Match Stats/Report - Krajicek vs Sampras, Stuttgart Indoor semi-final, 1998

[Waspsting]

Richard Krajicek beat Pete Sampras 6-7(2), 6-4, 7-6(5) in the Stuttgart Indoor semi-final, 1998 on indoor hard court

Krajicek would go onto win the title, his first Masters, by beating Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the final. The other players he beat during the run are Magnus Norman, Andre Agassi and Goran Ivanisevic. Sampras was the top seed and would finish runner-up in Paris shortly after

Krajicek won 100 points, Sampras 101

Both players serve-volleyed off all first serves, Krajicek off all but 4 second serves, Sampras all but 3

(Note: I’ve made educated guesses for a couple of points)

Serve Stats
Krajicek...
- 1st serve percentage (56/101) 55%
- 1st serve points won (51/56) 91%
- 2nd serve points won (27/45) 60%
- Aces 16
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (52/101) 51%

Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (60/100) 60%
- 1st serve points won (48/60) 80%
- 2nd serve points won (30/40) 75%
- Aces 15, Service Winners 1 (a second serve)
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (40/100) 40%

Serve Patterns
Krajicek served...
- to FH 39%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 8%

Sampras served...
- to FH 51%
- to BH 44%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Krajicek made...
- 54 (29 FH, 25 BH), including 3 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 24 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH), a return-approach attempt
- 23 Forced (14 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (54/94) 57%

Sampras made...
- 45 (12 FH, 33 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 5 Winners (2 FH, 3 BH)
- 36 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 35 Forced (18 FH, 17 BH)
- Return Rate (45/97) 46%

Break Points
Krajicek 1/5 (2 games)
Sampras 0/1

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Krajicek 23 (9 FH, 3 BH, 5 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)
Sampras 32 (10 FH, 9 BH, 7 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)

Krajicek had 12 from serve-volley points -
- 8 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 FH at net)... 1 FH at net hits Sampras
- 4 second volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

- 1 from a return-approach point, a non-clean, net-to-net BHV

- 8 passes - 2 returns (1 FH, 1 BH) & 6 regular (4 FH , 2 BH)
- FH return - 1 dtl
- BH return - 1 inside-out
- regular FHs - 2 cc, 2 inside-out
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl at net

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in

Sampras had 20 from serve-volley points -
- 11 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 3 BHV, 5 FH at net, 1 BH at net)
- 9 second 'volleys' (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BH at net)... the BH at net was in effect, a drop shot

- 11 passes - 5 returns (2 FH, 3 BH) & 6 regular (2 FH, 4 BH)
- FH return - 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc/longline, 1 longline
- regular BHs - 3 cc, 1 dtl

- regular (no-pass) FH - 1 cc

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Krajicek 25
- 1 Unforced (1 FHV)
- 24 Forced (7 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 6 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50

Sampras 19
- 5 Unforced (2 BH, 3 BHV)... with 2 BH at net (1 pass attempt)
- 14 Forced (4 FH, 9 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 56

(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
Krajicek was...
- 63/83 (76%) at net, including...
- 60/77 (78%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 35/40 (88%) off 1st serve and...
- 25/37 (68%) off 2nd serves
---
- 1/3 (33%) return-approaching

Sampras was...
- 61/79 (77%) at net, including...
- 60/75 (80%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 33/45 (73%) off 1st serve and...
- 27/30 (90%) off 2nd serves
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Serve-bot big serving, virtually full serve-volleying match. Krajicek gets more out of the serve, there’s room for improvement in both players’ returning, Sampras is more impressive on the volley (and has to be, given not getting as much out of serve), Easy holds. Coin flip, point-here,-point-there margins to determine result. High proportion of of those small determining points are Sampras’ double faults. Court is fast

Points won - Kraj 100, Pete 101
Points served - Kraj 101, Pete 100
Shadow of razor’ edge margins

Break points - Kraj 1/5 (2 games), Pete 0/1

Pete double faults 3 times in the only break game. He doubles once in the final tiebreak too. That’s 4/6 of his doubles at critical times (and 3/4 of them are critical because of the doubles themselves)

Call the break game a choke (it ends the second set), and even then, Kraj needs to hit a couple of passing winners. 1 of them the best pass he makes all match on the full run and he’s not far from having his back to the court when he strikes the ball. A 20% shot that he happens to make

