Stats for 1990 USO final (Sampras-Agassi)

[krosero]

Sampras d. Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 6-2

Sampras was unbroken. Agassi was broken 5 times.

My count:

Sampras had 13 aces and 1 double.
Agassi had 0 aces and 1 double.

Sampras gave up 17 points on serve. He won 99 points overall, Agassi 73.

Sampras had 22 winners apart from service: 5 FH, 5 BH, 5 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 overhead.

Agassi had 9 winners apart from service: 3 FH, 6 BH.

Sampras had 1 service return winner (a BH off a second serve), not a pass. He had no lobs or passes of any kind in the match.

Agassi had 1 winning BH return of a second serve, which was also a passing shot. In addition he had 2 FH and 2 BH passes.


Some stats from the print media.

Sampras finished the tournament at 100 aces, and 111 service winners (LA Times).

Sampras had 13 aces and 12 service winners in the final, per several sources.

In 13 service games, Sampras lost 17 points (NY Times, etc.) That conforms with my own count, but another source says that Sampras gave up 14 points (LA Times).

The LA Times reported Sampras winning 35 of 38 points on first serve. Since I counted 72 points in his service games, his service percentage for the match would be 53%.

The Intelligencer reports Agassi winning 56% of points started on first serve.

In Google News I always find the same numbers for the winners – 27 by Sampras and 10 by Agassi – but several sources seem to restrict these to ground strokes. That’s plausible for Agassi, but impossible for Sampras.

The Charlotte Observer gives Agassi one more winner than I counted:

Agassi, who lives on his groundstroke winners, fired just 10 past Sampras all match.

The Philadelphia Inquirer gives Sampras five more winners than I counted, and the margin is even bigger if they're talking only about his ground strokes:

In fact, it was Agassi who was supposed to be winging ground-stroke winners. But the final statistics showed that Sampras had 27 winners to Agassi's 10.

The Washington Post writes as if all these winners were ground strokes:

For Sampras not only displayed a killing efficiency with his serve and volley, he also showed a withering force on his ground strokes, with 27 winners. Agassi hit just 10, to 28 unforced errors.

The Orange County Register breaks those unforced errors down as 20 on the forehand and 8 on the backhand. And the LA Times also mentions 20 unforced errors on the forehand. So the figure of 28 errors by Agassi looks like it's restricted to groundies -- but the only reason for that may be that Agassi went so rarely to the net (see the CBS stats below).

Whatever the case, the figure of 27 winners by Sampras can't be restricted to ground strokes, even if newspapers described them as such.


Stats by CBS (statistician was Leo Levin):

Carillo said that coming into the match, a quarter of Sampras’ first serves had been aces. He’d served 17 against McEnroe, 24 against Lendl.

In the final Sampras had still not lost a point on first serve as of 4-3, 30-love in the second set, a streak of 23 points. He got his next two first serves in but lost the second point with a volley error.

At exactly 5-3 in the second set, Sampras had made 20 unforced errors (though only 3 during his service games). That’s a pace for 30 by the end of the match.

As of the opening game of the second set, Sampras had won 13 of 22 approaches, Agassi 2 of 3.

A graphic went up for 1990’s fastest serves:
David Pate – 125 mph (Orlando)
Pete Sampras – 124 mph (USO)
Michael Stich – 123 (DC)
Sampras – 122 (USO)
Boris Becker – 122 (Indianapolis)

 

[krosero]

I found this in USA Today:

The box score of No. 12 Pete Sampras' 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 victory against No. 4 Andre Agassi in the men's final:

P.S. A.A.

1st serve percentage 53 77
Aces 13 0
Service winners 12 9
Double faults 1 1
Placement winners 27 10
Unforced errors 34 28
Service games held 13 9
Service games broken 0 5
Total points won 99 73
Advances to net 62 7
Net points won 39 5
Time of match: 1: 42.

This boxscore confirms my count of the total points won by each player, and my estimates of Pete’s unforced errors and service percentage. The one discrepancy with my count is in the placement winners (ie, non-service winners), which are the same here as I described above. This is one of the matches in which I proofed my work so if there are extra winners I think that they are likely judgment calls. That is, the statistician chose to credit a winner rather than a forced error.

 

[laurie]

Interesting stuff K. Couple of observations:

Well first of all there was nothing Agassi could do in that match, Sampras outplayed him in every department.

Sampras hit no passing shots but that's simply because Agassi hardly ever went to net to give Sampras the chance to pass him.

The commentators said before the match that Sampras would come in at every opportunity. What really shocked Agassi as the first set unfolded, was that Sampras was hitting basline winners off both wings, forehand and backhand, taking advantage of short balls Agassi was giving, the commentators made that adjustment of observation as the match was developing.

Agassi had no play whatsoever on the Sampras serve throughout that match. Sampras was staying back a lot on his sceond serves, so Agassi was not getting a consistent target, which is what he would have wanted.

An interesting match to look at would be the semi between Sampras and McEnroe. McEnroe got passed off the return and passing shots in that match as much as any specialist baseliner has done to him in his career. Show's why Sampras such a special player at such an early age.

 

[pmerk34]

Interesting stuff K. Couple of observations:

Well first of all there was nothing Agassi could do in that match, Sampras outplayed him in every department.

