Flashback to 1992 US Open final

This week our flashback article focuses on the 1992 US Open between Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras.

There was an interesting backdrop and a lot of factors at play going into this final which made it an historical occasion, a match that had repercussions and seen as a reference point in the recent history of tennis.

The first thing to note is that the final was between the two previous winners of the tournament, Pete Sampras won it in 1990 and Stefan Edberg won in 1991. Whoever won the match would be ranked number 1 in the world and would finish the year as number 1, Edberg was number 2 and Sampras 3 seed. Therefore, already the match had huge importance riding on it.  If Sampras won the match, it would be the first time all four slams would be held by players from the same country, Jim Courier won the Australian and French Open, Andre Agassi won Wimbledon.  Sampras went into the US Open having won Cincinnati and Indianapolis so was well placed to win the tournament. 

However, that wasn’t all; there was a lot more going on in US Open 1992.  Edberg had played three five set matches in a row, and on each occasion was a break down in the fifth set and still won. The three men he beat were Richard Krajicek, Ivan Lendl and Michael Chang in the semifinals.  That was an incredible achievement, and there was to be more, the semifinal against Chang was and still is the longest match in US Open history timed at 5 hrs and 26 minutes!   In that match Edberg hit 18 double faults and had to win in a fifth set tiebreak after coming from 0:3 down in the deciding set. Michael Chang had beaten Edberg in five sets in the 1989 French Open final so this was small revenge for Edberg, but to play Chang for five hours plus in heat and humidity will not be fun because Chang had a great return of serve and would run down everything. This meant that Edberg would have less than 24 hours to recover to play a final the next day.

Meanwhile, Monica Seles and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario had to wait and wait to play their US Open final which Monica eventually won in straight sets. Then, Sampras and Courier came out to play their semifinal in the late evening where the temperature dropped considerably. Sampras defeated Courier in four sets in 2 hrs 40 minutes which finished just before midnight. Sampras, having himself won two five set matches against Todd Martin & Guy Forget earlier in the tournament seemed to suffer cramps towards the end and could hardly serve or play, and had to be put on an intravenous drip after the match… Therefore, both players went into the final with physical issues, on the hardest of surfaces in heat and humidity.  In that case, the most remarkable thing about this match is that the quality of play was almost ridiculously high for three sets with a complete drop off in the fourth.

Please bear in my mind my previous article of the 1991 US Open semfinal where I made the point that during this era it was virtually impossible for a man over the age of 30 to win the US Open. These circumstances bear that out.

One interesting backdrop is that this match was shown live on BBC 2 hosted by Barry Davies with commentary by John Barrett and Mark Cox who were in the Louis Armstrong stadium. This is interesting because I don’t recall the BBC showing too many US Open matches ever and don’t think I ever saw BBC show any US Open matches again.  Sky Sports had the rights to the tournament and I just wonder if they gave the BBC a telling off and warned them not to do it again. After all, if the US Open was live on free to air television, why pay the subscription on satellite?  Anyway, a pity because I was aware BBC had the rights to the US Open during that time because they confirmed that to me in an email in the early 2000s, they made the decision not to cover it on television, just on radio, which is still the case today.

The match started with Sampras serving and holding, the first game going to deuce with Edberg establishing his tactics from the off. Edberg held to love and then Sampras held to fifteen. Right at the start there was a very amusing moment where Sampras served the twister to Edberg’s forehand on the ad court. The ball came to Edberg around shoulder height, he took a swing and it ricocheted off his racquet straight into the crowd, gathering pace off the ricochet, with about six or seven people having to take immediate evasive action. The reaction of the spectators looking across with their mouths open said it all.  The power and spin Sampras puts on his serves means no one is safe, not even over twenty metres away :-0

The first five games went with serve but with Edberg serving at 2:3, 40:15, Sampras hit four returns and passing shots in a row to break serve to go 4:2 up, hitting a brilliant backhand down the line return at shoulder height on break point. Edberg did take the game to deuce when Sampras served for the set but Sampras again came up with some great passing shots including a stinging inside out forehand with Edberg crowding the net, one of the best hard hit forehands I’ve seen anyone hit. Sampras took the set 6:3 in 31 minutes but it is important to note what Edberg was trying to achieve as the set developed. Knowing Sampras stayed back on his 2nd serve a lot, Edberg employed the chip charge tactic, coming in off any short ball which Sampras hit. Now, Sampras 2nd serve is usually very deep, it was not as easy for Edberg to do it directly off the serve, therefore in the rally waited for Sampras to drop the ball relatively short, particularly off the backhand side.  It wasn’t too much of an issue in the first set because Sampras’ passing shots were so good but it would become an issue as the match went on.

That was due to the fact that Edberg had no intention of changing his game plan; his transition to net was a study in grace and beautiful technique, particularly the slice backhand off a high ball and coming in, the American slice as it used to be called.  It also shows the incredible versatility of the Edberg backhand, no doubt Sampras would have wanted to attack as much as Edberg, but Edberg’s backhand was very good, he would loft it deep, forcing Sampras back,  and when he did drop it short Sampras would hit a winner off the ground, instead of going to net. On the other hand, like Lendl, Sampras sometimes dropped the ball slightly short off his backhand, inviting trouble. Perhaps on grass this might not have been an issue as no player would stay back and rally, there were quite a few rallies of 10 plus strokes which simply wouldn’t have happened on grass during that era between two serve volleyers.

