Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Agassi, US Open final, 2002

[Waspsting]

Pete Sampras beat Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 in the US Open final, 2002 on hard court

The win gave Sampras a record extending 14th Slam title and an Open Era record tying 5th title. He hadn't won a title since 2000 Wimbledon. This would turn out to be his last match. Agassi would go onto win the next Slam at Australian Open. This is the third final at the event between the two, with Sampras having won all 3 (previously 1990 and 1995) as well as a quarter-final match the previous year

Sampras won 151 points, Agassi 126

Sampras serve-volleyed off all first serves and off all but 2 seconds

Serve Stats
Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (87/152) 57%
- 1st serve points won (70/87) 80%
- 2nd serve points won (34/65) 52%
- Aces 33 (5 second serves), Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 13
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (67/152) 44%

Agassi...
- 1st serve percentage (82/125) 66%
- 1st serve points won (55/82) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (23/43) 53%
- Aces 7
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/125) 30%

Serve Patterns
Sampras served...
- to FH 52%
- to BH 45%
- to Body 4%

Agassi served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 64%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Sampras made...
- 83 (24 FH, 59 BH), including 5 return-approaches
- 6 Winners (6 BH)
- 31 Errors, comprising...
- 23 Unforced (10 FH, 13 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- 8 Forced (5 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (83/121) 69%

Agassi made...
- 72 (38 FH, 34 BH)
- 5 Winners (3 FH, 2 BH)
- 31 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 30 Forced (16 FH, 14 BH)
- Return Rate (72/139) 52%

Break Points
Sampras 4/8 (6 games)
Agassi 2/12 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Sampras 41 (5 FH, 11 BH, 14 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 8 BHV, 2 OH)
Agassi 19 (14 FH, 4 BH, 1 BHV)

Sampras had 26 from serve-volley points
- 18 first 'volleys' (9 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 2 OH, 2 FH at net, 1 BH at net)... 1 BHV was a net chord dribbler, 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV and the FH1/2V can reasonably be called a FH at net
- 6 second volleys (2 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 2 third volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV)

- FHs - 1 cc, 1 inside-out and 1 inside-out/dtl
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 1 dtl pass and 1 running-down-drop-shot drop shot at net
- BH returns - 1 cc, 3 dtl and 2 inside-in

Agassi had 11 passes (8 FH, 3 BH)
- FHs 6 cc (2 returns), 1 dtl return and 1 longline at net
- BHs - 1 cc and 2 dtl returns

- regular FHs - 4 cc (1 at net), 1 dtl and 1 inside-in
- regular BH - 1 dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Sampras 56
- 31 Unforced (9 FH, 15 BH, 5 FHV, 2 BHV)... with 1 FH at net & 1 BH at net
- 25 Forced (5 FH, 5 BH, 3 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 7 BH1/2V, 1 OH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50.3

Agassi 39
- 9 Unforced (5 FH, 4 BH)
- 30 Forced (16 FH, 14 BH)... with 2 FH running-down-drop-shots (1 at net) & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.8

(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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sampras was...
- 77/114 (68%) at net, including...
- 66/101 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 39/56 (70%) off 1st serve and...
- 27/45 (60%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/5 (80%) return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back

Agassi was 9/12 (75%) at net

Match Report
A great match and though just 4 sets, a tense one. Sampras is virtually untouchable for 2 sets but is pushed to the limits in the next 2 on a quick court. In fact, odds would favour Agassi in the second half as he's constantly threatening to break serve against the constantly serve-volleying Sampras (he stays back off 2 serves all match). A point here and there falling just so sees Sampras hold him off and finish the match in 4

Keys to match are Sampras' serve (a constant in all Sampras matches) and his return (which usually isn't). How he returns varies across match. Often, its with high aggression - stepping into court, blasting the ball, chip-charging, taking big rips, going for winners dtl over high part of net. Playing so, he misses a good number - his return rate is 69% with 23/31 return errors marked unforced - but also strikes 6 winners (1 more than Agassi manages and all of them with Agassi on the baseline, all of them BHs) and forces a good number of third ball errors. Its the kind of returning that's bound to give up a few easy holds, but when the returns land in, is very likely to break... against Agassi's average serve, its a good, match long percentage play. In fact, its like Agassi's usual strategy against Sampras(!)... only there, the serve is top drawer and the returning has to be.

