Match Stats/Report - Safin vs Philippoussis, Paris final, 2000

[Waspsting]

Marat Safin beat Mark Philippoussis 3-6, 7-6(7), 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(8) in the Paris final, 2000 on carpet

It was the first of Safin’s 3 titles at the event and Philippoussis’ only final

Safin won 153 points, Philippoussis 165

Philippoussis serve-volleyed more often than not off first serves

(Note I’m missing the first point of the match. Per commentary, its an ace and has been assumed to be a first serve, with serve direction unknown
I’ve confidently guessed serve type for 1 other point - Set 5, Tiebreak, Point 6 - marked a first serve and hence, first serve-volley)

Serve Stats
Safin...
- 1st serve percentage (84/157) 54%
- 1st serve points won (72/84) 86%
- 2nd serve points won (39/73) 53%
- Aces 22
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (54/157) 34%

Philippoussis...
- 1st serve percentage (94/161) 58%
- 1st serve points won (81/94) 86%
- 2nd serve points won (38/67) 57%
- Aces 23 (1 not clean), Service Winners 5 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 9
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (75/161) 47%

Serve Pattern
Safin served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 67%
- to Body 3%

Philippoussis served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 9%
(raw numbers 52-85-14)

Return Stats
Safin made...
- 77 (24 FH, 53 BH), including 2 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 47 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (4 FH, 6 BH)
- 37 Forced (15 FH, 22 BH)
- Return Rate (77/152) 51%

Philippoussis made...
- 101 (21 FH, 80 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 17 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 FH), a runaround FH
- 32 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (4 FH, 4 BH)
- 24 Forced (13 FH, 11 BH)
- Return Rate (101/154) 66%

Break Points
Safin 1/2 (2 games)
Philippoussis 2/8 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Safin 34 (13 FH, 12 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 3 OH)
Philippoussis 35 (11 FH, 4 BH, 9 FHV, 8 BHV, 3 OH)

Safin's FHs - 3 cc (1 return, 1 pass), 1 cc/inside-in at net, 1 dtl, 3 inside-out (1 at net), 2 inside-in, 1 lob, 1 running-down-drop-shot inside-out at net
- BHs - 2 cc (1 return, 1 pass), 9 dtl (3 passes), 1 inside-out pass

- 2 from a serve-volley points (1 FHV, 1 FH at net), both first 'volleys'

- 1 OH was on the bounce

Philippoussis' FHs - 3 cc (2 passes), 1 cc/inside-in (possibly not clean), 1 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out pass, 2 inside-in (1 runaround return)
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 1 dtl slice pass (with Safin on the ground), 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 net chord dribbler

- 10 from serve-volley points -
- 7 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 FH at net)
- 3 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

- 6 from return-approach points (2 FHV, 4 BHV)

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Safin 53
- 32 Unforced (8 FH, 19 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)… with 1 FH at net
- 21 Forced (7 FH, 12 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot (not at net) & the BH1/2V was possibly a BHV
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.5

Philippoussis 56
- 28 Unforced (11 FH, 12 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 28 Forced (13 FH, 11 BH, 3 BHV, 1 Tweener)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.5

(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 a measure of how aggressive of intent the average UE made was. 60 is maximum, 20 is minimum. This match has been scored using a four point scale - 2 defensive, 4 neutral, 5 attacking, 6 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Safin was...
- 35/48 (73%) at net, including...
- 11/15 (73%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 9/12 (75%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/3 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/2 return-approaching

Philippoussis was...
- 58/75 (77%) at net, including...
- 36/43 (84%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 35/42 (83%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 9/17 (53%) return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Great match with big serving dominating proceedings, but baseline action is hard hitting and high quality too, with fair amount of pressuring net play too (though most of it is token, with the serve doing the work), and both players on top of their games. Safin wins but there’s practically nothing between the two players, making the result a coin flip deal. Court is fast

‘Scud’ Philippoussis has better of things, though it doesn’t matter too much. He doesn’t have better enough to be to break. In this case, ‘having better of things’ means ‘holds a bit more easily’. He has break points in 5 games, to Safin’s 2