This meant that Edberg was still coming, creating opportunities, Sampras forced into being counterpuncher for a lot of the final. At 2:3 in the second set, Sampras had to come from 0: 40 down to hold serve, including a flicked volley forehand winner from his corner of the court to the other side of the baseline which was described by John Barret as the shot of the tournament; if it was a groundstroke it would have been described as a running forehand crosscourt winner considering the angle. Another rally at 4:4 included a Sampras inside out forehand winner on the 13th stroke when he was in his doubles tramlines and hit a clean winner the other way, top players today simply do not hit risky shots like that.

Despite these brilliant moments by Sampras, that was the beauty of the Edberg game plan, because at 4:5 and 40:15 up, Sampras lost his serve and the set, having to hit another inside out forehand after Edberg hit a brilliant sliced approach shot and put a brilliant volley the other way off a dipping ball, a thorough examination of his technique which he passed as he missed a few already off similar situations.

After one hour and twenty minutes the match was level with Sampras immediately creating a 0:40 opportunity to break back which Edberg escaped.  I recall the Australian commentator and ex player Fred Stolle once saying that in mens tennis, the odds of holding serve from 0:40 down are still sixty to forty in favour of the server, and it happened twice in this match in the space of 30 minutes by both players.

The third set again had some remarkable tennis full of interesting rallies and incredible athleticism, especially from Edberg who made some incredible cut off volleys from some very hard hit Sampras shots, Sampras even hit a few lob winners to try to get Edberg off the net. The Swedish fans supporting Edberg were also loud, chanting every time he won a point forcing a woman in the crowd to shout out “shut up already!” Sampras persisted in staying back on his serve, allowing Edberg to attack him as soon as the ball dropped relatively short. Sampras was not used to that as those groundstrokes would have been deep enough against any other opponent in the world at that stage.  With clear physical fatigue setting in from the night before, Sampras broke serve at 4:5 to serve for the set and go two sets to one up, but unusually, Sampras got broken back and eventually the set went to a tie break. The tiebreak included some dramatic points and both men were extremely tense, both hitting double faults at bad moments.  Sampras saved the first set point with a crosscourt backhand passing shot that dipped so low on Edberg it turned him inside out and he landed straight into the net, Edberg secured the set after Sampras couldn’t hit the backhand winner off a volley approach. The third set lasting one hour. 

The fourth set was absolutely no contest. Sampras was completely disheartened after throwing away the third set and packed it in, so to speak with Edberg running to a 4:0 lead in less than fifteen minutes.  Sampras did save two break points at the start of the fourth set but on the third served a double fault, probably knowing Edberg would attack him and served too deep.  Therefore, what looked like would become one of the great US Open finals fizzled out with Edberg taking the fourth set 6:2 in double quick time. 

This match was a triumph for Edberg who won a tournament he looked like he had no right to win, especially considering the semifinal lasted 5 hrs plus. Also, it appeared this tournament took its toll because Edberg was never the same player at grand slam level again; he did reach the Australian Open final in 1993 but lost to Jim Courier, whom he had a great rivalry with.  However, this match was clearly hampered by two players who were not one hundred percent physically and probably cost us of a truly great final.  The poor scheduling by the US Open organisers played a part in that, and as in previous years, there were clear complaints and condemnation by the players about that system they operated in. It is still incredible to think this didn’t change until 2008 when the final had to be held on the third Monday.

Sampras always sited that this match as the one that made him hate to lose future grand slam finals as he felt he threw this match away. However, I also think the tactics Edberg employed forced Sampras to rethink his own tactics in later years, especially under Paul Annacone. Sampras turned from an almost counterpuncher in this match into the most aggressive of punchers by the end of his career, employing the chip charge tactic and floating the backhand much higher over the net, which gave him more time to get to net.  It didn’t happen overnight though, more like nine years, it wasn’t until 2000 and 2001 we saw the Edberg tactics employed by Sampras exclusively on hardcourts. I think Edberg was much better suited to employing those tactics, Sampras’ strengths were the serve and big groundstrokes and athleticism around the net, Edberg was more smooth and natural as it was his main staple to success.

Flashback to 2009 US Open 4th round

We continue to look at some of the interesting matches that have taken place over the years during the North American hardcourt season. This week we take a look at the 2009 US Open 4th round between Kim Clijsters and Venus Williams.

The talk going into this match mainly centred on Kim Clijsters, a player who retired two years earlier, got married, had a child and then returned to the tour in summer of 2009 at the grand old age of 26. Let’s just say times were a little different in the 1990s and noughties when it was normal for players to retire in their mid to late 20s. Kim received wildcards to the Canadian Open, Cincinnati and the US Open and was an extremely dangerous player who favoured hardcourts above all other surfaces.

Meanwhile, Venus Williams went into the match as slight favourite, but by no means clear favourite considering Kim Clijsters’ pedigree in the game. In fact, the last time Kim played the US Open, she won it in 2005, defeating Venus in three sets in the quarterfinal along the way; however Clijsters didn’t defend the title in 2006 due to injury. Rather surprisingly, Venus had not won the US Open since 2001 at that stage, and still has not won the US Open since then. Surprising because Venus has all of the attributes to win the US Open but then again, the opposition in the 2000s was very high. For instance, players of the calibre of Jennifer Capriati and Amelie Mauresmo never got to play in a US Open final and Lindsay Davenport didn’t reach any final after the year 2000 when she lost to Venus.  Both players were extremely athletic so it would come down to who made the least errors throughout the course of the match and who would hold their nerve when the situation got tight.

