What could Pete have done to win Rolland Garros?

[Herald]

From '97 onwards he arguably gave up, but from 92-96 he had 3 quarters and a semi, very respectable results, going out to champions for the most part. Even had a great 5 set win from 2 sets down against Muster in 1991. Then there's of course the great '96 run halted by being gassed after some epic 5 setters. Was he a great clay courter? Clearly not. Was he solid and able to win the title when focused? In my opinion, absolutely.

What could he have done differently that would have won him the title?

 

[Cashman]

Pull the ole Tonya Harding on Sergi Bruguera and Jim Courier

 

[buscemi]

Winning those tiebreakers against Bruguera and Courier in 1996 would have been huge. If he wins the third set tiebreaker against Bruguera, it's a straight set win instead of a five set win. And if he wins the first set tiebreaker against Courier, he probably wins in four sets instead of five.

So, winning those two tiebreakers would probably mean three fewer sets for Sampras going into the SF against Kafelnikov, whom he had beaten in Davis Cup on clay months earlier. With a fuller tank of gas, he'd have a decent shot in that match and then a really good shot to beat Stich in the final.

 

[abmk]

Winning those tiebreakers against Bruguera and Courier in 1996 would have been huge. If he wins the third set tiebreaker against Bruguera, it's a straight set win instead of a five set win. And if he wins the first set tiebreaker against Courier, he probably wins in four sets instead of five.

So, winning those two tiebreakers would probably mean three fewer sets for Sampras going into the SF against Kafelnikov, whom he had beaten in Davis Cup on clay months earlier. With a fuller tank of gas, he'd have a decent shot in that match and then a really good shot to beat Stich in the final.

shouldn't first focus be about not going 5 vs Todd Martin?

 

[boredone3456]

shouldn't first focus be about not going 5 vs Todd Martin?

Pretty Much. Bruguera realistically should have been the only match that needed 5 sets prior to the QF. I have no idea how that match with Martin got that far off the rails.

 

[Kralingen]

Performance Enhancing Drugs

such as EPO, blood doping, clenbuterol, etilefrine, etc.

no chance to win without those sadly. But with them he might even have 21 or 22 Slams, anything is possible with the help of PEDs as Puerta/Korda/Cilic proved.

 

[buscemi]

shouldn't first focus be about not going 5 vs Todd Martin?

Sure, it was worse for Pete to go five sets against Todd, but he wasn't close to winning the two sets he lost to him. A couple of points here and there could have made the difference in the two tiebreakers he lost.

 

[boredone3456]

Sure, it was worse for Pete to go five sets against Todd, but he wasn't close to winning the two sets he lost to him. A couple of points here and there could have made the difference in the two tiebreakers he lost.

I think at least when it comes to Bruguera, Pete didn't match well against him. Plus it was probably in the back of Pete's mind that he lost to the guy a couple years ago at the French and it all sort of locked him up in. All of there matches were tight generally. I don't know that Pete ever could have won in straight sets against him.

 

[Herald]

Performance Enhancing Drugs

such as EPO, blood doping, clenbuterol, etilefrine, etc.

no chance to win without those sadly. But with them he might even have 21 or 22 Slams, anything is possible with the help of PEDs as Puerta/Korda/Cilic proved.

Pete's parents weren't in Big Pharma. Let that sink in.

 

[Musterrific]

Winning those tiebreakers against Bruguera and Courier in 1996 would have been huge. If he wins the third set tiebreaker against Bruguera, it's a straight set win instead of a five set win. And if he wins the first set tiebreaker against Courier, he probably wins in four sets instead of five.

So, winning those two tiebreakers would probably mean three fewer sets for Sampras going into the SF against Kafelnikov, whom he had beaten in Davis Cup on clay months earlier. With a fuller tank of gas, he'd have a decent shot in that match and then a really good shot to beat Stich in the final.

Stich was a bad matchup for him anywhere, so I don't think he would have had a really good shot to beat him, especially on clay.

