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.