Flashback to 2006 Wimbledon final

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flashback to 1999 Wimbledon semifinal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previewing The 2019 WTA Season

With the 2019 season fast approaching, it is a good opportunity to have a look at some of the players of the WTA and their prospects for winning the big prizes on offer.

Simona Halep

In 2018 Simona finally achieved her lifelong ambition of winning a major title, and her favourite tournament to boot at the French Open where she played and lost two previous finals. Before her French Open triumph the year started well enough, although with crushing disappointment as Simona lost the Australian Open final to Caroline Wozniacki in the battle of the counterpunchers. The match was special because whoever won the match would become number 1 and win their first major title. Wozniacki came through after a nail biting third set but Simona would have been disappointed with the manner of defeat, having opportunities with breaks in the third set but ultimately losing it. I would suggest Simona caused her own problems by again backing off at crucial moments instead of going to net to put pressure on Wozniacki, that ultimately cost her the title and undoubtedly prompted more soul searching afterwards. 

However, Simona made up for that in the French Open semifinals and final where she was at her best against Garbine Muguruza and Sloane Stephens to take the title. In the final, Stephens was up a set and a break and then finally Simona found something deep which had been missing for so many years, she started hitting constantly to Sloane’s backhand and attacked the net, putting away volleys and overheads. Despite the fact we are in a baseline era, it cannot be underestimated how much difference finishing points at the net makes, this crushed Sloane’s spirit and in the end Simona cantered to the title.  Simona didn’t do too well at Wimbledon, no doubt an overhang from the French Open triumph, and lost in the first round of the US Open to Kai Kanepi. Simona missed the WTA Finals in Singapore but still finished number 1 with a very good 46 to 8 win loss ratio.

2019 should be an interesting year for Simona as she is set to start the year without a full time coach as Darren Cahill has joined the board of Tennis Australia. I have always questioned what Cahill brought to Simona’s game as I saw no real improvement in strategy over a four year period. That could be because Simona was either not a good listener or Darren was not offering enough. The French final was an indication that the right strategy and willingness to take risks could bear fruit. The question is simple, is Simona hungry enough to win more major titles? I would like to see Simona continue to improve and add elements to her game, as opposed to just hitting from the back of the court and not trying to make things happen. If Simona can do that, she has a good opportunity to at least defend her French Open title as she is the best clay court player in the world.  It would also be interesting to see who Simona eventually hires as coach. Carlos Rodriguez would be an excellent choice, if available.  He is a different character to Darren, more demanding which could be a great help if Simona is willing to listen.

Angelique Kerber

2018 was the year Angelique validated herself as a great player by winning her first Wimbledon title and third major title so far in her career. She has a three in four win rate in finals so that has to be very impressive, and she has beaten Serena in two finals on different surfaces.

After finishing 2017 ranked number 19, Angelique was in need of a good start to 2018; she started the year winning Sydney International and then reached the semifinal of the Australian Open and saved three match points against Halep before going down 9-7 in the third set. That would have been a disappointing result but still given her confidence to know she was back on the right path.  Angelique had a string of decent results, mainly making the quarterfinals and a couple of semifinal appearances in most of the tournaments she competed in, culminating in a semifinal appearance in Eastbourne and winning the Wimbledon title in July.  Angelique didn’t have a very good second half to the season with a string of early round losses during the hardcourt season including a third round loss to Dominika Cibulkova at the US Open. In the autumn period in Asia, Angelique lost early in Wuhan and Beijing, and was not able to get out of the group stage of the WTA Finals in Singapore.  

Despite finishing the year as number 2, Angelique would not be totally satisfied with how the last few months went, and like Halep is looking for a new coach to start the 2019 season after dispensing with Wim Fisette’s services in October. I’ve said this before but to me, Angelique plays very much like the veteran, peaks at certain times of the year where she can cause damage to the draw but is ultimately inconsistent over a twelve month period. However, what I don’t know is whether the idea of peaking at certain events is by design or accident.  Even when Angelique was world number 1 in 2016, she only won three tournaments and lost five further finals, so she is never going to be a dominant player. There is a simple reason for that, her serve is a liability but she has the best fast twitch fibres out of the women players on the tour and is able to use her athleticism around the court to great effect, I still think she could win much more if she was courageous enough to use her athletic ability around the net more often, she has one of the best smashes on the tour and has solid volley technique.

Therefore, if Angelique can grab one or two more big titles in 2019 including a major and one of the tier one tournaments, that would be a very good return for her.  To do that she will have to stay as injury free as possible and work on improving her serve and second serve in particular, using the left handedness to her advantage.  If she can find a coach that can persuade her to use her athleticism around the net more often, that would be a good start.  Angelique is already guaranteed to be in the hall of fame a few years from now so this part of her career is a bonus. One ambition for her will be to win the Federation Cup for Germany.

