Safin vs Sampras 2000 USO Final

[PistolPete23]

I randomly stumbled upon this high video quality gem of match highlights. I remember it was during my sophomore year in HS. Brings back great memories. Two of my favorite players, each wielding arguably the two most legendary racquets of all time - Head Prestige Classic and the Pro Staff 6.0 85. Watching these highlights, I forgot how hard Pete could hit the ball from the baseline, especially his forehand. He was known for S&V, but to me, his groundstrokes at times appear to be heavier than Safin's. Baseline game was definitely underrated. And his serves - gosh, I think if he played on tour in the modern era, he'll still be top 10 easy, because his serves were such a weapon and so hard to read. And what's there to say about Marat? So much talent, such a high ceiling that perhaps was never fully realized due to lack of mental fortitude. But man, the way he hit the ball was as pure as any ball-striker who ever played.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

Sampras actually was about 50/50 from the baseline, Safin wasn't hitting winners in baseline exchanges - he knew with way he was serving, passing and returning, he didn't need to take ridiculous cuts or play extremely aggressive in baseline to baseline duels. Safin at his smartest here. He actually applied himself.

 

[JasonZ]

I randomly stumbled upon this high video quality gem of match highlights. I remember it was during my sophomore year in HS. Brings back great memories. Two of my favorite players, each wielding arguably the two most legendary racquets of all time - Head Prestige Classic and the Pro Staff 6.0 85. Watching these highlights, I forgot how hard Pete could hit the ball from the baseline, especially his forehand. He was known for S&V, but to me, his groundstrokes at times appear to be heavier than Safin's. Baseline game was definitely underrated. And his serves - gosh, I think if he played on tour in the modern era, he'll still be top 10 easy, because his serves were such a weapon and so hard to read. And what's there to say about Marat? So much talent, such a high ceiling that perhaps was never fully realized due to lack of mental fortitude. But man, the way he hit the ball was as pure as any ball-striker who ever played.

if that are the highlights of that match, than i am happy that i never watched it.

 

[Galvermegs]

Sampras actually was about 50/50 from the baseline, Safin wasn't hitting winners in baseline exchanges - he knew with way he was serving, passing and returning, he didn't need to take ridiculous cuts or play extremely aggressive in baseline to baseline duels. Safin at his smartest here. He actually applied himself.

Yes if sampras was going to chip and charge so often then safin had to just force an error a lot of the time and so give himself more margin. Sampras really didnt have the best backhand for defence or for offence in baseline rallies which also helped in this matchup.
All their slam meetings seem to have gone pretty much one side (iirc 3 at us open and 1 at aussie open.. tied 2 each).

 

[Galvermegs]

if that ate the highlights of that match, than i am happy that i never watched it.

But safin was rarely better. Even his ao win over roger was partly down to a choke and the lack of good line tech.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

But safin was rarely better. Even his ao win over roger was partly down to a choke and the lack of good line tech.

I remember that game, Safin also got done by line calls as well.

It must also be said that Safin played poor at the AO SF 2005 for the first 3.5 sets. Not even joking, his serve was amazing the whole night through and that was it. Federer I thought was playing well for his standards, but Safin not so much. I just think when all the shots come together for Safin he's able to bully Federer as he as way more power and uses way less energy on movement.

 

[NatF]

I remember that game, Safin also got done by line calls as well.

It must also be said that Safin played poor at the AO SF 2005 for the first 3.5 sets. Not even joking, his serve was amazing the whole night through and that was it. Federer I thought was playing well for his standards, but Safin not so much. I just think when all the shots come together for Safin he's able to bully Federer as he as way more power and uses way less energy on movement.

lol

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

lol

Yea.......this guy didn't watch the game.


Watch the first three sets - littered with errors from Safin - his serve got him the win. He was serving like Karlovic.

 

[NatF]

Yea.......this guy didn't watch the game.


Watch the first three sets - littered with errors from Safin - his serve got him the win. He was serving like Karlovic.

He was positive in the first 2 sets, it was only set 3 which had more errors than winners.

Maybe you should watch again

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

He was positive in the first 2 sets, it was only set 3 which had more errors than winners.

Maybe you should watch again

I did mate, I watched it last month, it was a very good match, maybe at one point a top 5 match ever. I thought Federer's level was very good, but Safin's baseline game wasn't great, but it was his best serving performance ever imo, so you could say the quality was world class, but it was only in sets 4 and 5 they were both playing well at the same time imo.

