Stich, Agassi, Krajcek and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon
- Thread starter toth
- Start date
aliceinpains
Rookie
Agassi's win is the most impressive because he won from the baseline on fast grass, beating Becker, McEnroe, and Ivanisevic.
King_olaf_the_hairy
Semi-Pro
For their title runs, Krajicek's level in '96 was probably the highest of all just because he beat Sampras in straights. Losing 0 sets to Pistol Pete immediately puts him three ahead of anyone else in eight years. But the rest of the draw that year was an absolute car crash; six of top eight seeds and ten of the sixteen were out by the end of R3. So there's just as plausible a case for Stich in '91; he beat the two guys who'd monopolised the last three SW19 finals (plus the new French champ too) in back-to-back rounds.
~~~~~~~~~~
For their entire Wimbledon careers, Ivanisevic first, despite the fact that he could plumb some truly incredible depths (e.g. losing to a #591-ranked British wild-card in 1991 R2). I'm also including the emotional factor; his eventual win in 2001 was the most euphoric in 50 years, and was the culmination of a fairytale which took a decade to compile. 20 years on it still puts a lump in my throat.
Another honorable mention to Stich, because of his epic doubles title too (the 19-17 final set win with JMac on the third Monday in '92). For some of us old geezers that counts for a lot.
I'd really prefer to not do any ranking beyond that. It seems like nitpicking to say more than they were the four princes in the kingdom of King Sampras.
~~~~~~~~~~
For their entire Wimbledon careers, Ivanisevic first, despite the fact that he could plumb some truly incredible depths (e.g. losing to a #591-ranked British wild-card in 1991 R2). I'm also including the emotional factor; his eventual win in 2001 was the most euphoric in 50 years, and was the culmination of a fairytale which took a decade to compile. 20 years on it still puts a lump in my throat.
Another honorable mention to Stich, because of his epic doubles title too (the 19-17 final set win with JMac on the third Monday in '92). For some of us old geezers that counts for a lot.
I'd really prefer to not do any ranking beyond that. It seems like nitpicking to say more than they were the four princes in the kingdom of King Sampras.
Last edited:
To be fair, Becker was injured and another Top 10 seed, Stich, was also dismantled by Krajicek.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
krajicek was on fire for sure. but anyone who remember's stich's run, also an outrageous performance. overall rank though, gotta give it to goran w all those finals and finally, a win.
Fedinkum
Legend
On that day, one of the rare occasions when tennis should be allowed to have two winners...both deserved the trophy and i always feel for Rafter (especially he was the better grass court player, yet it was Hewitt who broke the Australian Wimbledon drought).
ChrisG
Professional
The sentimental ranking would put Goran on top of the ranking. Rarely a win meant so much to a player. Agassi is also a remarkable one as it was totally inconceivable that a baseline player could compete with the grass specialist. As a young teenager this achievement impacted me a lot as it taught me a valuable lesson about will. Stich is a special player, as krajicek in a lesser form, but they are a step below in terms of Wimbledon history
abmk
Bionic Poster
Krajicek in 96 Wimbledon also beat Stich in straight sets in the 4th round, a Stich fresh off a French open final run (upsetting the then king of clay Muster)
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Would also put Agassi ahead. Becker, Mac and Goran looks better than Roddick, Henman and Rafter. Krajicek, Stich is also very close for the number one spot. Straight setting Pete is the most impressive feat out of all those runs but his semi and final opponents cannot compete with those of Stich.
ivanisevic also beat a very well playing safin, and rusedski was also a tough opponent on quick surfaces.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Krajicek way too much credit. Got freaking Washington in the final people.
Stich is #1 because of an all-time draw and he had a shortened career where his percentages at Wimbledon remained high. He lost to Becker & Pioline late stages in 5 sets and to Krajicek and Sampras during their title runs.
2. Agassi for having a baseline approach and losing two 5 set epic semifinals to Rafter making another Final.
I give Goran the advantage over Krajicek making 3 additional finals. But Krajicek had the 3rd best title draw.
Stich is #1 because of an all-time draw and he had a shortened career where his percentages at Wimbledon remained high. He lost to Becker & Pioline late stages in 5 sets and to Krajicek and Sampras during their title runs.
