Previewing the 2020 WTA season

We have reached the end of 2019 and entered a brand new decade. A good opportunity to take our annual look at the WTA players who will be key protagonists in 2020.

Unlike in the men’s game, the transition to the new generation has already taken place. In 2019 three of the four major championships were won by players under the age of twenty four,  Naomi Osaka already has two major titles to her credit, whilst Ashleigh Barty finished the year as world number 1, French Open and WTA champion. Therefore, it is fair to say the WTA tour is in good hands going into the 2020s.

Ashleigh Barty

There is no better place to start our preview than with the current world number 1. Ashleigh (or Ash as she prefers to be called) had a superb 2019, initially reaching the final of Sydney international and the quarterfinal of the Australian Open in January. Ash followed that up with a big win at the Miami Open, then her major title at the French Open defeating Markéta Vondroušová in the final. Ash then went on to win the Birmingham Classic on grass before losing in the fourth round of Wimbledon to Alison Riske. Ash also reached the fourth round of the US Open but came back strong in October to win the WTA finals in Shenzen, defeating Elina Svitolina in straight sets.  For good measure, Ash also won the Italian Open doubles partnering with Victoria Azarenka and finished as runner up in the Federation Cup final, just falling short against France.  Ash also finished runner up with Victoria at the US Open doubles final losing to Aryna Sabalemka and Elise Mertens.

Ash is relatively short player, standing at 1 m 66 (5 ft. 6 inches). To get to number 1 at that height is a great achievement, and underlines the folly of predictions. At the turn of the millennium twenty years ago, pundits were predicting only female players over the height of 1 metre 80 plus would win major titles. That prediction was bucked pretty quickly by Justine Henin in the mid 2000s and now Ash Barty. Not only that, Ash also took time out of tennis to play big bash cricket in Australia in 2016!  Ash re-found her love for tennis and returned to the sport, which is clearly tennis’ gain. Ash has great variety, probably the most variety of the top players today, using the slice backhand more than any other player since Roberta Vinci and has very good volleying skills and a good overhead. That variety of game was a great bonus during her French Open run although everyone expects her to do well at Wimbledon eventually.

As for 2020, it is hard to predict what will happen as with the other top players; Ash is very young so we do not know how she will react to starting the year as number 1 and considered favourite to win the Australian Open in front of her home crowd.  Ash has the game to be a contender for the next five to ten years and win many tournaments and possibly a few majors.  I am not sure she has the game to dominate the tour as her backhand needs to improve; she has a similar game and backhand to Sam Stosur, albeit with more variety and more natural talent. Having said that, I get the impression Ash is the sort of player who would be content with winning titles and not necessarily be too concerned about being number 1 every week of the year.

Naomi Osaka

What an interesting 2019 for Naomi Osaka. Naomi began 2019 like a house on fire winning the Australian Open final with a great victory over Petra Kvitova, to back up her win at the US Open just three months prior.  After her Australian win, her game virtually fell off a metaphorical cliff and she was a non-factor for more or less the next nine months, however Naomi managed to salvage something by winning the China Open in September defeating Ashleigh Barty in three sets and finishing the year in the top three. 

The first signs that things were not going to plan came when Naomi unceremoniously “sacked” her coach Sasha Bajin without ever going into the reasons why in any depth, leading to lots of speculation. I then watched Naomi lose her first match in Dubai after Australia, going down relatively easily to Kristina Mladenovic. That would prove to be the pattern for the rest of the season on all surfaces, whether clay, grass or hardcourts.  So, the simple question is, what happened?  How could it go so wrong so quickly after such a dramatic rise to superstardom?

I think there are a number of factors. The first being that her US Open win in 2018 over Serena Williams was welcome if unexpected. Naomi played a great semi-final against Madison Keys and an even better final against Serena Williams.  After defeating Petra Kvitova to win two majors in a row, great things were predicted. However, the reality is that Naomi was not ready to deal with the status of being a major champion and world number 1.  Naomi was not ready from an emotional standpoint, dealing with the media, sponsorship, fan expectations and players trying harder against her. This was exacerbated further by the fact that Naomi’s game is also not ready to be sustained at the very top.  Naomi plays a very straight up and down game with not much margin for error, and when Naomi makes errors; her game unravels very quickly indeed, especially when she is feeling uncomfortable on the court. The only way to fix this is sheer hard work, work on her mental approach to the game and add more elements to her game. In my opinion this would include working on her percentages, assessing when to pull the trigger and go for winners off short balls, as opposed to any position at the back of the court, Naomi also needs to develop a transition a game, where she can create or take any advantage of short balls to finish points at the net.