Its a 2 part match. For 2 sets, Sampras is untouchable and his serve is at its very best. After that, he seems to be tires progressively and unable to serve quite as powerfully (his serve is still very powerful though) and Agassi returns and passes exceptionally well to create chances. In last 2 sets, Sampras serves 96 points to Agassi's 75. Struggling to hold and tiring, Agassi looks the more likely to break and Sampras not far off from being wiped out

It's not unusual for Sampras to tire in long matches. High aggression is a good ploy in such situations. That's his natural game on serve. Its turning it on with his returns that elevates this showing to something special

Part 1 - Sets 1 & 2
Even by his standards, Pete serves ferociously well in first half (particularly in first set). He's got 12 aces in first set alone and after 2 sets, unreturned rate off 54%. He's in all out, 2 'first' serves mode (he has 5 second serve aces for the match) and there's not much Agassi can do about it. Despite that, just 2 double faults and serving at 63%. About as unplayable as can be

In first set, Pete returns orthodoxly. He gains the one break in a game when his big FHs land in (including the return) and a couple of approaches (including a return)

In second set, the serving ferocity drops a touch (it'd be hard for it not to) but he starts returning with high aggression also. He gains the break at start and goes up 2, with a rattled Agassi missing a pair of attacking third ball shots from deuce to lead 5-2

Good game by Agassi to snatch a break back, despite Pete making 7/8 first serves. Pete serves it out second time of asking to love, including 2 aces (1 a second serve)

So far, Agassi hasn't been in the match

Part 2 - Sets 3 & 4
Gradually and more or less uniformly, power of Pete's serving wanes (as in, one could could confidently guess that 1/6 second serves was a second serve... its still very powerful stuff), there are a lot more double faults, fewer aces, Agassi's able to make returns (typically, whatever he can make is made powerfully). His movements slow a bit too

He mostly continues being very aggressive with the return, missing as often as not. With his serve games not obviously secure now, aggressive returning has a potential down side. Baseline rallies in Agassi's service games are dominated by Agassi off both wings. Pete's BH is outmatched and Agassi has the stronger, wide hit FHs too

In third set, Sampras survives 14 and 8 point holds, saving 3 break points along the way. 1 Agassi game goes to deuce (no break points). The sole break is last game of set - a 16 point game. Plenty of strong returns and passes by Agassi but he needs 3 double faults and Pete missing an easy FHV on break point to actually win the game

Fourth set goes the same way, with Pete returning if anything, even more aggressively while relying heavily on the big serve to get him through. He survives 20 and 12 point holds (3 break points), including saving one by making a rare BH1/2V he had no control over. Its thrilling stuff. Agassi missing makeable returns, Pete rarely able to handle tough volleys and half-volleys, double faults, net chord dribblers, drop volleys (deliberate and otherwise)... lots going on.

Pete does an Agassi by smacking every return with point ending intent for a game. It works. At 15-30, he hits a return winner that's called out, and wins the next point with the return shot too. Agassi goes on to hold. All 3 points Pete wins were FEs drawn by returns to the baseline.

After surviving a 12 point game where Agassi misses one of the easier returns he faces on break point, Pete gains the break in a game where he returns similarly (less extreme). The key point is his striking a BH dtl pass winner - his only pass for the match, before another return to the baseline on break point leaves him serving for the match. Which he does to 15, including his 5th second serve ace and finishing with a BHV winner

 

[Waspsting]

Sampras' serve game
Sampras serves as hard as he can - firsts and seconds - all match, with force of serve declining as match goes on. Even 'declined', its very strong. At his freshest at start, its untouchable. Virtually even the second serves, which are a lot stronger than Agassi's first serves

Agassi as ever, takes returns from the baseline. Its his way - he gives up a lot of unreturned serves and aces, but whatever he can hit he hits well. Early on, it isn't worth it. Generally, Agassi seems to be waiting around for Pete to miss first serve to have a shot. Here, for 2 sets, he's basically waiting around for Pete to double fault (which he rarely does). All of Sampras' serves are too much for Agassi

Generally, very rarely did Agassi step back to get more returns in play at cost of the damage his returns do. Here, its clearly not worth it. 33 aces and 3 service winners from Sampras comes to an unreturnable serve 24% of the time and 36% off first serves. That's just the unreturnables, not the unreturned... and there's a good lot more that's not far short of unreturnable and virtually everything is difficult to return. Sampras isn't overly secure on the volley. He has 9 UEs - including couple of groundstrokes at net) and they are easy balls - given how few easy volleys he has to make, that's not too good. He also has 18 first 'volley' winners from these types of easy balls... given all the unreturned serves, that's more than good enough though. Agassi's prospects of breaking rest along 'hope Pete double faults' lines against that backdrop

In second half, Agassi's way bears some fruit. Still a boatload of unreturned serves but lots of powerful low returns. Pete has 15 forecourt FEs and 9 of them are half-volleys, every single 1 a bullet to the feet around the service line. These come between unreturned serves and double faults.

