Match Stats/Report - Stich vs Sampras, Year End Championship final, 1993

[Waspsting]

Michael Stich beat Pete Sampras 7-6(3), 2-6, 7-6(7), 6-2 the Year End Championship (World Tour Finals) final, 1993 on carpet in Frankfurt, Germany

It was Stich's only title at the event. Sampras was playing his second final there, having won in 1991. He would go onto win the title 4 further times

Stich won 142 points, Sampras 132

Stich serve-volleyed off all first serves and regularly off seconds. Sampras serve-volleyed all but 5 times off firsts and almost never off seconds

Serve Stats
Stich...
- 1st serve percentage (77/133) 58%
- 1st serve points won (61/77) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (28/56) 50%
- Aces 27, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (55/133) 41%

Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (80/141) 57%
- 1st serve points won (63/80) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (25/61) 41%
- Aces 11, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (42/141) 30%

Serve Pattern
Stich served...
- to FH 28%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 12%

Sampras served...
- to FH 41%
- to BH 50%
- to Body 9%

Return Stats
Stich made...
- 91 (38 FH, 53 BH)
- 5 Winners (2 FH, 3 BH)
- 29 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (3 FH, 4 BH)
- 22 Forced (8 FH, 14 BH)
- Return Rate (91/133) 68%

Sampras made...
- 76 (19 FH, 57 BH)
- 6 Winners (1 FH, 5 BH)
- 26 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (5 BH)
- 21 Forced (6 FH, 15 BH)
- Return Rate (76/131) 58%

Break Points
Stich 4/11 (8 games)
Sampras 4/10 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Stich 30 (5 FH, 12 BH, 6 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BHOH)
Sampras 34 (9 FH, 8 BH, 9 FHV, 5 BHV, 3 OH)

Stich had 15 from serve-volley points
- 9 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 FH at net, 1 BH at net)… the BH at net was a drop shot
- 5 second volleys (4 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 1 third volley (1 BHOH)… which can reasonably be called a BHV

- FHs (all passes) - 1 cc return, 2 dtl and 1 inside-out return
- BH passes - 4 cc (1 at net), 1 inside-out return and 1 inside-out/dtl
- regular BHs - 2 dtl (1 return) and 2 inside-out (1 return)

Sampras had 16 from serve-volley points
- 3 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 1 FH at net)
- 12 second volleys (5 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
- 1 third volley (1 OH)… played net-to-net

- FHs - 1 cc return pass, 4 dtl (1 pass), 1 inside-out and 2 lobs
- BHs (all passes) - 5 cc (3 returns) and 3 dtl (2 returns)

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Stich 54
- 25 Unforced (4 FH, 13 BH, 2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)… with 1 FH at net & 2 BH at net
- 29 Forced (10 FH, 15 BH, 1 FH1/2V, 3 BHV)… with 2 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.2

Sampras 49
- 20 Unforced (15 FH, 2 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 29 Forced (14 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 2 BH1/2V)… with 1 FH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.5

(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
Stich was...
- 52/85 (61%) at net, including...
- 45/72 (63%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 32/48 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 13/24 (54%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 retreated

Sampras was...
- 57/80 (71%) at net, including...
- 47/65 (72%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 45/62 (73%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/3 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 forced back

Match Report
Given the surface, conditions and players involved, a relatively comfortable win for Stich: 2 big serving, serve-volleying based all courters on a fast court can often turn on a point or two - a double fault here, an easy missed volley there or maybe a low percentage pass, unexpected return etc. In this match, the difference between the two players exists on the level of good and bad games, not points

Statistically, the match is decided on second serve points. The two players are virtually in lock step on first serves in (Stich 58%, Sampras 57%) and first serve points won (79% for both). Second serve points though, Stich wins 50%, Sampras just 41%

That's a simplified account of things as first serve points won varies across the match. Stich pulls up his socks to win his last 15 first serve points, including all 13 in the last set. He does rather more than just win them too. His last 12 first serves are all aces. Over 2 games, he hits 7 in a row (i.e. without missing a first serve), including a hold to love with 4. Over the course of the match as a whole, Sampras is more successful and impressive on first serve points. His second serve points won though are consistently low throughout though - by set he wins 39%, 56%, 36% and 40% respectively

Stich serve-volleys 100% off first serves, Sampras desists 5 times but that's deceptive. 3 of Sampras' non serve-volleys are after the match is as good as over, when he's down 0-4 in the fourth (and the other two are when he's leading 40-0 in the game). In essence, both players serve-volley off all first serves. Stich serve-volleying much more off second serves (24 times to Sampras' 3) isn't quite what it appears either. Stich does so off his last 8 second serves... again, after being up 2 breaks in the fourth and match as good as done. He does utilize second serve-volleying more than Sampras, but not to the tune suggested by the numbers