The double in the breaker is just 1 point. Fortune not favouring bold serving in the ‘breaker, with Kraj toning down his serve (relatively speaking) to get the firsts in, but Kraj is otherwise bold and pulls of couple of his best difficult volley plays of the match. Rest of match, he’s not too good on the difficult volley (of couse, in context of not having to face too many)

So Kraj with his best pass of the match in gaining sole break. Some of the best volleys in the deciding tiebreak
Pete double faulting at those same crucial times

3 double faults in one game - a choke from Pete
The deciding breaker, more clutch from Kraj, who pulls off 3 of his best volley plays (with Pete clutching too to put him under high pressure to do so, well beyond norm of match), with a double from Pete nudging things way they fall

Before all that, a nifty ‘breaker from Pete that he wins 7-2

That’s the result. Call it a coin flip

Action is virtually all serve-volleys
100% serve-volleying by both behind first serves
90% (Kraj) and 91% (Pete) serve-volleying behind second serves

Both holding with thorough ease, both contests played out on serve, return-pass, volley and follow-up pass. Serve and volley of both players thoroughly dominating return and pass of the other

Kraj serves a little better (quality of serves, fewer double faults)
Pete volleys better overall, though not in all ways, with both volleying well
Neither return too well (even accounting for formidable opposition)
Kraj with slightly better looks at pass, with pathway for drawing those looks different. Pete's able to make more difficult first volleys, that leave decent looks, Kraj is less decisive on the routine volley so leaves better looks from those

Comes out to coin flip even. The essence of those contests is server dominating. This guy serving better than that, that guy volleying better than this… none of it amounts to either player gaining relative advantage enough to be more likely to break (or win a tiebreak)

First serve in - Kraj 55%, Pete 60%
First serve ace rate - Kraj 29%, Pete 25%
Second serve double fault rate - Kraj 9%, Pete 15%
Unreturned serves - Kraj 51%, Pete 40%

Starting at the end, 11% freebies advantage is significant. Less so than pure number might suggest, which is often the case in matches like this
Pete has 11 first ‘volley’ winners, Kraj 8
6 of Pete’s are groundstrokes at net. In other words, putaway balls

This is often the case in matches like this; 1 guy with more freebies, the other with more easy first ‘volley’ winners. Basically, comes to the same thing. Almost every Boris-Pete carpet match follows this pattern. It only becomes an issue of the guy with more freebies is poor at net (Goran can be like this), which isn’t the case here

Kraj with better quality first serves. On top of the ace rate advantage, the best error forcing serves from either player are Kraj’s out wide in deuce court.

He serves conventional, but balanced 39% to FH, 53% to BH. Out wide to Pete’s FH is wide enough that Pete on full stretch can just poke return, trying to hook it back cc. Probably better to try to push it dtl when so stretched out, but serves are so good its unlikely any adjustment would change things much. But ‘much’ isn’t needed when things are so close, with literally 1 point going this way instead of that setting match back in balance

Unusual, and not good serving choices from Pete too. He serves 51% to FH, 44% to BH

Kraj would be one of the most obvious guys to blindly serve majority to BH too. Generally speaking, he has powerful FH return and ordinary block BH. Pete doesn’t get serves to FH as troublingly wide as Kraj and pace of his serves aren’t as strong either

It doesn’t directly hurt Pete, but his serving pattern leaves him quite a lot to do on the volley. Unnecessarily making his life harder

Adjusted volleying numbers -
‘Volley’ winners - Kraj 13, Pete 20
‘volley’ UEs - Kraj 1, Pete 4
Volley FEs - Kraj 7 (excluding a return-approach 1, which isn’t important), Pete 1

On the regulation and easy volley (around net high, not too powerful) -
1 UE for Kraj. Awesome. He does not volley the routine stuff too decisively though. Ordinary punch and placement on them, leaving Pete good-as-can-hope-for passing looks
Pete’s 4 is low enough to be good and he volleys much more decisively, either finishing point of leaving poor passing look. Beautiful judgement in when to move forward to volley, or lean back to hit groundstroke or when to play half-volley. Typical for him
Would say Pete better at the routine, net high volley for combo of consistency and quality of volleys. Kraj ordinary of quality, but… 1 bloody UE

 

[Waspsting]

