Pete Sampras - An Indepth look at his game

The grasscourt season has begun and Wimbledon is not too far away.  It is an opportunity to take a look at one of the great grasscourt players and tennis legends.  This article will look at Pete Sampras’ game in detail, and the next article will concentrate on Sampras’ main rivals throughout his career. 

Pete’s Serve

This is one of Sampras’ most recognisable shots; many regard him as having the greatest serve in the game’s history.  A study was conducted at the 1998 US Open which showed that despite speeds upwards of 120mph, Sampras was able to generate up to 4260rpms; and up to 5357rpms on the 2nd serve, far above any other player.  Other players who served at similar speeds had far less RPMs on the serve on average.  See study here

This is one of the reasons why Sampras’ serve was so good, he possessed the ability to generate slice and topspin in equal measure and sometimes combined the two at the same time.  Sampras was also considered to have the best 2nd serve in the business, he was able to produce fast, deep serves into all corners of the box and into the body at speeds of up to 120mph loaded with spin, no matter how used an opponent was to anticipating, it was still difficult to deal with.

What makes Sampras serve stand out was the thought process behind it, along with the ability to hit flat, slice and kick serves with the same ball toss.  On the deuce court, Sampras liked to go to the forehand to open up the court for the next shot.  Going to the forehand is always a risky shot but you have to take risks to win.  Pete discussed in his book that by going to an opponent’s strength, you can break it down – a tactic he often used against Jim Courier who closed the racquet face due to his extreme grip.

Sampras’ serve really came into its own on the ad court.  The ad court is the decision court where games are won and lost and breakpoints saved. Sampras stood very close to the centre line and with the same ball toss, often slightly behind him or above his head, could hit it out wide to the backhand or go down the middle.  When he went down the middle, he often came over it with topspin whilst adding slice, so the ball straightened after pitching, going away from the opponents’ forehand but getting up high – anywhere between 110 to 135mph.  He was capable of hitting 2nd serves there at 120mph on the line.  

Many players’ serve angles in to the returners’ forehand because they stand further away from the cenrtre line so they have to add more sidespin than slice.  The ball may be fast but it’s easier to return if they don’t place it well.  With that serve to the forehand Sampras really upped the ante often, challenging the opponent to come up with something, often they couldn’t. 

 

The other benefit of this tactic was reverse psychology, when the opponent was anticipating and covering the forehand side, Sampras would go to the backhand and the ace count would rise.

Of the current generation, Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova have studied the Sampras serve and implemented it into their games, particularly the slice serve to the forehand on the ad court.  Juan Martin Del Potro, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic have also studied that particular serve, but none of these players hit it with the same effectiveness, power or precision.  However, young up and coming player Milos Raonic has perfected that technique.

Pete’s Return of Serve

Sampras’ return of serve went through a few different phases throughout his long career.  In 1990 when he won the US Open as a 19 year old, he employed two strategies.  One was to drive the backhand return for winners or as a set up to dominate the point, the other was to run around the backhand to hit forehands on the ad court.  Sampras’ grasscourt game improved when he modified his returns and shortened his swing path to take account of the faster surface.  The forehand return certainly became one of the great shots of the 1990s because he could hit clean winners off it with a shortened swing which looked spectacular off fast serves.

In his later years he employed the chip and charge tactic a lot more, especially between 2000 and 2002 (a Paul Annacone influence).  One thing Sampras always said, it is the return of serve which wins Wimbledon.  This is something a lot of people and media never focus on; there have been many players over the years who serve just as fast or faster on grass such as Ivo Karlovic, Kevin Curren, Mark Philippoussis, Greg Rusedski, Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Andy Roddick.  However, many fancied players have never won Wimbledon because they do not return serve as well and are not athletic enough to get around the court and create opportunities.

Pete also knew when to step up return games, if he wanted to crush an opponent, he would go after them every game, if he wanted to conserve energy, he would focus on certain games to raise his returning level, he was a smart player.