2. Agassi for having a baseline approach and losing two 5 set epic semifinals to Rafter making another Final.
I give Goran the advantage over Krajicek making 3 additional finals. But Krajicek had the 3rd best title draw.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Safin’s best at Wimbledon were one quarter and one semi while Rusedski only reached one quarter in his whole career. Mac and Becker are ATGs on grass (even though the first one was of course way past prime in 92), while Goran himself in 92 is by a fair margin a tougher opponent than Rafter, Henman, Safin or Roddick in 2001.
still playing young roddick, rusedski, safin, henman and rafter in RAW is a very tough draw.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
It absolutely is. As I said, all those runs were impressive but if we have to rank them I see Agassi’s draw still a little tougher than Goran’s.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Agreed--Stich's run was impressive with the levels of his opponents at that time, which was quite the wall to break through.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
As the best flat hitter in the game, it's less impressive. His shots skidded as much as any volley, and he was a better shot-maker than the serve and volleyers served and volleyed.
Ivanisevic wasn't impressive, as he was continuously whooped by a 15-16-year-old girl before her prime.
Goran's opponents OTOH had better forms than than 1992 Becker (1992-1993 Becker was really poor overall) or post-prime Mac (with the exception of Goran's own 1992 version).
Between 1968 and 2002, nobody had ever won Wimbledon fully from the backcourt like that, not even Borg and Connors.
OTOH, the best serve-and-volleyers in 1992, Edberg and Sampras, were in Ivanisevic's draw.
Last edited:
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Well, you're leaving out Hingis. Other than this, you've got a reasoning.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Becker still had reached the final of the last four Wimbledon editions prior to this, admittedly he had two five setters in earlier rounds and did not look to sharp but still better than a Safin or Rusedski in 2001. Mac as you said was very strong in 1992 and Goran himself in the final was IMO stronger than anyone his 2001-self faced (had even beaten a strong version of Sampras in the semi). Neither Agassi’s nor Goran’s draw however can compete with the other two. Straight setting peak Sampras and going through Edberg and Becker back to back is something else.
mac strong in 1992? just look at his first service game in the semi, and you kmow how strong he was. maybe you think bjorkman was also strong when he reached wimby semi.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Of course not compared to his peak version but still better than Safin or Rusedski. ATGs typically have one last great run.
mac wimby 92 was not better than safin wimby 2001. the serve alone made safin better.
"His own version in 1992" means Goran's own version in 1992. Mac only reached there thanks to a weak draw.
Perhaps I would have to edit my comment.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I unfortunately never got to see that particular match, but I did see Stich's first 2 rounds at Wimbledon and it was pretty obvious to me he wasn't in the form he was in at the French Open, but still very impressive for sure.
Looking at each of these wins individually, I always felt RK's was the most impressive, raw display of power tennis.
I always thought he'd pick up a few more GS wins, but seems like injuries got the best of him.
Goran was a bit unlucky and then finally broke through as a 'sentimental' winner (kind of like Novotna)
I always felt Goran should have won that '92 final and Agassi was a bit lucky (but luck counts)
Stich was also impressive in his demolition of Becker, but I don't think I ever saw him play that well again.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Ivanisevic was even more unlucky in the 95 semi vs Sampras. He really did outplay Sampras slightly IMO. He lost the 1st set on a bad line call, and overall he had more break points, chances, and dominance but didn't play the big points well enough. He would have beaten either Becker or Agassi in the final.
He was also a bit unlucky in 98.
Really had a good shot of winning each of 92, 95, 98, and should have won 1 or 2 of those anyway. 94 final Sampras was too good for him that day.
He was also a bit unlucky in 98.
Really had a good shot of winning each of 92, 95, 98, and should have won 1 or 2 of those anyway. 94 final Sampras was too good for him that day.
agassi was not lucky in 1992 final. it was a very close match, but agassi had 16 break points and won 4 more points overall, while ivanisevic had only 5 break points.
Last edited:
Luck always factors in when it's that close. Not saying skill didn't factor in, but he could have just as easily lost that one. Andre was ahead by a nose on that win.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Yes he was more unlucky in the 95 semis and 98 final than the 92 final IMO.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
While Ivanisevic was a MUCH more regular contender at Wimbledon than either Stich, Krajicek, or Agassi, I agree Krajicek had by far the most impressive win by taking down Sampras in 96. In straight sets no less. So for a singular Wimbledon triumph it is Krajicek easily.