 

[buscemi]

Stich was a bad matchup for him anywhere, so I don't think he would have had a really good shot to beat him, especially on clay.

Good point, but Stich was less than 100% with his ankle injury.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Stich is a somewhat bad match up for Sampras, yet they had like 5 or 6 potential near missed meetings in slams besides 92 Wimbledon, which I think is their only one that happened. And I genuinely believe, although we will never know, Sampras would have won all of them. Yes Stich is a bad match up to some degree for Sampras, along with having the talent to play and beat anyone when he is mentally right, but in big matches you just have a feeling Sampras would always get the better of Stich. Sampras is a different beast in big matches, and of course he is more of a big match player/slam performer, and mentally stronger than Stich.

I definitely do think he wins the 96 French final if it happens, and Sampras isn't too tired for it. I think beating Kafelnikov in the semis would be his tougher time, despite his great record over Kafelnikov, but certainly possible too if reasonably fresh. Stich played a pretty poor final vs Kafelnikov anyway, and it was ridiculous he didn't win the 2nd set after being up 2 breaks but managing to lose his serve 3 straight times which is pathetic which his big serve. I don't see how that magically changes vs Sampras.

It is telling their only slam meeting- 92 Wimbledon, was a very easy, surprisingly easy, win for not even prime Sampras. These are some of their other near meetings in slams that didn't quite happen;

93 Wimbledon- Stich lost to Becker quarters, round before.
94 US Open- Sampras likely beats Novacek if he beats Yzaga, and would have played Stich in semis.
95 US Open- Stich lost to Black round of 16, round before.
97 Wimbledon- Stich lost to Pioline in semis, would have played Sampras in final.
96 French

Like I said I honestly believe Sampras would have won every single time despite their overall head to head. 94 US Open and to a lesser extent 97 Wimbledon or 96 French would have been the only ones I even given Stich a chance in.

I do not get the same feelings from Stich that I do from Krajicek (another player Sampras struggled with overall), that Krajieck would have in fact beaten Sampras more than once in slams, if they played more often. I just don't. Shame they missed so many likely meetings to test the theory out though.

 

[Fabresque]

Performance Enhancing Drugs

such as EPO, blood doping, clenbuterol, etilefrine, etc.

no chance to win without those sadly. But with them he might even have 21 or 22 Slams, anything is possible with the help of PEDs as Puerta/Korda/Cilic proved.

Cilic? He got banned in ‘13 for ingesting a respiratory stimulate. He didn’t even know what he was taking, he only got 4 months with no other repercussions. His slam win and 2 finals happened after this incident.

 

[buscemi]

Sampras is a different beast in big matches, and of course he is more of a big match player/slam performer, and mentally stronger than Stich.

Majors are, of course, a different beast, but Stich did beat Sampras in two pretty big BO5 matches: (1) 1993 WTF finals; and (2) 1992 Grand Slam Cup SF.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Performance Enhancing Drugs

such as EPO, blood doping, clenbuterol, etilefrine, etc.

no chance to win without those sadly. But with them he might even have 21 or 22 Slams, anything is possible with the help of PEDs as Puerta/Korda/Cilic proved.

Excellent post. The 21 or 22 slams but is the best part.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Could be as simple as mentality. Wimbledon was the clear prize of the four majors in that era, there wasn't anything near the current emphasis on having a "balanced distribution". Sampras himself was beyond clear where his priorities lay. As it happens, this has really hurt him historically but his focus was where it should have been THEN.

I'm pretty sure he neither cared anywhere near as much about notching a French nor gave proportionate effort there as the years went on and his strengths were clearly defined.

If he'd had his trademark focus on getting a career Slam, or just on all four majors equally, that alone might have been enough to get him over the hump once.

 

[TennisLogic]

What could he have done?