I'd say court is relatively slow for carpet, as in returns can be made with reasonable comfort and neutral baseline play isn't a bad option (as opposed to out and out shot making). Still probably faster than any hard court around... attacking play would certainly be best option

Serve & Return
Stich serves significantly better than Sampras. Returning is about equal

Up to the last set, Sampras returns with normal enthusiasm. He does his best to reach wide serves (and does most of the time), takes a swing at whatever's in reach and blocks back what is near out of reach. He returns Stich's second serve from inside the court, and isn't far off from doing so even against some first serves

Good attitude towards the return and against a very strong serve. Stich still serves his lot of unreturnables and gets cheap points

In fourth set, Sampras... watches first serves go by, barely moving to them. The serves aren't much different from the ones he was moving to and at least getting a racquet to earlier in the match. He's also behind the baseline to take the ball by then

Either Sampras doesn't serve too well or Stich reads his serve exceptionally so. Stich doesn't look too troubled returning. He makes errors for the same reason everyone makes errors when facing serve-volleying, not because the serve is too good for him. 11 aces is on the low side for Sampras (Stich has 27... even without the last set, he was comfortably ahead in this area). And 8 double faults is high... he's not serving particularly second serves strong enough to warrant it. They cost him 2 games, and he's lucky its not 3

Another area Sampras might be off is in buying into narratives of Stich's BH being the stronger side. He serves 41% to the FH (Stich by contrast does so 28%) and 50% to BH... but forces a disproportionately high number of BH errors (14, to 8 on the FH). Stich is strong off both sides but long reach on FH is telling. Even very wide serves are often put back in play in a way he couldn't possibly do off the BH

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Net & Passing
Overwhelming bulk of action comes from serve-volleying and most of the little that doesn't are early approaches (often third ball)

Sampras is the better volleyer. Net numbers are a fair indicator of that - Sampras wins 71%, Stich 61%, with a similar gap in first serve-volley points won (Sampras +5%)

Sampras net play is very high of quality, but a two part deal. The first volley is usually placed well away from Stich, who barely has a shot at a pass he doesn't have to move to, but rarely placed as well as into a corner. Stich scrambles, gets a few passes back in play, and Sampras is there to putaway the second volley

Note Sampras with just 3 first 'volley' winners to 12 second volleys (and 1 third). Stich volleys more classically, looking for the winner of the first volley. Some good, longline wrong footing winners. He's also very good when hitting non-point killing volleys, placing them as well as Sampras. with such placement, he doesn't need to bother about targeting a side... Sampras' FH is just as unlikely to successful make the pass as his BH. Pete has 13 FH FEs to 8 BHs... bulk of these would be passing attempts

Sampras is much more consistent. UEs in forecourt - Sampras 3, Stich 11

Part of Sampras superiority is in his handling of difficult first volleys, including half-volleys. He's exceptionally good at putting half-volleys in play, even placing them in direction of his choice, with depth and as much force as possible. Stich by contrast, is surprisingly poor in this area

I would think a guy with a serve as powerful as Stich is used to half-volleys around the service line, but he's all at sea against such balls. Against the powerful ones, he flops but that's not unusual. its normal to not do well against power passes to the feet around the service line... we say someone plays well when they make such balls, not plays badly when they don't

The somehow poked back returns that Sampras makes occasionally lands before Stich is up at net - a common situation every big serving serve-volleyer faces. Stich tends to make a hash of these balls. Note the 5 groundstroke errors at net (2 are forced, difficult balls) and the half-volley UE (a ball with no power that he could easily have played a FH at net to). He also retreats from net twice when confronted with such balls. He looks a novice at such times... though a novice would be glad to hit a groundstroke rather than a volley

Such points are rare and not a significant factor in the match, but noteworthy

As noted earlier, some very good returning from both players, Stich more. Sampras faces more difficult volleys and handles them better

Not much going on with pass from either player. The volleying is too good.... and the passer doesn't have much of a shot

Play - Baseline
This is the area where Sampras falters. Its execution rather than game plan that lets him down

Sampras is in all out attacking mode from the back. On his second serve points, he looks to collar points or end them early with the FH

Which leads to 15 UEs of that side and just 4 baseline-to-baseline winners and a handful of errors forced out of Stich. While aggressive of mind, the balls he misses were usually there for the shot, though mostly on the ambitious side. Basically, he's just not good enough to play this way and come up on tops... judgement of what ball to go after isn't bad, but judgement in his ability is

Meanwhile, he's very steady of BH, with just 2 UEs. With Stich making 13, there's the obvious alternative strategy to trying to dominate with FH

Stich's less ambitious of the ground, more patient, firm of shot without being attacking. On the BH, he's willing to slice and keep ball in play neutrally and is pushed to do so defensively on occasion. Of consistency, he's better than Sampras. His large lot of BH UEs tend to be attacking shots and winner attempts, but he at least builds up to them

