Why did Krajicek do so well vs Sampras

[grafforehand]

Krajicek's great success vs Sampras always baffled me. Was there even a single thing he did better. Breaking down their games:

Serve- Sampras clearly ahead. First serve might be a wash, and second serve Sampras by far.

Return of serve- Sampras easily. Krajicek's worst thing probably.

Forehand- Sampras easily.

Backhand- Sampras.

Movement- Sampras by far, another weakness for Richard.

Volleys- Sampras I would say. Fairly close but Richard had trouble with the low volleys, in part due to his height and lack of agility.

Mental strength- Sampras easily.


So how did Richard do so well in the matchup. I could see him being dangerous and winning the occasional match but winning head to head? Amazing.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Krajicek is one of the few players I would put up there amongst the "unplayable" on fast courts in the rare occasions when his game clicked and everything fell into place. He had a few tournament wins where he reached that particular level - you could almost see it in his eyes, he was in a trance - and basically blitzed everyone that stood in his way. Unfortunately for him, he was inconsistent and so was his game. If he'd kept injury free he would've definitely had more occasions to reproduce this level of play, but his inconsistency did not stem directly from the fact that he was injury-prone.

He played a big game, with a huge serve setting it up, but I think it's unfair to compare him to players like Ivanisevic or even Karlovic. His game was much more inconsistent than Ivanisevic's, whereas Krajicek's best level on fast courts rarely gave the opponent the chance to even play. Despite the big serve, with the Croat you knew you were going to be given chances, he didn't just blast you off the court. On a good day, Krajicek could blast you off the court. Unlike Karlovic, however, his game was much more than a serve. You can't beat Sampras at Wimbledon if you only rely on the serve.

 

[jrepac]

His serve and volley game was tremendous. At his peak level, he barely gave Pete a chance to hit the ball. He could be scarily good or frighteningly inconsistent.

too many injuries hampered him; I think he might've won a USO or AO in the mix of things.

 

[ttwarrior1]

He dominated Pete, and Pete was not off that day, he was just better that day. People for some reason knew he wouldn't do it again somehow

 

[YaoPau]

If big servers win tiebreaks they can beat just about anybody. In Krajicek's six victories over Sampras he was 5-1 in tiebreaks. In his four losses to Sampras, he was 0-3 in tiebreaks. That doesn't explain all of it, but it explains a lot.

Same thing with Isner over Djokovic. In his 2 wins, he's 3-0 in tiebreaks. In his 3 losses, he's 1-2 in tiebreaks.

 

[TheRed]

Krajicek's great success vs Sampras always baffled me. Was there even a single thing he did better. Breaking down their games:

Serve- Sampras clearly ahead. First serve might be a wash, and second serve Sampras by far.

Return of serve- Sampras easily. Krajicek's worst thing probably.

Forehand- Sampras easily.

Backhand- Sampras.

Movement- Sampras by far, another weakness for Richard.

Volleys- Sampras I would say. Fairly close but Richard had trouble with the low volleys, in part due to his height and lack of agility.

Mental strength- Sampras easily.


So how did Richard do so well in the matchup. I could see him being dangerous and winning the occasional match but winning head to head? Amazing.

1st serve was not a wash. K's 1st serve was bigger. So when he's on, he's untouchable. Sampras was the best server ever in my book but only because his 2nd serve was almost as good as 1st. Other servers had bigger 1st serves.
Neither were good returners. Sampras was more conservative on returns though so he got more back.
Sampras did have a better backhand but only because it's more conservative. When K was on, he clocked his bh's.
ultimately, i think sampras would have been ahead eventually but K was exactly the type of player Sampras had trouble with early in his career. Their games were very close.

 

[Sadyv]

Krajicek, for being generally a pretty poor returner, seemed able to bite deep into Pete's serve. He won their share of tie breaks, but he also surprisingly broke Pete pretty often. The pressure his big serve and volley game brought really shook Pete up. I believe after Richard bombed him out at Wimbledon, Sampras' commented that he normally feels like, even against other big servers like Goran or Becker, he's going to get his chances on the return. But against Krajicek he didn't always have that confidence.

