96 Richard Krajicek VS. 99 Pete Sampras

Azzurri

Azzurri

Legend
Just wondering what people's thoughts on these two winners of those particular Wimbledon seasons. I remember both pretty well and many people still discuss Richard's W run in 1996 as maybe the best in the 90's. I wonder who would win....help me decide!:)
 
Sampras was just crazy good in 99. I think it would come down to return of serve. I'll take Sampras in 4.
 
Here are their two runs:

Richard Krajicek at 1996 Wimbledon
R128: Richard Krajicek def. Javier Sanchez (6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
R64: Richard Krajicek def. Derrick Rostagno (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Richard Krajicek def. Brett Steven (7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Richard Krajicek def. Michael Stich (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
QF: Richard Krajicek def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
SF: Richard Krajicek def. Jason Stoltenberg (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)
F: Richard Krajicek def. MaliVai Washington (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)

Pete Sampras at 1999 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Lareau (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Danny Sapsford (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Nestor (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (4-6, 2-1 ret.)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
 
I remember Pete hate playing Krajicek, i think Krajicek was one of the few players who actually liked playing Sampras...
 
its too bad they met so early in the tourney. I remember thinking Washington had no shot to win it. If Pete were in that final it could have been of the best since Borg-Mac or Edberg-Becker. But when Richard won..pheeew the ship sailed. I watched his SF match but skipped the final and taped it. I watched it later in the year.
 
Krajicke won that wimbledon because Becker damaged his wrist vs neville godwin and had to retire in the 2nd rd. Becker had won queens and was playing very well and would have beat krajicek
 
Sampras' win over Agassi in the final was very dominant. I dont think he would have lost to anyone that day on that court
 
Mustard said:
Here are their two runs:

Richard Krajicek at 1996 Wimbledon
R128: Richard Krajicek def. Javier Sanchez (6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
R64: Richard Krajicek def. Derrick Rostagno (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Richard Krajicek def. Brett Steven (7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Richard Krajicek def. Michael Stich (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
QF: Richard Krajicek def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
SF: Richard Krajicek def. Jason Stoltenberg (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)
F: Richard Krajicek def. MaliVai Washington (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)

Pete Sampras at 1999 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Lareau (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Danny Sapsford (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Nestor (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (4-6, 2-1 ret.)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
Click to expand...

In '95 Krajicek's opponents won 87 games.
In '99 Sampras's opponents won 77 games.

I'll go with Sampras.
 
Peter Burwash once described Kraijcek, when he was really 'on', as being 'the most unplayable player on tour' at the time due his massive serve and excellent volleying. When he was 'on' you could barely get a sniff and points/games/sets were over before you knew what had hit you.
 
Mustard said:
Would Philippoussis have beaten Sampras, I wonder? Such a shame it ended like it did.
Click to expand...

almost forgot about that one. Scud was on fire 1st set. but Pete had that instinct that Scud lacked..killer. I doubt he would have beaten Pete even though he had a lead.
 
007 said:
Peter Burwash once described Kraijcek, when he was really 'on', as being 'the most unplayable player on tour' at the time due his massive serve and excellent volleying. When he was 'on' you could barely get a sniff and points/games/sets were over before you knew what had hit you.
Click to expand...

hmm, not disagreeing to a point, but did this Peter guy watch Pete play? This describes Pete more so (except FO/clay) and Richard was not "on" often enough to warrant the "most unplayable player on tour". But man if he played a few more tourneys anything like 96 then he was tough. Pete played tough on many instances, but Richard not enough.
 
Azzurri said:
almost forgot about that one. Scud was on fire 1st set. but Pete had that instinct that Scud lacked..killer. I doubt he would have beaten Pete even though he had a lead.
Click to expand...

Maybe. It could have been like Sampras' semi final win over Henman, recovering from a set down to win in 4 sets. But Philippoussis did have previous for beating Sampras in a slam, at the 1996 Australian Open when Philippoussis won 6-4, 7-6, 7-6 in the third round, although Sampras had his share of slam wins over Philippoussis. It's a shame we couldn't find out for sure.

However, Sampras' performance in the 1999 Wimbledon final against Agassi was absolutely majestic. He was even doing better than Agassi at Agassi's traditional strengths. Sampras certainly seemed to bring Agassi down with a bump on many occasions in their careers.
 
Last edited:
Azzurri said:
hmm, not disagreeing to a point, but did this Peter guy watch Pete play? This describes Pete more so (except FO/clay) and Richard was not "on" often enough to warrant the "most unplayable player on tour". But man if he played a few more tourneys anything like 96 then he was tough. Pete played tough on many instances, but Richard not enough.
Click to expand...

You would be SERIOUSLY foolish to listen to anything Burwash says...frankly...he's a bit of a crackpot.
 