And, mirror image of Sampras by wing. He's steady off the FH, with just 4 UEs

Match Progression
First set is unusual and tough. There are 4 breaks and it lasts 97 points. By contrast, the fourth lasts 79 points and has no breaks

Stich breaks to start, opening with a net chord dribbling winner and ending with a BH cc pass just from just beyond the service line, with a Sampras missing a makeable BHV and third ball FH in between. Sampras has to save break points in his next 2 service games too, which last 10 and 12 points respectively... the first is filled with baseline errors and the second has 3 double faults. Stich has to save 4 in the game after, but makes it a double break after that when Sampras double faults on break point, after missing 2 third ball FH winner attempts

Surprisingly, Sampras is able to get back on serve, but he has to earn his breaks. He gains the first with 3 winners from 40-30, including 2 BH return passes (1 cc, 1 dtl). And the one after with 2 FH passes. Camera catches Sampras crossing himself after breaking the second time... understandable, when down 2 breaks to Michael Stich indoors

Set goes to tiebreak that Sampras opens with another double fault. Later, Stich hits a BH dtl winner from a regulation position and goes on to take the game comfortably 7-3

Strong passing and groundstrokes gains Pete 2 breaks to commandingly take the second set

Set 3 is more allowing expected lines with both players holding serve easily. Sampras does survive a hairy, 10 point game featuring some excellent low returns from Stich

Some nervy play from both in the tiebreak. A not good Stich volley is punished by a FH lob winner. A very ordinary approach by Stich leaves Sampras a good look at the pass but he nets the ball. Stich misses a sitter of an OH, Sampras misses a regulation second serve return, Sampras mishits a routine FH, Stich misses a FH1/2V from a weak return

The breaker is decided by Sampras missing a FH to give Stich his third set point, which he converts

Stich dominates the fourth set. He opens with a break and hits several good returns, including two winners in the game. On his third break points, Sampras double faults for the second time in the game. He breaks again next chance, a poor game from Pete who misses a routine first volley and 2 winner attempt FHs

Sampras turns to seemingly not making much effort returning first serves, in contrast to the rest of the match. Stich holds to love twice at start of set... and the last 7 points are all aces. He goes on to hit 5 more from the remaining 5 first serves he makes too. Having pulled off one near miracle to come back from two breaks down, Sampras doesn't seem to fancy his chances of another. He does have a break point in a game with where Stich misses 7/10 first serves and Pete returns well, but it ends with more aces

Summing up, good between two great players. Stich both serves and returns well, is efficient in the forecourt and steady from the back. Sampras' serve is less effective than usual, returns with gusto but the serving is too good and volleys with confidence and precision. Its his play on his second serve points that's the difference between the two players - he tries to be very aggressive from the baseline on them, but makes errors more often than not so doing. Stich in the same situation, is more measured of play and bold enough to serve-volley as a change up to good effect

 

[legrandLeconte]

Extraordinary match: one of the best I've ever seen between 2 tennis geniuses.

Thanks for the review.

 

[NicoMK]

That was indeed a good match by Stich, played on a fast court... I think that Sampras could've done better but he would win the title 5 times here so well, it was Stich's moment, good for him. I like watch him play too. Beautiful serve and backhand, great racket.

Short highlights but good picture quality :

 

[The Green Mile]

Last twelve 1st serves being aces, incredible stat.

 

[NicoMK]

Last twelve 1st serves being aces, incredible stat.

Yep incredible stat. And as much as I liked and miss this type of tennis, I mean attacking play, serves and volleys etc., this is partly why they slowed down the surfaces to death, resulting the same - I think - boring and robotic tennis that we have now, every match, every surface (including grass), every year. ZzzZz

 

[The Green Mile]

Yep incredible stat. And as much as I liked and miss this type of tennis, I mean attacking play, serves and volleys etc., this is partly why they slowed down the surfaces to death, resulting the same - I think - boring and robotic tennis that we have now, every match, every surface (including grass), every year. ZzzZz

Man, I keep thinking about this stat, it gets more and more mindblowing. I'd love to know the record of something like this....

 

[Waspsting]

Extraordinary match: one of the best I've ever seen between 2 tennis geniuses.

Thanks for the review.

My pleasure - and appreciate your expressing the sentiment

Stich and Richard Krajicek are two guys who when I look at them, can't figure out how they ever lost

I suppose Sampras can be seen as the potential-actualized version of them

Man, I keep thinking about this stat, it gets more and more mindblowing. I'd love to know the record of something like this....

