Are Tennis Players too Precious?

Last Sunday I watched the Rogers cup final between Agnieszka Radwanska and Venus Williams.  Radwanska won the match in straight sets to claim her first title in Canada. However, it was the conversation between commentators Sam Smith and Anne Keothavong which got me thinking.

Venus went for a bathroom break so to pass the time Sam and Anne had a “natter” as Sam put it.  The conversation focused on Radwanska and her skill on court.  Keothavong said that although Radwanska had grown up on clay, 10 of her 13 titles had come on hardcourt (11 by the end of the match) Keovathong thought that on clay Radwanska would be a “nightmare” to play against.  Sam Smith concurred by saying Radwanska won the junior French Open and destroyed the field but so far on the WTA didn’t have the power to contend with the other top players.  Sam Smith mentioned the quicker courts in Madrid and Rome didn’t suit her but went on to say that the court in Canada suited her because it wasn’t too high bouncing so the ball didn’t get above her shoulder.  Sam Smith then went on to utter a profound statement “You know how precious tennis players are, they don’t like courts too fast, they don’t like courts too slow, they don’t like courts too bouncy!”

Are tennis players too precious?  And also are tennis fans too precious?  Part of the deal is that professional tennis is played on different surfaces.  Want to play professional football?  Only a grass pitch will do and the occasional synthetic pitch may slip through the net. Golf, Cricket, Rugby?  Only grass thank you.  Basketball?   Indoors.  Badmington? The same.  But Tennis?  Well we have grass, red clay, green clay, and hardcourts of all different speeds and persuasions indoors and out.  Plus we used to have indoor carpet and rebound ace thrown in for good measure. 

Therefore, from week to week, a player could play from one surface to another, with tennis balls which depending on the manufacturer play totally differently to the previous week.  Perhaps this may help to explain the “preciousness” of tennis players who have to re-adjust to different court surfaces on such a regular basis.  This has also created the surface specialists over the years as we know; players who feel comfortable on a certain surface and play as much as they can on it to pick up their points and prizes. 

If that wasn’t bad enough, there are constant questions by the media to the players about surface speed, especially before a major like the US Open coming up at the end of August, it’s a perennial argument which happens every year.  Some players like Nadal will object when he feels a surface is too quick for his liking.  Then Federer will argue that there needs to be more quick surfaces on the tour and surfaces are uniformly too slow and high bouncing.

Just look at forums, surface speeds are discussed ad nauseam on a daily basis.  The debate surrounding the greatest players is often scuppered by surface issues; either a player didn’t cope with the slower clay or the faster grass, or current grass is too slow aiding certain styles of play - it’s quite crazy. I myself are guilty, my blog has quite a few articles about surface speed! And why that might be good or bad for tennis.

So perhaps Sam Smith has a valid point, tennis players may feel that everything is often not in their favour to produce their best consistently and subsequently get “precious” about it all.   Or the tennis community (the players and the fans) should think of the diversity all of these differing conditions bring to the game and see it as a positive.  After all which other sport has a major tournament on clay then grass in the space of one month?  So to end with Sam Smith’s profound thoughts, let’s not try to get too precious from now on.

Flashback to 1993 Wimbledon Quarterfinal

Recently I watched a rerun of the 1993 Wimbledon quarterfinal on DVD between Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi.  After the great matches at Wimbledon this year including the semifinal between Dimitrov and Djokovic and the final between Djokovic and Federer, I was inspired to watch this match.  For some reason this is an often overlooked match in their rivalry, one of two which went to five sets at grand slam level.

I was intrigued because even though this is a totally different era, we had the match up of the talented shotmaker against the talented baseliner, much in the way of this year’s Wimbledon semifinal and final.  The dynamics going into this match were also interesting for a number of reasons.  Sampras was ranked number 1 for the first time in his career two months earlier in April of 1993.  That proved to be controversial because the argument was how can a player who hasn’t won a major for almost three years be ranked number 1 in the world?  Agassi went into this match as defending Wimbledon champion, an unlikely scenario as in 1992 he beat Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic to take the title.  Everyone expected Agassi to win either the US Open or French Open first.  Agassi also went into this match with a 4 to 3 lead in their rivalry, having won two matches on red clay and one on green clay.  Their head to head at the majors was 1:1.  Sampras beat Agassi comprehensively in the 1990 US Open final and Agassi returned the favour in the 1992 French Open quarterfinal.

