Match Stats/Report - Kafelnikov vs Sampras, French Open semi-final, 1996

[Waspsting]

Yevgeny Kafelnikov beat Pete Sampras 7-6(4), 6-0, 6-2 in the French Open final, 1996 on clay

Kafelnikov would go onto win the event, his first Slam title, beating Michael Stich in the final. This would be the only semi-final showing at the event for Sampras

Kafelnikov won 105 points, Sampras 71

Sampras serve-volleyed about half the time off first serves

(Note: I’m missing serve direction and corresponding return data for 1 point - Set 2, Game 4, Point 11)

Serve Stats
Kafelnikov...
- 1st serve percentage (41/76) 54%
- 1st serve points won (35/41) 85%
- 2nd serve points won (23/35) 66%
- Aces 12
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/76) 32%

Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (58/100) 58%
- 1st serve points won (33/58) 57%
- 2nd serve points won (20/42) 48%
- Aces 9
- Double Faults 9
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (29/100) 29%

Serve Patterns
Kafelnikov served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 62%
- to Body 4%

Sampras served...
- to FH 43%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Kafelnikov made...
- 62 (29 FH, 32 BH, 1 ??), including 3 return-approaches
- 3 Winners (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 12 Unforced (5 FH, 7 BH)
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (62/91) 68%

Sampras made...
- 50 (10 FH, 40 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 12 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 6 Forced (3 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (50/74) 68%

Break Points
Kafelnikov 5/13 (7 games)
Sampras 0

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Kafelnikov 27 (16 FH, 8 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
Sampras 10 (2 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 4 BHV)

Kafelnikov's regular FHs - 3 cc (1 at net), 2 dtl, 1 inside-out, 3 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc
- regular BHs - 4 dtl, 1 drop shot

- 9 passes - 3 returns (2 FH, 1 BH) & 6 regular (4 FH, 2 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl
- BH return - 1 cc
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 running-down-drop-shot cc at net
- regular BHs - 2 dtl (1 at net)

- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV)

Sampras' FHs - 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs - 1 cc/lob pass, 2 dtl (1 return, 1 pass)

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

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Kafelnikov 30
- 15 Unforced (8 FH, 7 BH)
- 15 Forced (9 FH, 6 BH)... 1 FH can reasonably be called a non-net running-down-drop-shot
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 42.7

Sampras 45
- 33 Unforced (15 FH, 14 BH, 4 BHV)... with 1 FH at net & 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- 12 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 BHOH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.5

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(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
Kafelnikov was...
- 11/13 (85%) at net, including...
- 0/1 serve-volleying, a 2nd serve
---
- 3/3 (100%) return-approaching

Sampras was...
- 23/44 (52%) at net, including...
- 14/28 (50%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 14/27 (52%) off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching

Match Report
After a competitive opening set that goes to tiebreak, Kafelnikov runs away with match as Sampras seems to be low on energy and/or mentally deflated. Court is quick for clay

87 points into match, Kaf’s won 44 points, Sampras 43
Sampras leading tiebreak 4-2, with a return point to follow

There are 89 more points in the match
Kaf wins 61 of them, Sampras 28

Kaf has better of first set going into the ‘breaker also. Serves 36 points for his 6 holds, while Pete serves 45. He’s 0/2 (2 games) on break points, Pete has 0
Kaf playing better, but Pete playing normally and well

Pete’s broken early in second set in a poor game. Pretty much starting there, he seems a going, going, if not gone case

Doesn’t move well, or even much. Semi or full tanks returns. Doesn’t chase balls. Pretty feeble groundies. Starts going for and missing winners from routine positions, quite a lot BH dtl. Serve shrinks to average and then below. He isn’t even jumping up properly to serve
To go with droopy shoulders, hung head, shuffly walk. Throw some rags on him and he could pass for a homeless man

Rare interaction with crowd from Pete early in game 4 of second set. Responding to encouragement along the lines of “come on, Pete”, he responds “I’m trying, man”. He sounds resigned and hopeless, the opposite of fired up or ‘trying’

Pete had had a gruelling ride in making to the semis, with a couple of 5 setters. But he’s also had 2 days rest prior to this match, per commentary. Kaf had 1, and he’d been playing doubles also (and would go onto win the doubles, along with the singles event)

First set takes about 50 minutes. Its fairly hot, but doesn’t seem to be extreme. Doubtless Pete’s played in hotter weather for longer than 50 minutes. Court action is average of intensity

Taking everything together, it seems odd that Pete is as down as he is in second set, even considering his stamina issues. 2 days is good recovery time after a gruelling match
Only time I’ve seen him comparative spent after similar length/intensity of play is US Open final of 2002. For starters, he wasn’t as ‘gone’ after a set as he is here. Second, he was 6 years older. Third, he’d played the previous day

I’d speculate that significant part of the reason for Pete virtually folding is mental and sense of not being good enough to turn match around. He must’ve been worn out now and then during his winning runs in Wimbledon and US Open. Would he droop to this extent and virtually give up the match after going down a set at those events - where he presumably was confident in his abilities to come out with the win?