 

[krosero]

Yup here's the exact quote from Pete's book, referring to what happened in their '96 Wimbledon quarterfinal after a rain delay in the first set:

He was suddenly going for his shots, especially his second serve. Whether he knew it or not, he was taking me into territory I least liked to visit. My m.o. called for me to approach even the most lethal serve-and-volleyers with the expectation that I'll get a good look at some second serves. If that happened, I could beat them. The strategy worked against Goran Ivanisevic, it worked against Boris Becker, and it worked against Stefan Edberg. But when it became harder for me to sniff at a second serve, it created a chain reaction. If I couldn't get to his serve, that put more pressure on mine. I think Richard sensed that, and his own excellent serving freed up the rest of his game, especially his return games. And that's how it almost always works.​

 

[90's Clay]

A 6-4 h2h vs. someone is hardly "dominating" them.

He probably had the best success vs. Sampras out of anyone. But Sampras was NEVER dominated by any player during his prime years

A 21-10 h2h.. THATS domination. A 6-4 h2h, thats a slight advantage

 

[Blocker]

People are forgetting they are 1-1 in the slams. K may have got him the first time, and nearly did the second slam match, but Pete wasn't gonna let K get the better of him again in the slams.

 

[TheRed]

A 6-4 h2h vs. someone is hardly "dominating" them.

He probably had the best success vs. Sampras out of anyone. But Sampras was NEVER dominated by any player during his prime years

A 21-10 h2h.. THATS domination. A 6-4 h2h, thats a slight advantage

Yeah, as much as I love Fed, it's hard to for me to put him ahead of Sampras. Sampras just dominated the field. Especially when it mattered. Skillwise, I don't think it's close. Fed is as good or better in most areas but Sampras was a superior competitor. He was a d---, in a good way if being the best matters. He made guys play his game, even when he lost. He won or lost on his terms. I don't think you can say that about Fed.
Sampras was the original all court player for me (I know there were others before) and that's why I'm an all court player these days.

 

[NatF]

Yeah, as much as I love Fed, it's hard to for me to put him ahead of Sampras. Sampras just dominated the field. Especially when it mattered. Skillwise, I don't think it's close. Fed is as good or better in most areas but Sampras was a superior competitor. He was a d---, in a good way if being the best matters. He made guys play his game, even when he lost. He won or lost on his terms. I don't think you can say that about Fed.
Sampras was the original all court player for me (I know there were others before) and that's why I'm an all court player these days.

Federer has faced tougher competition than Sampras. If Federer is as you say more skilled and has better achievements then surely he must be the better player. One man is not the field, Federer's win percentage is vastly superior to Sampras' and he has more important titles. He conquered the field more competely than Sampras did.

 

[TheRed]

Federer has faced tougher competition than Sampras. If Federer is as you say more skilled and has better achievements then surely he must be the better player. One man is not the field, Federer's win percentage is vastly superior to Sampras' and he has more important titles. He conquered the field more competely than Sampras did.

the tougher competition thing is debatable and I'm not going there. There's no way to win that argument. I'm not talking about anything other than Sampra's attitude. There's that saying, "There's no meaner son of a b----" That was Sampras. He was better than you the minute he got on a court. That's how he made you feel. Fed has amazing results but his game is more playful, less surgical and methodical. It's simply more beautiful but Sampras, he just came to win and go home.

 

[NatF]

the tougher competition thing is debatable and I'm not going there. There's no way to win that argument. I'm not talking about anything other than Sampra's attitude. There's that saying, "There's no meaner son of a b----" That was Sampras. He was better than you the minute he got on a court. That's how he made you feel. Fed has amazing results but his game is more playful, less surgical and methodical. It's simply more beautiful but Sampras, he just came to win and go home.

Why does mentality make Sampras a better player when results say otherwise?

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

Krajicek was an unbelievable solid player when he was fit, which he wasn't too often unfortunately. I believe it was Agassi who said that Krajicek was already injured when he looked at a tennis ball. Of course he was exaggerating, but fact is that he was injured a LOT.

He had one of the best serves of the game and very good volleys to back up this serve. He also had a very decent baseline game from both sides. The fact that he leads h2h vs. Pete have never surprised me tbh. Probably the best player of his time when he was 100% fit.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Sampras met a different type of aggression when he played Krajicek, which would put him under enormous pressure and he wasn't used to it.

When Krajicek's game was on, he would barely give Sampras any space to attack. Moreover, Krajicek liked, whenever he had a chance, to approach the net by chip and charge (which was not the case with, for example, Boris Becker, who would sometimes stay back during the rally), attacking the Sampras backhand, which would force Sampras to try to hit a backhand topspin passing shot, instead of just slicing it back. And he didn't like it, he felt most comfortable by slicing it back and waiting for his opponent to choke or to give him a shorter ball.

