mike danny
Bionic Poster
Some people are actually comparing this Sampras to 2017 Djokovic and even 2018 RG Djokovic. I'd say this is also bad.
abmk
Bionic Poster
it was below prime level returning, but hardly garbage from Sampras.
Roddick broke Goran once, Safin broke him once and Henman/Rafter broke him thrice, but sampras woudn't break even once? in which world?
jl809
Legend
agreed
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Wimbledon 2000
sampras would break him at least once, but the 3 breaks from henman dont mean henman was able to return great gorans serve the whole match. all these 3 breaks happened in the 3rd set, where goran collapsed. in the other 4 sets, he didnt lose his serve even once, though henman had his chances.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yep, I know.
robthai
Hall of Fame
why couldn't Djokovic raise his level the very moment he faced a younger all time great? Why couldn't Sampras raise his level against Hewitt and Safin in those us open finals?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yes as I said, a really interesting one and I have to admit I am still unsure as well. In a hypothetical final I could see Pete winning against Goran knowing how clutch he is. Then again as you said, that was not head case Goran but he was on a mission and it seemed that God simply wanted him to win. So yea, it is tough to argue against him. In a semi (which is what would have happened) I favour Goran without doubts.Agreed on Pistol vs. Rafter, but I really don't see Goran losing that one. Of course Goran being Goran his last two rounds were veritable roller coasters, and he probably even didn't serve as well as he did in '92/94/95... but there's that unbeatable motivation of knowing this was his very last chance.
And like I've said before, and only half-jokingly at that, the tennis gods would've sent down another rainstorm or two if necessary.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Also hilarious considering Djokovic was like about even in slam finals till 2014 RG after like how many finals.
and that fed at his prime owned Djokovic in slams (4-1), including raising his level as required.
also beat him in RG 11 and Wim 12 past his prime, especially RG 11.
TheNachoMan
Legend
Beerus casually getting 4 pages for a troll thread. What a lad.
Also important to note that, if Sampras had beaten Federer and Henman, he would have faced Ivanisevic in the SF, not the final.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic-Alcaraz's 16 years age gap is not same as tiny 5-6 years age gap which Federer faced.
10+ is a next generation in Tennis, 5-6 is same gen.
T
TheSlicer
Guest
Alcaraz
robthai
Hall of Fame
Nice excuses. why does age gap matter against Alcaraz but not against Sinner who are the same gen?
robthai
Hall of Fame
Why couldn't Djokovic raise his levels against Wawrinka in those slam finals?
sampras couldnt in those 2 games, his level probably even declined especially in sets 2 and 3 against hewitt.
maybe djokovic actually did raise his game, but it was still not enough to defeat alcaraz. also he is 36, so even at his best day he is clearly much below his best 8 years ago.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yes I know this. In a semi i would favour Goran without thinking twice. In a (hypothetical) final i have more doubts knowing Pete’s clutchness in Wimblie finals. Sorry have pressed the reply button to early and left out that part.
Last edited:
Razer
G.O.A.T.
It matters against everyone. Who said beating Sinner is not a big task for Novak ?
Wawrinka has only 3 slams, who cares about him ?
If he had 22-23 slams then it would have been a problem.
The bottom line is that Federer is a choker and a loser against Novak and Nadal in 10s and 00s respectively, he lost his slams race, no amount of mental gymnastics will sort this.;
NonP
Legend
The numbers are there in that linked post, straight from the official archives. Just saying Pistol averaging 110 mph on 2nds wasn't anywhere near as rare as some Fed boosters make it out to be.
I can go with that, as long as we acknowledge that the rest of his service game wasn't up to par. I mean the guy hadn't won a single title for a year, for gawd's sake.
That ranking wasn't meant to be taken literally, LOL. More to show that simply looking at the #s ain't enough.Couple of other points:
1. I know you said Korda thing was a stretch to prove your point, but it just gets shot down given Korda didn't break Sampras even once. Fed did break Sampras thrice. And Korda had 3 BPs in 1 game in 3rd set that's it. No BP anywhere else. How does that even compare vs Fed generating BPs in 4 of the 5 sets (1,2,3,5) and breaking thrice (twice in 3rd set and once in the 5th set; given the returning, should've really broken in the 2nd set, but Sampras held clutch). Yeah, obviously rest of Sampras' game was better in 97.
