had not won the US Open since 2001 at that stage, and still has not won the US Open since then. Surprising because Venus has all of the attributes to win the US Open but then again, the opposition in the 2000s was very high. For instance, players of the calibre of Jennifer Capriati and Amelie Mauresmo never got to play in a US Open final and Lindsay Davenport didn’t reach any final after the year 2000 when she lost to Venus.  Both players were extremely athletic so it would come down to who made the least errors throughout the course of the match and who would hold their nerve when the situation got tight.

The match was scheduled third on the middle Sunday on Arthur Ashe court, meaning it got top billing. I knew it was going to be fun but I wasn’t prepared for what I was about to witness, neither were 22,000 people in Arthur Ashe or millions watching on television around the world.  The match started with Venus serving and losing her serve straight away!  Not a huge problem you would think, womens tennis is different to mens and holding serve is not a given. Venus did save three break points but wasn’t able to win the game. Clijsters held serve comfortably to put the pressure back on Venus, who duly got broken again to go 3:0 down right at the start. To be fair, both players looked a bit edgy as you would expect when the best play each other, not quite knowing what to expect.  Before you knew it, Venus was 5:0 down after twenty minutes with Clijsters serving for the set. Clijsters obliged despite a slight wobble and completed the “bagel” as they say in New York.  Venus made too many errors and Clijsters capitalised extremely well, punishing short balls and the fast flat hitting of Venus suited her on the hardcourts, by far Clijsters’ best surface.

This meant Venus would start the second set on her serve, this time holding to 30, to big cheers from the New York crowd. However, it was Clijsters’ turn to lose concentration and after two bad points and a double fault, found herself 2:0 down. One minute later it was 3:0, all of a sudden Venus went from serving around 110mph (178kph) to 119, 120 and 121mph (192kph) all in a row to go 3:0 up. Venus wasn’t hanging around to see if Clijsters would get nervous or make mistakes, she was taking the game to her.  Clijsters meanwhile wasn’t helping herself because she started backing off her shots, a perennial problem many baseliners have, instead of taking on the midcourt ball and coming in to net; Clijsters would hit the shot and back off to the baseline, giving Venus the initiative to attack her instead.

By this stage Clijsters completely lost her rhythm, getting broken again and finding herself 5:0 down amazingly. Clijsters served to stay in the set and wasn’t able to do it, allowing Venus to take the set 6:0.  Needless to say this is not something I remember seeing at the time, and I don’t recall seeing such a score line since. It was very exciting and a little bizarre at the same time!  In fact, I remember back in 2009 thinking I would love to see a 6:0 final set, regardless of who would take it, it would be something historical :0 The crowd knew they were witnessing something special.

Venus started off a set for the third time in a row and held serve to 30, fending off a surge from Clijsters who knew she had to respond. The stats showed that Clijsters got 82% of her first serves in during the second set and yet wasn’t able to win a game, Venus became much more aggressive on return of serve.  Clijsters did hold and so for the first time in the match, both players held at the same time!  This was not to last long as after one too many punishing forehands by Clijsters, Venus found herself break point down and double faulted to immediately hand the initiative back to Clijsters.

Now, perhaps I would have expected an immediate break back considering what went on before but Clijsters showed her experience despite lack of match practice to go 3:1 up and put the pressure on Venus, who attempted to get to net but was missing a lot of backhand volleys which was not helping her confidence.  Having said that, there were some great rallies, both players showing their incredible defence and athleticism around the court, both hitting hard and fast, taking advantage of the light Wilson tennis balls which the women players use at the US Open. Ex American player Chanda Rubin once said she preferred and was sure many women players would probably prefer to use the heavier duty tennis ball which the men get allocated at the US Open because you can generate more topspin, the lighter balls can fly off the racquet especially if the wind is slightly swirling around as it so often did in New York.

The third set was the best sequence of the match with both players giving everything but despite a few wobbles, Clijsters would prevail. There was one amusing moment where she double faulted at 4: 3, 30:30 and started muttering to herself, it’s always fun to watch players mutter to themselves in a grumpy fashion, but her friends and family in her box were off their feet giving encouragement. Venus held which forced Clijsters to serve for the match, which Clijsters did with a wonderful serve to the backhand on her first match point after saving two more break points ( what would we expect?). The great thing about winning a big match at the US Open is that the crowd is so loud at the climax it is riveting to witness. As always Venus was very gracious in defeat but it was Clijsters’ day.  As commentator Chris Bowers said “that was tennis theatre at its best”.