The match was scheduled third on the middle Sunday on Arthur Ashe court, meaning it got top billing. I knew it was going to be fun but I wasn’t prepared for what I was about to witness, neither were 22,000 people in Arthur Ashe or millions watching on television around the world.  The match started with Venus serving and losing her serve straight away!  Not a huge problem you would think, womens tennis is different to mens and holding serve is not a given. Venus did save three break points but wasn’t able to win the game. Clijsters held serve comfortably to put the pressure back on Venus, who duly got broken again to go 3:0 down right at the start. To be fair, both players looked a bit edgy as you would expect when the best play each other, not quite knowing what to expect.  Before you knew it, Venus was 5:0 down after twenty minutes with Clijsters serving for the set. Clijsters obliged despite a slight wobble and completed the “bagel” as they say in New York.  Venus made too many errors and Clijsters capitalised extremely well, punishing short balls and the fast flat hitting of Venus suited her on the hardcourts, by far Clijsters’ best surface.

This meant Venus would start the second set on her serve, this time holding to 30, to big cheers from the New York crowd. However, it was Clijsters’ turn to lose concentration and after two bad points and a double fault, found herself 2:0 down. One minute later it was 3:0, all of a sudden Venus went from serving around 110mph (178kph) to 119, 120 and 121mph (192kph) all in a row to go 3:0 up. Venus wasn’t hanging around to see if Clijsters would get nervous or make mistakes, she was taking the game to her.  Clijsters meanwhile wasn’t helping herself because she started backing off her shots, a perennial problem many baseliners have, instead of taking on the midcourt ball and coming in to net; Clijsters would hit the shot and back off to the baseline, giving Venus the initiative to attack her instead.

By this stage Clijsters completely lost her rhythm, getting broken again and finding herself 5:0 down amazingly. Clijsters served to stay in the set and wasn’t able to do it, allowing Venus to take the set 6:0.  Needless to say this is not something I remember seeing at the time, and I don’t recall seeing such a score line since. It was very exciting and a little bizarre at the same time!  In fact, I remember back in 2009 thinking I would love to see a 6:0 final set, regardless of who would take it, it would be something historical :0 The crowd knew they were witnessing something special.

Venus started off a set for the third time in a row and held serve to 30, fending off a surge from Clijsters who knew she had to respond. The stats showed that Clijsters got 82% of her first serves in during the second set and yet wasn’t able to win a game, Venus became much more aggressive on return of serve.  Clijsters did hold and so for the first time in the match, both players held at the same time!  This was not to last long as after one too many punishing forehands by Clijsters, Venus found herself break point down and double faulted to immediately hand the initiative back to Clijsters.

Now, perhaps I would have expected an immediate break back considering what went on before but Clijsters showed her experience despite lack of match practice to go 3:1 up and put the pressure on Venus, who attempted to get to net but was missing a lot of backhand volleys which was not helping her confidence.  Having said that, there were some great rallies, both players showing their incredible defence and athleticism around the court, both hitting hard and fast, taking advantage of the light Wilson tennis balls which the women players use at the US Open. Ex American player Chanda Rubin once said she preferred and was sure many women players would probably prefer to use the heavier duty tennis ball which the men get allocated at the US Open because you can generate more topspin, the lighter balls can fly off the racquet especially if the wind is slightly swirling around as it so often did in New York.

The third set was the best sequence of the match with both players giving everything but despite a few wobbles, Clijsters would prevail. There was one amusing moment where she double faulted at 4: 3, 30:30 and started muttering to herself, it’s always fun to watch players mutter to themselves in a grumpy fashion, but her friends and family in her box were off their feet giving encouragement. Venus held which forced Clijsters to serve for the match, which Clijsters did with a wonderful serve to the backhand on her first match point after saving two more break points ( what would we expect?). The great thing about winning a big match at the US Open is that the crowd is so loud at the climax it is riveting to witness. As always Venus was very gracious in defeat but it was Clijsters’ day.  As commentator Chris Bowers said “that was tennis theatre at its best”.

The stats show that Clijsters got 68% of her first serves in, hit only 14 winners and made 27 unforced errors and won 8 of 12 net points.  Meanwhile Venus got 56% of her first serves in, hit 20 winners, made 24 unforced errors and won 14 of 19 points at net.  I think these stats show why Kim Clijsters was such a great hardcourt player; she was just a bit more solid at the right moments than Venus. On surfaces like grass or indoor hardcourts it would be much tougher to win against Venus with those stats but on outdoor hardcourts you can win with great defence and stepping it up at the right moment, which so many players do today in both the mens and womens game.  The reason being that you can play a consistent game on hardcourts whereas on grass or clay, you have to adapt more, perhaps change your grip for certain shots and be more proactive. Clijsters had a weakness with her two hand backhand above her shoulder but Venus could not exploit that because she hit hard and flat more often than not. Clijsters struggled with the kicker serve to her backhand and also struggled against players like Mauresmo who was able to hit the low slice making her hit up then the high loopy topspin backhand which Clijsters didn’t like. However, most women were not able to do that because they played into Clijsters’ hands by hitting fast and flat.

Clijsters would go on to win her second US Open title beating Wozniacki in the final. Clijsters would then defend her title in 2010 defeating Vera Zvonareva in the final, meaning she would win the title three straight times she played it including 2005. Clijsters would go on to defeat Li Na in the 2011 Australian Open to establish herself as one of the great hardcourt players of the open era. All of her grand slam titles came on hardcourt.