 

[NatF]

I did mate, I watched it last month, it was a very good match, maybe at one point a top 5 match ever. I thought Federer's level was very good, but Safin's baseline game wasn't great, but it was his best serving performance ever imo, so you could say the quality was world class, but it was only in sets 4 and 5 they were both playing well at the same time imo.

The 4th and 5th sets are where the level of play went through the roof, but it's incorrect to say Safin was poor in the first 3.5 sets.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

The 4th and 5th sets are where the level of play went through the roof, but it's incorrect to say Safin was poor in the first 3.5 sets.

poor might have been a bit harsh, but he went mentally walkabouts end of first set, and was spraying forehands in the 3rd. It was decent, not an all time great performance by Safin in those first 3 sets, but Safin was so well rounded even if parts of his game were off - his serve was such an equaliser. His serve got him over the line against Agassi at AO 2004.

I agree with you on sets 4 and 5.

 

[Galvermegs]

poor might have been a bit harsh, but he went mentally walkabouts end of first set, and was spraying forehands in the 3rd. It was decent, not an all time great performance by Safin in those first 3 sets, but Safin was so well rounded even if parts of his game were off - his serve was such an equaliser. His serve got him over the line against Agassi at AO 2004.

I agree with you on sets 4 and 5.

All i said was that safin was not at his best and you still disagreed. My only point was federer was very close to winning and was more than just a moral winner.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

All i said was that safin was not at his best and you still disagreed. My only point was federer was very close to winning and was more than just a moral winner.

I didn't have many issues with your writings, I wanted to give you a better analysis as I have recently watched the full match uninterrupted to see if it was as good as I remember. the first three sets haven't aged well imo.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I didn't have many issues with your writings, I wanted to give you a better analysis as I have recently watched the full match uninterrupted to see if it was as good as I remember. the first three sets haven't aged well imo.

Safin played pretty well the 2nd set, he wasn't poor the first three.

But safin was rarely better. Even his ao win over roger was partly down to a choke and the lack of good line tech.

It wasn't a choke, Safin saved the MP with a great passing shot and lob. Safin choked quite himself in the fifth, much more than Federer in the fourth. And line tech was bad for everyone.

 

[Galvermegs]

I didn't have many issues with your writings, I wanted to give you a better analysis as I have recently watched the full match uninterrupted to see if it was as good as I remember. the first three sets haven't aged well imo.

Any extra insight is fine. So yeah im good.

I am a little unsure how much fed was injured. It could explain him struggling at times, especially late on. But he also didnt exactly mention injuries after a close win.

I really dont think safin was actually at his very best outdoors too often
He had a bunch of masters early in his career but for me the best version of safin in form is indoors.

 

[Galvermegs]

Safin played pretty well the 2nd set, he wasn't poor the first three.



It wasn't a choke, Safin saved the MP with a great passing shot and lob. Safin choked quite himself in the fifth, much more than Federer in the fourth. And line tech was bad for everyone.

Well it still could have finished on that mp.. federer went for showboating which later on he tended to stay clear of. I couldnt think of a better word.

Line calls balancing out is not exactly a proven science. It soon will become a non issue with no linesman at wimbledon, etc.

 

[rafa_prestige89]

But safin was rarely better. Even his ao win over roger was partly down to a choke and the lack of good line tech.

Lol, I don't know what you are using, but it's strong.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Well it still could have finished on that mp.

Yeah, but Safin saved it playing great. Federer also saved MP playing great but Safin was able to close it out eventually.

. federer went for showboating

He wasn't showboating, he was chasing a lob and he went for a tweener in that situation many other times with success like against Djokovic and Dabul at the USO. Showboating would be if he had gone for a tweener in a regular rally, in that case it was a normal shot to take. And even if he had tried something else it wouldn't change much. Safin had taken the net and had it under control. The winning shot was the lob.

Line calls balancing out is not exactly a proven science. It soon will become a non issue with no linesman at wimbledon, etc.

Yep.

Now it should be all electronic.

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

Lol, I don't know what you are using, but it's strong.

