Duel Match Stats/Reports - Sampras vs Henman, Wimbledon semi-finals, 1999 & 1998

[Waspsting]

Pete Sampras beat Tim Henman 3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1999 on grass

Sampras would go onto to win the title, beating Andre Agassi in the final. It’d be his third title in a row and Open Era record sixth overall at the event and he would go onto win the next 1. The two had played at the same stage previous year with the same result. The two had recently played the Queen’s Club final, with Sampras winning in 3 sets

Sampras won 133 points, Henman 118

Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Henman off all but 6 first serves and majority of seconds

(Note: I’m missing 1 point - Set 1, Game 1, Point 1 - a Henman service point that he won)

Serve Stats
Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (61/118) 52%
- 1st serve points won (49/61) 80%
- 2nd serve points won (31/57) 54%
- Aces 13 (2 second serves), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 10
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (44/118) 37%

Henman...
- 1st serve percentage (64/132) 48%
- 1st serve points won (46/64) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (33/68) 49%
- ?? serve points won (1/1)
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 10
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (54/132) 41%

Serve Pattern
Sampras served...
- to FH 43%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 6%

Henman served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 61%
- to Body 13%

Return Stats
Sampras made...
- 68 (20 FH, 48 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 14 Winners (6 FH, 8 BH)
- 52 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (1 FH, 5 BH)
- 46 Forced (14 FH, 32 BH)
- Return Rate (68/122) 56%

Henman made...
- 64 (27 FH, 37 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 8 Winners (7 FH, 1 BH)
- 30 Errors, all forced...
- 30 Forced (12 FH, 18 BH)
- Return Rate (64/108) 59%

Break Points
Sampras 4/11 (9 games)
Henman 2/7 (6 games)

Winners(including returns, excluding serves)
Sampras 46 (10 FH, 14 BH, 8 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 7 OH)
Henman 20 (9 FH, 5 BH, 3 FHV, 3 BHV)

Sampras had 23 from serve-volley points -
- 14 first 'volleys' (6 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH, 1 FH at net)... 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 9 second volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 5 OH)

- 20 passes - 13 returns (5 FH, 8 BH) & 7 regular (1 FH, 6 BH)
- FH returns - 1 dtl, 4 inside-in
- BH returns - 2 dtl 1 inside-out (that Henman left), 1 inside-out/down-the-middle (that Henman left), 4 inside-in
- regular FH - 1 cc
- regular BHs - 4 cc, 2 dtl (1 that Henman left)

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 dtl/inside-out, 2 inside-in (1 return)

Henman had 5 from serve-volley points -
- 3 first volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (2 FHV)

- 1 other BHV was hit from behind service line but has been marked a net point

- 14 passes - 8 returns (7 FH, 1 BH) & 6 regular (2 FH, 4 BH)
- FH returns -2 cc, 3 dtl, 2 inside-out (both left by Sampras)
- BH return - 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl, 1 lob

Errors(excluding returns and serves)
Sampras 33
- 13 Unforced (4 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 5 BHV)... with 1 BH at net & 1 BH pass attempt
- 20 Forced (3 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 5 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 53.8

Henman 33
- 10 Unforced (4 FH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 23 Forced (9 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sampras was...
- 72/101 (71%) at net, including...
- 66/94 (70%) serve-volleying, comprising..
- 37/49 (76%) off 1st serve and...
- 29/45 (64%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Henman was...
- 63/96 (66%) at net, including...
- 61/91 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising..
- 40/56 (71%) off 1st serve and...
- 21/35 (60%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Sampras overcomes a slow start to outplay Henman, who however also gets his return licks in. Early taken, aggressive second returning from the winner is particularly key in his having better of things and he volleys decisively. Henman elects to not serve-volley fairly often, though how much it would benefit him (if at all) to have followed standard 100% serve-volleying remains open question

Sampras serve-volleys 100% of the time
Henman does so 90% of the time off first serves (wins 71% serve-volleying, 67% not) and 60% of the time off seconds (wins 60% serve-volleying, 52% not)

Obvious interpretation of Henman winning 8% more second serve-volleying than not, and high 60% won second serve-volleying is he’s erred in staying back so often