Sampras hit no passing shots but that's simply because Agassi hardly ever went to net to give Sampras the chance to pass him.

The commentators said before the match that Sampras would come in at every opportunity. What really shocked Agassi as the first set unfolded, was that Sampras was hitting basline winners off both wings, forehand and backhand, taking advantage of short balls Agassi was giving, the commentators made that adjustment of observation as the match was developing.

Agassi had no play whatsoever on the Sampras serve throughout that match. Sampras was staying back a lot on his sceond serves, so Agassi was not getting a consistent target, which is what he would have wanted.

An interesting match to look at would be the semi between Sampras and McEnroe. McEnroe got passed off the return and passing shots in that match as much as any specialist baseliner has done to him in his career. Show's why Sampras such a special player at such an early age.

Sampras also hit some absurd half-volley winners in that match. No one was beating him that day.

 

[krosero]

ERRORS (forced and unforced)

Watched this match again to count the return errors: 16 by Sampras and 17 by Agassi. They're very close, but that is a little deceptive because Agassi served many more points -- 100 vs. 72.


Subtracting the winners/aces from the total points won to get the total errors (forced and unforced):

Sampras made 64 errors. Of these I counted 16 return errors and 1 double-fault. That leaves 47 errors that he made in exchanges that had at least a successful return of serve.

Agassi made 64 errors. Of these I counted 17 return errors (I gave Pete 4 service winners) and 1 double-fault. That leaves 46 errors that he made in exchanges that had at least a successful return of serve.

Sampras’ 26-point lead in total points is the same as his 26-point lead in aces/winners. It’s split into 13 aces and 13 other winners.

 

[hewittboy]

Sampras played amazing but Agassi really played a horrible match. He was never going to beat Sampras that day, but he could have made it closer by playing better, he was awful, I am sure very dissapointed in himself. It is nothing like the 1999 Wimbledon final where he played masterful tennis and still lost in straight sets to Sampras who was playing even better. This one he put in a stinker.

This is one slam that baffles me as anyone unofficialy giving Agassi had Sampras not been around. There is no way in hell Agassi would have won that final vs the new opponent. Probably Lendl would be the opponent without Sampras there, Lendl owned Agassi at that point anyway and would have easily taken apart Agassi the way he played that final. Even Becker probably would have beaten Agassi playing that same way, despite that Agassi usually would win over Becker as he was a horrible matchup for Becker, and beat him in the semis, but Agassi playing that way would have been Becker's big shot to get a win. Heck old McEnroe would have beaten Agassi with how poorly he played this final and both of his first two slam finals, the way McEnroe was playing this tournament.

 

[bet]

Sampras played amazing but Agassi really played a horrible match. He was never going to beat Sampras that day, but he could have made it closer by playing better, he was awful, I am sure very dissapointed in himself. It is nothing like the 1999 Wimbledon final where he played masterful tennis and still lost in straight sets to Sampras who was playing even better. This one he put in a stinker.

This is one slam that baffles me as anyone unofficialy giving Agassi had Sampras not been around. There is no way in hell Agassi would have won that final vs the new opponent. Probably Lendl would be the opponent without Sampras there, Lendl owned Agassi at that point anyway and would have easily taken apart Agassi the way he played that final. Even Becker probably would have beaten Agassi playing that same way, despite that Agassi usually would win over Becker as he was a horrible matchup for Becker, and beat him in the semis, but Agassi playing that way would have been Becker's big shot to get a win. Heck old McEnroe would have beaten Agassi with how poorly he played this final and both of his first two slam finals, the way McEnroe was playing this tournament.

You are quite right. Agassi was tight from point 1 and never really got over it. I remember I was pulling for him at the time and knew he was in trouble in the first few points.

Yes, all those players would have beaten Agassi in that state, but they may not have done it as quickly and brutally as Sampras did. Agassi may have calmed down given the chance to work himself into the match. He might also have played more freely if the other guy were the favorite. In this case it was even worse as the other guy was the new kid. That is also what made Sampras special, he should have been the tight one in his first slam final, just as we see with so many first time finalists. Instead, he played as well or better than his fine semi and quarter performances.

 

[slice serve ace]

so, to add some stats

1st serve %

sampras 53 ( 57, 57, 46 )
agassi... 77 ( 78, 83, 67 )

agassi's pct is so high because he served just to start the point. his plan was, as he said in his book, just to never miss, to keep the ball in play, because from his past experience, sampras misses every other ball ; he miscalculated badly here - sampras was both steady and dangerous from the baseline

1st serve pts won %

sampras 92 (100, 92, 85 )
agassi... 56 ( 61, 57, 44 )

sampras won his first 23 points on 1st serve; first point against his 1st serve agassi won in sampras' last service game of the 2nd set