It is impressive that Naomi has achieved so much already with what on the face of it looks like a still underdeveloped game. If Naomi can improve all aspects, we could be a looking at a real great player. 2020 may be too soon to become a much more rounded player although she has hired Wim Fissette as her new coach.  Naomi’s best chance of major success will again be on the hardcourts which has the even bounce all big hitters crave.

Bianca Andreescu

This has been one hell of a rise for Bianca in 2019, in many ways mirroring Naomi Osaka’s rise in 2018. 

Bianca started the year outside of the top 100 playing challengers, then finishing the year ranked number six in the world.  Bianca also became the first teenager to win a major tournament since Svetlana Kuznetsova won the US Open in 2004 and the first player born in this millennium to win a major title. Bianca gave notice that she will be a force to be reckoned with when she reached the final of Auckland despite having to play three qualifying rounds just to get into the main draw.  Bianca lost out to Julia Georges but then surprised everyone by winning Indian Wells in March, defeating Angelique Kerber in the final in three sets. Later in the summer Bianca would win the Canadian Open defeating Serena Williams who had to retire in the final, and then defeating Serena a month later in the US Open final; you would have to say relatively easily as well.  The interesting thing here is that despite her success Bianca played a relatively shortened season due to injuries so it will be nice to see how Bianca will perform in 2020 if she can stay injury free. 

It will also be interesting to see how Bianca will perform on surfaces away from hardcourts where she has had all of her successful results so far. Like so many players from North America, Bianca’s best results have come on hardcourts as that is the surface she grew up on; right now her game is very hardcourt centric. Therefore, for me it is difficult to gauge what kind of game Bianca has for clay and grass. As far as I can see, Bianca likes to hit the cross court and down the line patterns, however to win on clay and grass you need a little bit more tactical variation. Bianca is still very young so 2020 will be an interesting year for her. 

Karolina Pliskova

Karolina finished 2019 ranked number 2 in the world.  However, I don’t recall anything exceptional about Karolina’s 2019 season. 

In fact, I would venture to say it was underwhelming.  Karolina did make the semi-final of the Australian Open losing to Naomi Osaka and then the Miami final losing to Ashleigh Barty. Karolina won a huge tournament at the Italian Open in May, with a straightforward win over Johanna Konta, and then beat Angelique Kerber in the Eastbourne final.  However, despite these good results, Karolina appeared to be a non-factor for much of the year, often being unsure with who should be her coach, which perhaps was not helping the situation as different coaches during the season means different ideas for her to take in and try to implement on the court.

Karolina did have good results towards the end of the season, winning the Zhenzou Open in China and reaching the semi-finals of the WTA finals losing to Barty in three sets, Karolina appeared to play her best in China.  For the 2020 season, Karolina has hired Daniel Vallverdu so hopefully that will help to be the key to finally delivering a major title.  A few years ago I identified Karolina as a potential major winner but unfortunately I do not see much changes or improvement to her game to help make the transition to major champion.  Karolina has the best serve on the tour no question; however there is still an issue with her movement which is unfortunate as she is 1m 85 (6 ft. 1) thus her movement will be compromised. 

To cover the lack of movement Karolina has to think of some tactical plays; which could be attacking the net more or being more solid off the ground. I mentioned this before but when I saw her play in Eastbourne in 2017, I was struck by how low she consistently hit the ball over the net in the baseline exchanges. I think that is a big problem because that is unsustainable, there is simply not enough margin for error and that needs to be addressed, there needs to be higher net clearance which will help with her confidence, that would require an increase in the ratio of spin on the ball.

Karolina has a lot of talent but is not making the most of it, there is a fear Karolina will miss out so hopefully in 2020 she can get it together. Like most players today, her best chance of success will come on the hardcourts.  Her movement on grass at Wimbledon needs improvement to be a contender there.

Simona Halep

2019 proved to be an interesting year for Simona. Statistically it was not her most productive by any means, winning one tournament and losing two finals in Madrid and Qatar. However, the only tournament she won was the biggest to win! Wimbledon, and in memorable fashion, totally outplaying Serena Williams in just over an hour, making Serena look distinctly pedestrian in the process.

