What could Pete have done to win Rolland Garros?

[dryeagle]

I really can’t remember how Pete played at RG or what his strategy. But his results were not good, other s&v players from that era had much better results like Edberg, Becker and Stich.

I think the best Pete could do is play his typical North American hard court game and try to impose that on clay. See McEnroe in 1984, Edberg in 1989 and Stich in 1996. Yes all lost in final, but they went down playing their game. Pete should have played a limited clay court season and would need to move through his RG draw in quick order, otherwise he would be too drained as we saw in 96 SF vs Kafelnikov.

 

[InsuranceMan]

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 PEDs? First I’ve heard of this

 

[Crazy Finn]

I think the best Pete could do is play his typical North American hard court game and try to impose that on clay. See McEnroe in 1984, Edberg in 1989 and Stich in 1996. Yes all lost in final, but they went down playing their game. Pete should have played a limited clay court season and would need to move through his RG draw in quick order, otherwise he would be too drained as we saw in 96 SF vs Kafelnikov.

Well, you don't have to speculate how that would turn out, because that's exactly what he did - at least as far as game, style, and tactics.

 

[Mustard]

If Sampras wanted to go all out on clay, he needed to be more patient in the rallies, more ready to settle down into a rhythm with the rallies, and less eager to pull the trigger quickly. Sampras' natural game was to NOT settle into a rhythm with the rallies, because it would make opponents more dangerous. However, clay rewards patience and consistency over aggression and instinct.

 

[mattennis]

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.

I know how great Sampras was, but believe me, he was not winning a Roland Garros title beating Bruguera, Chang and Muster in the last three rounds.

 

[Herald]

If Sampras wanted to go all out on clay, he needed to be more patient in the rallies, more ready to settle down into a rhythm with the rallies, and less eager to pull the trigger quickly. Sampras' natural game was to NOT settle into a rhythm with the rallies, because it would make opponents more dangerous. However, clay rewards patience and consistency over aggression and instinct.

His Thalassemia was why he couldn't do lengthy rallies for an entire match, so this strategy wouldn't work. Knowing this, what else would you recommend he try?

 

[Herald]

Well, you don't have to speculate how that would turn out, because that's exactly what he did - at least as far as game, style, and tactics.

He wasn't fully committed and when he was, he strangely neglected short angle volleys which would have made life much easier for him

 

[Mustard]

His Thalassemia was why he couldn't do lengthy rallies for an entire match, so this strategy wouldn't work. Knowing this, what else would you recommend he try?

Not much else he could do if he couldn't settle down into rallies and be more patient in them.

 

[Herald]

Not much else he could do if he couldn't settle down into rallies and be more patient in them.

How about commit fully to serve and volley but the change is he has to take something off his serve and focus on heavy kickers, and use the spare time to close the net? I'm thinking of Edberg here. On return games every baseline rally is structured around putting the opponent on the run to set up a putaway at net.

 

[jindra]

Stop smoking.

 

[Crazy Finn]

He wasn't fully committed and when he was, he strangely neglected short angle volleys which would have made life much easier for him

To me, it looked like Sampras played the same as he did on grass and hard courts. It's just the surface was slower and the results weren't as favorable.

Then again, I rooted against Sampras in every match of his career (or more accurately, for whomever his opponent was), so, there's that.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

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).

THIS. So many newer tennis fans (of the last 5-7 years) really don’t understand how vastly different the surfaces were back in the 90s (which is why Borg three-peating the “Channel Slam” from ‘78-‘80 is such a ridiculous achievement). Sampras’ game was tailor made for faster surfaces, not the grinding points required for clay courts (the courts in Paris being very slow some years)?

 

[Herald]

THIS. So many newer tennis fans (of the last 5-7 years) really don’t understand how vastly different the surfaces were back in the 90s (which is why Borg three-peating the “Channel Slam” from ‘78-‘80 is such a ridiculous achievement). Sampras’ game was tailor made for faster surfaces, not the grinding points required for clay courts (the courts in Paris being very slow some years)?