Practically, its not that obvious
Pete returns second serves from inside the court, and fairly regularly spanks return-pass winners. And Henman has high 10 double faults (so does Pete actually, more on that later), straining for a good second serve that won’t get spanked

Were Henman to constantly second serve-volley, likely outcome would be -
- his double faults would go up (and they’re high as is), or/and
- Pete would be more in groove knocking away winning returns (and he knocks away plenty as is)

Most, if not all, the double faults are from would-be serve-volley points. Including those with the second serve-volleys, Henman wins 47%. 5% lower than what he does staying back

Points of interest and/or strange elements are double faults and misjudgements at net - both of them by both players

Both players double fault large 10 times
Pete has just 1 more first serve ace than that (he also has 2 second serve ones), Henman has just 2 aces
So between them, two players combine for 15 aces, 20 double faults. Very rare for 1999

The 2 players combined clearly leave 5 passes that end up landing in for a winner (Henman leaves 2, Pete 3). Just 1 such misjudgement from players net players of this experience would be eye-brow raising. Doubly so in conditions they’re both so familiar with. 5 times they do

Statistically, winners are key difference
- Henman leads freebies 41% to 37%
- both with high 10 doubles (Henman 15% off second serves, Pete 18%)
- Both have 33 errrors, and they’re similar of breakdown - Pete 3 more UEs, Henman 3 more FEs
- Winners - Pete 46, Henman 20

Pete has 23 ‘volley’ winners, 21 passing ones and 2 baseline-to-baseline
Henman has just 6 volley winners, 14 passing ones

Huge gap in volleying winners is somewhat compensated for by Henman’s freebie advantage (10 points). In words, points Pete wins by knocking off volleys corresponds to points Henman wins when his serve doesn’t come back. If anything, Henman’s way is more efficient (if not as fun to watch). This big gap isn’t too important, just an indicator in difference in how the two win their serice points

On the pass, Pete with 21 winners, 13 ground FEs, Henman 14 winners, 19 FEs
Sans return winners, Pete with 8 pass winners, Henman 6
Just return-pass winners, Pete 13, Henman 8

This is where match is won and lost. Pete with low 56% return rate, but he’s striking a lot of winning returns and drawing weak volleys to give himself room to shine on the follow up pass too - cost of giving up freebies, value of doing damage with the return is good one for him

Henman with higher return rate, but not quite so damaging with the returns. In no small part due to lovely, controlled half-volleying from Pete that keeps him in command of points that he could easily have lost based on the quality of the returns alone

Pete’s half-volleying (that is, resistance to losing points to good returning) and Henman’s inability to handle powerful returns (he doesn’t volley commandingly, which would take some doing but he’s capable of it) on the volley leading to Pete capitilizing on the follow-up pass (not easy ones, he passes very well) are keys to result

Sampras’ serve games
Good, not great, serving from Sampras

52% first serves isn’t good. He’s got 11 first serve aces and a service winner, which comes to 20% off first serves. That’s very good in light of how he serves. He’s not aiming for lines and going for aces too often and first serving is more like some of Boris Becker’s showings in that quality is based on brute pace rather than wide placement

Most problematically, 10 double faults or 18% off second serves. Breaks himself with 3 of them in his opening service game, and they have a hand almost every time he gets himself into trouble thereafter

Is it worth it, for sending down damaging second serves? Probably, with a caveat. He’s got 2 second serve aces too and wins high 64% second serve-volley points, to come away with 54% second serve points won total

That’s not a lose-proof high figure, in light of low in count, but good enough

The caveat is his 1/2volleying has to be (and is) very good, which allows him to win all those second serve volley points. In other words, its not the quality of second serves alone that’s doing the work of winning bulk of points

Henman returns from normal position, 2-4 paces behind baseline. Moves well for them and gets a good few smacked returns off. Of course, with little choice but to block back many a powerful serve too. Ability to make the tough return is good

Pete’s beyond his norm in how aggressively he handles routine volleys. Usually swipes them away for winner or hard and wide (as opposed to calmly just steering them wide to set up winning second volley). His stock volleying doesn’t leave Henman much passing chances

 

[Waspsting]

Henman has to create good look passing chances by drawing half-volleys first up. Reasonable looks here, but about as good as could hope for from Pete’s point of view. He controls half-volleys, gets them not-short (if not deep), with fair force

