Flashback to 2006 Wimbledon final

This week we continue our Flashback series on grass and take a look at the 2006 Wimbledon final between Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin.

2006 saw an interesting championship which culminated with a popular winner in Amelie Mauresmo; a player who had been through a lot in her young life at that point, overcoming a number of adversities to triumph on the big stage. Strangely enough, her opponent Justine Henin also experienced many adversities as well whilst ascending to the top. This is a reminder of what it takes for many of the world stars to get to the top of their profession.

In Amelie’s case, there was a lot of talk about her after coming out as gay as a 19 year old in January 1999. Amelie was not on speaking terms with her father but it was reported she was able to come to peace with him shortly before his death in 2004. Not to make things any easier, the press often gave Amelie a difficult time over a number of years for her physical appearance and perceived lack of fight in the big moments of important matches.

As for Justine, she lost her mother at a very young age and was not on speaking terms with her father for many years until they patched things up in 2007. She married Per Yves Hardenne in 2004 and would separate months after the 2006 Wimbledon final. Henin also had a rough time with the press; which mainly centred on allegations of cheating on and off the court. Therefore, as you can see, both players went through a lot in their young lives.

In regards to the tennis, Amelie was a sentimental favourite due to the fact she was semifinalist in 2004 and 2005, losing to Serena Williams and Lindsay Davenport respectively. In both semifinals, Amelie went down the same way, after being up a set and a break, in 2005 Amelie cut a very forlorn figure against Davenport, it was quite a sad sight. In 2006, Mauresmo reached the semifinal after seeing off Anastasia Myskina in the quarterfinal and would face another Russian Maria Sharapova.  You could argue Amelie didn’t have it easy, taking on very difficult opponents in the semifinals, all previous Wimbledon champions. And true to script, Amelie played great, going up a set and a break, looking good until it all started to go wrong again…Amelie lost the second set but this time was able to regroup and take the third set 6-2 to reach her first final.  In the other semifinal, Justine saw off Kim Clijsters in straight sets but Kim did break the Henin serve in each set.  In fact, it was never easy between Henin and Clijsters, the ultimate Belgian rivalry which was soured by comments by Kim’s late father Leo Clijsters regarding Henin.

Talking about souring of relations, at this stage Amelie and Justine were not quite on the best of terms either :-0  Amelie won her first major title at the Australian Open in January of 2006, and in the final it looked as Justine was about to receive quite a beating, losing the first set 6-1. However, shortly after, Justine retired and handed the match to Amelie complaining of stomach issues. It was a very strange ceremony and in the aftermath it was almost as if Amelie was to blame for winning the tournament based on retirements in both the semifinal and final. Needless to say Amelie wanted to prove a point against the same opponent on a different surface. I wonder whether the fact that the WTA tour was so strong during this period of history left all of the players on edge towards each other; they all wanted the same thing, to be the best. The final would have long term implications and historical importance for a number of reasons:

• This will be the last final in a major where a player (Mauresmo) deliberately chooses to serve and volley as a tactic throughout the entire match
• This is the last final to date between two players with a single handed backhand
•  Henin was bidding to hold all four major titles, joining a very elite list of players
•  Mauresmo was bidding to become the first French woman to win Wimbledon since Suzanne Lenglen in 1925.

The match started off with Mauresmo getting broken in the very first game, as Henin applied the pressure early. As I mentioned before, Mauresmo served and volleyed on most of her first serves with speeds between 168 and 186 kph (105 to 116mph), therefore Henin also decided to get to the net as often as possible, tactics no doubt discussed beforehand with her coach Carlos Rodriguez; throwing in the occasional serve volley herself whilst hitting the backhand return and charging the net. As old school a tennis match you could possibly get in 2006 played by two women. Henin broke serve with a brilliant net exchange, the sort of exchange you get in a doubles match and then held serve comfortably to take early charge. As the first set developed, Mauresmo seemed to clear the nerves and got into the match but lost her serve again to go 5-2 down, allowing Henin to serve out the set to love with an ace and looked in good shape to join the greats of the game.