Your wondering so does not bode well for us finding an answer... I thought you'd be the person most likely to know

Would consider giving it a little asterisk. Sampras is in one of his moods at the time, which is a pity because he'd made a normal (by normal players standards) effort to return first serves in the first 3 sets. In the fourth, he went into 'watch them go by' mode

Stich served 3 in a row to go up 2-0, then broke... and its after that that Sampras barely moved for first serves. Could have got a racquet on them at least

I don't know why he doesn't just guess. If he figures good first serves are unreturnable anyway so why bother... what does he have to love by just moving one way? If ball is the other way, it'd be an ace anyway and if its not, he has a shot at getting the ball in play

He did a bit of that earlier in the match. its easy to notice when he guessed wrong

Overall, I think Sampras returns strong wide serves better than most when he wants to. Quick as a cat to move to position... its just usually, he doesn't seem to want to

He crossed himself after coming back from two breaks down in the first set. maybe he figured two such miracles were too much to expect

I vaguely recall Ivo Karlovic serving 20+ aces in a set at US Open a few years ago. It was a night match, I think... any idea which match that might be?

 

[The Green Mile]

My pleasure - and appreciate your expressing the sentiment

Stich and Richard Krajicek are two guys who when I look at them, can't figure out how they ever lost

I suppose Sampras can be seen as the potential-actualized version of them



Your wondering so does not bode well for us finding an answer... I thought you'd be the person most likely to know

Would consider giving it a little asterisk. Sampras is in one of his moods at the time, which is a pity because he'd made a normal (by normal players standards) effort to return first serves in the first 3 sets. In the fourth, he went into 'watch them go by' mode

Stich served 3 in a row to go up 2-0, then broke... and its after that that Sampras barely moved for first serves. Could have got a racquet on them at least

I don't know why he doesn't just guess. If he figures good first serves are unreturnable anyway so why bother... what does he have to love by just moving one way? If ball is the other way, it'd be an ace anyway and if its not, he has a shot at getting the ball in play

He did a bit of that earlier in the match. its easy to notice when he guessed wrong

Overall, I think Sampras returns strong wide serves better than most when he wants to. Quick as a cat to move to position... its just usually, he doesn't seem to want to

He crossed himself after coming back from two breaks down in the first set. maybe he figured two such miracles were too much to expect

I vaguely recall Ivo Karlovic serving 20+ aces in a set at US Open a few years ago. It was a night match, I think... any idea which match that might be?

Might be his match with Lu a few years back, think he got the USO record there at 61 aces.

Edit: I do remember reading somewhere here about Denton serving 12-13 aces in a row in some doubles match, though it's hardly a credible source. (Even though Querrey has the official record at ten)

 

[Drob]

Would consider giving it a little asterisk. Sampras is in one of his moods at the time, which is a pity because he'd made a normal (by normal players standards) effort to return first serves in the first 3 sets. In the fourth, he went into 'watch them go by' mode

Great stats and analysis - thanks. But no asterisk. A risky notion universally, and while Pete let a couple "go-by" that is not the reason for the incredible stat. Those Stich serves were just perfect serves, time-after-time. One of history's most talented players was in-the-zone. Pete's not a "go-by" guy and he had too much respect for Stich to just throw in the towel. Admittedly, he must have felt down (remember you can't use body language to guess Pete's attitude).

Stich still serves his lot of unreturnables and gets cheap points

You did not notate any "unreturnables". I think you had 27 aces and two service winners for Stich. sounds here like in addition to the 27 aces there were X number of unreturnables. If so, approx. how many would you say?

Stich's less ambitious of the ground, more patient, firm of shot without being attacking. On the BH, he's willing to slice and keep ball in play neutrally and is pushed to do so defensively on occasion. Of consistency, he's better than Sampras. His large lot of BH UEs tend to be attacking shots and winner attempts, but he at least builds up to them

Within this short paragraph are two keys to Stich's win. Besides the obvious - the aces - there is the "patient, firm of shot without being attacking" as one key to Stich's success. You use the word "neutrally". You will notice that many of these "neutral" shots by Stich have good depth to them (and many stay quite low). It may look like he is swinging easy, but the relatively deep, often low ground stokes have Sampras frequently on the back foot. This kind of consistent depth was something that I think did have a wearing effect on Sampras, in a match where he could not bang down a couple-dozen aces of his own. Stich has the better of the ground rallies, as I think you mentioned. Related to this is your unforced-errror forcefulness judgments. You have Stich every bit as forceful on UEs as Sampras, who is one of the most aggressive players ever seen. So Michael was able to practically equal Pete on aggressiveness (this appears both from the match itself and your stats), and he played a more consistent ground game. And, again, those "neutrals" were nice, deep neutrals and Pete chose often to try to do too much with those deep balls.