Krajicek was also much more aggressive off his backhand wing than Sampras. And even though the Sampras backhand was steadier, since he would rather play a high percentage tennis with it - by slicing the ball back - Krajicek's was more lethal - he killed Sampras's second serve by that backhand in their Wimbledon match.
He also had a great volleys.
And Krajicek wasn't afraid of Sampras on faster courts, which was not the case with the most of players from his era.

When their games were on, the match was on Krajicek's racket. Sampras knew it and that's why he hadn't been as confident as against the other players.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

the tougher competition thing is debatable and I'm not going there. There's no way to win that argument. I'm not talking about anything other than Sampra's attitude. There's that saying, "There's no meaner son of a b----" That was Sampras. He was better than you the minute he got on a court. That's how he made you feel. Fed has amazing results but his game is more playful, less surgical and methodical. It's simply more beautiful but Sampras, he just came to win and go home.

Since when "the attitude" is the measure of greatness? You could make a case that Hewitt is above Federer, since his mental strength was and is enormous and I would say as great as Nadal's, Borg's, Connors's, Evert's, Seles's...
Tennis players play for the titles and Federer has, by those metrics, more success than Sampras.

But, to say that Federer's game was "less surgical and methodical" is really funny.
Do you realize that Federer has reached all Slam finals at least five times each? And let's not forget that Sampras failed to reach a single final at RG. Not to mentioned that Federer has better results in Slams, WTF, Masters. And how has he achieved all of that? By having "less surgical and..." game?

With all due respect, I think that your statement doesn't make any sense.

 

[abmk]

1st serve was not a wash. K's 1st serve was bigger. So when he's on, he's untouchable. Sampras was the best server ever in my book but only because his 2nd serve was almost as good as 1st. Other servers had bigger 1st serves.
Neither were good returners. Sampras was more conservative on returns though so he got more back.
Sampras did have a better backhand but only because it's more conservative. When K was on, he clocked his bh's.
ultimately, i think sampras would have been ahead eventually but K was exactly the type of player Sampras had trouble with early in his career. Their games were very close.

first of all, sampras' 2nd was nowhere as good as his first. I'd take it that was meant to be hyperbole.

and krajicek being ahead of sampras in h2h had nothing to do with it being early on his career.

He was 6-2 vs sampras from 93 till miami 99 ( all part of sampras' prime years ) ... sampras only pulled back in the rivalry after Krajicek's injuries took a major toll on him ( which were pretty significant even before 99 anyways )

 

[Deleted member 512391]

first of all, sampras' 2nd was nowhere as good as his first. I'd take it that was meant to be hyperboke.

and krajicek being ahead of sampras in h2h had nothing to do with it being early on his career.

He was 6-2 vs sampras from 93 till miami 99 ( all part of sampras' prime years ) ... sampras only pulled back in the rivarly after Krajicek's injuries took a major toll on him ( which were pretty significant even before 99 anyways )

Actually, this is a very good point. Krajicek was always a tough customer for Sampras, people usually forget that he owned him during Sampras's prime years, including 2-0 in best of five (he beat him in their only Davis Cup match in 1994 when Sampras was a holder of three Slams: USO 1993, AO 1994 and Wimbledon 1994).

 

[Egoista]

Because Kryker was the real deal

 

[TheRed]

Since when "the attitude" is the measure of greatness? You could make a case that Hewitt is above Federer, since his mental strength was and is enormous and I would say as great as Nadal's, Borg's, Connors's, Evert's, Seles's...
Tennis players play for the titles and Federer has, by those metrics, more success than Sampras.

But, to say that Federer's game was "less surgical and methodical" is really funny.
Do you realize that Federer has reached all Slam finals at least five times each? And let's not forget that Sampras failed to reach a single final at RG. Not to mentioned that Federer has better results in Slams, WTF, Masters. And how has he achieved all of that? By having "less surgical and..." game?

With all due respect, I think that your statement doesn't make any sense.

It makes complete sense. One's style doesn't make him more or less successful. I liked Sampras style more but Fed has had greater consitent success in the majors. But ultimately, when you look in their eras, I'd take Sampras over anyone else on any surface outside of clay, if my life depended on it. I can't say the same for Fed. I'd still take Nadal on clay, Australian hard, and maybe US hard. Wimbledon is questionable but Nadal held his own against Fed at wimby.

