Andy Murray v Pete Sampras?

[Mainad]

The 1990s was an interesting time, Wimbledon had too much influence on the way many people thought about tennis. I was a student and had Eurosport and Sky Sports on cable television, I got to see all of the big tournaments like Miami, Indian Wells, US Open, autumn indoor tournaments, French Open, it was a great time. BBC did show some of the Australian Open, I recall staying up in the early hours to watch Sampras v Moya in 1997. And Hingis v Conchita Martinez and Mauresmo in 1998 and 1999, all live on the BBC. Even more incredibly, BBC showed the US Open final live between Edberg and Sampras in 1992! And yet they never showed the US Open again. I know they had the rights to all of the slams because I corresponded with them and they confirmed that, but must have done some deal with Sky Sports. Later on when I got satellite tv, DSF Sports out of Germany also showed the US Open, DSF no longer exist. I saw most of the end of year championships in the 1990s in Germany on both Eurosport and DSF.

BBC also showed a few French Open matches but never comprehensive, I remember the 1997 final between Kuerten and Brugera, which was rather amusing for the strange vocal refrains made by both players throughout the match, if it was a womens match they would have got a lot more stick for that.

Having so much access to tennis back then, I got to see how players adapted differently depending on which surface they played on. I loved the grass but thought there was too much serve volley stuff, my favourite surface to watch tennis was on the hardcourts, especially in the summer. I also absolutely loved the indoor season in the autumn and sadly that has been totally devalued now in my opinion. I used to really enjoy watching players like Sampras serve volley on first serve and stay back on 2nd serve, it added a different dimension and I often think I wished these guys did that at Wimbledon. I have the match between Henman and Edberg at the 1996 US Open and Henman didn't serve and volley at all, I would say not even 10% the entire match, yet at Wimbledon would be serve volleying almost all the time.

In my opinion, the best tennis in the 1990s was played on the hardcourts in North America and the US Open. I liked the other surfaces but thought the medium paced hardcourts provided the best showcase and the crowds were always lively.

I didn't get Sky until about 2002. Then a whole world of tennis opened up for me that had never really existed for me before although I had always known about them at least vaguely. Suddenly, tennis was not all about Queens and Wimbledon or whatever the BBC chose to show. All these other events that I had only heard about before suddenly became a reality for me right there on my TV screen. It was wonderful and I became aware that there were great tennis players out there who didn't necessarily have to do well at Wimbledon. It broadened my horizons no end and I think I only became a true tennis fan from that time instead of just a Wimbledon fan. Although the grass lawns at Queens and SW19 will always have a sentimental place in my heart I now look forward with keen anticipation to the Masters series, the claycourt stretch culminating in Roland Garros, the night matches at the US Open and the bright sunshine of the courts in Melbourne. Although I will always be a grass lover, I have become a connoisseur of all the various surfaces. SkySport and Eurosport completed my tennis education!

 

[abmk]

yeah, but they are correct as are your stats. As I said Agassi won 53% of rallies 7 strokes or longer but 65% of rallies 4-6 shots which is where your 59% came from. However 4-6 shots for many of the rallies imo might indicate a poor approach shot off a neutral rally and a passing shot and the numbers back that up as Agassi had his highest percentage of winners in the 4 to 6 shot bucket. Furthermore, on 4 to 6 shot rallies on the sampras serve, pete won just 23% (more indicative of net play as it was on his own serve) however on the Agassi serve (more chance of the rally being baseline) he won 52% of points. And again Agassi had by far his highest winner rate on the 4 to 6 shot rallies on Pete's serve (16) and only 1 UFE so to me that screams passing shots. On his own serve in teh 4 to 6 shot rallies AA had 6 winners to 5 UFE so that looks more like baseline play. So for me, overall the 4 to 6 shot rallies aren't the best indicator of baseline play.