Back to the dozen + aces in the fourth set. At the end of the day - meaning after all was done in his career - Pete Sampras said,

“Out of all the guys who were real or potential rivals, Stich was the one who scared me the most . . . He really had an all-court game and, among all the guys I played, the best combination of power, movement and mental strength.”
This is what Sampras wrote down for the permanent record (in his autobiography). Sampras' appraisals of other players were rarely (never?) this generous. He did not say, I-played-like-a-bum-in-the-fourth-set-of-the-'93-World-Championship-and-handed-Stich-a-major.

 

[Waspsting]

You did not notate any "unreturnables". I think you had 27 aces and two service winners for Stich. sounds here like in addition to the 27 aces there were X number of unreturnables. If so, approx. how many would you say?

In this case, "unreturnables" refers to aces + service winners

The point being that even with Pete returning properly, Stich gets his fills of aces and service winners. As opposed to when Pete's... less than returning properly - which I gather you don't agree with? we'll get to that

many of these "neutral" shots by Stich have good depth to them (and many stay quite low). It may look like he is swinging easy, but the relatively deep, often low ground stokes have Sampras frequently on the back foot. This kind of consistent depth.... Stich has the better of the ground rallies, as I think you mentioned. Related to this is your unforced-error forcefulness judgments. You have Stich every bit as forceful on UEs as Sampras, who is one of the most aggressive players ever seen. So Michael was able to practically equal Pete on aggressiveness (this appears both from the match itself and your stats), and he played a more consistent ground game. And, again, those "neutrals" were nice, deep neutrals and Pete chose often to try to do too much with those deep balls.

This needs some amplification

The equal (actually, Stich greater) UEFI scores - Stich 49.2, Sampras 48.5 - includes net and baseline UEs

Now net UEs are invariably scored 5 (attacking shot) or 6 (winner attempt). Not much scope to hit a neutral or defensive shot up there... you do that only when your forced
So the higher the proportion of net UEs to total errors, the higher the UEFI tends to be

11/25 or 44% of Stich's UEs are net shots. 3/20 or 15% of Sampras' are

Pure baseline UEs, the number comes to - Stich 43.6, Sampras 47.6... which is a large difference. Breakdown -

Neutral UEs - Stich 10, Sampras 9
Attacking UEs - Stich 3, Sampras 3
Winner Attempt UEs - Stich 1, Sampras 5

No significant difference neutrally or attackingly.... it looks like Sampras missing kill shots is the only difference between the two from the back
This is in line with what I saw.... he was going for low percentage winners from regulation positions. And usually missing. Stich wasn't

Pete's not a "go-by" guy and he had too much respect for Stich to just throw in the towel

Drob, Sampras is the ultimate "go-by" guy

Why does he almost always get out-aced - frequently by huge margins against his fellow big servers (Krajicek, Becker, Stich, Goran... hereafter referred to as 'those guys')?

Either they're much more precise servers (which I don't think is true)... or there's some difference in how they return (i.e. Sampras does 'go-by' more than them)

Another observation... while almost always out-aced, Sampras almost equally always out service winners them. Why?

My judgment of service winner is based on the serve being wholly unreturnable and return got nowhere close to returning it (very rarely, you'll come across someone who almost gets what looks like 'wholly unreturnable' serve back... I exclude those)

Its because Sampras lets those guys potential service winners go through for aces. Those guys don't... they get racquet on ball, so it gets marked 'Service Winner' instead of ace. Because they made the effort, Pete just lets the ball go

Against big servers, its common for players to lunge, jump, skip, hop etc. to make the return. How often do you see Pete Sampras doing any of that? I hardly ever see it... why?

Is it because he anticipates/reads/guesses so well that he can get into position without lunging, jumping, skipping? If so, he should have high return rates - but he doesn't. So why?

Its because he lets the ball go by without playing a shot

I'm not suggesting he tanks (though there's some of that when he's up a break or when things are even and he's holding serve easily)…. I'm suggesting against difficult serves in particular, Sampras does not make a full effort to return

Unless his judgment of what he couldn't have gotten in play even if he had made a 100% effort is absolutely perfect... maybe one or two balls go by that he could have put in play (and certainly got a racquet on at least to deny an ace)?

Presumably, in tiebreaks where every point is critical, he would make a 100% effort. Do you agree?

In the two tiebreaks in this match, he allows Stich 2 aces from 9 first serves - 22.2% first serves are unreturnable
For rest of the match, its 27/68 - 39.7%
Why?

Note that even sans the last 12 first serves being aces, Stich's still served 15/56 at 27%, greater than his rate in the tiebreaks

You raised the same issue regarding the '96 YEC matches with Boris Becker

In the final, in the tiebreaks, Becker serves 3 aces from 12 first serves - 25%
rest of match, its 30/85 - 35.3%
Why?

In the round robin, in the tiebreaks, Becker serves 2 aces from 7 first serves - 29%
rest of match, its 21/40 - 52.5%
Why?

 

[Drob]

Man, I keep thinking about this stat, it gets more and more mindblowing. I'd love to know the record of something like this....

