Stats for Agassi-Sampras (1995 AO final)

[krosero]

Agassi d. Sampras 4-6, 6-1, 7-6 (6), 6-4

This was Agassi’s third Slam title, and his second straight (he'd won the U.S. Open a few months earlier). But it would be his last one for another four years.

Sampras was looking for his 6th, and was the defending champion.

Agassi had never played here before.

Agassi won the third set with a drop volley winner, and the match with an ace. He was down double set point in the tiebreak and saved the first one with a forehand return winner off Pete's first serve.


The following are my own stats.

Agassi won 135 points overall, Sampras 122.


SERVICE

Agassi’s service percentage by set:

15/25 (60%)
13/22 (59%)
33/46 (72%)
21/25 (84%)

82/118 (70% total for the match)


Sampras’ service percentage by set:

20/40 (50%)
6/22 (27%)
24/47 (51%)
21/30 (70%)

71/139 (51% total for the match)


Agassi won 80 of 118 points that he served (or 67.8%).

Sampras won 84 of 139 points that he served (or 60.4%). Since I counted 38 points lost on second serve, I could calculate that he won 54 of 71 points on first serve (or 76.1%), and 30 of 68 on second (or 44.1%).


Agassi got his first serve into play on 3 of 4 break points.

Sampras got his first serve into play on 7 of 21 break points (33%).


Agassi had 10 aces and 4 double-faults. He hit 26 other serves that Sampras did not return; I didn't judge any of them as service winners.

Sampras had 28 aces and 6 double-faults. He hit 29 other serves that Agassi did not return; I judged 5 of them as service winners.

Sampras hit 13 of his aces in the final set.


WINNERS

Agassi had 39 clean winners apart from serves: 24 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV.

Sampras had 25 clean winners apart from serves: 11 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV, and 1 overhead.

Agassi had 7 service return winners (4 BH), all passes. In addition he had 9 FH and 3 BH passes. Altogether he passed Sampras 19 times.

Sampras had 3 service return winners, but no passes, whether on returns or otherwise.


ERRORS

If I subtract the aces and winners from the total points won:

Agassi made 69 total errors (forced and unforced). Of those I counted 29 return errors and 4 double-faults. So in the exchanges consisting of at least a successful return, he made 36 errors.

Sampras made 86 total errors. Of those I counted 26 return errors and 6 double-faults. So in the exchanges consisting of at least a successful return, he made 54 errors.



Stats in the print media:

Per the Washington Post, Sampras won 44% of points on his second serve (the same as my figure). He made 50 unforced errors and 60 winners.

Per the New York Times, Agassi committed half as many mistakes as Sampras.

Per the Sydney Morning Herald, Sampras served at 51%, the same as my figure. (He’d served at 50% against Chang in the semis and converted only 5 of 15 break points).


From the Age (Melbourne), which had picked Agassi in four:

From the first few points it was clear that Sampras, the best serve-volleyer in the business, would only occasionally be attacking at the net. He said later that this was because of the quality of Agassi's returns, "the best in the world by far". But his unwillingess to volley left him trying to out-rally Agassi playing him at his own game.

ESPN’s stats:

At 2-3 in the third, Agassi had won 10 of 12 at net, Sampras 21 of 38.

At 2-3 in the fourth, Agassi had 45 winners and 24 unforced errors. I had him at 45 clean winners/aces.

At 2-3 in the fourth, Sampras had 51 winners and 41 unforced errors. I had him at 44 clean winners/aces, plus 5 service winners.

At exactly 1-all in the third, Drysdale said that Agassi had won 63 points overall, Sampras 56. I had the same figure.

At 1-all in the third set, Agassi was serving at 58%, with 71% won on first serve and 64% on second. In the next game they displayed numbers for Sampras: he was serving at 42%, with 79% won on first serve and 45% on second. Those numbers are all similar to the numbers I have for the entire match.

A few weeks later Carillo said that Sampras had served at 51% in the AO Final (same as my figure).