Pete’s Forehand

Sampras has what is considered to be one of the best forehands in the history of modern tennis.  On any surface, Sampras was capable of generating considerable power with a strong amount of topspin.  However, Sampras also created incredible angles with his forehand and possessed the greatest running forehand in modern tennis, either down the line or crosscourt.

Along with Jim Courier, Sampras modelled his forehand strategy on Ivan Lendl.  This was to cover the backhand side to enable him to hit the inside out forehand or inside in forehand (down the line) to dictate play.  Sampras often banked on his athleticism to get to any balls down the line on his forehand side which he could counter down the line or crosscourt for winners or to get into an offensive position in the rally.  During the mid 1990s, Sampras would often go to the squash shot on hardcourts to keep the rally going when really stretched. 

Sampras used a conventional eastern forehand grip (some observers say semi western).  Not that it matters because it was a conventional grip which allowed him to deal with both high and low shots.  In fact, on lower bouncing surfaces, the eastern grip came into its own on short mid court balls which require a lot of topspin for clearance and pace to get it away from the opponent; this was a speciality of Sampras.  The 1998 US Open study showed that Sampras generated up to 3409rpms on his forehand.  Sampras generated more topspin on average on his shots than his contemporaries such as Andre Agassi or Tim Henman.  The most amazing thing is the pace Sampras was able to generate while using topspin for control with reasonably good net clearance; it is also worth noting that Sampras exclusively used natural gut on his strings.

Along with Andre Agassi, Sampras had the best forehand return of serve throughout the 1990s, particularly on the ad court.

Pete’s backhand

A shot that was often described as a weakness by the media, especially later in his career. However, it was seen as more reliable than his forehand in his early years on the tour.  It was a very good shot and of course everything is relative.  On clay he didn’t like it up high but not many players do, many players with two hands struggle up there, Kim Clijsters being one example. .  Sampras liked to trade topspin backhands with the likes of Andre Agassi and Jim Courier in the backhand to backhand corner (diagonal), probing for an opening. 

Compared to Roger Federer who employs a similar strategy today, Sampras hit his backhands higher over the net with more loop, to get the ball as deep as possible, trying to illicit a short ball he could attack with either a forehand or slice and approach to the net.  Sampras also liked the slice / topspin strategy which worked very well, keeping it low, then the topspin jumping higher off the court, something Amelie Mauresmo used particularly well against Kim Clijsters in recent years.

There are two things which made Sampras’ game superior.  One was the drive backhand return of serve which could get the point on his terms, the other was the backhand down the line.  In Sampras’ best performances, the backhand down the line was always a crucial shot.

Pete’s passing shots

This is one of the key reasons Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times in an era of attacking players.  He was able to return serve and hit passing shots better than his rivals of that era on grass and it showcased his counterpunching skills. Sampras had the ability to hit any pass backhand and forehand down the line, cross court and lob, or go to the body opening up the next shot.

Sampras’ passing shots came to the fore in the 1990 US Open seminal against John McEnroe.  In that match, Sampras hit 27 passing shots in 4 sets, clearly surprising McEnroe who wasn’t expecting that kind of tennis.  In the 1995 Wimbledon final against Boris Becker, Sampras hit 29 passing shots and in the 2000 final against Rafter, Sampras hit 23 passing shots and around 14 return winners.

Pete’s Movement

Pete was a very smooth mover around the court.  And in his book he discussed why he often felt he had the measure of Andre Agassi, he said that he moved better than Agassi and therefore in the baseline rallies he could hold his own and often come out on top.  Fred Perry’s quote sums it up best “ Sampras moves like oil, you don’t hear him, you just hear the other guy, and the other guys losing”.  The only surface where Sampras probably didn’t move as well was on clay, compared to grass, hardcourts, rebound ace and indoor carpet. 