BELIEVE he could win it

 

[Martin J]

Believe it or not, it was extremely hard (basically impossible) to master all the surfaces back in 90s, 80s, 70s. Pete's game was never designed nor developed to be dominant/successful on clay, he'd chosen a different path and had an amazing career.
Don't think he could've done anything different to change the outcome of his FO campaign(s), there were simply way too many big obstacles (a.k.a. clay court specialists), unlike today, who could outmatch and outgrind him on a surface that neutralizes his biggest weapon more than any other.

As Federer once said, "no way I would've won 20 majors in 90s" and he was right (and it applies to Djok/Nad as well).

 

[martinezownsclay]

Majors are, of course, a different beast, but Stich did beat Sampras in two pretty big BO5 matches: (1) 1993 WTF finals; and (2) 1992 Grand Slam Cup SF.

The WTF was a big win. Still I listed their near potential meetings. Do you think Stich would have won in any of them had they happened?

 

[buscemi]

The WTF was a big win. Still I listed their near potential meetings. Do you think Stich would have won in any of them had they happened?

I think it's tough to say b/c there are so many variables. For example, let's take the 1996 French Open, which is the subject of this thread. Is our assumption that an exhausted Sampras guts out a five set win against Kafelnikov in the SF instead of losing to him? If so, I'd take Stich b/c Sampras was already gassed going into that SF. But if, as in my example, Sampras straight sets Bruguera, beats Courier in four sets, and then beats Kafelnikov in three or four sets, he has a much better chance.

Same with the 1994 U.S. Open. Is the assumption that Sampras wins that long five setter against Yzaga instead of losing it? If so, and he then plays a four or five setter against Nováček, I like Stich's chances. But, if we're assuming a pretty fresh Sampras, he again has a much better chance.

 

[Mustard]

Sampras won the 1996 US Open, despite the Corretja quarter final match that he was 1 point away from losing and had vomited on the court late in the match. Had he lost it, Chang would have been world number 1, and I think Ivanisevic would have won the title.

 

[Herald]

Believe it or not, it was extremely hard (basically impossible) to master all the surfaces back in 90s, 80s, 70s. Pete's game was never designed nor developed to be dominant/successful on clay, he'd chosen a different path and had an amazing career.
Don't think he could've done anything different to change the outcome of his FO campaign(s), there were simply way too many big obstacles (a.k.a. clay court specialists), unlike today, who could outmatch and outgrind him on a surface that neutralizes his biggest weapon more than any other.

As Federer once said, "no way I would've won 20 majors in 90s" and he was right (and it applies to Djok/Nad as well).

Source?

 

[Herald]

What could he have done?

BELIEVE he could win it

I believe this was his biggest problem. There was a really cool short special called "Andre and Pete" where they crashed on a couch together in '95 and talked about their season. Pete had just lost 1st round at the French, and Agassi said he thought Pete had lots of potential and the ability to win the title, but lost that match because he played like a bonehead. Pete sort of shrunk a bit, and Agassi started talking about how he was frustrated for not winning the title against Courier in '91 and complained about their final and Pete sort of grinned and made fun of him for making excuses about Courier getting better coaching during the delay.

Really cool little special that showed that in his prime, Pete had ability and his peers knew it, but he probably didn't. Remember, Pete didn't believe in himself on grass as a young pro either (lol)

 

[TennisLogic]

In his prime, Pete was the goat. Just Unbeatable

 

[Herald]

In his prime, Pete was the goat. Just Unbeatable

 

[TennisLogic]

 

[BumElbow]

The French Open is dominated by clay court specialists. Pete was a grass and hard court specialist. Long, grinding points one after the other and hitting lots of topspin backhands were not his specialty.

 

[Martin J]

Source?

Federer: I think, like before, as the surfaces get more equal, everybody can pile up more Grand Slam wins, like I did. It was the reason for me probably to pass Sampras by having the surfaces be more equal.