Not too much volley vs pass going on. Everything is serve vs return based. Pete doesn't face many regulation volleys and does the needful by placing them away. Almost everything he faces is powerfully hit. He does well controlling the net high power hits, but can't do anything against the low ones.

Despite keeping action almost completely on his racquet, there's little in it in final break point numbers -
- Sampras 4/8, Agassi 2/12... with both having them in 6 games

On the other hand, Sampras holds to love 10/21 times, Agassi just 4/20 (including his first 2 holds)

Note Sampras serving 152 points to Agassi's 126 or 55% of all points. Agassi might be helpless most of the time, but when he's not, he's able to give Pete all he can handle


That's the match. Pete 'Botting through and Agassi left to create his own chances by returning damagingly against very powerful serves. On flip side, Pete can get into return games regularly...

Agassi's serve game
Distinctly average serving from Agassi. Average paced, only occasionally placed wide. Sampras looks to return attackingly, including against first serve

He's got 6 return winners and a good lot of Agassi's 30 FEs are drawn by the return - hard and deep to baseline or well wide and at least deep-ish. Whenever Pete makes the big return, it seems to end the point

To be clear, Sampras doesn't uniformly attack on return. There's a good lot of orthodox returning and occasional blocked/chipped BH ones. After first set though, a full cut return is never too far away

Play is baseline stuff and Agassi commands it.

Generally, Agassi-Sampras baseline duels tend to feature Agassi hitting heavy BH cc's that Pete holds off with weaker, safe shots and Pete giving up BH errors. And Agassi looking for BH dtl point finisher from there and Pete taking his chances with running FH winner attempt

Not too much of that here. Agassi implements a dual-winged dynamic, with FH play the majority. He moves Sampras wide with well angled FH cc's and regularly switches to hitting FH inside-out to Pete's BH rather than BH cc's. Its dynamics are fluid and hard hitting, not patience or consistency battles

Heavy shots from Agassi that would be hard to attack. Pete doesn't particularly try. He gets his attacks in with big returns, not groundstrokes in play or coming to net. Some of Pete's groundgame is wildly low percentage attacking shots that virtually always miss. His BH in particular is loose. He tries hitting hard with it, but doesn't have enough on the ball to trouble Agassi

Baseline-to-baseline
- UEs - Agassi 9, Sampras 22
- Winners - Agassi 6, Sampras 5

Agassi well ahead in all types of UEs
- neutral - Agassi 4, Pete 11
- attacking - Agassi 2, Pete 9
- winner attempts - Agassi 2, Pete 12

That's a very clean showing from Agassi. Pete's attacking and winner attempt errors are bolstered by his 9 net UEs (Agassi has none)

Good lot of FEs for both baseline-to-baseline too (most of Agassi's are of course, passing attempts), Pete drawing the bulk of his with returns. Neither player is particularly quick. At his freshest, Sampras has movement advantage. As match wears on, he eases back some on select return games and isn't quick when he doesn't either. Agassi's troubled by balls slightly wide and deep - somewhat due to Sampras' power. Its not particularly difficult to force an error out of either player, particularly Agassi

In a compound nutshell -
- average serving from Agassi, Sampras returning with point ending aggression large part of the time
- baseline rallies favouring Agassi by long way... the stronger and more consistent hitter. Sampras moves better for most part
---
Summing up, a great match and a tremendous showing from Pete Sampras. When fresh, his serve is irresistible even by his standards - leaving Agassi next to no chance. When less than fresh, its still a mighty weapon and Agassi returns very well to make inroads with bullet returns to the service line

Standout feature is Sampras' returning, which is on par with Agassi's own for aggression (against an average serve) and its enough to get him the breaks he needs

Not much volley vs pass in rallies going on... Sampras' serve or Agassi's return are far more prominent in being decisive. Sampras is good at covering net for second or third volleys when needed, but rallies rarely go that long

From Agassi's point of view, a strong showing from the baseline. He'd have done better to fall back to return against the fresh Sampras... he can barely get racquet on a ball, and the potential damaging returns he might make (in fact, he makes virtually none) aren't worth all the serves he can't get in play. When the serving drops just a touch, he does very well to hammer returns

Stats for pair's '90 final - Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Agassi, US Open final, 1990 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Stats for pair's '95 Australian Open and US Open finals - Duel Match Stats/Reports - Agassi vs Sampras, Australian Open & US Open finals, 1995 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[Tshooter]

 

[BeatlesFan]

A particularly demoralizing match as an Agassi fan. Even worse than their 2001 USO quarterfinal.