Finally, the incorrect ATP boxscore:

The aces, doubles, number of service games and break points are all correct. The other figures are not even close to the figures I got through my own count and from ESPN and the print media.

As with the Agassi-Ivanisevic W final of 1992, I'm guessing that perhaps the service and return percentages and the Total Points Won belong to some other match. [Update]

 

[Moose Malloy]

Sampras had 28 aces and 6 double-faults

Before the final, Gilbert said Sampras needed to serve 25 aces to win.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Here are my stats for the '00 AO SF:

Sampras had 38 non service winners: 11 fh, 5 bh, 11 fhv, 7 bhv, 4 ov
Agassi had 34: 19 fh, 12 bh, 3 fhv

Sampras had 37 aces & 5 doubles
Agassi had 13 & 3.

Sampras had 35 unreturned serves, of which I judged 7 to be service winners.
Agassi had 45 unreturned serves, of which I judged 2 to be service winners

 

[krosero]

Thanks Moose, and here is the published boxscore (I'm just moving it here from the original post). CNN.si and The Age (Melbourne) both published it, and it agrees with all the ATP stats:

Following are key statistics from Andre Agassi's 6-4, 3-6, 6-7 (0-7), 7-6 (7-5), 6-1 semifinal win over Pete Sampras (Reuters)

Agassi Sampras
1st serve (percentage) 68 63
Aces 13 37
Double faults 3 5
Winning % 1st serve 74 81
Winning % 2nd serve 68 49
Winners 52 86
Unforced errors 19 56
Break points converted 3 of 13, 1 of 9
Net approaches won 19 of 26, 71 of 122
Total points won 155 149
Source: Reuters

 

[krosero]

Here are my stats for the '00 AO SF:

Sampras had 38 non service winners: 11 fh, 5 bh, 11 fhv, 7 bhv, 4 ov
Agassi had 34: 19 fh, 12 bh, 3 fhv

Sampras had 37 aces & 5 doubles
Agassi had 13 & 3.

Sampras had 35 unreturned serves, of which I judged 7 to be service winners.
Agassi had 45 unreturned serves, of which I judged 2 to be service winners

Subtracting the winners and aces from the total points won leaves Agassi making 74 total errors, Sampras 108.

Agassi’s 3 double-faults and 35 return errors leave him making 36 errors in rallies.

Sampras’ 5 double-faults and 45 return errors leave him making 59 errors in rallies.


In their 9 Slam meetings, the only other time that Agassi drew more return errors than Sampras was the ’99 W final.

 

[krosero]

The New York Times said that in 2000 the Rebound Ace court was playing "quicker than usual." Patrick McEnroe said that the balls were pumped with air in such a way as to make them very fast. He added that conditions were “about as similar to a grass court as you could have.”

That got me curious enough to count the average length of points in the third set, which Sampras won 7-6 (7-0). I did the same for the third set at their '99 W final (which Sampras won 7-5) and the third set of their '01 USO quarterfinal (also won by Sampras, 7-6).

1999 - average point lasted 2.85 hits
2000 - 3.12
2001 - 3.25

I counted everything in a point up through and including any error that may have ended it. Double-faults are counted as 1 hit.

Sampras had 37 aces & 5 doubles
Agassi had 13 & 3.

The Times reported that this was a career-high for Sampras and that 4 of his aces were on second serve.

 

[Moose Malloy]

That got me curious enough to count the average length of points in the third set, which Sampras won 7-6 (7-0). I did the same for the third set at their '99 W final (which Sampras won 7-5) and the third set of their '01 USO quarterfinal (also won by Sampras, 7-6).

1999 - average point lasted 2.85 hits
2000 - 3.12
2001 - 3.25

Impressive work. I know I'll never get around to it, but I'm curious to see this stat on some other big matches over the years(Lendl-Wilander, Nadal-Federer, etc)

 

[krosero]

Impressive work. I know I'll never get around to it, but I'm curious to see this stat on some other big matches over the years(Lendl-Wilander, Nadal-Federer, etc)

One thing I think I did wrong here is counting double-faults, because the ball never goes into play. If I ever do this stat again I won't count the df's. You could have a player make a rash of them and it would make the average rally seem shorter.