Federer fans are worse than Nadal fans, they only give injury excuses. Federer fans just say that Federer should have won and only Federer decides games. Let's get over it, in 2004 he only faced three massive talents across the four slams - on of them safin who hadn't played in nearly a year, busted hip Kuerten at FO04 (Fed lost in straights) and Agassi at US04 (taken to 5), then lost against Safin at AO05, Nadal at FO 05, then pushed to 4 sets by 35 year old agassi. Never recovered once Nadal got back after 09.
.
Federer's record from 04-2011 against great players is very very bad. Even his wins against a young Nadal at W06 and 07, or old Agassi at US Open, he's only just getting the job done in 5 sets or 4 tough sets. His only win against any ATG at their peak was Djokovic.

But Federer fans act like he's dismantled every ATG he's ever played

 

[rafa_prestige89]

Federer fans are worse than Nadal fans, they only give injury excuses. Federer fans just say that Federer should have won and only Federer decides games. Let's get over it, in 2004 he only faced three massive talents across the four slams - on of them safin who hadn't played in nearly a year, busted hip Kuerten at FO04 (Fed lost in straights) and Agassi at US04 (taken to 5), then lost against Safin at AO05, Nadal at FO 05, then pushed to 4 sets by 35 year old agassi. Never recovered once Nadal got back after 09.
.
Federer's record from 04-2011 against great players is very very bad. Even his wins against a young Nadal at W06 and 07, or old Agassi at US Open, he's only just getting the job done in 5 sets or 4 tough sets. His only win against any ATG at their peak was Djokovic.

But Federer fans act like he's dismantled every ATG he's ever played

I wonder what is their excuse for the tennis class that an injured Kuerten gave him in Roland Garros 2004, when he was in his prime

 

[Mustard]

Yes if sampras was going to chip and charge so often then safin had to just force an error a lot of the time and so give himself more margin. Sampras really didnt have the best backhand for defence or for offence in baseline rallies which also helped in this matchup.
All their slam meetings seem to have gone pretty much one side (iirc 3 at us open and 1 at aussie open.. tied 2 each).

Their 2002 Australian Open fourth round match started off one-sided in the first 2 sets (in Safin's favour) but then became extremely close. It was nearly a 5-setter. I really enjoyed that match.

They met at the 1998 US Open (fourth round), the 2000 US Open (final) and the 2001 US Open (semi final), and Sampras had also been drawn against Safin in the first round at the 1999 US Open before Sampras pulled out of the tournament injured.

 

[Galvermegs]

Their 2002 Australian Open fourth round match started off one-sided in the first 2 sets (in Safin's favour) but then became extremely close. It was nearly a 5-setter. I really enjoyed that match.

They met at the 1998 US Open (fourth round), the 2000 US Open (final) and the 2001 US Open (semi final), and Sampras had also been drawn against Safin in the first round at the 1999 US Open before Sampras pulled out of the tournament injured.

Well if 2 out of 3 sets for a player are one sided then i have to give them credit for controlling most of the match. Provided they finish the job i feel they more than deserve the win

The federer henman qf match at wimbledon for me was a really obvious example of a 4 setter that could have gone either way, although biased people like simon reed (and my former companion for live matches) thought henman dominated. Well thats a meaningless assertion if you cant hold enough times to back up your breaks. Which safin certainly did for much of the clash with sampras.

Really that ao match showed how sampras was typically worse in australia and safin more than likely to cause trouble to big names as it was his preferred surface (and arguably court speed). Sampras also had to recover physically and mentally from playing nicolas escude who had many good memories in his career of playing down under.

Sampras went onto many bad losses in 2002 so this was a good barometer for his decline, but obviously he had the last laugh come september.

 

[buscemi]

Well if 2 out of 3 sets for a player are one sided then i have to give them credit for controlling most of the match. Provided they finish the job i feel they more than deserve the win

Safin fully deserved the win, but I agree with the characterization of the match as close. Yeah, Safin won the first two sets comfortably and finished it off in four, but that fourth set was a 10-8 tiebreaker in which Safin had to save two set points.

 

[Galvermegs]

Safin fully deserved the win, but I agree with the characterization of the match as close. Yeah, Safin won the first two sets comfortably and finished it off in four, but that fourth set was a 10-8 tiebreaker in which Safin had to save two set points.