Flashback to 1991 US Open semifinal

We’ve come to that time of year again which I consider to be one of the most interesting periods on the tennis calendar. The hardcourt season is well underway with big tournaments taking place in Canada this week with Cincinnati and the US Open to come.  A perfect opportunity to flashback to some matches that have taken place in the North America summer over the decades.

The first match I will look at is the 1991 US Open semifinal between Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg. A highly anticipated matchup in a very interesting US Open, where a 39 year old Jimmy Connors made it all the way to the semifinal to play Jim Courier.  Despite the six year age difference, Edberg and Lendl had already played each other on twenty three occasions previously with Lendl taking a 13 to 10 lead into the semifinal.  At that stage, many of the matches took place at grand slam level, including the 1990 Australian Open final, 1985 & 1991 Australian Open semifinals, 1990 Wimbledon semifinal and a previous meeting at the 1986 US Open which Lendl won in straight sets. Lendl won the Australian Open final in 1990 after Edberg defaulted in the third set with a stomach injury.

The match was billed as having the classic contrast in style, something that has completely gone out of the window in modern tennis which is bizarre but that is the way it currently is. Lendl was the ultimate baseline player and Edberg the ultimate serve and volleyer. Ivan Lendl more or less made the inside out forehand the most important shot in tennis at the time, camping on his backhand corner and hitting forehand after forehand to his opponents backhand until he got a mistake out of it.  Edberg on the other hand had probably the best one hand backhand in the game during this period. Edberg rarely served over 180kph (110mph consistently). In fact, I would say Edberg barely served over 170kph); very occasionally he would hit a “screamer” around 185kph (115mph).  However, this is what made Edberg the best serve volleyer in the business, his slower kick serve allowed him to get to net a lot quicker and he had by far the best technique on the volley and probably the best reflexes as well, especially against a player like Lendl who could potentially rip a hole through his opponent’s racquet when they were at net. Both players were always willing to use the full width of the court.

Lendl, wearing the most incredible hat, started the match quite slowly, saving two break points in the very first service game. An interesting dynamic here because the match started at 11am. This was during the crazy period of US Open history where two mens semifinals and the womens final all took place on the same day which was called “Super Saturday”. The second mens semifinal would often finish anytime around midnight, with the finalist having to come out the next day at 4pm to play the final. This practice ended in the year 2000 when the womens final was switched to a night match on Saturday. The two mens semifinals on a Saturday with the final on Sunday only ended in 2008 after the consistently bad stormy weather over New York was occurring year after year, forcing the finals into Monday afternoons from 2008 to 2014. 

Naturally, over the thirty plus years where the semifinals took place on the Saturday with the final on Sunday, it was virtually impossible for a player over 30 years of age to win the US Open. Now we are used to seeing players over 30 winning grand slam tournaments. However, whilst the experts will tell us it is down to conditioning, diet and increased professionalism, it cannot be underestimated the difference it makes to have a day off at the US Open on a surface as brutal as hardcourts in often humid weather. Not just in New York though, the Australian Open final took place every year in the hot baking sun and only switched to a night time match in 2005. These are huge advantages to prolong the careers of top players which previous generations didn’t get.

Lendl got broken, rather easily in the third game, in fact and barely looking like he was making an effort, which left the commentators baffled. It also left me baffled as he was just shuffling along the baseline, allowing Edberg to attack him at will, whenever he wanted. It could be the 11am start was too early for a 31 year old to warm up properly. Despite that, Lendl broke back immediately with good passing shots but was then broken again to allow Edberg to take a 5-3 lead, Edberg duly taking the first set 6-3 in double quick time.

Whilst watching the match I just couldn’t understand what Lendl was doing or trying to accomplish; he seemed to have no game plan whatsoever.  Commentators John Barrett and Frew McMillan started speculating as to what could be going on, especially as they both predicted Lendl would win the match so probably started worrying they would look foolish.  What they both agreed on was that Lendl was not playing aggressively enough; he was not going to net at all. On his own service games he needed to get the big serve in and then hit the big approach shot and attack the net, which is classic hard court tennis. Instead Lendl was content to hit a lot of slice backhands and as soon the ball dropped remotely short, Edberg sliced the ball and attacked the net, or adopted the John McEnroe approach of “bunting” the ball on the half volley and approaching the net, especially on the forehand where his old fashioned continental grip worked well for that type of play, just like it did for McEnroe who also used a continental grip on the forehand. In fact, during this era they were probably the only two players who still used a continental grip on the forehand. Today, Richard Gasquet is the player that plays his forehand the closest to a continental grip, although some can’t accept anyone today would use that type of grip and try to call it a “western” grip.

The second set started better for Lendl, he seemed to come out with more purpose, holding his serve well and hitting better approach shots and coming in to put the pressure on Edberg. Edberg responded in kind but before long it was back to the same pattern with Lendl completely going back into his shell, allowing Edberg to do what he wanted. The camera man by this stage was zooming into the Lendl box to see their reaction. Coach Tony Roche had his head buried in his cap, wearing shades not knowing where to look, and Lendl’s wife Samantha was also looking thoroughly fed up and annoyed at her husband’s lack of vitality.  Edberg ran away with the second set with consummate ease taking a 5:1 lead before Lendl broke back to love when Edberg served for the second set. Edberg had a second opportunity and took it, there was to be no repeat of the 1991 Australian Open semifinal when Edberg screamed “chicken!” to himself when he wasn’t taking his opportunities against Lendl that day.