So I think 7 shots or more is a better indicator of purely baseline play and neutral rallies and no arguments Agassi was better from the baseline that match but my point was to show that Sampras was far from overwhelmed from the baseline in neutral rallies because he won a respectable percentage of the 7+ stroke rallies and that he in fact won the majority of the 10+ stroke rallies, and he was not at his best in this match while Agassi was.

fair enough ,its possible ...I did those stats a long time ago.

The point about 4-6 shots for the rallies including approach shots is not valid as my first stat below here does not include net approaches

Stats on rallies:

baseline to baseline ( rallies of more than 4 shots ) : agassi won 34 of these, sampras won 21 of these

rallies of more than 4 shots incl net approaches : agassi won 39 of these, sampras won 27 of these.

now this is subjective, includes 3 or 4 shot rallies which I felt showcased baseline prowess :

agassi won 56 of these points, sampras won 34 of these ...

I don't agree with the 7+ baseline shots either. If you can finish off the point sooner from the baseline, why bother extending the rallies ?

3-4 shot rallies may be somewhat serve dependent. But not after 4 shots IMO.

 

[Laurie]

fair enough ,its possible ...I did those stats a long time ago.

The point about 4-6 shots for the rallies including approach shots is not valid as my first stat below here does not include net approaches




I don't agree with the 7+ baseline shots either. If you can finish off the point sooner from the baseline, why bother extending the rallies ?

3-4 shot rallies may be somewhat serve dependent. But not after 4 shots IMO.

Hi ABMK

Perhaps it is not always possible to end a seven plus shot rally once two guys get into it? If you try to end it without waiting for the right ball, you could lose the rally instead. Often as well there can be an error on the fifth shot from either player. I have the whole match and I recall there were quite a number of extended rallies throughout that match, which made it interesting. I always believe those two players played some of the best extended rallies in tennis history, they were always trying to pull each other off court ultimately. This match is a good example that it doesn't have to go five to be a great match, I think this was a great match.

 

[sportmac]

agreed...peak Sampras would have his way. Later career Sampras would have problems because he did not approach the net selectively and that would play into Murray's hands. But what people are failing to understand is that peak Sampras had a capable groundstroke game and could bide his time till he got a ball he could punish and approach on. And Murray is more attackable in this regard than Fedalovic, which has limited his potential. Not to mention that he would be making serious hay on murray's second serve because unlike Federer, Sampras took bigger cuts at second serve returns. In fact part of why Fed has had so much success against Murray at this age is because he's started to be more aggressive on Murray's second serve which helps compensate for the declined groundgame. Too many people are thinking of 00/01 chip to the service line and charge Sampras. That's not what peak Sampras was about, he was the definition of all court player.

I could not agree more. Folks either don't know or forget that Sampras had one of the greatest running forehands the game has ever seen. He could just club it on the dead run. The boy could also scoot. You're also correct in that in his later career (Annacone influenced) he abandoned what was one of the greatest all court games in tennis history to rush in there post haste.
In his prime he was as good as it gets.
To see his ground game in full bloom watch the Davis Cup against Russia on clay when Agassi was injured.

 

[Laurie]

I could not agree more. Folks either don't know or forget that Sampras had one of the greatest running forehands the game has ever seen. He could just club it on the dead run. The boy could also scoot. You're also correct in that in his later career (Annacone influenced) he abandoned what was one of the greatest all court games in tennis history to rush in there post haste.
In his prime he was as good as it gets.
To see his ground game in full bloom watch the Davis Cup against Russia on clay when Agassi was injured.

In his book, Sampras said he often resisted Annacone's suggestions to rush the net incessantly, he liked rallying. However, something happened along the way which he definitely acknowledges in his book, but what he never explained is why he made such a dramatic change in tactics on non grass surfaces, leading to a lot of speculation over the years.