Mauresmo knew she needed to respond and started the second set on a good footing with a love service game, letting out a scream in the process, trying to rid herself of tension. Perhaps it worked because Henin herself seemed to be full of tension and was instantly broken as Mauresmo picked up on this and started rushing Henin at the net with great chip and charge returns and volleys into the open space.  There were some tremendous rallies in the second set with incredible net play by both, Mauresmo in particular. However, this good feeling didn’t last long with Mauresmo losing her lead at 4-2 to allow Henin back into the set. You would have expected Henin to put the pressure on but Mauresmo responded immediately with a great running forehand passing shot down the line, off a very good Henin serve and volley play. Mauresmo soon got to 15-40 and despite Henin saving the first break point with a strong serve, Henin was broken on the second break point, leaving Mauresmo to serve out the second set.

Now of course, no one said it was going to be easy. Mauresmo had to save three break points before finally getting to set point, which she scored with an ace to take the second set 6-3. Each player won their set with ace to the backhand on the ad court. The ace summed up the second set nicely, a set with great tennis, crazy errors and a lot of tension but ended in the right manner. There was a caveat, it seemed quite windy and as we know in stadiums, the wind can swirl around the bowl so that was also a factor in the errors count.

Henin was now serving first in the final set, which usually is a big advantage and she started off well, but by now Mauresmo was looking stronger and stronger and broke Henin early in the third game of the final set. That can often spell danger in a big final to break so early but on this occasion Mauresmo was really focused on holding with great serve and volley play, which was a joy to watch. In response, Henin was now also serving and volleying on almost every point on her games, even on some second serves. It was quite a sight to see two players serve volleying in a big final in the new millennium.  Henin did her side of the bargain; holding on to get to 5-4, inviting Mauresmo to serve it out. We all wondered how Mauresmo would come out to serve for the match, we needn’t have been concerned. Mauresmo hit two aces in the deuce court wide to Henin’s forehand, and then at 30 all played a great volley into the corner to set up match point. Mauresmo missed the first serve but the second serve went in barely and Henin obliged her by missing her forehand into the net after a short sharp rally. Mauresmo sank to her knees, realising that she was finally Wimbledon champion at the age of 27 after so many near moments in the previous years.  Mauresmo’s victory speech with Sue Barker became famous for her tongue in cheek remark “I don’t want anyone to talk about my nerves anymore!”.

How did Mauresmo turn the match in her favour?  According to analyst Jason Goodall, he charted that in the first set Mauresmo served at 65% first serves in but served too many to Henin’s backhand, which Henin used to drive the return and attack the net, putting the pressure on Mauresmo’s second serve. However, in the second set Mauresmo’s first serve percentage was under 50%, but she switched the attack to Henin’s forehand more and found great success, Henin making many more errors on that side which allowed Mauresmo to serve more aces in the deuce court as well. It is interesting that Mauresmo was able to switch strategy in the middle of the match and raise her confidence level as a result, with Henin’s going downwards at the same time.  In the third set with her confidence rising, Mauresmo’s first serve percentage reached as high as 84% therefore she was definitely on top for the decider.  As an aside, it also worth noting Mauresmo is one of the few players to win junior Wimbledon (1996) and then the main draw event in 2006.

2006 was a great year for both players.  Mauresmo won two major titles whilst Henin played in all major finals in the same year, the first player since Martina Hingis in 1997.  Also, both players battled it out for the year end number 1 ranking, with Henin securing number 1 at the WTA championships in Madrid. In the final, Henin defeated Mauresmo in two tight sets to bookend their rivalry in 2006 by playing each other in the first and last big finals of that year.   

Looking back at the Wimbledon final, it is a little unfortunate there are no longer any all court players with a one hand backhand getting to the top of women’s tennis; two players who were constantly changing strategies throughout the match, trying to find different ways to win.

Flashback to 1999 Wimbledon semifinal

We are in the middle of Wimbledon 2019 so as always a good time to focus on our flashback series, looking at grass court tennis. Today we take a look at a match that is largely forgotten, the 1999 Wimbledon semifinal between Pete Sampras and Tim Henman.

