The match that changed Tennis..

[Laurie]

I think it has, some people will say for the better, some people will say for the worse. But either way, this match changed the direction of modern tennis due to the reaction of the various tennis authorities. The match I refer to is the 1994 Wimbledon final.

Read on.....

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/20...tennis_10.html

[Mustard]

What a complete dud of a final that was. Ivanisevic was brilliant in his straight sets semi final win over Becker, and it was an entertaining grass-court match. Sampras was likewise in his 4-set semi final win over Martin, avenging his loss from the Queen's Club final a few weeks earlier. However, the final was absolutely dreadful, a match of dominant serving for 2 sets and Goran tanking the third set.

[smoledman]

That was the first time people started talking about how boring modern tennis had become and the need to do something about it.

[mattennis]

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).

Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.

For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

[hersito]

Originally Posted by smoledman

That was the first time people started talking about how boring modern tennis had become and the need to do something about it.

It wasn't at all the first time, it was the drop that spilled the glass, it was being talk already how boring s&v is, and how tv ratings of tennis and people palying tennis (and all the business around it was dropping, racquets sold, etc) were dropping all over the world even in the USA (but not as much of course than in the rest of the world because of sampras and agassi)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by mattennis

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).



Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.

For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

I agree.In the 80´s and 70´s, you had the same with a lot more of touch and all round players.It was funnier than the 90´s although, compared to today, the Sampras ,Edberg, Agassi and Becker era is just a dream.

[Mustard]

The other Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches, i.e. the ones from 1992, 1995 and 1998, were entertaining grass-court matches. 1994 was not.

The 1994 Wimbledon final desperately needed Goran to win 1 of the first 2 sets to make it interesting, but he didn't, unlike in their 1992, 1995 and 1998 Wimbledon matches, where Goran did win at least 1 of the first 2 sets. Goran then made sure that the third set of the 1994 Wimbledon final was the worst set of the match, as he threw it away in despair.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by mattennis

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

People were saying things like that in the 1990s. "Oh, I hate how much power there now is in tennis. We will never know how they could have done with wood. Now the players with more power win, instead of the most talented etc."

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by Mustard

People were saying things like that in the 1990s. "Oh, I hate how much power there now is in tennis. We will never know how they could have done with wood. Now the players with more power win, instead of the most talented etc."

I know, the transition from wood to graphite changed completely the game and raised the very same question (What would have happened had they stayed using wood racquets?), but at least during the 80s and 90s you had variety still.

By the way, I still watch A LOT of tennis matches from the wood era (mainly from the 70s, a decade of tennis I love so much), and I enjoy it tremendously.

I would understand the change to slow conditions had all the tournaments been like Wimbledon, but the thing is that in the 90s more than 90% of the matches were baseline battles already.

It was only Wimbledon and some indoor carpet (not all by the way) where you could see extremely short points (and not all the players, because Bruguera-Muster for example or players like that would have long rallyes even on grass or indoor carpet).

I think people were so unfair to Goran. He had THAT serve, what do you want? Of course he would use it to his advantage.

It was a skill, he was a serve genius, and people talked about it as if it was a bad thing or something that had not any merit.

When Goran defeated Edberg in the 1996 USO QF people in the stands were booing everytime Goran hit an ace (which was all the time as you would know) and Goran got angry probably thinking "do you all think it is so easy to do it? to hit an ace every time I am down break point? I can do it because I am THAT good at that, the best for that matter".

Some people seem to think it is okay to have a great forehand, or a great backhand, or a great volley, or a great return of serve, or a great speed.....but at the same time they seem to not a value at all what an absolutely great serve Goran had, they even talked about Goran as if his serve was some kind of cheating.

Well, I loved Goran and I think he never got the respect he deserved as a great tennis player he was.

[rufus_smith]

The 2001 Goran Ivan. versus Patrick Rafter was terrific to watch and was all serve and volley on both sides. So I'm not sure how much was really changed from 1994.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by mattennis

Well, I loved Goran and I think he never got the respect he deserved as a great tennis player he was.