On the difficult volley (especially low, also wide or particularly powerful) -
1 FE for Pete. Awesome. One product of serving so much to FH is Pete faces his share of difficult volleys or in-between forceful and unforceful ones (lowish at above average power for example). Misses just 1
Room for improvement in Kraj’s tough volleying. Tough pass as likely as not to draw error from him
Both players face about 4-6 half-volleys. Firmly struck returns, not bullet hard. Neither misses a single one, but do leave good passing look after. For half-volleys, that’s very good
Pete with better quality difficult volleys too. Its not just first ‘volleys’ that are difficult for Pete. Makes some wide ones that he needs to be quick for to put to bed second volleys
Would say Pete clearly better at the tough volleys, too. Barely misses (Kraj is about 50-50) and makes them with better authority. Which emphasizes Kraj’s clutchness in final tiebreak, where he plays them superbly

Adjusted pass figures -
- return winners - Kraj 2, Pete 4
- regular winners - Kraj 7 (including crucial chip-charging volley), Pete 5 (excluding 1 against a chip-charge)
- FEs - Kraj 16, Pete 13
- UE - Pete 1

All very close, with Pete having to make more volleys and facing his fair share of of difficult ones (unreturned serves and volley FEs suggest a Pete sacrificing consistency for being damaging type returning, in which case Kraj would be facing higher lot of tough volleys, but that’s not what’s going on here)

Kraj with better looks at the pass. Product of his better serving, and Pete serving to his FH so much lead to that. Both players nailing pass winners after forcing weak shoelace ‘volleys’. Since Kraj misses more shoelace volleys from the return, again, leads to Kraj having more better looks at pass. This is back-cut some by Pete volleying the routine stuff with more authority, so on those, Pete has better looks, but those aren’t as ‘good looks’ as those presented by Pete making difficult first volleys

Kraj drawing 4 FH FEs, 9 BHs. Normal, standard volleying directions
Pete, like with the serve, more unconventional 7 FHs, 9 BHs. He also looks to volley to BH, but isn’t always in full control, given facing fair lot of not-easy and tough volleys first up

Gist - near equal on the pass. Pete being more resistant to giving up errors to good returns means Kraj has better looks at passes. ‘Better looks’ than Pete does, not ‘good looks’ because Pete volleys the not-easy stuff with fair authority. Back cut by Pete’s routine volleying leaving Kraj worse look passes than Kraj’s routine volleying does to Pete

Going on those numbers, Pete with edge on the pass too, given Kraj having better looks and having more FH passes to have a go at

Serve-volley success by point type -
- Pete’s second serve 90%
- Kraj’s first serve 88%
- Pete’s first serve 73%
-Kraj’s second serve 68%

There’s a surprise. Pete volleying superbly, as highlighted earlier, but no reason it should be more so behind second serves than firsts
That’s where the ‘can do better’ returning thing comes in. Yes, both players serve well, first and second serves, but just as percentage, you expect some number of return-pass winners

Kraj has just 1 FH return winner. His FH faces 94 serves. Good lot of them second serves. That is not good
To contrast, Pete has 3 BH return winners, facing 53 serves

2 players combining for 6 return winners, against total 162 serve-volley points. Even accounting for high quality serving, that’s pretty low

Match Progression
Match starts the way it continues all through; big serves, virtual full serve-volleying, easy holds

Contained, big serving from both players; both are capable of serving categorically bigger
Room for better returning. Both are able to reach most returns without strain, both look to poke and guide returns a little wide (as opposed to blast them or go full wide for winner). The more aggressive options are possibilities, given serving quality and position returner gets into. And given relatively low level of aggression, lot of missed returns

Pete with some nice, lunging second volley winners. Both players make the odd half-volley they’re faced with and both usually respond by nailing the follow-up pass for winner. Most of time, comfy first volley and both control it clinically

Kraj stays back once in game 4 and knocks away a third ball FH inside-out winner
Pete stays back once in game 9, and Kraj immediately looks to chip-charge return but misses

Things heat up near end of set.