Naomi Osaka

Naomi finished 2018 as one of the best players in the world, winning Indian Wells, the US Open and finishing the year ranked 5, turning potential into reality at the age of 21. 

Naomi started off 2018 with a new coach in Sasha Bajin who previously worked with Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka and made an immediate impact reaching the 4th round of the Australian Open beating Elena Vesnina and Ashleigh Barty along the way before losing to Simona Halep. Naomi then won her first big title of her career in Indian Wells, defeating Halep, Karolina Pliskova and then Daria Kasatkina in the final. Naomi also had a relatively easy win against Serena Williams in Miami, which no doubt gave her confidence for when they next met in the US Open final six months later. After her success on the hardcourts, Naomi lost in the third round of the both the French Open and Wimbledon, and lost both opening matches in Canada & Cincinnati before her stunning great performance in Flushing Meadow when it all came together. I think the semifinal against Madison Keys showed why Naomi will become a great player. Madison is considered to have one of the best serves in tennis but Naomi out served her in this match, producing aces at crucial moments and saving an incredible thirteen break points in only two sets of play. It was also Naomi’s first victory over Madison in four attempts. Better was to come in the final where Naomi showed incredible composure in the most bizarre of atmospheres, a cauldron would be the best way to describe it and when Serena was docked a game deep in the second set, Serena served to stay in the match inviting Naomi to serve it out, she did that with aplomb, which was brilliant and shows the value of acquiring a quality serve at the highest level. If Naomi didn’t trust her serve, she would no doubt have been broken and then anything would have been possible result wise.

The pity about the final is the circumstances and Naomi’s reaction which was a little sad, but nothing will be taken away from her incredible win and we could be looking at a multiple grand slam champion over the next ten years.  Naomi did relatively well in the autumn season getting to the final of the Japan Open but lost all of her matches in the WTA championships in Singapore.

So, as we have seen in recent times with players who win their first major title, it will be interesting to see how Naomi reacts to the 2019 season; will there be a dip in form or will she still be a threat at the major tournaments?  It is of course difficult to gauge but one thing I will say is that she has the serve to ensure her game stays relevant as that will be the key, if she serves well, she will probably return serve as well and continue to improve. The demands on her time will be great as a major winner and she has already been named as a brand ambassador with Nissan with the GTR Naomi Osaka edition. 

Sloane Stephens

Sloane Stephens had a very good season in 2018, consolidating her status as a top ten player in the world after her breakthrough US Open win in 2017. Sloane reached the finals of the French Open and WTA championships as well as winning the Miami Open where she had a very convincing victory over Jelena Ostapenko in straight sets. Sloane also reached the final of the Canadian Open but lost to Simona Halep, who also beat her in the French Open final. So, the one thing you can say with certainty is Sloane would love to have won more than one title.

Up until this year, Sloane had won every final she contested in at WTA and Grand Slam level. And that run was going smoothly right up until the second set of the French Open final where things started to go wrong. As I mentioned earlier, Simona Halep finally took the mental shackles off her own game and started playing true aggressive tennis, that doesn’t mean hitting the ball as hard as possible, but hitting down the lines and attacking the net to put the pressure on Sloane, which ultimately worked with Sloane going down meekly 6-1 in the third set. Simona’s change in tactics seemed to have the effect of completely deflating Sloane, who all of a sudden had to deal with a raucous crowd and a player who was constantly attacking her weaker wing as often as possible.  It showed a mental frailty in Sloane I didn’t notice before.  And interestingly, the same thing happened against Elina Svitolina in the WTA final, where she again allowed a lead to slip through the persistence of her opponent. 

That will be something Sloane will have to work on in 2019, the mental side of her game if she wants to be successful. A successful year will now mean winning a major or tier 1 titles, that is standard she will be judged by going forward. Game wise, Sloane is well placed; she has great defensive skills and can switch to offense when required. I think she needs a better transition game to net to make life easier for herself, she can get bogged down in too many rallies. I also think Sloane can improve her serve further although at 5 ft. 7 (1 metre 70) that will be difficult. Sloane’s best chances to win a major will come on the slower high bouncing surfaces i.e. clay and hardcourts.

Karolina Pliskova

Karolina Pliskova is a player who has experienced life at the top of the rankings in 2017 when she was number 1 in the summer of that year. Karolina finished 2017 in the top five and had a steady year in 2018, finishing ranked number 8 in the world and on a personal level got married so a memorable one for her.

