Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Martin, Wimbledon semi-final, 1994

[Waspsting]

Pete Sampras beat Todd Martin 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1994 on grass

Sampras would go onto to defend his title by beating Goran Ivanisevic in the final. The two had recently played in the final of Queen’s Club, with Martin winning. Earlier in the year, they’d contested the Australian Open final, with Sampras winning in straight sets

Sampras won 125 points, Martin 109

Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Martin off all serves bar 2 second serves

(Note: I’ have less than full coverage off 3 points served by Sampras, which he won 2, lost 1

Missing points - Set 1, Game 6, Points 1-2
Set 1, Game 6, Point 1 - fully missing. According to presented stats, it wasn’t a double fault and hence has been marked return so that unreturned and return rate figures are complete

Set 1, Game 6, Point 2 - from partial footage and confirmed by presented stats, confirmed to be an ace down the middle and assumed to have been a first serve

Set 3, Game 4, Point 2 - tracked via audio, a second serve that drew a return error. Its been assumed to have been a serve-volley point and a return FE)

Serve Stats
Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (66/118) 56%
- 1st serve points won (51/66) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (31/52) 60%
- ?? serve point won (0/1)
- Aces 13, Service Winners 3 (1 can reasonably be called a non-clean ace)
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (50/119) 42%

Martin...
- 1st serve percentage (56/115) 49%
- 1st serve points won (43/56) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (29/59) 49%
- Aces 14 (2 second serves)
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (43/115) 37%

Serve Pattern
Sampras served...
- to FH 46%
- to BH 46%
- to Body 8%

Martin served...
- to FH 25%
- to BH 55%
- to Body 20%

Return Stats
Sampras made...
- 67 (17 FH, 50 BH)
- 7 Winners (1 FH, 6 BH)
- 29 Errors, all forced...
- 29 Forced (8 FH, 21 BH)
- Return Rate (67/110) 61%

Martin made...
- 64 (24 FH, 39 BH, 1 ??), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach
- 9 Winners (3 FH, 6 BH)
- 34 Errors, all forced...
- 34 Forced (21 FH, 12 BH, 1 ??)
- Return Rate (64/113) 57%

Break Points
Sampras 4/7 (6 games)
Martin 2/11 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Sampras 36 (6 FH, 10 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 6 OH)
Martin 31 (7 FH, 10 BH, 5 FHV, 5 BHV, 4 OH)

Sampras had 19 from serve-volley points -
- 10 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 FH at net, 1 BH at net)... the BH1/2V was possibly not clean
- 9 second volleys (3 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)... 1 OH was on the bounce from no-man's land, a retreated net point

- 15 passes - 7 returns (1 FH, 6 BH) & 8 regular (4 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)
- FH return - 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 3 cc, 1 dtl, 2 inside-out
- regular FHs - 2 dtl, 1 inside-in/longline, 1 longline/cc
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl
- 1 FHV - from just behind service line but marked a net point

Martin had 15 from serve-volley points -
- 6 first 'volleys' (4 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 7 second volleys (1 FHV, 3 BHV, 3 OH)

- 17 passes - 9 returns (3 FH, 6 BH) & 8 regular (4 FH, 3 BH, 1 BHV)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 2 dtl
- BH returns - 2 cc, 1 cc/down-the-middle (that Sampras misjudged and left), 2 dtl, 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-out/dtl, 1 lob
- regular BHs - 2 dtl, 1 lob
- 1 BHV - from just behind service line but marked a net point

- regular (non-pass) BH - 1 dtl

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Sampras 29
- 5 Unforced (1 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)... with 1 BH at net
- 24 Forced (5 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 3 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 3 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 2 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 56

Martin 34
- 6 Unforced (3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
- 28 Forced (4 FH, 7 BH, 3 FHV, 5 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 5 BH1/2V, 1 Tweener)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.7

(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
Sampras was...
- 68/103 (66%) at net, including...
- 66/98 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 35/50 (70%) off 1st serve and...
- 31/47 (66%) off 2nd serve
- 0/1 off ?? serve
---
- 2/2 forced back/retreated