Serving at 4-5, Kraj is 40-0 up (3 unreturned serves - 1 ace) and loses next 4 points to go down break/set point
Double faults, dispatched FH pass after drawing first half-volley, missing lowish FHV and a BH inside-out return pass winner that slips under Kraj’s racquet get him there
He’s got second serve on the set point too
Mishits the return trying to move up and take it early. It hits the Chair, which causes some amusement from the crowd; The serve itself was nothing out of the ordinary
Kraj wraps up game with a FH at net first ‘volley’ winner that hits a running Pete

Its Pete’s turn next and he’s down 15-40 next game
Same draw half-volley, nail FH pass winner as game before. Well judged, leaning back BH at net by Pete point after, but he misses and he’s forced back to lose another point
Kraj gets second serves for both break points. Also misses an attempted early taken return, against deep serve on the first. He’s got a 50% look pass on the second, but Pete’s there to intercept a second volley FHV winner and he goes on to hold

Tiebreak. Pete gains 2-0 lead with a push-block FH inside-in return pass winner
Adds a second mini by nailing BH cc pass winner, set up by a low return that Kraj possibly leaves(?) He really should be lunging for that ball, at that stage
Down 2-5 with 2 return points to follow, Kraj just misses a BH cc pass before Pete wraps up with a FH at net winner

More of the same in second set
Kraj knocks away a FH inside-in winner on a point Pete stays back on in game 4
Server’s have lost 6 points as score reaches 4-4
Again, end of set tensions

Takes Kraj 8 points to hold for 5-4, with Pete nailing couple pass winners (BH dtl return and BH cc after drawing low first volley), along with a FH cc winner on stay back point. He doesn’t see break point though. Loses the game by missing an even look BH pass

Kraj breaks to win the set in 8 point game, with Pete double faulting 3 times, including first and last point of game. Even then, it takes a spectacular, low percentage running FH cc pass winner - probably the best pass of the match - and a BH cc pass winner set up by a forcing a dragged first half-volley to win the game

Onto the decider. Both playres serve stronger than earlier. No break points
In holding 6 times, Kraj serves 32 points, Pete 31
Razor’s edge stuff

Tiebreak and it’s a great one
Pete with just 1/6 first serves, but so what? He’s won 27/35 or 77% second serve points in the match. Kraj with 4/6 but he eases up on the delivery
He doesn’t ease up on anything else and is especially bold - and good - in other areas

Daring chip-charge return by Kraj, as Pete makes lowish first volley and Kraj is upto sneaking BHV winner (not clean) net to to net to move ahead 2-1

Toned down, short second serve by Kraj after that, and Pete leans back to push the return FH inside-out for pass winner and its back on serve
The decisive mini is another Pete double, but Kraj does very well to to hold 2 difficult service points to hold his service end up

Pete borrows the chip-charge return while drawing a first-volley; He’s in better position post first ‘volley’ than Kraj had been when roles were reversed, but Kraj comes away with difficult, under-pressure second FHV winner. 3-2
Then the double fault. 4-2
5 unreturned serves later, Kraj has his first match point on serve
Neat, soft blocked BH return from Pete that’s wide, low and dropping and close to the net. Looks good to win the point, but Kraj manages to make the difficult volley short. Pete runs up and has no extra time on hand to smack a FH cc pass from near service line, which Kraj reflexively cuts off with a FHV winner

Summing up, high quality serve-bottish, virtual full serve-volley match and there’s barely a coat of varnish between the two players

Both with big serves. Not ‘all-out’ big, but more than enough to be going on. Krajicek’s first serve is a little better (more powerful, better placed), Sampras gets a few more first serves in, Krajicek’s able to make a few more returns
Neither returner can do much. Tough task, room for improvement there. Sampras’ questionable choice to serve a lot to FH makes Krajicek’s life a little easier than it could have been

Sampras volleys a little better, especially in making not-easy and hard-ish ‘volleys’. He volleys with more authority too. Krajicek doesn’t move as swiftly around net and is more vulnerable to the such volleys, but all but literally misses nothing makeable or routine
Close to even on the pass. Sampras being more decisive in his routine volleys but also forced to make more tough ones largely cancelling out to leave average passing look Krajicek has the same as what he get from Krajicek’s less decisive volleying (and more often than Sampras, missing the difficult first volley to begin with)

Badly timed double faults from Sampras main reason for result, bu it’s a hair’s difference between the two players

@Drob

Stats for the final between Krajicek and Yevgeny Kafelnikov - Match Stats/Report - Krajicek vs Kafelnikov, Stuttgart Indoor final, 1998 | Talk Tennis

 

[Drob]

Nice report, per usual. Interesting, Pete wins this title he is legitimate 1998 World No. 1, I would think. Instead it is a ****ing hash, wherein Rios deprived by no points given for GSC, which even a 500 equivalent would put him first in points. And then just the up-for-grabs nature, w Pete, Rios, Rafter all w good claims and then Moya and Corretja really close. Strange year.