Datacipher said:
You would be SERIOUSLY foolish to listen to anything Burwash says...frankly...he's a bit of a crackpot.
Click to expand...

figured as much. i did not want to come down on the poster, but if that is what this Peter guy believed, then yeah "crackpot" is a good word for him. LOL>:)
 
Azzurri said:
figured as much. i did not want to come down on the poster, but if that is what this Peter guy believed, then yeah "crackpot" is a good word for him. LOL>:)
Click to expand...

LOL. Well in Burwash's defense, he's a tennis coach who has done and seen a lot. He has written some good articles over the years...I remember one where he pointed out that many pros were using an open stance...and this was in the 80's.

But he also is prone to absolutely nutcase theories. I recall one year, when he became seemingly obsessed with the way players were holding their racquets in the ready position before they served. He felt this was the key to great serving. Basically, he thought the key was a "loose" wrist (KIND of true...) and that you could see this before they even started the motion by the way they held the racquet. Racquet cocked up, meant locked wrist and a bad serve coming....racquet dangling, meant a great server. He went so far as to have slow motion/stop frame, split screens of servers, during his commentary in matches, in which he would stop, and highlight the way they were holding the racquet before they served! Not the grip mind you, just how high they held the racquet before beginning the serve motion.

I think I have a match on tape between Agassi and Martin in which he thought Agassi's cocked up racquet position prior to beginning his motion was the reason Agassi didn't serve as well as Martin!!! It was unreal.

Of course if he did come across a great server who held the racquet up...he could just say "well he does hold it up...but he is able to loosen his wrist later in the motion"...um..yeah...that's right Peter....people can do that...just like they can tighten up later...

He's had other crackpot theories along the way as well. In the case of Krajicek, he was likely just speaking in context at the time...probably promoting a match. Burwash does a lot of commentary and use to be quite involved with tennis Canada as well. So like Mcenroe's commentary...it must be taken with more than a grain of salt...
 
Datacipher said:
LOL. Well in Burwash's defense, he's a tennis coach who has done and seen a lot. He has written some good articles over the years...I remember one where he pointed out that many pros were using an open stance...and this was in the 80's.

But he also is prone to absolutely nutcase theories. I recall one year, when he became seemingly obsessed with the way players were holding their racquets in the ready position before they served. He felt this was the key to great serving. Basically, he thought the key was a "loose" wrist (KIND of true...) and that you could see this before they even started the motion by the way they held the racquet. Racquet cocked up, meant locked wrist and a bad serve coming....racquet dangling, meant a great server. He went so far as to have slow motion/stop frame, split screens of servers, during his commentary in matches, in which he would stop, and highlight the way they were holding the racquet before they served! Not the grip mind you, just how high they held the racquet before beginning the serve motion.

I think I have a match on tape between Agassi and Martin in which he thought Agassi's cocked up racquet position prior to beginning his motion was the reason Agassi didn't serve as well as Martin!!! It was unreal.

Of course if he did come across a great server who held the racquet up...he could just say "well he does hold it up...but he is able to loosen his wrist later in the motion"...um..yeah...that's right Peter....people can do that...just like they can tighten up later...

He's had other crackpot theories along the way as well. In the case of Krajicek, he was likely just speaking in context at the time...probably promoting a match. Burwash does a lot of commentary and use to be quite involved with tennis Canada as well. So like Mcenroe's commentary...it must be taken with more than a grain of salt...
Click to expand...

thanks for the backgound info, very informative. hmmm, so what did he say about Sampras and his "racquet up" set up?? that is a bit odd.

I totally understand what kind of commentator he is if you compare him to Mac.
 
Azzurri said:
thanks for the backgound info, very informative. hmmm, so what did he say about Sampras and his "racquet up" set up?? that is a bit odd.

I totally understand what kind of commentator he is if you compare him to Mac.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of Sampras as well...but don't remember if I saw him do a Sampras match at that time. But he WOULD note exceptions...I remember he was doing a match with one big server...now I had spent 5 or 6 matches rolling my eyes at his constant "loose/locked wrist comments" and still frame comparisons! So in this match, I thought...UH OH....this huge server holds the racquet up...what's Burwash going to do? Well of course he did the "well he's able to loosen it up later..."(quick whitewash)

Now of course, in general, as Vic Braden used to emphasize....a relaxed starting position is probably better in general! You wouldn't teach a beginner to be "tight" at the beginning. Having said that, I'm not at all sure the tiny muscular tension of holding the racquet up at the beginning will consistently have much of an effect in the important parts of the motion later on. Plenty of huge servers have done just this.

But in general, SURE, try to be very relaxed overall in the ready stance. To think that you can take PRO players...who have generally mastered the service motion and relaxed efficiency of a serve, to a degree that is unimaginable for most....and think that THIS would be any real way to predict the looseness of their wrist...let alone the overall effectiveness of their serve??? UGH!!!!

In Burwash's world that year, only those setting up with a clearly bent wrist (actually he seemed to mostly be looking at whether the racquet was getting to parallel or above...not even the wrist) were the great servers...who could produce power and spin....he would really say thigns like..."Agassi can't get the power that Ivansevic can get...his wrist is locked!" That year...Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Rusedski, KRAJICEK...etc....and many others...all of whom held their racquet up around parallel to the ground or higher...were fundamentally flawed...locked wrist! lol.