 

[HBK4life]

I was shocked. I thought Andre would have finally win at the open.

 

[Gizo]

Sampras's clear lead in backhand winners from the baseline that day really stood out. Agassi didn't hit a backhand winner until the latter half of the 3rd set.

Their rivalry came full circle. The first 'big match' they played was in the 1990 US Open final (after previously meeting in the early rounds in Rome and Philadelphia) when Agassi was clear favourite going in but Sampras came out on top. Their final match was the 2002 US Open final when Agassi was again the clear favourite going in (Sampras hadn't won any of the last 33 tournaments that he had entered while Agassi had impressively beaten the world no. 1 Hewitt in the semis) but Sampras again came out on top.

 

[HBK4life]

Sampras's clear lead in backhand winners from the baseline that day really stood out. Agassi didn't hit a backhand winner until the latter half of the 3rd set.

Their rivalry came full circle. The first 'big match' they played was in the 1990 US Open final (after previously meeting in the early rounds in Rome and Philadelphia) when Agassi was clear favourite going in but Sampras came out on top. Their final match was the 2002 US Open final when Agassi was again the clear favourite going in (Sampras hadn't won any of the last 33 tournaments that he had entered while Agassi had impressively beaten the world no. 1 Hewitt in the semis) but Sampras again came out on top.

I remember in the fourth Agassi kept hitting screaming backhands up the line giving Pete a chance to hit that running forehand. Not sure why he would do that time and time again instead of just looping the ball and forcing Pete to up with his own pace. Or just not go down the line.

 

[Waspsting]

I was at the match and none of what you wrote rings a bell.

With the amount of noise you made, I'm sure a lot of people who were at that match have never heard a bell ring afterwards

Sampras's clear lead in backhand winners from the baseline that day really stood out. Agassi didn't hit a backhand winner until the latter half of the 3rd set.

I'd slot that down under "aggressive returning"

6/11 of Sampras' BH winners are returns. Against kind of serves that Agassi doesn't face

Bona fida, baseline-to-baseline winners read Sampras 2, Agassi 1

Sampras is playing to hit winners because he can't hold up rallying. Agassi, the opposite - happy to keep rallying, knowing Sampras can't keep up. That's normal Agassi BH play for the period... cc, cc, cc 'til he gets the error. He rarely goes dtl trying to force the issue and very few players can keep up with him in the cc rallies (and Sampras isn't one of them)

BH UEs read Agassi 4, Sampras 15

Agassi's dearth of BH winners is about inability to hit return-pass and passes in play winners.... I'd say he did well if he was able, rather than hold it against him for not being able to. On return, he's up against a complete firestorm. And Sampras serves minority 45% to his BH

Great returning from Sampras, to complement the serve. He seems to have hit this balance perfectly late in his career against Agassi. '99 Cincinnati and Year End Championship final are other examples where he overwhelms Agassi with early, big cut returning. Gives up a good number of errors trying, but its worth it (particularly if he's holding serve comfortably, which he usually is)

He tends to need a lead to feel good about going for it. Typically, he returns orthodoxly for a set and if he wins it, goes all-out after that. If he loses first set like in '01 Indian Wells, he sticks to orthodox returning or even poking/pushing returns back in play

I think he could have done it years ago. To see this guy, who hits such spectacular returns over high part of net at Wimbledon, poking and slicing Agassi's average serve back in play... one feels he always had the potential to do more, to crush it. He rarely tried

Small mercy from Agassi's point of view
---

Despite all the recent records - Sampras not having won an event in over 2 years, Agassi being the favourite and so on - Agassi seems to have known what to expect

Commentators quote Agassi as having said before the match, "If he serves lights out, he wins"

 

[NicoMK]

Well it would be the last time that I'd see Pete playing a competitive match, and I didn't know it at the time.

Great review as always.

 

[I get cramps]

Generally, very rarely did Agassi step back to get more returns in play at cost of the damage his returns do. Here, its clearly not worth it.

