martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Note I say great players, which is a subjective term, but atleast set a certain bar what qualifies as that, so I personally wouldn't be mentioning Natalie Tauziat's record vs Graf for example. Or even David Ferrer's record vs Federer.
Sanchez Vicario vs Hingis 2-18. This is frankly amazing when Hingis has only 1 more slam than Sanchez Vicario. I do think it shows what an underachiever the extremely talented Hingis wound up being, and another example how Sanchez Vicario is arguably the biggest overachiever in tennis history (well among women, there are some men like Wilander, Kodes, who might rival or surpass her there). It also shows what a horrendous match up Hingis was for Sanchez though. The best way to beat Hingis is to overpower her, and that is obviously something Sanchez Vicario was never going to be able to do. So already she was in big trouble. Sanchez also thrived off playing big hitters, even though she has a losing record to most of them, since she loved making specatacular scrambling plays and running down balls. Which isn't really something she got to do vs Hingis who while she could play pretty agressively, also isn't going for clean winners on the 1st or 2nd shot in points. Lastly Sanchez Vicario wins a ton of her points by opponents unforced errors, and particularly against other top 10 or top 15 players, relies on that to win her matches. To Sanchez's credit those errors are largely forced by her spectacular defensive play, consistency, and resilence. However Hingis is the last person who will typically beat herself with unforced errors, so Sanchez is trying to get those errors that she relies on to win her matches, and against Hingis they are just never coming. Hingis had an easy time with Sanchez typically, even on clay, where of course Sanchez has 3 RG titles to 0 for Hingis, yet Hingis still slaps around Sanchez like silly even on caly. Had Seles not taken out Hingis in the 98 RG semis, I have no doubt Sanchez's 98 RG title never happens, in fact I doubt she gets more than 4-6 games, like nearly all their matches. Yes even with Hingis in subpar form around then, and her mental problems at RG, I still see no way ever, that Sanchez is beating her if they play. She can definitely send Monica a thank you note for her 3rd RG and 4th slam title. In fairness to Sanchez I think she was past her absolute prime during most of her losses to Hingis, as I believe Sanchez Vicario's true prime was 93-96. Even at that they did play thrice in 96 when Hingis was definitely not in her prime yet and the last year of what I consider Sanchez's true prime, and even that year Sanchez has a 3 set win on clay after losing a bagel set, a loss at the US Open, and a spanking defeat in an indoor match.
Sampras vs Kafelnikov 2-11. They split their clay matches evenly at 2-2, but Kafelnikov is 0-9 vs Sampras on non clay matches. What is worse than that though is every non clay match, but their first ever match at the 94 Australian Open, where Kafelnikov took Sampras to 9-7 in the 5th set, was a straight sets win for Sampras. 8 in a row, including 18 consecutive sets off clay, after their initial Australian Open match. Many of them were total beatdowns too. This is one of many reasons I am more down on Kafelnikov when rating him than some others on this site seem to be, but it also shows Sampras was a horrendous match up for Kafelnikov. The reasons for this aren't as clear as Sanchez vs Hingis, but I would guess Kafelnikov just did not have a big enough weapon to really hurt Sampras with, did not have a strong enough serve to consistently hold serve to stay with Sampras in their matches, did not have enough variety as he was a pretty straight forward player to throw Sampras out of rythym, and also developed a mental block against Sampras (except on clay) after awhile.
Wawrinka vs Federer 3-23. This is just like Sampras vs Kafelnikov in that the only wins of the lesser player were on clay. Wawrinka never once beat Federer off clay, even with a large number of matches in what would be considered his prime of 2013 sometime-2017, where Federer would now be firmly past his prime. I think there was a mental block due to both being in Switzerland, and Wawrinka growing up in Federer's long shadow, particularly before his surprise rise to being a slam winner in the middle of his career. Wawrinka did not like to be rushed and Federer is someone who would rush, both with his own firepower, his attacking game, his serve, and his variety as well.
Sanchez Vicario vs Hingis 2-18. This is frankly amazing when Hingis has only 1 more slam than Sanchez Vicario. I do think it shows what an underachiever the extremely talented Hingis wound up being, and another example how Sanchez Vicario is arguably the biggest overachiever in tennis history (well among women, there are some men like Wilander, Kodes, who might rival or surpass her there). It also shows what a horrendous match up Hingis was for Sanchez though. The best way to beat Hingis is to overpower her, and that is obviously something Sanchez Vicario was never going to be able to do. So already she was in big trouble. Sanchez also thrived off playing big hitters, even though she has a losing record to most of them, since she loved making specatacular scrambling plays and running down balls. Which isn't really something she got to do vs Hingis who while she could play pretty agressively, also isn't going for clean winners on the 1st or 2nd shot in points. Lastly Sanchez Vicario wins a ton of her points by opponents unforced errors, and particularly against other top 10 or top 15 players, relies on that to win her matches. To Sanchez's credit those errors are largely forced by her spectacular defensive play, consistency, and resilence. However Hingis is the last person who will typically beat herself with unforced errors, so Sanchez is trying to get those errors that she relies on to win her matches, and against Hingis they are just never coming. Hingis had an easy time with Sanchez typically, even on clay, where of course Sanchez has 3 RG titles to 0 for Hingis, yet Hingis still slaps around Sanchez like silly even on caly. Had Seles not taken out Hingis in the 98 RG semis, I have no doubt Sanchez's 98 RG title never happens, in fact I doubt she gets more than 4-6 games, like nearly all their matches. Yes even with Hingis in subpar form around then, and her mental problems at RG, I still see no way ever, that Sanchez is beating her if they play. She can definitely send Monica a thank you note for her 3rd RG and 4th slam title. In fairness to Sanchez I think she was past her absolute prime during most of her losses to Hingis, as I believe Sanchez Vicario's true prime was 93-96. Even at that they did play thrice in 96 when Hingis was definitely not in her prime yet and the last year of what I consider Sanchez's true prime, and even that year Sanchez has a 3 set win on clay after losing a bagel set, a loss at the US Open, and a spanking defeat in an indoor match.
Sampras vs Kafelnikov 2-11. They split their clay matches evenly at 2-2, but Kafelnikov is 0-9 vs Sampras on non clay matches. What is worse than that though is every non clay match, but their first ever match at the 94 Australian Open, where Kafelnikov took Sampras to 9-7 in the 5th set, was a straight sets win for Sampras. 8 in a row, including 18 consecutive sets off clay, after their initial Australian Open match. Many of them were total beatdowns too. This is one of many reasons I am more down on Kafelnikov when rating him than some others on this site seem to be, but it also shows Sampras was a horrendous match up for Kafelnikov. The reasons for this aren't as clear as Sanchez vs Hingis, but I would guess Kafelnikov just did not have a big enough weapon to really hurt Sampras with, did not have a strong enough serve to consistently hold serve to stay with Sampras in their matches, did not have enough variety as he was a pretty straight forward player to throw Sampras out of rythym, and also developed a mental block against Sampras (except on clay) after awhile.
Wawrinka vs Federer 3-23. This is just like Sampras vs Kafelnikov in that the only wins of the lesser player were on clay. Wawrinka never once beat Federer off clay, even with a large number of matches in what would be considered his prime of 2013 sometime-2017, where Federer would now be firmly past his prime. I think there was a mental block due to both being in Switzerland, and Wawrinka growing up in Federer's long shadow, particularly before his surprise rise to being a slam winner in the middle of his career. Wawrinka did not like to be rushed and Federer is someone who would rush, both with his own firepower, his attacking game, his serve, and his variety as well.