Both players also went into this match with injury issues.  Sampras had an inflamed shoulder which forced him to slow his serve to around 110mph where he was known for hitting 1st serves between 120 and 132 mph (190kph to 215kph).  Agassi meanwhile had a problem with his right wrist which required surgery and time out of the game; forcing Agassi to use the abbreviated service motion.  This was the first time I saw someone use it and it was a service action I wouldn’t forget!  I don’t know if Agassi was the first but since then many players have used this action including the likes of Juan Ignacio Chela and Anabel Medina Garrigues, although I have no idea if they had an injury or if they just liked the motion.

Another interesting side note is that Agassi started the match serving first; this was also the case in the 1990 US Open final and 1994 Miami final.  This is pre Brad Gilbert and under Brad Gilbert from mid 1994 onwards, the tactic appeared that Agassi should always receive even if he won the toss, hoping for an early break. 

The commentators John Barrett and the late Bill Threllfall noted that Agassi started slowly in his matches during the tournament, but his timing would improve as matches went on making him dangerous.  Bill Threllfall also opined that he didn’t consider Sampras a “pure serve volleyer” because he liked to stay back and had very good groundstrokes.  Unlike on hardcourts, Sampras would serve volley on both serves throughout this match. 

Both players held their first game with Sampras, even though serving at reduced pace was still hitting the corners out of Agassi’s reach.  Agassi appeared distinctly nervous and was broken early in the match.  In fact, Sampras would have it easy in the first set, taking it 6:2 after 30 minutes of play.  The Sampras tactic was very interesting; on return of serve he was virtually blocking back every ball especially on the forehand side and used the slice wherever possible, keeping the ball low and making Agassi hit up.  Perfect grass court tactics against Agassi.  Threllfall likened this tactic to Arthur Ashe and his victory over Jimmy Connors in the 1975 final, where Ashe curbed his big shots to tie Connors up in knots, often giving Connors no pace to work with, which baseliners love.  Both Barrett and Threllfall suggested coach Tim Gullickson hatched this plan for Agassi.

The 2nd set went exactly the same way with Sampras dominating all of the important points and playing very smoothly.  Agassi had no play on his serve and from the back Sampras was troubling Agassi with his big cross court forehand, which helped engineer two breaks in the 2nd set, which also ended 6:2 after 30 minutes play, almost identical to the 1st set.

Agassi knew he needed to do something quickly to get the very young crowd on his side.  Well whatever happened, Agassi got the early break in the 3rd set, a combination of Agassi going after the returns even more and Sampras relaxing after taking the first two sets with consummate ease, something that happens so often in tennis matches.  Agassi was able to see out the 3rd set with some improved play from the baseline, in fact Agassi was trying to get to net wherever possible, no doubt recognising that he had to take the net away from Sampras whenever possible.  The 3rd set ended 6:3 in Agassi’s favour.  The start of the 4th went the way of the third with Agassi getting another early break, by this stage Sampras was looking much more uncomfortable and constantly feeling his shoulder, no doubt the scoreboard pressure reminding Sampras he had an inflamed shoulder.

By this stage, the tennis had really started to go up a notch with both players playing better at the same time.  In the first two sets, Sampras was dominating with his serve and taking all of the important baseline rallies.  By the 4th set that was starting to change with Agassi scoring with quite a few returns and passing shots.  Agassi with the help of the crowd was able to maintain the momentum and broke again when Sampras served to stay in the set, Agassi taking it 6:3 with a fantastic return and backhand crosscourt passing shot. 

Now, with Agassi serving first in the final set, with the huge crowd behind him and as defending champion, you would have thought he was ready to run through the final set, but clearly young Sampras was made of stern stuff and was not be denied without a big fight.  Actually, Sampras did have quite a bit of crowd support too, but as so often happened during Agassi’s career, his supporters were much more vocal.  Rather amusingly, there was one woman the cameras kept focusing on who didn’t know who to support, she was just loving the battle!  During the fifth set, Sampras also called for the trainer to treat his shoulder.

