Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Rafter, Wimbledon final, 2000

[Waspsting]

Pete Sampras beat Pat Rafter 6-7(10), 7-6(5), 6-4, 6-2 in the Wimbledon final, 2000 on grass

It was Sampras’ 7th title, 4th in a row and all time record breaking 13th Slam title. Rafter was playing his first Wimbledon final and would lose again in the final the following year

Sampras won 161 points, Rafter 138

Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Rafter off all but 6 serves (1 first serve, 5 seconds)

Serve Stats
Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (82/132) 62%
- 1st serve points won (73/82) 89%
- 2nd serve points won (28/50) 56%
- Aces 27 (1 second serve), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 12
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (69/132) 52%

Rafter...
- 1st serve percentage (95/167) 57%
- 1st serve points won (71/95) 75%
- 2nd serve points won (36/72) 50%
- Aces 12
- Double Faults 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (66/167) 40%

Serve Patterns
Sampras served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 62%
- to Body 8%

Rafter served...
- to FH 31%
- to BH 51%
- to Body 18%

Return Stats
Sampras made...
- 93 (26 FH, 67 BH)
- 12 Winners (3 FH, 9 BH)
- 54 Errors, all forced...
- 54 Forced (21 FH, 33 BH)
- Return Rate (93/159) 58%

Rafter made...
- 51 (16 FH, 35 BH), including 2 return-approaches
- 4 Winners (2 FH, 2 BH)
- 41 Errors, all forced...
- 41 Forced (15 FH, 26 BH)
- Return Rate (51/120) 43%

Break Points
Sampras 3/14 (6 games)
Rafter 0/2 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Sampras 41 (14 FH, 15 BH, 3 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
Rafter 29 (2 FH, 5 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 13 BHV, 2 OH, 1 BHOH)

Sampras had 15 from serve-volley points
- 6 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 2 FH at net)
- 8 second 'volleys' (1 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH at net)... the BH at net was a pass
- 1 third volley (1 FHV)

- 25 passes - 12 returns (3 FH, 9 BH) & 13 regular (8 FH, 5 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc and 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 4 dtl and 5 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 dtl, 5 inside-out, 1 inside-in and 1 longline
- regular BHs - 4 cc and 1 dtl

- non-pass FHs - 1 inside-in

Rafter had 20 from serve-volley points
- 13 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 9 BHV)
- 7 second volleys (1 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)... the BHOH can reasonably be called a BHV

- 7 passes - 4 returns (2 FH, 2 BH) & 3 regular (3 BH)
- FH returns - 1 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 cc and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 cc (1 at net) and 1 inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Sampras 31
- 13 Unforced (3 FH, 1 BH, 8 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 FH at net & 1 FH pass attempt
- 18 Forced (3 FH, 13 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54.6

Rafter 43
- 10 Unforced (3 FHV, 7 BHV)
- 33 Forced (5 FH, 13 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 3 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 57

(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 this match are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sampras was...
- 80/101 (79%) at net, including...
- 78/97 (80%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 51/60 (85%) off 1st serve and...
- 27/37 (73%) off 2nd serve

Rafter was...
- 93/147 (63%) at net, including...
- 90/141 (64%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 58/82 (71%) off 1st serve and...
- 32/59 (54%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 return-approaching

Match Report
Sampras’ serve being much, much stronger leaves him in command and though Rafter hangs in by his fingernails - aided by ordinary returning from his opponent - for a good long while before eventually succumbing to what seems like the inevitable.