On the tennis front, I am sure Karolina would like to have done considerably better. In the majors her best result was at the quarterfinals in both Australia and US Open and at Wimbledon only made it to the fourth round where she lost to Kiki Bertens. In fact Karolina was the quarterfinals lady this year, losing six quarterfinals in various tournaments on the calendar. Karolina did win two tournaments in Stuttgart and Tokyo and also made the semifinal of the WTA Championships in Singapore where she lost to Sloane Stephens despite taking the first set 6:0.  Karolina helped the Czech Republic to regain the Federation cup, easily defeating the United States in Prague. 

Karolina also made some changes to her coaching staff throughout 2018, after parting company with David Kortyza, she has worked with both Rene Stubbs and ex Wimbledon champion Conchita Martinez, whom she will continue to work with in 2019. Karolina has a lot of talent but at this moment her career doesn’t seem to be going anywhere in particular other than just mid table mediocrity to borrow a football phrase. No doubt Karolina wants to get to the next level as quickly as possible and do much better at Wimbledon, considering she has one of the best serves in the world and is a very good returner.  However, to make that happen is much more difficult than wanting to do it. Karolina really needs to improve her movement, something we have talked about before. When she is stretched wide or forced to move forward she is in trouble. And interestingly, womens tennis has moved away from the power game to many smaller players who use guile to move you around and record wins that way. That includes Halep, Kerber, Svitolina and Stephens. Wozniacki is a tall player but plays like a counterpuncher anyway, not having the power to dominate her opponent. Therefore, Karolina needs to find a way to counteract this, whilst keeping her motivation levels up to put her name in the history books. It will be interesting to see if Conchita Martinez can help make the difference in 2019.

Other players to watch:

Caroline Wozniacki

Wozniacki realised her dream in 2018 by finally winning a major title at the Australian Open and reclaiming the number 1 position whilst doing so. Caroline did what Amelie Mauresmo and Jana Novotna achieved, which is winning the end of year championships and use that as a platform to win a major the following year. Caroline finished the year ranked number 3 and has really re-established her career, despite not having many good results after her Australian Open triumph.

On that basis it is difficult to predict what Caroline can do in 2019 so she is an unknown quantity. Does Caroline have the motivation to win another big title?  She is already in veteran stakes on the tour and has told the world of her arthritis issue, she has done a lot of running and has many miles on the clock.

Garbine Muguruza

Not sure what happened here, Garbine started the year ranked world number 1 and finished the year ranked 15 which is quite a drop!  Garbine won one tournament in Mexico and reached the semifinal of the French Open where she lost to Halep, a match I thought she was capable of winning beforehand.  After that Garbine lost early in both Wimbledon where she was defending champion and at the US Open. In fact, Garbine’s second round loss at Wimbledon as champion was the earliest since Steffi Graf in 1994 when she lost to Lori McNeil.  Garbine has also changed coach a few times, working with Conchita Martinez and her strange on off relationship with Sam Symk.  I said in 2015 that Muguruza reminds me of Marat Safin game wise and results wise. At her best, she looks like the best player in the world but capable of losing to anyone at any time, which is what exactly has happened in 2018.  It would be good for tennis if Garbine can stay healthy and find her motivation for the 2019 season.

Elina Svitolina

Elina made a big breakthrough towards the end of 2018, winning the biggest title of her career so far with the WTA championships in Singapore. Now, the question is can Elina do what Jana Novotna, Amelie Mauresmo and Caroline Wozniacki did, which is use the momentum from that win to a major title triumph the next season?  It is possible although up to now Elina has not really made a big impression at the majors. However, we are in an era where guile and tactical play is leading the way, so Elina must use this moment to get in amongst the trophies as similar counter punchers have done over the past twelve months.

Madison Keys

I recall in my preview of the 2016 season saying that Sloane Stephens was one of the players to look out for. That was despite the fact Sloane had injuries, was inconsistent and lower down in the rankings, but when a player has that kind of talent, it has to come through at some stage. I feel the same way about Madison Keys. However, despite the issues Madison might be experiencing with injuries, loss of form or whatever else is happening behind the scenes; Madison needs to find the motivation to consistently win tournaments and a major tournament in due course. She has one of the best serves on the tour but unfortunately still makes too many unforced errors. Is it the racquet? Or the wrong string tension? Whatever it is, it shouldn’t be happening at this stage of her career.

Serena Williams

This is a simple one. Serena is at a stage of her career where most of her contemporaries are long retired, many with children themselves. Is Serena really motivated to get back to the top and win major titles? The short answer is yes, but it is also up to her opponents to show her it is now their time at the top. It is going to be a difficult road for Serena but she has showed before she is capable of doing it, and winning a 24th major to tie Margaret Court.

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.