Pete’s Volleys and Overheads

During the 1990s era, Stefan Edberg and Patrick Rafter had better volleys. However, Sampras was not far off their level and certainly possessed the best forehand volley because of his firm wrist, but Edberg and Rafter had better overall volleys.  Sampras came into his own on half volleys and stop volleys, Due to his athleticism he came up with amazing volley winners out of nothing, often leaving his opponent dumbfounded.  Recently, Petra Kvitova in the womens game has been coming up with amazing volleys on faster surfaces.

As for overheads, Sampras probably has the best one ever seen on a consistent basis.  Not too many players got lobs over him, his athleticism up there was incredible and his slam dunk a signature shot.  The late commentator Bill Threlfall once said of Sampras “he has rubber legs!”

Pete’s game under Tim Gullickson

Sampras started work with Tim Gullickson in the beginning of 1992 after parting company with Joe Brandi.  Gullickson worked on improving Sampras’ grass game and worked on making Sampras an all round player, an all court player, cutting down on unforced errors and playing more patiently from the baseline.  They also worked hard on Sampras’ clay court game, in view of attempting to win the French Open. 

During that period of Sampras’ development, on hardcourts and other surfaces, Sampras served volleyed on 1st serve and stayed back on 2nd serve.  Many matches as a result gave the impression Sampras was playing from the baseline.  His average 1st serve percentage was usually quite low, just over 50 % first serves in, so on half of his serves he would play from the back.  I would assume had Sampras grown up in today’s slower conditions, he would stay back all the time.

Pete’s game under Paul Annacone

Paul Annacone became Sampras’ full time coach in 1996 after the passing of Tim Gullickson.  And as the late 1990s went on, Sampras’ game started to evolve into a more aggressive one.  He started coming to net more on his 2nd serve and started serving bigger more often.  By 2000, Sampras was a full time serve and volleyer on all surfaces.   Sampras’ return game also changed.  The tactic of running around the backhand to hit forehand was jettisoned for the chip and charge, a tactic he hardly employed previously.   An interesting thing to note is that Sampras’ contemporaries had more or less left the scene including Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Thomas Muster, Sergei Brugera, players he had a lot of battles with from the baseline. 

Due to Sampras’ change in tactics and philosophy on the game, his claycourt game suffered as a result as the big game didn’t really work on the slow surface, and surface speeds were much more diverse then compared to today’s conditions where all surfaces play at a similar medium pace.  

A look at the best female players never to win the French Open

We have taken a look at the best male players never to win the French Open and now it is time to look at the ladies to never win the tournament. 

Like the men, some of the best female players have failed to win the title, showing once again what a unique surface European clay has proven to be for the very best players in the Open era.

Venus Williams

Venus Williams has played in all four major finals in her career, including the French Open final in 2002. Unfortunately for Venus, she lost to her sister in all four major venues between 2002 and 2003 which must be tough to take, even though Venus handled the losses with great dignity.

Venus has a very good record on clay if not a stellar record at the French Open.  Venus has won 9 clay titles so far in her career and played in 6 other finals.  Venus has won the Italian Open in 1999 and Hamburg twice, plus titles in Warsaw, Acapulco and on the green clay in Charleston. 

However, when it comes to the French Open, like so many other American players, Venus hasn’t found the formula to transcend her aggressive hardcourt game to the slow red clay of Paris.  In recent years Venus has struggled to make an impression, and with every passing year is less likely to be a threat the French Open.

Martina Hingis

Martina Hingis is a player you thought would have been certain to win the French Open before her career was over.  Hingis was finalist in 1997 and 1999 plus semifinalist in 1998 and 2000. 

In 1997 Hingis played in all four major finals, but had a surprising loss in straight sets to Iva Majoli of Croatia, who promptly went on to disappear.  Hingis then went on to lose an infamous final in 1999 to Steffi Graf; when in control with a set and a break, let a suspect line call get to her which changed the whole momentum of the final and got the French crowd on her back, Hingis never recovered from that experience at the French Open. 