The fifth set had some of the best tennis these two played against each other, there was some absolutely incredible rallies, including one 20 shot rally which ended with Agassi coming in and Sampras hitting an amazing topspin lob.  The feel off the strings was so smooth you didn’t actually hear the ball come off his racquet as you usually would.  Another rally finished with a Sampras wrong footing underspin drive volley with Agassi moving in the other direction, Sampras looked at Agassi and smiled.  Sampras took the first break at 2:1, Agassi immediately broke back for 2:2 but Sampras broke again for a 3:2 lead in the final set.  After Agassi saved two match point at 5:3, Bill Threllfall said that he felt Agassi could break back in the next service game. Well, three aces in a row and the game was up for Agassi, Sampras serving out the match to love with a service winner on match point.

The historical importance of this match is pretty big.  Sampras took the confidence from this victory to defeat Boris Becker in straight sets in the semifinal and take his first title by beating Jim Courier in the final.  It also shows what high quality the latter stages of Wimbledon had in 1993 with so many former winners in the quarterfinals onwards.  At that stage, Sampras would have been a good outside bet with the bookmakers but not favourite.  I don’t think anyone would have predicted complete Sampras domination for the rest of the decade after his victory against Agassi and then taking the title two matches later.

This match was also a good barometer of the variety Sampras had in his game.  And one of the legacies of the 1990s is the fact that Sampras suffered for not playing Agassi in more Wimbledon matches.  They could have met in the final in 1992, 1995 and 2000 but only met in the final in 1999 with Sampras losing in 1992 to Ivanisevic in the semi, Agassi losing in the semifinals in 1995 to Becker and 2000 to Rafter.  I think had Sampras and Agassi met more often at Wimbledon as they did in the US Open, it would have been amazing for tennis.

Short Points - Tennis' Guilty Pleasure?

Pat Rafter at Wimbledon

 I have been watching tennis for over 20 years and in that time the game has gone through tremendous changes.  Technological advances from racquets to strings, to the weight and size of tennis balls plus alterations of surfaces; it’s all happened since the mid 1990s. 

 

And now, whenever I watch archive footage on YouTube or DVDs of favourite matches, I feel like I am watching something I shouldn’t be watching and it’s an odd feeling, something that has been banished or outlawed and you shouldn’t go there.

That my friend is the short point.  It really shouldn’t be allowed, which seems to be an unwritten code in top flight tennis.  I for one absolutely love and have always loved short points.  Many of my favourite players over the years were masters of short points.  Some of my favourite matches since the early 1990s have been a study in the art of high quality short points.  Matches like the 2000 Wimbledon final between Pete Sampras and Pat Rafter, or the 2001 semifinal between Rafter and Andre Agassi, and the final between Goran Ivanisevic and Rafter.  The latter two matches were 3hrs 30 minutes in length, even though both were five setters which went deep. 

I love the dynamism of points where there is great athleticism; like a stretch stop volley, a 2nd serve ace in the corner, a great return winner or a combination of good return and passing shot.  How about a great serve and volley play, or serve, volley and smash off an attempted lob? Or a great service winner when break point down?

However, many of today’s top players do not see short points as part of their arsenal; in fact it is an exception than a rule; how often do you hear commentators call a serve volley play a surprise tactic employed once a set? Points today by and large are so long that players often need more than 25 seconds between points to recover from the previous one, towelling after virtually every point no matter the weather or conditions.  And this is the case regardless of surface.  In the past, depending on the surface a player would adapt their game accordingly, that is no longer the case.  The situation is really best summed up by Nadal’s comments during 2011 Wimbledon “Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable.  It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet. It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."

For so long, I watched tennis and never gave it much thought.  When Krajicek played Rafter I expected a different type of match to when Agassi played Courier.  A match was a match and as long as there were two top players playing each other, there was always something to enjoy.  The only matches I didn’t really appreciate as much was Brugera v Berasategui on clay.  But what is interesting about Nadal;’s comments is that there seems a combination of thought police and conditioning of mind; there is only one way tennis should be played, which appears pretty arrogant.   Maybe that’s why I feel watching short points is somehow a guilty pleasure all of a sudden, even though for most of my life this is the kind of tennis I’ve enjoyed, along with watching master baseliners like Ivan Lendl and Gustavo Kuerten, especially when they had to find solutions against attacking players.  But now I am being told by the number 1 player that I shouldn’t appreciate that and must enjoy endless long rallies and five hour matches instead.