*Faster and medium surfaces. Remember, off grass Pete was an all court player who played a well developed, highly aggressive all courter's baseline game on his 2nd serves, and on return from 90-96.
I was actually thinking about this today: were there any slow hard court big tournaments in the 90s? Rebound in Australia was more of a medium surface in my opinion. Indian Wells and Miami maybe? If so, the fact that Pete was able to win there, and once beat Kuerten in a best of 5 thriller in 2000 which shows how effective he could be on a slow hard court.

 

[Crazy Finn]

*Faster and medium surfaces. Remember, off grass Pete was an all court player who played a well developed, highly aggressive all courter's baseline game on his 2nd serves, and on return from 90-96.
I was actually thinking about this today: were there any slow hard court big tournaments in the 90s? Rebound in Australia was more of a medium surface in my opinion. Indian Wells and Miami maybe? If so, the fact that Pete was able to win there, and once beat Kuerten in a best of 5 thriller in 2000 which shows how effective he could be on a slow hard court.

A slow hard court is still different than clay. Like really. I've played some on each and it's not the same.

 

[jimmy8]

practice more.

 

[jimmy8]

maybe he decided early on that he was going to dominate they way he did on the surfaces that he did. that was his game plan, maybe. it got him the career that it got him. he is now in legendary status. not bad if i say so myself.

if you carve out a niche and become legendary and someone comes along and says coulda, woulda, shoulda - your answer might be:
A. why don't you try it?
B. look at this trophy room, it's bigger than your house!
C. let's play a set right now!

 

[mattennis]

*Faster and medium surfaces. Remember, off grass Pete was an all court player who played a well developed, highly aggressive all courter's baseline game on his 2nd serves, and on return from 90-96.
I was actually thinking about this today: were there any slow hard court big tournaments in the 90s? Rebound in Australia was more of a medium surface in my opinion. Indian Wells and Miami maybe? If so, the fact that Pete was able to win there, and once beat Kuerten in a best of 5 thriller in 2000 which shows how effective he could be on a slow hard court.

Through that period 90-97 the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami used to be pretty slow harcourts, yes.

Sampras duels against Agassi, Courier and Chang in those tournaments used to be mostly baseline battles (Sampras stayed back on second serve off grass and very seldon did chip and charge off grass, so about 70% of the points against these players were initially baseline points, that would end at the net or not).

Those kind of matches were very much appreciated by the public, because it showed many of the best baseline points on the circuit at that time, along with great volleys from Sampras (Courier and Chang were also very capable of making great volleys as well, by the way, and of course Agassi, Courier and Chang were amazing returners and passers).

Even in the Masters (now called WTF) there used to be great baseline points between Sampras and these players.

In this clip you see only samples of Agassi-Sampras, but Sampras also had a lot of amazing baseline points against Courier and Chang as well.
( see the points from Indian Wells and Miami, the conditions look pretty slow).

Here a video from Miami 1994 Sampras-Courier (the video quality is atrocious, but you can have an idea of the type of points they used to play)

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@Kralingen

Cilic PEDs? First I’ve heard of this

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reduced his 9 months suspension to 4 months in 2013. CAS found that he had been guilty of carelessness, not deliberate doping, and that the sanction was not proportionate to the degree of fault. Cilic had maintained that he was unaware that the glucose tablets he had been given contained a prohibited substance. CAS had determined that his explanation was credible but still decided he was "careless".

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

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).

Roger likely would have done quite well on the fast grass & HC of the 90s -- even tho he might not have reached 20 as he said. Sampras & others would've taken some of those. Rafa might have only had his 13 RG titles if he had played in the 90s (& early 00s).

Novak would likely have won some slam titles but likely quite a bit less than Roger. Novak might have had a tougher time at the AO in the fast surface days against Andre (even tho he didn't play AO til '95). Pete, Boris, Jim Courier, Roger* and others might have limited Novak's ability to dominate on a faster AO surface

 

[Herald]

A slow hard court is still different than clay. Like really. I've played some on each and it's not the same.

I don't disagree, and so have I. I'm asking if there were any slow hard court big tourneys in the 90s.

 

[BumElbow]

To win at RG, Pete would have had to switch to a larger racquet. The clay court specialist excessive spin and longer points resulted in him having more mis-hits with his small 85 sq. inch original ProStaff that also required him to work too hard. Pete would have needed a larger racquet that was more forgiving and required less physical energy to stay in the long points.