There are only 3 breaks all match - 2 by Scud, 1 by Safin
Scud breaks in his first return game of the match. Call it a sluggish start from Safin
Safin’s only break comes in a game with a with a healthy, mid-game delay as an accident opens a cut above his eye. Call it a break in Scud’s concentration, brought on by irregular circumstances
Third break is half a product of good chip-charge returns, half Safin poor errors

Other than that, 49 holds. It’d be quite a coincidence if slow start or break in concentration weren’t behind 2 of the breaks, and they just happened to make up 2/3 breaks, amidst 49 holds

Saf though has better of both tiebreaks, about as comfortably as possible, given the 7 & 8 scorelines. He has all the set points in both of them - 4 in the first, 6 in the second, with Scud at least a step behind at best

If your going to split hairs on why he wins, he’s clutch in those ‘breakers, and in the final one, Scud eases up with his serve a touch. It is though, splitting hairs

Scud wins 51.9% of the points, while serving 50.6% of them. It sounds even closer to say Scud wins 4 more points than he serves, Saf 4 fewer

First serve in - Saf 54%, Scud 58%
First serve won - Saf 85.7%, Scud 86.2%
Second serve won - Saf 53%, Scud 57%

So Scud leading in all 3 basic categories, despite losing

With serve so dominant, the only threat to server turns out to be Scud’s chip-charge returns. He wins 9/17 or 53% on the play (1 is against a first serve). Hardly dominant, but anything over 50% is excellent in context of match

He turns to it regularly in the final set, with success in the early games. Enough to have Saf take some care to bolster his in count (that is, take a bit off the first serve to get more in and not risk having to play third ball passing shots), which opens up possibilities of getting a bit more done on first return points

Well judged adjustment by Saf. His serve is so big that he has plenty of room to tune it down while still being very damaging. He gets it just right - depriving Scud of chip-charge chances while still dominating behind his first serve

What happens if Scud chip-charges more often throughout match? At his success rate, probably wins. Could he maintain such a success rate? Wouldn’t bet on it. Safin hammered groundies are the opposite of an invitation to approach and a threat on what he’s likely to do on the pass. Just the power is challenge to handle, even if he’s hitting right at the net player

 

[Waspsting]

Serve-Volleying
Its not a serve-volley showing from Scud. Ultimately, he ends up serve-volleying 63% off the time behind first serves (only once behind a second)

Its 100% in the final set, before the tiebreak. Prior to that, off and on serve-volleying from Scud

Volleying has little to do with huge 83% such points he wins
He’s got 10 winners from serve-volleying 43 times, compared to 6 winners from return-approaching 17 times

Overwhelming bulk of serve-volley points are won via unreturned serves (he has 47% unreturned). What’s more, the serves would undoubtedly have gone unreturned regardless of serve-volleying or staying back.

Serve-volleying doesn’t hurt him, with both of Safin’s return winners being non-serve-volleys. Not first serve-volleying, Scud wins 19/25 or 76%, so apparently, it helps a little, and a little is difference between winning and losing. Most pertinently, in deciding tiebreak when he stays back off 5/7 first serves, having serve-volleyed exclusively in the set in the lead up

In lead up, serve-volleying, he’d won 17/18 first serve points (including aces)
In the ‘breaker, just 4/8

Its not as simple as saying serve-volleying more would lead to his winning the ‘breaker. He loses 1/2 points he does serve-volley on and a return winner Safin strikes when he stays back would even more certainly have been a winner had Scud come in behind the serve

Match of such razor thin margin is unlikely to have some neat tactic that if changed, would change the result. Scud loses match leading all 3 basic stats and breaking more often and having more chances to break… but stats anyway are suggesting he’d be a touch better of serve-volleying more. But he’s done dandily doing what he’s done too

If anything, you can wonder why he doesn’t second serve-volley more often. Despite 9 double faults (Safin has 2), he’s won 57% of his second serve-points. Sans the doubles, that rises to 66%

More than good enough to hold. No reason to serve-volley, so he doesn’t do it. There’s not much reason for him to first serve-volley either, but he does it and it works better than not doing it