Pete 14 ‘first’ volley winners from Pete, with just 1 groundstroke among them and and 9 post-first

Generally, his serve-volley winners tend to be more post-first heavy and first ‘volley’ winners tend to include some amount of putaway FH at net or/and smashes. Just 1 FH at net here, and 2 OH first volleys. Speaks to his being aggressive with the volleying

Henman with 19 ground FEs, evenly distributed across wings. Almost all would be passing shots. He’s got 6 passing winners in play. Not a good ratio, but his looks aren’t good ones
8 return-pass winners to go with it (Pete misjudges and leaves 2 of them). He narrowly misses a small few when outright going for winner

Pete with 7 ‘volley’ UEs and 7 FEs
5 of the UEs are BHVs and 5 of the FEs are BH1/2Vs. FHV is very steady with just 2 error (1 UE, 1 FE), with Pete not playing unduly higher number of BHVs to account for the large gap across wings in his volleying errors

Gist - by Sampras standards, below par serving. Both serves are powerful, but width isn’t noteworthy, he double faults a lot and has low in count. Henman moving well on the return, including the wide ones and willing to take on the winner attempt. He’s not bad at it and gets good lot of firm returns to Pete’s feet too

Pete quite vigorous in attacking the net high volley, with acceptable consistency. And good at making half-volleys (both how many he makes, and with how much force)
Good looks at passes for Henman are rare, and kept to minimum even when Pete half-volleys first up

Henman’s serve games
Despite the 41% unreturneds, Henman doesn’t serve too well

48% in count is downrigtht poor. 2 aces or 3% first serve ace rate speaks for itself. Beyond that, he’s not serving into corners leaving Pete lunging and hopping; Pete can reach returns without much trouble, though often rushed

Pete standing couple paces back for first returns and hopping forward last instant so he’s close to baseline to meet the ball. Against he takes second returns from inside the court. Still not strained to reach them

Henman serving good amount to body or around it. 13% serves to body isn’t small and plenty of the 61% to BH close to the body. Not very accurate serves. Almost amusingly, some of his serves seem to be hone in perfectly on Pete’s racquet rather than body, from Pete’s original position

This kind of serving is bound to see returner connect with a lot of returns. And Pete looks to strike return winners on the up. Combo of bounce and where he’s standing makes big height rather than low potential problem. Balls are up to his lower ribs and rising, on line close to his body

He’s predictable. BH inside-in being go-to winning return, and by far the most dangerous one. He’s got 4 winners off it. Almost never goes inside-out and both winners he hits in that direction is due to Henman leaving the ball

And like Pete, 10 double faults; if Pete double faults looking to be damaging, Henman does so looking to not get walloped; 14 return winners from Pete, almost twice as many as Henman’s 8 from just 4 more successful returns

Still, 41% unreturned serves is good to be holding behind most of the time. And to be clear, Pete’s showing isn’t a blazing, going-for-winner-with-every-return one. Stock powerful taken early and going for winners as can, a short jump up from the stock

Facing break points in 9 games in 4 sets with 41% unreturneds is unusual
Henman wins just 25/78 points when return is made or 32% (excluding double faults, that rises to 37%)

And he’s not serve-volleying all the time
Does so 90% off first serves, 60% off seconds
Off first serves, wins 71% doing so, 67% staying back
Off second serve, wins 60% doing so, 52% not (with high double faults also price doing so)

He’s got just 5 serve-volleying winners for 6 UEs and 4 FEs
Pete’s got 13 return-pass winners and 7 regular. 13 ground FEs (i.e. passing errors) to go with it, on top of the low return-rate

Its more Henman rarely has to volley than he volleys badly, though he doesn’t volley well either as the winner/UE differential suggests. With Pete’s position, he’s faced with above average power balls on the net high volley, which if he were on song, would be easier to putaway than slower ball. He doesn’t put them away (in context of not having to volley much to begin with)

He avoids Pete’s FH. Serves there 26% of the time, And Pete’s got just 1 non-return pass winner and 3 FEs on that side (BH has 6 winners, 10 FEs)