 

[Drob]

Pete has edge at net and s/v, signif. more winners and few UEs.

 

[Drob]

Did Pete have a weird German record? Seems he lost at Stuttgart (and Essen) plenty (he never won that "Masters 1000 - 23-10 record, but won at Frankfurt and Hanover plenty - his 5 YECs.

 

[Drob]

Badly timed double faults from Sampras main reason for result, bu it’s a hair’s difference between the two players

Must be the answer bec all respect to Richard, Pete looks to have out played in basic stats.

Nice to see even Sampras choked on serve a few little times. None could be so uncanny at serve as Sampras is attributed to be, and he may be the best clutch server ever, excepting Gonzalez.

 

[buscemi]

Did Pete have a weird German record? Seems he lost at Stuttgart (and Essen) plenty (he never won that "Masters 1000 - 23-10 record, but won at Frankfurt and Hanover plenty - his 5 YECs.

3 double faults in the only game where either player was broken + a double fault in the final set 7-5 tiebreaker seem to be the difference.

 

[Waspsting]

Nice report, per usual. Interesting, Pete wins this title he is legitimate 1998 World No. 1, I would think. Instead it is a ****ing hash, wherein Rios deprived by no points given for GSC, which even a 500 equivalent would put him first in points. And then just the up-for-grabs nature, w Pete, Rios, Rafter all w good claims and then Moya and Corretja really close. Strange year.

The Grand Slam Cup angle is a tricky one for this year, when looking at how close Rios and Sampras finished because I'm pretty sure Pete skipped the event specifically because it gave no ranking points to begin with

In earlier years, Sampras didn't express particularly pointed interest in being #1
In both '95 and '96, I heard him say effectively Slams are the goal and being #1 is a by-product of that, I'm interested in winning Slams
But in '98, he got hung up on finishing #1 for record 6 straight years. And entered a ton of events at the end of the year for the points. According to commentary in this match and others in late '98, finishing #1 was all he talked about in his pressers (which I'm positive he didn't do in other years - and there were others where race got close)

By that stage in the year, I think he'd take 10 ranking points over the record high 1.5-2 million dollar purse for Grand Slam Cup. A luxary of his former earnings. Probably the only player in the world who could afford to think that way (maybe Agassi too)

If Grand Slam Cup had suitable ranking points on offer, I'm sure Sampras would have entered. Whether he would get a good result is another matter

I'll add that Sampras is a guy whose words I value and tend to trust as reliable. he was straight forward, and clear in his expression
If someone like Boris or Mac varied in what they said they valued across years, I wouldn't take it too seriously

Pity Rios missed the YEC too. They'd done away with the overly fast courts (the final was between Corretja and Moya), and he'd have had good chances there

Did Pete have a weird German record? Seems he lost at Stuttgart (and Essen) plenty (he never won that "Masters 1000 - 23-10 record, but won at Frankfurt and Hanover plenty - his 5 YECs.

I suppose so

The Essen loss to Muster was a bad one. Looks raring to go and pointedly put the dirt baller down. Comes away with tail between legs
Lost to Boris in 5 sets in '96. And lost twice to Krajicek

At Stockholm, lost 3 times to Boris, without winning a set. But went onto win YEC or Grand Slam Cup all those years
In '92, he lost in 2 tiebreaks to Forget. Its the only straight set match I know of where loser leads first serve in, first serve won and second serve won

On top of YEC, he's the only 2 time Grand Slam Cup champion and only player to win YEC and GS Cup in same year

 

[Waspsting]

Pete has edge at net and s/v, signif. more winners and few UEs.

cancelled out by unreturned serves advantage for Krajicek, though there's large overlap between s/v and unreturned serves

Is a common pattern in close s/v matches - 1 guy has more unreturneds, other has more winning volleys
In practical terms - 1 guy getting freebies, other guy putting away easy first volleys - basically the same thing

Nice to see even Sampras choked on serve a few little times. None could be so uncanny at serve as Sampras is attributed to be, and he may be the best clutch server ever, excepting Gonzalez.