The stats show that Clijsters got 68% of her first serves in, hit only 14 winners and made 27 unforced errors and won 8 of 12 net points.  Meanwhile Venus got 56% of her first serves in, hit 20 winners, made 24 unforced errors and won 14 of 19 points at net.  I think these stats show why Kim Clijsters was such a great hardcourt player; she was just a bit more solid at the right moments than Venus. On surfaces like grass or indoor hardcourts it would be much tougher to win against Venus with those stats but on outdoor hardcourts you can win with great defence and stepping it up at the right moment, which so many players do today in both the mens and womens game.  The reason being that you can play a consistent game on hardcourts whereas on grass or clay, you have to adapt more, perhaps change your grip for certain shots and be more proactive. Clijsters had a weakness with her two hand backhand above her shoulder but Venus could not exploit that because she hit hard and flat more often than not. Clijsters struggled with the kicker serve to her backhand and also struggled against players like Mauresmo who was able to hit the low slice making her hit up then the high loopy topspin backhand which Clijsters didn’t like. However, most women were not able to do that because they played into Clijsters’ hands by hitting fast and flat.

Clijsters would go on to win her second US Open title beating Wozniacki in the final. Clijsters would then defend her title in 2010 defeating Vera Zvonareva in the final, meaning she would win the title three straight times she played it including 2005. Clijsters would go on to defeat Li Na in the 2011 Australian Open to establish herself as one of the great hardcourt players of the open era. All of her grand slam titles came on hardcourt.

Flashback to 1991 US Open semifinal

We’ve come to that time of year again which I consider to be one of the most interesting periods on the tennis calendar. The hardcourt season is well underway with big tournaments taking place in Canada this week with Cincinnati and the US Open to come.  A perfect opportunity to flashback to some matches that have taken place in the North America summer over the decades.

The first match I will look at is the 1991 US Open semifinal between Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg. A highly anticipated matchup in a very interesting US Open, where a 39 year old Jimmy Connors made it all the way to the semifinal to play Jim Courier.  Despite the six year age difference, Edberg and Lendl had already played each other on twenty three occasions previously with Lendl taking a 13 to 10 lead into the semifinal.  At that stage, many of the matches took place at grand slam level, including the 1990 Australian Open final, 1985 & 1991 Australian Open semifinals, 1990 Wimbledon semifinal and a previous meeting at the 1986 US Open which Lendl won in straight sets. Lendl won the Australian Open final in 1990 after Edberg defaulted in the third set with a stomach injury.

The match was billed as having the classic contrast in style, something that has completely gone out of the window in modern tennis which is bizarre but that is the way it currently is. Lendl was the ultimate baseline player and Edberg the ultimate serve and volleyer. Ivan Lendl more or less made the inside out forehand the most important shot in tennis at the time, camping on his backhand corner and hitting forehand after forehand to his opponents backhand until he got a mistake out of it.  Edberg on the other hand had probably the best one hand backhand in the game during this period. Edberg rarely served over 180kph (110mph consistently). In fact, I would say Edberg barely served over 170kph); very occasionally he would hit a “screamer” around 185kph (115mph).  However, this is what made Edberg the best serve volleyer in the business, his slower kick serve allowed him to get to net a lot quicker and he had by far the best technique on the volley and probably the best reflexes as well, especially against a player like Lendl who could potentially rip a hole through his opponent’s racquet when they were at net. Both players were always willing to use the full width of the court.

Lendl, wearing the most incredible hat, started the match quite slowly, saving two break points in the very first service game. An interesting dynamic here because the match started at 11am. This was during the crazy period of US Open history where two mens semifinals and the womens final all took place on the same day which was called “Super Saturday”. The second mens semifinal would often finish anytime around midnight, with the finalist having to come out the next day at 4pm to play the final. This practice ended in the year 2000 when the womens final was switched to a night match on Saturday. The two mens semifinals on a Saturday with the final on Sunday only ended in 2008 after the consistently bad stormy weather over New York was occurring year after year, forcing the finals into Monday afternoons from 2008 to 2014. 

Naturally, over the thirty plus years where the semifinals took place on the Saturday with the final on Sunday, it was virtually impossible for a player over 30 years of age to win the US Open. Now we are used to seeing players over 30 winning grand slam tournaments. However, whilst the experts will tell us it is down to conditioning, diet and increased professionalism, it cannot be underestimated the difference it makes to have a day off at the US Open on a surface as brutal as hardcourts in often humid weather. Not just in New York though, the Australian Open final took place every year in the hot baking sun and only switched to a night time match in 2005. These are huge advantages to prolong the careers of top players which previous generations didn’t get.