Well close or not sampras lost many matches that year. Key games and therefore sets stopped going to hik and he became a definite underdog by the north american summer swing.
*
Safin played a great 2002 ao... that final unfortunately was by far his worst showing, but johansson definitely could be dangerous .. Others have said that haas or sampras could have won over johansson but i am in two minds.. i really think the swede deserved the one slam. It wasnt a random thing like gaudio (who still was very talented, but habitually a choker).

 

[buscemi]

Others have said that haas or sampras could have won over johansson but i am in two minds.. i really think the swede deserved the one slam. It wasnt a random thing like gaudio (who still was very talented, but habitually a choker).

I agree that Gaudio winning the French was arguably more random, but I would say Gaudio and Johansson were the two most random Major winners on the men's side in the Open Era, excluding some of the winners at the AO from 1976-1982, when the fields were really weak.

 

[Galvermegs]

I agree that Gaudio winning the French was arguably more random, but I would say Gaudio and Johansson were the two most random Major winners on the men's side in the Open Era, excluding some of the winners at the AO from 1976-1982, when the fields were really weak.

Costa was a surprise too but he always had the game and was still just about in his prime years. I much preferred the 2 others for style than costa but his tennis iq was as good as any spaniard.

 

[RS]

This forum is quite big on this match. Or was some years back should I say.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It wasnt a random thing like gaudio (who still was very talented, but habitually a choker).

Gaudio was less consistent than Johansson and was worse at adapting to different surfaces but was a very talented claycourter, on his day on clay he could beat anyone. With Johansson you felt there were many better hardcourters than him (though he was also very good on grass while Gaudio was a one-surface player).

 

[Galvermegs]

Gaudio was less consistent than Johansson and was worse at adapting to different surfaces but was a very talented claycourter, on his day on clay he could beat anyone. With Johansson you felt there were many better hardcourters than him (though he was also very good on grass while Gaudio was a one-surface player).

I really dont know. Johansson was able to get that masters 1000 title and also have the distinction of making the us open quarters. showing that sort of form in these hardcourt majors or masters would suggest he was between no 10 and no 20 for contenders in hardcourt slams (depending on the draw too).

The ao fell apart in 2002 and whoever took avantage, well known or not, deserved it as it is still a pressure knowing that sort of chance is rare. I also have spoken fairly recently about an important win over rafter that gave the swede good memories to draw on in australia.

Happy you see gaudio in such glowing terms. He definitely thrashed quality opponents in hewitt and nalbandian, but it looked like he was psyched out by both coria and the occasion for the opening stages. But even watching at the time i had a feeling coria needed to avoid a 5th set, having seen both guys' high quality those 2 weeks.

 

[buscemi]

I really dont know. Johansson was able to get that masters 1000 title and also have the distinction of making the us open quarters. showing that sort of form in these hardcourt majors or masters would suggest he was between no 10 and no 20 for contenders in hardcourt slams (depending on the draw too).

The ao fell apart in 2002 and whoever took avantage, well known or not, deserved it as it is still a pressure knowing that sort of chance is rare. I also have spoken fairly recently about an important win over rafter that gave the swede good memories to draw on in australia.

Happy you see gaudio in such glowing terms. He definitely thrashed quality opponents in hewitt and nalbandian, but it looked like he was psyched out by both coria and the occasion for the opening stages. But even watching at the time i had a feeling coria needed to avoid a 5th set, having seen both guys' high quality those 2 weeks.

I think Thomas Johansson being between #10-#20 in contenders at the 2002 Australian Open makes sense. He was world #18 and had made the fourth round at the 2001 U.S. Open, beating Rios before losing to Safin in a four setter in the fourth round (7-6 in the fourth).

I think Gaudio might have been a top 10 contender at the 2004 French Open despite being ranked world #44. He had made the Barcelona final (losing to Robredo in five sets) after beating Moya and Kuerten, and he came into the French on the heels of World Team Cup, where he beat 2003 French finalist Verkerk and Hewitt (whom he would go on to beat in the French QF). IIRC, Wertheim had him making the SF in his seed report.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I really dont know. Johansson was able to get that masters 1000 title and also have the distinction of making the us open quarters. showing that sort of form in these hardcourt majors or masters would suggest he was between no 10 and no 20 for contenders in hardcourt slams (depending on the draw too).

The ao fell apart in 2002 and whoever took avantage, well known or not, deserved it as it is still a pressure knowing that sort of chance is rare. I also have spoken fairly recently about an important win over rafter that gave the swede good memories to draw on in australia.