Not much difference in effectiveness in Pete’s passing hit rate across wings than. Avoiding Pete’s FH is obvious move, but he has a good BH passing day. Henman’s volleys tend to leave normal, if not good look passes, and Pete delivers the goods. 4 BH cc passes are the highlight, brilliant, rasping shots

Good job by Henman to keep the volley FEs down to just 4. Pete’s power and early position means anything slightly wide is difficult to handle

Pete’s winning passes are set up by not decisive net-high volleys from Henman (as opposed to by drawing weak volley with strong return). ‘Not decisive’ means just that here - not soft, weak volleys leaving lined up passes, but also not placed where they can’t be be reached or punched through too well. Henman’s still well balanced and set at net to deal with the rejoinder and credit Pete for good passing for striking the winners

 

[Waspsting]

Which leaves small number of baseline rallies
Henman in particular shows little interest in seeking net on them. Pete plays them normally, open to attacking. With a big FH from half-chance more than taking net
Pete with both ground-to-ground winners and he also has a return one against first serve with Henman on baseline

Ground-to-ground UEs read Pete 5, Henman 4 - all but 1 of Pete’s being FHs
Pete’s a perfect 6/6 rallying to net, Henman 2/5. Pete’s would be genuine, takes net from baseline rally ones, some of Henman’s would be hopeless forced approaches dealing with Pete’s serve-volleying

Gist - Lot of unreturned serves from Henman, but good lot of return winners from Pete. With the serve not strong, but the high freebies aren’t due to over-aggressive returning
And Henman not placing or punching his volleys particularly well, but more credit to Pete for good passing then discredit to Henman on the volley
Double faults are a problem for Henman

Match Progression
Second point of match, Henman leaves a BH dtl pass that lands in for winner. He goes on to hold
Next 3 games are all breaks

Pete double faults 3 times and Henman wraps up a swiped BH cc return that forces BH1/2V error
“Anything you can do, I can too” respond both players next game. Henman double faults twice and Pete wraps up with a FH inside-in return pass winner

Pete carries on the AYCD,ICT game after by leaving a return that lands in for a winner. He lands no first serves in the 5 points and Henman strikes 3 return pass winners (FH inside-out that Pete leaves, FH cc and BH inside-in), along with Pete missing a make-ably difficult, wide FHV to stay down 1-3

Henman stays back 6/9 points game after (the other point is an ace) to hold. He continues staying back now and then for rest of set (and match). Pete’s down 0-30 game after before holding. In dude time, Henman serves out to 30

Pete comes to ‘dominate’ (as in, getting into return games while holding without much bother) in second set. He serves 27 points for his 5 holds, while Henman serves 44 for 4 holds and being broken at then end

2 trade tough holds early on where they each save a break point. Henman’s takes 12 points and break point is brought up by consecutive dtl return-pass winners (1 of each wing), with the serves in question almost literally directed at Pete’s racquet. Pete adds another return winner late ron, but couple of unreturned first serves sees Henman through to hold

Couple of easy second volley misses by Pete and another return-pass winner (FH dtl) sees Henman have his own break point after that. Pete holds, throwing in a second serve ace after saving the break point with a typical first serve

Henman struggles through to hold for 4-4 after that, making 3 volley UEs and again leaving a return that lands in for a winner, but Pete fumbles a BH pass from near the service line also. Saves a break point with a first volley, FHV winner from second serve point

Finally, Pete breaks to end the set in 12 point game. There are 3 blistering BH cc passing winners in the game (2 after drawing first low volleys, the last against a decent volley, all with Henman well positioned at net), but its 2 double faults that seal the game

Carrying on the good work, Pete breaks first chance in second set. Impressive game with BH inside-in return-pass winner to open, FH cc pass winner set up by powerful return to end, a powerful FH inside-out that sees him take charge of baseline rally

He’s shakey in consolidating. Misses tricky BH at net, just about catches the line with an unnecessarily overdone first OH winner and decides its been a long time since he’s left a pass to land in for a winner. The FH inside-out return in question lands well inside. That makes it deuce and Pete responds with 2 aces, the first of them a second serve

Double faults and a perfect BH lob winner from Henman have Pete in trouble next go around too, and he saves break point in 10 point game