Unreturned rates - Pete 52%, Rafter 40%
Aces/Service winners - Pete 28, Rafter 12

Pete’s second serve is about as potent as Rafter’s first

Pete gets 76% of his 2nd serves in. Rafter gets 57% of his firsts

Unreturned rates - Pete’s 2nd serve 42%, Rafter’s 1st serve 44%

Throw in more organic laxness of returning when Pete’s facing Rafter’s 1st serve than when Rafter’s facing Pete’s 2nd (its common for almost everyone, but particularly Pete to pseudo or outright tank choice return games when they’ve fallen behind in it), and one could readily say they’re prefer Pete’s 2nd serve as a first serve to Rafter’s actual first serve

Sans double faults, Pete wins 74% of his 2nd serve points. Rafter wins 75% of his first - and that’s with Rafter being the better volleyer and presumably, Rafter being more consistently focused on return facing second serves than Pete would be against firsts

Good lot of 12 double faults is the cost of Pete’s big 2nd serving. Its not a small price. Costs him the first set tiebreak and isn’t far from doing the same in the second. Which would have left him 2 sets down

In short, a match where Pete uses his second serve as a first against Rafter sounds like a competitive contest. Throw in Pete’s first serve - 62% in, 89% won, 33% ace rate, 65% unreturned rate - in words, untouchable - and things are loaded Pete’s way

Not a good match for returning. Pete’s isn’t particularly good and has lots of room for improvement. With his service games locked down, he can afford it. Rafter barely gets a look in on return (he has 2 break points across 2 games all match), though against what he’s up against, its harsh to fault him. Not many would get a look in against Pete’s bombardment

What Rafter can do is hold onto his own serve anyway he can and take his chances in tiebreaks. And he’s not far from doing that

Sampras’ serve game
The meat of it is in the serve itself and suffice to say its overwhelming. For Rafter and probably most anyone else either

The other (very distant) standout point is the superb half-volleying. With 52% unreturned, Pete doesn’t have a lot of volleying to do, but his serve draws soft, low returns that he ‘regularly’ has to half-volley

These aren’t Rafter intentionally soft blocking returns low, they’re forced soft returns, but whatever the case, good lot of half-volleys for Pete to make

He seems to make them all. 1 half-volley error all match. He not only makes the remaining dozen plus, but places them deep and with as much force as possible. Rafter can’t make the follow up passes (he’s only got 2 non-return pass winners all match - 1 of them at net). They’re not sit-up passes due to the quality of Pete’s half-volleys, but its possible to do better on them than Rafter does. Still, overwhelming credit to Pete on the half-volley, just a possible-to-do-better mark against Rafter’s follow-up passing

Just 2 net FEs for Pete all match (Rafter has 16, including 4 half-volleys)

The importance of Pete’s half-volleying comes through because when shoe is on other foot, that’s how he gets into return games (more on that later)

With Pete making all the difficult volleys, Rafter’s chances of breaking are limited to sloppy volleying errors and double faults. Not great prospects, but there’s something there

12 double faults, and 10 ‘volley’ UEs for Pete. The doubles are worth the damage the big second serves do, but room for improvement on the regulation volleys

Nothing special in Pete’s handling of the regulation, net high volley. He places it decently enough to set up a second volley finish (he has 6 first ‘volley’ winners, 8 post-firsts). Rafter’s dispatching volleys is far more impressive (he has 14 first volley winners, 7 post-firsts) and Rafter’s considerably more consistent too (same number of UEs in a lot more approaches and against relatively less easy volleys

 

[Waspsting]

Rafter’s serve game
Not a powerful serve, excellent volleying to back it up and not good returning make up this part of the match

40% unreturned is a bit flattering to Rafter. I’d estimate his showing to be worth 30-35% against standard, good returning. And it being higher than that isn’t due to Pete going for a lot on returns either

You hear of clean hitting. Pete’s returning is an exhibition of the opposite. He frames a lot of returns, mishits regularly or guides routine returns into the net. A good, clean return strike stands out for being rare. Even some of of return-winners are slightly mishit but creep past Rafter

Meanwhile, Rafter is beautiful in putting away anything that’s there to be putaway

What Pete does well is on the 1-2 - low return (often drawing a half-volley) and big, powerful follow-up pass. Rafter does well enough in making half-volleys and shoelace ones (and the ones he faces are often firmly hit, unlike the ones Pete does), but volleys up gently, leaving Pete with a lined up pass