He has his moments
'00 Canada - double faults lost him the match at the end
'00 Wimby final - lost first set tiebreak with double faults, having barely lost a point on serve in regular games
'94 Cincy loss to Edberg is one of the worst double faulting exhos I've seen. '93 Aus wasn't pretty either

Pete's reputation for clutch serving is justified, but you know what I imagine would be even more galling for an opponent? The half-volleys
He's a great half-volleyer in general, but he makes a disproportionately high number of half-volleys when in trouble

Imainge it from opponents point of view
You've gained 1 break point in an hour
Misses first serve - hoorah
Not a deadly second serve, big strong return - double hoorah
And Sampras just plucks the half-volley back in play

Must be the answer (badly timed dobule faults from Pete being key to result) bec all respect to Richard, Pete looks to have out played in basic stats.

3 double faults in the only game where either player was broken + a double fault in the final set 7-5 tiebreaker seem to be the difference.

regarding the final 'breaker. It proves to be the difference, but I wouldn't 'blame' Sampras for it exactly (not that you guys are blaming him)

Also in the 'breaker, Kraj sends down a pretty gentle second serve - short, around the body. Pete leans back and casually knocks it away for winner

We tend to blame a guy for a double fault and credit a guy for hitting a return winner. In this situation, is pretty similar

Pete resolved to stay big with second serve - and paying the price missing
Kraj playing it safe to get the second serve in - and paying the price. I'd expect serve-volleyer to lose the point he comes in behind 6-7 times out of 10

Also, Pete with some of his best returning in the 'breaker and Kraj with his best tough volleying to handle it (both up from rest of match, so clutch)
The return on match point from Pete is similar to the famous one made by Ken Rosewall at the end of the '72 WCT Finals final, and I'd have Kraj second favourite to win the point from there, but he manages with 2 great volleys

 

[NedStark]

Pity Rios missed the YEC too. They'd done away with the overly fast courts (the final was between Corretja and Moya), and he'd have had good chances there

Krajicek probably would have also had good chances in Paris Masters and YEC that year had he not caught an injury against Rosset in Paris that year. He was quite hot in mid- to late-1998.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

By that stage in the year, I think he'd take 10 ranking points over the record high 1.5-2 million dollar purse for Grand Slam Cup. A luxury of his former earnings. Probably the only player in the world who could afford to think that way (maybe Agassi too)

Not the only one. Korda was the sole slam titlist who showed up at the GSC in '98; no Moya (FO), no Sampras (W), no Rafter (USO).

And if you go back to the inaugural edition, when the prizemoney was even greater both in relative and absolute terms (Pete won $2m in 1990 dollars, versus Rios who won "only" $1.3m in 1998 dollars), the organizers had similar problems. The four slam champs (Lendl, Gomez, Edberg, and Sampras) did attend, but big names like Becker, Agassi, McEnroe, and Wilander all declined their invites.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Pete's reputation for clutch serving is justified, but you know what I imagine would be even more galling for an opponent? The half-volleys
He's a great half-volleyer in general, but he makes a disproportionately high number of half-volleys when in trouble

I always thought that was a big factor in his greater success versus Agassi compared to other big servers (Andre has a winning H2H against Becker, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Krajicek, Stich, Philippoussis, and Todd Martin, for example). I remember Bud Collins' write-up of the '94 USO final where he commented that Stich was constantly volleying off his toes. That particular weapon — the low return of serve — was simply less effective against Pete.

 

[HBK4life]

I always thought that was a big factor in his greater success versus Agassi compared to other big servers (Andre has a winning H2H against Becker, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Krajicek, Stich, Philippoussis, and Todd Martin, for example). I remember Bud Collins' write-up of the '94 USO final where he commented that Stich was constantly volleying off his toes. That particular weapon — the low return of serve — was simply less effective against Pete.

I saw a vid on YouTube Rafter was talking about how Pete’s half volleys were a bit different. I assume Pete being a crazy good athlete allowed him to be great at something so difficult.

 

[Galvermegs]

Nice report, per usual. Interesting, Pete wins this title he is legitimate 1998 World No. 1, I would think. Instead it is a ****ing hash, wherein Rios deprived by no points given for GSC, which even a 500 equivalent would put him first in points. And then just the up-for-grabs nature, w Pete, Rios, Rafter all w good claims and then Moya and Corretja really close. Strange year.