Agassi and Sampras were making very few df's in these samples so no problem there.

The figure I got in the AO match might go down even further in the fourth set because Sampras started serving a tidal wave of aces. I didn't count them myself but going by ESPN's running count, it looks like he hit 18 aces in that set -- after serving 17 in the first three sets combined.

 

[martini1]

Who knows where I find a complete Sampras vs Agassi all time records? tks.

 

[lovethetriangle]

Wow I clearly remember watching this match, one of Agassi's first tournaments without the long hair. Plus the Koala bear with the trophy.

 

[abmk]

I rewatched this match just now and did the stats for this :

Agassi won the third set with a drop volley winner, and the match with an ace. He was down double set point in the tiebreak and saved the first one with a forehand return winner off Pete's first serve.

yep, I am not sure how agassi guessed right on that serve, how he pulled it off ! he was up 3-0 in the TB before going down 3-5 though !!

Agassi won 135 points overall, Sampras 122.

I have agassi at 134 and sampras at 123

Agassi got his first serve into play on 3 of 4 break points.

Sampras got his first serve into play on 7 of 21 break points (33%).

yep, the 2nd part is surprising, sampras got in a pretty low % of first serves in BPs. Still saved 16/21 of them though, some of them through his baseline prowess, but agassi committed errors on quite a few of those ...

Agassi had 10 aces and 4 double-faults. He hit 26 other serves that Sampras did not return; I didn't judge any of them as service winners.

Sampras had 28 aces and 6 double-faults. He hit 29 other serves that Agassi did not return; I judged 5 of them as service winners.

Sampras hit 13 of his aces in the final set.

all tally perfectly, except I have sampras at 4 service winners, not 5

WINNERS

Agassi had 40 clean winners apart from service: 24 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, and 1 overhead.

Sampras had 25 clean winners apart from service: 11 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV, and 1 overhead.

I have agassi making 1 FHV, total 39 winners apart from service

I have sampras at 12 FH winners, 5 BH winners and 7 BHV winners ( I think one or 2 were half-volley winners at the net , did you count them as BH winners or as BHV winners ? ) ...... total of 27 winners apart from service

Agassi had 7 service return winners (4 BH), all passes. In addition he had 8 FH and 4 BH passes. Altogether he passed Sampras 19 times.

Sampras had 3 service return winners, but no passes, whether on returns or otherwise.

One of the 8 FH passing shot was a lob .. all of sampras' return winners (3) were off the BH wing

I have agassi at 3 BH passes , not 4 ..other stats tally perfectly

ERRORS (FORCED AND UNFORCED)

If I subtract the aces and winners from the total points won:

Agassi made 69 errors. Of those I counted 29 return errors and 4 double-faults. So in the exchanges consisting of at least a successful return, he made 36 errors.

Sampras made 85 errors. Of those I counted 26 return errors and 6 double-faults. So in the exchanges consisting of at least a successful return, he made 53 errors.

Stats in the print media:

Per the Washington Post, Sampras won 44% of points on his second serve (the same as my figure). He made 50 unforced errors and 60 winners.

I have sampras at 45 UEs ( 24 FH wing,15 BH wing, 6 DFs )
agassi at 28 UEs ( 16 FH wing,8 BH wing,4 DFs)

sampras at 40 forced errors ( 18 FH wing, 22 BH wing )
agassi at 36 forced errors ( 19 FH wing,17 wing )

These do NOT include the service winners

ESPN’s stats:

At 2-3 in the third, Agassi had won 10 of 12 at net, Sampras 21 of 38.

I have sampras at 35/63 at the net and agassi at 9/15

 

[TennisBeginner]

Did you watch that match the other night on TV, I did too.

EDIT: Just realized how old this thread is, but its funny that I just watched this the other night on TV then I come here and see this thread

 

[abmk]

Did you watch that match the other night on the big ten I did too.