Pete obliterates the follow-up passes. Strangely, the most powerful ones are the BHs and he vapourizes his 5 non-return passing winners of that side

Note the 5 FH inside-out and 1 inside-in pass winners (he also has an inside-in UE). Pete having time to move over and hit FHs is a fair reflection how weak the half-volleys and shoelace volleys he draws from Pat are. It stand out next to Pete’s own first class low volleying

To be clear, all this is in context of 40% unreturned rate and a lot of regulation net high and above returning from unclean hits. By no means is Pete regularly into return games

He’s into them a lot more often than Rafter is though, and has much better prospects of breaking

Match Progression
Heroic first set from Pat Rafter. He doesn’t get a sniff on return and goes under the gun serving, surviving 18 and 16 point games.

Remarkably, he doesn’t face break point in the 18 pointer, but needs to save 4 in the other one

Going into tiebreak, both players have held 6 times. Pete’s served 28 points (or lost 4 points) to so do, Rafter 53 (or lost 18)

3/4 of the service points Pete lost are to double faults and the other, an easy FHV miss at 40-0.

Tiebreak though, is different story. Rafter hits Pete’s first service point for a return winner (admittedly, a weak, sit-up serve), which in light of what’s been going on, comes as a big surprise. He adds another one awhile later, and forces what turns out to be Pete’s sole 1/2volley error shortly after

Couple of volleying UEs though keep things on serve and its Pete who has the first set point

The two alternate and share the first 4 set points, all of them on return. Having had 3 second serves dispatched by Rafter, Pete in his typical way goes for that much more on the shot. The result is double faults. The first gives Rafter the only set point on serve, but Pete saves that. But he double faults on his next service point too, down set point and Rafter epically comes away with the first set

Both players survive a break point in second set, but both cruise on serve (mostly via unreturned serves). Both serve 33 points for 6 holds before another tiebreak

Pete starts this one where he left off on the last, with his third straight tiebreak double fault. And then misses a putaway easy FH at net on his next service go around to trail 1-4, with two Rafter serves to follow

That’s where things turn around. A good return - low-ish, but not too powerful - draws an error and Rafter joins the double faults to return things to on serve. Rafter draws a half-volley point after and has a good look at the pass that he misses right after

Sampras gains the decisive mini by doing what Rafter couldn’t; following up drawing a half-volley with a blistering FH inside-out pass winner. He closes with a line FHV winner - his only first FHV winner of the match

Rest of match is more routine. Pete continues to hold with ease but also starts returning better and Rafter is in good lot of trouble like he was in first set. His first 2 holds of third set last 8 and 10 points (saves 1 break point), and he’s down 0-40 in his third service game

He climbs out to deuce and as the game goes on to 14 points, has all the game points until the very end. A double fault brings up Pete’s 4th break point of the game, and Rafter misses an easy FHV into open court to give up first break of the match

1 break is all Pete needs. In his remaining 3 service holds, 9/13 points go unreturned

Rafter seems a bit tired by the 4th set. He hadn’t looked fully fresh even at the start and lunging about net for so long hasn’t helped

A terrible BHV miss gives Pete 0-40 in game 5. He converts at 30-40, when a slightly mishit BH cc loops just inside for a winner

Down a break, Rafter plays his best return game, boldly return-approaching a couple of times (still loses both points), getting a couple good low returns in, hitting a picture perfect BH cc return winner and helped by a couple of double faults. Game lasts 14 points, but he only sees one break point before Pete holds, finishing with a couple of strong serves

Pete all but seals the match with another break to move to 5-2. Couple of BH return winners (the last one, that gets the break, not cleanly hit) and a couple of BHV UEs does the trick before Pete serves out the match to love

Summing up, a typical serving bombardment from Pete Sampras, cemented by top class half-volleying when called for, locks down his service games to the point that he doesn’t need to do much on return

He doesn’t do ‘much’ and his returning is usually un-clean. He excels in power passing after drawing shoelace volleys from Rafter, on the infrequent occasions he can get low returns off

