Boxscore stats for Krajicek-Sampras (1996 W)

[krosero]

This is a match I'd never been able to find complete stats for, until now. A couple of days ago we were talking about webarchive.org, so I had another look and it turns out that Wimbledon's official website is archived there all the way back to 1996. Don't know about anyone else but I didn't even get my first internet connection until '97, so this feels like a bit of ancient history for me.

Makes me wonder if there were internet message boards for tennis, too.

Anyway Wimbledon.org published huge boxscores of match statistics in '96, for the men and women. It would be interesting to know who did these stats and why they're not published in such detail anymore.

The boxscores are here: http://web.archive.org/web/19970130121112/www.wimbledon.org/live/resulndx3.html.

Very rudimentary. Instead of hyperlinks to individual sets, all the information appears on one page as one big chart.

And there are no aces, just the "service winners" (which correspond to the "total returns errors" in another row).

The ATP has Krajicek leading in aces by 28-8.

In the boxscore Krajicek leads in total points by 116-101. The ATP has 150-112, apparently because they counted aces and df's twice; if those are subtracted once, the ATP numbers drop to 114-99.

 

[Borgforever]

Bullseye! What a great table. They've really worked beautifully on the stats. Another GREAT find kros!

 

[krosero]

Bullseye! What a great table. They've really worked beautifully on the stats. Another GREAT find kros!

Glad you liked it. So how does it feel to come forward a hundred years, from '96 to '96?

 

[Borgforever]

Good... Good... Little less dust...

 

[Moose Malloy]

Here are some stats I took on Krajicek-Stich from the 4th Round of Wimbledon that year(6-4,7-6(5),6-4 win for Krajicek)
It was played on the old Court 1

Krajicek
57-98(58% 1st serve %)
50-57(87% 1st serve pts won)
21-41(51% 2nd serve pts won)
13 aces, 7 df's
28 non service winners(9 fh, 5 bh, 2 fhv, 11 bhv, 1 ov)
drew 35 return errors, 13 of which I judged service winners, 13 were on 2nd serve
14 passing shot winners(9 fh, 5 bh)
3-8 on break points(Stich made 1st serve on 6 of them)

Stich
57-104(54% 1st serve %)
39-57(68% 1st serve pts won)
31-47(66% 2nd serve pts won)
9 aces(1 on 2nd serve) 7 df's
20 non service winners(6 fh, 4 bh, 4 fhv, 6 bhv)
drew 27 return errors, 4 service winners, 13 on 2nd serve
8 passing shot winners(4 fh, 4 bh)
1 of 3 on break points(Krajicek made 1st serves on 2 of them)

49% of Krajicek's serves were unreturned. 35% of Stich's. It did seem like Krajicek was serving harder(had 13 service winners to Stich's 4)

When Stich got down a break in the 3rd he started staying back on 2nd serves, so there were some baseline rallies in those games, after the entire 1st two sets with both players coming in on all serves.

 

[Bursztyn]

In the last row there is an average speed of 2 nd service
In the next row there is 1 st service speed (the fastest)
And then (going up the boxscore) 2 nd service speed (the fastest)

 

[krosero]

In the last row there is an average speed of 2 nd service
In the next row there is 1 st service speed (the fastest)
And then (going up the boxscore) 2 nd service speed (the fastest)

Good catch, I hadn't noticed the mistake. Of course the row with highest numbers must be the one for fastest first serves.

 

[jdubbs]

A total of 69 service winners between the two. No rallies, just ace or unreturnable. Wow. How boring would that be to watch?

 

[Moose Malloy]

A total of 69 service winners between the two. No rallies, just ace or unreturnable. Wow. How boring would that be to watch?

The '09 Wimbledon Final(Fed-Roddick) had 186 unreturned serves hit between the two. Its a stat that isn't tracked officially. I think fans would be surprised on average how many returns aren't put into play, even in todays game. Aces alone never tells the whole story.