 

[bluetrain4]

How did Pete play at the French, I can't remember. Did he try to grind a big percentage of the time. Should have he just played straight up aggressive tennis with S&V on first serve, and going for big shots when he was on the baseline. Edberg played his serve and volley game and it got him one set from a title. Yeah, I know that's an outlier result for Edberg - other than that he only made 3 QFs. But he seemed to have the attitude that "it's probably not going to happen, but if it IS going to happen it won't be because I tried to play like a clay courter."

 

[BumElbow]

How did Pete play at the French, I can't remember. Did he try to grind a big percentage of the time. Should have he just played straight up aggressive tennis with S&V on first serve, and going for big shots when he was on the baseline. Edberg played his serve and volley game and it got him one set from a title. Yeah, I know that's an outlier result for Edberg - other than that he only made 3 QFs. But he seemed to have the attitude that "it's probably not going to happen, but if it IS going to happen it won't be because I tried to play like a clay courter."

Sampras made the semis at the French Open one time and had to play several 5-set matches to get there. Basically he ran out of steam by the time he reached the semis. His best showing on red clay was winning the Italian Open. On red clay, Sampras tended to play an all-court style, coming to net when his opponent hit an attackable short ball. I think his footing on the slippery red clay was also an issue as well as the higher bounce and that red clay takes pace off the ball forcing him to generate more power by himself.

 

[Martin J]

THIS. So many newer tennis fans (of the last 5-7 years) really don’t understand how vastly different the surfaces were back in the 90s (which is why Borg three-peating the “Channel Slam” from ‘78-‘80 is such a ridiculous achievement). Sampras’ game was tailor made for faster surfaces, not the grinding points required for clay courts (the courts in Paris being very slow some years)?

What Borg achieved from 1978 to 1980 is, IMO, the most impressive stretch of any player in Open Era. Not only that he won the Channel Slam three consecutive times (which is mind-blowing, as he radically changed his playing style from a relentless grinding to S&V), but he won two Masters on carpet, reached two USO finals (outdoor hard), and had been winning titles on all available surfaces (clay, indoor/outdoor hard, carpet, grass, har-tru...) year after year, in an era where the difference between the surfaces was fairly greater than today and it usually required a player to possess a specific skillset in order to master a particular surface.

For a long time I'd thought that Federer's 2004-2007 domination is unmatched, but lately I've been thinking that Borg's run is maybe even more impressive.

 

[Herald]

What Borg achieved from 1978 to 1980 is, IMO, the most impressive stretch of any player in Open Era. Not only that he won the Channel Slam three consecutive times (which is mind-blowing, as he radically changed his playing style from a relentless grinding to S&V), but he won two Masters on carpet, reached two USO finals (outdoor hard), and had been winning titles on all available surfaces (clay, indoor/outdoor hard, carpet, grass, har-tru...) year after year, in an era where the difference between the surfaces was fairly greater than today and it usually required a player to possess a specific skillset in order to master a particular surface.

For a long time I'd thought that Federer's 2004-2007 domination is unmatched, but lately I've been thinking that Borg's run is maybe even more impressive.

Absolutely. If not for his quitting, and therefore Pete's greater dominance of his era as well as Pete's 6 straight YE #1s, I would easily have Borg as GOAT.

 

[Crazy Finn]

I don't disagree, and so have I. I'm asking if there were any slow hard court big tourneys in the 90s.

Sure. Sadly, I'm not that knowledgeable to help you, there. There might be others that would know this. I'll stay tuned, be interested to see if others chime in.

How did Pete play at the French, I can't remember. Did he try to grind a big percentage of the time. Should have he just played straight up aggressive tennis with S&V on first serve, and going for big shots when he was on the baseline. Edberg played his serve and volley game and it got him one set from a title. Yeah, I know that's an outlier result for Edberg - other than that he only made 3 QFs. But he seemed to have the attitude that "it's probably not going to happen, but if it IS going to happen it won't be because I tried to play like a clay courter."

Pete at the French played like Pete at the USO as far as his approach. He didn't grind, he played straight up Pete tennis coming as often as possible. He just got passed a lot more. His volley approach might not have worked quite as well on clay, people got to them and then passed him. The Pete game still worked, just not his usual degree.