First set is good, Kaf having indecisve advantage in it. He’s more solid from the baseline and passes better than Pete volleys
Pete starts match first serve-volleying always, staying back off seconds. As set goes on, he stays back more and more, including in tiebreak. Serves powerfully through it all

Both players return from on baseline at least, and sometimes inside. Not really worth it - they don’t return damaginlgy, though both don’t miss many returns for the early position. One benefit might be encouraging double faults and both players have a few (Pete more, and also with bigger second serve)

In that first set -
- first serve in - Kaf 52%, Pete 56%
- first serve won - Kaf 82%, Pete 61%
- second serve won - Kaf 60%, Pete 63%
Unreturned serves - Kaf 19%, Pete 36%

Pete first serve-volleys virtually always for first half of set, stays back virtually always second half
Kaf doesn’t serve-volley so his service points and Pete’s second serves feature baseline rallies.

Pete not doing too well serve-volleying or not off the first serve
Serve-volleying, wins 7/13, staying back 5/10
That’s with healthy lot of unreturned serves, so he’s winning comfily less than 50% of points when return is made

Kaf by contrast, doing very well behind first serve, and its not for lot of freebies, though he has hefty serve. Pete not able to return with much heat, and Kaf able to boss him about in ensuing rally

In baseline rallies -
- Winners - Kaf 6 (5 FH, 1 BH), Pete 2 FH
- Errors forced - Kaf 2, Pete 3
- UEs - Kaf 11 (5 FH, 6 BH), Pete 13 (8 FH, 5 BH)

… and UE breakdown -
- neutral - Kaf 9, Pete 4
- attacking - Kaf 2, Pete 6
- winner attempts - Pete 3

High neutral UEs by Kaf points to him being stronger hitter and keeping Pete in reactive role; barely so.To be clear, Kaf doesn’t bully or boss Pete in the rallies, but is content to keep at hitting another firm ball

Its Pete who tries to break out and attack. That’s a high lot of aggressive UEs - and more than his winners and errors forced. He’s not impatient, but he is the one to try to get something going. And does it off both wings, with few attacking BH dtl misses in there. Execution not quite there

Kaf perfect when pulling the final trigger - 6 winners, no UEs trying. The last 2 are third ball FHs, that end the set

Pete’s 7/13 serve-volleying and 2/7 rallying to net. Kaf’s 7/8 rallying to net and 0/1 serve-volleying (a second serve)

Pete at net has 2 winners, 2 UEs (excluding 2 FHs), 5 FEs
Kaf on the pass has 3 winners, 3 FEs

That’s Kaf winning contest, mostly due to quality passing. Pete faced with regulation height volleys, not getting them through the court too well, but not plonking them either. Kaf able to force 5 volleying errors and have 3 passing winners for 3 FEs is great outcome against it - good job by Kaf

Kaf on the volley has just 1 winner
Pete has 2 passing winners, 2 FEs

Most of of Kaf’s net points aren’t typical approaching to finish type things
He’s got a passing winner, a FH cc winner and wins couple other points net-to-net
Crucially, he wins a bona fida approach in the ‘breaker. With his sole volley winner in fact

Gist - Kaf staying solid from back, Pete failing when he tries to up things from neutral rallying to being aggressive. Kaf with less aggressive outlook, but much more success when he indulges
And Kaf passing better than Pete’s able to volley. Kaf getting better of things - and rewarded with the set

 

[Waspsting]

Rest of match -
-first serve in - Kaf 56%, Pete 60%
- first serve won - Kaf 89%, Pete 53%
- second serve won - Kaf 73%, Pete 30%
Unreturned serves - Kaf 47%, Pete 22%

