in tennis history , what era of player can beat 1996 wimbledon Richard Krajicek ??

skypadq

skypadq

Hall of Fame

1996 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

i think 1996 wimbledon ricard krajicek was almost unplayble on wimbledon history

he beat pete sampras in three set on 1996 wimbledon QF

score line was 7-5 7-6 6-4 to richard 's win

What I'd like to say is, who can beat richard on the wimbledon 's slick grass court in 1996 ?

i think 2006 federer and 2011 djokovic only stood a chance
 
skypadq said:

1996 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

i think 1996 wimbledon ricard krajicek was almost unplayble on wimbledon history

he beat pete sampras in three set on 1996 wimbledon QF

score line was 7-5 7-6 6-4 to richard 's win

What I'd like to say is, who can beat richard on the wimbledon 's slick grass court in 1996 ?

i think 2006 federer and 2011 djokovic only stood a chance
Click to expand...
MurryGOAT 2016
 
Ivanisevic if playing well would have a 50 % chance. He wad 7-3 in head to head. Would be a tiebreak festival. And 1996 was one of his best years. I cant believe he lost against Stoltenberg. I think he played after Sampras and realizing what an opportunity he has he choked.

Becker or Agassi would also have a chance to win. Actually if Pete and Krajicek would play this time match 10 times, i think Pete still manages to win at least 3 times.
 
JasonZ said:
Actually if Pete and Krajicek would play this time match 10 times, i think Pete still manages to win at least 3 times.
Click to expand...

Even 1996 (not his very best) Sampras would win a simulated reply at least half the time I think. Krajicek was very clutch in the first two sets, a few points gone differently and he'd have been two sets down instead.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Sampras was in a certain slump at the time but not injured, you know the footage is there and he moved well. He lacked the mental edge mostly.
Click to expand...
They said it was either bad legs or a bad back, but I forget which. It's likely in Sampras's book, but I haven't read it. The trouble with looking at the match is the subtlety between healthy and injured could be too faint to see on television.
 
People will undermine Krajicek, but Federer/Sampras in full flow , and Djokovic on slower grass are the ones that will beat him.

Disclaimer: My knowledge of Krajicek is limited to this one match only and I was mightily mightily impressed by him.
 
bjsnider said:
They said it was either bad legs or a bad back, but I forget which. It's likely in Sampras's book, but I haven't read it. The trouble with looking at the match is the subtlety between healthy and injured could be too faint to see on television.
Click to expand...

Exactly why it doesn't matter. If a player doesn't have obvious trouble moving any muscle, he's alright as far as I'm concerned, and that's only fair as otherwise you could dismiss wins on the basis of subtle injuries even if the opponent did play quite well. It's evident Sampras was struggling at the time but still fairly tough to beat; that Krajicek managed to prevail in straights reflects his superb level at the tournament.
 
I think Sampras gave it all he had at RG that year. His preparation for grass season probably suffered as a result.

After 1996 he gave up on RG for good.
 
'99 Sampras will beat '96 Krajicek in straight sets. Becker at his peak would likely take Krajicek rather comfortably as well.

I can't comment about the current big 3 Vs Krajicek as I've never seen any of them on fast grass or Karjicek on slow grass.
 
The fact that no one has said Borg yet is a massive indictment on our collective tennis knowledge. I'd take Borg, Mac, Djokovic, Federer, Sampras, and Becker at their best with a lot of confidence. Other lower tier grass greats like Connors, Murray, Nadal, and Edberg have a really good shot as well. I don't know what leads you to believe Krajicek to be better than all these greats based off him beating a subpar Sampras.
 
Sunny Ali said:
'99 Sampras will beat '96 Krajicek in straight sets. Becker at his peak would likely take Krajicek rather comfortably as well.

I can't comment about the current big 3 Vs Krajicek as I've never seen any of them on fast grass or Karjicek on slow grass.
Click to expand...

99 Sampras had luck that Philippoussis retired. Krajicek 1996 was better than Philippoussis. So 1999 overrated Sampras definetely would have big big problems with 1996 Krajicek
 
Sampras was always injured when he had a bad loss. He was not the most graceful loser. Thats OK. I think he was getting worked over on the changeover for shin splints maybe. If I remember right the match had a delay as well during it. Krajicek was just too hot that tournament. He was blasting return winners with no fear. Crazy stuff. Pete had nowhere to go.