So in the Agassi match, I specifically remember him saying that:
1.Agassi couldn't get the spin and power of the looser wrist players....well yes, he doesn't have the most powerful serve...but why? BECAUSE he starts out with a locked wrist! You can SEE IT!
2.he actually went so far as to say Martin could get better angles because he loosens up his wrist more. (uh huh....I suppose..that other thing...you know...being 6'6 had nothing to do with it....)

Anyways, it was ludicrous...insulting (to many servers), and a waste of time to draw circles on the TV around stills of players preparing to serve, to note where the racquet was!

He had a couple of other off the wall theories in other years, but I don't remember them offhand.

But anyways...I could easily hear him saying that Krajicek was the most dangerous or...whatever...while watching Krajicek, or right before/after Krajicek played.....he might well say the same thing about....Stich...or Ivanisevic....on another day. Not really an outright lie....just a bit of hyperbole in the moment. Any commentator might be guilty of it....Mac even moreso...because Mac will just make comments like that at anytime, on air, off air, interviews, in print...then contradict it later...because he can't be bothered to really think it all through and decide if he REALLY thinks it.....
 
Datacipher said:
I was thinking of Sampras as well...but don't remember if I saw him do a Sampras match at that time. But he WOULD note exceptions...I remember he was doing a match with one big server...now I had spent 5 or 6 matches rolling my eyes at his constant "loose/locked wrist comments" and still frame comparisons! So in this match, I thought...UH OH....this huge server holds the racquet up...what's Burwash going to do? Well of course he did the "well he's able to loosen it up later..."(quick whitewash)

Now of course, in general, as Vic Braden used to emphasize....a relaxed starting position is probably better in general! You wouldn't teach a beginner to be "tight" at the beginning. Having said that, I'm not at all sure the tiny muscular tension of holding the racquet up at the beginning will consistently have much of an effect in the important parts of the motion later on. Plenty of huge servers have done just this.

But in general, SURE, try to be very relaxed overall in the ready stance. To think that you can take PRO players...who have generally mastered the service motion and relaxed efficiency of a serve, to a degree that is unimaginable for most....and think that THIS would be any real way to predict the looseness of their wrist...let alone the overall effectiveness of their serve??? UGH!!!!

In Burwash's world that year, only those setting up with a clearly bent wrist (actually he seemed to mostly be looking at whether the racquet was getting to parallel or above...not even the wrist) were the great servers...who could produce power and spin....he would really say thigns like..."Agassi can't get the power that Ivansevic can get...his wrist is locked!" That year...Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Rusedski, KRAJICEK...etc....and many others...all of whom held their racquet up around parallel to the ground or higher...were fundamentally flawed...locked wrist! lol.

So in the Agassi match, I specifically remember him saying that:
1.Agassi couldn't get the spin and power of the looser wrist players....well yes, he doesn't have the most powerful serve...but why? BECAUSE he starts out with a locked wrist! You can SEE IT!
2.he actually went so far as to say Martin could get better angles because he loosens up his wrist more. (uh huh....I suppose..that other thing...you know...being 6'6 had nothing to do with it....)

Anyways, it was ludicrous...insulting (to many servers), and a waste of time to draw circles on the TV around stills of players preparing to serve, to note where the racquet was!

He had a couple of other off the wall theories in other years, but I don't remember them offhand.

But anyways...I could easily hear him saying that Krajicek was the most dangerous or...whatever...while watching Krajicek, or right before/after Krajicek played.....he might well say the same thing about....Stich...or Ivanisevic....on another day. Not really an outright lie....just a bit of hyperbole in the moment. Any commentator might be guilty of it....Mac even moreso...because Mac will just make comments like that at anytime, on air, off air, interviews, in print...then contradict it later...because he can't be bothered to really think it all through and decide if he REALLY thinks it.....
Click to expand...

oh man, Vic Braden. I had one of his videos back in the day..the guy was lame but somehow sometimes funny.

I am sure I must have heard him do a telecast at some point,but not sure. I rememeber there was some discussion about Goran and the way he had his wrist bent, but not sure who made a big deal..could it have been Peter?

Mac has gotten worse over the years. I truly believe he is bored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skypadq
1996 wimbledon pete sampras vs Richard Krajicek
Replies
8
Views
1K
King No1e
King No1e
W
Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Krajicek, Cincinnati quarter-final, 1999
Replies
0
Views
694
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Krajicek vs Sampras, Wimbledon quarter-final, 1996
Replies
5
Views
2K
JasonZ
J
W
Match Stats/Report - Muster vs Krajicek, Rome final, 1996
Replies
2
Views
341
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Becker vs Krajicek, Year End Championship semi-final, 1996
Replies
3
Views
759
Waspsting
W
Back
Top