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. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Carlos Alcaraz Serve – The Missing Link To Greatness

Previewing The 2024 WTA Season

Iga Swiatek - Back to Business