As far as I can tell, the herniated disc back injury before the US Open in 1999 seems to be decisive. He was on the 24 match win streak before he retired in Indianapolis before the US Open. I have quite a few of his matches from summer 1999 where he was playing some of the best tennis of his career. For instance, in his Cincinnati quarterfinal match against Krajicek, he was staying back on his 2nd serve regularly throughout the match, post back injury that became a thing of the past. Also I could never understand why he wouldn't run around the backhand to hit forehand returns on the ad court as he was one of the very best in the world at it in the 1990s. Pre back injury he chipped and charged very sparingly, post back injury he was doing it a lot.

Therefore, for whatever reason the back injury was the turning point in his way of approaching tennis. Having said that, I don't know why but in the 2002 US Open final, he completely reigned in the chip and charge tactic, only using it once or twice as a surprise tactic which paid dividends.

I would say though, even if Sampras changed tack in 2000 and beyond, I thought he still played amazing tennis in many matches in the year 2000, even if he only won just two tournaments.

 

[metsman]

In his book, Sampras said he often resisted Annacone's suggestions to rush the net incessantly, he liked rallying. However, something happened along the way which he definitely acknowledges in his book, but what he never explained is why he made such a dramatic change in tactics on non grass surfaces, leading to a lot of speculation over the years.

As far as I can tell, the herniated disc back injury before the US Open in 1999 seems to be decisive. He was on the 24 match win streak before he retired in Indianapolis before the US Open. I have quite a few of his matches from summer 1999 where he was playing some of the best tennis of his career. For instance, in his Cincinnati quarterfinal match against Krajicek, he was staying back on his 2nd serve regularly throughout the match, post back injury that became a thing of the past. Also I could never understand why he wouldn't run around the backhand to hit forehand returns on the ad court as he was one of the very best in the world at it in the 1990s. Pre back injury he chipped and charged very sparingly, post back injury he was doing it a lot.

Therefore, for whatever reason the back injury was the turning point in his way of approaching tennis. Having said that, I don't know why but in the 2002 US Open final, he completely reigned in the chip and charge tactic, only using it once or twice as a surprise tactic which paid dividends.

I would say though, even if Sampras changed tack in 2000 and beyond, I thought he still played amazing tennis in many matches in the year 2000, even if he only won just two tournaments.

I thought his frequency increased quite a bit starting around 97...I think it was a combination of the injuries and his desire to stay healthy enough to get slams. The 99 back injury may have had something to do with it too because after that he definitely switched to full time S&V. I thought too that after the 94 ankle injury after what was unquestionably the best tennis of his career, he wasn't as dynamic off the ground in 95.

Yeah in 02 USO while he was still S&V on everything, on the return he was rallying more and going for more just trying to sneak out a break because with how well he was serving, he was near unbreakable. It was the right tactic I thought....who knows what could have happened if he had maintained more all court tennis in the 97-02 period but his body may have broken down sooner too.

 

[Laurie]

I thought his frequency increased quite a bit starting around 97...I think it was a combination of the injuries and his desire to stay healthy enough to get slams. The 99 back injury may have had something to do with it too because after that he definitely switched to full time S&V. I thought too that after the 94 ankle injury after what was unquestionably the best tennis of his career, he wasn't as dynamic off the ground in 95.

Yeah in 02 USO while he was still S&V on everything, on the return he was rallying more and going for more just trying to sneak out a break because with how well he was serving, he was near unbreakable. It was the right tactic I thought....who knows what could have happened if he had maintained more all court tennis in the 97-02 period but his body may have broken down sooner too.

I know you are a stats man but I would not include 1997, 1998 and 1999 in with 2000, 2001 and 2002: He might have served volleyed more but still nothing like the frequency as in the new millennium. Just to bookend two matches, 1997 Australian Open final v Moya and ATP final v Kafelnikov in November, he was staying back on his 2nd serve almost exclusively.

1997 - eight tournaments
1998 - four tournaments
1999 - five tournaments
2000 - two tournaments
2001- no tournaments
2002 - one tournament

There is a clear difference, his best period is 1991 to 1999.

