Stich vs. Edberg

[BGod]

There final H2H record was 10-6 in favour of Stich who had a relatively short career but big runs.

Their Slam meetings were paltry, only 2 with Stich winning both one at Wimbledon and the French. They had 7 Masters meetings which Edberg lead 5-2.

Surface Tally
Hard: 5-1 Edberg
Clay: 5-1 Stich
Carpet: 3-0 Stich

They were just 2 years apart in age.

Obviously the surface disparity with carpet favouring Stich and their one grass meeting tips the H2H however from 91 Hamburg to 93 Stockholm, Stich won 7 of 8 meetings spread across 1 hard, 1 grass, 2 carpet and 3 clay (of which Edberg won 1). The scores for these matches:

Hamburg: 6-2, 7-6 Stich
Wimbledon: 4-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 Stich
Hamburg: 5-7, 6-4, 6-1 Edberg
Slam Cup: 7-6, 6-7, 8-6 Stich
Team Cup: 6-2, 6-0 Stich
Davis Cup: 6-1, 6-1 Stich
Basel: 6-4, 6-7. 6-3, 6-2 Stich (Only hard court win)
Stockholm: 1-6, 6-2, 6-4 Stich


Stich also had a good H2H against Sampras (5-4), Courier (7-5), Ivanisevic (5-2), Krajicek (8-6 but Richard won their last 3 meetings out of Stich's prime), Bruguera (5-3 which includes 5 consecutive wins)

Agassi was 6-0 only losing 2 of 17 sets. While Lendl, albeit a level above Agassi at the time was 6-1.

I think clearly he had a harder time with base-liners.

 

[thrust]

Whatever, Stich is still only a ONE slam wonder.

 

[PrestigeDave45]

Stich, very under rated. Seemed to live in the shadows of Becker.
Oft forgotten when serve volley practitioners are discussed. Worthy of more than one slam but that was most surely the strongest tennis era.

 

[andreh]

Stich was great when he was at his best. Could beat anyone on the tour. I saw him play on the seniors tour. He has the simplest and smoothest service action I've ever seen. Great to copy if you're a player.

 

[California]

Stich was a great player who should have won more. He had all the shots and was very smooth and fluid. Was held back mentally and with injuries is my recollection.

 

[lewisgibson]

I sensed one of his problems was he was a bit of a jack of all trades but master of none kind of player. That along with being mentally fragile and inconsistent didn't help, but there isn't one aspect of his game that stood out from the pack and that hurt him, even though at his best he did everything very well, but nothing truly outstanding or better than everyone else. And when you are a player like this you need to be really mentally tough the way someone like Henin or Murray, who I would also classify as a bit this kind of player, both are. Which is just the opposite of what Stich was.

Watching his U.S Open final in 94 vs Agassi showed some of this. Despite having one of the top 10 serves on tour, he still couldn't serve quite huge enough to serve Agassi off the court like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek sometimes could, and Agassi the great returner was getting almost all his serves back, and many with interest. He isn't quite good enough off the ground to hang in from the baseline against a top baseliner like Agassi. And while he is very good at the net, he isn't quite good enough to sustain the power and accuracy of Agassi's passing shots the way someone like Edberg might have been able to. Despite probably having a more complete game than Agassi with a much better serve, much better volleys, better transition game from the baseline to net, better court movement and defense, and more variety with things like the slice and drop shots, along with a solid overall baseline game, he was effectively rendered useless in the match up since he couldn't do any one thing well enough to break the Agassi game.

When he came up against a great serve and volley player, a dominant server, or a top baseliner, I imagine it was very hard to game plan for himself. And of course given his mentality when he got down in a match early he usually either got frustrated or gave up. Wimbledon 91, particularly the semis vs Edberg, was a rare time this didnt happen, he stayed very tough and was able to win the match via winning all the important points, despite probably being outplayed by Edberg overall. This same mental strength was sorely lacking most of his career though.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Bizarre how he bested Sampras but was dominated by Agassi.

 

[BGod]

Bizarre how he bested Sampras but was dominated by Agassi.

I'm convinced Stich did better against net rushers. He was terrible against Lendl & Agassi because of the rallies

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'm convinced Stich did better against net rushers. He was terrible against Lendl & Agassi because of the rallies

Could be, but why did he do well against Courier and Bruguera then (admittedly I know this is a slightly lower level of baseliner).

 

[lewisgibson]

Bizarre how he bested Sampras but was dominated by Agassi.