By the way, I agree with you. K played the type of game that made Sampras uncomfortable.

 

[TheRed]

first of all, sampras' 2nd was nowhere as good as his first. I'd take it that was meant to be hyperbole.

and krajicek being ahead of sampras in h2h had nothing to do with it being early on his career.

He was 6-2 vs sampras from 93 till miami 99 ( all part of sampras' prime years ) ... sampras only pulled back in the rivalry after Krajicek's injuries took a major toll on him ( which were pretty significant even before 99 anyways )

Yes, of course it's hyperbole. NO one's 2nd is as good as their first. But of any server I've ever seen, Sampras had the smallest difference between 1st and 2nd.
My comment about playing their careers out was misworded somewhat. It wasn't meant to say Sampras only lost early in his career. It was more or less mean to say if both careers went their normal path, without K being out so much for injury, the results may have been different.

 

[TheRed]

Why does mentality make Sampras a better player when results say otherwise?

It matters because Sampras would not have allowed Nadal to dictate the terms of the match. Fed played to Nadal's pace. He played on Nadals terms. I believe Fed thought he was good enough to play Nadal's game and still beat him but that' not the point. The point is, especially on faster surface, Sampras would have made Nadal play to his pace.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

It makes complete sense. One's style doesn't make him more or less successful. I liked Sampras style more but Fed has had greater consitent success in the majors. But ultimately, when you look in their eras, I'd take Sampras over anyone else on any surface outside of clay, if my life depended on it. I can't say the same for Fed. I'd still take Nadal on clay, Australian hard, and maybe US hard. Wimbledon is questionable but Nadal held his own against Fed at wimby.

By the way, I agree with you. K played the type of game that made Sampras uncomfortable.

That's OK, I just think it shouldn't be the measure of "who is better". At the end of the day, they all play for the titles, regardless of their playing style or their attitude. You put Sampras above Federer because you think he is more determined to win, somebody puts Federer because he hits the ball "prettier", other puts Nadal because his never-say-attitude.
But ultimately, their only goal is to win the title (and the most important one is the Grand Slam title). What's why I think it should be the measure.

By the way, you posted a very good comment here, regarding the same Sampras - Krajicek topic. I found it long time ago: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=349775

 

[Laurie]

I have their last two meetings in Cincinnati and at the US Open in 1999 and 2000, both at the quarterfinal stage. I would love to get some of their other matches but no one seems to ever have recorded them which is a pity, like their 1999 Miami quartefinal match, amazing no one has that, they also played a couple of times in 1994.

The 1999 Cincinnati match was interesting, Sampras was a bit nervous having to play Krajicek that was obvious, as the first set went on, Krajicek was making more opportunities and Sampras was finding it more difficult to hold serve. What was surprising to the commentators was Sampras staying back on many of his 2nd serves (he had to hit a lot of those), Krajieck was using the chip and charge tactic a lot as a result forcing Sampras to come up with passing shots. It got to 4:4 in the first set and Sampras struggling with long duece games and having to save a couple of breaks points.

He made it to 5:4 and then all of a sudden came up with three incredible passing shots including a running forehand down the line and topspin lob, then a backhand pass to take the game to 15 and the set, which clearly shocked Krajicek. Anyone who watched Sampras over the years knnows he head this amazing knack of being able to rack up theree or four passing shots in a row off both wings, return of serve setting up the opportunities. it was clearly disconcerting for Krajicek to control the match and then have three brilliant shots wistle pass him just like that. Not surprisingly Sampras took the 2nd set 6:2, taking the match again on Krajiek's serve with some ridicolous passing shots.

Their match at the US Open was a beauty. Whenever Krajicek was due to Sampras I always got very nervous, more than any other opponent. With the time difference I had to wait till the next morning to get the result, I was pleased and of course the match made famous by that incredible 2nd set tiebreak when Sampras came from 6:2 down to take it 8:6. Like the Cincinnati match, that moment of brilliance stunned Krajicek who went on to lose the next two sets 6:4 6-2, Sampras' returns and passing shots going up a level while Krajicek was again deflated after seemingly controlling the match.