Take a look at Kyrgios 2018 Queen's Club, or maybe 2019. I am not sure, but this would be one place where you might find the "record", depending on your criteria (i.e. how many aces in how many games).

The history says that Ellsworth Vines hit 30 aces in 12 service games in the 1932 Wimbledon final. It is everywhere where you read about Vines. It is "in the record book." But it is wrong

It was always an implausible "record" if anyone had thought about it. It is an indication of how much ignorance there was about tennis history that apparently nobody did think about this "record" and it was republished and republished. It became more troubling when Krosero's retrievals of roughly 60 box scores from Vines matches showed he never did anything like that in any of those matches (although he did have some doozies in the ace department).

Finally, Krosero found definitive evidence (in my view) that the whole thing was a fable - a contemporaneous, apparently eye-witness account, of the match in Lawn Tennis and Badminton. This report put it at only four outright aces, and 26 that were either unreturnables or service winners, mostly the former from the tone of the article. I think he posted or quoted this report on one of these threads, and that would have been late 2018 or early 2019. Krosero's archive of boxscores now has four aces for this memorable match. I happen to disagree with accepting the four aces. For rather complicated reasons having to do with the content and circumstances of The New York Times correspondent's eyewitness report of the match, which differs from both the "fable" and the LTB account (and for some other reasons) I estimate Vines shot a dozen - to - 16 aces in the match. Krosero and I agree to disagree on this. But the point is that the Vines "record" of 30 aces in 12 service games is as ridiculous as it sounds, and an indication of how reliable are many "eyewitness" historical tennis reports or anecdotes.

 

[Drob]

In this case, "unreturnables" refers to aces + service winners

The point being that even with Pete returning properly, Stich gets his fills of aces and service winners. As opposed to when Pete's... less than returning properly - which I gather you don't agree with? we'll get to that



This needs some amplification

The equal (actually, Stich greater) UEFI scores - Stich 49.2, Sampras 48.5 - includes net and baseline UEs

Now net UEs are invariably scored 5 (attacking shot) or 6 (winner attempt). Not much scope to hit a neutral or defensive shot up there... you do that only when your forced
So the higher the proportion of net UEs to total errors, the higher the UEFI tends to be

11/25 or 44% of Stich's UEs are net shots. 3/20 or 15% of Sampras' are

Pure baseline UEs, the number comes to - Stich 43.6, Sampras 47.6... which is a large difference. Breakdown -

Neutral UEs - Stich 10, Sampras 9
Attacking UEs - Stich 3, Sampras 3
Winner Attempt UEs - Stich 1, Sampras 5

No significant difference neutrally or attackingly.... it looks like Sampras missing kill shots is the only difference between the two from the back
This is in line with what I saw.... he was going for low percentage winners from regulation positions. And usually missing. Stich wasn't



Drob, Sampras is the ultimate "go-by" guy

Why does he almost always get out-aced - frequently by huge margins against his fellow big servers (Krajicek, Becker, Stich, Goran... hereafter referred to as 'those guys')?

Either they're much more precise servers (which I don't think is true)... or there's some difference in how they return (i.e. Sampras does 'go-by' more than them)

Another observation... while almost always out-aced, Sampras almost equally always out service winners them. Why?

My judgment of service winner is based on the serve being wholly unreturnable and return got nowhere close to returning it (very rarely, you'll come across someone who almost gets what looks like 'wholly unreturnable' serve back... I exclude those)

Its because Sampras lets those guys potential service winners go through for aces. Those guys don't... they get racquet on ball, so it gets marked 'Service Winner' instead of ace. Because they made the effort, Pete just lets the ball go

Against big servers, its common for players to lunge, jump, skip, hop etc. to make the return. How often do you see Pete Sampras doing any of that? I hardly ever see it... why?

Is it because he anticipates/reads/guesses so well that he can get into position without lunging, jumping, skipping? If so, he should have high return rates - but he doesn't. So why?

Its because he lets the ball go by without playing a shot

I'm not suggesting he tanks (though there's some of that when he's up a break or when things are even and he's holding serve easily)…. I'm suggesting against difficult serves in particular, Sampras does not make a full effort to return

Unless his judgment of what he couldn't have gotten in play even if he had made a 100% effort is absolutely perfect... maybe one or two balls go by that he could have put in play (and certainly got a racquet on at least to deny an ace)?

Presumably, in tiebreaks where every point is critical, he would make a 100% effort. Do you agree?

In the two tiebreaks in this match, he allows Stich 2 aces from 9 first serves - 22.2% first serves are unreturnable
For rest of the match, its 27/68 - 39.7%
Why?

You raised the same issue regarding the '96 YEC matches with Boris Becker

In the final, in the tiebreaks, Becker serves 3 aces from 12 first serves - 25%
rest of match, its 30/85 - 35.3%
Why?