Saf serve-volleys 19% off first serves and wins 75% so doing. Not serve-volleying, he wins 82%. He’s clumsy looking serve-volleying but like Scud, rarely has to volley. Unlike Scud, the act of serve-volleying does seems to affect Scud’s returning and be a cause for errors, and also disrupts Scud’s rhythm

Lot going on, none of it conclusively demonstrating anything. Gist of it in numbers -
- 1st serve-volleying frequency - Scud 63%, Saf 19%
- 1st serve-volley winning rate - Scud 83%, Saf 75%
- 1st non serve-volleying winning rate - Scud 76%, Saf 82%

In words, both players dominant on first serves, regardless of serve-volleying or not. Scud doing a bit better doing it, Saf the opposite. That leaves a very big piece of first serves out….

Serve & Return
1st serve ace/service winner rate - Scud 29%, Saf 26%

Both high and Scud’s small advantage is an under-indicator of his superiority.

Return errors forced -
- Scud 37, Saf 24

That’s not influenced by Scud’s serve-volleying so much more. Almost all return errors drawn by first serves have been marked FEs (and would have been regardless of serve-volley or not), and not inconsiderable number of seconds

Furthermore, the errors Scud draws tend to be harder forced than the ones Scud does

Unreturned rate - Scud 47%, Saf 34%
… sums up and how serve-return matters go. No cutting back into that from quality of returns made. Both return what they can, however they can, both look to drive the return and manage at best, leaving server with mild/moderate advantage (with good lot of forced weak return that leave server with huge advantage)

The only cut-back is in double faults, where Saf has a miserly 2, Scud considerably more 9, though its not problematic for him

Scud bombs serves same way all the time, with the wider ones going for aces. Saf’s a bit divided in that at times, he specifically seems to go for the ace and at others, not particularly

Saf’s movement on the return isn’t good. List of players who might be good enough to move into decent position to return what he’s up against is very small, but he isn’t on it. Good lot of lead footed, waft the racquet at the ball away from the body type returns from Saf. In general, moving for the wide serves isn’t a strength of Saf’s return, which is based on swatting returns in reach with power. Scud at least is willing to block the wide serves back in play when option for taking a swing isn’t feasible, which it often isn’t

The threats and potential threats on the return are all in Scud’s favour too

Safin looks to biff returns, as his is way. Even the seconds are a handful to do that to, and almost no hope against the firsts. Just the odd powerful return, amidst the huge lot of freebies and weak returns

Scud though has his chip-charge which he’s got 9/17 on. By 2000, chip-charging had become low percentage play. Examples of it getting obliterated earlier in the year include Safin himself dismantling Pete Sampras in Canada and US Open. Scud does very well to win majority and he doesn’t have an error trying

Which isn’t a good thing. With just crumbs to go for on return, and this being one play that’s actually working, worth going for it at cost of a few errors. Nor does he do so regularly, with 9 of the 17 coming in last set

His sole runaround FH return is also a winner. If your 1/1 on the play, probably worth going for it a bit more often. What do you have to lose, with opponent holding so readily?

Gist - Scud with stronger serve, Scud with better defensive returning, Scud with more damaging returning (and still more potential for it), amidst both players with brutally big serves, first and second

And Scud coming away with fat 13% advantage in freebies. Then they rally

Play - Baseline & Net
Winners - Saf 34, Scud 35
Errors Forced - Saf 28, Scud 21
(Aggressively ended points - Saf 62, Scud 56)
UEs - Saf 32, Scud 28

Total points - Saf 90, Scud 88

Action is predominantly baseline, thought both players have lots of approaches. In Scud’s case, most net play is serve-volleying and chip-charging and on the serve-volleys, the serve does most of the work. Saf rallies to net more often, mostly soon after big serve gives him command of point or after overpowering Scud from back; either way, approach shot does most of the work and net play is product of big serve or baseline superiority, not net seeking or the volley being at forefront

Baseline action is hard hitting from both players, with Saf looking to keep things BH-BH, so slightly biased to BH, amidst general dual winged play

Scud doesn’t take a backward step on the BH rallies. Drives his BHs back just as hard as Saf; a rarity. Most 1-handed BHs up against Saf turns into a Saf leading, hitting hard and opponent the 1-hander rinky-dinkily reacting, often with slices. None of that here - its power for power

Scud doesn’t even have clearly worse of it

BH UEs - Saf match high 19, Scud 12
On the aggressive front, Saf leading. He’s got 6 dtl winners, Scud 1 dtl based, with all other winners being passes and a return from Saf. Not that Scud doesn’t go dtl attackingly. He does so choosily and wisely, while having even share of the hitting in cc rallies.