On other side of things, Rafter barely gets a sniff on return. Good volleying to the routine volley by Rafter - better than Sampras - not as good against the shoelace stuff and a brave showing against the juggernaut by the runner-up

Stats for Rafter’s semi with Andre Agassi - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...gassi-wimbledon-semi-finals-2000-2001.654401/

 

[Drob]

Pete Sampras beat Pat Rafter 6-7(10), 7-6(5), 6-4, 6-2 in the Wimbledon final, 2000 on grass

It was Sampras’ 7th title, 4th in a row and all time record breaking 13th Slam title. Rafter was playing his first Wimbledon final and would lose again in the final the following year

Sampras won 161 points, Rafter 138

Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Rafter off all but 6 serves (1 first serve, 5 seconds)

Serve Stats
Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (82/132) 62%
- 1st serve points won (73/82) 89%
- 2nd serve points won (28/50) 56%
- Aces 27 (1 second serve), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 12
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (69/132) 52%

Rafter...
- 1st serve percentage (95/167) 57%
- 1st serve points won (71/95) 75%
- 2nd serve points won (36/72) 50%
- Aces 12
- Double Faults 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (66/167) 40%

Serve Patterns
Sampras served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 62%
- to Body 8%

Rafter served...
- to FH 31%
- to BH 51%
- to Body 18%

Return Stats
Sampras made...
- 93 (26 FH, 67 BH)
- 12 Winners (3 FH, 9 BH)
- 54 Errors, all forced...
- 54 Forced (21 FH, 33 BH)
- Return Rate (93/159) 58%

Rafter made...
- 51 (16 FH, 35 BH), including 2 return-approaches
- 4 Winners (2 FH, 2 BH)
- 41 Errors, all forced...
- 41 Forced (15 FH, 26 BH)
- Return Rate (51/120) 43%

Break Points
Sampras 3/14 (6 games)
Rafter 0/2 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Sampras 41 (14 FH, 15 BH, 3 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
Rafter 29 (2 FH, 5 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 13 BHV, 2 OH, 1 BHOH)

Sampras had 15 from serve-volley points
- 6 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 2 FH at net)
- 8 second 'volleys' (1 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH at net)... the BH at net was a pass
- 1 third volley (1 FHV)

- 25 passes - 12 returns (3 FH, 9 BH) & 13 regular (8 FH, 5 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc and 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 4 dtl and 5 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 dtl, 5 inside-out, 1 inside-in and 1 longline
- regular BHs - 4 cc and 1 dtl

- non-pass FHs - 1 inside-in

Rafter had 20 from serve-volley points
- 13 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 9 BHV)
- 7 second volleys (1 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)... the BHOH can reasonably be called a BHV

- 7 passes - 4 returns (2 FH, 2 BH) & 3 regular (3 BH)
- FH returns - 1 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 cc and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 cc (1 at net) and 1 inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Sampras 31
- 13 Unforced (3 FH, 1 BH, 8 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 FH at net & 1 FH pass attempt
- 18 Forced (3 FH, 13 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54.6

Rafter 43
- 10 Unforced (3 FHV, 7 BHV)
- 33 Forced (5 FH, 13 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 3 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 57

(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 this match are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sampras was...
- 80/101 (79%) at net, including...
- 78/97 (80%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 51/60 (85%) off 1st serve and...
- 27/37 (73%) off 2nd serve

Rafter was...
- 93/147 (63%) at net, including...
- 90/141 (64%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 58/82 (71%) off 1st serve and...
- 32/59 (54%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 return-approaching

Match Report
Sampras’ serve being much, much stronger leaves him in command and though Rafter hangs in by his fingernails - aided by ordinary returning from his opponent - for a good long while before eventually succumbing to what seems like the inevitable.