 

[metsman]

I know you are a stats man but I would not include 1997, 1998 and 1999 in with 2000, 2001 and 2002: He might have served volleyed more but still nothing like the frequency as in the new millennium. Just to bookend two matches, 1997 Australian Open final v Moya and ATP final v Kafelnikov in November, he was staying back on his 2nd serve almost exclusively.

1997 - eight tournaments
1998 - four tournaments
1999 - five tournaments
2000 - two tournaments
2001- no tournaments
2002 - one tournament

There is a clear difference, his best period is 1991 to 1999.

I consider 93-95 to be his peak, 93-97 and the late 99-early 00 to be his prime. 98 his level was poor.

 

[sportmac]

In his book, Sampras said he often resisted Annacone's suggestions to rush the net incessantly, he liked rallying. However, something happened along the way which he definitely acknowledges in his book, but what he never explained is why he made such a dramatic change in tactics on non grass surfaces, leading to a lot of speculation over the years.

As far as I can tell, the herniated disc back injury before the US Open in 1999 seems to be decisive. He was on the 24 match win streak before he retired in Indianapolis before the US Open. I have quite a few of his matches from summer 1999 where he was playing some of the best tennis of his career. For instance, in his Cincinnati quarterfinal match against Krajicek, he was staying back on his 2nd serve regularly throughout the match, post back injury that became a thing of the past. Also I could never understand why he wouldn't run around the backhand to hit forehand returns on the ad court as he was one of the very best in the world at it in the 1990s. Pre back injury he chipped and charged very sparingly, post back injury he was doing it a lot.

Therefore, for whatever reason the back injury was the turning point in his way of approaching tennis. Having said that, I don't know why but in the 2002 US Open final, he completely reigned in the chip and charge tactic, only using it once or twice as a surprise tactic which paid dividends.

I would say though, even if Sampras changed tack in 2000 and beyond, I thought he still played amazing tennis in many matches in the year 2000, even if he only won just two tournaments.

Shoot. I want to blame Annacone!
That's a good catch. I don't think I ever knew the back was that bad. Now I'm going to have to reconsider my position on Annacone.
Naw. Fed, Sampras, Henman - there was no noticeable improvements in their games under his watch. Then there was Sloane.

 

[Laurie]

Shoot. I want to blame Annacone!
That's a good catch. I don't think I ever knew the back was that bad. Now I'm going to have to reconsider my position on Annacone.
Naw. Fed, Sampras, Henman - there was no noticeable improvements in their games under his watch. Then there was Sloane.

Annacone did a great job, but there was too much emphasis on attack, I think Annacone learned from his stint with Sampras when he coached Henman and then Federer.

As you might be aware, Sampras "sacked" Annacone at the end of 2001, Annacone says he is very surprised. Sampras hires Tom Gullickson, then Joe Higueras. In July 2002, decides to swallow his pride as he puts it and asks Annacone to work with him again, and Annacone agrees. I might be wrong but I think Jose was only available part time for the summer.

The behind the scenes conversations was manifested in what actually happened on court in summer 2002. Sampras completely cut down on the chipping and charging and went back to rallying, looking for an opening to then get to net. The one match where he used it a lot was against Roddick in the quarterfinal of the US Open as Roddick was reported to be injured and it appears he didn't have a high regard for the Roddick passing shot. The semifinal against Schalken was very enjoyable, lots of long rallies. Incdientally, I have both the Sky Sports and CBS versions and each set of commentators were continually questioning why Sampras was staying back so much throughout the match, that he should pressurise Schalken from beginning to end. However, Sampras finally figured it should only be done at certain scoreboard pressure moments, not nilly willy.

He would have told Annacone that they couldn't go on with a failed tactic. If Sampras made that adjustment in 2000 and 2001 he would have won more tournaments.

 

[Laurie]

I consider 93-95 to be his peak, 93-97 and the late 99-early 00 to be his prime. 98 his level was poor.

I don't know, he might not have played as well in 1998 as he did in 1997 but four tournaments is still very good and he played in finals in San Jose, Cincinnati and Paris Bercy so could have been better. The mauling of Henman in the Vienna quarterfinal is one of the all time great demolitions of a fellow pro.

