I don't know if you're thinking of another Bud Collins article, but I have his report of the match from '95. It's a very long article but let me excerpt what he says about the surface:Not sure I'd take Drysdale's (and Stolle's) word for it on this issue. In his book Pete says the court used for the finals was watered enough to be "muddy," and I've read at least one article where Bud Collins backs him up as to its slow speed. It was most likely faster than the one in the Russia-Germany SFs but that doesn't tell us much because the Russians were fined for rendering the latter court in virtually "unplayable" condition (believe that's the actual word used by the DC committee). I'd say (though of course I'm biased) the Russian squad complaining about the court was probably more sour grapes than anything else.
Besides I don't think the court mattered much anyway. In general I tend to think that courts of the same surface type are more or less the same in speed unless there's an extreme scenario as was the case in the '95 DC SFs. I can't confirm this about the clay courts but the stats I have show that there's not much difference between "fast" and "slow" HCs in % of service/return games won (Cincy being the one exception). My guess is that CCs aren't much different.
(BTW since we're feeling jingoistic, Farrell >> Pavlova.)I agree, we have a number of comments about the surface speed but Stolle's comment is the most substantial and the most specific. He says that the courts at RG are much slower than the one used for the US/Russia tie; and his judgment carries weight because he was courtside, though we don't know what his judgment was based on.
Exactly. Pete should have worked much harder on his fitness and diet, especially given his Thalassemia, but oh well, coulda, woulda, shoulda
Jimbo won 2 of his 4 majors at the French, and the other 2 at the Aussie, and it took Andre a butt load of attempts to get the win which was considered almost a miracle.
As for Sampras "giving up" on clay, I'm fine with that conclusion as long as people don't confuse it with tanking, an accusation that shouldn't be made lightly (and I say this as a fan who came close to making that very accusation in a recent discussion of his infamous '00 USO final against Safin). I go more in depth here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=8158581#post8158581
Yes, and you can also throw in Navratilova who has said on record that she took to grass with ease despite not growing up on it. I've made this same point myself.
Where I differ is on Pete's sliding. I know this is often put forth as the explanation for his lackluster results on clay, but I don't think that's quite right, because while there are matches where he looks downright awkward sliding on the surface, there are also others where he seems on a much surer footing (his '94 Italian Open final against Becker comes to mind).
Instead I think the reason was more strategic and mental. IMO Pete never quite figured out the right balance between net and baseline play. He had to use the former judiciously, because unless your name was Rafael Nadal or Bjorn Borg you were not beating prime Courier or Bruguera from the baseline, at least not most of the time. Pete was gonna succeed in that daunting task 2, maybe 3 at most out of 10 times and of course we know he did just that not once but twice at the same single event ('96 FO), but this was the proverbial alignment of the stars: the courts were reportedly playing fast (though I doubt they were that much faster than usual), Bruguera was coming off an injury-ridden year, and throughout the tourney but especially against Courier Pete was inspired by the recent passing of his long-time coach Gullikson (in his book he discusses how strangely calm he was in the QF even though he was down 2 sets to none). In other times he expectedly came up short, as he did in '93 and '94, and as Becker had found out in his painful loss to Edberg in '89 when he tried to topple Edberg off the ground rather than engage him in S&V battles.
Which brings us to the mental/baseline part of the equation. Past net rushers like Panatta and Noah have shown that coming in can be a successful strategy on clay even against its best exponents like Borg and Wilander, but what's often left out of this factoid is that they didn't just storm the net behind every serve, but rather they patiently traded ground strokes with their opponents while waiting for the right time to move in. (I was once corrected on this very score by krosero, when I made the oft-unchallenged claim that Panatta beat Borg twice at RG with S&V.) This is probably what threw Sampras off the most, and in fact it explains why he had his best result at RG in '96 when he had this net-baseline balance right (the stats I've seen show that he had a fair number of net approaches, but not the kind of sky-high # that a full-on S&Ver like Edberg posted in his '89 SF). In his later years he was attacking the net more and more to an extent where the back court was put on the back burner so to speak, which made getting into that baseline groove more difficult, and I think this was reflected in his sliding we talk about so often. That is, he was constantly questioning whether he should be duking it out from the baseline rather than charging the net at that very moment, hence the unsure footing and the awkward-looking sliding.
That's what I meant when I said his sliding issue had more to do with his mind than with his footwork. In his late years he simply wasn't confident enough as to where to be on the clay court, and he needed someone to rein him in and stress more patience on clay so he could develop this confidence or right frame of mind. Unfortunately Annacone was not this someone, because if anything he was more of a net rusher than Pete and the brand of attacking clay-court tennis necessary to win RG was as alien to him as to his more talented but no less unaccustomed pupil. And when the right coach (Higueras in 2002) came along it was already too late and Pete was no longer willing to tinker with his game (or racquet).
Of course what's done is done, but I do wish Pete had put more effort into clay because his relative weakness on it is what prevents me (and I'm guessing most others) from making a strong GOAT case for him.
Not sure I'd take Drysdale's (and Stolle's) word for it on this issue. In his book Pete says the court used for the finals was watered enough to be "muddy," and I've read at least one article where Bud Collins backs him up as to its slow speed. It was most likely faster than the one in the Russia-Germany SFs but that doesn't tell us much because the Russians were fined for rendering the latter court in virtually "unplayable" condition (believe that's the actual word used by the DC committee). I'd say (though of course I'm biased) the Russian squad complaining about the court was probably more sour grapes than anything else.