ASAP Sports Transcripts - Tennis - 2019 - DUBAI DUTY FREE TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS - February 24 - Roger Federer

ASAPSports FastScripts, a system using state-of-the-art technology created to produce verbatim FastScripts of press conferences and player/team interviews at sporting events around the globe.

www.asapsports.com

 

[urban]

One should take some myths to rest, like the saga, that the US players could not win at RG. In Sampras own time, 3 of his US pals won Roland Garros, Chang, Courier (2) and Agassi, and all reached additional finals. In that time period, RG played pretty fast, because the French had made the courts faster since the mid 80s, to help hometown heroes like Noah, Leconte, Pioline and Forget, who all were attacking players. And the American winners were in fact more hard courters, not classical topspin artists and grinders. On Hardcourt, Sampras did dominate those US peers, with his big serve and his flat baseline hitting (Landsdorp-style). On clay, his serve wasn't as dominant, and he never learnt to slide properly. As Muster remarked, his backhand was too flat and he often netted it, when under pressure. He had not enough confidence in his volley game, to constantly attack the net like Edberg, Rafter or Verkerk (in one year). Instead Sampras stuck to a halfhearted baseline game. But in those years, is was very possible for offensive minded players to reach at least the final, as Stich, Leconte, Korda, Edberg, Verkerk showed.

 

[Herald]

Federer: I think, like before, as the surfaces get more equal, everybody can pile up more Grand Slam wins, like I did. It was the reason for me probably to pass Sampras by having the surfaces be more equal.

ASAP Sports Transcripts - Tennis - 2019 - DUBAI DUTY FREE TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS - February 24 - Roger Federer

ASAPSports FastScripts, a system using state-of-the-art technology created to produce verbatim FastScripts of press conferences and player/team interviews at sporting events around the globe.

www.asapsports.com

Wow, my respect for Rodger has gone up considerably. Thank you!

 

[Herald]

One should take some myths to rest, like the saga, that the US players could not win at RG. In Sampras own time, 3 of his US pals won Roland Garros, Chang, Courier (2) and Agassi, and all reached additional finals. In that time period, RG played pretty fast, because the French had made the courts faster since the mid 80s, to help hometown heroes like Noah, Leconte, Pioline and Forget, who all were attacking players. And the American winners were in fact more hard courters, not classical topspin artists and grinders. On Hardcourt, Sampras did dominate those US peers, with his big serve and his flat baseline hitting (Landsdorp-style). On clay, his serve wasn't as dominant, and he never learnt to slide properly. As Muster remarked, his backhand was too flat and he often netted it, when under pressure. He had not enough confidence in his volley game, to constantly attack the net like Edberg, Rafter or Verkerk (in one year). Instead Sampras stuck to a halfhearted baseline game. But in those years, is was very possible for offensive minded players to reach at least the final, as Stich, Leconte, Korda, Edberg, Verkerk showed.

Good points. He lacked confidence essentially. I think Annacone was a huge part of the problem tbh. He posted very solid results with Gulli. Imo he was a superior player overall with Gulli.

 

[chrischris]

Pull the ole Tonya Harding on Sergi Bruguera and Jim Courier

What about maybe have D. T. bribe the ump...?

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Gullickson passed away. His best coach so who knows. Probably nothing he could have done. His best coach passsed away and the 90's was littered with a great clay field. He probably would have won it eventually if Gullickson didn't get sick

 

[JasonZ]

Gullickson passed away. His best coach so who knows. Probably nothing he could have done. His best coach passsed away and the 90's was littered with a great clay field. He probably would have won it eventually if Gullickson didn't get sick

i am pretty sure he would not have won it with even 10 best coaches.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

=

i am pretty sure he would not have won it with even 10 best coaches.

Why?? He reached a couple of QFs a SF eventually going out to the winner? He ownes clay wins over Agassi,Muster, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Courier. Its not like he was going out in the 1st round every year

 

[Mustard]

Sampras is not really a rally machine who settles down into a rhythm with his opponent in a toe-to-toe baseline war, as he is instead someone who likes to end rallies earlier and stop his opponents getting rhythm. Clay tends to favour those who do the former, and clay is going to draw more unforced errors from those players who try to force the issue.