Happy you see gaudio in such glowing terms. He definitely thrashed quality opponents in hewitt and nalbandian, but it looked like he was psyched out by both coria and the occasion for the opening stages. But even watching at the time i had a feeling coria needed to avoid a 5th set, having seen both guys' high quality those 2 weeks.

Yeah, Johansson was good on HC but 10-20 is not something you'd usually expect winning a slam.

Gaudio played brilliantly vs Hewitt and Nalbandian and the whole run was really good except for the first two sets in the final (as you mentioned, he was overwhelmed by the occasion and he was very weak mentally). He also showed a very high level in Barcelona/Mallorca 2002 and most of the clay events he played on clay in 2005. I think that ranks higher than what Johansson did on HC and his RG 2004 run was better than ToJo's AO 2002, although both deserved the win. But Johansson was good on grass too, having a nice run in Wimbledon 2005 while Gaudio was average on HC (although he did have a good win vs Agassi in Cinci 2001 and should have beaten Federer in Canada 2003). And even being poor on clay Johansson was better than Gaudio on grass since the latter was simply atrocious on the surface. I think he won 2 matches in his whole career.

 

[Galvermegs]

Yeah, Johansson was good on HC but 10-20 is not something you'd usually expect winning a slam.

Gaudio played brilliantly vs Hewitt and Nalbandian and the whole run was really good except for the first two sets in the final (as you mentioned, he was overwhelmed by the occasion and he was very weak mentally). He also showed a very high level in Barcelona/Mallorca 2002 and most of the clay events he played on clay in 2005. I think that ranks higher than what Johansson did on HC and his RG 2004 run was better than ToJo's AO 2002, although both deserved the win. But Johansson was good on grass too, having a nice run in Wimbledon 2005 while Gaudio was average on HC (although he did have a good win vs Agassi in Cinci 2001 and should have beaten Federer in Canada 2003). And even being poor on clay Johansson was better than Gaudio on grass since the latter was simply atrocious on the surface. I think he won 2 matches in his whole career.the

Johansson had a very close encounter with henman on clay but lost out in 3 sets iirc.

Tim once deflected his failing to.win a slam by mentioning johansson and gaudio as players that won majors which he was better than... well perhaps he was most of the time or he stayed at the top longer. But that surely just gave away how they managed to do what he simply could not.

 

[Vincent-C]

Johansson had a very close encounter with henman on clay but lost out in 3 sets iirc.

Tim once deflected his failing to.win a slam by mentioning johansson and gaudio as players that won majors which he was better than... well perhaps he was most of the time or he stayed at the top longer. But that surely just gave away how they managed to do what he simply could not.

"I'm better than them- but I'm a footnote, and they're not."

Not a good look, Timmy.

 

[Galvermegs]

"I'm better than them- but I'm a footnote, and they're not."

Not a good look, Timmy.

Yep.. but on the other hand tim did beat agassi, ivanisevic, costa (on clay) etc more often than you might think. Then there were the magicians, santoro and this federer guy we kind of still bring up here... tim got a bunch of wins over them too.

I cant remember where you are from vincent but i have to say henman didnt hurt murrays chances of success.. will always be debatable just how inspirational he actually was.

But i definitely prefer the player that was henman to the persona.

 

[Vincent-C]

Yep.. but on the other hand tim did beat agassi, ivanisevic, costa (on clay) etc more often than you might think. Then there were the magicians, santoro and this federer guy we kind of still bring up here... tim got a bunch of wins over them too.

I cant remember where you are from vincent but i have to say henman didnt hurt murrays chances of success.. will always be debatable just how inspirational he actually was.

But i definitely prefer the player that was henman to the persona.

I'm in California, US- and agree with your final sentence. I liked Henman's precise game quite a bit.

 

[jrepac]

But safin was rarely better. Even his ao win over roger was partly down to a choke and the lack of good line tech.

Best I ever saw Safin play was in this USO final. Made me think "Sampras looks very OLD". Pete was totally outclassed.

 

[Galvermegs]

Best I ever saw Safin play was in this USO final. Made me think "Sampras looks very OLD". Pete was totally outclassed.

Of.course sampras came back with great runs in the ensuing us opens
He ended up with a remarkable gap between his first major as a teen and his final one as a 31 yo (who looked maybe 5 years older..)