Of course, Nadal has been empowered to make remarks like this; the removal of carpet courts around the world, the change in composition of the grass at Wimbledon, the slowing down of hardcourts everywhere on tour and at grand slam level, this has helped to make it harder for the next generation to come through.  Interestingly, younger players such as Dimitrov and Raonic instinctively want to play shorter aggressive points all the time, that also applies to Juan Martin Del Potro who is getting sucked into longer rallies than he really wants which hasn’t helped his wrist issues.  Jo Wilfried Tsonga can also be included here as someone who wants to play shorter points instinctively. I think that is one area the authorities forgot about in their desire to slow down surfaces to negate big serving, that many baseliners over the years also favoured short points for a variety of reasons, whether that be Marat Safin, Jimmy Connors or Magnus Larsson.

Ironically, as I was preparing this article, I sat down to watch the Queens final between Dimitrov and Feliciano Lopez.  Lopez is a player I have seen many times at Wimbledon and Eastbourne, in fact I saw him lift the trophy there last year.  Lopez is a classic grass court player with a big serve, excellent volleys and a lovely slice backhand.  Lopez hails from Spain, which is interesting as Spain is not known for usually producing players like this.  Dimitrov and Lopez produced one of the best Queens finals ranking alongside Sampras v Henman in 1999 and Mahut v Roddick in 2007.  The match had all the elements; incredible serving, diving volleys, athleticism, a couple of points in the end decided the whole match of almost three hours.  Both players served around 20 aces each and in the 3rd set tiebreak there were no rallies for the first 12 points due to the quality of serving from each man.  Despite that the crowd at Queens and the many thousands watching on television were completely enthralled by the contest.  Perhaps Nadal knows better here and will tell everyone watching that wasn’t proper tennis….

What would really give the game a shake up is players who want to play shorter aggressive points getting to the Wimbledon final this year.  Last year was a wonderfully historic occasion but three sets of tennis between Murray and Djokovic took almost four hours.  Match ups are important and a final between Dimitrov and Murray would do nicely; or Raonic v Djokovic.  How about Dimitrov v Raonic with the new generation facing off?  Fantasy matchups right now as the counterpunchers who are equipped to wear out their opponents have a grip on the game.

Anyway, I will continue to watch those YouTube clips and archive DVDs and re-acquaint myself with a brand of tennis which apparently has no place at the top level in today’s game but is damned good to watch. 

Best French Open Matches of Last 30 Years

Ivan Lendl

 With the French Open taking place over the next two weeks, it is the perfect time to take a look at some of the greatest matches that have taken place in the last 30 years.  This is interesting as far as I am concerned; because over the years out of all of the Majors, the French Open has had the least quality archive footage available, not as easy to really find those gems from years gone by as it is for Wimbledon.

Lendl v McEnroe: 1984 final

John McEnroe went into this match looking to make history by being the first American to win the French Open since Tony Trabert in 1955.  More importantly, it was an opportunity to show that a full time serve and volleyer on grass and hardcourts could also win at the French.

In the final he faced Ivan Lendl who had previously lost the final in 1981 to Borg and also lost his first four major finals, so McEnroe fancied his chances.  McEnroe quickly went two sets up and was looking good for the win and history.  But Lendl found a new determination and willingness to dig deep and after losing the first two sets 6:3 and 6:2, was able to claim the third set 6:4 after breaking McEnroe for the first time in the match early in the third set.  The fourth set saw quite a few breaks of serve (five in total) and break point opportunities; McEnroe got close on a couple of occasions but never served for the match, with Lendl getting the decisive break late on to win the fourth set 7:5.

The fifth set by contrast was decided late on with one break, suggesting that both players were treating the fifth set as footballers treat extra time in a final, with caution not wanting to make the fatal mistake.  It is also said that McEnroe was also visibly tiring as the clay is the most demanding of surface for hardcourt players who are not used to sliding and grinding as often.  However, Lendl was able to get that break to take the title and ensure he would not lose five major finals in a row!  