Martin was...
- 58/96 (60%) at net, including...
- 57/94 (61%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 31/44 (70%) off 1st serve and...
- 26/50 (52%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Good serve-volley match with Sampras varying degrees of better at a few things - making half-volleys and shoelace volleys, returning low to give half-volleys and shoelace volleys, getting more first serves in and a better second serves. Martin also has a little weakness on the FH return that his opponent turns to in times of need

For grass of the period, so often yielding point-here,-point-there matches with nothing between two players (even in straight setters), that seems like a lot of thing the winner has over the loser, but match is still fairly tight

Break points - Pete 4/7 (6 games), Martin 2/11 (5 games)
By sets -
1st - Pete 1/2 (2 games), Martin 0/3 (1 game)
2nd - Pete 1/1, Martin 0/1
3rd - Pete 1/1, Martin 2/2
4th - Pete 1/3 (2 games), Martin 0/5 (1 game)

Closeness in break point numbers fall under umbrella of Sampras’ advantages. Down break point, he’s able to draw return errors going to Martin’s FH with a first serve or he’s able to make the half-volley or shoelace volleys - but in light of Pete doing those things better throughout (not just key points), wouldn’t think break chances would be that close to begin with

Key stats -
a) First serve in - Pete 56%, Martin 49%
b) Second serve points won - Pete 60%, Martin 49% (first serve points are a wash with both winning 77%)
c) Half-volley FEs - Pete 6, Martin 10 (split down the middle across wings for both players)
d) Pure volley FEs - Pete 3, Martin 6 (majority shoelace volleys, and all but split down the middle across wings for both players)
Pete also has a couple of half-volley winners, Martin 0

e) Pete serving 52 times to FH, 51 to BH (Martin serves 27 and 61 respectively), but drawing 21 FH return errors to 12 BHs

Stats are showcasing where Pete’s better than Martin. There’s not much Martin has better of Pete on by contrast. BH passing perhaps, but this is typical 90s grass match where passing chances are scraps next to returning, and Pete’s got better of both serving and returning too

Serve, Return & Serve-volley
Virtually 100% serve-volley match (Martin stays back on 2 serves)

Both with good - but not overwhelming first serves
Pete has 16 unreturnables (13 aces, 3 service winners) from 66 first serves or 24% of the time
Martin has 12 from 56 or 21%. He has 2 second serve aces also

For these two, not great. More than good enough. The first serves shy of untouchable are powerful, but not too wide. Not a lot of lunging and jumping for returns involved

Pete with considerably better second serves. Wouldn’t be easy to confidently differentiate any given serve of his as first or second. When that happens with him, its often because he’s serving 2 big ‘first’ serves. Here, its more 2 healthy ones

Martin, despite the 2 aces, has a second serve that one can confidently guess is first or second (leaving aside Pete taking different return position - which he of course does because the seconds are not as strong)

Double faults about same rate - Pete 5/52 second serves, Martin 5/59
Martin returns both serves from 2 paces behind baseline. Pete returns the first from that standard position and is up on baseline for second returns

In counts - Pete 56%, Martin 49%
Good from Pete, not from Martin

Difference across quality across 2 players across their 2 serves has come out in serve-volleying winning rates

1st serve-volleying - both winning 70%
2nd serve-volleying - Pete 66%, Martin 52%

Pete’s second serve challenging to return, Martin’s fairly comfy. Sans serve-volleying, Martin’s second serve is close to routine to return

On the return, Pete looks to get returns low (as opposed to go for winners wide) and does so well. He neither swings powerfully nor out and out blocks, but something in between. Short but definate swing and regularly gets returns to feet. More so against second serves, which he also takes early from baseline or just inside

Martin with if anything, even shorter back-swing. BH returns are almost a push, but he gets more power on the returns. He doesn’t get returns down low as often, but ones’ he does tend to bullets to the feet type stuff (Pete’s are firm but shy of that power level)

Martin’s FH return is weaker side. Pete’s distributed serves virtually equally (both wings receive 46% of the serves), but FH is where he goes when things are tight. In both courts, but particularly ad and down the middle. Not only does Martin have 21 FH return errors to 12 BHs, despite even distribution, Pete’s body serves are tilted to BH side also. On top of consistency, BH returns are struck better though, despite having little time to swing. FH gives up floater returns to be putaway more often and rarely gets a strong return off

 

[Waspsting]

In time, Martin comes to return more and more to the body and ends up doing so high 20% of the time - just 5% less than to FH. Martin serve to Sampras is more traditional, to the BH stuff than other way around