I think rios loses more sleep over that awful AO final he put together. But at the same time it is hard to know how much he cared for tennis compared to most no1s

 

[Galvermegs]

I always thought that was a big factor in his greater success versus Agassi compared to other big servers (Andre has a winning H2H against Becker, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Krajicek, Stich, Philippoussis, and Todd Martin, for example). I remember Bud Collins' write-up of the '94 USO final where he commented that Stich was constantly volleying off his toes. That particular weapon — the low return of serve — was simply less effective against Pete.

The hh with goran is a bit close compared to others named. Of course the croat was one of the weakest in this list at the net but he could trouble andre from the baseline when dialled in.. more from being able to use heavy shots and wait for errors. If they played more times maybe andre would pull ahead like he did with many of the others but it would depend on location, surface and form at the time. Also i think andre never really read the first serve as well as the other guys.
Sampras always could back up his serve but the overall 20-14 hh was a pretty good rivalry from andre's side, especially when taking the fast surfaces out. It always seemed andre could make fast court finals more than pete slow court (namely clay) semis or finals.

 

[Drob]

But in '98, he got hung up on finishing #1 for record 6 straight years.

appreciate the context.

But "hung up" on freaking WHAT?

A FALSE record that everybody knew was False - a result of a lousy ranking system nobody understood, did not reflect reality.

Everybody knew in Pete's time that Connors was not the '75 no. 1 or the '77 no. 1 and '78 is debateable.

There was no five-year record to break. Maybe there was a six-year record to break (Tilden) or a six-possibly-seven year record to break (Laver); or a seven year +(Gonzalez).


The Stupid, ironic ending is Pete got a FALSE No. 1 for his sixth

 

[Galvermegs]

appreciate the context.

But "hung up" on freaking WHAT?

A FALSE record that everybody knew was False - a result of a lousy ranking system nobody understood, did not reflect reality.

Everybody knew in Pete's time that Connors was not the '75 no. 1 or the '77 no. 1 and '78 is debateable.

There was no five-year record to break. Maybe there was a six-year record to break (Tilden) or a six-possibly-seven year record to break (Laver); or a seven year +(Gonzalez).


The Stupid, ironic ending is Pete got a FALSE No. 1 for his sixth

Rios didnt win a slam. Rafter was never consistent at slams in general (each consecutive effort after a good showing being a pre qf exit iirc). I think it wasnt that false. The grand slam cup is not a fair way to factor in rios' claim. He was impressive against a reemerging andre no doubt.

 

[Waspsting]

But "hung up" on freaking WHAT?

A FALSE record that everybody knew was False - a result of a lousy ranking system nobody understood, did not reflect reality.

Everybody knew in Pete's time that Connors was not the '75 no. 1 or the '77 no. 1 and '78 is debateable.

There was no five-year record to break. Maybe there was a six-year record to break (Tilden) or a six-possibly-seven year record to break (Laver); or a seven year +(Gonzalez).

He doesn't seem the type to mull things over along these lines

Hard to imagine him taking pride in his ultimate Slam record, and then contextualizing with a dissertation on how in other eras, top players were barred from playing Slams, or choosing not to play them, the relative attention given to Slams in different times, etc.

I think your using the word 'everybody' pretty loosely
For starters, I didn't know it and I was 'everybody' - watched a bit of tennis on TV, took what the commentators said as matter-of-fact, read the odd article in general sports magazines

I'd take people like that as being the 'everybody' of tennis fans
People like you, King Olaf, Pro tennis Historian.... are very, very, very far from being the 'everybody' of tennis fans

'Everybody' knew and were taught a lot of things back then - Sampras had the best serve ever, Agassi had the best return ever, Sampras was the GOAT etc.
That, Roy Emerson held the Slam record, Rod Laver had been pretty special, Bjorn Borg wasn't too bad, McEnroe had a bad temper... that's about the extent of what 'everybody' was taught and knew

Jump into whatever thread is running hot in general section right now. That's the everybody of tennis fans (actually, they're probably above average for knowledge and judgement)
Do you think they're 1998 counter-parts - sans easy access to internet - knew the stuff you've mentioned?