Besides I don't think the court mattered much anyway. In general I tend to think that courts of the same surface type are more or less the same in speed unless there's an extreme scenario as was the case in the '95 DC SFs. I can't confirm this about the clay courts but the stats I have show that there's not much difference between "fast" and "slow" HCs in % of service/return games won (Cincy being the one exception). My guess is that CCs aren't much different.
'greed on baseline-net balance being Pete's problem on the dirt, but didn't Edberg make the RG final by serving and volleying off near every serve?
I doubt that Agassi is more revered by American tennis fans, just the ignorant media. Pete grew up on the hard courts of California and geared his game to winning Wimbledon and USO. He was never comfortable playing on clay and did not have the patience or stamina for long clay court matches, except for that DC performance in Moscow, I think in 94 after which he collapsed from cramps after the final game. He won 2 singles and the doubles match to practically win that DC singlehandedly on manufactured very slow clay.
Jimbo?? Sorry, that moniker is reserved for only ONE player and it's not Mr. Courier.
However, I agree, Andre was a bit lucky....I always thought he'd win the FO first, certainly not Wimby.
Lendl made two Wimbledon finals and defeated Edberg in a Wimbledon semi. He also won Queen's and defeated both Mac and Becker in the process. Lendl choked away his 1987 Wimbledon final against Cash, it was more of a mental issue with Lendl than the non-efficacy of his grass game. He defeated ATG's on grass enough to prove that.
I dont think so, clay is a dream run on compare to hardcourt.
Chocked? Cash played like a dream. One of the finest displays ever.
No way. Cash kicked his #ss, sorry. Yes, the Queen's win was a highlight. I remember that. But over all, I never felt his grass game....S&V on nearly all his serves....looked natural. Very stiff and out of sorts when he played that way. God awful? No. But it just seemed very divergent from his normal game, which was HIGHLY effective. He lost to the 'old' grass kings as well as the new ones, even with the change in playing style. This just was not his best surface, under normal circumstances.
100% agree pete could out hit, out move, and add out-finesse anyone...he had all the shots and for those who watched his career, that includes a backhard
His game from mechanics on up was simply geared to lower bounces, built to win wimbledon by his own choosing. In the end, he did...pretty good. As a raw talent though, i've said it before...drop him, nadal, novak and fed in the same academy as kids and i wouldn't be surprised to see pete emerge the best of the bunch (or imo, right there w roger.)
Sampras' backhand would be exposed today. Nice slice and block for fast surfaces, but it would be destroyed in a moderne rally. But he'd probably adjust if he was born in the the '80 or later – like all great players. But his backhand was never great.100% agree pete could out hit, out move, and add out-finesse anyone...he had all the shots and for those who watched his career, that includes a backhard
Simple explanation most clearly right one.
Really? I tend to doubt that because he won more than his fair share of backcourt rallies w/Agassi on USO decoturf. Sampras was a tough man to beat when he was motivated. I felt he just loved to outrally Agassi on the hardcourts, just to prove he was superior overall. Agassi had the stronger backhand, but that didn't seem to factor in all that much.
I agree Edberg moved better, but I'm not sure it mattered all that much. I don't think winning on clay mattered all that much to Pete. He just wanted to win period. And, he just won more on other surfaces. His power game worked better outside of RG, that's reality. I do wonder about the backhand however....if he had stayed with the 2 hander, would he have had more success on clay? As many know, he dropped it because he felt it would hinder his ability to win at W. Would like to have seen that alternate universe w/2 handed sampras backhand.
Tsitsipas has won several big claycourt – and other – tournaments with a fairly weak backhand. His athleticism and great forehand compensate. Sampras had a decent slice that could keep him in rallies against Agassi who hit fairly flat. I doubt it would work against today's monster spins.
Bingo. Petros was like a panther prowling in the swamp when he was stuck in Paris.
This is hyperbole. The speed of the courts that year has always been overexaggerated.
i do think it had a lot to do with strike zone...on low bouncing surfaces pete's backhand was pretty darn good...as many have said, he could rally and come out on top against the best, including agassi. but he really did not take the high ball well (like a stan, or guga, or muster for example)...just wasn't set up for that hit point up high, very old-school mechanics, more so than fed even.
Well said.
I tend to agree w/you....
Simplistic doesn't equal simple.
Right.
his loss to krajicek at wim 1996 had absolutely nothing to do with him beeing dead tired weeks ago at the french open. nothing.
Agreed. If a professional athlete can’t recover any quicker then there is an issue.
I don't see how you can say that. In their only other meeting at a Major, Krajicek won the first set 6-4 and was up 6-2 in the second set tiebreaker at the 2000 U.S. Open before Sampras came back to win.
It's so hard to know....the warm ups may give you some idea of who's playing well, but that's about it. For Pete, it probably made more sense to not deplete himself playing a heavy red clay schedule before W. His game is very consistent across surfaces, w/out big modifcations. So if W is his first grass event, is it really so detrimental? I think not being physically spent is more critical for him (not sure if he was aware of his condition in 1996, I don't recall). I think he lost that QF because Krajicek played fantastic tennis. He should have won that USO match too...he let Pete get back in it. He was one of the few guys who could match or exceed Pete on service games.
OK, yes, I thought that was '96. Pete was very emotionally invested in RG that year.