Unreturned rates - Pete 52%, Rafter 40%
Aces/Service winners - Pete 28, Rafter 12

Pete’s second serve is about as potent as Rafter’s first

Pete gets 76% of his 2nd serves in. Rafter gets 57% of his firsts

Unreturned rates - Pete’s 2nd serve 42%, Rafter’s 1st serve 44%

Throw in more organic laxness of returning when Pete’s facing Rafter’s 1st serve than when Rafter’s facing Pete’s 2nd (its common for almost everyone, but particularly Pete to pseudo or outright tank choice return games when they’ve fallen behind in it), and one could readily say they’re prefer Pete’s 2nd serve as a first serve to Rafter’s actual first serve

Sans double faults, Pete wins 74% of his 2nd serve points. Rafter wins 75% of his first - and that’s with Rafter being the better volleyer and presumably, Rafter being more consistently focused on return facing second serves than Pete would be against firsts

Good lot of 12 double faults is the cost of Pete’s big 2nd serving. Its not a small price. Costs him the first set tiebreak and isn’t far from doing the same in the second. Which would have left him 2 sets down

In short, a match where Pete uses his second serve as a first against Rafter sounds like a competitive contest. Throw in Pete’s first serve - 62% in, 89% won, 33% ace rate, 65% unreturned rate - in words, untouchable - and things are loaded Pete’s way

Not a good match for returning. Pete’s isn’t particularly good and has lots of room for improvement. With his service games locked down, he can afford it. Rafter barely gets a look in on return (he has 2 break points across 2 games all match), though against what he’s up against, its harsh to fault him. Not many would get a look in against Pete’s bombardment

What Rafter can do is hold onto his own serve anyway he can and take his chances in tiebreaks. And he’s not far from doing that

Sampras’ serve game
The meat of it is in the serve itself and suffice to say its overwhelming. For Rafter and probably most anyone else either

The other (very distant) standout point is the superb half-volleying. With 52% unreturned, Pete doesn’t have a lot of volleying to do, but his serve draws soft, low returns that he ‘regularly’ has to half-volley

These aren’t Rafter intentionally soft blocking returns low, they’re forced soft returns, but whatever the case, good lot of half-volleys for Pete to make

He seems to make them all. 1 half-volley error all match. He not only makes the remaining dozen plus, but places them deep and with as much force as possible. Rafter can’t make the follow up passes (he’s only got 2 non-return pass winners all match - 1 of them at net). They’re not sit-up passes due to the quality of Pete’s half-volleys, but its possible to do better on them than Rafter does. Still, overwhelming credit to Pete on the half-volley, just a possible-to-do-better mark against Rafter’s follow-up passing

Just 2 net FEs for Pete all match (Rafter has 16, including 4 half-volleys)

The importance of Pete’s half-volleying comes through because when shoe is on other foot, that’s how he gets into return games (more on that later)

With Pete making all the difficult volleys, Rafter’s chances of breaking are limited to sloppy volleying errors and double faults. Not great prospects, but there’s something there

12 double faults, and 10 ‘volley’ UEs for Pete. The doubles are worth the damage the big second serves do, but room for improvement on the regulation volleys

Nothing special in Pete’s handling of the regulation, net high volley. He places it decently enough to set up a second volley finish (he has 6 first ‘volley’ winners, 8 post-firsts). Rafter’s dispatching volleys is far more impressive (he has 14 first volley winners, 7 post-firsts) and Rafter’s considerably more consistent too (same number of UEs in a lot more approaches and against relatively less easy volleys

This is really interesting. 161 points to 138 is usually going to be a clear victory I would think, although in serve-volley duels one might hang in by his fingernails, as you put it. And your description of the match makes it sound like Pete had the match in hand. And I am perfectly willing to give up my at-the-time sense that is was close - memory being fallible and knowing that I was no doubt routing for Rafter when I watched it in 2000.