I watched it on my comp ..

 

[abmk]

Stats on rallies:

baseline to baseline ( rallies of more than 4 shots ) : agassi won 34 of these, sampras won 21 of these

rallies of more than 4 shots incl net approaches : agassi won 39 of these, sampras won 27 of these.

now this is subjective, includes 3 or 4 shot rallies which I felt showcased baseline prowess :

agassi won 56 of these points, sampras won 34 of these ...

 

[abmk]

Agassi played very well . He returned excellently and played very well from the baseline. If he'd played better on the BP chances, he had, the scoreline would be quite a bit more lopsided !

The 2nd set though was clearly one of the finest he's played . sampras' serve % dipped by a big margin and agassi took advantage of it ruthlessly hitting some spectacular winners and forcing errors from sampras. He broke sampras thrice in that set.

sampras served well in the first set . Serve dipped hugely in the 2nd set. was ok in the 3rd and excellent in the 4th ( agassi had to return great to get the break in that set )

He played fairly decently from the baseline, making some spectacular shots, mostly FH winners. But was clearly outplayed by agassi from there ...Wasn't so sucessful at the net against a rampaging agassi , not surprising !

 

[krosero]

I have agassi making 1 FHV, total 39 winners apart from service

I have sampras at 12 FH winners, 5 BH winners and 7 BHV winners ( I think one or 2 were half-volley winners at the net , did you count them as BH winners or as BHV winners ? ) ...... total of 27 winners apart from service

As long as the ball takes any kind of bounce, I count it as a groundstroke. Do you know how many half-volleys you counted as volleys? I'm not sure we can compare our numbers without that.

That aside, can you take your numbers that are different from mine and break them down by set for me? That way I can save time and find where the discrepancy is.

Also, in this match or going forward, let me know how many of your winners were judgment calls (the opponent slightly tipping the ball), since I only count clean winners.

One of the 8 FH passing shot was a lob .. all of sampras' return winners (3) were off the BH wing

I don't have anything marked down as a lob, but I wonder if judgment calls come into that too. Occasionally I've seen shots where I'm not entirely sure if they're lobs or "regular" passes.

But return winners, at least, are an objective stat: and I've got Sampras at 3 BH's too.

I have agassi at 3 BH passes , not 4 ..other stats tally perfectly

Like we mentioned in the other thread, I've always counted passes even if they're hit from in front of the service line, though I probably will not count that way in the future. Maybe I gave Agassi an extra BH pass that way, though I don't mark down on my sheet that type of distinction.

Edit: Not sure why my post has the sign of an exclamation mark at the top, that's an accident.

 

[abmk]

As long as the ball takes any kind of bounce, I count it as a groundstroke. Do you know how many half-volleys you counted as volleys? I'm not sure we can compare our numbers without that.

not sure, I didn't mark them down, either one or two ...

That aside, can you take your numbers that are different from mine and break them down by set for me? That way I can save time and find where the discrepancy is.

sampras FH winners by set: 3,5,3,1
sampras BH winners by set: 0,2,1,2
sampras BHV winners by set:2,0,4,1

I have agassi making 1 FHV in the 3rd set

Also, in this match or going forward, let me know how many of your winners were judgment calls (the opponent slightly tipping the ball), since I only count clean winners.

I haven't marked those , unfortunately

I don't have anything marked down as a lob, but I wonder if judgment calls come into that too. Occasionally I've seen shots where I'm not entirely sure if they're lobs or "regular" passes.

It was a lob and an excellent one at that. sampras tried his best but couldn't get his racquet on it ..