I say forgotten as the final between Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi is widely seen as Sampras’ greatest performance and there are a large number of videos on YouTube of that particular final. However, the semifinal against Henman was quite a struggle mentally and emotionally for both participants, and perhaps as it turned out, a hard training session for Sampras, honing his skills for the final.

The 1999 championships had been wrecked by rain in the second week; this caused a backlog of matches, which during this period of history was quite normal. Back in 1999 and as recently as three years ago, the championships took place in the last week of June and the first week of July. I always found this a bit strange, as once Wimbledon finished it usually dried up!  In London It often rains heavily in June and very early July. 1999 was no different.  This meant there was such a backlog of matches both the men’s and women’s semifinals were played on Saturday and both finals played on the Sunday. With a very early start Steffi Graf and Mirjana Lucic battled it on court 1 followed by Pat Rafter and Andre Agassi. On Centre Court Lindsay Davenport dispatched Alexandra Stevenson quite easily, followed by Sampras against Henman.

This was the second year in a row the two men would meet in the semifinal. In 1998 Henman went into the match hopeful of causing an upset; he gave Sampras a good match, losing in four sets but breaking Sampras twice in the second set and running him extremely close in the third set before Sampras’ greater experience came through. However, a year later in 1999, Henman was viewed as more than hopeful of causing an upset. By this stage Henman was a top ten player on the ATP tour and almost beat Sampras in the Queens final a few weeks earlier, taking the deciding set to a tiebreak before losing out. The consensus was that Henman was the grass court successor to Sampras once Sampras started to go downhill so to speak. As for the semifinals, it was an extremely strong line-up and whoever would win the tournament would certainly have been seen as a worthy winner. To get to the semifinal, Sampras had a little bit of luck, he lost the first set to Mark Philippoussis in the quarterfinal and looked to have a lot of work to do but Philippoussis hurt his knee and had to retire. I recall Sampras raising those eyebrows in sharp relief as he didn’t have to win it in four or five sets.  Henman meanwhile defeated Cedric Pioline in four sets, another quality grass court player who made the final in 1997.

Whenever Henman played on centre court the crowd was always very vociferous. Rather interestingly, due to what was at stake both men started extremely nervously. Henman began proceedings and held serve relatively easily but the fun started on Sampras’ opening service game. For some reason Sampras decided he was determined to hit every serve to Henman’s forehand on both courts. The only problem was, he kept missing :-0  On the first and third points, he hit the tape twice leading to double faults, he then retrieved the situation by hitting two serves down the T on the ad court to the forehand and put away excellent volleys, which lead to a thirty all score line. However, Sampras wasn’t done, he again hit another double fault on the deuce court trying to go to Henman’s forehand, so three double faults all serving to the same place!  With a break point to Henman, Sampras finally realised he had to do something different and served a first serve to Henman’s backhand, who was clearly waiting and drilled the return down at his feet.

Henman went 2-0 to the delight of the home crowd but Henman inadvertently decided to get into the double fault show, starting with one and finding himself love 40 down in double quick time. Henman hit a great serve to Sampras’ forehand, who was expecting a backhand serve but adjusted so quickly to hit a clean forehand winner down the line, incredible skill.  Although, this ultimately didn’t mean much because Sampras soon got broken again to find himself 3-1 down. Amazingly there were three breaks in a row at the start of the match. After a fairly long deuce game where Sampras threatened with a few good returns, Henman held on and came again, Sampras finding himself love 30 after a lovely flicked backhand from Henman almost round the next post into the corner; the British crowd were in dreamland by this stage with lots of union jacks being held aloft.  Sampras managed to get himself out of going a double break down but Henman was not to be denied and eventually took the first set 6-3, serving it out to 30.