And in any case, Sampras' unret was 52% in this match, well above his in the Fed match.
2. The Becker thing? come on. He didn't break Sampras even once in 3 Wim matches including this one.
Btw The ATP stats on this match seem to be horribly off.
Shows as no BPs for Becker, whereas he did have 3 (2 in 1st set and 1 in 4th set)
you can see 0/2 for becker on BPs here in the first minute and half:
Even the double counting thing doesn't add up.
Where did you get the unreturned serves for this match?
But my point re: the '97 and '01 Sampras serves stands. It's a little hard to see the ball in that grainy clip so compare his serves in these '97 matches vs. Korda and Pioline (focus on DTT bombs rather than wide sliders):
With those in his 5-setter vs. Fed:
I still see a little more kick in his '97 matches, hence his high 1st-serve %s if admittedly at the expense of ace counts. So let's take a close look at his '91-02 service stats - 1st-serve %s, SGW%s, aces/match and DFs/match in that order (ignoring the double counting, obviously):
1991 - 59.5%, 87.3%, 7.7, 2.3
1992 - 60.3%, 85.5%, 9.6, 3.0
1993 - 57.7%, 89.6%, 10.5, 3.6
1994 - 59.0%, 88.4%, 10.3, 3.3
1995 - 56.1%, 88.9%, 12.1, 3.8
1996 - 59.8%, 90.8%, 12.0, 3.0
1997 - 63.7%, 90.4%, 10.6, 2.3
1998 - 58.7%, 88.7%, 11.6, 4.2
1999 - 59.9%, 89.9%, 10.0, 4.4
2000 - 62.3%, 91.4%, 12.6, 5.5
2001 - 60.2%, 86.4%, 12.3, 5.4
2002 - 58.9%, 87.2%, 14.5, 5.4
Pay attention to that big boost in 1st-serve % and the drop-off in aces (and DFs)/match in '97. That's something I noticed well before the ATP made its leaderboards available on its site, indeed without the double counting Pete probably averages close to 65% of 1st serves in for the whole year.
And I bet his URS%s if anything went up or at least stayed about the same throughout that summer. Now imagine trying to return THAT Sampras serve with the extra topspin on the old grass with unpredictable bounces. Korda did well to push that Pistol to 5 sets, ditto Becker keeping his nemesis' URS% under 50%.
As to your Q, I actually had the URS%s for that Pete-Boris match and several others from '97 Wimby, so I was able to confirm that the "service winners" on that edition's scoreboards referred to all unreturned serves sans the aces. AFAIK that's the last time Wimbledon made such detailed scoreboards on its site, so '96* and '97 are the only editions with official stats you can pull URS%s from.
*For the '96 scoreboards you need to add up the "Forehand Unreturned" and "Backhand Unreturned" totals under "Service Winners," not the SWs themselves which include aces and whatever additional serves were judged to be winners. SW is probably the trickiest stat in tennis to compare across eras due to its diverging criteria.
Mac vs. Connors in the 1984 final was insane. I felt like I was watching someone from another planet.
He tore Connors’ 1st serves apart, and his ability both in that match and in general throughout the year, to venomously return those 1st serves, and effectively come to the net while hitting them, really stood out and required an extraordinary amount of talent and hand-eye coordination. John Newcombe who dubbed it ‘rip and charge’, was in absolute awe.