2nd serve pts won %

sampras 59 ( 70, 56, 53 )
agassi... 57 ( 56, 50, 53 )

total service points won

sampras 76 ( 87, 76, 68 )
agassi... 56 ( 60, 56, 50 )

aces

sampras 13 ( 6, 4, 3 ) , 1 second serve ace
agassi zero aces

both had 1 double fault

on winners i have sampras at 37, but few points are missing from my dvd
so 39 as krosero counted is the right number
agassi 9 winners

unreturned serves

sampras 30 ( 13, 9, 8 )
agassi... 15 ( 6, 5, 4 )

unreturned serves %

sampras 41.7 ( 56.5, 42.9, 28.6 )
agassi... 15.0 ( 15.0, 13.9, 16.7 )

break points

sampras 5/11 ( 1/3, 2/6, 2/2 )
agassi... 0/3 ( 0/0, 0/0, 0/3 )

total points won

sampras 99 ( 36, 32, 31 )
agassi... 73 ( 27, 25, 21 )

sampras serve and volley

on every 1st serve
on 12 second serves of 33 (i don't count 1 df) = 36.4 %

he came in directly after 11 agassi serves, mostly with drive returns, not many classic chip&charge slices

 

[Laurie]

so, to add some stats

1st serve %

sampras 53 ( 57, 57, 46 )
agassi... 77 ( 78, 83, 67 )

agassi's pct is so high because he served just to start the point. his plan was, as he said in his book, just to never miss, to keep the ball in play, because from his past experience, sampras misses every other ball ; he miscalculated badly here - sampras was both steady and dangerous from the baseline

1st serve pts won %

sampras 92 (100, 92, 85 )
agassi... 56 ( 61, 57, 44 )

sampras won his first 23 points on 1st serve; first point against his 1st serve agassi won in sampras' last service game of the 2nd set

2nd serve pts won %

sampras 59 ( 70, 56, 53 )
agassi... 57 ( 56, 50, 53 )

total service points won

sampras 76 ( 87, 76, 68 )
agassi... 56 ( 60, 56, 50 )

aces

sampras 13 ( 6, 4, 3 ) , 1 second serve ace
agassi zero aces

both had 1 double fault

on winners i have sampras at 37, but few points are missing from my dvd
so 39 as krosero counted is the right number
agassi 9 winners

unreturned serves

sampras 30 ( 13, 9, 8 )
agassi... 15 ( 6, 5, 4 )

unreturned serves %

sampras 41.7 ( 56.5, 42.9, 28.6 )
agassi... 15.0 ( 15.0, 13.9, 16.7 )

break points

sampras 5/11 ( 1/3, 2/6, 2/2 )
agassi... 0/3 ( 0/0, 0/0, 0/3 )

total points won

sampras 99 ( 36, 32, 31 )
agassi... 73 ( 27, 25, 21 )

sampras serve and volley

on every 1st serve
on 12 second serves of 33 (i don't count 1 df) = 36.4 %

he came in directly after 11 agassi serves, mostly with drive returns, not many classic chip&charge slices

Over 20 years ago now but Agassi and Mr Bollieteri clearly did not do their homework before the match. Had they watched the semifinal against McEnroe, they would have seen that Sampras was playing two levels above the matches against Lendl and Muster. Those two wins gave him big confidence because in those two matches he looked like a raw talent, then in the semifinal he looked like a season campaigner hardly making any unforced errors.

As I said back in 2008 in my previous life on TWarehouse, it would be lovely if Mr Rosero or Moose Malloy would consider doing stats for the semifinal against McEnroe.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Those two wins gave him big confidence because in those two matches he looked like a raw talent, then in the semifinal he looked like a season campaigner hardly making any unforced errors.

unforced error counts are generally pretty low when 2 attacking players play each other (missed passing shots are almost never counted as ue's, & if both players are S&Ving all the time, missed returns aren't counted as errors either)

I think using any player's unforced error count vs Mac to draw any conclusions about that player's form(or predicting how they would fare vs a baseliner) would be a bit misguided. Don't think Agassi had any signs before the final that Sampras would be that steady from the baseline.

 

[Laurie]

unforced error counts are generally pretty low when 2 attacking players play each other (missed passing shots are almost never counted as ue's, & if both players are S&Ving all the time, missed returns aren't counted as errors either)

I think using any player's unforced error count vs Mac to draw any conclusions about that player's form(or predicting how they would fare vs a baseliner) would be a bit misguided. Don't think Agassi had any signs before the final that Sampras would be that steady from the baseline.

Not so fussed about unforced error count, but how well Sampras returned and passed McEnroe in the semi, if he missed all the passing shots, that would be classed as errors I assume?

Anyway, over 20 years ago, Agassi wasn't ready for the barrage he clearly received, too bad for him.

 

[krosero]

sampras won his first 23 points on 1st serve; first point against his 1st serve agassi won in sampras' last service game of the 2nd set

CBS flashed 23 straight and then Sampras won the next point on first serve, so per the network, the streak ended at 24.

on winners i have sampras at 37, but few points are missing from my dvd
so 39 as krosero counted is the right number
agassi 9 winners

I did count 39 winners by Pete, if I add up his 22 placement winners, 13 aces and, by my judgment, 4 service winners.

Just keep in mind, that's only one way to add up the winners. If I were to give my own full count for what Pete's total winners were, I would throw in some judgment calls on placements, too, not just on serves. I'd give him 2 placement winners on judgment calls, so my total would actually be 41 winners:

24 placements (including 2 judgment calls)
17 serves (13 aces and 4 judgment calls)

Are points missing from your other stat categories and not just the winners? I ask because you do have the correct figures for total points won (Sampras leading 99-73).