By this stage the commentators and studio panel were at a loss to explain Lendl’s tactics or lack of it. By the end of the second set Lendl had only been to net eight times. Again, the consensus was that Lendl must get to net, either off the occasional serve volley play or off a big serve then approach off a short reply. In the third set, Lendl was decisively broken in the seventh game and it looked all set to end rather quickly. However, there was one moment of magic from Lendl earlier on, when he hit the most audacious behind his back shot and won the point with it, much to Edberg’s dismay, this got sustained applause from the crowd but wasn’t enough to get Lendl out of his funk. To top it off, the New Yorkers were shouting at Lendl to “wake up!” Perhaps it really was the early morning start that was too much for him. 

Lendl served to stay in the match at 4:5, only to see Edberg rub it in by pulling off the exact same shot Lendl did earlier on in the set, and win the point as well!  This prompted Lendl to shot out “I guess anybody can hit that shot” much to the amusement of everyone in the stadium and those watching on television.

However, there was to be no mercy for Lendl as Edberg served out the match with a lovely ace down the middle to win 6:3 6:3 6:4 in two hours and eight minutes.  The length of this match should not be underestimated because as in today’s era, those top guys were accustomed to playing each other in matches north of four hours in length; an indication of how easy it was for Edberg to win this match. Frew McMillan summed it up best when he said he would be intrigued by the post mortem between Lendl and his camp on how the match played out.

By winning this match and getting to the final, Edberg regained the position as the number 1 player in the world. Jim Courier went on to beat Jimmy Connors in the second semifinal and in the final, Edberg produced the best match of his career to beat Jim Courier and win the US Open for the first time.  Edberg would win the head to head with Ivan lendl 14-13 overall.

For the record, the middle match of “Super Saturday” saw Monica Seles defeat Martina Navratilova in straight sets to win the US Open for the first time. 

Flashback to 1996 ATP Championships

There has been a touch of nostalgia surrounding the recent Nitto ATP Finals in London. It was announced before the draw took place that the groups would be named after Pete Sampras and Boris Becker in honour of the great matches they played in the ATP Championships, not only against each other but their consistent success at the tournament. Between 1990 and 1999 they appeared in eight of the ten finals winning seven and played each other in the 1994 and 1996 finals.  Sampras wrote a piece on the ATP website reminiscing about that 1996 final and Sky Sports put highlights of the match on their website. The perfect situation for one of my flashbacks as this is considered the greatest ever indoor match.

The 1996 edition of the ATP Championships is significant. It was the first of four years the tournament would be played in Hanover, Germany; moving from Frankfurt where it was held at the Festhalle. The venue was built for Expo 2000 which was a world trade fair that would be held between June and October 2000.  1996 was also the last year the tournament would be played on indoor carpet, from 1997 the surface moved to indoor hardcourt; this was a change that was unanimously voted for by the players. There is always the perception that surfaces magically slowed down in the 2000s after the millennium but this was an ongoing process from the mid 1990s onwards. Becker got incredible home support so it was always difficult for his opponents as he was one of the best indoor players in the world.

The players qualified for this event were:

1.  Pete Sampras 
2.  Michael Chang 
3.  Yevgeny Kafelnikov
4.  Goran Ivanišević 
5.  Thomas Muster 
6.  Boris Becker 
7.  Andre Agassi 
8.  Richard Krajicek 
9.  Thomas Enqvist (alternate)

As always with indoor tournaments, the surface favours attacking players but not necessarily, as Agassi won the event in 1990 and was losing finalist in 1999 and 2000. Jim Courier was finalist in 1991 and 1992, whilst Chang lost to Becker in the previous final in 1995 after beating Sampras in the semifinal.  It was a surface (taraflex) that gave everyone an opportunity to play good on it.

In the semifinals, Becker beat Krajicek in three very tight sets. Krajicek won the first set tiebreak, Becker responded taking the second set tiebreak and broke quite late on to take the third set 6:3. The second semifinal had a very similar pattern between Sampras and Ivanisevic. Ivanisevic took the first set tiebreak; Sampras responded taking the second set tiebreak and made a breakthrough late on to take the third set 7:5.  With four big servers, you would expect lots of tiebreaks.

However, the Germans and the sports world in general got the final they wanted, the two best indoor players who won the last two ATP championships, Sampras v Becker was a rivalry that produced some of the best tennis of that era and they contested many finals between each other on all surfaces; hardcourts, grass, clay and indoor carpet. What marked this rivalry out from the others was the fact that both players were comfortable from the baseline.  For instance, had Ivanisevic played Krajicek in the final, there would have been minimal to no rallies whatsoever; both Sampras and Becker were ultimate examples of all court players.  Becker also went into this match having won their previous two meetings, in the round robin of the championships and the final in Stuttgart a month before; the first time Becker beat Sampras in a final. What was interesting about that final was that it was a five set battle with no tiebreaks and quite a lot of breaks of serves, the first set alone had three breaks; the surface was described beforehand as a deliberately slower indoor carpet surface.

The venue was packed and you could feel the buzz well before the first ball was struck, and the way the match began clearly indicated it would be a great one as Becker hit four aces in a row in the first game!  I haven’t seen anyone start a match with four aces before and I haven’t seen it since. This might have surprised Sampras because he got broken quite early on at 2:1 and was under immediate pressure, Sampras was not a big fan of having to deal with the raucous German crowd but he dealt with it before, knowing that at the end of the day they appreciated good tennis and were fans of his; but this was Boris! Plus with Sampras being the top dog, they were like the 12th man on the pitch for Becker.  The great and the good were also in attendance, including then Formula 1 Chief Bernie Ecclestone, pop icons Seal and Lionel Ritchie, members of the rock group Scorpions among others. Becker served for the set and finished it with a rally which epitomised their tennis. A rally where both players stretched each other out on the court, I always liken a rally like this to noughts and crosses, figuring out the puzzle and delivering the killer strike. Sampras stretched Becker out with his famed cross court forehand, Becker responded with a down the line forehand, Sampras then hit a cross court backhand to Becker’s backhand. Becker then saved his best for last with a brilliant off backhand down the line, completely wrong footing Sampras.