On the FH, both players hitting lustily. Saf is less clean than on the BH, with the occasional not-hard hit (as opposed to ‘weak’ or ‘soft’) shot, and Scud edging hitting on the FH side
FH UEs - Saf match low 8, Scud 11
Ground-to-ground FH winners - Saf 6, Scud 4

Gist - on the FH, Scud harder hitter, more pressuring, and statistically Saf slightly more secure and slightly more damaging. The slight + in winners is attributable to his having more easy starting points for rallies, with is lower unreturned rate. Purely off FHs, things about a wash - and good job by Saf to keep it so, given he’s slightly lesser hitter

On the BH, Saf slightly harder hitter. Slighty enough that the pattern only emerges long term, which is a little surprising and reflects well on Scud’s BH hitting. Scud considerable more secure, while Saf more damaging

Lots of errors forced in baseline rallies too, so that’s not the full baseline picture, but a good model for it

 

[Waspsting]

Net points - Saf winning 73% of 48 approaches, Scud 77% of 75
Difference in approaches larely accounts for remaining differences in winners - Saf leadings passing winners 8-5, Scud the volleying ones 20-9 (excluding groundstrokes at net)

Just rallying to net - Saf 23/31 at 74%, Scud 13/15 at 87%

Once rally reaches hard-hitting neutral, finding a way to net is not easy and would require pointed desire to come forward, which neither player has (or needs, given how strong they both are off the ground - and how un-inviting both players power is to approaching)

Safin with more ready to scope to come in after drawing weak returns. Scud, who doesn’t serve-volley 37% of the time off non-ace first serves, has more scope than he utilizes. As mentioned earlier, this is mainly a baseline match, despite all the nominal ‘serve-volleying’ (which is realistically is more ‘serve-botting’ than ‘serve-volleying’) and substantial net numbers

‘Volley’ winners - Saf 10, Scud 23
‘volley’ UEs - Saf 6, Scud 5
‘volley’ FEs - Saf 2, Scud 3
(‘volley’ refers includes half-volleys and groundstrokes at net from serve-volley points)

Reflection of Scud being better volleyer. From volleying perspective, advantage of bulk of success being forced return errors is that he doesn’t face unduly easy, putaway volleys. Both players face routine stuff at above average power

Errors are about the same, with Scud facing more volleys and Scud with far, far more winners. He looks a complete natural at net, which is why his power off the ground comes as a bit of a surprise

Saf by contrast often looks awkward and clumsy in forecourt. When serve-volleying, the forced weak returns that reach him before he’s at net - a very common situation for players with serves as big as his - have him trouble. He doesn’t punch his volleys through well much of the time too, while Scud does

Passing winners - Saf 6, Scud 5

With Saf having more chances, but Scud relatively better looks due to Saf’s less decisive volleying. Coupled with the volleying numbers, Scud having more better a time of being at net, even when he does have to volley, than Saf does - with both players having a good time of it with winning rates of 73% for Saf and 77% for Scud

Saf’s passing winners though are essential to his survival as they thwart Scud’s chip-charges. He’s lost the majority but manage to nail, crucial, good passes to stay on serve
Most of the rest of the passes don’t matter too much as far as shaping the result. Holding a bit easier or not is what they amount to

Match Progression
In first set, Scud’s serve is just too much to handle, while Saf delivers low in-count of 36%. Lot of BH cc rallies, with Saf blinking a little more and Scud coming to a net a little to good effect, with his serve doing all the work in case of the serve-volleys

Flying start from Scud. Holds with 3 aces to open and then breaks to 30, with Saf making just 1 first serve and Scud pinching a couple of points at net