And if so, how many missing points are we talking about?

unreturned serves

sampras 30 ( 13, 9, 8 )
agassi... 15 ( 6, 5, 4 )

I've got Agassi making 16 altogether, including 5 in the third set (3 in second game, 1 in fourth game, 1 in eighth game).

sampras serve and volley

on every 1st serve
on 12 second serves of 33 (i don't count 1 df) = 36.4 %

he came in directly after 11 agassi serves, mostly with drive returns, not many classic chip&charge slices

This is a very interesting statistic. When watching old matches I've tried to observe whether players are coming in behind 1st and 2nd serves but I've rarely taken it down as a stat -- so I look forward to seeing more of these.

Question: I assume your count is restricted to SV directly on a serve, excluding other net approaches that might happen later in a rally. Is that right?

 

[krosero]

An upload of the whole match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mb_IV-Rg44

 

[Laurie]

Krosero

Unfortunately that video is not very good. I wonder if Tennis channel has shown a re-run which someone recorded? I have a very good CBS broadcast of the match but to upload a whole match to youtube is a lot of hassle.

 

[slice serve ace]

Krosero

1) 24 straight points it is, i checked! I didn't write this down, just probably memorised that 23 they showed on the screen

2) I count only clean winners, so no service winners or judgment winners ; however i do count sometimes when oponent barely scratches the ball, and i cannot 100% determine if it's clean or not
About points missing, i was wrong, all points are there. It's just that in some other us open matches that i have, americans have bad habbit of starting games after commercial breaks too late, so 1 or 2 points have been already played. So when i checked your stats, i thought that may be the case here. Anyway, i did stats for this match pretty late at night, i was tired, so human mistake is possible, but it is usually +- 1, like with that unret. serves for Agassi

3) about Sampras serve&volley stats
There are plenty of reasons why i found that interesting. One would be sometimes wrong classification of Sampras as serve&volleyer. To me serve&volleyer would be someone who plays serve&volley on BOTH serves vast majority of times, on anything that is not clay. McEnroe and Edberg first come to mind. To them staying back is an exception, not a rule.
But when somebody like Sampras, who has such good second serve doesn't serve&volley even on very fast indoor carpet, and stays back even on first serves in courts like Miami or Australia, well...
It is actually pretty funny to listen to McEnroe or Fred Stolle commentating, and complaning that Sampras stays back too much, and doesn't chip and charge enough. McEnroe usually says as explanation "Pete likes his groundies" or "likes hitting passing shots". But from todays perspective it sounds weird that someone was complaining about Sampras staying back too much.

Anyway, i will keep track on this. But for now it is too much for me to count how much succes he has when he s&v, and when he stays back.

Regarding this match, Sampras was not wery succesful attacking the net directly after Agassi serve. I think he won only 3 of 11 tries.

 

[slice serve ace]

Over 20 years ago now but Agassi and Mr Bollieteri clearly did not do their homework before the match. Had they watched the semifinal against McEnroe, they would have seen that Sampras was playing two levels above the matches against Lendl and Muster. Those two wins gave him big confidence because in those two matches he looked like a raw talent, then in the semifinal he looked like a season campaigner hardly making any unforced errors.

As I said back in 2008 in my previous life on TWarehouse, it would be lovely if Mr Rosero or Moose Malloy would consider doing stats for the semifinal against McEnroe.

I have that match, i will post the stats these days. I can tell you that Sampras had something like 20 backhand winners, and won 28 first serve points in a row at one point (i'll have to check that one)

Anyway, Agassi was, seemengly, firmly believing that just keeping the ball in play would win him the match. From his past experience, Sampras "can barely put 3 balls in court".

 

[slice serve ace]

Question: I assume your count is restricted to SV directly on a serve, excluding other net approaches that might happen later in a rally. Is that right?

Yes, that is right. However, Sampras will not miss oportunity to come forward if he hits big forehand on the 3rd ball in the rally. So there are some serve/forehand/volley constructed points.

 

[Laurie]

Krosero

1) 24 straight points it is, i checked! I didn't write this down, just probably memorised that 23 they showed on the screen

2) I count only clean winners, so no service winners or judgment winners ; however i do count sometimes when oponent barely scratches the ball, and i cannot 100% determine if it's clean or not
About points missing, i was wrong, all points are there. It's just that in some other us open matches that i have, americans have bad habbit of starting games after commercial breaks too late, so 1 or 2 points have been already played. So when i checked your stats, i thought that may be the case here. Anyway, i did stats for this match pretty late at night, i was tired, so human mistake is possible, but it is usually +- 1, like with that unret. serves for Agassi

3) about Sampras serve&volley stats
There are plenty of reasons why i found that interesting. One would be sometimes wrong classification of Sampras as serve&volleyer. To me serve&volleyer would be someone who plays serve&volley on BOTH serves vast majority of times, on anything that is not clay. McEnroe and Edberg first come to mind. To them staying back is an exception, not a rule.
But when somebody like Sampras, who has such good second serve doesn't serve&volley even on very fast indoor carpet, and stays back even on first serves in courts like Miami or Australia, well...
It is actually pretty funny to listen to McEnroe or Fred Stolle commentating, and complaning that Sampras stays back too much, and doesn't chip and charge enough. McEnroe usually says as explanation "Pete likes his groundies" or "likes hitting passing shots". But from todays perspective it sounds weird that someone was complaining about Sampras staying back too much.