This allowed Simona to achieve a childhood dream of winning Wimbledon, the first Romanian player to win the tournament.  Simona has joined a very select group of players who have won the French Open and Wimbledon, which is not easy to do. 

Besides her Wimbledon triumph, Simona didn’t really pull up too many trees on the WTA tour or at the other major championships. In Australia Simona lost to Serena in the fourth round in three sets, at the French she went down at the quarterfinal stage as defending champion, losing to upcoming American Amanda Anisimova and at the US Open lost to American Taylor Townsend who came to net over 100 times in a three set match!!  Simona also made the semi-final of the Miami Open losing out to Karolina Plisokva.

Therefore, not a stellar year but Simona should go into 2020 believing she is a contender at all of the big tournaments.  The criticism with Simona has been that she was often not pro-active enough on the court. I would go along with this, Simona cites Justine Henin as her inspiration, however at the same height (1 m 68) Justine was one of the most proactive players on the WTA tour trying everything from chipping and charging to serve volleying and going for winners when it didn’t look on.  Simona still needs to play more proactively in my opinion if she wants to get back to number 1 in the world and win more major titles.  As of now, Simona’s best chances will come on the natural surfaces where craft comes into play; it will be difficult on hardcourts where she can get brushed aside by bigger hitters.

Simona has announced she will not be playing Fed Cup in 2020 to concentrate on the Olympics in Tokyo. Let’s see how that goes.

Other Players to Watch

Elina Svtolina

Elina had a reasonable 2019, finishing the year ranked six and reaching the semi-finals at Wimbledon and US Open, whilst almost defending her title at the WTA finals losing out to Ash Barty in the title match. However, Elina won no titles throughout the year and she will want to change that in 2020. Elina is a player who does everything well, but nothing exceptionally, similar to Tim Henman when he was on the ATP tour.  To win a major title you need more than doing everything well, Elina has to work on becoming either more aggressive, coming to net or taking many more risks and initiative. That will be mentally tough for a player who likes to be a “steady eddy”.

Belinda Bencic

Belinda has had a terrible amount of injuries in the last two to three years after bursting onto the scene as a teenager in 2016.  Belinda is mentored by Martina Hingis and it is clear to see, Belinda has a game almost identical to Hingis and is an intelligent player and good to watch. Belinda finished the year ranked seven after winning Dubai, Mallorca and the Kremlin cup in October, plus reaching the semi-finals of Indian Wells, US Open and WTA finals where she had to retire in the third set against Barty.  Like Svitolina, Belinda does everything well, however, if things fall into place she may well be a slightly bigger contender at the major tournaments going forward.

Serena Williams

Like Roger Federer, Serena Williams shows absolutely no signs of packing it in and retiring. However, the manner of defeats in the Wimbledon and US finals will give her pause for thought. At the same time, she won six matches each time to make the finals so she is still doing considerably better than many of her opponents. If Serena pulls off a major win, she would have won in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and potentially 2020s so this will be interesting to watch.

Johanna Konta

Perhaps my British bias here for including Konta.  There was a lot of promise in 2019 for Johanna but it didn’t happen. In fact, in the Italian Open final. French Open semi-final and Wimbledon quarterfinal she displayed a bizarre lack of composure in the big moments, often rushing up to mid court short balls (which all good tennis players crave) and then literally hit the shots into the back fence, which made for very painful viewing, especially as she did it over and over again.  Johanna did not win a tournament in 2019 but if she can overcome her nerves, she will give herself more opportunities to win a big title in 2020.

Sloane Stephens

As before, Sloane’s form and rankings has continued to “yo-yo” from US Open winner in 2017 and French Open finalist in 2018 to ranked outside of the top 20 once again. Sloane is too dangerous a competitor not to make another comeback into the top ten at some point.

Madison Keys

A player who has a similar game to Naomi Osaka, Madison’s game has not developed since she burst onto the scene in 2014.  This happens so often to players who have big shots but for whatever reason seem unable to "rein it in" and play with more spin and percentages and strategy. As of this moment in time, Madison is a definite underachiever and has changed coaches fairly regularly; let’s see if she can get it together in 2020.

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.