 

[NedStark]

The hh with goran is a bit close compared to others named. Of course the croat was one of the weakest in this list at the net but he could trouble andre from the baseline when dialled in.. more from being able to use heavy shots and wait for errors. If they played more times maybe andre would pull ahead like he did with many of the others but it would depend on location, surface and form at the time. Also i think andre never really read the first serve as well as the other guys.
Sampras always could back up his serve but the overall 20-14 hh was a pretty good rivalry from andre's side, especially when taking the fast surfaces out. It always seemed andre could make fast court finals more than pete slow court (namely clay) semis or finals.

His H2H against Krajicek was also quite close as well. The funny thing is that he was 3-0 against Krajicek on grass but 1-3 on hard (and even in Agassi’s lone hard court win at New Haven in 1995, Krajicek also had him on the rope).

 

[Galvermegs]

His H2H against Krajicek was also quite close as well. The funny thing is that he was 3-0 against Krajicek on grass but 1-3 on hard (and even in Agassi’s lone hard court win at New Haven in 1995, Krajicek also had him on the rope).

Yep. Krajicek was a possible underachiever when he was suited to all surfaces, with just some movement issues holding him back. His injuries were his achilles heel. I find it odd how some hh meetings are more frequent than others. Obviously muster on clay swings would avoid the hard court players and rack up points much to (some of) their disdain.

 

[Drob]

I think rios loses more sleep over that awful AO final he put together. But at the same time it is hard to know how much he cared for tennis compared to most no1s

He doesn't seem the type to mull things over along these lines

Hard to imagine him taking pride in his ultimate Slam record, and then contextualizing with a dissertation on how in other eras, top players were barred from playing Slams, or choosing not to play them, the relative attention given to Slams in different times, etc.

I think your using the word 'everybody' pretty loosely
For starters, I didn't know it and I was 'everybody' - watched a bit of tennis on TV, took what the commentators said as matter-of-fact, read the odd article in general sports magazines

I'd take people like that as being the 'everybody' of tennis fans
People like you, King Olaf, Pro tennis Historian.... are very, very, very far from being the 'everybody' of tennis fans

'Everybody' knew and were taught a lot of things back then - Sampras had the best serve ever, Agassi had the best return ever, Sampras was the GOAT etc.
That, Roy Emerson held the Slam record, Rod Laver had been pretty special, Bjorn Borg wasn't too bad, McEnroe had a bad temper... that's about the extent of what 'everybody' was taught and knew

Jump into whatever thread is running hot in general section right now. That's the everybody of tennis fans (actually, they're probably above average for knowledge and judgement)
Do you think they're 1998 counter-parts - sans easy access to internet - knew the stuff you've mentioned?

 

[Drob]

He doesn't seem the type to mull things over along these lines

Hard to imagine him taking pride in his ultimate Slam record, and then contextualizing with a dissertation on how in other eras, top players were barred from playing Slams, or choosing not to play them, the relative attention given to Slams in different times, etc.

I think your using the word 'everybody' pretty loosely
For starters, I didn't know it and I was 'everybody' - watched a bit of tennis on TV, took what the commentators said as matter-of-fact, read the odd article in general sports magazines

I'd take people like that as being the 'everybody' of tennis fans
People like you, King Olaf, Pro tennis Historian.... are very, very, very far from being the 'everybody' of tennis fans

'Everybody' knew and were taught a lot of things back then - Sampras had the best serve ever, Agassi had the best return ever, Sampras was the GOAT etc.
That, Roy Emerson held the Slam record, Rod Laver had been pretty special, Bjorn Borg wasn't too bad, McEnroe had a bad temper... that's about the extent of what 'everybody' was taught and knew

Jump into whatever thread is running hot in general section right now. That's the everybody of tennis fans (actually, they're probably above average for knowledge and judgement)
Do you think they're 1998 counter-parts - sans easy access to internet - knew the stuff you've mentioned?

 

[insideoutforehanders]

His H2H against Krajicek was also quite close as well. The funny thing is that he was 3-0 against Krajicek on grass but 1-3 on hard (and even in Agassi’s lone hard court win at New Haven in 1995, Krajicek also had him on the rope).

That is a hilarious stat given the surface preferences of both players. Mind you Krajicek oddly struggled mightily on grass until Wimbledon 96. Where many forget he was originally unseeded despite being ranked 13th, due to his previous poor performances.