Like we mentioned in the other thread, I've always counted passes even if they're hit from in front of the service line, though I probably will not count that way in the future. Maybe I gave Agassi an extra BH pass that way, though I don't mark down on my sheet that type of distinction.

probably, I do remember one point where agassi who was at the net passed sampras at the net with a BH down the line

 

[krosero]

I haven't marked those , unfortunately

Some time ago I started marking them down myself, not to put into my counts (those are still clean winners), but just to be aware of what the official statisticians might be counting. It's no different than counting judgment calls on serves, which we call service winners. On groundies and volleys we don't have a name for them, but official stats definitely make judgment calls on them, at least occasionally. So I started keeping track of them, simply by putting parentheses around the winner. For example, a Sampras forehand volley that Agassi clips with the edge of his racquet: (FHV).

Some people have boxes in which they put down check marks, but that's how I count winners. (My service stats are different).

Anyway what set did you have the lob?

(And if you can ever break down your stats by game -- when we have a discrepancy -- that would be even better, though not necessary).

I'll get back to you on the rest.

 

[EKnee08]

On a side note, isn't this the tourney where Pete learned that his coach and good friend, Gully had brain cancer and broke down crying in his match against Courier but came back and beat Courier in 5 sets. He probably didn't have much left in the tank (physically and especially emotionally) when he faced Andre.

 

[krosero]

Actually, ABMK, never mind about the breakdown by game ... that is just unnecessary.

 

[abmk]

Some time ago I started marking them down myself, not to put into my counts (those are still clean winners), but just to be aware of what the official statisticians might be counting. It's no different than counting judgment calls on serves, which we call service winners. On groundies and volleys we don't have a name for them, but official stats definitely make judgment calls on them, at least occasionally. So I started keeping track of them, simply by putting parentheses around the winner. For example, a Sampras forehand volley that Agassi clips with the edge of his racquet: (FHV).

Some people have boxes in which they put down check marks, but that's how I count winners. (My service stats are different).

Just to be clear I counted those too, but didn't mark them specifically as the "not clean" winners

Anyway what set did you have the lob?

set 3 - in the beginning part of the set

 

[abmk]

On a side note, isn't this the tourney where Pete learned that his coach and good friend, Gully had brain cancer and broke down crying in his match against Courier but came back and beat Courier in 5 sets. He probably didn't have much left in the tank (physically and especially emotionally) when he faced Andre.

He looked pretty fine physically. Emotionally, he was affected quite a bit of course

 

[krosero]

sampras FH winners by set: 3,5,3,1
sampras BH winners by set: 0,2,1,2
sampras BHV winners by set:2,0,4,1

All of these discrepancies seem to be due to our different ways of counting. On my sheet I've got two Sampras winners that I didn't include because Agassi got a racquet on them, but you may have included them in the winner totals: a BHV in the first set and a FH in the second. And in the third set I gave Sampras a BH winner but I made a note that it was a half-volley. Presuming you put that down as a BHV, then all these disrepancies are accounted for.

Anyway, I don't usually make note of what shots are half-volleys, and though now I keep track of possible judgment calls on winners, there are many matches for which I didn't do that. So if you can still make note of those two things going forward, that would helpful.

I have agassi making 1 FHV in the 3rd set

I have another one in the second game of the second set, and there I made a mistake. I checked the game, and Agassi is putting away a shot above his head that I marked down as a FHV, then changed to an overhead, without crossing out the original mark. Is this where you have him making an overhead winner?

I'll drop Agassi's total winners from 40 to 39.

Just to be clear I counted those too, but didn't mark them specifically as the "not clean" winners

Understood. Counted, included, made note of, marked off -- so many terms flying around! That's how it always is with stats, though.

set 3 - in the beginning part of the set

I see it now at 2-1. I have it in my original count, among the winners and the "passes" (but you're right, I'd call it a lob).

 

[darthpwner]

Wow, I didn't know Agassi could serve that many aces. Sampras hit a ton of aces but that was predictable.

 

[abmk]

Wow, I didn't know Agassi could serve that many aces. Sampras hit a ton of aces but that was predictable.

10 aces in 4 sets is not high by any standards :-?

 

[darthpwner]

10 aces in 4 sets is not high by any standards :-?

It's not. Agassi's serve is not a strength. It's like a Nadal serve. That's why I'm amazed he hit 10 aces.