Hingis won 7 clay titles including the Italian Open in 1998 and 2006 in her comeback year.  Hingis also won the German Open and Charleston on the green clay in 1999.  Hingis had all the shots to be a great claycourt player, including excellent court craft, skills at the net and vision, all required to be a good clay court player.  Hingis probably lacked that extra bit of speed around the court and didn’t possess a very powerful serve, which made her vulnerable against players with big games.  We tend to think this will be a problem on hardcourts, but it was also a problem for Hingis on clay because players with big shots have even more time to go for their shots.

Having said that, Hingis should have won at least one French Open title.

Kim Clijsters

Another player more known for being a hardcourt specialist, Clijsters has played in two French finals so far in her career, in 2001 and 2003.  In 2001, Clijsters lost an epic final to Jennifer Capriati and then in 2003 lost in straight sets to Justine Henin.  It is fair to say that since Clijsters’ loss to Capriati in 2001, there has not been a final in Paris anywhere near as good.

Clijsters has won 3 clay titles so far in her career including the Italian Open in 2004, Hamburg in 2002 and Warsaw in 2006.  Clijsters also played in the German Open final in 2003, losing to Justine Henin.  Clijsters’ game is based on speed, athleticism and quick strikes which is why her game is tailor made for hardcourts.  But at the same time, athleticism should take you very far on clay so there is no reason why Clijsters couldn’t do better on the clay post 2006 when she got to the semifinals of the French Open.

Clijsters has been denied a couple of times by Justine Henin, one of the greatest claycourt players of the Open era.  Clijsters’ window of winning the French open is closing, and I wonder if she had to chose, whether she would concentrate harder on winning Wimbledon which might suit her game better, especially as Clisjsters heads to retirement from the sport.

Lindsay Davenport

Lindsay Davenport is another hardcourt specialist who failed to win the French Open.  Davenport’s best result came in 1998 where she reached the semifinal, losing to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.  Davenport also made the quarterfinal in 2005, losing to Mary Pierce.  

Davenport won 8 clay court titles in her career, in fact her first ever title in 1993 was on a claycourt in Switzerland.  Davenport won titles in Strasbourg and Amelia Island on green clay in 1998 and 2004.  Davenport would never win a tier 1 event on European red clay.

Davenport’s style of play is often described as the California big game, which is possessing a big serve and big groundstrokes, Pete Sampras and Venus Williams also played this type of game.  Like the two other players mentioned, Davenport wasn’t afraid to venture to net and had a very good doubles record at grand slam level, like every other female player on this list.  Like many other hardcourt players, Davenport found it difficult to transfer the baseline game from that surface to the clay surface.  This was due to the fact that not only does clay feel different underfoot to hardcourts, but Davenport was not able to practice first strike tennis as easily.  Davenport’s lack of mobility was also a problem on the clay as you have to do a lot of running, and to win 7 matches that way was probably asking too much of Davenport. 

Conchita Martinez

Conchita Martinez is the ultimate claycourt specialist who didn’t win the French Open.  In fact, Martinez played one final only, losing to Mary Pierce in straight sets in 2000. 

Martinez won over 15 claycourt titles in her career including the German Open in 1998 and the Italian Open four times in a row from 1993 to 1996 which is a record. Martinez also won her fair share of hardcourt titles and a very respectable 33 titles overall.  Martinez’ most incredible achievement  is her Wimbledon title which she won in 1994 defeating Martina Navratilova in the final in 3 sets.  Martinez is the only Spanish female player to win Wimbledon, made more remarkable by the fact that she was very much the clay court specialist.  Martinez also played in the Australian Open final in 1998, losing to Martina Hingis.

Martinez had a western grip on the forehand side and generated an incredible amount of topspin on her forehands and backhands.  Martinez also employed the slice backhand, and due to a very good doubles record, had good hands at net.  Martinez didn’t have a very powerful serve; therefore she was always vulnerable to the very best players in the world and had a losing record to many top players including Graf, Seles and Mary Pierce.