However, Pete, who generally is matter of fact, and not one for false modesty or for giving his opponents more than a fair, sportsman's due credit, wrote this about the 2000 Wimbledon final:

"I had my hands full and then some: I lost my nerve a little and he won the first-set tiebreaker 12-10. The next set went to the tiebreaker as well. When Pat jumped to a 4-1 lead, I thought I was going to lost the match . . . But Pat, faced with a match that could become the highlight of his resume, faltered, he had two set points at 6-4 up in the tiebreaker, be he failed to convert either. I guarantee that if he'd won either of those points he would've won the title."

Pete Sampras and Peter Bodo, A Champion's Mind, p. 229

 

[Waspsting]

your description of the match makes it sound like Pete had the match in hand. And I am perfectly willing to give up my at-the-time sense that is was close -

I wouldn't say had it in hand, I'd say his prospects were sizably better

Until someone breaks, a set is in the balance. And on grass and these two, you expect breaks and even chances to break to be rare. So I look at which player is making more headway in return games to get a gauge on whose more likely to get the break (or win a tie-breaker)

We're dealing in prospects and probabilties here - a couple steps removed from the solidity of having the match in hand

Going into first set tiebreak, both players held 6 times. Pete’s served 28 points (or lost 4 points) to so do, Rafter 53 (or lost 18). Its clear where the trend is, but of course, anything can (and in this case, does) happen in a 'breaker

Second tiebreaker is different in that they're both holding comfortably going into it. Then Pete makes a hash of things - a double fault and missing an easy FH at net to a wide open court - on his early service points to go down 1-4, with Rafter serves to follow (and Rafter had been winning his service points as readily as Pete had in the second set)

At that point, I'd have bet on Rafter to win the 'breaker and from 2 sets up, to win the match

So yes, it was very close - your memory of that is just fine

"I had my hands full and then some: I lost my nerve a little and he won the first-set tiebreaker 12-10. The next set went to the tiebreaker as well. When Pat jumped to a 4-1 lead, I thought I was going to lost the match . . . But Pat, faced with a match that could become the highlight of his resume, faltered, he had two set points at 6-4 up in the tiebreaker, be he failed to convert either. I guarantee that if he'd won either of those points he would've won the title."

Pete Sampras and Peter Bodo, A Champion's Mind, p. 229

He's mistaken

Sampras won the 'breaker 7-5, so there's no question of Rafter having 2 set points at 6-4
From 1-4 down, Pete won next 5 points and he was up 6-4 and had 2 set points (the first on Rafter's serve), and he did convert the second (on his own serve)

Would take the guarantee of a guy who's got his wires crossed so badly, even as he's giving said guarantee, with a pinch of salt

 

[buscemi]

This is really interesting. 161 points to 138 is usually going to be a clear victory I would think, although in serve-volley duels one might hang in by his fingernails, as you put it. And your description of the match makes it sound like Pete had the match in hand. And I am perfectly willing to give up my at-the-time sense that is was close - memory being fallible and knowing that I was no doubt routing for Rafter when I watched it in 2000.

However, Pete, who generally is matter of fact, and not one for false modesty or for giving his opponents more than a fair, sportsman's due credit, wrote this about the 2000 Wimbledon final:

"I had my hands full and then some: I lost my nerve a little and he won the first-set tiebreaker 12-10. The next set went to the tiebreaker as well. When Pat jumped to a 4-1 lead, I thought I was going to lost the match . . . But Pat, faced with a match that could become the highlight of his resume, faltered, he had two set points at 6-4 up in the tiebreaker, be he failed to convert either. I guarantee that if he'd won either of those points he would've won the title."

Pete Sampras and Peter Bodo, A Champion's Mind, p. 229

I think both sides of this are true. Rafter was somewhat lucky (and gritty) to hang around in the first set and take it in a tiebreaker when Sampras was the better player throughout the set. But then Rafter had a handful of chances to take a two set lead in the second set, which would have made Sampras winning a tall task. But, when Rafter blew those chances, his level dipped, and it was one way traffic for Sampras.

So, in one sense, as the stats show, it was a convincing win for Sampras. OTOH, if Rafter wins the second set, it's probably a completely different match.