 

[Bursztyn]

Pete had his chances. In fact, he had more break points than Richard, just was unable to convert any of them.

Interesting to see that Pete won more receiving points than Richard (28 +5 dfs = 33 versus 24 +8 dfs = 32, however Richard won far more service points (84 versus 68 ). What does it tell us?

It looks like when Richard was serving Pete was troubling him no less than Richard was troubling Pete when Pete was serving. Pete lost because he failed to win important points.

On the other hand Pete won just one more receiving point than Richard, and Richard was serving far more often than Pete (Richard 84 won service points + 33 lost service points = total of 117 points, Pete 68 won service points + 32 lost service points = total 100 points). So in fact Richard hold his serve more comfortably than Pete.

If Richard had hold his serve more comfortably than Pete why on earth he would have had to serve more often than Pete? This is something I don't understand. There must be a flaw in this logic somewhere.

 

[mattennis]

If Krajicek had 117 service points and Sampras had 100 service points, that means that Krajicek had more "long service games=service games with several deuces, advantages, break points" than Sampras.

I've never seen the entire match, but if your numbers are right, it means that there were more games with Krajicek serve where Sampras was close to break him, than the other way around (even if at the end Krajicek broke Pete's serve more than Sampras broke Krajicek's serve).

In other words, Krajicek played much better (and won the majority) of important points in the match.

I wouldn't be surprised if your numbers are right, because precisely Krajicek was one of the few players that used to do that to Sampras (to win the majority of important points in the match). Sampras used to do that to so many players, but for whatever reason Krajicek never was afraid of Sampras and in fact he used to play really well and with total confidence every time he faced Sampras.

Another player that, for whatever reason, also used to win the majority of important points in the match against Sampras was Wayne Ferreira.

You could see in Sampras's face every time he faced Krajicek or Ferreira that he was not comfortable, he knew those two players (and some others like Stich) felt great playing against him and they would not fold anytime during the match.

 

[Sander001]

It would be interesting to know who did these stats and why they're not published in such detail anymore.

Ever notice those crazy deep stats and facts that appear during an ESPN broadcast? You won't find those anywhere on the web; it's information which is privileged[privileged to those who can pay for it and it ain't cheap].

 

[Moose Malloy]

If Krajicek had 117 service points and Sampras had 100 service points, that means that Krajicek had more "long service games=service games with several deuces, advantages, break points" than Sampras.

I've never seen the entire match, but if your numbers are right, it means that there were more games with Krajicek serve where Sampras was close to break him, than the other way around (even if at the end Krajicek broke Pete's serve more than Sampras broke Krajicek's serve).

you can see the match here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcsBxu5VGc8

Krajicek's 2nd service game of the match was probably the most important game of the match. lasted 9 deuces, fought off 5 break points. Sampras looked to be in great form(he had 7 or 8 clean backhand winner returns in that one game!)

But I guess the tide turned in that one game. Still I think it was a lot closer than most straight sets wins. A few points here & there & I think Sampras would have won his 4th straight Wimbledon that year.

 

[abmk]

Pete had his chances. In fact, he had more break points than Richard, just was unable to convert any of them.

Interesting to see that Pete won more receiving points than Richard (28 +5 dfs = 33 versus 24 +8 dfs = 32, however Richard won far more service points (84 versus 68 ). What does it tell us?

It looks like when Richard was serving Pete was troubling him no less than Richard was troubling Pete when Pete was serving. Pete lost because he failed to win important points.

On the other hand Pete won just one more receiving point than Richard, and Richard was serving far more often than Pete (Richard 84 won service points + 33 lost service points = total of 117 points, Pete 68 won service points + 32 lost service points = total 100 points). So in fact Richard hold his serve more comfortably than Pete.

If Richard had hold his serve more comfortably than Pete why on earth he would have had to serve more often than Pete? This is something I don't understand. There must be a flaw in this logic somewhere.