Doesn’t need much explanation

Winners - Kaf 16, Pete 4
Errors forced - Kaf 3, Pete 9
UEs - Kaf 4, Pete 16

Ditto

The tennis adage ‘it can be difficult to play an injured opponent’ generally refers to tendency of healthy player to not be distracted or change a winning game. Pete’s not injured, but he may as well be. If the adage is true, Kaf is immune to it and has no problem keeping a cool head and going about his business ruthlessly

Pete gets slower, puts less and less effort into rallying, chasing and returning, serve gets weaker as match goes on. He’s already bad at start of second set
The 9 errors he force are all passes

Kaf’s lot of winners - and aces and other freebies - are as much about Pete not moving as anything else. He has 10 aces in this period from just 19 first serves
Quite a lot of desperate aggro in Pete’s UEs. Just 3 neutral UEs, 6 attacking and 7 winner attempts - all but 2 of them baseline shots

Gist - Pete on fumes and Kaf running over him
It’s a very strange shift from normal to on fumes, like flicking a switch

Match Progression
No breaks in the first set. Sampras first serve-volleys for almost all of 4 games, then switches to staying back for rest of set. Both players return early - from on the baseline or even inside it

Double fault to start the match from Pete, and he misses an easy BHV, bu also plucks a typical 1/2volley in play
Kaf starts his first service game with BH dtl winner

Pete’s taken to deuce in game 5, with Kaf striking BH pass winner at net and forcing a shoelace BHV error. It’s a pair of FH UEs from Kaf that keeps Pete even, and he wraps up with a BH dtl pass winner of his own

Next go around takes 12 points for Pete and he has to save a break point in it (with Kaf having held to love in between). Pair of double faults is what raises the break point, and Kaf steps well inside the court to smack the return, but misses it. Having missed 5 first serves in a row, Pete stays back off first serve for first time at end of game, which he finishes with an ace

4 of the last 6 regular games in the set go to deuce (2 on each players serve), including the last 2
In penultimate game, Kaf has another break point, raised off Pete missing pair of aggressive third ball FHs, and again, he misses very early, 2nd return
Kaf holds 8 point game for 6-6. Lovely point at end of the game with Kaf drop shotting Pete in, meeting him there, and making a lovely, 1-handed shoelace lob volley. Racing back, Pete can’t make BHOH against it

Tiebreak
FH UE by Kaf sets him behind a mini-break and 2-4
He doesn’t lose another point
Wins his 3 service points with winners (BHV, and third ball FH winners cc and dtl)
Wins 2 return points from Pete FH UEs - 1 coming after a rally Kaf’s counter-punching in, the other against a deep ball

I’ve never seen a player go from competitive, normal to pancake flat as Pete does. Pretty much right out the gate of second serve

9/15 of Kaf’s serves don’t come back - 6 of them aces. Solid serves, that Pete makes little effort to play

First break takes 6 points - missed reaction BHV, missed third ball BH dtl winner attempt and double fault to wrap up
Second break takes 12 point. Even the serve is weakening and game ends with Pete missing 3 aggressive dtl shots (1 FH, 2 BH)
2 more aggressive BH dtl errors in the last break. Pete brings back serve-volley for the game, but isn’t even at service line as FH cc return flies by him for winner. He’s forced into low, wide BHV error to finish

Third set isn’t much better. Good rally to open the game, with Kaf on defensive, but he comes away with BH dtl winner. Then throws down 3 aces in a row - met with similar non-effort by Pete as earlier
Pete holds his first service game, but is broken next go around for 1-3. BH dtl pass winner to start, FH inside-in winner to finish, coulple of doubles in between
Last break ends the match, Pete missing routine BHV and a not difficult running FH to close things out

Summing up, very strange and almost complete surrender from Pete Sampras. One minute, he’s competitive and next, he’s seemingly out of heart and steam. Goes through the motions for two sets - not moving much (or at all), weak groundies, desperate aggressive shot choices, not even jumping properly to serve - while moping around as if the weight of the world is on him, with other worlds getting added on top it as match goes

Given how quickly the change comes, whatever’s ailing him probably carries a significant mental component, like a lack of stomach for a struggle

The loser’s showing caps how well Kafelnikov can play, but he’s impressive - both against normal and flat opponent. Good serve, bold returning choices effectively executed, at least solidly strong off the ground and when required, more than that. He has slightly better of healthy opponent and is clinically ruthless is running through the flaccid one

Stats for the final between Kafelnikov and Michael Stich - Duel Match Stats/Reports - Kafelnikov vs Enqivst, Australian Open final, 1999 & Kafelnikov vs Stich, French Open final, 1996 | Talk Tennis

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Match Report
After a competitive opening set that goes to tiebreak, Kafelnikov runs away with match as Sampras seems to be low on energy and/or mentally deflated. Court is quick for clay

87 points into match, Kaf’s won 44 points, Sampras 43
Sampras leading tiebreak 4-2, with a return point to follow

There are 89 more points in the match
Kaf wins 61 of them, Sampras 28

That's a crazy point breakdown. I knew Sampras just died a death after he lost the tiebreak, but I never realized how pronounced the division was.


