L
Laurie
Guest
One of my favourite matches, recorded it off the live broadcast on German Eurosport back in 2002.
Few years later, managed to get a Sky Sports copy with Leif Shiras and Peter Flemming doing commentary, but this copy had 8 games missing in the 2nd set. So recently I managed to get the whole match a CBS version with Enberg, McEnroe and Carillo doing commentary.
It was one of my favourite matches because I really enjoyed the baseline rallies throughout the match, Schalken hit some incredible backhand winners and Sampras some fantastic down the line and inside out forehand winners, a real tactical battle.
But now that I have two versions of commentary, the commentators saw it differently. Each version of commentary continually questioned Sampras' tactics. In the 2nd game he rushed Schalken into errors but didn't take one of three break points. The guys in the booth in Sky and CBS thought that he shouldn't get into any rallies and should just rush Schalken over and over and Schalken would eventually crack. Annacone was interviewed very early on in the match and he wanted to see just that.
But I thought Sampras learned his lesson well from 2001 in 2002. Throughout the US Open in 2002 he was much more selective on when to attack the 2nd serve and rush the net against Haas and Schalken and in the final against Agassi.
Had Sampras followed Annacone's commands to the letter, and the likes of Fleming and McEnroe in the booth, the match would not have been as enjoyable because there would have been hardly any rallies.
Just wonder if Fleming and McEnroe were being too idealistic? Sampras liked to rally in a way McEnroe didn't. Would he have not tired himself out if he chipped charged everything?
Match below posted on Youtube below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZntOv0TN20
Few years later, managed to get a Sky Sports copy with Leif Shiras and Peter Flemming doing commentary, but this copy had 8 games missing in the 2nd set. So recently I managed to get the whole match a CBS version with Enberg, McEnroe and Carillo doing commentary.
It was one of my favourite matches because I really enjoyed the baseline rallies throughout the match, Schalken hit some incredible backhand winners and Sampras some fantastic down the line and inside out forehand winners, a real tactical battle.
But now that I have two versions of commentary, the commentators saw it differently. Each version of commentary continually questioned Sampras' tactics. In the 2nd game he rushed Schalken into errors but didn't take one of three break points. The guys in the booth in Sky and CBS thought that he shouldn't get into any rallies and should just rush Schalken over and over and Schalken would eventually crack. Annacone was interviewed very early on in the match and he wanted to see just that.
But I thought Sampras learned his lesson well from 2001 in 2002. Throughout the US Open in 2002 he was much more selective on when to attack the 2nd serve and rush the net against Haas and Schalken and in the final against Agassi.
Had Sampras followed Annacone's commands to the letter, and the likes of Fleming and McEnroe in the booth, the match would not have been as enjoyable because there would have been hardly any rallies.
Just wonder if Fleming and McEnroe were being too idealistic? Sampras liked to rally in a way McEnroe didn't. Would he have not tired himself out if he chipped charged everything?
Match below posted on Youtube below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZntOv0TN20