Henman meanwhile is in a lot of trouble on serve. When he holds to 15 for 3-5, it ends a run 5 service games where he’d faced break point. Pete serves out to 30 with 4 unreturned serves, though its Henman who wins the highlight point with a BHV after forcing Sampras back

Pete with more double faulting woes in fourth set and Henman gets some of his best, whacked returns in, so not a convincing set from Pete
He starts where he left off and has a break point in opening game that lasts 12 points. Henman though holds easily after that and its Pete who struggles on serve more

Pete’s down break point in both game 6 and game 8 and has 4 double faults across the 2 games. Henman meanwhile has a run of 11/12 service points in a row going unreturned across 3 games. All this takes score to 4-4

Against trend, Pete breaks to love in a bad game from Henman. He double faults and makes a couple volley UEs (routine first and not too easy second). Pete serves out to 15 without trouble

Summing up, Sampras’ early taken returns from inside-court or from on the baseline is key to outcome. His stock returns leave no excess time for Henman on the volley, while the better ones go for winners. At substantial cost of missing a lot of returns against aan at most decent serve

Some nifty half-volleying from Sampras is also important and keeps him a step ahead in holding onto serve against a well-moving Henman on the return and he’s quite fierce in volleying the net high stuff., leaving Henman with scant passing looks

Henman doesn’t volley with authority and Sampras is strong on the BH pass to make most of it
On odd side, both players double faulting plenty and both players leaving a number of passes that land in for winners

Stats for the final between Sampras and Andre Agassi - Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Agassi, Wimbledon final, 1999 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[Waspsting]

Sampras beat Henman 6-3, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1998 on grass

Sampras would go onto to win the title, beating Goran Ivanisevic in the final. He was the defending champion, this would be his 5th title at the event and he would go onto win the next 2 also. This was the first of Henman’s 4 semi-finals at the event

Sampras won 123 points, Henman 104

Sampras players serve-volleyed off all serves, Henman off all but 1 first serve and minority off seconds

Serve Stats
Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (59/114) 52%
- 1st serve points won (49/59) 83%
- 2nd serve points won (33/55) 60%
- Aces 16, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (46/114) 40%

Henman...
- 1st serve percentage (59/113) 52%
- 1st serve points won (45/59) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (27/54) 50%
- Aces 8 (1 not clean)
- Double Faults 10
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (42/113) 37%

Serve Pattern
Sampras served...
- to FH 43%
- to BH 50%
- to Body 7%

Henman served...
- to FH 25%
- to BH 57%
- to Body 17%

Return Stats
Sampras made...
- 61 (9 FH, 52 BH), including 5 return-approaches
- 8 Winners (3 FH, 5 BH)
- 34 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 33 Forced (11 FH, 22 BH)
- Return Rate (61/103) 59%

Henman made...
- 61 (30 FH, 31 BH)
- 5 Winners (2 FH, 3 BH)
- 29 Errors, all forced...
- 29 Forced (11 FH, 18 BH)
- Return Rate (61/107) 57%

Break Points
Sampras 5/8 (6 games)
Henman 2/6 (4 games)

Winners(including returns, excluding serves)
Sampras 35 (4 FH, 9 BH, 7 FHV, 11 BHV, 4 OH)
Henman 25 (7 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 4 BHV)

Sampras had 16 from serve-volley points -
- 12 first volleys (4 FHV, 7 BHV, 1 OH)
- 4 second volleys (2 BHV, 2 OH)... 1 OH was on the bounce

- 3 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 2 BHV)

- 10 passes - 8 returns (3 FH, 5 BH) & 2 regular (2 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 3 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 cc

- regular (non-pass) FH - 1 dtl
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 longline slice (that Henman left)

Henman had 7 from serve-volley points -
- 4 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)... Sampras left the FH1/2V
- 4 second volleys (4 BHV)

- 16 passes - 5 returns (2 FH, 3 BH) & 11 regular (4 FH, 7 BH)
- FH returns - 2 dtl
- BH return - 2 cc, 1 dtl
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 2 inside-out, 1 lob
- regular BHs - 4 cc, 2 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out

- regular (non-pass) FH - 1 dtl

Errors(excluding returns and serves)
Sampras 30
- 12 Unforced (5 FH, 2 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 6 BH, 4 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50.8

Henman 32
- 7 Unforced (1 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 25 Forced (7 FH, 12 BH, 2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 1 Back-to-Net)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52.9