For overall career it would be Ivanisevic at Wimbledon I think.
Stich's win in 91, beating Edberg and Becker, the two dominant overall players at the time of mid 91, and the two dominant people at Wimbledon the entire 85-91 period is super impressive, and comes just a bit behind Krajicek's 96 win. He never really contended there again except for Wimbledon 97 where he lost in an upset to Pioline in the semis, and given their record would have had an outside shot vs Sampras in the final (only outside since Sampras was in killer form).
Krajicek would have had a huge shot vs Sampras in the 98 final if he did not blow a lead to Ivanisevic in the 98 semis, after ironically a miracelous comeback to be up a break in the 5th. Given that he is a tougher match up for Sampras than Ivanisevic, has a much stronger psychological place vs Sampras than Ivanisevic, and Sampras's form in the final, I honestly think he probably would have won his 2nd wimbledon had he closed out Ivanisevic.
Agassi had a chance of winning again in 2001 but really that year the 4 semi finalists Henman, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Agassi had all roughly equal chances anyway. That was his only other real shot IMO. I don't see him beating Sampras, Becker, on fire (his nemisis) Courier all in a row in 93 even if he somehow had beaten Sampras in the quarters. Don't see him beating Sampras even if he beats Becker in 95, or probably even Ivanisevic had he won the semi over Sampras. Don't see him beating Sampras in 2000 even had he beaten Rafter. I do think overall he is probably the weakest of these 4, but on paper his Wimbledon record is actually better than both Stich and Krajicek, so on paper he is 2nd. His beating Becker, aging McEnroe, and Ivanisevic all in a row, given his pedigree, and the style grass favored at the time, was still one of the most impressive personal achievements. It is nothing like today and the lucky situation Djokovic and Nadal have with the current grass, racquets, playing conditions of the players, etc..
For overall career it would be Ivanisevic at Wimbledon I think.
Stich's win in 91, beating Edberg and Becker, the two dominant overall players at the time of mid 91, and the two dominant people at Wimbledon the entire 85-91 period is super impressive, and comes just a bit behind Krajicek's 96 win. He never really contended there again except for Wimbledon 97 where he lost in an upset to Pioline in the semis, and given their record would have had an outside shot vs Sampras in the final (only outside since Sampras was in killer form).
Krajicek would have had a huge shot vs Sampras in the 98 final if he did not blow a lead to Ivanisevic in the 98 semis, after ironically a miracelous comeback to be up a break in the 5th. Given that he is a tougher match up for Sampras than Ivanisevic, has a much stronger psychological place vs Sampras than Ivanisevic, and Sampras's form in the final, I honestly think he probably would have won his 2nd wimbledon had he closed out Ivanisevic.
Agassi had a chance of winning again in 2001 but really that year the 4 semi finalists Henman, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Agassi had all roughly equal chances anyway. That was his only other real shot IMO. I don't see him beating Sampras, Becker, on fire (his nemisis) Courier all in a row in 93 even if he somehow had beaten Sampras in the quarters. Don't see him beating Sampras even if he beats Becker in 95, or probably even Ivanisevic had he won the semi over Sampras. Don't see him beating Sampras in 2000 even had he beaten Rafter. I do think overall he is probably the weakest of these 4, but on paper his Wimbledon record is actually better than both Stich and Krajicek, so on paper he is 2nd. His beating Becker, aging McEnroe, and Ivanisevic all in a row, given his pedigree, and the style grass favored at the time, was still one of the most impressive personal achievements. It is nothing like today and the lucky situation Djokovic and Nadal have with the current grass, racquets, playing conditions of the players, etc..
His injuries in late 1998 prevented him from:
1) Potentially reaching USO final (draw was very favourable)
2) Potentially sweeping Stuttgart - Paris - YEC (already won Stuttgart and qualified for YEC as far as I remember, had to withdraw from Paris due to injury when being one game away from beating Rosset). That had not been achieved by anyone at least since 1985, not even Becker/Lendl.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
I would put them in the following order:
1. Stich (Very impressive win against Edberg in the semis and Becker in the finals.)
2. Agassi (Defeated Becker, McEnroe, and Ivanisevic en-route to winning the tournament.)
3. Krajicek (The only player to defeat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in the time between 1993 and 2000.)
4. Ivanisevic (Credible win against Rafter in the finals.)