In the round robin, in the tiebreaks, Becker serves 2 aces from 7 first serves - 29%
rest of match, its 21/40 - 52.5%
Why?

Up to the last set, Sampras returns with normal enthusiasm. He does his best to reach wide serves (and does most of the time), takes a swing at whatever's in reach and blocks back what is near out of reach.

Okay, agreed.

In this case, "unreturnables" refers to aces + service winners

Understood. We use different definitions.

I don't know why he doesn't just guess. If he figures good first serves are unreturnable anyway so why bother... what does he have to love by just moving one way? If ball is the other way, it'd be an ace anyway and if its not, he has a shot at getting the ball in play

If this were the extent of your critique, I would agree with you. (But it is not - you doubled-down on your assertions in your reply). Sampras should have started guessing and committing early somewhere in the middle of the fourth set or earlier.

After reading your comments a few days ago (and responding a little off-the-cuff, but having watched the match twice in making those comments) I watched the match for a third time on Thursday night (April 30).

Yes, Sampras should have guessed. Very however, however, Stich was mixing it up smartly and perfectly. Irrespective of the overall service tendencies by Stich reflected in your statistics, with regard to his aces in the 3rd and 4th sets, he was going wide, or, right-smack-dab down the middle roughly equally, and with equal effectiveness. So, it would have been hard to guess. Yet, there came a point when Sampras should have started guessing regardless and try to catch the ≈ 50% chance to make the attempt to turn back the tide. This is an error of tactics, not a lack of fight, IMO.


But, you doubled down - emphatically, I guess, because use used bold. I don't know if you are right or not. I can say that I have never heard this before about Pete from any source, either mainstream press/commentators, players, or from our cadre of amateur authorities. I am not contending that no similar observations have come from other observers. I just have never read any such. This is the first I have heard of Sampras as the "ultimate go-by guy" or anything remotely close. And Sampras as "ultimate go-by guy" is quite a statement.

In fourth set, Sampras... watches first serves go by, barely moving to them. The serves aren't much different from the ones he was moving to and at least getting a racquet to earlier in the match. He's also behind the baseline to take the ball by then

No B.S., Waspsting, you are among the more incisive observers of actual match play, be it from the mainstream media, players, or, we the underground. So, if you say this is the situation w Sampras, I will have to re-watch Sampras matches (again) and recomb through the literature to see if one or more mainstream tennis writers/commentators agree with you.

Sampras is in one of his moods at the time, which is a pity because he'd made a normal (by normal players standards) effort to return first serves in the first 3 sets. In the fourth, he went into 'watch them go by' mode

This is hard to swallow regarding Sampras.

It would not be unprecedented for a great champion to have this kind of tendency. Some examples: (1) Kramer proudly told the world there were situations when he would not try very hard, under his "percentage tennis" theory (but I doubt that included being behind in the potential final set); (2) Hoad had his "walkabouts"; (3) Cochet occasionally got completely distracted ("zone-out"); (4) Drobny had a pronounced inferiority complex for the longest time and may have "given-up" some times during most of his peak years; (5) you can pick almost any of the greatest players and find a few times when they let it get away mentally - "gave up" - but it is rare.

Let me tell you what little I know and think I know.

In the past roughly four years, by conservative estimate I have watched two-dozen Sampras matches (usually twice each). Apart from a study of Sampras himself, other significant players whom I study have to be seen playing a big match against the Pisto, and frequently two matches: Rafter, Kuerten, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Safin, Muster, Federer are definite examples where I deliberately watched at least one match (twice) against Sampras. Of course, I also watched a couple of Sampras-Ivanisevic, and, of course, Sampras-Agassi matches. Less relevant, I have also recently watched him against Lendl. This is in addition to matches I watched in order to key on Sampras, not the other guy. Needless to say, I did not notice this tendency which you assert is pronounced in him.

After re-watching the match in question, I looked for a suitable comparison. You know that Courier-Stich and Chang-Stich on hardcourts are available (there is also Muster, but on clay). But these players are service-return specialists, return phenoms. (There might be an Agassi-Stich available also, but even more so you're looking at a service-return God). Not a fair comparison. Need a great-great, who is more like Sampras. Chose Edberg. I think the tennistv offering of Edberg-Stich is a clay-court match. Not close enough. I went to youtube.com, for the 1993 Grand Slam Cup semifinal between Stefan and Michael. The advantages of this match are extreme closeness in temporal proximity to the match in question, i.e, Michael during a white-hot streak, a five-set match, and a player more like Sampras than a Courier, Chang, et al.

REACHED A WORD LIMIT, SYSTEM TELLS ME. PLEASE READ POST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, WHICH TAKES UP FROM HERE. THANKS.

 

[Drob]

Continuing . . .