IIRC, there was one long game early in the 1st set that went to several deuces, including all the 6 BP chances that sampras had in that set... IIRC, there were something like 9 deuces ...

apart from that game, krajicek's serve was rarely threatened in the match ....

if you observe the boxscore, you'll see sampras had 30 serves in the 1st set and krajicek had 51 serves ...

 

[mattennis]

I hadn't seen the statistic table of the OP.

It shows that it was probably that one game you talk about. The second and third sets are more even (in service points) 43-42 and 27-24.

It was because of that Krajicek second service game that in the first set the difference in service points is so huge, 30-51.

Krajicek had only one chance (one break point) to break Pete's serve in both the first set and the third set, and he converted both. Sampras had 6 in the first set and couldn't convert. Krajicek played better the important points and deservedly won the match.

Krajicek leads the head-to-head 6-4. And more telling, Krajicek won the majority of close sets in their matches ( 7-6 or 7-5 scores), in particular, the two times they went to a final tie-break in the deciding set of a match, Krajicek won.

 

[mattennis]

By the way, Krajicek was one of my favourite players from the 90s and a player I really thought would win several GS titles (along with Stich and Ivanisevic, at the end, each one of them won only one GS).

I remember the way he served and played against Lendl in the 1991 US OPEN. He was 19 and was leading two sets to love. He got tight in the fourth set tie-break and Lendl was able to win in five sets.

In the next GS tournament, 1992 Australian Open, he played a fabulous match against Michael Stich in the QF, winning in five sets. Sadly he could not play the SF against Courier because of injury.

In the 1992 US OPEN he was a break up in the fifth set against Edberg in R16, but Edberg won the match (and the title).

It was a great era (beginning of the 90s) with so many great young players: Agassi, Stich, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Martin, Pioline, Ferreira, Rosset, Washington...taking the Tour.

Sadly, Krajicek and Stich were so injury-prone.

 

[abmk]

I hadn't seen the statistic table of the OP.

It shows that it was probably that one game you talk about. The second and third sets are more even (in service points) 43-42 and 27-24.

It was because of that Krajicek second service game that in the first set the difference in service points is so huge, 30-51.

Krajicek had only one chance (one break point) to break Pete's serve in both the first set and the third set, and he converted both. Sampras had 6 in the first set and couldn't convert. Krajicek played better the important points and deservedly won the match.

Krajicek leads the head-to-head 6-4. And more telling, Krajicek won the majority of close sets in their matches ( 7-6 or 7-5 scores), in particular, the two times they went to a final tie-break in the deciding set of a match, Krajicek won.

actually, if I remember correctly, krajicek had 3 BPs in the game that he broke in the 1st set ( was up 40-0 ) ...Just that he converted the first one ...

that was one amazing game from krajicek to break in the first set ....amazing returns and passes ..

I think that game, along with the one long game where krajicek saved several BPs were the most important ones in the match ....

this match wasn't a case of krajicek "only" winning the more important points. He seemed/looked in control. His BH return , considered a major weakness of his, was on fire those 2 weeks ...

now, OTOH, I just recently watched their stuttgart match in 97 .....apart from the 2 games where krajicek actually broke with some excellent play ( and the first game where pete started off slowly ), sampras was in total control on his serve ... krajicek was barely winning points on the return ...sampras was getting more into krajicek's service games ....

 

[abmk]

you can see the match here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcsBxu5VGc8

Krajicek's 2nd service game of the match was probably the most important game of the match. lasted 9 deuces, fought off 5 break points. Sampras looked to be in great form(he had 7 or 8 clean backhand winner returns in that one game!)

But I guess the tide turned in that one game. Still I think it was a lot closer than most straight sets wins. A few points here & there & I think Sampras would have won his 4th straight Wimbledon that year.

obviously a lot closer than most straight set wins, but ....

I'm not sure how much more convincingly one could defeat prime Sampras at wimbledon on grass .... surely can't do much better than that ...

after that game where krajicek saved several BPs, never felt that sampras was in control at all ...krajicek seemed more sure/confident .....

even the rain delay didn't help sampras much .....