The second set tempo was pretty high with Sampras trying his best to respond, in the sixth game Sampras made two break points but was snuffed out by great serving from Becker who won four points in a row from 15:40. In fact Becker was serving at his best, consistently hitting up to 128mph (205kph) but with a lot of spin so very difficult to deal with. There were to be no breaks so this set went to a tiebreak which Sampras took after just one mini break when Sampras hit a great down the line forehand passing shot, Sampras closed out the set with a volley into the open court and then let out a big roar.

The third set also went to a tiebreak, but not before a few dramas along the way, where Sampras had to fight back from 0:30 in the fourth game and save two break points in the sixth game.  However, Sampras served his way out of trouble and the shot making was still of the highest order, with some excellent rallies where both guys were probing the other, trying to create angles or generate short balls which they could use to attack the net and use their touch and athleticism to hit cut off volleys.  The third set tiebreak was very cagey with three mini breaks, which led to Becker double faulting at a critical moment, leaving Sampras to serve out the set with an ace out wide and a backhand passing shot off a Becker chip charge.

Sampras by now would have figured he had control of the match but would have recalled he was two sets to one up in the Stuttgart final and lost. After another intense twelve game battle we were to have a third successive tiebreak. This was the best tiebreak of the lot and with, Sampras reaching match point on his serve at 6:5, you would assume that would have been curtains for Becker but Sampras played a very tentative point and pulled his backhand just wide on the sixth shot... Becker then set up set point with a stunning return of serve then forehand the other way with Sampras out of position, Sampras saved that with a forehand return which was too good for Becker. At 10:10, Becker produced a brilliant backhand cross court drive passing shot which seemed to go at 100mph but Sampras again responded with an equally stunning forehand crosscourt passing shot after a fine rally. After a cluster of match points for one and set points for the other, Sampras messed up his volley which allowed Becker to take the tiebreak 13:11 and take the match to a fifth set, which sent the crowd into raucous raptures.

It was fitting such a high quality final would go to a fifth set.  Both guys were feeling the pressure, each having to get out of love 30 situations early on the fifth set and then after a long 9th game which had four deuces, Sampras got the decisive breakthrough with a backhand down the line passing shot. At 40:15 in the tenth game, Becker saved yet another match point with a stinging crosscourt backhand. The final point of the match summed up the contest, a 24 shot rally where both guys tried to stretch and manoeuvre each other out of position, Becker finally hitting his down the line backhand into the net.  The best thing about it was the embrace at the net and crowd reaction, both players knew they were involved in something special which lasted just over 4 hours. 

I think Sampras summed it up nicely when the ZDF interviewer suggested Sampras and Becker should play each other more often, to which Sampras replied “maybe not in Germany”. Tongue in cheek as he previously acknowledged the fairness of the German fans even though they were raucous and chanting Becker’s name at vital periods.

I would have preferred to use the statistics from the ZDF broadcast but I didn't capture it therefore provide the stats from the ATP website. Sampras served at 64% first serves, and won 79% of those deliveries. Sampras won 58% of his 2nd serves and hit 15 aces which is very good. Sampras also won 41% of returns on Becker’s 2nd serve converting one of five break point opportunities. Meanwhile, Becker served 59% first serves and won 90% of those points. Becker hit double the aces at 30 and won 59% of his 2nd serve points. Becker won 42% of 2nd serve return points and converted one of five break point opportunities. All in all a very high quality match reflected in the statistics.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/1996/605/MS001/match-stats

Sampras and Becker played each other on nineteen occasions over an eight year period. Six of those matches were finals including Italian Open, Wimbledon, Stuttgart (Masters) and World Championships. The age difference between them was three years and eight months; which is no real difference at all as for instance there was an eight year difference between Lendl and Becker, and today Federer has a six year age difference on Murray and Djokovic. Becker is famously quoted about Sampras "Sometimes I think he forgot the difference between his first serve and his second serve."

The ATP Next Gen Championships Conundrum

2017 has proved a very interesting year for mens tennis.  We have seen a revival of two of the games greats in Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal

This came almost out of the blue and quite unexpected as the clock was turned back; because not since 2010 has Roger and Rafa won all of the grand slam tournaments in a single season and occupied the top two positions in world tennis. Let us consider that the top two players are 31 and 36 years old respectively.

This is ironic as this is the first year the “Next Gen” ATP championships take place in Milan in early November. A tournament devised by the ATP who recognises that there is a problem in mens tennis. That problem being there seems to be no new stars coming through and that has to be addressed in some way.  Many of the changes that have been implemented by the ATP over the last 15 to 20 years have allowed those at the top to stay at the top even longer than in previous generations, which has left a vacuum and dearth of players coming through.  Changes such as the slowing down of hardcourts and grass courts, the removal of indoor carpet from the circuit, the increase in the seeding system and the inflation of ranking points for Masters and Grand slam victories meant that it has become very difficult for young players to penetrate the top positions especially as the changes have directly contributed to a convergence in style of play.  The media have focused so much on the “Big Four” that the casual tennis fan and general public have no idea who the younger players are or indeed the players just below the top level. So, who qualifies to participate in the Next Gen championships?