Hello Waspsting:

Perhaps you haven’t watched this interview with Brad Gilbert. If so, here’s the video, set to where the Californian talks about his difficulties in convincing Agassi to take a few steps back in his returning position against Sampras.

Agassi’s response is logically sound, but IMO it reveals stubbornness and, if I may say so, a veiled identification by the Las Vegas native between the return position and the manliness of the players, which is surprising to someone like me who is used to listening to players raised on red clay. Needless to say, the latter benefit from the extra time they have to return. But, as I see it, they are more modest regarding this subject.

I would like to know your opinion, since you are in a position to write a monograph on this subject, and I would be pleased to read your thoughts on this dilemma, given that there was no solution for André, as in some in some matches he gave ground in the return position.

Thanks.

 

[HBK4life]

Hello Waspsting:

Perhaps you haven’t watched this interview with Brad Gilbert. If so, here’s the video, set to where the Californian talks about his difficulties in convincing Agassi to take a few steps back in his position against Sampras.

Agassi’s response is logically sound, but IMO it reveals stubbornness and, if I may say so, a veiled identification by the Las Vegas native between the return position and the manliness of the players, which is surprising to someone like me who is used to listening to players raised on red clay. Needless to say, the latter benefit from the extra time they have to return. But, as I see it, they are more modest regarding this subject.

I would like to know your opinion, since you are in a position to write a monograph on this subject, and I would be pleased to read your thoughts on this dilemma, given that there was no solution for André, as in some in some matches he gave ground in the return position.

Thanks.

Wow. I hadn’t heard that. Andre should have at least tried.

 

[jrepac]

I was shocked by this....by Pete getting to the final actually. It's not like he had a stellar year. But he kept knocking the pins down at the USO, until he got to the final. No way in hell should he have beaten Andre. Yet for 2 sets he was basically untouchable. I was hoping that Andre could push it to 5...if he had, he might've eked out a win. Gilbert told him to back up on Sampras's serve? Honestly, that's kind of dumb. Andre, and Connors before him, made their marks by crushing returns from about the service line. It's like telling Andre not to be Andre. I don't think that would have made a difference here.

 

[bigbadboaz]

But it's been pointed out ad nauseum how much Andre got aced (particularly by Sampras) because of that position. You're not "crushing" any of the returns you can't get a racquet on.

Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it's certainly not a dumb suggestion and would have been worth at least trying. The above is exactly why we see it so much in the modern game, and it does seem to work for certain returners.

 

[Judge Holden]

Agassi’s response is logically sound, but IMO it reveals stubbornness and, if I may say so, a veiled identification by the Las Vegas native between the return position and the manliness of the players, which is surprising to someone like me who is used to listening to players raised on red clay.

Yes, instinctual manliness coding in hard court tennis DNA is about what you do with the ball; in red clay DNA it's about what you do with your legs.

 

[HBK4life]

I was shocked by this....by Pete getting to the final actually. It's not like he had a stellar year. But he kept knocking the pins down at the USO, until he got to the final. No way in hell should he have beaten Andre. Yet for 2 sets he was basically untouchable. I was hoping that Andre could push it to 5...if he had, he might've eked out a win. Gilbert told him to back up on Sampras's serve? Honestly, that's kind of dumb. Andre, and Connors before him, made their marks by crushing returns from about the service line. It's like telling Andre not to be Andre. I don't think that would have made a difference here.

I think after being 0 for 3 at the open vs Pete I’d back up.

 

[jrepac]

I think after being 0 for 3 at the open vs Pete I’d back up.

Hhhmmm.....I just don't know. If he isn't able to read the serve, he could go back to the wall and it wouldn't matter. He's got to pick it up (or guess right) to have a shot at a Sampras likely ace. He could do it w/Becker, not so much w/Sampras. Connors was in a similar boat w/Mac vs. Lendl....incredibly hard to know where Mac was going w/the serve, but Lendl much less so.. I just can't see it as really helping Andre beat Pete. He'd be like Meddy playing 50ft back and largely ineffective.

 

[bigbadboaz]

You just said it yourself, that players like "Meddy" get those serves back. So much for every one being a "likely ace". That's what moving back does. There is enough space in these GS stadium courts to neutralize pace with distance. And as great as Pete's serve was, he had less velocity to get it through the court than some of the servers Meddy & Co. are returning by stepping back today.