Anyway, i will keep track on this. But for now it is too much for me to count how much succes he has when he s&v, and when he stays back.

Regarding this match, Sampras was not wery succesful attacking the net directly after Agassi serve. I think he won only 3 of 11 tries.

Absolutely, I've often made those observations about Mac's commentating from those days.

 

[Laurie]

I have that match, i will post the stats these days. I can tell you that Sampras had something like 20 backhand winners, and won 28 first serve points in a row at one point (i'll have to check that one)

Anyway, Agassi was, seemengly, firmly believing that just keeping the ball in play would win him the match. From his past experience, Sampras "can barely put 3 balls in court".

Thanks look forward to it.

It's interesting Agassi's perception from past experiences, they were all young of course but the man was still a teenager.

But that's why these guys have coaches? Had Mr Bollietieri or his advisers watched the semifinal, they would have noted Sampras' increased confidence. I have never seen a player who's weak from the baseline able to hit passing shots off the ground like that against one of the better volleyers around - McEnroe was older yes but still very experienced. So Agassi payed for his complacency, or perhaps its an excuse he's still using after all these years - after all, he looked extremely nervous from the start of the match, why be so nervous if he thinks his opponent is going to miss all day?

One could say Agassi was nervous because the pressure was on him to justify the hype. But if he feels his opponent is not up to it, then he should be more confident from the off? Having said that, I don't know why Agassi would think like that, I've never seen an opponent who can't keep three balls in play make grand slam finals since I've been watching Tennis over the last 25 years.

 

[slice serve ace]

Thanks look forward to it.

It's interesting Agassi's perception from past experiences, they were all young of course but the man was still a teenager.

But that's why these guys have coaches? Had Mr Bollietieri or his advisers watched the semifinal, they would have noted Sampras' increased confidence. I have never seen a player who's weak from the baseline able to hit passing shots off the ground like that against one of the better volleyers around - McEnroe was older yes but still very experienced. So Agassi payed for his complacency, or perhaps its an excuse he's still using after all these years - after all, he looked extremely nervous from the start of the match, why be so nervous if he thinks his opponent is going to miss all day?

One could say Agassi was nervous because the pressure was on him to justify the hype. But if he feels his opponent is not up to it, then he should be more confident from the off? Having said that, I don't know why Agassi would think like that, I've never seen an opponent who can't keep three balls in play make grand slam finals since I've been watching Tennis over the last 25 years.

hehe

that "can't keep the ball in 3 times" is from Agassi's book, which is over the top all the way, but i will use quotes sometimes when it's funny. Note, for example, that Agassi, when asked about beginning of their rivalry, about their very first matches, usually giggles and says "to be honest, i didn't thought he was gonna be any good"

Here, the story from Agassi's book goes something like this:

They played first aged about 10. Pete was retriever with double handed backhand . Listen to Andre here , at 6:10 (in fact, the whole documentary is worth watching)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlALn_GzoPk&feature=related


Fast forward to some tournament in 1988, "i honestly can't remember which one" , Andre, his brother Phill and friend Perry are enjoying the sunny day and watching sidecourt. Sampras was playing, and the comments were "what happened to him? / his game is terrible / can't keep 3 balls in court /whoever did this to his game should be fired / will never make it as a pro / will be happy to qualify for tournaments

Now, i suppose, in Agassi's mind, no matter how much better Sampras might have become since then, still there was NO WAY he could last with him in baseline rallys. I think, after a few games, he must have been shell-shocked.

"This isn't happening. THIS ISN'T HAPPENING" another quote from his book

 

[Moose Malloy]

Not so fussed about unforced error count, but how well Sampras returned and passed McEnroe in the semi, if he missed all the passing shots, that would be classed as errors I assume?

No, missed passing shots do not count as unforced errors. So if Sampras missed all passes, his unforced error count would not have gotten higher. But if he missed all those passes his winner count would probably have been very low & he would have lost easily I imagine.

Like I said, winner to unforced error counts in matches with serve & volley players are very misleading(I'm sure you know how low they were when say, sampras played rafter)

When there are virtually no baseline rallies in a match, its easier to not make errors. I don't see anything from the McEnroe match that would have indicated anything about how Agassi should have played Sampras. Agassi is a completely different player than McEnroe.

One would be sometimes wrong classification of Sampras as serve&volleyer. To me serve&volleyer would be someone who plays serve&volley on BOTH serves vast majority of times, on anything that is not clay. McEnroe and Edberg first come to mind. To them staying back is an exception, not a rule.

True, but Sampras did start coming in on both serves on pretty much every surface after '96, right? The Annacone effect.

But it is weird how some people define 'Serve & Volley' player. Saying Fed used to be one is sort of comical, he almost never came in on 2nd serves even back when he used to 'come in a lot' according to so many. and I've heard Fish & Melzer called S&V players....

agassi's pct is so high because he served just to start the point. his plan was, as he said in his book, just to never miss, to keep the ball in play, because from his past experience, sampras misses every other ball ; he miscalculated badly here - sampras was both steady and dangerous from the baseline

Agassi's game was not to miss many 1st serves, esp in 1990. He served that way vs Becker in the semis(70%) & won, you think he was really just capable of hitting big serves at will after not having done it the entire tournament?
There was likely no strategy that would have worked that day for Agassi (except maybe not being so nervous)

agassi... 77

Was at 77% vs Gomez in the FO final as well. Gomez was really teeing off it at times.