 

[abmk]

All of these discrepancies seem to be due to our different ways of counting. On my sheet I've got two Sampras winners that I didn't include because Agassi got a racquet on them, but you may have included them in the winner totals: a BHV in the first set and a FH in the second. And in the third set I gave Sampras a BH winner but I made a note that it was a half-volley. Presuming you put that down as a BHV, then all these disrepancies are accounted for.

I guess all the disrepencies are accounted for this way

Anyway, I don't usually make note of what shots are half-volleys, and though now I keep track of possible judgment calls on winners, there are many matches for which I didn't do that. So if you can still make note of those two things going forward, that would helpful.

I'll try marking them from now on ..

I have another one in the second game of the second set, and there I made a mistake. I checked the game, and Agassi is putting away a shot above his head that I marked down as a FHV, then changed to an overhead, without crossing out the original mark. Is this where you have him making an overhead winner?

I'll drop Agassi's total winners from 40 to 39.

yep, I have him making an OH winner in the 2nd set ( it was his only OH winner ) - I don't keep tab game by game .

That brings the no of points won by even by your count agassi to 134 ...

Understood. Counted, included, made note of, marked off -- so many terms flying around! That's how it always is with stats, though.

I guess so, but it can't be helped

I see it now at 2-1. I have it in my original count, among the winners and the "passes" (but you're right, I'd call it a lob).

yeah ...

 

[abmk]

It's not. Agassi's serve is not a strength. It's like a Nadal serve. That's why I'm amazed he hit 10 aces.

He did serve pretty well by his standards, but it wasn't that amazing IMO ..For example, he served better in their USO match in 2001 and Indian wells in 2001 ..

Going by krosero's stats of no of serves that agassi made , sampras put back 68.4% of them back into play - which seems ok

I don't get the fuss behind just the no of aces ( ideally the scorers should have the total no of unreturned serves as a stat ( aces+service winners+return errors { forced and unforced } ) it gives a MUCH more accurate picture of how well a player served.

Another example illustrating this would be the federer-roddick match at wimbledon 2009, federer had 50 aces and roddick had 27 aces, but I am pretty sure roddick hit more service winners and federer committed more return errors ...

 

[krosero]

Agassi won 135 points overall, Sampras 122.

I have agassi at 134 and sampras at 123

Well this is a minor disrepancy. And my method for counting total points won is not easy to describe like this -- but you may be interested.

In short, I'm confident in the numbers I got because I calculate the total points twice, with two independent methods. First, I use the game scores (for example, a game won at 30 is a 4-2 edge in points for the winner of the game), and then I add up the scores in Excel. Second, I get the points won on first and second serve and add those up.

(I think you use another method, adding up the total winners and errors, right?)

Sometimes those two methods don't give me the same results at first, in which case I know I've made a mistake in either the game scores or the success on 1st and 2nd balls. (So it's useful, I've caught a few mistakes that way.) In this match, they lined up.

I ran the games scores again through Excel and they look good. I can't proof success on first and second serve without rewatching the match, but the figures I got are supported by the ones in the W. Post.

 

[abmk]

Well this is a minor disrepancy. And my method for counting total points won is not easy to describe like this -- but you may be interested.

In short, I'm confident in the numbers I got because I calculate the total points twice, with two independent methods. First, I use the game scores (for example, a game won at 30 is a 4-2 edge in points for the winner of the game), and then I add up the scores in Excel. Second, I get the points won on first and second serve and add those up.

(I think you use another method, adding up the total winners and errors, right?)

Sometimes those two methods don't give me the same results at first, in which case I know I've made a mistake in either the game scores or the success on 1st and 2nd balls. (So it's useful, I've caught a few mistakes that way.) In this match, they lined up.

I ran the games scores again through Excel and they look good. I can't proof success on first and second serve without rewatching the match, but the figures I got are supported by the ones in the W. Post.

yeah, your methods are more fool-proof. I just add up the winners and errors by the opponent .