 

[krosero]

In the last row there is an average speed of 2 nd service
In the next row there is 1 st service speed (the fastest)
And then (going up the boxscore) 2 nd service speed (the fastest)

Actually I don't think that row can be fastest 2nd serve because Pete's fastest number in that row is 118, but his number for the match is 117. That row looks instead like an average. It can't be average second serve so it looks like AVG first serve.

 

[Bursztyn]

You are right. It seems not to be 2 nd service speed (the fastest), however it doesn't look like an 1 st service speed (average).

For Pete we have the following numbers [mph]; 115, 118 and 116. The average speed is 116,33 not 117.

Now I see that this is a kind of weighted average

21/63*115+27/63*118+15/63*116=116,52≈117

 

[krosero]

So the service speeds actually should read like this:

 

[krosero]

In his book Pete wrote this about what happened after the rain delay late in the first set:

He was suddenly going for his shots, especially his second serve. Whether he knew it or not, he was taking me into territory I least liked to visit. My m.o. called for me to approach even the most lethal serve-and-volleyers with the expectation that I'll get a good look at some second serves. If that happened, I could beat them. The strategy worked against Goran Ivanisevic, it worked against Boris Becker, and it worked against Stefan Edberg. But when it became harder for me to sniff at a second serve, it created a chain reaction. If I couldn't get to his serve, that put more pressure on mine. I think Richard sensed that, and his own excellent serving freed up the rest of his game, especially his return games. And that's how it almost always works.​

By my count, Krajicek made his first serve on only 3 of 7 break points, so in fact on the important points he was getting by on second serves.

Richard saved a break point in his first service game of the match with an ace. He saved 5 more in his next service game with 3 unreturned serves (per NBC, Sampras made 8 return winners in that game). And he saved the last at 5-all in the second.

Sampras made his first serve on 2 of 5 break points.

 

[krosero]

actually, if I remember correctly, krajicek had 3 BPs in the game that he broke in the 1st set ( was up 40-0 ) ...Just that he converted the first one ...

that was one amazing game from krajicek to break in the first set ....amazing returns and passes ..

Yes at 5-6, he had 4 straight passing shots, two from each wing. The last was a FH return of a first serve, but Sampras missed all three of his other first serves in that game.

On an old thread we were talking about other times that players have broken with 4 straight winners. Hoad did it to Cooper at '57 Wimbledon; Laver to Osuna at '62 US; Connors to Newcombe in their Challenge Match in '75; and Cash to Pernfors in 1986 Davis Cup.

 

[abmk]

Yes at 5-6, he had 4 straight passing shots, two from each wing. The last was a FH return of a first serve, but Sampras missed all three of his other first serves in that game.

yep, I just found that game on youtube :

Krajicek amazing return game vs Sampras Wimbledon 1996

On an old thread we were talking about other times that players have broken with 4 straight winners. Hoad did it to Cooper at '57 Wimbledon; Laver to Osuna at '62 US; Connors to Newcombe in their Challenge Match in '75; and Cash to Pernfors in 1986 Davis Cup.

hmm, interesting ....

 

[krosero]

In the tiebreak, won by Krajicek 7-3:

Krajicek made 4 of 5 first serves, though he opened the tiebreak with an ace that looked clearly wide.
Sampras made 3 of 5 first serves.

Neither man won a point on second serve in the tiebreak (Pete made the only double-fault, at 0-2). Only one point was lost on first serve: at set point, Krajicek put a BH return past Sampras.

 

[Bursztyn]

Although

The ATP has Krajicek leading in aces by 28-8.

Sampras serve produced more service winners then Krajicek serve.
Sampras had 37 service winners in 100 services while Krajicek had 32 service winners in 117 services.
I wonder how do they define service winners? I suspect that service winners are serves that drove an opponent into error (forced or unforced). Aces are not included. Sampras served 37 service winners and Krajiced commited 37 return errors, in the same time Krajicek made 32 dervice winners and Sampras made 32 return errors.