Zero reason not to try at 2 sets - love down in a defining final, watching the script play out the way it always has.

 

[HBK4life]

You just said it yourself, that players like "Meddy" get those serves back. So much for every one being a "likely ace". That's what moving back does. There is enough space in these GS stadium courts to neutralize pace with distance. And as great as Pete's serve was, he had less velocity to get it through the court than some of the servers Meddy & Co. are returning by stepping back today.

Zero reason not to try at 2 sets - love down in a defining final, watching the script play out the way it always has.

Yep. Agassi had moved to poly by then so he still could have dipped it. Try something.

 

[Judge Holden]

I don't think Agassi articulates the true advantage of his strategy - you put pressure on attacking players by standing closer when you return, because it's easier to hit the ball past them on the return and first pass if the returner stands closer. So the server puts more on the serve and approach, which ups their error rate.

Sampras son of Kramer canceled out this advantage with his understanding of the meaning of big in Big Game -- big points, rather than big power.

 

[jrepac]

You just said it yourself, that players like "Meddy" get those serves back. So much for every one being a "likely ace". That's what moving back does. There is enough space in these GS stadium courts to neutralize pace with distance. And as great as Pete's serve was, he had less velocity to get it through the court than some of the servers Meddy & Co. are returning by stepping back today.

Zero reason not to try at 2 sets - love down in a defining final, watching the script play out the way it always has.

Perhaps worth a shot, when nothing else is working. But, hard for me to envision it truly helping him. Meddy sitting a mile behind the baseline in his losing USO final vs. Djoko made absolutely no sense to me. And, not like Djoko has a killer serve. Not gonna force the issue 50 ft behind the baseline and 5ft from the wall....exaggerating obviously, but....

 

[Waspsting]

Brad Gilbert... talks about his difficulties in convincing Agassi to take a few steps back in his position against Sampras.

Agassi’s response is logically sound, but IMO it reveals stubbornness and, if I may say so, a veiled identification by the Las Vegas native between the return position and the manliness of the players, which is surprising to someone like me who is used to listening to players raised on red clay. Needless to say, the latter benefit from the extra time they have to return. But, as I see it, they are more modest regarding this subject.

I would like to know your opinion, since you are in a position to write a monograph on this subject, and I would be pleased to read your thoughts on this dilemma, given that there was no solution for André, as in some in some matches he gave ground in the return position.

well on 'bright' side for Agassi, you'll get a lot of people calling you the 'greatest returner of all time' for his unwavering adherance to his macho style. So much more important than winning or losing US Open finals, no?

A few of us had similar discussion on my thread for '21 Canada final, Medvedev-Opelka , which you might find intersting. https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ev-vs-opelka-canadian-open-final-2021.761901/

return shot is about balancing
a) consistency (easy to measure by return rate)
b) strenght of shot (not easy to measure)


Eye tests are almost always biased towards b) and away from a)

But return is the most defensive shot there is. Your not going to do a ton of damage with it no matter who you are or who you play (in baseline matches, serve-volley is different). Sensible way of going about return is having a long term plan

Hypothetical, exxaggerated example. Say Andre Agassi and Mats Wilander are planning out a match. They figure they have to break 1/4 games or 2/7. Now how do they go about it?

Wilander retuns at 100%
- is in defensive position to start rally 80% of the time
- rallies go with opponent attacking, Wilander defending
- good lot of opponent winning by being attacking, a bit of him faltering while attacking, others where Wilander eventually neutralizes points (and Mats wins bulk of points from there), or Mats counter-attacking his way to a winning a few points

...long story short, Mats ends up breaking 1/4 and 2/7 games - mission accomplished, he wins

Agassi returns at 50% - so that's 50% points right there gone for him
- whatever he makes though is powerful, deep, wide
- wins few points with the return shot itself , otherwise starts good chunk of rallies from advantageous positions (from where he'll win bulk of points)

... long story short, Agasi ends up breaking 1/4 and 2/7 games - mission accomplished, he wins

Who is the better returner - Agassi or Wilander?
Who is the better court player - Agassi or Wilander?