This might explain why Martinez was unable to win the French Open, some of the greatest players of the Open era dominated the French Open in the 1990s, namely Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.

Gabriela Sabatini

Gabriela Sabatini won a major title at the US Open on hardcourt in 1990.  In that final Sabatini defeated Steffi Graf in straight sets in a very impressive performance.  Sabatini had a game that was well suited to the clay surface and would have expected to have done better at Roland Garros.

Sabatini won 22 titles in her career including 11 on clay.  Sabatini won the Italian Open on four occasions in 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992.  Sabatini also won Amelia Island on green clay in 1988, 1991 and 1992.  Sabatini reached the semifinal of the French Open on five occasions in 1985 as a 15 year old, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1993.  In the 1993 semifnal, Sabatini held a 6-1 5-1 lead against Mary Joe Fernandez and even had five matchpoints, but went on to lose 10-8 in the 3rd set.  Sabatini never really recovered her confidence after that experience.

Sabatini had a similar game to Conchita Martinez, which was based around a lot of topspin on both her forehand and backhand.  Sabatini had a suspect serve and 2nd serve in particular; this probably prevented her from winning more major titles and at least making one French Open final.

Others

Dinara Safina and Elena Dementieva are not considered great players, but were probably the two best players of recent years not to win the French Open. 

A Look at the best players never to win the French Open

With the clay season underway and Roland Garros coming up, it will be interesting to look at the best players never to win the title there.

The French Open has proven to be the most challenging for some of the greatest players of the Open era.  In previous decades, the conditions on the clay were far removed from the rest of the tour.  This is reflected by the fact that it was virtually impossible for an attacking player to win the tournament. Not only attacking players were shut out, some of the best baseliners failed to win there, as playing on clay is a different challenge to playing from the baseline on hardcourts.

Stefan Edberg

Stefan Edberg is considered by many to be the finest attacking player of the last 25 years.  Edberg had fantastic volley skills and razor sharp reflexes, smooth movement and a top class kick serve.  From the backcourt, Edberg had one of the best one hand backhands of the Open era, which he used to hit with topspin or slice, or chip charge on return of serve. 

Edberg won 42 tournaments in his career including 6 Grand Slam titles, two at Wimbledon, two at the Australian Open and two at the US Open.  Edberg won his two Australian Opens on grass in 1985 and 1987.  He also got to the final 3 more times when it was played on rebound ace, losing to Ivan Lendl and Jim Courier twice.  Edberg along with John McEnroe reached number 1 in singles and doubles between 1986 and 1987, a very rare achievement.  Edberg is also one of a handful of players in the open era to play at all four major finals.  Edberg won clay tournaments at Hamburg (then equivalent of a Masters 1000) and in Stockholm.

Edberg got to the final of the French Open in 1989 against Michael Chang where he held a two sets to one lead, but was unable to finish the job and lost in 5 sets.  That would be the closest Edberg would get to winning the French Open.  A great achievement considering Edberg was primarily an attacking player who preferred to come in than stay back and rally.  Attacking tennis on clay can be successful but you really have to be careful which short ball to attack.  Had Edberg won, he would have been included in the conversation of the greatest. 

Boris Becker

Boris Becker is a contemporary of Stefan and had a similar career and style of play.  Becker won 49 titles and 6 Grand Slam titles, winning Wimbledon three times, the Australian Open twice and US Open once.  Becker was one of the first players along with Ivan Lendl to bring power tennis to a new level in the 1980s. 

Becker broke through very early to win his first Wimbledon title aged just 17.  Becker would win most of his titles before the age of 21.  Even though Becker’s contemporaries in age would be Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, Thomas Muster and Michael Stich, Becker is more or less associated with Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Mats Wilander and of course Stefan Edberg.   Becker’s strengths were his fantastic serve, athleticism, great one hand backhand return and diving volleys, especially on grass!  Becker wasn’t the quickest mover due to his size at 6 ft 4 but definitely one of the most athletic.