Krajieck was always one of my favourite players, I love his game and attitude, unfortunately as others who are between 6 ft 5 and 6 ft 6 tall, injuries are not too far away: Just look at how Del Potro, Todd Martin also had many injuries at that height, robbing them of the chance to be even more of a force. Krajicek comes into that category, won 17 tournaments including on all surfaces. Very talented player. By the way, Krajicek also had an excellent running forehand.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

I have their last two meetings in Cincinnati and at the US Open in 1999 and 2000, both at the quarterfinal stage. I would love to get some of their other matches but no one seems to ever have recorded them which is a pity, like their 1999 Miami quartefinal match, amazing no one has that, they also played a couple of times in 1994.

The 1999 Cincinnati match was interesting, Sampras was a bit nervous having to play Krajicek that was obvious, as the first set went on, Krajicek was making more opportunities and Sampras was finding it more difficult to hold serve. What was surprising to the commentators was Sampras staying back on many of his 2nd serves (he had to hit a lot of those), Krajieck was using the chip and charge tactic a lot as a result forcing Sampras to come up with passing shots. It got to 4:4 in the first set and Sampras struggling with long duece games and having to save a couple of breaks points.

He made it to 5:4 and then all of a sudden came up with three incredible passing shots including a running forehand down the line and topspin lob, then a backhand pass to take the game to 15 and the set, which clearly shocked Krajicek. Anyone who watched Sampras over the years knnows he head this amazing knack of being able to rack up theree or four passing shots in a row off both wings, return of serve setting up the opportunities. it was clearly disconcerting for Krajicek to control the match and then have three brilliant shots wistle pass him just like that. Not surprisingly Sampras took the 2nd set 6:2, taking the match again on Krajiek's serve with some ridicolous passing shots.

Their match at the US Open was a beauty. Whenever Krajicek was due to Sampras I always got very nervous, more than any other opponent. With the time difference I had to wait till the next morning to get the result, I was pleased and of course the match made famous by that incredible 2nd set tiebreak when Sampras came from 6:2 down to take it 8:6. Like the Cincinnati match, that moment of brilliance stunned Krajicek who went on to lose the next two sets 6:4 6-2, Sampras' returns and passing shots going up a level while Krajicek was again deflated after seemingly controlling the match.

Krajieck was always one of my favourite players, I love his game and attitude, unfortunately as others who are between 6 ft 5 and 6 ft 6 tall, injuries are not too far away: Just look at how Del Potro, Todd Martin also had many injuries at that height, robbing them of the chance to be even more of a force. Krajicek comes into that category, won 17 tournaments including on all surfaces. Very talented player. By the way, Krajicek also had an excellent running forehand.

I would love to find their Davis Cup match from 1994. If you find/have it, please let me know.

 

[monfed]

Actually Krajicek owns Pete and if they'd played as much as Fed plays Ralph(esp more on Ralph's playground namely clay) and had he not got injured then the H2H would've been far more lopsided in Kraj's favour.

 

[Laurie]

Monfed, Sampras won their last two meetings.

 

[mattennis]

When Krajicek was on, he was a joy to watch. He could make any player feel helpless out there.

Sadly he was so injury prone.

As I said many times, during the early years on the 90s I thought Krajicek, Stich and Ivanisevic would win many GS each. It is amazing they ended up winning only 1 GS each (Wimbledon all of them).

The three of them won tournaments on all surfaces and when they were on they could defeat any player on any court.

I remember when Krajicek won the Barcelona Open (on clay) defeating Santoro, Chesnokov, Bruguera, Agenor and Costa without losing a single set.

I also remember the two times Krajicek played Agassi in Wimbledon. Agassi won both times, 7-6 6-3 7-6 and 7-5 7-6 7-6 (Agassi was really a nightmare for serve-and-volley players on grass and everywhere really). Their final in New Haven'95 was also a great match.

He played extremely well in Rome'96 too, only losing in the final to "the beast" Muster in four sets.

 

[Laurie]

Don't forget Krajicek getting Agassi in the 1998 Canadian Open semifinal, he came from a set down, one of my favourite matches, I used to have that match on youtube. Krajicek lost to Rafter in the final, his first loss to Rafter in quite a few matches. Rafter was on a roll that summer, defeating everyone who had wining records against him.

 

[Gonzalito17]

Krajicek was a dangerous player at all times, especially when healthy and fresh. Kind of got lost in the shadows of Agassi, Pete, Courier but he was right in the mix for many years. Serve was lethal when hitting the spots.