Most body serves are second serves, and its good move. Those second serves aren’t powerful enough to trouble Pete on pace and are liable to take a thrashing (Pete doesn’t thrash them usually, but firmly gets them down low) from a free swinging Pete. Pete is decent at moving aside and knocking the returns down low anyway, probably less powerfully than he might with freer swing (and without temptation of trying to blast them for winners)

Gist - unreturned serves Pete 42%, Martin 37%, with Pete getting more tough, low returns off, though Martin gets his fair share too

Volley & Pass
Match is filled with shoelace and half-volleying, and Sampras’ is better at it

On the ‘volley’ -
- Winners - Pete 21, Martin 13
- UEs - Pete 5, Martin 6
- FEs - Pete 9, Martin 16

On the pass
- Winners - Pete 15, Martin 17
- FEs - Pete 15, Martin 10

Pete leading in everything volley related and doing well passing

Martin with fantastic passing numbers, superior to Pete’s good ones. Might compensate for trailing 5% on unreturned serves, but on top of trailing the volleying stuff so clearly, not to good enough extent

Not many volley UEs. Returns are usually low and what isn’t is dealt with decisively by both players. About even on consistency and decisiveness. Net high volleys that aren’t putaway are put wide to corner leaving passer little chance

The big lot of returns to feet leave open possibility of drawing weak ‘volley’ + strong follow-up pass tennis. Not too much of that either. Martin probably misses more tough ‘volleys’ than he makes - he’s not bad at them, though not as good as Pete. Pete making more of them leaves Martin better passing looks. Ergo, Martin’s great passing yield

Sans returns, Martin has 8 pass winners (including a volley from close enough to service line to be marked a net point), and the 10 ground FEs (he also has an FE from a baseline point). Still excellent. Even more so when considerable lot of those FEs are hopeless chances. Martin doing very well on good look passes

Pete has 8 non-return passing winners (also including a volley just like Martin’s) to go with his 15 ground FEs, while getting fewer good looks (since he makes more shoelace and half-volleys)

Gist is both players passing very well, but chances to do so are limited, due to high unreturned rates and decisive volleying by both to routine volleys

But Pete’s ability to make the low ‘volley’ being better and his returning to give more such low volleys for Martin to make is putting him over

Unlike with the serve, Pete volleys mostly to BH. Wisely, according to stats. Martin with 4 FH passing winners (sans 3 returns), 3 FEs. Of course, he passes at other times and Pete ends point with winners or volleys harder to finish points too but that’s true of all combos of shots. BH has 3 winners, 7 FEs

Non-return passing winners and FEs -
- Martin FH 4 and 3
- Pete FH 4 and 5
- Martin BH 3 and 7
- Pete BH 3 and 10

Standard stuff of volleying more to BH and of FHs being better than BHs, with both FHs exceptionally good
Those volleying numbers - Pete +8 on winners, -1 on UEs (as in, he has fewer), -7 on FEs is the telling part. Especially the near double 9-16 advantage on FEs

If Martin were able to make more shoelace ‘volleys’ Pete’s passing ratios would probably get better, with decent to good look passes

Gist - excellent shoelace ‘volleying’ from Pete is main difference between the two players. Both pass well and equally well

Match Progression
1 break for Sampras, holding off being broken back in 18 point game (3 break points), and having a further break point game after that in first set. Sampras returning second serves challengingly from on baseline or just inside, while Martin struggles almost as much to return second serves as he does firsts seems to give Pete edge in prospects, though obviously, enduring an 18 point hold to keep a 1 break advantage is more of a point-here,-point-there matter

18/38 Pete serves don’t come back, to 10/33 of Martin’s
But Martin gets returns back to feet more often (though Pete does so too) and is more successful passing

About 1 good shoelace volley or half-volley per game, amidst unreturned serves and sure routine volleying per game to 3-3
Pete breaks to 30. Martin stays back off a serve (only non-serve-volley point of set), and can’t handle a powerful FH inside-in in the baseline rally and Pete finalizes the break with serves of good passes

It takes Pete 18 points to consolidate, despite making 13 first serves. Just the 1 UE in the game too - points are either unreturned serves or Martin getting winning returns to feet or following up passes after drawing shoelace volley. Wonderful game. Pete delivers devastating serves on all 3 break points - 2 aces and service winner that can reasonably be called a non-clean ace