But since you added an extra FHV winner for agassi, that brings down the no of points to 134, correct ?

 

[krosero]

He did serve pretty well by his standards, but it wasn't that amazing IMO ..For example, he served better in their USO match in 2001 and Indian wells in 2001 ..

Those two matches are great examples, since he was unbroken in both.

Also at 2000 AO, Pete broke him only once. Moose has a count upthread of how many return errors Agassi drew (on top of his 13 aces).

And he drew two critical ones as he was slipping behind in the fourth-set tiebreak. Two huge serves down the middle. I think his serve got better over the years.

 

[krosero]

yeah, your methods are more fool-proof. I just add up the winners and errors by the opponent .

But since you added an extra FHV winner for agassi, that brings down the no of points to 134, correct ?

No, because my total points are not dependent on my winner counts. I track the game scores, and the success on first and second serve, by making marks for the serves. The winners (or errors, if I get them) are a totally separate process on my stat sheets.

 

[abmk]

No, because my total points are not dependent on my winner counts. I track the game scores, and the success on first and second serve, by making marks for the serves. The winners (or errors, if I get them) are a totally separate process on my stat sheets.

hmm, ok ... then maybe I put one of the points which was not of much consequence in the game as one that sampras won when actually agassi won it and because the point didn't matter much, I didn't really notice the mistake that time

 

[abmk]

Those two matches are great examples, since he was unbroken in both.

Also at 2000 AO, Pete broke him only once. Moose has a count upthread of how many return errors Agassi drew (on top of his 13 aces).

yeah, he served pretty well at the 2000 AO too. But sampras was in hold-only mode ( didn't really try that much on agassi's serves ) for quite a bit in that match IIRC ..

And he drew two critical ones as he was slipping behind in the fourth-set tiebreak. Two huge serves down the middle. I think his serve got better over the years.

yep, just saw that TB again, one helluva TB that was !

His serve did get better over the years

 

[krosero]

hmm, ok ... then maybe I put one of the points which was not of much consequence in the game as one that sampras won when actually agassi won it and because the point didn't matter much, I didn't really notice the mistake that time

Your total number of winners looks fine, so maybe it's on the errors ....

So I've edited my original post, Agassi now at 39 winners. Incidentally I counted up Agassi's passes (non-return) again on my sheet: I still have a total of 12, but actually have 9 FH and 3 BH. We must have made different judgment calls somewhere.

Pleasure working with you.

 

[krosero]

yeah, he served pretty well at the 2000 AO too. But sampras was in hold-only mode ( didn't really try that much on agassi's serves ) for quite a bit in that match IIRC ..

To some extent I agree with that, but imo the IW and USO matches certify what he did in AO. In other words I don't think that if Pete had been fully healthy that he would necessarily have gotten any more breaks.

 

[abmk]

Your total number of winners looks fine, so maybe it's on the errors ....

So I've edited my original post, Agassi now at 39 winners. Incidentally I counted up Agassi's passes (non-return) again on my sheet: I still have a total of 12, but actually have 9 FH and 3 BH. We must have made different judgment calls somewhere.

Pleasure working with you.

The pleasure is mine

 

[abmk]

To some extent I agree with that, but imo the IW and USO matches certify what he did in AO. In other words I don't think that if Pete had been fully healthy that he would necessarily have gotten any more breaks.

yeah, I agree with that

 

[krosero]

Wow, I didn't know Agassi could serve that many aces.

He served 18 in that four-tiebreak USO match against Sampras.

I wonder if that's his career high.

 

[krosero]

Half-volleys

Let me ask you, ABMK, what's the logic for marking half-volleys down as volleys? In the other thread people were mentioning Federer, Agassi, Connors etc. taking balls on the rise from the baseline. Yet those would never be considered volleys. The ball might be taken instantly, as soon as it rises an inch off the bounce, but it would still be considered a groundstroke.

So why would other types of half-volleys be considered volleys? Why do you do it that way? Is it because they're in front of the service line?