 

[juanparty]

maybe have been more patient in the baseline rallies and change the strategy of serves and volleys, and not giving up so soon.

 

[big ted]

i think he could have had a chance if he did things at the FO that lendl tried at wimbledon..
but sampras seemed more interested in winning an umpteenth wimbledon than 1 FO

 

[pj80]

Pull the ole Tonya Harding on Sergi Bruguera and Jim Courier

He beat them both in 1 tournament

 

[Cashman]

He beat them both in 1 tournament

then shat the bed against Kafelnikov

I think by 1996 his chances were not so good, even though it was his best result on paper

 

[Herald]

then shat the bed against Kafelnikov

I think by 1996 his chances were not so good, even though it was his best result on paper

Lost to Kafelnikov because he was gassed, not outplayed. That was always going to be a tough one and he needed his energy for it.
Truthfully I think he could have spent much more time on his conditioning. Although the 90s didn't have today's wonderjuices and recovery tools, with a good deal more hard work in his early days he could have gotten through these types of runs and given himself a couple chances to get the title imo

 

[abmk]

It is telling their only slam meeting- 92 Wimbledon, was a very easy, surprisingly easy, win for not even prime Sampras.

That 1992 QF vs Stich was IMO Sampras' best performance at Wimbledon, even over Wim 95 final and Wim 99 final. I suggest you watch/re-watch that.
Sampras had 56-57% unreturned serves, broken 0 times (faced only 1 BP) and broke Stich 4 times.

Sampras Stich 1992 Wimbledon QF stats

The ONLY time these two met in a grand slam. Stich was the defending champion and sampras hadn’t found much success on grass before this wimbledon. I hadn’t seen this match before . One of Sampras’ best performances easily.. His serving was top-notch and returning very good. Sampras played at...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Sampras would always get the better of Stich. Sampras is a different beast in big matches, and of course he is more of a big match player/slam performer, and mentally stronger than Stich.

The YEC 93 final was their biggest match apart from slams and Stich won that in 4 vs a prime Sampras.

 

[buscemi]

1995 was a bad year for Sampras to throw in a terrible first round loss after making the QF the last three years and before making the SF in 1996. Here was his 1995 draw:

1R: Gilbert Schaller​

2R: [Q] Scott Draper​

3R: Richey Reneberg​

4R: Renzo Furlan​

QF: Sergi Bruguera​

SF: Michael Chang​

F: Thomas Muster​

The version of Sampras that played the French the next year -- 1996 -- should have won those first four matches in straight sets. Bruguera would be tough, of course, but Sampras beat him at the French the next year. Chang also would have been tough, and I could see that match going either way. As for Muster in the final, this was Muster's huge year on clay, but he HATED playing opponents like Sampras on clay. After all, we all saw what happened against Stich the next year. So that would have been a very interesting final.

I don't know that a good clay version of Sampras would have won the French in 1995, but I think he had a better draw than he did from 1992-1994 and 1996.

 

[abmk]

1995 was a bad year for Sampras to throw in a terrible first round loss after making the QF the last three years and before making the SF in 1996. Here was his 1995 draw:

1R: Gilbert Schaller​

2R: [Q] Scott Draper​

3R: Richey Reneberg​

4R: Renzo Furlan​

QF: Sergi Bruguera​

SF: Michael Chang​

F: Thomas Muster​

The version of Sampras that played the French the next year -- 1996 -- should have won those first four matches in straight sets. Bruguera would be tough, of course, but Sampras beat him at the French the next year. Chang also would have been tough, and I could see that match going either way. As for Muster in the final, this was Muster's huge year on clay, but he HATED playing opponents like Sampras on clay. After all, we all saw what happened against Stich the next year. So that would have been a very interesting final.