Back-to-back double faults sees Martin down break point game after, and he does very well to make a half-volley to bullet return on it to come away with the point before going on to hold

Pete’s down 0-30 on the serve out from 2 FH passing winners (dtl return against first serve and inside-out after drawing first shoelace volley). Next 4 serves all go unreturned - the second of them lands just out, with Martin having poked it wide on the stretch (a second serve). Last 2 are very final though - a service winner and an ace

Pete’s better second serve starts shining through in second set. Both players with not good in counts (Pete 52%, Martin 44%), and Pete able to return to Martin’s feet fairly regularly as well as get more freebies

Lapse by Pete in missing easy BHV and double faulting sees him go down break point in game 2. He’d won a point after making a tough half-volley and another where Martin has good look at BH pass too - so he’s done well/been a bit lucky to hold the game

It’s a great game to break though - dispatched FH winner after drawing shoelace volley, forcing 2 half-volley errors and a BH inside-out return pass winner to do it to 15 for 4-2 from Pete. Otherwise, routine holds for both players in the set

In counts for the third set: Pete 29%, Martin 41% and there are 3 breaks in it
Even with that, things aren’t easy for returner. Martin serves more to the body and its an improvement. Pete less to the FH and its not

Martin breaks for 2-0, winning 4 points in a row (easy BHV miss, 2 shoelace ‘volley’ errros and a perfect BH cc return-pass winner against a first serve)
Pete breaks back for 2-3 - forcing Martin back, BH cc pass winner after drawing 1/2volley first up, lovely guided BH cc return pass winner against a good wide serve, before Martin double faults

Last break begins and ends with double faults, with 2 return-pass winners in between (FH cc against second serve, BH dtl against first) and leaves Martin to serve the set out. Which he manages in 10 point game where Pete gets a number of good low returns off, but Martin finds couple of aces at just right time and finishes by blasting away an OH on the bounce first ‘volley’ from a big body serve that draws very weak return

Pete’s at his best on the shoelace volleys and Martin at his worst in the fourth set. Martin misses more than he makes while Pete rarely seems to miss them
Gorgeous, picture perfect BH1/2V winner from Pete in first game. Couple of beautiful drop volley ones in his second hold too, before he breaks for 3-1

Break is mostly good stuff from Pete (FH inside-in return pass winner and drawing 2 half-volley errors - 1 of which Martin tries to get fancy on), but it ends with Martin missing a putaway OH
Martin under the gun next go around too and he has to save 2 break points to hold for 2-4

Very difficult serve-out for Pete though. He’s faced with 5 break points. Aces away first 2 to reach deuce and draws FH return errors in ad court with first serves on the rest. All but 1 point Martin wins are are winners or FEs, despite Pete dishing out 12/14 first serves, but eventually, Pete wraps up with a very well judged, leaning back BH at net first ‘volley’ winner. He tends to make these types of shots look easy in general. Watch the tangle other big servers - including those with reputations for being good volleyers - get into when confronted by not-strong returns that land where judgement is needed to know whether to come in and volley low or half-volley or lean back and play groundstroke to see how easy it actually is

Summing up, good match and showings from both players with Sampras that much better at most things. Strong serving of course shapes the encounter, but less so than what might be expected for these two players

Sampras returns smartly to get balls low to Martin’s feet with short swings. Martin returns slightly more powerfully (while missing more returns), and also gets fair few returns to that height. And Sampras is more regular in making these shoelace volleys and half-volleys. Also serves better, particularly in the quality of second serves which would make reasonable first serves, to make it easier for himself to get such low returns off to begin with

Good passing from both players, but Sampras’ superiority on serve (in count and quality of second serves), return (making more and getting them in low more often) and the low ‘volley’ (especially the half-volley) gives him significant advantage and the win

Stats for the final between Sampras and Goran Ivanisevic - Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Ivanisevic, Wimbledon final 1994 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[Galvermegs]

Of course sampras got injured here and while goran resoundingly couldnt take advantage in the final, sampras lost early in the us open that year. A bit of a break for andre agassi this match....perhaps.

 

[GuyForget]

Martin beat Pete in the Queens final