IMO the location of the shot has nothing to do with it. The location of the player determines whether it's a net point or a baseline point, of course. But a player can hit a volley with his feet firmly planted at the baseline, and can hit an easy groundstroke putaway while standing on top of the net. How would you separate a putaway of that kind from a type of half-volley that should be put down as a volley?

That seems like too much of a judgment call, which is why I just let the bounce, or lack of a bounce, determine it. And I don't know if any statisticians count half-volleys as volleys, but do you know?

 

[abmk]

Let me ask you, ABMK, what's the logic for marking half-volleys down as volleys? In the other thread people were mentioning Federer, Agassi, Connors etc. taking balls on the rise from the baseline. Yet those would never be considered volleys. The ball might be taken instantly, as soon as it rises an inch off the bounce, but it would still be considered a groundstroke.

So why would other types of half-volleys be considered volleys? Why do you do it that way? Is it because they're in front of the service line?

IMO the location of the shot has nothing to do with it. The location of the player determines whether it's a net point or a baseline point, of course. But a player can hit a volley with his feet firmly planted at the baseline, and can hit an easy groundstroke putaway while standing on top of the net. How would you separate a putaway of that kind from a type of half-volley that should be put down as a volley?

That seems like too much of a judgment call, which is why I just let the bounce, or lack of a bounce, determine it. And I don't know if any statisticians count half-volleys as volleys, but do you know?

I hadn't given much thought to this before. I guess it was the location, the net, that influenced me. But you are right, they should be counted as groundstrokes

 

[Nadal_Power]

krosero, Agassi served 21/25 in 4th set of 1995 AO final match, not 22/25

Per games :

2nd 3-1
4th 5-0
6th 5-1
8th 5-0
10th 3-2


And in 3rd set he is on 32/46, not 33/46

 

[Laurie]

Did anyone do any stats for the 1995 US Open final between the two? Would be interesting to know how those stats match up to the Australian Open match. Pity they didn't meet in the 1995 Wimbledon final.

By the way, can't believe Sampras served 28 aces in 4 sets, on a court that was as slow as that one in 1995. The pace of rebound ace in the mid 1990s was more akin to the slow hardcourts we have all over the world today.

 

[Nadal_Power]

Did anyone do any stats for the 1995 US Open final between the two? Would be interesting to know how those stats match up to the Australian Open match. Pity they didn't meet in the 1995 Wimbledon final.

By the way, can't believe Sampras served 28 aces in 4 sets, on a court that was as slow as that one in 1995. The pace of rebound ace in the mid 1990s was more akin to the slow hardcourts we have all over the world today.

Pete hit 12 of that 28 aces in 4th set, 17 of 25 points on serve he won with ace or service winner in that set.. he was very tired

Not sure how slow it was but points were very quick. Average number of shots in points per set in 2nd, 3rd and 4th was 4, 4,5 and 2,9

 

[krosero]

krosero, Agassi served 21/25 in 4th set of 1995 AO final match, not 22/25

Per games :

2nd 3-1
4th 5-0
6th 5-1
8th 5-0
10th 3-2


And in 3rd set he is on 32/46, not 33/46

Thanks for these, did you have the breakdown in the third too?

 

[Nadal_Power]

Thanks for these, did you have the breakdown in the third too?

Sure

1st 3-3
3rd 7-1
5th 6-2
7th 5-1
9th 4-1
11th 3-3
TB 4-3

 

[90's Clay]

Andre was certainly GOAT-like in Australia in 1995.. His level was crazy high that tournament and into the summer

 

[krosero]

Sure

1st 3-3
3rd 7-1
5th 6-2
7th 5-1
9th 4-1
11th 3-3
TB 4-3

In the 9th I still have 5-0 (I re-checked it).

 

[Nadal_Power]

In the 9th I still have 5-0 (I re-checked it).

Just saw it again, you are right

Will put that in my stats of the match, thanks

 

[krosero]

Just saw it again, you are right

Will put that in my stats of the match, thanks

I'll update my posts too for the fourth set change.