(that discussion is more about playing baseliners than serve-volleyers, but much of principal points remain the same)

As with everything else, returning is about balancing force and consistency. Agassi valued force more than consistency
There's nothing wrong with that as long as it works to win. Which for him, it usually did. He creamed Boris Becker and Michael Stich, for example
But not much against Pete Sampras
And not so few times that he could chalk it down an 'on the day' thing, the way he could for a loss to say Boris or Stich (he actually never lost to Stich, and only lost to Boris once after gaining his first win, so this is somewhat theoritical point)

So he's returned this way against Sampras for 12+ years... and has seen what it gets him and its usually not enough to win. Why for heavens sake keep at it???
What is that saying, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is defintion of insanity". That's what Agassi basically did

Not necessarily that if he changes things up, he'll win
But if he keeps doing what he's done, he'll probably lose
And he kept doing what he'd done. And lost. For the 4/4 at US Open, when he was higher ranked and favourite going into all 4

He did actually bend a little the previous year and returned Sampras less aggressively. I think he did so in general because he returns that way against Rafter in their 2 5-setters that year also.
Still lost and didn't break serve in 4 sets, so obviously, its no magic bullet move. But that was more about not trying to belt the cover of every return, rather than moving back to see the return a bit longer

Take 2 steps back and see what happens. Practice it, prepare it. You know what'll happen if you don't
Something like firmly guiding returns low (as opposed to trying to belt the cover of every one). Like what Rafter did to Philippoussis in the '98 US final

He's never returned Sampras well

'98 Monte Carlo - gives up 40%+ freebies and loses. Next round, Sampras would lose 1 & 1 against the returning demon Fabrice Santoro
'03 Houston - gives up 40%+ freebies and loses. Sampras would lose to Andy Roddick next round
'94 Osaka - gives up 40%+ freebies on the slowest hard court I've seen and loses

So its not that its impossible to return Sampras any better, in any style. Apparently, its this "I'd rather die than change my ways" type thing Gilbert quotes Agassi as

...players raised on red clay. Needless to say, the latter benefit from the extra time they have to return. But, as I see it, they are more modest regarding this subject.

The clay courters typically value consistency over force on the return
Probably hurts them on fast courts and against serve-volleyers on fast courts. But benefits on clay are obvious. You can see this with Agassi

On top of the Samrpas matches mentioned above -

- '90 French final, largely lost because he can't get a handle on Gomez' serve. Would Lendl have had such trouble?
- '91 French final, not returning as well as Courier signicant factor. And he can see Courier adjusting to return from further back so its no mystery move
- '99 French final, loses 24 straight first return points. That's the second highest I know of on clay. Why is the second longest such streak I know of against the 'greatest returner of all time'?

Another returning genius is Jimmy Connors. He gave up 40% unreturned first serves to Orantes in losing the '75 US Open final, the biggest difference between the two players. With Orantes doing absolutely nothing with the third ball, just junking it back in play as if he's afraid to hurt the ball. And those pounded returns when landing in not winning points anyway
I'd have told him to stand far back and moonball the bloody return in play if he had to - just make sure you get it in play - but then who would call him the 'greatest returner of all time'?

Another study in clay courters vs fast courters returning comes in Muster's twin Monte Carlo - Rome doubles in '95 and '96

These are his unreturned rates in the 4 finals
- 27% vs Becker
- 15% vs Bruguera
- 12% vs Costa
- 26% vs Krajicek

Muster serving same, average way in all the matches
That's not about belting returns early, but just not-good consistency. These guys with games tailored to fast court tennis... they gives up so many routine return errors when they've got averaged paced serve covered but just miss them

Gets lost in the wash when there's serve-volleying going on
Comes out on clay
Muster actaully has higher unreturned rate than Krajicek in the match above and he's just 5% shy of Boris

So yeah
I'd say this was blackmark territory of inflexibility from Agassi
There's more than one way to skin a cat. And his way against Sampras wasn't the best one

 

[I get cramps]

If some members of this forum read your excellent ‘report,’ a statistical sample and careful observation (even if only to get the former) may clash with deep biographical convictions. These are fostered by unfounded notions spread by the media. You have spoken about this occasionally.

I am going to show you these post that includes data that must be incorrect. Nevertheless, the discrepancy could be significant anyway, and if so, the data would be of interest:

Facing all those break points Wawrinka ended up serving 41 more points than Djokovic (164-123).

I have not checked all our matches, Moose, but over the years I've made note of other such examples of this. I think you first noticed it in Smith's win over Nastase at Wimbledon (the winner serving many more points than the loser).