 

[sportmac]

Annacone did a great job, but there was too much emphasis on attack, I think Annacone learned from his stint with Sampras when he coached Henman and then Federer.

As you might be aware, Sampras "sacked" Annacone at the end of 2001, Annacone says he is very surprised. Sampras hires Tom Gullickson, then Joe Higueras. In July 2002, decides to swallow his pride as he puts it and asks Annacone to work with him again, and Annacone agrees. I might be wrong but I think Jose was only available part time for the summer.

The behind the scenes conversations was manifested in what actually happened on court in summer 2002. Sampras completely cut down on the chipping and charging and went back to rallying, looking for an opening to then get to net. The one match where he used it a lot was against Roddick in the quarterfinal of the US Open as Roddick was reported to be injured and it appears he didn't have a high regard for the Roddick passing shot. The semifinal against Schalken was very enjoyable, lots of long rallies. Incdientally, I have both the Sky Sports and CBS versions and each set of commentators were continually questioning why Sampras was staying back so much throughout the match, that he should pressurise Schalken from beginning to end. However, Sampras finally figured it should only be done at certain scoreboard pressure moments, not nilly willy.

He would have told Annacone that they couldn't go on with a failed tactic. If Sampras made that adjustment in 2000 and 2001 he would have won more tournaments.

Don't know if you ever saw Annacone play but he had two shots: a volley and everything else (and I mean everything) was an approach shot. He had to have what I consider the worst ground strokes of any ATP pro ever.
I know a good coach can't be judged by his playing abilities. Still, I think Annacone maintained the status quo with these guys. Henman stayed a top 10'er. Fed was Fed and even though he started volleying more under Annacone his volley didn't acquire bite until Edberg. Sampras won more hard court tournaments before Annacone than after.
I have no idea what, if anything, he did for Sloane. She may be a completely different problem to solve.

 

[abmk]

Hi ABMK

Perhaps it is not always possible to end a seven plus shot rally once two guys get into it? If you try to end it without waiting for the right ball, you could lose the rally instead. Often as well there can be an error on the fifth shot from either player. I have the whole match and I recall there were quite a number of extended rallies throughout that match, which made it interesting. I always believe those two players played some of the best extended rallies in tennis history, they were always trying to pull each other off court ultimately. This match is a good example that it doesn't have to go five to be a great match, I think this was a great match.

no, its not possible to always end it within 7 shots. But I'm saying, if you can finish within 5-6 strokes, that also shows your baseline prowess , not just ones longer than that.

That's why I counted all rallies more than 4 shots in that AO 95 final.

Agassi and Sampras did have some great rallies, no doubt.

AO 95 final a great match ? Nah, it was a good match, but I wouldn't classify it as a great one. Among their 9 GS encounters, 2 encounters were great : AO 00 and USO 01, IMO.

USO 01 QF and RG 11 SF are prime examples to show that a great match doesn't have to go to 5. AO 95 isn't one.

 

[mtincoronel76]

Murray vs Sampras what?

 

[RS]

AO - 6-4 Pete
RG - 6-4 Murray
Wim - 9-1 Pete
USO - 9-1 Pete

 

[Tennfan123]

 

[DSH]

AO - 6-4 Pete
RG - 6-4 Murray
Wim - 9-1 Pete
USO - 9-1 Pete

What about ATP Finals: 9-1 or 8-2?

 

[RS]

What about ATP Finals: 9-1 or 8-2?

One of them.

 

[Herald]

It's a little bit of a silly question, because both players are pretty well adapted to their situation.

2016 andy Murray playing against 90s Sampras with 2016 racquets, 2016 strings, on 2016 wimbledon surface, wins routinely. 2016 murray playing 90s sampras on 1995-style grass, with only 1995-style racquets and strings available, Sampras wins easily.

The game changes, players change with it.

In a dream perhaps, although I don't think even Andy's imagination is that powerful.