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sampras was...
- 72/100 (72%) at net, including...
- 65/90 (72%) serve-volleying, comprising..
- 32/42 (76%) off 1st serve and...
- 33/48 (69%) off 2nd serve
---
- 3/5 (60%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Henman was...
- 48/76 (63%) at net, including...
- 46/70 (66%) serve-volleying, comprising..
- 36/50 (72%) off 1st serve and...
- 10/20 (50%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Another good match and again, Sampras just that much better at most everything and Henman still getting a good few return licks in

Henman serve-volleys even less here then he would the following year. All the time to start. Starts staying back off a few second serves at start of second set. And throughout last 2 sets, only rarely second serve-volleying

Off second serve, he wins 10/20 or 50% serve-volleying and 17/24 or 71% not
Clearly it was a good move. 71% winning rate is higher than Pete’s 69% second serve-volleying even

Wins that huge lot of points in all kinds of ways. Waiting out error from Pete. Hitting winners from the back. Taking net and winning there. Passing Pete when Pete chip-charges or otherwise rallies to net. Draws 2 return errors - 1 a particularly high kicker that’s been marked an FE

Wouldn’t expect Henman to win that high a lot of points over that many and such a long period. After first set, no element of surprise behind the move

Commentators - one of the McEnroe - don’t like the move, but acknowledge its successful. Pete finally gains decisive break with 2 chip-charge returns ending with winners, which they take as validation of their take. This is called believing what you want to believe. Henman’s 71% winning rate might not be long term sustainable, but its even less likely he’d have won that won many serve-volleying, and most likely, would have been broken earlier and lost more easily

Double faults though are a significant problem for Henman. He has 10 or 19% of second serves. He’s not serving ‘big’ second serves and its not straining for a good serve to serve-volley behind. Just a bad percentage of handing over the ultimate freebie

Sampras of course serve-volleys 100% of the time

First serve in - Pete 59/114, Henman 59/113
Nice when that happens. It makes ready comparison easy

First serve won - Pete 83%, Henman 76%
Second serve won - Pete 60%, Henman 50%

Back to Pete being ‘just that much better at most everything. Double faults are the worst of Henman’s showing, which is otherwise good and even with the doubles, a solid effort

Neither player serves particularly well, both serving close to body or otherwise where return can be reached without trouble. Pete does go wide for aces when in spot of bother. Henman though serves body serves, not just ‘around the body’, which don’t jam Pete at all. He comfily steps away and returns however he likes. Wouldn’t come as a surprise were he to knock of 3 return winners in succession (though he doesn’t). For that matter, would be less surprising than usual if Henman were too as well (he actually does cluster strong returns together)

Henman appears to have a good read on Pete’s serve. He’s not caught out by direction and the ones that blow by are just too good. They were apparently practice partners

Good read or not, Pete does have better serve. If that sounds like stating the bleeding obvious, its not all that clear at the start, when they’re serving about the same power. That’s probably Henman maxed out, and Pete warming up. Like many a serve-volley match, advantages flow out of having the better serve - it enables Pete to return better, which enables him to face easier volleys, which allows him to have better looks at the pass

Surprising extent of Henman’s superiority on baseline starting points cuts back into that. Or would do, if it weren’t for all the double faults that keep his 2nd serve points won to 50%

50% second serve points won, with 52% first serves in. Sooner or later, bound to get broken. Even winning 90% first serve points would leave Henman vulnerable

Pete’s 83% first serve won and 60% second serve by contrast, look potentially shut out figures. Henman breaks him twice. Just as following year, in a row. And conjures break points in 2 other games. Not bad at all

Sampras’ serve game
Full serve-volley from Pete
Note great serving by his standard, but dialed up as and when needed

52% in-count isn’t great. Much of the first serving is readily reachable, second serving more so along expected lines
When in trouble though, tends to find his best first serves for aces. And better seconds
16 aces, 1 service winner comes to unreturnable 29% of first serves. Flatteringly good
7 double faults comes to 13% of second serves. Fair enough

Henman has mentioned earlier seems to have a good read on the serve. Returns from a pace or 2 behind standard position. It’s a good balance - not so far back to create scope for wide angles for Pete and of course, every little further back is more time to react. Occasionally takes returns early without much success