I don't know that a good clay version of Sampras would have won the French in 1995, but I think he had a better draw than he did from 1992-1994 and 1996.

Bruguera was coming off massive injury in 96 RG and had a losing record on clay before RG.
95 also his prep was hampered due to injury 2 months before, but maybe not as much as 96
Plus no chance Sampras gets through a draw of Bruguera, Chang, Muster in a row in Bo5 on clay.

I mean though Sampras was a tough matchup for Muster, Muster beat him in straights on carpet in Essen 95.
Stich's BH was a level above Sampras' on clay anyways and he played a beautiful allcourt match in 96 RG vs Muster.

 

[buscemi]

Bruguera was coming off massive injury in 96 RG and had a losing record on clay before RG.
95 also his prep was hampered due to injury 2 months before, but maybe not as much as 96
Plus no chance Sampras gets through a draw of Bruguera, Chang, Muster in a row in Bo5 on clay.

I mean though Sampras was a tough matchup for Muster, Muster beat him in straights on carpet in Essen 95.
Stich's BH was a level above Sampras' on clay anyways and he played a beautiful allcourt match in 96 RG vs Muster.

Yeah, I don't think he gets it done either.

 

[80s New Wave]

Pete could have won if they decided to change the surface to grass (like the reverse of the USO in the 70s).

Jokes aside I think he was never the most natural or comfortable with the movement on clay so he expended too much energy moving to make it through 7 best of 5 matches.

 

[Herald]

Another facet is the backhand. No way around it. Pete's backhand was excellent for fast and medium surfaces where he could play great containment tennis, and also strangely use the inconsistency in depth of that shot to give himself opportunities to hit his world class passing shots but on a surface like clay that demands day in and day out length and consistency, it needed a lot of work that he simply didn't get done for one reason or another. Pete's slice was also strangely average for such a great aggressive player. Give him Fed's slice and he probably wins a RG all else equal with circumstances.

Having said all this, when you take a bird's eye view of Pete's backhand it really is an extraordinary thing. You're talking about a kid who naturally played a defensive baseline style with a two handed backhand as his absolute best shot transitioning to an aggressive all court game with a one handed backhand...at FOURTEEN. That is an extremely late stage at which to switch your backhand, even for a club level competitor, let alone a world class aspiring pro. For him to have done as well as he did, and develop it into one of the best passing shot machines in the world is indicative of an historic amount of talent people don't usually associate with Pete.

 

[Ombelibable]

Pete could've had a chance at winning RG if he adopted to what the surface demands, instead of sticking to what worked for him on fast surfaces.
Something like what Lendl or Agassi did for Wimby. Lendl never won Wimbledon, but not for lack of trying.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Pete could've had a chance at winning RG if he adopted to what the surface demands, instead of sticking to what worked for him on fast surfaces.
Something like what Lendl did for Wimby. Lendl never won Wimbledon, but not for lack of trying.

Exactly.

It takes a special player to win on a special surface playing against type on the surface. Agassi in Wimbledon, for example - is amazing. Not just his win in 92, but those semi and finals he got to in that era going against what actually worked on the surface is kind of amazing.

Pete winning RG playing his way would have required a truly remarkable performance and he didn't quite deliver.

Frankly, I think he had most of the tools to play well at RG, he had good groundstrokes and could rally if he wanted to. He would have had to have been more selective in his approaches and serving and volleying instead of relying on it all the time. Patience, a grinding mentality, and a different tactical approach. But, that's not how Pete played. Instead he played the way he always did (which was obviously quite successful on the faster surfaces) and got the results he did. Fair enough.

Borg, Lendl, and some other greats adapted their game to different surfaces at times during their career. Pete didn't. Still great, but frankly, the lack of a RG title is kind of appropriate for him. He was going to play his game - win or lose.

 

[Oval_Solid]

not drinking coke during change over would be a good start