I had a look at Pete's autobiography to see what he said on the matter:

Beating Jim gave me a semifinal berth opposite Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and I liked my chances in that one. I liked them a lot.​

​

But a weird thing happened in the forty-eight hours before I played the semi. I had cravings—unbelievable cravings—for grease. I would have killed for an old-fashioned cheeseburger, or a big pizza, or even just a couple of sunny-side-up eggs. For two nights, I had trouble sleeping, the desire was so powerful. It was truly bizarre, and as I think back, the only logical answer is that I was lacking something critical in my diet—probably fat. I may have needed to replenish something I’d lost over a week and a half of tough matches, sweating under a strong sun. Maybe I lacked salt. I know an ultramarathoner who stops after twenty miles and inhales a burger or a pizza. He told me his body needs it, so that’s what he does. Looking back, I know I should have found a Pizza Hut in Paris and feasted on a greasy pie.​

​

But, disciplined guy that I am, I held out. I kept to my typical, healthy playing diet right down to limiting myself to one cup of coffee. Then I would go to the tournament site, practice, and, if I was playing late in the day, have a sandwich (usually turkey) and maybe eat a banana. That usually did it for the day, with a light pasta dish, perhaps with chicken on the side, for dinner. ​

​

...​

​

As it turned out, I didn’t have to worry about stamina. I served well at the start, picked my spots to attack, and made good use of my forehand to force the action. Kafelnikov hung in there without worrying me. We went to the first-set tiebreaker and it was close, but I lost it—theoretically, no big deal. And then everything just imploded. I didn’t get a game in the next set, and won just two in the third. It was by far my most puzzling and distressing Grand Slam loss, and it occurred against a guy with a tendency to get tight in big matches—especially against me.​

​

I still can’t really explain why the wheels fell off. I just hit an unexpected physical and mental wall. I was powerless to play better. I believe it had something to do with diet, which would help explain those bizarre cravings I’d had—and suppressed. Whatever the reason, I just had nothing left, and I knew it as those games rolled by. That’s truly a terrible feeling, especially when you’ve got twenty thousand people watching live, and millions more watching on television. Even more especially when the ongoing story of my unstated but very real desire to win it for Tim was such an obvious part of the plot. I had nothing in my legs, nothing in my head, nothing left anywhere. And when the mercy killing finally was over, it only felt worse. I felt empty like I never had before, utterly depleted.​

This also comes just after the death of Tim Gullikson, who had passed away on May 3, 1996, and which Pete had previously discussed in detail. After the defeat, he says this:

I was stunned. Down deep, I’d felt that it was my time at the French Open, and that was all bound up with having lost Tim. I thought it was meant to be, especially after my wins over two worthy former champions. During that entire tournament, I felt like Tim was still alive. Tim and I were going to win the French—it was going to be another team effort, like getting over the hump and winning Wimbledon. I’d even had these conversations with him in my head during my matches at Roland Garros, and they helped pull me through.​

​

During the Kafelnikov match, however, there was nothing but a resounding, deep silence. I didn’t think about this during the match, but I guess the silence probably settled in because my attempt to hold on to Tim, my fantasy that I could keep him alive, expired. Despite having been to Tim’s funeral, I hadn’t really faced up to or accepted the fact that he was gone. Two matches too soon, I had a devastating reality check.​

​

When I hit the wall against Kafelnikov, and felt my dream—our dream—blow up in my face, it really did sink in. Tim was gone. Our dream was gone. It was gone for good.​

 

[martinezownsclay]

Pete played a great first set, but it lost it in the tiebreaker more like Kafelnikov took it away with great play. When at 4-4 in the 1st set tiebreak, Kafelnikov hit an overpowering deep forehand that hit the back of the baseline, that forced Sampras into error. Then hit two forehand winners to end the set. Sampras was discouraged, and too tired mentally and mostly physically from his other matches, and largely tanked from there. If Kafelnikov did not come up with 3 great points to take away the 1st set though, could see Sampras fighting a lot harder, and a very different match.