He does get powerful returns off. Early on, few half-volleys for Pete to handle, which he does but after that, stock volleying is what he’s faced with. Not many returns to feet or wide, but fairly powerful

Dynamics like this tend to be test of volleyers consistency and decisiveness on the volley. Here, with creeping into handling power too

Freebies 40%, and Pete with 12 first volley winners, 4 post firsts. 5 volley UEs and 3 FEs
Henman with 5 return-pass winners and 10 regulars (3-4 of the regulars are on his service games, so unimportant for breaking chances) for 19 ground FEs

40% is about mode for Pete on grass. Given considerable not wide serving, Henman not doing as well as possible on his return rate. 5 return-winners is also in ‘can-do-better’ territory

 

[Waspsting]

12/16 serve-volleying winners being first volleys (and no FH or BH at net ones among them) is unusually first volley winner yield from Pete. In line with powerful, but at net high returning (as opposed to low, where hitting first volley winners become less likely). Pete also looking to putaway the volley whenever possible, without overdoing it and going after slightly lower ones

5 UEs in acceptable range of good play, 3 FEs very good. Not faced with many potential FE calibre returns or passes after first few games, but he’s fluent in half-volleying in brief spell of facing them

Room for improvement in stock volleying quality. Doesn’t plonk them, but not bad looks on the pass for Henman, drawn by slightly under net returns

Some lovely BH passing from Henman, where he’s got 7 regular pass winners, 12 FE. He’s more apt to net the ball on decent FH looks, where he has 4 winners, 7 FEs, so contrary to stats. Pete also looking to volley to BH, so when he’s volleyed to FH, its probably not as authoritive a volley

Not a bad contest. Pete’s pretty secure though. To make headway, Henman would either need Pete to be missing net high volleys or get the returns in lower
57% return rate to yield mode above average power, net high volley… is not breaking numbers and would need volleyer messing up some to help. Pete doesn’t mess up

Henman’s serve game
Henman starts match serve-volleying 100%. Starts staying back some in second set, and stays back most of the time for last 2 sets. Stays back of 1 first serve too, which draws a return error

He too serves not too far from Pete when he’s serve-volleying. Including high 17% to body (Pete has 7%). It doesn’t bother Pete, who without rush (if not comfortably), is able to move out the way and play his BH return

Henman a little off in handling power on the volley. Pete doesn’t devastate with his return-passes against second serves, but Henman winning just 10/20 such points

On flip side, the return errors he draws with first serves are forceful (as in, would be challenging even sans serve-volley). His fastest serves are same calibre as Pete’s norm and he doesn’t shrink from going for them (in other words, not a ‘once-in-awhile-sends-down-big-serve’ showing, but pretty big in general. And serve does more than half the work of his serve-volleying success

On the ‘volley’ 8 winners (including a 1/2volley that looks like it was out and Pete seeing it same way chooses to not play), 6 UEs, 5 FEs

Not great volleying. The UEs are high, the FEs are quite regular. He doesn’t face a ton of tough volleys first up. Tougher than ones he presents Pete - higher proportion wide or low and as they’re taken earlier, on him that much quicker - but its not a regular flow of tough volleys

Pete with 8 return-pass winners at 59% return rate

And just 2 regular pass winners (both BH cc), for 11 ground FEs. That’s little deceptive as Pete also wins 3 points aggressively at net after pushing the at net Henman onto defensive with power returns

Still, not a great hit rate from Pete. He gets fair looks at passes too, with Henman uneasy against power

Worth trying to stay back off second serves, if one’s troubled by power. And winning 17/24 or 71% such points is wild dreams territory of success for Henman on what are, neutral starting points (in reality as well as theory)

As stated earlier, he wins these points in all ways
Draws couple return errors
Outlasts Pete from baseline, or hits a winner from there
Ground UEs - Pete 7, Henman 1
Ground-to-ground winners - Pete 3, Henman 1

Pete’s 3/5 return-approaching. 1 is a return against first serve while drawing a wide first 1/2volley, the other four are bona fida chip-charges. Pretty bad ones, leaving good look passes. 1 good one wins him a point and he needs 2 good volleys to win the other

Unexpected, and fascinating stat, Henman winning so many stay back second serve points. More than Pete does second serve-volleying
And bad job by Henman to double fault so much, especially since he’s not going for big second serves.