I wonder what his % was for the entire 1990 season.

 

[krosero]

About points missing, i was wrong, all points are there. It's just that in some other us open matches that i have, americans have bad habbit of starting games after commercial breaks too late, so 1 or 2 points have been already played. So when i checked your stats, i thought that may be the case here.

The American networks do have that bad habit, and it's been a problem when we've taken stats. However when I'm missing a point or more, I always say so in the thread.

One would be sometimes wrong classification of Sampras as serve&volleyer. To me serve&volleyer would be someone who plays serve&volley on BOTH serves vast majority of times, on anything that is not clay. McEnroe and Edberg first come to mind. To them staying back is an exception, not a rule.

I guess people will have different definitions of what a SV player is. For me he doesn't need to be coming in behind all serves on all surfaces apart from clay, because there are still strong differences among those surfaces. On grass I'd expect SV on both serves, but the same player I will not necessarily expect him to be doing that on a hard court -- particularly not a slow hard court. I do expect to see him coming in behind most first serves, because if he doesn't do that then he's staying back more than coming in and it's questionable whether he can be classified a SV player.

SV on both serves on all non-clay surfaces, is what I would term a practitioner of what used to be called the Big Game. Someone who does less than that is, for me, not a Big Game practitioner but can still be accurately classified as a SV player.

But I agree there have been a lot of misconceptions about Sampras and how much he came in.

I have that match, i will post the stats these days. I can tell you that Sampras had something like 20 backhand winners, and won 28 first serve points in a row at one point (i'll have to check that one)

I wonder if those might be personal records for Pete. I doubt anyone has certified it officially but it would be interesting to compare against other matches of his and see if we have anything higher. I'm not sure I can remember, offhand, any match where Pete had 20 BH winners or a streak of 28 on first serve.

 

[slice serve ace]

True, but Sampras did start coming in on both serves on pretty much every surface after '96, right? The Annacone effect.

Actually, no. In most matches from 1997 that i have( AO, USO, Hannover) he plays more of the same, SV on first, stay back on second. But in 1998 he plays SV on both serves throught his USO semifinal vs Rafter, and probably deffinetelly switches to that style during the indoor season, when he played all those turnaments to end year as no.1. In Wienna still stays back some on 2nd serve, but from then on, SV like an automaton. Sampras was not in a happy place during that time. He was like a zombie, even more than usuall, and had "i'm sick of this" look on his face. So i would say from 1998 he is serve&volley specialist, but still played well from the baseline in 1999.

But it is weird how some people define 'Serve & Volley' player. Saying Fed used to be one is sort of comical, he almost never came in on 2nd serves even back when he used to 'come in a lot' according to so many. and I've heard Fish & Melzer called S&V players....

Hehe, yes. That sort of substitute for SV which is serve/few big groundstrokes/volley is used by some players bit more, and they are sometimes called serve&volleyers. Definition is pretty loose.

Agassi's game was not to miss many 1st serves, esp in 1990. He served that way vs Becker in the semis(70%) & won, you think he was really just capable of hitting big serves at will after not having done it the entire tournament?
There was likely no strategy that would have worked that day for Agassi (except maybe not being so nervous)

No, no, i was just under impression after i saw their Frankfurt match. I think even Agassi thought to himself "why didn't i serve like that in the USO". But even if he did, he would lose anyway

 

[slice serve ace]

I guess people will have different definitions of what a SV player is. For me he doesn't need to be coming in behind all serves on all surfaces apart from clay, because there are still strong differences among those surfaces. On grass I'd expect SV on both serves, but the same player I will not necessarily expect him to be doing that on a hard court -- particularly not a slow hard court. I do expect to see him coming in behind most first serves, because if he doesn't do that then he's staying back more than coming in and it's questionable whether he can be classified a SV player.

SV on both serves on all non-clay surfaces, is what I would term a practitioner of what used to be called the Big Game. Someone who does less than that is, for me, not a Big Game practitioner but can still be accurately classified as a SV player.

But I agree there have been a lot of misconceptions about Sampras and how much he came in.

Big Game practitioner...SV player...that's not bad Anyway, after i saw 1984 USO McEnroe-Lendl match, where McEnroe attacked like a madman, charging after Lendl's first serves, i mean...Sampras, for the most part of his career, looks like conservative baseliner compared to that Joking, off course, but the point is, those two are not the same tipe of player.

I wonder if those might be personal records for Pete. I doubt anyone has certified it officially but it would be interesting to compare against other matches of his and see if we have anything higher. I'm not sure I can remember, offhand, any match where Pete had 20 BH winners or a streak of 28 on first serve.

In terms of total number of backhand winners, it could be. There are some candidates in matches against, for example, Becker or Rafter, in which he might have better backhand winners per games played ratio.

As for the streak on first serve, he had longer. 38 against Becker in Wimbledon 95, and 32 against Courier in Wimbledon 93.

 

[krosero]

In terms of total number of backhand winners, it could be. There are some candidates in matches against, for example, Becker or Rafter, in which he might have better backhand winners per games played ratio.

He did have 16 BH winners in the '95W final, and 15 in the 2000 final.