• ·         The best 7 singles players on the ATP tour age 21 and under by stint of ranking.
• ·         One space reserved for a wildcard pick

However it doesn’t stop there, the ATP sees this as an ideal opportunity to use the tournament to trial some potential changes to the tour in future years. 

• ·     Matches will be best of five sets
• ·     Sets will be first to four games
• ·     Tiebreak at 3:3
• ·      No ad scoring (receivers choice)
• ·      No Lets
• ·      A shot clock to ensure 25 second rule
• ·      One medical timeout per match
• ·      Coaches will be able to talk to players
• ·      There will be no Line Judges, Hawkeye technology to call lines

The players qualified for the inaugural tournament are:

Andrey Rublev, Karen Khachanov, Dennis Shapovalov, Jared Donaldson, Borna Coric, Hyeon Chung, Damil Medvedev and wildcard is Gianluigi Quinzi. 

Alexander Zverev qualified for the ATP World Tour finals in London so is the only young player competing and winning tournaments at the highest level.

The first inclination is that this tournament appears to be a gimmick; and the criticism of the draw in Milan over the weekend doesn’t help matters at all.  However, rather interestingly and surprisingly, the tournament is using these players as guinea pigs to trial changes that we might see in future years. I suppose using young players in this exercise is the best way to go about it as younger minds are usually open to changes or trying things out. Having said that, such potentially profound changes usually take place in trials at much lower levels, away from public view in most sports.

The key question is why are the ATP doing this?  As an indication of how things have changed, at the age of 21, Roger Federer was being openly questioned as to whether he had what it takes to be a champion. Similarly, when Andre Agassi won Wimbledon at the age of 22 he was almost written off at that stage as an underachiever. Today, players aged 25 are considered “young”. There have been campaigns before to promote young talent to the public such as the “New Balls” campaign in 2001 to promote Safin, Hewitt, Federer, Roddick, Haas and Kuerten.  The last player under the age of 21 to win a major tournament was Novak Djokovic when he won the Australian Open in 2008.

Why is it deemed necessary for young players to have their own tournament?  That’s why we have junior tennis for precisely that reason. I am not sure how this tournament will help these guys take on the big players on the tour.  The ATP should focus on ways to make the tour more interesting and diverse and encourage different styles of play.  The only way to achieve that is make the surfaces different speeds for a few select tournaments; and as ex-champion Thomas Muster pointed out, sanction a lighter ball on the slower surfaces which will allow winners to be hit more readily and not reward defence at all times.

We will watch this week’s events with interest to see who comes out as the winner. The big question will be whether the inaugural winner of this event will take confidence into Masters and grand slam tournaments in 2018, which is what it should be all about.  Also, the other question has to be how many of these ideas are the ATP intending to introduce to the tour in the next two to three seasons?  Right now there is a big difference between the grand slam tournaments run by the ITF and ATP tournaments. Bar the US Open the majors do not have no ad scoring for doubles and no champions’ tiebreak.  

This is a reminder that the ATP and WTA must never be allowed to usurp the ITF and gain control of the grand slam tournaments.

Flashback to 2004 US Open Semifinal

In my series of US Open matches flashbacks, we go to 2004 this time and take a closer look at the semifinal between Elena Dementieva and Jennifer Capriati.

2004 was the year the Russians dominated the grand slam scene, winning three of the four major tournaments at the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Just one year before, the Belgians dominated with Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters contesting the French, US Open and 2004 Australian Open finals. Therefore in the space of 12 months, the Belgians and Russians took over completely from the Americans. Prior to mid-2003, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Venus and Serena Williams won all of the majors from the turn of the millennium bar Mary Pierce who won the 2000 French Open final.

In 2004, the semifinals were a battle between the Americans and the Russians; surprisingly the Russians came out on top. Surprising because Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capriati were both multi grand slam champions and former number 1 players; playing on their home turf. The one area where the Russians had the edge was athleticism around the court. The first semifinal between Lindsay Davenport and Svetlana Kuznetsova was a three set battle and a really fast match, Davenport took the first set but Kuznetsova at the age of 19 came back and won the next two sets surprisingly comfortably to reach her first final. The second semifinal was bound to provide fireworks as Jennifer was always a crowd favourite and Elena was one of the most exciting and infuriating players on the tour at this stage. Jennifer went into this match having lost three previous semifinals at the Open. In 1991 Jennifer lost to Monica Seles, ten years later in 2001 to Venus Williams and 2003 to Justine Henin, two of defeats ending with third set tiebreaks against Seles and Henin. However, on this occasion Jennifer was bound to like her chances with a head to head lead of 3:0 going into the match.

The match began with Elena serving first and holding her serve very easily. That would be an unusual occurrence because by this stage of her career Elena had the most bizarre technical deficiencies I have ever seen from a professional tennis player. On both courts Elena threw the ball so far to the right she was literally flinging herself to serve on each occasion, there was virtually no backhand or body serve on either court.  The first time I saw Elena play was in 2000 and then I saw her play live in Wimbledon in 2002 against Henin, there was no clue that Elena would end up with such serving issues.

In contrast, Jennifer started badly and was three points down in her first service game and subsequently broken to love.  Fifteen minutes later, Jennifer was completely out of the set with a washout. Elena made only three unforced errors and hit winner after winner, and went to net on a number of occasions. In contrast, Jennifer was backing off, not creating any angles and instead of taking advantage of the few mid court balls that came her way, backed off to the baseline instead of following into net to put the pressure on Elena. The ball was doing some funny things so perhaps the wind was swirling around the court; there was a lot of rain and very windy conditions that year.  