He tore Connors’ 1st serves apart, and his ability both in that match and in general throughout the year, to venomously return those 1st serves, and effectively come to the net while hitting them, really stood out and required an extraordinary amount of talent and hand-eye coordination. John Newcombe who dubbed it ‘rip and charge’, was in absolute awe.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
It's interesting you said one match and chose Sampras 94. I think that for the tournament as a whole, 94 was indeed Sampras's best effort - he lost just one set and that was after getting to 6-4 6-4 3-3 in the semis against Todd Martin. But if we are picking just one match, then as others have said, the 99 final was probably the one and the 95 final might also have been better than anything in 94. 93 semi and 97 quarter-final also pretty high up there - I guess that as three of the four matches I listed were against Becker, we should conclude that there's a matchup issue there, too. (As there was. Becker's go-for-broke style on return, which had been so effective against Edberg and Lendl was just the wrong strategy against someone with so dominant a service game as Sampras on grass. A more percentage approach was needed).
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
When I saw that a thread had been started that offered posters the chance to write a ranked list of something, I knew that Vous (*) would be here with an essay that explains to us Jokers what the right list is!
* Not sure whether you want informality or formality, but happy to go with Tu, if you prefer!
sampras 1999 final performance is overrated. at least we cant say how good it really was because he faced a much inferior grass player. we dont know how sampras would have performed if his opponent would be krajicek of 1996.
and just a few days before he was a set behind philippoussis who then retired. so he was not that super great at wimby 1999, and who says he played not as good against philippoussis as against agassi, just that philippoussis had the weapons that could hurt sampras, agassi didnt.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Philippoussis had weapons to hurt Sampras that none of Sampras's contemporaries had, even Krajicek. He had the potential to be the dominant number 1 of his generation; if he hadn't sustained that injury at Wimbledon 99, it's possible he'd have gone on to win the title and taken the first step. (Then again, Agassi was actually a difficult matchup for Philippoussis, so even if he pulled off the win over Sampras and then beat Henman - he'd have beaten Herman - he might have lost in the final).
But I also don't think that in a one-match scenario, Sampras not playing well in the QF (or the SF against Henman for that matter) proves that he didn't play well against Agassi. He could raise his game quickly at times.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I doubt that. He was already 23 years old back then and this was a time where players made a mark at the slams very young. He was talented and didn’t live up to his potential also due to injuries, but I cannot see him becoming No.1 of his generation under any circumstances.
The match against Pete was discussed ad nauseam here. Sure, Scud was up a set but this was nothing so unusual for Pete, the very next match against Henman he was down a set and won. From 1993 until the Philippoussies match he was down a set 8 times and won the match 7 times, so whether he would have lost this match is pure speculation.
Pete’s overall record against Philippoussies is 7-3 (3-0 at Wimbledon) with two of Scud’s wins coming on clay and after 1996 (one by retirement at the WTC which wasn’t really serious to begin with), so I can’t see how he would be a bigger threat than Krajicek, who was 6-4 against Pete, at one point 6-2, beat him at his best slam and even in their second slam encounter was up a set and 6-2 in the second set breaker. So whatever weapons Scud supposedly had which Krajicek hadn’t, it didn’t show in their respective matches with Pete.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
He was 22 at the time. I agree with much of your post, but I was talking about potential, not achievements. No doubt Krajicek did more, but I think Philippoussis had the potential for more. I can't prove it, of course. And I agree that Philippoussis might well not have won the match against Sampras. The one thing I'd say is that the injury occurred when Philippoussis was close to getting a break in the second set. He had a break point. I forget whether the break point was the point in which he injured his knee or the previous point. Had he led 6-4 2-1 with a break, I think his chances would be decent. I think that first set might have been the usual Sampras slow start/not playing his best until under threat, but it might have been Philippoussis finally realizing his potential. We'll never know now.
Philippoussis's two previous losses against Sampras at Wimbledon were in 96 and 98, when Philippoussis was 19 and 21. 19 v 24 was definitely an age disadvantage, even then, and Sampras was determined to make up for his AO defeat and close call at the 95 US Open, so he played much better than he usually would do in a 2nd round match.