Lendl got broken, rather easily in the third game, in fact and barely looking like he was making an effort, which left the commentators baffled. It also left me baffled as he was just shuffling along the baseline, allowing Edberg to attack him at will, whenever he wanted. It could be the 11am start was too early for a 31 year old to warm up properly. Despite that, Lendl broke back immediately with good passing shots but was then broken again to allow Edberg to take a 5-3 lead, Edberg duly taking the first set 6-3 in double quick time.

Whilst watching the match I just couldn’t understand what Lendl was doing or trying to accomplish; he seemed to have no game plan whatsoever.  Commentators John Barrett and Frew McMillan started speculating as to what could be going on, especially as they both predicted Lendl would win the match so probably started worrying they would look foolish.  What they both agreed on was that Lendl was not playing aggressively enough; he was not going to net at all. On his own service games he needed to get the big serve in and then hit the big approach shot and attack the net, which is classic hard court tennis. Instead Lendl was content to hit a lot of slice backhands and as soon the ball dropped remotely short, Edberg sliced the ball and attacked the net, or adopted the John McEnroe approach of “bunting” the ball on the half volley and approaching the net, especially on the forehand where his old fashioned continental grip worked well for that type of play, just like it did for McEnroe who also used a continental grip on the forehand. In fact, during this era they were probably the only two players who still used a continental grip on the forehand. Today, Richard Gasquet is the player that plays his forehand the closest to a continental grip, although some can’t accept anyone today would use that type of grip and try to call it a “western” grip.

The second set started better for Lendl, he seemed to come out with more purpose, holding his serve well and hitting better approach shots and coming in to put the pressure on Edberg. Edberg responded in kind but before long it was back to the same pattern with Lendl completely going back into his shell, allowing Edberg to do what he wanted. The camera man by this stage was zooming into the Lendl box to see their reaction. Coach Tony Roche had his head buried in his cap, wearing shades not knowing where to look, and Lendl’s wife Samantha was also looking thoroughly fed up and annoyed at her husband’s lack of vitality.  Edberg ran away with the second set with consummate ease taking a 5:1 lead before Lendl broke back to love when Edberg served for the second set. Edberg had a second opportunity and took it, there was to be no repeat of the 1991 Australian Open semifinal when Edberg screamed “chicken!” to himself when he wasn’t taking his opportunities against Lendl that day.

By this stage the commentators and studio panel were at a loss to explain Lendl’s tactics or lack of it. By the end of the second set Lendl had only been to net eight times. Again, the consensus was that Lendl must get to net, either off the occasional serve volley play or off a big serve then approach off a short reply. In the third set, Lendl was decisively broken in the seventh game and it looked all set to end rather quickly. However, there was one moment of magic from Lendl earlier on, when he hit the most audacious behind his back shot and won the point with it, much to Edberg’s dismay, this got sustained applause from the crowd but wasn’t enough to get Lendl out of his funk. To top it off, the New Yorkers were shouting at Lendl to “wake up!” Perhaps it really was the early morning start that was too much for him. 

Lendl served to stay in the match at 4:5, only to see Edberg rub it in by pulling off the exact same shot Lendl did earlier on in the set, and win the point as well!  This prompted Lendl to shot out “I guess anybody can hit that shot” much to the amusement of everyone in the stadium and those watching on television.

However, there was to be no mercy for Lendl as Edberg served out the match with a lovely ace down the middle to win 6:3 6:3 6:4 in two hours and eight minutes.  The length of this match should not be underestimated because as in today’s era, those top guys were accustomed to playing each other in matches north of four hours in length; an indication of how easy it was for Edberg to win this match. Frew McMillan summed it up best when he said he would be intrigued by the post mortem between Lendl and his camp on how the match played out.

By winning this match and getting to the final, Edberg regained the position as the number 1 player in the world. Jim Courier went on to beat Jimmy Connors in the second semifinal and in the final, Edberg produced the best match of his career to beat Jim Courier and win the US Open for the first time.  Edberg would win the head to head with Ivan lendl 14-13 overall.

For the record, the middle match of “Super Saturday” saw Monica Seles defeat Martina Navratilova in straight sets to win the US Open for the first time.