As for the streak on first serve, he had longer. 38 against Becker in Wimbledon 95, and 32 against Courier in Wimbledon 93.

Against Becker I've got him making 36 straight: the last 9 of the opening set, all 12 in the second set, all 13 in the third, another 2 in the final set.

It's funny, I thought I studied the hell out of that match. I looked at dozens of different stat categories and I never noticed he had that streak on my stat sheet.

I didn't see the streak mentioned in any articles. Was it NBC's number? Or your own count?

Some of the longest I had noted before (and who knows, like I said, on other stat sheets I may have more):

27 at least by Davydenko to open his 2010 Doha win over Federer
27 by Borg to open his 1979 Wimbledon semifinal against Connors
26 by Agassi against Rafter at the 1995 AO
24 by Sampras against Agassi in 1990 USO final

 

[slice serve ace]

He did have 16 BH winners in the '95W final, and 15 in the 2000 final.

Against Becker I've got him making 36 straight: the last 9 of the opening set, all 12 in the second set, all 13 in the third, another 2 in the final set.

It's funny, I thought I studied the hell out of that match. I looked at dozens of different stat categories and I never noticed he had that streak on my stat sheet.

I didn't see the streak mentioned in any articles. Was it NBC's number? Or your own count?

It's my own count, but like many, i've made the stats 2 or 3 years ago and didn't write this down, so...Just checked, and you are exactly right, it is 36. I am pretty sure that against Courier is 32, but i will check that one too. Roddick against J.Johansson at USO might have been 27 or 28.
And Sampras against McEnroe wasn't 28, it was 24 (won 27 of first 28, maybe that's why i remembered 28 ) and 18 BH winners, exactly 0.5 per game.

 

[Datacipher]

Thanks look forward to it.

It's interesting Agassi's perception from past experiences, they were all young of course but the man was still a teenager.

But that's why these guys have coaches? Had Mr Bollietieri or his advisers watched the semifinal, they would have noted Sampras' increased confidence. I have never seen a player who's weak from the baseline able to hit passing shots off the ground like that against one of the better volleyers around - McEnroe was older yes but still very experienced. So Agassi payed for his complacency, or perhaps its an excuse he's still using after all these years - after all, he looked extremely nervous from the start of the match, why be so nervous if he thinks his opponent is going to miss all day?

One could say Agassi was nervous because the pressure was on him to justify the hype. But if he feels his opponent is not up to it, then he should be more confident from the off? Having said that, I don't know why Agassi would think like that, I've never seen an opponent who can't keep three balls in play make grand slam finals since I've been watching Tennis over the last 25 years.

Not only that, but Agassi said in his book that he WATCHED the semifinal with Mac, and noted how much better Sampras was.

 

[oberyn]

Not only that, but Agassi said in his book that he WATCHED the semifinal with Mac, and noted how much better Sampras was.

I was very surprised when I read that in Agassi's autobiography.

I'd re-read John Feinstein's "Hard Courts" shortly before reading "Open" and Feinstein specifically mentioned a match that Sampras and Agassi had played in Philadelphia earlier in 1990. Sampras won 5-7, 7-5 with Agassi retiring in the third set. Feinstein wrote that Sampras was disappointed that Agassi retired because he (Sampras) really felt like he'd at least played Agassi even up in the first two sets and had a real chance to beat him in the 3rd.

It's often reported that Agassi has an incredible memory when it comes to details of the matches he'd played. I got the sense that the idea that he had no idea how much Sampras had improved heading into the U.S. Open Final was over-exaggerated to make for a better read. Even if Agassi didn't remember the match in Philadelphia, he must have noted that Sampras had just taken out Lendl and McEnroe.

 

[HBK4life]

I was very surprised when I read that in Agassi's autobiography.

I'd re-read John Feinstein's "Hard Courts" shortly before reading "Open" and Feinstein specifically mentioned a match that Sampras and Agassi had played in Philadelphia earlier in 1990. Sampras won 5-7, 7-5 with Agassi retiring in the third set. Feinstein wrote that Sampras was disappointed that Agassi retired because he (Sampras) really felt like he'd at least played Agassi even up in the first two sets and had a real chance to beat him in the 3rd.

It's often reported that Agassi has an incredible memory when it comes to details of the matches he'd played. I got the sense that the idea that he had no idea how much Sampras had improved heading into the U.S. Open Final was over-exaggerated to make for a better read. Even if Agassi didn't remember the match in Philadelphia, he must have noted that Sampras had just taken out Lendl and McEnroe.

I'm willing to bet Andre got zero to little coaching before the match other than "hit the ball hard kid".

 

[pmerk34]

I'm willing to bet Andre got zero to little coaching before the match other than "hit the ball hard kid".

Doubtful. Sampras was just awesome

 

[krosero]

Regarding this match, Sampras was not wery succesful attacking the net directly after Agassi serve. I think he won only 3 of 11 tries.

In their '95 USO final, I think Sampras won only 1 of 5 attempts with this strategy. McEnroe was skeptical that Pete could pull it off because he thought that he didn't practice it very much.

By my rough count, Sampras won 4 of 8 in the '01 USO QF, and 4 of 6 in the '02 final.

By that time McEnroe was saying Pete should do more of it.