At Roland Garros, Becker got to the semifinal on three occasions in 1987, 1989 and 1991.  In 1989 he lost to Stefan Edberg and in 1991 lost to Andre Agassi.  Becker more or less preferred to stay back on the clay and rally much more than he would on grass.  But during that era, the clay was slower and balls were heavier so it was difficult for an attack minded player like Becker to win 7 matches from the baseline. Unfortunately for Becker, he played in quite a few clay finals including Monte Carlo and the Italian Open, but never won a claycourt event despite winning 49 titles.

Pete Sampras

Pete Sampras had a rather strange record at Roland Garros.  He was a semifinalist on one occasion in 1996 and three times a quarterfinalist between 1992 and 1994.  On clay overall Sampras has a decent record but not an exceptional one.

Sampras won three clay titles overall, the biggest being the Italian Open in 1994 where he defeated Boris Becker in straight sets (best of 5).  Sampras also won Kitzbuhel in Austria in 1992 and on green clay in Atlanta in 1998.  Sampras’ biggest achievement on clay was the Davis cup in 1995 when he won all of his rubbers on extremely slow watered clay against the Russians in Moscow, designed to put Sampras off his game.
Sampras’ talent on other surfaces is unquestioned but for some reason on clay never got it together. 

In his early years, he looked like he could do something at Roland Garros but after the semifinal loss in 1996 seemed to give up mentally on the surface as his results clearly indicate.  In the early to mid 1990s Sampras beat Thomas Muster, Sergei Brugera, Jim Courier and a young Marcelo Rios at Roland Garros but couldn’t win 7 matches.  Like Becker, Sampras was not able to win 7 matches primarily playing baseline tennis.  On hardcourts Sampras could mix up baseline with attacking play but on clay the percentage demands more baseline than attack.

However you look at it, with Sampras’ talent, he should have done much better at Roland Garros.

John McEnroe

John McEnroe is remembered for one final at Roland Garros, the 1984 final where he held a two sets lead against Ivan Lendl and lost in 5 sets.  That was Lendl’s first major title after losing his first 4 finals; and although McEnroe would beat Lendl in the 1984 US Open final, McEnroe would never get another opportunity to win Roland Garros.

Along with Stefan Edberg on this list, McEnroe is the most attack minded player here, he didn’t really change his game much for the clay, he was still chipping and charging like on hardcourts.  McEnroe won 4 clay tournaments in his career, but all of his titles came in the United States on the green clay and not European red clay.  Green clay plays a little faster and feels different underfoot, hardcourt players usually like the green clay surface.

Had McEnroe being able to win the 1984 French Open, it may have paved the way for other pure serve volleyers to win in later years. 

Jimmy Connors

Jimmy Connors has the distinction of being the only player who won a title on three different surfaces at the US Open.  He won the title on grass in 1974, green clay in 1976 and hardcourts in 1978, 1982 and 1983.  Jimmy Connors was also a runner up on green clay in 1975 and 1977.  However, Connors never made it to the final of the French Open despite being a semifinalist on many occasions.

In fact, Connors was banned from being able to participate in the French Open in 1974 because he signed up to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and ITF did not recognise, Connors filed lawsuits but they were later dropped.  Connors made the semifinals of the French Open in 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1985, Connors also made four quarterfinals so a very respectable record.

Like John McEnroe, Connors won many clay titles in the United States on the green clay.  During the mid 1970s, many tournaments were played on green clay as part of the build up to the US Open including Cincinnati and Indianapolis.  Connors would never win a title on European red clay although in 1981 he got to the final of Monte Carlo but the final was annulled due to bad weather.  Connors did win a tournament in Paraguay but it is not recognised on the ATP tour.  Connors found like so many others, that transferring a hardcourt game with fairly flat strokes to the European clay was very difficult during that era.