Jennifer knew she needed to improve in the 2nd set if she wanted to make it a match, she was not showing any real frustration thus not panicking.  Jennifer held her first service game to love which got a huge cheer from the crowd; at 1:2 Jennifer finally got her first break as Elena started to lose control of her shots which were now going out instead of going in for clean winners.  Jennifer broke again at 4:2 and was able to serve out the set. By this stage Elena’s game was all over the place with a combination of missed easy smashes and wild errors, Elena’s unforced error count went up to 18 in the 2nd set, which will give an indication of how out of control her game became.

With a score of 6:0 2:6, this set things up nicely for the deciding set with Jennifer back in the match, anything was possible but what we got was one of the craziest sets ever seen on a tennis court.  Jennifer got the first jump in the 3rd set converting on her second opportunity, hitting a lovely forehand into the corner on Elena’s forehand wing.  Unfortunately for Jennifer, she got broken back immediately with play that was a little too passive and so we went, another break for Jennifer to 2:1 then broken back again for 2:2!  By now, Elena’s amateurish serve was really getting on Jennifer’s nerves; every serve was to the forehand on both courts with not a single serve to the backhand first or second. Rather amusingly, one serve was called a let by the Umpire who then called “2nd serve” but corrected herself and called “1st serve” to giggles from the crowd, the serve was so slow it was perfectly understandable the Umpire wasn’t concentrating. Jennifer tried everything, big returns, hit and charge the net, very frustrating to deal with such a bad delivery over and over again. And yet, if that’s not bad enough, Elena was probably the best player in the world at moving around the baseline and fighting because of her poor serve, so there was a lot for Jennifer to deal with.

Jennifer did find a way to break again at 3:3 but lost her serve again!  Elena then got to 5:4 and Jennifer served to stay in the match, which she did with relative ease!  Maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise because the match was absolutely crazy with a completely energised New York crowd; Jennifer was always one of those players who got the crowd going with her emotions. Jennifer wasn’t done though and after yet another incredibly attritional game with fabulous long rallies, Jennifer was able to break again and serve for the match!  But guess what? Yep, you guessed it Jennifer couldn’t hold.  In fact there were two of the most incredible points at 15 all and 15:30 where each time Jennifer literally smashed the ball straight at Elena at the net and she won both the points! One of the shots could have put her in hospital if she wasn’t quick enough to get out of the way and hit the volley whilst screaming at the same time, no doubt fearing a potential injury.  That was enough to get into Jennifer’s head and she doubled faulted on the second breakpoint and we were into a tiebreak. 

As we know, the US Open is the only major which has a deciding set tiebreak. In some ways  it is great and brings the match to a climax but in many ways it is not great at all as it robs the crowd of a clear winner, and we should realise the tiebreak is often a lottery. Everything was going fine but at 3:2 Jennifer hit a forehand wide then on the next point Elena hit a clean forehand winning return. So that should have been that at 5:2 but Elena lost the next two points on her serve so we were back at 5:4.  Jennifer played a good point but didn’t hit the volley out of Elena’s reach who hit a forehand down the line to set up match point. Next point match was over after Elena hit an inside out backhand winner down the line out of Jennifer’s reach.  A slightly sad ending but great for Elena who didn’t really celebrate, maybe she was drained after such a long battle, the third set was considerably longer than the first two put together.

The statistics for this match are incredible as you can see.  Jennifer only hit 15 winners whilst Elena hit 44, three times more winners. Elena also went to 44 times and won 30 points which is brilliant statistic. In a three set match, a serve volleyer would got to net around 40 to 50 times so frankly that is quite astonishing that a baseline player went to net so often; Elena’s momentum often took her forward and a fast court suited her style.  Jennifer on the other hand went to net 23 times and won 15 points which isn’t bad.  What makes this match so bizarre is that Jennifer had all the chances in the 3rd set to win the match outright but the statistics clearly demonstrate Elena was the one making the play and going for outright winners and forcing the issue at the net.  So, who really deserved to win this great match? 

On analysing the match, my feeling was Jennifer was a bit too passive throughout and was not prepared to hit into the corners often enough to make Elena stretch, that will explain two things, the first being the low winners count and the second being the fact that every time she broke in the third set, she was broken back immediately as she became too cautious with a lead.  In 2005 I read the wonderful book by Michael Mewshaw called “Ladies of the Court, Grace and Disgrace on the Womens Tour” covering the 1991 season. After Jennifer lost to Monica Seles, Jennifer went into the press conference and said she should have been “more aggressive”.  Michael Mewshaw wondered “how? Rip up the net post and brain Monica?” However, watching a rerun of this match I understand what Jennifer meant in 1991, she was not willing to take chances when it mattered, her play was too cautious. This is an area people who watch tennis get confused, as they often equate someone with hitting the ball very hard as being aggressive but of course there is a lot more to it than that, it comes down to tactics and courage and willingness to go for broke when the score is close, that makes the difference.  For whatever reason, in the semifinals of the US Open, Jennifer was not able to make it happen.

Jennifer’s career was virtually over soon after this tournament, I don’t recall her retiring officially but she suffered serious shoulder problems and she never really got back onto a tennis court.  Elena did play for a few years, she also had more opportunities to win a major tournament but her serve let her down at bad moments her entire career.  Having said that, she was an exciting player to watch and this was one of the matches of the noughties.