Goran was my second favourite of the 1990s behind Muster. His rallying ability, and his ability to play well on all surfaces, was underrated by many people. This is a man who reached the finals of Rome and Hamburg, and won Stuttgart. He is also the only man who managed to beat Muster on clay in Davis Cup singles.

My original point was that the 1994 Wimbledon final was still a very bad match to watch. I think it was a case of all the negatives happening at once. Nobody expected many long rallies in a Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon match, but in this match, there were far less than what was normal, even for them. There was no drama in terms of how the match went as Sampras was the slight favourite, had won the first 2 sets which contained dominant serving while Sampras held his nerve better (as most people expected) and then picked off a tanking Goran in the third set for the victory. It was just a bad spectacle.

The other Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches had drama in them. There were a lot of twists and turns in the matches. In their 1992 Wimbledon semi final, we had Goran coming from a set down to beat Sampras in 4 sets, serving 36 aces, and not facing a break point in the entire match. It was brilliant grass-court tennis. Their 1995 Wimbledon semi final saw Ivanisevic constantly threaten to upset Sampras in the match, yet he couldn't win the biggest points and eventually lost in 5 sets. Their 1998 Wimbledon final was full of drama, with Goran looking in control and having set points to go 2 sets up. It then turned into a 5-set battle which Sampras won again. There was drama in these matches, unlike in the 1994 Wimbledon final.

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

The 2001 Goran Ivan. versus Patrick Rafter was terrific to watch and was all serve and volley on both sides. So I'm not sure how much was really changed from 1994.

In 1995, they softened the balls at Wimbledon to limit some of the power in the serves. It wasn't hugely noticeable. 2002 Wimbledon was the big shock in terms of how much conditions had changed in just 1 year, because Henman was complaining about the courts being very slow, serve and volleyers were struggling, and baseliners like Nalbandian, Malisse, Lapentti and Sa, were getting deep into the tournament.

[roundiesee]

Originally Posted by Mustard

What a complete dud of a final that was. Ivanisevic was brilliant in his straight sets semi final win over Becker, and it was an entertaining grass-court match. Sampras was likewise in his 4-set semi final win over Martin, avenging his loss from the Queen's Club final a few weeks earlier. However, the final was absolutely dreadful, a match of dominant serving for 2 sets and Goran tanking the third set.

Not if you were a Sampras fan! I remember this match well, and whilst it was true that the points were short, both men were playing a brand of attacking tennis very rarely seen nowadays, I was rooting for Pete all the way and was delighted he won in straights (though the first 2 sets were very close). I felt bad for Goran though; fortunately he was able to win Wimbledon a few years later.

[Bartelby]

The racquets got more powerful, so they lowered the speed of the court and the court played smaller.

The players got more powerful and they hit with more spin, and the court played even more small.

And so the points got longer and the net became an object in the distance.

[Bartelby]

The deuce rule worked when the points were short but its currently leading to a number of 8 minute plus games, which are admittedly quite interesting.

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by mattennis

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).

Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

I found the arguments about big serving killing tennis similar to fast bowlers ruining it for batsmen in cricket. In cricket they changed the rules to encourage more run making like not allowed to bowl more than one bouncer per over, limits to short balls etc. At the end of the day, acquiring such a specialised skill is seen as intimidation in the eys of certain sections of the media and fans.

In each instance, something was seen as needed to be done. An interesting psychology, I thought top level sport was about winning with the skills you've aquired but of course it is possible for the authorities to move the goalposts if they think money is at stake.

[Feather]

It wouldn't be boring if you are a fan of either player. I know it's subjective but for me it's certainly more entertaining than watching a Rafa - Djokovic six hour long rallies in AO final

[5555]

No. Laver-Rosewall at 1972 WCT Final is the match that changed tennis

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by 5555

No. Laver-Rosewall at 1972 WCT Final is the match that changed tennis

Is this an opinion or a fact?