The two trade deuce holds in moving from 4-1 to 5-2, with Saf saving a break point with a powerful serve. At deuce, Scud misses an easy BHV to open court before Saf holds

Scud with a lovely return-approach point against Saf’s first serve, which he finishes with a fine BHV winner awhile later. He ends up serving out to love

Second set is server dominated with no break, though Scud still has edge. Saf serve-volleys a bit. His movement coming forward isn’t good and he’s out of sorts when weak returns land before he has time to reach net

Only game with break points comes at 4-4, as Saf finds himself down 0-40 after a Scud chip-charging FHV winner

He needs all the skill he has to get out of the hold, particularly as he misses his first serve on all 3 break points. Takes net to save the first and gets a strong pass off to another chip-charge by Scud, Scud does well to make the wide volley, and it takes a precise, running-down-drop-shot inside-out pass at net for Saf to win the point. A net chord pop over draws Scud to net on the thrid break point, and Saf hits an impeccable FH lob winner to win that one, before going on to hold

Tiebreak. After Scud double faults to go down 1-2, Saf is always ahead. A poor BH approach error by Saf puts things back on serve at 5-4, but Scud misses a putaway easy FHV right after. Follows it up with 2 very good volleys to wint eh next point, and saves set point with a runaround FH inside-in return winner

Saf gains the decisive min with a FH dtl winner to make it 8-7, before Scud misses a BH dtl winner attempt that was there for the shot

Play remains server dominated in third set, with the one break coming after a lengthy delay in the middle of the game. In diving for a volley, Saf strikes his head with his racquet butt on landing, opening a cut above his eye. The wound is tended to with score 30-30 and Saf goes on to break for the only time in the match, finishing with a FHV winner. In time, he has a not-easy 10 point serve out

Scud takes to serve-volleying more in the fourth set. Its not important, his serves wouldn’t be coming back regardless, but also ups his chip-charging - and that potentially, is a game changer

On back of 3 chip-charges - 2 of which he wins - he reaches 15-40 in the second game. Saf comes away with the hold - and even return-approaches himself to take the first point of the next game

Scud saves a break point in holding for 3-2 with a risky, BH dtl/inside-out winner and then breaks to love. 2 chip-charges do their thing and Saf double fualts and misses a routine BHV to finish the job

Remaining 3 games in set are all love holds - and its on to decider, momentum with Scud and his chip-charges being a genuine threat
He’s at it again very first point which he wins, and the third point, which he loses to a wide pass before Saf holds

Saf makes 1/6 first serves in his next service games, where he wins 2/3 points Scud chip-charges, but this is dangerous living from Saf. Scud meanwhile takes to serve-volleying off all first serves - and he can’t seem to lose a point

After his first 2 holds, Saf takes a bit off the first serve and gets a whole bunch more in. In remaining 4 games, serves at 14/19, losing the only point he faces chip-charge to a BHV winner. Scud meanwhile wins 17/18 first serve points in reaching the ‘breaker

Final tiebreak. And a bunch of things change. Scud stays back off a few first serves, while Saf nails passing winners 3/3 times he’s up against chip-charges (1 a fairly easy FH, the other 2 not easy)

Saf starts with a BH dtl pass winner against chip-charge and wins his next service point with an easy FH cc pass winner against the same play. Its Scud who strieks first with a precise FH dtl/inside-out passing winner to go up 3-2

He loses the next point to wide pass while serve-volleying. Does losing the point encourage him to not serve-volley next point? It wouldn’t have mattered if he had as Saf’s short angled FH return cc winner would even more surely have gone through untouched with Scud moving forward and its 4-3 Saf with 2 serves to follow

Things stay on serve ‘til Saf reaches has his third match point and first one on his own serve. He misses a comfortable reaction type volley he has time for

He’s got another match point on his own serve next go around, but misses a routine third ball BH to make it 8-8
Chip-charge return and again, Safin delivers with a BH dtl passing winner to bring up 6th match point, this one on return
Big serve, stay back, not-strong return, big FH cc to corner that lands out and match is Safin’s