Sampras knew he needed to reassert himself in the second set with an immediate hold of serve to love which no doubt boosted the confidence.  Henman’s one problem was that he was missing too many first serves and had to hit a lot of second serves. Sampras didn’t seem to mind missing first serve returns but once the second went in, he hardly missed and immediately came up with a break point, ironically off a first serve return. Henman fended it off well but Sampras slipped at the back of court, not allowing him an attempt at a passing shot. One strategy Henman did employ was to stay back on some of his serves, first and second. In their 1998 semifinal, commentator and ex-champion Pat Cash observed that Henman was having some success, surprising Sampras and consequently winning a lot of rallies from the back court.  Therefore Henman figured he could do this again.  However, I get the distinct feeling that Sampras and coach Paul Annacone discussed this beforehand because Sampras was winning a lot of those rallies, either getting to net off a short of a length shot by Henman or stretching Henman with his crosscourt forehand.

As the second set developed both guys were holding serve more easily but things picked up dramatically at 5-4.  In the proceeding game, Sampras missed relatively easy passing shots which seemed to frustrate him but in this game Sampras dramatically raised his level. As so often happens, Henman went 30 love and seemed in control  Sampras hit a strong backhand return to make it 30:15 and then two shots later, it was 30:40 and set point to Sampras thanks to two more backhand returns and two brilliant backhand passing shots out of the top drawer.  Henman saved the first set point by hitting a great forehand himself which Sampras couldn’t control at the net. After two more deuce points, Sampras set up a third set point with another backhand passing shot crosscourt. Henman was feeling the pressure and coach David Felgate’s demeanour in the box said it all, he looked dishevelled! Henman served the first serve well long, and then did the same again, so a double fault and second set to Sampras 6-4. The atmosphere was like a punctured balloon and Sampras did a jig of delight, which makes me laugh every time I see it.

Sampras was now a different player, breaking Henman again to love, this time with a marvellous forehand cross court passing shot and had break points chances to go 4-0 in the third set but Henman saved it. To get to break point, Henman stayed back and after a twelve shot rally, Sampras hit a cross court forehand to open up the court and put it away. This rally emphasised the difference in class. The difference being that if Sampras was mentally ready to play, Henman could not match Sampras from the baseline, whether he thought it was a good strategy or not. Henman almost went 1-5 down but saved another breakpoint and kept it to one break but Sampras did what he did best, which was to serve out the set for 6-3 and go two sets to one up.  Henman was just not getting enough first serves into play and Sampras was starting to serve more and more aces. Henman hit some nice passing shots but was not able to really create break point opportunities consistently by this stage.

Henman was down, but certainly not out. The fourth set proved to be an intense struggle lasting forty five minutes.  Henman again was immediately under pressure on his serve surviving a very long deuce game and having to save another break point. Sampras’ eye was in, hitting a clean forehand winner off one serve timed at 213kph (131mph). At this juncture Sampras hit twelve return winners to Henman’s six.  However, Sampras was still clearly as tense as Henman, escaping long deuce games and break points in the sixth and eighth game; on one break point Henman totally skyed a second serve return. However, escape he did and proceeded to break Henman in the ninth game to serve out the match, Sampras hit a backhand passing shot which Henman found too hot to handle.

The fans were certainly not finished, chanting Henman’s name in the changeover hoping it will inspire him to break back. And Henman almost obliged by winning the first point with a lovely forehand return winner down the line. However, that would be the last point Henman would win as Sampras closed out the match with great serving, finishing off with a wide serve to Henman’s forehand at 187kph (116mph) to win 4-6 6-4 6-3 6-4, the dream was over for Henman and much of Britain.

There is no doubt that Henman had his chances to at least take it to five sets but at the critical moments either did not have the belief or his decision making was not quite there.  Sampras knew when to raise his level to break serve, once he got over his initial nerves in the first set. However, the nerves never really went away for the whole match, a lot was at stake but Sampras was simply better at playing through the nerves than Henman.  Importantly, Sampras’ serve also made the difference, hitting more aces and unreturnables.  Henman’s first serve percentage was not good enough and gave Sampras far too many looks at second serves, Sampras was too good for Henman to keep offering up second serve opportunities in key moments.

The statistics bear this out. Henman made 22 winners and 30 unforced errors while Sampras made 57 winners and 37 unforced errors. Sampras made only seven more unforced errors but almost three times more winners including 24 forehands and 21 backhands.  It was a great battle fitting of a Wimbledon semifinal and it would be nice if BBC or Wimbledon made some highlights available of this match.