Having seen extended highlights of this match, the interesting thing here is how remarkably modern Lendl’s game looks, particularly his backhand and movement.  When you watch so many players from the 1970s and 1980s, their game often looks outdated today, due to the technology they were using for that time.  Lendl hit the ball as hard as anyone you will see now and tactically his game his game is very similar to today.  The phrase “Father of Modern Tennis” is very apt for Ivan Lendl.

Equally, sadly McEnroe was never able to win the French Open and unfortunately the trend of attacking players not succeeding at the French would continue, a pity because many tennis fans really wanted to see that happen.

Chang v Edberg: 1989 final

1989 was a memorable tournament because at the time it threw up two winners who were both the youngest in history, both 17 years old in Michael Chang and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, both players beating much more illustrious opponents in the final (Seles would win at an even younger age in 1990).  It also featured two incredible matches involving Michael Chang, the first against Ivan Lendl who was number 1 in the world and three time champion. Plus Chang became the first American since 1955 to win the tournament.

In the final set, Michael Chang cramped so badly that he couldn’t move adequately and resorted to the infamous underhand serve deep into the match which Lendl couldn’t despatch much to his annoyance, the sheer surprise of the delivery putting off Lendl.

The final against Stefan Edberg represented another opportunity for an attacking player to prevail on the slow surface.  And like in 1984, Stefan Edberg must have fancied his chances to win the French.  In fact, Stefan got close (ish) taking a two sets to one lead and seemingly onto victory.  But Michael Chang was up to his tricks again, clawing back breaks in both the fourth and fifth sets to claim an amazing victory which he put to higher forces helping him through all of those difficult phases and dedicated the victory to the fallen in Tianamen square.

It was great to see a battle where Edberg the attacker tried to get to the net at every opportunity on Chang’s service games whilst hitting the kicker serve on his serve and trying to get to net on the 1st delivery.  Edberg and McEnroe were without doubt the two best attacking players of the 1980s because both guys had to use guile and tactical nous to make up for their lack of power on the serve.

Unfortunately for the second time in the decade of the 1980s, the great attacking player was to be denied by the out and out baseliner. 

  

Seles v Graf: 1992 final

The premier rivalry of the early 1990s and one of the best in tennis history.  Graf was top dog but completely supplanted by an upstart from Novi Sad in former Yugoslavia, this was the match all the fans and media were waiting for.

And it didn’t disappoint either. In 1990 Seles shocked the world by beating Graf in both the final of the German Open and French Open becoming the youngest ever to win the tournament.  This was the first major they contested against each other since the French Open final of 1990.  Seles took the first set 6:2 and Graf took the second set 6:3 but the real fun (not sure the players would call it fun) took place in the third set where both players fought and fought and fought.

Seles was the one to strike first, getting to a 5:3 lead but Graf managed to save four match points to keep the match going and forcing Seles to serve for it.  However, by this stage with the crowd going crazy, Graf broke Seles to get to 5:5, then 6:5, and 7:6 but each time Seles held serve fairly comfortably to keep the match going.  This lead to the inevitable cracking of Graf at 7:7 to leave Seles serving for the championship for a 9:7 win.  Graf prevented that by breaking back but Seles broke again to serve and win the third set 10:8. 

Throughout the early 1990s and before Seles’ unfortunate stabbing, this was the best match of their rivalry.  Similar to the Edberg v Becker rivalry, Graf had a decisive lead but Seles often got her in the major finals; although Graf redressed some of the balance by winning the 1995 and 1996 US Open finals.  It is also interesting to document how much overwhelming crowd support Graf got in Paris in all of her finals.

Sampras v Courier: 1996 Quarterfinal

This match was one of their best of their rivalry, the head to head may have been lopsided in Sampras’ favour but they had incredible battles at all four majors and masters tournaments over a five year period.  Memorable matches include the 1991 ATP (World Tour) final, 1993 Wimbledon final and 1994 Miami semifinal.  The 1995 Australian Open quarterfinal is their most famous because Tim Gullickson was in a bad way and had to leave for tests which turned out to be a brain tumour and Sampras broke down on court after coming from two sets down.