 

[krosero]

Actually, no. In most matches from 1997 that i have( AO, USO, Hannover) he plays more of the same, SV on first, stay back on second. But in 1998 he plays SV on both serves throught his USO semifinal vs Rafter, and probably deffinetelly switches to that style during the indoor season, when he played all those turnaments to end year as no.1. In Wienna still stays back some on 2nd serve, but from then on, SV like an automaton. Sampras was not in a happy place during that time. He was like a zombie, even more than usuall, and had "i'm sick of this" look on his face. So i would say from 1998 he is serve&volley specialist, but still played well from the baseline in 1999.

Usually we say that Pete didn't start SVing on first and second serves on most fast surfaces until the late 90s, but what about the late 80s? I'd forgotten about the '89 win over Wilander, he got credited with 175 net approaches (UPI).

That's the sort of number he got when he was coming in behind both serves many years later.

USO matches against Agassi:
1990 - 62 approaches
1995 - 59 approaches
2001 - 137 approaches (SV behind both serves)
2002 - 105 approaches (SV behind both serves)

2000 AO vs. Agassi - 122 approaches (SV behind both serves)

So 175 approaches against Wilander, in only 45 games, he must have been coming in behind virtually all of his serves (and making many approaches in Wilander's service games too).

There are very few highlights on YT, but it seems he's following his second serve to net: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-amqDjoO2eA

So I know in the first half of the 90s he was often staying back on second serves at the USO, but what about before '90?

 

[Datacipher]

Usually we say that Pete didn't start SVing on first and second serves on most fast surfaces until the late 90s, but what about the late 80s? I'd forgotten about the '89 win over Wilander, he got credited with 175 net approaches (UPI).

That's the sort of number he got when he was coming in behind both serves many years later.

USO matches against Agassi:
1990 - 62 approaches
1995 - 59 approaches
2001 - 137 approaches (SV behind both serves)
2002 - 105 approaches (SV behind both serves)

2000 AO vs. Agassi - 122 approaches (SV behind both serves)

So 175 approaches against Wilander, in only 45 games, he must have been coming in behind virtually all of his serves (and making many approaches in Wilander's service games too).

There are very few highlights on YT, but it seems he's following his second serve to net: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-amqDjoO2eA

So I know in the first half of the 90s he was often staying back on second serves at the USO, but what about before '90?

Definitely felt like Pete was doing more SV early in his career, than he was doing in the early 90's. That was the take on him, an up and coming SV pro! Once he was getting up there in the early 90's, it seemed to me, he too got caught up in the power baseline craze, and also realized, hey, I can beat them at their own game!

It wasn't till age, stamina, and Annacone caught up with him, that he started transitioning back...

 

[Moose Malloy]

So 175 approaches against Wilander, in only 45 games, he must have been coming in behind virtually all of his serves (and making many approaches in Wilander's service games too).

I wonder if this stat is more about how 'attackable' Wilander's game was than about how Sampras played circa 1989. Even Agassi came in 90+ times vs Mats at the '88 French.

 

[HBK4life]

Doubtful. Sampras was just awesome

That too but Dre could have made it more of a match.

 

[pmerk34]

That too but Dre could have made it more of a match.

Possibly, but much like Lendl in the quarter and then an on fire Mac in SF no one could really prepare for the serve and level of power and athleticism Pete brought to that US Open. Even though they had played as pros twice before this was clearly a different Sampras. Andre may have started off a bit nervous as I recall, but then he was overwhelmed.

It's kind of a trend around here to lump Andre's first threee slam finals into the same catergory: he was favored in all three and he choked. I don't see it that way. In the 1990 French Andres Gomez fired 17 aces (the clay and the balls were faster then in my opinion), hit the lines all match and simply played tremendously. In the 1991 French Andre had Courier on the ropes until a rain delay turned it around. Even Courier who doesn't hand out concessions easily stated that he's not sure he could have taken Andre out if there was no delay that day. In the 1990 US Open final the seeds didn't mean anything. Pete was the best player in the tournament that year.

 

[krosero]

I wonder if this stat is more about how 'attackable' Wilander's game was than about how Sampras played circa 1989.

In '89 he was definitely attackable, considering how poorly he was playing. Somehow if a copy of the Sampras match turns up, that's one of the things I'd look for, the quality of Wilander's returns and particularly the depth on his ground strokes.

Even so, I wonder if that's the reason. Maybe Pete was just attacking the net more in the late 80s than he was later (I can't recall myself; I think the Wilander match was the first time I heard of Sampras).

Or, maybe it shows a respect for Wilander as a baseliner. That's what everybody said about Wilander and Lendl: "Can't beat them from the baseline; your only chance is to get to net."

Somewhere in Pete's book he talks about how Agassi was good enough to push him to come in behind both serves.

Even Agassi came in 90+ times vs Mats at the '88 French.

'88 was Wilander's peak year and I don't see him as particularly attackable in that match. Who knows why Agassi came in so much. Maybe someone whispered in his ear that you can't beat Mats on clay from the baseline. Or maybe he did it to shorten the points; he mentions several times in his book, talking about those years, how fitness was his weakness against the top men. In fact I think that's the only thing Agassi mentions about the loss to Wilander -- that he fizzled out in the fifth. Too bad he said nothing about his tactics.