Against Agassi he was kind of screwed for the reasons I said. His serve while great wasn't quite huge enough to win over Agassi. His net game while solid wasn't quite enough vs Agassi's amazing passing shots and ground game unless he had a Sampras or Ivanisevic esque serve. His ground game while very good couldn't really hang in or win over Agassi, or even get him to the net comfortably. Most importantly of all though, to do well vs Agassi you had to refuse to lose, break his will, and make him doubt himself, as Sampras did many times, Becker did at Wimbledon 95, and prime Courier often did, which definitely wasn't Stich who just didn't have that resilence in him when a match wasn't going his way. It just wasn't a good match up for him.

The Sampras match was different. Sampras had a greater serve, and was definitely a better/more explosive athlete with more raw speed and better hops, but other than that both were all around all court players and Stich can match or best him in almost every other way when playing well. He can for sure compete with Sampras off the ground more easily than he can Agassi. Sampras can himself play Agassi tougher from the back than Stich since he has a bigger point breaker (the forehand, mainly the running forehand) which you need vs Agassi, but Stich vs Sampras, Stich could potentially hang or even win the backcourt battle. He is every bit as good at the net as Sampras. His transition game and overall defense, despite not being as lightning fast as Sampras at full sprint, was just as good. He returned as well, probably better in fact. His own serve is plenty big enough to win lots of free points vs Sampras, who is not an especialy great returner, so the serving deficit didn't amount to much in the match up as both would typically win a lot of free points vs each other, and enough to produce a serving battle and sequence of regular serve holds and crucical points.

I think he also felt no pressure vs Sampras since he felt he had nothing to lose. Against erratic Agassi he often played him higher ranked with people projecting he could win, even with his bad career record vs Agassi. It was a harder match mentally to deal with, while vs Sampras I think he came out swinging and relaxed for the most part. He also didn't play Sampras on the big stage much, it is really speculative how he fares there. How does he do in the 97 Wimbledon final had Pioline not played the match of his life to take him out in the semis for instance? Does he make it very close, maybe even win, or fall pretty easily ala Wimbledon 92? How does he fare against Sampras at the 95 U.S Open if he doesn't got out in a monstrous effort to Byron Black the round before? It is too bad we didn't see more slam meetings between them to see if Stich could carry on his success vs Sampras on the regular tour to slams or not. He sure didn't come close at Wimbledon 92 where he was the defending champion and got butt ***** by Sampras, but that is just one match.

 

[lewisgibson]

Could be, but why did he do well against Courier and Bruguera then (admittedly I know this is a slightly lower level of baseliner).

Bruguera was a grinder and if they were playing anywhere off clay Stich probably felt he could easily overpower/outhit him if his shotmaking were on, even off the ground, and certainly overpower with his all court game. Even on clay he probably felt he had a punchers chance, and would try and play him as he did Muster in RG 96 to take him out in a huge upset.

I haven't seen many of his matches vs Courier, but Courier's backhand was never the same weapon his forehand was. Stich probably felt if he played to his backhand either in the rallies, or approached the net often off that side, he had a pretty good shot, and Courier couldn't hurt him much if he avoided long baseline rallies where Courier got a lot of forehands. That is mostly a guess, since as I said I hardly saw any of their matches. I remember Canadian Open 95 where Stich destroyed Courier, but he was in unbeatable form that day, and carried that over to Sampras where he took a 4-0 lead before a few bad calls and completely falling off the mark from there, in typical Stich fashion. And I remember a match at the Australian in 92 or 93 where Courier won pretty easily. Peak Courier of 91-93 would probably be too much for Stich on slower courts where all his big victories came. I am guessing they didnt place often at the Australian, French, and on clay from 91-93, since Stich probably barely wins those meetings.

PS- Just look up the Stich vs Courier head to head for myself and see Courier and Stich played 3 times on both slow hard courts and clay from 91-93, and Courier won 2 of 3 on each. Stich's 2 wins were in 91 when Courier was less established as a dominant player as in 92 and 93. Stich won easily on grass when they met. Courier had a win on carpet. Stich then won their last 4 meetings which were all on faster courts anyway, other than I guess the Canadian Open which is a slowish medium hard court. Nothing really that surprising.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Bizarre how he bested Sampras but was dominated by Agassi.

Stich was 5-4 in head to head matches against Sampras. Sampras struggled more against great servers such as Stich & Krajicek than he did with baseliners like Agassi (in slams Sampras was 1-0 v Stich and 1-1 v Krajicek). Sampras could still hold his own with them though (I couldn't imagine Sampras going winless in slams for almost a decade against any player if he played them regularly, unlike Federer's slam losing streak against Nadal). The reason Stich didn't win more slams was mental. Mentally Stich was the opposite of Nadal. Whereas Nadal doesn't dwell on missed opportunities, Stich would constantly do so (Stich choked big-time losing 9 match points against Chesnokov in a Davis Cup match). It's a shame, because Stich was a talented player, as he showed at Wimbledon 1991 beating Edberg and Becker.