However, Courier couldn’t have expected the same thing to happen on a clay court where he had won the tournament twice and played in three finals.  But Sampras did it again after losing the first two sets 7:6 6:4 to take the next three 6:4 6:4 6:4

Besides the intense rivalry of these two guys who in my opinion helped to take tennis to a higher level in the early to mid 1990s, there was also a very interesting tactical battle in this match.  First of all it was a hot day and both players hit 29 & 28 aces each which is a lot in a five set match even on a hardcourt never mind clay.  Perhaps it was egos’ but the usual cagey rallies you are used to seeing on a clay court with heavy topspin shots didn’t happen in this match, these guys played this match as if it were on a hardcourt.  There were some fantastic rallies where they hit the ball as hard as anyone and some great passing shots whenever either guy was at net.  In fact, the rallies in this match and their match at the 1995 Australian Open laid the blueprint for how tennis is played today, with no compromise from the baseline off both wings. 

Sampras was able to turn this match around with guts and determination, and the will of the French crowd wanting an attacking player to win the tournament; at one point in the fifth set Courier smashed his cap to the ground with his racquet and tossed it into the crowd.  However, after this marathon 4 hour match, and with five set victories against Brugera and Todd Martin, Sampras had nothing left for the semifinal and the French Open eluded an attacking player again.

Agassi v Medvedev: 1999 Final

Agassi had played in two previous finals in 1990 and 1991 but lost both to Andres Gomez and Jim Courier when he was favourite.  In fact, in 1991 Agassi lost the final after being two sets to one up with a rain delay helping to turn it around for Courier.

So Agassi might have thought his chance was gone after waiting for 8 years to get to another final, especially after going two sets down against Andrei Medvedev for was playing tennis like a pre Marat Safin and looking really good taking the first two sets 6:1 6:2

But as happens so often in clay court tennis, where it is often not really possible to blow someone away quickly, Agassi was slowly able to work his way into the match taking the ball early and trying to get to net when he could, and after a roller coaster 3rd set where Agassi broke for 4:2, got broken back and then was break point down leaving the possibility of Medvedev serving for the championships, Agassi was able to hold on and then break to take third set 6:3.  Agassi then rushed to a 3:0 lead in the fourth set which he eventually won 6:3 and with Medvedev’s confidence draining, claimed a most unlikely victory by taking the fifth set 6:4 and becoming the fifth man in history to win all four Grand Slam championships.

It was a very emotional moment for both players, which clearly came through in the presentation and both players’ speeches.  But to me the most fascinating backdrop of this match and shows how dramatically tennis has changed in the last 15 years. In that final Agassi was a former world number 1 and Medvedev a former number 4.  And yet Medvedev was ranked 100 and Agassi was ranked 141 less than 18 months previously.  Due to the change in ranking points and other factors, it is highly unlikely to see top players ranking peak and dip so dramatically as their career progresses in today’s conditions.

 

Graf v Hingis: 1999 final

Hingis was looking to add the French Open crown to her collection to join the legends of winning all four grand slam championships. 

And against Graf everything went well and was looking good early in the 2nd set.  Hingis took the first set 6:1 and was 2:0 in the 2nd set until the “dodgiest” of line calls changed not only the match but tennis history.  Hingis hit a seemingly winning return which looked to clearly have hit the line but was called out, Umpire Anne Lassere-Ulrich came to have a look but ruled the ball to be out, which led Hingis to walk across to the other side to show the mark that should have been spotted.

This petulance by Hingis led her to receive a point penalty after having a brisk discussion with the tournament Referee.  Hingis’ game fell apart and Graf was able to claim the 2nd set and the third set 6:2.  What didn’t help Hingis for the rest of the match was the whole crowd who were entirely in Graf’s favour.

Amazingly, this match is not only famous for the line call in the 2nd set, but also Hingis’ underhand serve at match point down in the 3rd set, much like Michael Chang against Lendl 10 years earlier, with the same results surprising Graf, like Lendl she hit a forehand and came to the net but lost the point off a passing shot.  However, Graf did prevail which then led to Hingis disappearing and then brought back out sobbing in the arms of her mother who persuaded her to go to the podium for the presentations.  Graf insisted during the presentation that Hingis would one day win the French Open.  But sadly for Hingis that never happened.