This 1993 GSC SF is a five-setter, Stich coming back from two sets down to win. Edberg is ultimate perfection in set one. Unfortunately, one-third of the match is missing, but that is not material for this particular comparison - a comparison I admit is not perfect. Video picks up at end of third set. So, we are talking here specifically about eight Stich aces in sets four and five (Stich did not serve as well as in the match in question, i think it is clear if you watch this Edberg-Stich match). These are two sets where Edberg had the highest motivation conceivable.

Ace 1 - Classic wrong-footing.
Ace 2 - True ace. Edberg lunges for it, duly noted.
Ace 3 - Overwhelming ace. Edberg cannot make a move.
Ace 4 - Ditto basically. No way Edberg can move on this. It is a 211 km (132 mph) serve right on the T.
Ace 5 - Edberg makes a desperate effort and it is just out of reach. Don't know as any then-contemporary player could have even reached it. Serve just nicks the back of the T.
Ace 6 - Just a super-duper-super-super placement to BH corner. No play possible.
Note: Stich goes back to same placement on his next serve to the ad court but Edberg clearly anticipates and cheats to that side and gets up a wispy floater which Stich softly puts away on the S/V.
Ace 7 - Impossible. Impossible return. Fast. Right in FH corner on deuce court. Precious little movement from Stefan.
Ace 8 - Absolute ace. No way Edberg can move to it.

Okay. Let's compare this to the deluge against Sampras.

First, Edberg gives off an aspect, or, rather, appearance, of "trying harder" on the big serves simply because of his bouncy body language in preparation for the service, in contrast to Pete's practical stillness. This can be deceptive.

You grant that Pete tried to reach the aces through the third set of the Masters final. Fair enough. Therefore, I can start at Stich Ace No. 16 at 1-0 in the fourth set:

Ace 16 - Classic wrong-footing. Pete was leaning the other way.
Ace 17 - Absolute ace. Impossible serve.
Ace 18 - Questionable. Pete might have gotten a FH on it.
Ace 19 - Absolute ace. (Sure, if Pete had guessed right, then maybe could have gotten a ball on it, maybe even been fortunate).
Ace 20 - Basically ditto.
Ace 21 - Absolute, absolute ace. Without adjective.
Ace 22 - Sampras could have gotten some of his frame on this one had he tried, for what that is worth.
Ace 23 - Another completely legitimate ace unless Pete had guessed, which, yes, by this time, he darn well should have.
Ace 24 - Super Ace!
Ace 25 - Pete could have lunged for the FH, which would have splayed to the stadium rafters.
Ace 26 - If Pete had decided to guess and guessed right, he could have had some kind of return on this. From where he was positioned, it was an Ace without adjectives.
Ace 27 - Should Pete have been expecting that serve? Should he have been expecting it to his BH? How? Stich had been going to the ultimate margin of the corner on the ad court on aces prior to this. This time he went S T R A I G H T up the middle. Match point.

Conclusion: Two, at most three, instances where Pete let the ace "go-by".

I could say a lot more about this 1993 Masters final, but this is enough. I agree with many parts of your analysis, but frankly see the match differently. Here are just a few last points:

1. Normally, Pete is a better server than Stich (although Stich is top 5-8 servers of the decade of the 90s - without argument I would think). This day, Stich is much the better server.

2. You seem to question the "notion" of Stich's awesome BH. I thought Stich's BH superiority was key to the match. In fact, I was surprised at your stat of only 5 BH UEs for Sampras. To me, he was struggling with the BH a lot, notwithstanding he did drill a few massive ones. But when I watched the aforementioned Edberg-Stich GSC SF, the Stich BH was from another C O S M O L O G Y. I need to see more Stich, but so far seem like the "notion" of his BH was pure fact.

3. As noted above and is w/o dispute: Stich essentially on of top half-dozen servers of the decade. Upper 120s to low 130s services in the 1990s! Exquisite placement - it can't get more precise than this. When this guy is on, his service is the highest-tech artillery of his time. Little wonder Sampras is a bit baffled.

4. Just think that when Stich is playing at his higher level, his silky, seemingly effortless movements trick us into under-estimating his overall shot-making.

5. Having watched the match for a third time, I will reiterate my comments regarding Stich's "neutral" really being a semi-offensive groundstroke strategy. As the other German, the Baron, admonished:

"The mark of aristocracy in the tennis stroke, the mark of quality, is neither force nor rotation. It is depth."

 

[MissileBackHand99]

A fantastic match and tournament by Stich, who went undefeated at the YEC that year. Stich had some big wins in ‘93, winning what we now know as Masters Series events in Hamburg and Stockholm...and winning Queens Club as well. He played great at the ATP Finals and was the deserving winner

 

[Snaab]

Stich has a 5-4 HTH against Sampras, this wasn't a one-off victory.