Would be interesting to know how Sampras v Krajicek would have gone in a 98 Wimbledon final. I tend to think that Sampras would have won a bit more easily than he did in fact win against Ivanisevic, and that the H2H with Krajicek is a bit misleading here. But we will also never know that.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Fair point, he was 22 and 8 months so yes still 22, but nevertheless a little old for a potential dominator to win his first slam (even Fed who was one year younger is often labelled a late bloomer). Just a small correction on the Sampras match: Pete was up 2-1 in the second so even if Mark had broken him in the game before injury he wouldn’t have been a break up. Sure he could have won, but it is far too speculative knowing their history and knowing Pete at Wimbledon. Even if Mark wins that years Wimbledon it remains doubtful for me whether he could have dominated the next years.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
No, that's not right. It was 4-6 1-1 on Sampras's serve, and Philippoussis had break point. Then Sampras went on to hold serve, because Philippoussis played a point or two after the injury. But if Philippoussis had broken serve, he'd have been up 6-4 2-1.
Agreed on the third sentence.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Ok thanks. Never watched the match and somehow thought Pete was up a break.
Holmes
Legend
But Sampras's diminished speed to close the net is a huge part of why the return was so effective. Not to take anything away from Roger, whose returning of Pete's serve I agree, was some of the best ever at the tournament, but extrapolating that performance and its results to a prime match-up is where I have a bone to pick. A PETE closing the net like his mid 20s self is going to pick up far more of those serves, and also bomb far fewer of his first serves because he won't need to which will then give Roger less pace to punish him with. He'll also return better too - I notice no one is pointing out how poorly PETE returned Roger's serve in this match.
jl809
Legend
Spot on
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Was Scud really that talented that you attribute such outstanding status to him?
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I mean, I was very impressed with him in his two early matches against Sampras (US Open 95 and Australian Open 96). But I suppose I am probably overrating him.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
AO 1996 was legitimately great. Something I don't see guys like Ruud ever capable of doing.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Then again, RUDD is also not capable of the following match, in which Philippoussis lost 2-6 2-6 2-6 to Mark Woodforde of all people. Now, admittedly, Woodforde had been a talented player in his youth before he chose to focus on doubles (he nearly beat Lendl at Wimbledon 1988 in a very long match in which, IIRC, he never actually broke serve or only broke serve once or something like that - I watched much of the match, but I'd just turned 10 so I'm not sure I was following it that accurately!) AND he was on form at that 1996 Australian Open (he beat Enqvist 6-4 6-4 6-4 in the next match), but even so, it was a big letdown from Philippoussis and the first sign that he wouldn't live up to his talent.
BTW, the Philippoussis of US Open 95 wasn't far off the Philippoussis of Australian Open 96. Just a bit of rashness on the big points. And Sampras played better than he did in Australia, partly because he much preferred the courts, partly because he was fired up to win the event and finish 95 as number 1.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I think he was one of those players like Safin, Nalbandian, Stich. Incredibly talented and could have achieved more, but at the same time a little overrated by some (we have people here on TTW who think Safin or Nalby could have won 10+ slams). I think Scud could have won a slam or two, maybe even few more in the transition years between Pete and Fed, but I can’t see him dominating the tour for prolonged stretches.
I am not sure whether it is misleading. Of the negative H2Hs of Pete the one with Richard is the most (if not only) legit. One can of course quibble that ten matches is still not big enough of a sample size but all his wins came between 1993 and 1999 meaning in Pete’s prime, he beat him at the DC, straight-setted him at his best slam in the middle of his reign and gave him a run for his money at his second best slam. On top he was 6-2 at some point until Pete closed the gap in the last two matches. One cannot really ask for more. The other candidate would be Stich, but here the H2H is still a little closer, he trails Pete in slam matches, and two of his wins came at the WTC. On the other hand his wins at the GSC and at the YEC final were impressive.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I meant misleading only as a guide to what would have happened in the 98 final. There's no doubt that Krajicek troubled Sampras, and for reasons similar to why Philippoussis did so (and, I think, why Becker troubled Edberg): hitting so hard on both wings meant that, for once, Sampras wasn't the more powerful player. Note that that isn't the case with Stich or Ivanisevic. Sure, their serves might have been as fast or even faster, but I don't think they had such consistent power across the board. With that said, I think that this approach troubled Sampras more on hard courts or carpet than on grass, the 96 Wimbledon match notwithstanding, because it's an approach that works best when the bounce is even, regardless of how fast the court is. I think that Sampras would probably have beaten Krajicek in four tight sets had they met in the 98 Wimbledon final.