So the total number of unreturned serves = service winners + aces

Sampras 37 + 8 = 45 (forehand unreturned 14 + backhand unreturned 31)
Krajicek 32 + 28 = 60 (forehand unreturned 32 + backhand unreturned 29)

Perhaps Krajicek served 29 aces.

 

[krosero]

Although


Sampras serve produced more service winners then Krajicek serve.
Sampras had 37 service winners in 100 services while Krajicek had 32 service winners in 117 services.
I wonder how do they define service winners? I suspect that service winners are serves that drove an opponent into error (forced or unforced). Aces are not included. Sampras served 37 service winners and Krajiced commited 37 return errors, in the same time Krajicek made 32 dervice winners and Sampras made 32 return errors.

So the total number of unreturned serves = service winners + aces

Sampras 37 + 8 = 45 (forehand unreturned 14 + backhand unreturned 31)
Krajicek 32 + 28 = 60 (forehand unreturned 32 + backhand unreturned 29)

Perhaps Krajicek served 29 aces.

Yes, I noted in the opening post that the service winners in the boxscore were equivalent to the return errors.

Slice Serve Ace has this for Krajicek: 62 unreturned serves (29 aces) of 117 serves = 53 %

Per the boxscore (and the ATP's aces), Sampras' serve was unreturned 45% of the time (45 of 100 services).

 

[krosero]

Krajicek out-aced Sampras in 7 of the 9 matches for which the ATP has stats, but I wonder if in some of those matches the ace count is deceptive.

In this Wimbledon match it's definitely deceptive, because the ATP has Krajicek leading 28-8 in aces but as you can see above there was not such a large gulf in unreturned serves as a whole.

Still it's astonishing to see some of Sampras' low ace counts in some of their matches. When they met at the Paris Indoors in '94, Sampras actually won the match 6-4, 7-6, yet he served only 2 aces (and 3 df's) while Krajicek served 15.

When Sampras won their USO match in 2000, he served only 8 aces in four sets (Krajicek 23).

Did Sampras take something off his serve against Krajicek? Well, if he did that does not explain how his unreturned rate against Krajicek -- at least in this Wimbledon match -- remained high.

Or did Krajicek just read Sampras' serve exceptionally well? Again, that may be, but at least in this Wimbledon match Krajicek still failed to put 45% of Sampras' serves back in play.

 

[krosero]

I've been able to compile these service speeds for Sampras at Wimbledon.

1993 final
Fastest Serve – 123 mph
Average 1st Serve – 110 mph

1995 final
Fastest Serve – 129 mph
Average 1st Serve – 116 mph
Fastest 2nd Serve – 106 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 95 mph

1996 loss to Krajicek
Fastest Serve – 126 mph
Average 1st Serve – 117 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 100 mph

1999 final
Fastest Serve – 131 mph
Average 1st Serve – 119 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 109 mph

2001 loss to Federer
Fastest Serve – 136 mph
Average 1st Serve – 121 mph
Average 2nd Serve – 110 mph

In every category there is a slight progression upwards, with only one exception: in '95 his fastest serve was 129, the next year it was 126. But his average 1st serve still went up that year.

So how much of this is genuine increase in speed by Sampras? Or is it due to increasingly accurate radar measurements that record the speed of the ball closer to the point that it leaves the racquet strings?