I know of three matches that top Wawrinka-Djokovic:

Sampras d. Bruguera at 1996 RG, serving 178 points to 126 (+52) (the ATP has 193-137 but I am adjusting these numbers on the assumption that aces and df's were counted twice)

Corretja d. Moya in 1998 YEC final, serving 189 points to 144 (+45)

Johansson d. Roddick in 2004 USO QF, serving 162 points to 118 (+44)

Bruguera’s return position against Pistol’s serve was close to the baseline on clay, outdoor hard courts and carpet. However, he did not stand inside the court or on the baseline itself, unlike Andre.

In fact, in his semi-final match at the 1997 Miami tournament, Bruguera sometimes attacked the Californian’s second serve and went to the net.

The Barcelona native was a very good returner of Pete’s serve https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/sergi-bruguera-vs-pete-sampras/b350/s402. As Sergi himself says in online interviews, he enjoyed playing Sampras because he knew he could break his serve.

What the Catalan does not say is why he could do something that so many others failed at, unfortunately. @Waspsting

 

[Waspsting]

I am going to show you these post that includes data that must be incorrect. Nevertheless, the discrepancy could be significant anyway, and if so, the data would be of interest:

"Facing all those break points Wawrinka ended up serving 41 more points than Djokovic (164-123).

I have not checked all our matches, Moose, but over the years I've made note of other such examples of this. I think you first noticed it in Smith's win over Nastase at Wimbledon (the winner serving many more points than the loser).

I know of three matches that top Wawrinka-Djokovic:
Sampras d. Bruguera at 1996 RG, serving 178 points to 126 (+52) (the ATP has 193-137 but I am adjusting these numbers on the assumption that aces and df's were counted twice)
Corretja d. Moya in 1998 YEC final, serving 189 points to 144 (+45)
Johansson d. Roddick in 2004 USO QF, serving 162 points to 118 (+44)"

---

for starters, confirming the figures for Wawrinka-Djokovic '16 US Open and Corretja-Moya '98 YEC
It'll be awhile til i get around to the Sampras-Bruguera match. Per atp stats, break points for it were Sampras 3/7, Brug 2/20

I can't confirm exact figure, but those break point numbers would be in line with large gap in points served, as extrapolated in the quoted post
Is there a reason why you think the data must be incorrect? - both from available atp data and my confidence in the quoted poster's competence/thoroughness, I'd tend to think the quoted figures are accurate or very close to it

I don't know too much about how exactly double counting aces and double faults go into overall figures, but can conjure something to test its accuracy for this tournamnet and by extension, the match in question

For the Kafelnikov-Sampras semi from same tournament, they have Kaf serving 88 points with 10 aces, 2 doubles and Sampras 116 points, 9 aces, 7 doubles
With double counting of aces and double faults, per the quoted post formula, that'd mean Kaf served 76 points, Sampras 100
Confirming that was in fact the case

in the final, they have Kaf serving 148 points, with 10 aces, 8 doubles and Stich serving 152 points with 15 aces, 6 doubles
With double counting aces and doubles, per quoted post formula, that mean Kaf served 130 points, Stich 131
Confirming that was in fact the case

Following that forumula of subtracting double counted aces and double faults, which do yield perfectly accurate points served totals for above 2 matches, gives exactly the figure krosero gave, if Brug had 0 double faults (on atp site, Brug's double faults are blank, but the bar graph next to it extends - it looks like 1 less than Sampras or same has, so 5-6 times possibly)
Sinner had 0 double faults in last French Open final. Atp site says 0 (as opposed to blank) and bar graph doesn't extend. My guess would Brug did double fault 5-6 times - that's the extent to which krosero's extrapolation might be off
Sampras serves 2 extra games too, per atp site

The Barcelona native was a very good returner of Pete’s serve https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/sergi-bruguera-vs-pete-sampras/b350/s402. As Sergi himself says in online interviews, he enjoyed playing Sampras because he knew he could break his serve.

What the Catalan does not say is why he could do something that so many others failed at, unfortunately. @Waspsting

Pretty small sample. 3 matches on clay, 2 off it
Given Pete's clay record, his serve being vulnerable on it isn't a revelation (note though plenty of players seem to have found it easier to return then 'the greatest returner of all time' did on the dirt)

Not sure how reliable Brug's opinion is, but couple of things to come out of it
Brug used to slice FH return. About as far from macho-man returning as you can get

He's pretty cozy returning Sampras in Miami '97. More so than Agassi is on similar slow hard courts
That's not uncommon. A lot of players look relatively comfy returninging Sampras on slower courts, while Agassi pretty much always looks rushed - clay, slow hard court, doesn't matter, always seems to be reflexively making returns
That's how Real Men do it