Of course, we will never know! For engaging in time-travel tennis, I should probably be called out by our Hall Monitor. Although @GabeT: is wondering what would have happened had one result gone differently (Krajicek lost 13-15 in the fifth set of the 98 Wimbledon semis against Ivanisevic and Ivanisevic then played Sampras in the final, so I'm pondering how a Sampras v Krajicek final would have gone had Krajicek edged the semi rather than Ivanisevic doing so) the sort of time-travel tennis you have in mind? After all, I'm wondering about how a match up that very nearly happened might have gone. So, it seems to me more similar to imagining how a Federer v Nadal final at the US Open in 2010 or 2011 would have gone had Federer converted his watchpoints against Djokovic than to imagining how 2004 Federer would have fared against 2013 Djokovic had they played in 3235 on red grass in a best of seven match at Biff's Ranch after being transported in Doc Brown's DeLorian. Thoughts?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yes as you said we will never know. I do think as well Pete would have won but I see it as a very tough match. I would lean to a five setter but four tight sets also sounds realistic.
NonP
Legend
Correction: I said Pistol's average 1st-serve % in '97 (or any other season, for that matter) would go up sans the ATP's double counting of aces and DFs when it'd actually go down. So probably just above 62.3% in '00, as opposed to 65%-ish which would be an excellent % even by today's standards. At any rate my point about '97 being his best botting version stands.
A few more things:
But then Pete does call Flipper arguably "the most talented player of my time not to have won a major" who should've nabbed at least one Wimbledon, so you're not that far off on the Aussie's potential.
As to your last paragraph:
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Now that '96 AO beatdown was legit, no doubt one of Mark's biggest Ws. But that was against Pistol coming off a late season-ending injury at the '95 GSC who'd struggle with his return game all year long (by his '91-98 standards), which was of course exacerbated by the challenges leading up to and following Gullikson's death. No wonder two of his worst Ls in his '93-97 prime came during that downer of a season in '96.
Would still be a tight F, obviously. But Pistol gets his revenge regardless.
A few more things:
I prefer toi, of course.* Not sure whether you want informality or formality, but happy to go with Tu, if you prefer!
Nah, Scud didn't move well enough to dominate any field. Well, that and his lack of sufficient dedication per Pistol, who tells the amusing anecdote in his book of how, when invited to train with him, "all Mark wanted to do was surf."
But then Pete does call Flipper arguably "the most talented player of my time not to have won a major" who should've nabbed at least one Wimbledon, so you're not that far off on the Aussie's potential.
As to your last paragraph:
That '99 Pistol-Scud QF has been a favorite Feddie talking point for as long as I can remember. Listening to these lemmings you'd think one of the indisputable GOATs had never come back from a set down against a big server/hitter before. Here's the reality (scroll down a bit):
For a forum obsessed with competition, can someone tell me who Sampras faced in his finals at WB that come close to Djokodal on modern grass?
By actually being good. Kyrgios the slacker was borderline top 10 few years back, an overhyped young star like Medvedev can't even win a single 5 setter, Thiem the fitness freak was cramping in a USO final etc. Spare me the TV pundits crap. You guys make it sound like being good at tennis...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Now that '96 AO beatdown was legit, no doubt one of Mark's biggest Ws. But that was against Pistol coming off a late season-ending injury at the '95 GSC who'd struggle with his return game all year long (by his '91-98 standards), which was of course exacerbated by the challenges leading up to and following Gullikson's death. No wonder two of his worst Ls in his '93-97 prime came during that downer of a season in '96.
4 sets is more likely for that Pistol-Krajicek matchup in the '98 Wimby F. Even if you assume Rick would be 100% fit after that marathon SF his return was nowhere as good as it was in '96. Just compare his RGW%s on grass: 23.1% in '96 vs. 19.6% in '98 which was in fact quite a bit lower cuz the ATP stats don't include all of his (and Goran's) return games after 6-all in the 5th.