[Bartelby]

Yes, the serve came to dominate Wimbledon, or grass in general, and now the baseline topspin forehand is the dominant shot across all surfaces.

Its a better game, but things are still somewhat unbalanced. The solution is a faster ball on clay and a faster hardcourt elswhere, but there are no takers.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by mattennis

Great article, Laurie!!!

God, how I miss that style of tennis at Wimbledon. I loved that final as much as I loved the RG final one month earlier of Bruguera-Berasategui. Because I loved THAT variety in conditions.

Why does it have to be the same everywhere? I really hate it.

As you put in the links, already in the 90s baseline game was THE MAJORITY of the tennis back then.

Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, in those slow hard courts of Indian Wells and Miami, were mainly BASELINE game with some serve-volley by Pete on first serves (and he didn't even came in in all his first serves).

Becker played A LOT from the baseline as well on those slow hard courts and on clay.

Why in hell could be a problem with just ONE big tournament were these players (Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, and some others, but not everybody by the way) did serve-volley on both serves?

I loved 1994 Wimbledon final (as much as many other so different finals in Wimbledon, or Roland Garros, or USO) because I loved HOW DIFFERENT they played there. It was like another sport.

You could see Becker and Sampras rallying A LOT on slow hard courts, and suddenly, in Wimbledon, they would serve and volley on both serves and they would try to hit a winner return (if the rival stayed back).

There's more. That Sampras-Ivanisevic final was GREAT (for me, I must say that Goran was a sentimental favourite for me in the 90s) in yet another dimension. Those two players were THAT GOOD at holding serve, that just ONE break could mean losing an entire set. THAT was huge tension for both players.

They HAD to serve well IN ALL THEIR SERVING GAMES, because just one bad serving game could cost an entire SET.

I loved that. I loved that kind of tension in the Ivanisevic-Sampras Wimbledon matches. There was not a single minute of rest, all the serving games were decisive, one break could mean you lose.

And I totally agree with Sampras comment at the time. Sampras was using ancient technology ( from 1983 ) and Ivanisevic racquet was not much newer neither.

They simply were BETTER than former grass court players because their serves (especially Ivanisevic) were THAT GOOD.

So they get penalized because of being THAT GOOD ON GRASS. It is very sad.

For the young pleople here, watching just those two links from Laurie article, you may understand HOW DIFFICULT it was in the 90s (and 80s and earlier) to win Wimbledon for people like, say, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, (claycourters with long swings) UNLIKE today.

You needed a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of skills to win Wimbledon than to win ANY other tournament (bar the fastest and lowest bouncing indoor carpet tournaments from the beginning of the 90s and earlier, 80s, 70s,...).

That is why it does not make sense to compare current era with ANY previous eras.

God, how I miss those Ivanisevic-Sampras at Wimbledon, those Becker-Sampras, Becker-Ivanisevic, Stich-Sampras, Edberg-Becker.....at Wimbledon in the 90s and 80s...

I loved THE TOTAL CHANGE from a brutal super-top-spin baseline attrition battle of a Berasategui-Bruguera RG final, to a Sampras-Ivanisevic WB final one month later.

It was like two different sport requiring two totally different set of skills.

And I repeat, for Christ sake, it was just Wimbledon (and few indoor carpet tournaments, and even there those players usually did not came in on second serve either) where you could see that kind of attractive mental-chesslike game (for me), where just ONE bad serving game could mean you're dead.

The immense majority of the Tour in the 90s were mainly BASELINE GAME, including players like Sampras and Becker (who only came in on first serves in all kind of courts bar grass and SOME indoor carpet).

I hate what they've done to tennis. We would never know how it would have been in the current era had they not changed totally the conditions of the game.

great post !

the trend, unfortunately, seems to be that some players start to take for granted that all the courts should play similarly...
something should be done before it's too late.