Others

Other top class players and former number 1 players to not make an impression include Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Marcelo Rios.  Attacking players who made good runs include Michael Stich who lost the 1996 final to Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek and Pat Rafter.

Jo Wilfried Tsonga - Currently Underachieving

Jo Wilfried Tsonga is one of the more talented players on the ATP tour.  He plays a game people love to watch, full of energy, enthusiasm and displays a big smile when he pulls off a great shot or dive.  However, the feeling is that Tsonga is headed in the same direction as so many other French players of the past 30 years – underachievement.

I first saw Tsonga play in the 3rd rd of Wimbledon in 2007 when he comprehensively beat Feliciano Lopez of Spain in three sets.  At the end of the match, the Spanish fans nodded approvingly, they knew their man had been well beaten.  I thought I saw a player who could be a future slam champion.  Six months later in January 2008, Tsonga would have an incredible run to the final of the Australian Open, taking the first set before going down in 4 sets to Novak Djokovic. 

2008 proved to be a good year for Tsonga; he finished top 8 in the world and played in the World Tour Finals in Shanghai.  Tsonga also won his first masters title in Paris Bercy defeating David Nalbandian in the final.  Tsonga also had a good 2011, getting to the final of Queens and pushing Roger Federer to three sets in the World Tour final in London.  Tsonga also came from two sets down to beat Federer in Wimbledon quarterfinal, and won events in Metz and Vienna.  However, despite injuries hampering his progress, Tsonga’s results have proved inconsistent.

There have been many talented French players who have not realised their potential.  In the 1980s, Henri LeConte was as talented as any other player on the tour during that era.  However, LeConte only made the final of the French Open in 1988, which he lost to Mats Wilander in straight sets. In the 1990s, Cedric Pioline made it to two major finals, but each time lost to Pete Sampras at the US Open and at Wimbledon. 

In more recent times players such as Sebastien Grosjean, Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet have all displayed superior shotmaking and athleticism, especially in Monfils’ case, but none of these players have made it to a Grand Slam final.  Grosjean played in semifinals in France, Australia and Wimbledon, Monfils at the French and Gasquet at Wimbledon.

Tsonga has beaten all of the top players in the world at Masters or Grand Slam level.  What Tsonga has not shown so far is a consistency of performance that is required to become a champion.  That is linked to poor shot selection, as Tsonga doesn’t always choose the right shot or when to use the shots he has.  Tsonga has the courage to go for his shots, which is very admirable, but to become a champion Tsonga must figure out when to use the shots he has to hurt the opponent.  

In 2011, Tsonga parted company with long term coach Éric Winogradsky. It was reported that there was a difference of opinion in how the coach wanted Tsonga to play and how Tsonga wanted to approach the game.  Tsonga plays a game that doesn’t always have a definite game plan.  A lot of people would think that Roger Federer plays how he wants on the court but Federer has a definite gameplan, which is to get the forehand into play as often as possible and stretch his opponent with the backhand down the line whenever possible.  

Tsonga is not afraid to get to net but on slower courts, Tsonga needs to be patient and choose the right short balls to attack.  Tsonga also has to work on improving his backhand, which is a slight liability.  Tsonga likes to go for flashy one hand backhands which look spectacular but give the impression of a showman.

Tsonga could look to fellow French player Amelie Mauresmo for inspiration as Mauresmo was also seen as a talented underachiever. In 2005, Mauresmo won the WTA championships which gave her the confidence to win two major titles in 2006 including Wimbledon.  Tsonga needs the spark of a big win against a big player in a final, the 2011 ATP world tour final in London could have been the moment. 

However, at the age of 27, Tsonga has a three year window to claim a major title.  It is very rare for a player over the age of 28 to win a maiden major title but Tsonga has the talent to do it.  Petra Korda and Goran Ivanisevic are the only two players in recent times to pull off that feat.