 

[Vincent-C]

Of.course sampras came back with great runs in the ensuing us opens
He ended up with a remarkable gap between his first major as a teen and his final one as a 31 yo (who looked maybe 5 years older..)

Agreed. Pete straight-setted Marat in the '01 semis, but that was overshadowed, I think, by losing to Hewitt in the final. The QF with Agassi was a very good match as well: 6-7 7-6 7-6 7-6 for Sampras. Solid.

 

[Galvermegs]

Agreed. Pete straight-setted Marat in the '01 semis, but that was overshadowed, I think, by losing to Hewitt in the final. The QF with Agassi was a very good match as well: 6-7 7-6 7-6 7-6 for Sampras. Solid.

Many still think that as a match for the ages. I dont like the absence of breaks but otherwise it was amazing. Definitely was helping me solidify my love for watching the pros. Maybe the us open in 2001 wasnt quite as good as wimbledon that year but it still was a strong edition.

 

[NatF]

Many still think that as a match for the ages. I dont like the absence of breaks but otherwise it was amazing. Definitely was helping me solidify my love for watching the pros. Maybe the us open in 2001 wasnt quite as good as wimbledon that year but it still was a strong edition.

Up to the QF the 2001 USO was magnificent. Unfortunately the SF's and F were one sided partly due to the brilliance of Hewitt.

 

[Mustard]

Yep.. but on the other hand tim did beat agassi, ivanisevic, costa (on clay) etc more often than you might think. Then there were the magicians, santoro and this federer guy we kind of still bring up here... tim got a bunch of wins over them too.

I cant remember where you are from vincent but i have to say henman didnt hurt murrays chances of success.. will always be debatable just how inspirational he actually was.

But i definitely prefer the player that was henman to the persona.

Henman beat Federer in 6 of their first 7 matches, the last of those in February 2004 in Rotterdam. Federer won all 6 of their matches after that.

Federer had a similar pattern in his rivalry with Hewitt, although Hewitt got some later career wins over Federer.

 

[Galvermegs]

Henman beat Federer in 6 of their first 7 matches, the last of those in February 2004 in Rotterdam. Federer won all 6 of their matches after that.

Federer had a similar pattern in his rivalry with Hewitt, although Hewitt got some later career wins over Federer.

Well henman became a virtual non factor really during 2005 and wisely retired quite soon after. The 2006 wimbledon rematch really showed how both had gone in opposite directions.
I enjoyed seeing him complete a win over moya in person at wimby... but in his prime he wouldnt have struggled against a player who had a polar opposite reaction to that surface.

Regardless it is pointless to mock henman.. but i just dont like him bringing down certain players like i mentioned above when he really made a career out of being consistent, but simply wasnt the ultimate lock for big matches
(Cf berdych, ferrer, etc).

Hewitt obviously struggled more and more with federer.. and then even the likes of roddick and any half decent shotmaker in form would make his life hard. (It wasnt easy seeing him even not coping with a 2nd tier player like gonzalez). But hewitt always kept going and would have moments to be proud of like his wimbledon 2009 or ambushing delpo in one Us Open

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

Well henman became a virtual non factor really during 2005 and wisely retired quite soon after. The 2006 wimbledon rematch really showed how both had gone in opposite directions.
I enjoyed seeing him complete a win over moya in person at wimby... but in his prime he wouldnt have struggled against a player who had a polar opposite reaction to that surface.

Regardless it is pointless to mock henman.. but i just dont like him bringing down certain players like i mentioned above when he really made a career out of being consistent, but simply wasnt the ultimate lock for big matches
(Cf berdych, ferrer, etc).

Hewitt obviously struggled more and more with federer.. and then even the likes of roddick and any half decent shotmaker in form would make his life hard. (It wasnt easy seeing him even not coping with a 2nd tier player like gonzalez). But hewitt always kept going and would have moments to be proud of like his wimbledon 2009 or ambushing delpo in one Us Open

I think Hewitt did all that he could, I used to rag/hate on the guy, but then I started martials arts and against taller/bigger guys you don't have much hope. Hewitt was not tall, props to him, 5"11 a google search shows me.
But his 2nd serve was so bad lmao. It's really only until I started competing I was like 'yea...height matters lol'


I don't think anyone at Hewitt's height will ever have a career like Hewitt. Agassi is like an inch taller than him I think.