I doubt anyone beats him that tournament..... ever. His return was as big as his serve. People dont realize that a player in that mode can just shut anyone out of a match. It was a great disblay of BIG tennis. Actually it wasnt really tennis at all. Just Richard blasting winners.....raw power. He probably should have had at least one more wimbledon in his career but his body could never hold up. Seemed like he was always hurt by the second week.
 
JasonZ said:
99 Sampras had luck that Philippoussis retired. Krajicek 1996 was better than Philippoussis. So 1999 overrated Sampras definetely would have big big problems with 1996 Krajicek
Click to expand...

Machan Jason ... I bet you think Federer would have no problems with 1996 Krajicek! ;)
 
I went into that tournament looking for Becker to win another Wimbledon, having got to the final the year before and won the Australian Open that year, I was very optimistic. Then he unfortunately injured his wrist early in the tournament and that was that.
 
Sunny Ali said:
Machan Jason ... I bet you think Federer would have no problems with 1996 Krajicek! ;)
Click to expand...

Peak Federer was a much better returner than Sampras ever was, and had much better passing shots.

Federer was also tiebreakerer during his best years. So yes, i believe he would have beaten Krajicek
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
JasonZ said:
Peak Federer was a much better returner than Sampras ever was, and had much better passing shots.

Federer was also tiebreakerer during his best years. So yes, i believe he would have beaten Krajicek
Click to expand...

Machan, see I was right on the money! :-D
 
JasonZ said:
99 Sampras had luck that Philippoussis retired. Krajicek 1996 was better than Philippoussis. So 1999 overrated Sampras definetely would have big big problems with 1996 Krajicek
Click to expand...
Agree. 99 Sampras typically gets overrated due to his performance in the final. In the semi against Henman he also lost the first set.
 
Mainad said:
Murray has always been one of the best at handling servebots (and that is what Krajicek essentially was) so I would disagree albeit he would have to be at his best of course.
Click to expand...
Krajicek was way more than a servebot. He had great volleys, better than almost every player today. On top at least in his matches against Sampras he out of a sudden was great on the return and with passes. His movement was also good for a guy his size.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Krajicek was way more than a servebot. He had great volleys, better than almost every player today. On top at least in his matches against Sampras he out of a sudden was great on the return and with passes. His movement was also good for a guy his size.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree it was too much of an oversimplication to call him just a serve-bot. He did have great groundstrokes as well and a formidable game. Another one of tennis' great underachievers though. After 1996 Wimbledon, he never did much else in Slams, never even made another semi-final. Won 2 Masters (1998 Stuttgart, 1999 Miami) and then that was it.
 
Mainad said:
Yeah, I agree it was too much of an oversimplication to call him just a serve-bot. He did have great groundstrokes as well and a formidable game. Another one of tennis' great underachievers though. After 1996 Wimbledon, he never did much else in Slams, never even made another semi-final. Won 2 Masters (1998 Stuttgart, 1999 Miami) and then that was it.
Click to expand...
Also reached a semi and a quarter at the French, which is not bad considering the polarized conditions back then. Had a lot of bad luck with injuries though.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Also reached a semi and a quarter at the French, which is not bad considering the polarized conditions back then. Had a lot of bad luck with injuries though.
Click to expand...

I meant after he won Wimbledon (his semi at the French was 3 years earlier in 1993) . The furthest he went in Slams after his Wimbledon win was 3 quarter-finals at the US Open (1997,1999,2000).
 
Mainad said:
I meant after he won Wimbledon (his semi at the French was 3 years earlier in 1993) . The furthest he went in Slams after his Wimbledon win was 3 quarter-finals at the US Open (1997,1999,2000).
Click to expand...
Yes I understood. This was just a general statement to further show Krajiceks versatility. You are of course right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skypadq
1996 wimbledon pete sampras vs Richard Krajicek
Replies
8
Views
1K
King No1e
King No1e
ForehandCross
For a forum obsessed with competition, can someone tell me who Sampras faced in his finals at WB that come close to Djokodal on modern grass?
3 4 5
Replies
219
Views
8K
ForehandCross
ForehandCross
tennis_pro
What if you switched the age of Federer and Djokovic in their h2h matches?
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
skypadq
in post 1990 , mens grand slam history , what is the most of flukiest and luckiest Slam wins for any player ?
Replies
2
Views
381
Backspin1183
Backspin1183
skypadq
is novak 's draw in 14 wimbledon is most toughest draw ever for no .1 seed winner ?
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
KINGROGER
K
Back
Top