Summing up, a great match, the baseline equivalent of the justly ballyhooed 1996 Year End Championship final

Big serving from both players is front and center of match and its good enough to see both players hold comfortably, with Philippoussis more so
Philippoussis has the bigger serve, he moves better and is wiser in his returning choices, with Safin limited to looking for whacking returns against serves too good to be whacked

Baseline action is hard-hitting off both wings, with BHs seeing a little more action. Hittings near even between the two players - Safin edging BHs, Philippoussis FHs - with errors gong in opposite direction to leave things near equal

Plenty of net play, but most of it is token, with the serve or overpowering baseline play (often born out of the serve) given the net player an easy time. Philippoussis is the better volleyer and more comfortable around the forecourt

Philippoussis’ chip-charge returns are the only real threat to either server in the match. He’s usually successful with them and when he isn’t, it’s due to Safin hitting excellent passing shots under pressure

It all adds up to Philippoussis having slightly better of action, but Safin coming away with the result. Just like the famous ‘96 final, down to the winner winning 2 tiebreaks

 

[BauerAlmeida]

The match that made Safin #1.

 

[Pheasant]

Interesting writeup!

Safin, 22 aces to 2 double faults
Phlup: 23 aces to 9 double faults

It's interesting the Phlup won a higher percentage on 2nd serves than Safin did, despite having 7 more double faults. Phlup also had far more points in the match than Safin, yet still lost. Going +12 while losing has to be quite rare. Safin was more clutch by winning more tiebreaks(2-0) and by being taking advantage of his two break point opportunities(1-2) vs Phlup's 2/8 ratio.

 

[Third Serve]

Really enjoy this match. Safin’s indoor matches get a bit overshadowed by his supremely impressive outdoor HC performances at the AO and US Open but he had some really good showings over the years, especially in 2000 and 2004.

 

[urban]

To me this match always looked like an onbreak of a new era. An era of Marvel-like giants battling it out. Both massive players, tall and muscular, but also not slow and quite mobile, young, fearless and rebellious, with enormous serves and groundstrokes. Sadly, both didn't fulfilll the promise, maybe due to living a fast life outside the courts..,

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Really enjoy this match. Safin’s indoor matches get a bit overshadowed by his supremely impressive outdoor HC performances at the AO and US Open but he had some really good showings over the years, especially in 2000 and 2004.

2002 was very good too, he routined Hewitt in the Paris final.

McEnroe said it was a match between the #1 player in the world and the best player in the world.

 

[Waspsting]

Interesting writeup!

Safin, 22 aces to 2 double faults
Phlup: 23 aces to 9 double faults

It's interesting the Phlup won a higher percentage on 2nd serves than Safin did, despite having 7 more double faults. Phlup also had far more points in the match than Safin, yet still lost. Going +12 while losing has to be quite rare. Safin was more clutch by winning more tiebreaks(2-0) and by being taking advantage of his two break point opportunities(1-2) vs Phlup's 2/8 ratio.

One of my favourite things to find is a matches where winner trails all 3 of first serve in, first serve won and second serve won

Here are a few others

- '90 US Open, Sampras-Lendl
- '90 Sydney Indoor, Edberg-Lendl
- '91 Cincy, Forget-Sampras
- '92 Stockholm, Forget-Sampras (that's a straight setter)
- '95 Basel, Becker-Edberg
- '96 Miami, Ivanisevic-Sampras
- '19 Madrid, Tsitsipas-Nadal
- '19 Wimby, Djokovic-Federer
- '22 Paris, Rune-Djokovic
- '23 YEC, Sinner-Djokovic

To me this match always looked like an onbreak of a new era. An era of Marvel-like giants battling it out. Both massive players, tall and muscular, but also not slow and quite mobile, young, fearless and rebellious, with enormous serves and groundstrokes. Sadly, both didn't fulfilll the promise,

They do look like continuations of Pete Sampras, the dominant force of the era

I had a similar feeling ('fear' might be a better word in my case) watching Zverev and Medvedev serving 80%+ first serves in and pushing - bigger versions of Djokovic, sans the special qualities

Won't be terribly sad if doesn't come to fruition...