Match Progression
Fairly dull first set. The first volley comes on the 18th point of the match. Both players serve close to body

Its Henman who makes a returning bolt - striking 2 BH pass winners (1 dtl, the other cc) and forcing a BH1/2V error to raise break point, which is aced away and more strong serves get Pete home to 3-3

He doesn’t lose another game in the set. First break is an odd one, where Pete fights his way to net 3 times to win points (2 with net-to-net winners, 1 forcing a pass error after under pressure Henman falls back), before Henman doubles on break point. Good returns and passes gain the second break to 15 to close out the set

Henman stays back off a second serve for the first time at 40-30 in is first service game of second set. 3/4 games are breaks - all a product of fine play by the returner

Pete misses easy third FHV to fall 0-15 down after having made first 1/2volley to stay in point. He has to make another first 1/2volley next point, which is FH lobbed away for winner. Henman raises break point with a push-guided BH dtl pass winner played while moving forward against a high, wide BHV, and convert it by forcing a wide BH1/2V error

Breaks again net time around in 10 point game in game featuring passing winners from BH cc return (little lucky), BH cc set up by a shoelace return, FH dtl return. He seasl the break by forcing FHV error after forcing a low first volley

Pete breaks back to 15 at once with similar stuff - perfect, blocked BH inside-in return-pass winner, a blazing FH dtl, and following up a first half-volley with winning pass. Henman double faults on break point

Easy holds form thereon until Henman serve out to love

Henman almost completely puts away second serve-volleying in third set. His second serve points progress through the set from baseline rallies, to Henman coming in a bit to Pete finally chip-charging returns. He wins 10/16 second serve points in the set - better than Pete’s 8/15

Still, Pete has better of it and after holdin a deuce game early on, isn’t troubled much on serve. Isn’t faced with regular 1/2volleys as he previous set. Henman takes a step further back to return, without changing how un-threatening his returning is

Henman with a remarkable low, angled FHV winner to save break point in game 6, and he fires off a FH inside-out pass winner against a weak chip-charge return point after to nose ahead. Stays back off a first serve for only time in match, but draws return error to hold the game

Pete’s passed back to back points in game 10 (BH cc chip-charging and FH cc rallying to net). Is it living dangerously to count on making passing shots to hold?

Slightly strange 12 point game to end the set. The BH cc return-pass winner by Pete to make it 30-30 is well struck but not far from Henman, but he makes no move as it goes by. He’s sluggishly slow on another volley that forces error later too

Pete has moments too. The fully stretched out FH inside-in return pass winner he shoots by looks like it would be an ace, and he comes to net while drawing a weak, wide 1/2volley from Henman to putaway BHV and raise a third break point. Henman second serve-volleys on it, leaves good look pass against powerful return. Not a well placed pass from Pete, but powerful and Henman misses a not-easy, but marked UE BHV

Pete saves a break point in opening set 4. Double fault and easy BHV miss get him in trouble, along with couple good returns and passes, strong serves get him out

He breaks for 3-1. 2 double faults keep score at 30-30. Next 2 points are stay-back second serves and Pete chip-charges both. First isn’t a good return and he needs 2 good volleys to win the point, the second is the only good chip-charge return he makes and sets up another volley winner

1 break proves enough as routine holds see out the match, until Pete serves out to 15 with some of his biggest serves of the match

Summing up, another good match with Sampras being that much better at almost everything. Neither player serves too wide on average, but Sampras finds such serves when he needs them. Henman double faults considerably. And Henman eventually settles on staying back on almost all second serves

Some well-hit returns from Henman who seems to have a read on the serve, but usually around net high and it doesn’t trouble Sampras much. Some good half-volleying from the winner in brief period when he’s faced with them

More frequent, damaging returns from Sampras and Henman a little looser against the net high stuff. He does surprisingly well staying back off second serves - better than Sampras, let alone he himself does serve-volleying - but he trails a little in all areas, trickling down from not having as mighty a serve

Stats for the final between Sampras and Goran Ivanisevic - Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Ivanisevic, Wimbledon final, 1998 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)