One thing is for sure, it probably isn’t possible to have more drama than this in a tennis match!

  

2001 final: Capriati v Clijsters

This is without doubt the last great ladies French Open final.  Throughout the 1990s, the tournament was blessed with great women finals which went all the way but since 2001 every final incredibly has been a straight sets affair, often a quick drubbing by one player over another.

But in 2001 Capriati was going for her second Grand slam title after being on the scene for over 10 years even though at the time she was only 25 years old.  Clijsters who was playing in her first final at the age of 18 was a new kid on the block.  In a see saw battle, Clijsters took the first set 6:1 whilst Capriati seemed grumpy and dissatisfied, complaining about things which I’m not quite sure what they were about; which may have included a complaint about the noise from the Umpire’s microphone!

Clearly that all had to be put down to nerves, however, Capriati was able to turn the tide quickly in the second set and claimed it 6:4 to force a decider.  The great thing here was the deciding set was longer than the first two sets put together.

Both players played some incredible tennis throughout the final set and on more than one occasion showed fantastic poise and bravery in tight situations.  Sadly, there had to be a loser and with no tiebreak in the final set, someone had to be broken and in the end, after the final break at 11:10, Capriati was able to serve for the match and seal it with a forehand winner which at the time gave her two majors for the year and in pole position to complete the Grand Slam of all four majors in one year.  That didn’t materialise as she lost in the semifinals of Wimbledon to another Belgian upstart Justine Henin.

The incredible thing about this final is the statistics, despite it being a pulsating battle with so many quality moments, both players are charted as committing over 80 unforced errors each whilst Capriati hit 30 winners and Clijsters 35 winners.  Meanwhile Clijsters actually won more points overall than Capriati.  Statistics, damned statistics, as the saying goes.

2013 semifinal: Djokovic v Nadal

This was supposed to be the match where Djokovic (or any champion) would get the better of Nadal at the French Open.  The stage was set and Djokovic probably in his best condition having defended his Australian open title against Andy Murray.

But as usual, Nadal had other ideas to become the first man in history to win one major tournament on eight occasions.  Nadal was also coming back after a 7 month injury layoff where people questioned whether he would get back to the highest level.  Nadal took the first set 6:4, Djokovic came back 6:3, Nadal took the third then Djokovic won the fourth on a tiebreak after coming back from a break on more than one occasion including Nadal serving for the match at 6:5.  At that stage you would have thought the momentum was with Djokovic even if he was not as his physical best at this stage, his fortitude was still considerable.

The fifth set was a classic affair full of drama and tension, and mistakes, Djokovic was looking good at 4:2 but let it slip, and Djokovic’s bizarre messed up smash at a crucial moment (and Nadal’s almost comical way of pointing it out to the Umpire) probably cost him the match.  Djokovic was also complaining how slippery the surface was and wanted it watered but the Umpire and Referee refused that request. The fifth set went to 8:7 when Djokovic again served to stay in the match but it was one occasion too many and Nadal got to three match points and finished the job as Djokovic sent a forehand long. 

This match may go down as the best in their rivalry.  What is also interesting is that as happens so often in many tournaments, the best match takes place in the semifinal with final being a damp squib, that was the case in the 2013 French Open championships.

Other notable matches include:

1993 final Graf v MJ Fernandez 4:6 6:2 6:4

1996 final Graf v Sanchez Vicario 6:3 6:7 10:8 Graf wins yet another incredible final where she gets all the crowd support and leaves Sanchez Vicario in tears on the podium

2004 final Gaudio v Coria 0:6 3:6 6:4 6:1 8:6 This may be the most comical grand slam final I’ve ever seen but unfortunately Coria doesn’t find it funny and this result more or less ruined his career.

2009 4th rd Soderling v Nadal 6:2 6:7 6:4 7:6 No one predicted this but it let the door in for Roger Federer to realise his dream.

2009 semifinal Federer v Del Potro 3:6 7:6 2:6 6:1 6:4 Federer’s dream almost derailed by Del Potro but he dug deep and claimed the victory and then win the final against Soderling.