Would still be a tight F, obviously. But Pistol gets his revenge regardless.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I need a bit of time to read and think about that essay, Toi!
But on this first paragraph: a) I'm not sure who you are correcting. Yourself?; and b) 97 is definitely the best version of Sampras at Wimbledon as a serve bot. I think that's very clear. It's less clear to me that it is the best version overall, and I'm also not sure whether that is your claim or not.
NonP
Legend
Yeah, moi-self or more precisely this bit:
So probably just under 63%. Would be close to 65% with one of today's jumbo racquets. Definitely one of his best seasons in terms of getting 1st serves in.
And I actually rate '94 Pistol even higher, '95 as well if we're taking only the F version. '97 could have been up there if he'd been pushed a little more.
Speaking of which:
I've long pointed to those '95 and '97 matches vs. Boris as two of Pistol's top Wimby masterpieces so I'm totally with ya on the twofer. Think the '93 SF despite its lopsided score is a slight notch below those two, or at least I don't remember being wowed by that Pistol as much. Need to revisit.
One more thing:
Like you said those 3 WTC (de facto) exos between Pistol and Stich really shouldn't count. So their "real" H2H is a 3-all tie, unlike Krajicek's 6-4 advantage which is indeed the only legit winning H2H vs. prime Pistol (pace Sampras himself who in his book - again! - calls Mike the guy who scared him most largely due to the German's strong 2nd serve).
catskillthunder
Professional
84 McEnroe. Not even a remotely close answer to that.
See it’s hard to say as imagine Sampras playing Djokodal at W now and realising that the courts are too slow to serve and volley so he has to rally. Vice versa Djokodal would shocked playing peak Sampras on fast Grass
I think Fed 01 vs Sampras was elite and was sure that this kid was the new best thing around and would dominate. Took him a few years to get there but I was right.
Mac 1984 was up there
I think Fed 01 vs Sampras was elite and was sure that this kid was the new best thing around and would dominate. Took him a few years to get there but I was right.
Mac 1984 was up there
abmk
Bionic Poster
got it. But Sampras touching 110 mph avg on 2nd serves for a match was actually rare (atleast till last couple of years of his career).
And there is also 7-5 in the 5th set vs a straight-setter vs Clavet. harder to keep it up for 5 sets obviously.
obviously rest of his service game was worse than at prime.
doesn't matter. neither are close to fed's returning in Wim 01 vs Sampras. you can talk about simply looking at #s or context when they are somewhere near. See below.
fair enough, that checks out for the Korda match in Wim 97 (total 82 unreturned out of 157), so am assuming Becker stats follow the same pattern.
Korda had 1 break game for the match. it was the service games and being able to take it to TBs that worked for him. again, like I said 52+% unret serves for Sampras.
that's like praising fed's returning performance in Wim 09 final as top notch. actually fed had break chances in 2 seperate games in the 1st 3 sets (leaving aside the final break game in 5th set).
Becker got absolutely smashed for big chunk of the match. no breaks. 2 break games. not convincing at all.
Holmes
Legend
I think this forum has become used to judging every player by Federer's standards. Pete's way was to get through his matches focusing on serve and not putting a lot of effort into return games until the late stages of a set and that resulted in him playing lots of tiebreaks and losing sets but winning matches, especially major finals, because of how he got into his opponent's head. Federer's way is to play more rhythmic tennis and establish dominance over his opponent from the start which usually works and results in him losing few sets throughout a Major but when he fails to establish that dominance can result in tough losses or bonkers decision making like the infamous USO 2009 final for example.
That Novak-Delpo match was brutal! It was a near miracle that Novak won, but it ruined him for the final or so it seemed to me.Sir Andy Murray straight-set peak Djokovic in a Wimbledon final after Delpo took Novak's soul in the de facto final
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
1984 McEnroe. One could argue peak Fed, but Mac has the most dominant Wimbledon.