 

[krosero]

Here are some stats I took on Krajicek-Stich from the 4th Round of Wimbledon that year(6-4,7-6(5),6-4 win for Krajicek)
It was played on the old Court 1

Krajicek
57-98(58% 1st serve %)
50-57(87% 1st serve pts won)
21-41(51% 2nd serve pts won)
13 aces, 7 df's
28 non service winners(9 fh, 5 bh, 2 fhv, 11 bhv, 1 ov)
drew 35 return errors, 13 of which I judged service winners, 13 were on 2nd serve
14 passing shot winners(9 fh, 5 bh)
3-8 on break points(Stich made 1st serve on 6 of them)

Stich
57-104(54% 1st serve %)
39-57(68% 1st serve pts won)
31-47(66% 2nd serve pts won)
9 aces(1 on 2nd serve) 7 df's
20 non service winners(6 fh, 4 bh, 4 fhv, 6 bhv)
drew 27 return errors, 4 service winners, 13 on 2nd serve
8 passing shot winners(4 fh, 4 bh)
1 of 3 on break points(Krajicek made 1st serves on 2 of them)

49% of Krajicek's serves were unreturned. 35% of Stich's. It did seem like Krajicek was serving harder(had 13 service winners to Stich's 4)

When Stich got down a break in the 3rd he started staying back on 2nd serves, so there were some baseline rallies in those games, after the entire 1st two sets with both players coming in on all serves.

Stich has got some surprisingly low numbers there on his first serve points. He made his first serve on 6 of 8 break points but that didn't really help him.

Great success on his 2nd serve, though.

Here are the numbers whenever serves were put back in play:

Krajicek 68% on first serve (15/22) and 38% on second (8/21).
Stich 49% on first serve (17/35) and 65% on second (17/26).

____________________

Krajicek: 14 groundstroke winners, 14 volley winners
Stich: 10 groundstroke winners, 10 volley winners

 

[Moose Malloy]

On an old thread we were talking about other times that players have broken with 4 straight winners. Hoad did it to Cooper at '57 Wimbledon; Laver to Osuna at '62 US; Connors to Newcombe in their Challenge Match in '75; and Cash to Pernfors in 1986 Davis Cup.

Evert did that in the 6th game of the 2nd set vs Sukova in the '84 AO Final
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7ig8-vamAQ

 

[Moose Malloy]

^another one for Cash, vs Wilander at '87 Wimbledon. Broke with 4 passing shot winners(2 fh, 2 bh) for a 6-5 lead in 2nd set

 

[krosero]

Good find, I also found one recently from 1939. 4 straight passing shots by Vines, to break Budge in a match in Buffalo. Per a local report: “His passing shots were things of beauty in the first game [of the second set] as Budge rashly stormed the net and Vines scored four straight placements.”

 

[Vensai]

I thought the match was closer than the score suggested. All credit to Richard Krajicek though.

 

[Moose Malloy]

You can add Fognini to the 'break with 4 straight winners' list. Game 9, 5th set vs Nadal. 3 fh, 1 bh.

 

[NonP]

You can add Fognini to the 'break with 4 straight winners' list. Game 9, 5th set vs Nadal. 3 fh, 1 bh.

One hell of a return game by Fabio, yes. Rafa played as well as I've seen him all year but Fognini still wouldn't be denied. The stats really can't do this match justice, that was fantastic hitting by both guys. Makes you wonder just how much more Fog could do with a better serve and cranium.

BTW I did see your post on the Non-GOATs thread, thanks. Will try to reply to everyone soon. (Probably not tonight, though. Still haven't had dinner.)

 

[krosero]

Using the stats at Web Archive we can get the unreturned serves for Sampras' second-round match at that '96 Wimby.

Sampras d. Philippoussis 7-6 (4), 6-4, 6-4

Sampras made 25 “Total Returns Errors” per the Wimbledon boxscore, Philippoussis 32 (these numbers are equivalent to the “Service Winners”, though of course flipped).

None of those Wimbledon boxscores report the aces. But the press reported Sampras serving 15 aces, Philippoussis 28 (and four of Mark's were second serves). Therefore:

Sampras served on 81 points, and 47 serves did not come back: 58.0%
Philippoussis served on 106 points, and 53 serves did not come back: 50.0%

The Championships, Wimbledon 1996 - Match Statistics

The Championships, Wimbledon 1996 - Today

web.archive.org