 

[Galvermegs]

I think Hewitt did all that he could, I used to rag/hate on the guy, but then I started martials arts and against taller/bigger guys you don't have much hope. Hewitt was not tall, props to him, 5"11 a google search shows me.
But his 2nd serve was so bad lmao. It's really only until I started competing I was like 'yea...height matters lol'


I don't think anyone at Hewitt's height will ever have a career like Hewitt. Agassi is like an inch taller than him I think.

Yes im not denying any of that.. apart from maybe alcaraz being suitably close in height right now. But if we are comparing shorter players ill happily put some others into the mix

1) connors -no taller than hewitt but possibly bigger and stronger. He didnt have as many giants to handle but seemed to do well against those who were bigger, including lendl

2) wilander - same ball park as hewitt and agassi. Did very well but then lost his drive. But still an atg

3) chang - just the one slam as someone more suited to junior leagues it would seem. He was still a factor for another 8 years and one match away from no1 in 1996

4) agassi - definitely no taller than mcenroe, but maybe an inch over hewitt.. its hard to be sure. He had great longevity like connors

**

5,) an honorable mention

Rosewall.. of course pre open era for much of his career but he sets the standards for longevity to this day and clearly could handle bigger and stronger guys


I appreciate your real life example but tennis is not a direct contact sport, so it gives some hope for smaller players but definitely the women have less of a discrepancy on serve, hence we have plenty of mid 5 footers do ok, with cibulkova and sakkari notsble recent examples of smaller players. And anyone over 6'7 tends to struggle to win tournaments frequently. Even today alcaraz is a top dog despite being shorter than some of the female pros out there.

Hewitt relied on counterpunching too much so my point is that he burnt out even quicker than chang did and was then just an occasional threat. Maybe his scheduling was an issue too. But sampras made a valid point about fed deflating the aussie.. if roddick was somewhat demoralised, then hewitt had his heart torn up.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

I really dont know. Johansson was able to get that masters 1000 title and also have the distinction of making the us open quarters. showing that sort of form in these hardcourt majors or masters would suggest he was between no 10 and no 20 for contenders in hardcourt slams (depending on the draw too).

The ao fell apart in 2002 and whoever took avantage, well known or not, deserved it as it is still a pressure knowing that sort of chance is rare. I also have spoken fairly recently about an important win over rafter that gave the swede good memories to draw on in australia.

Happy you see gaudio in such glowing terms. He definitely thrashed quality opponents in hewitt and nalbandian, but it looked like he was psyched out by both coria and the occasion for the opening stages. But even watching at the time i had a feeling coria needed to avoid a 5th set, having seen both guys' high quality those 2 weeks.

Gaudio and Coria both have not liked each other since they played as kids. Knowing that you really don't like the opponent on a personal level, certainly adds to the nerves and mindset of a big match. I remember watching that match and I too thought that Coria needed to avoid a 5th set

 

[Galvermegs]

Gaudio and Coria both have not liked each other since they played as kids. Knowing that you really don't like the opponent on a personal level, certainly adds to the nerves and mindset of a big match. I remember watching that match and I too thought that Coria needed to avoid a 5th set

It was a strangely magnetic match. Other 5 setters in the final have been more well played (1999, 1989 and especially 1984). But this one had so much drama and twists and turns.

I do find it hilarious gaudio wanted advice from mcenroe.. talk about jinxing coria when there was a comprehensive 2 set lead!

 

[jrepac]

Agreed. Pete straight-setted Marat in the '01 semis, but that was overshadowed, I think, by losing to Hewitt in the final. The QF with Agassi was a very good match as well: 6-7 7-6 7-6 7-6 for Sampras. Solid.

Sampras was playing well, so I was surprised to see him get smoked by Hewitt. Maybe he just ran out of steam by the final.

 

[buscemi]

Sampras was playing well, so I was surprised to see him get smoked by Hewitt. Maybe he just ran out of steam by the final.

I think it was similar to the 1996 French Open SF vs. Kafelnikov. In both matches, Sampras's gas tank was far from full, so he put a lot of effort into winning the first set. If he won either, he probably coasts to a loss in the second set before making an early push for a break in set three so he can rely on his serve to finish off that set and be in solid shape. Instead, in both matches, he lost a tight first set and then basically threw in the towel after that.