Would Pete Sampras have won 1999 Wimbledon if Philippoussis hadn't retired injured whilst up a set?

[Aussie Darcy]

Philippoussis was the 7th seed and was playing Sampras in the QF and was up a set when he injured his knee and had to retire. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon that year by defeating Henman in 4 sets in the SF and Agassi in 3 sets in the Final.

Do you think Philippoussis could've pulled off the victory or tired Pete enough to have him loses his SF or Final?

Their H2H was 6-1 to Pete at that point but Mark's only win was at the 1996 Australian Open. They played against each other then at 2 Wimbledons, a US Open, a Davis Cup match and a Paris Masters match with Sampras winning all of them in straight sets.

Sampras was the 2x defending champ and had won 5 Wimbledon titles in his career at that point.

Was the first set just an outlier or did Sampras really 'dodge a bullet' as he called it.

 

[hoodjem]

We’ll never know. Reality.



If Sampras played in the zone like he did against Agassi in the final, he would beat anyone.
In that Legends of Wimbledon video, he said it was the best he ever played.
(Agassi said all he remembers is walking on the court, then walking off the court.)

Sampras lost only two sets in the entire tournament: the one to Philippoussis and one to Henman in the semis. So Sampras was playing at a pretty high level.

Given the H2H, I am tempted to say the first set was an outlier.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Winning a set, or even two, against ATGs is good and essential to setup for a win in the slams. However, not much is assured though. In the 2000 finals, Rafter was up a set and I think a mini break in the second set tie-breaker. What happened next is known to all.
I think Berdych was 2-0 sets up against Fed in 2009 AO. Nothing happened, Fed won the remaining 3 without any problems. Isner went 2-0 sets up in 2011 FO, first round. He did not even trouble (much) Nadal in the last three sets.

Good for Philippoussis, and unfortunate for him to get injured. He performed and improved his record in the 2003 Wimbledon, albeit went down to Fed in straights, and lost two sets in tie-breakers. I don't doubt he was better in 2003 than in 1999.

 

[qindarka]

Dunno, Philipoussis had beaten Sampras in a Grand Slam before. But Sampras had successfully come from a set down plenty of times.

 

[Phoenix1983]

He stood a chance, for sure.

Yet, Sampras' mentality was second to none, and he certainly would have done his best to put Mark in his proper place.

 

[ollinger]

Do you think Philippoussis could've pulled off the victory or tired Pete enough to have him loses his SF or Final?

I give up -- what's the correct answer??

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I give up -- what's the correct answer??

Let me check with the gods on that one and get back to you

 

[ChrisRF]

I don’t remember the match but I would like to see a video to judge myself.

By the way, there was a guy named “jsnple” on Youtube for many years. He uploaded almost all matches Sampras played over the years, but his channel was deleted over and over again. Last time he came to early 1999 before getting banned again. Now he is absent since at least a year or longer. So unfortunately we could never see much of Sampras’ last two Wimbledon wins (only the finals of 1999 and 2000 are on Youtube).

If you are here on this forum please come forward. Your videos were just awesome!

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Sampras very lucky...as always...

 

[jorjipy]

The Poo beat Sampras at the French as well so it wasn't beyond him to beat Sampras at a Slam.....my gut feeling is that yes, Philippoussis would have won that day

 

[Thomas195]

The Poo beat Sampras at the French as well so it wasn't beyond him to beat Sampras at a Slam

Anyone could have defeated Sampras on clay by that time.

 

[Kalin]

Philippoussis...

I give you a like for using 'whilst' in a sentence.

 

[Darrell]

I remember watching that match live. I was 16 at the time. I remember Mark was swinging for the fences and hitting everything big! I honestly thought it was going to be a repeat of the 1996 Wimbledon QF when Krajicek took out Sampras. I really think Pete got lucky that day. Maybe Pete would have turned things around, or maybe Mark would have dropped his level a bit, but we will never know. As history will have it, Pete went on to beat Agassi in the final that year, and Pete was in the zone.

 

[Rhino]

I do remember this match and I thought Flip was in with a very realistic chance.

It would’ve given Henman a better chance to reach the final, and then probably Agassi would have won.

A Henman/Agassi final would’ve been big news!

 

[Prabhanjan]

Sampras, since 1993, had lost the first set 13 times, and he went to win the match 10 times, with 2001-02 forming 2/3 such losses. So, until the Philipousis match, losing first set did not mean much. Until the Mark match, he was first down 8 times, and came back seven times. So, not much evidence to suggest anything. The most one can say is that Mark was unlucky.

 

[Rhino]

Sampras, since 1993, had lost the first set 13 times, and he went to win the match 10 times, with 2001-02 forming 2/3 such losses. So, until the Philipousis match, losing first set did not mean much. Until the Mark match, he was first down 8 times, and came back seven times. So, not much evidence to suggest anything. The most one can say is that Mark was unlucky.

Except that unlike (probaby) all of those other opponents who’d claimed the first set, Philipoussis had previously knocked Sampras out of a grand slam in straight sets, so it felt like it game-on.

 

[Thomas195]

Except that unlike (probaby) all of those other opponents who’d claimed the first set, Philipoussis had previously knocked Sampras out of a grand slam in straight sets, so it felt like it game-on.

Krajicek. The problem is that Krajicek that year was a clearly better player than Mark P.

I do remember this match and I thought Flip was in with a very realistic chance.

It would’ve given Henman a better chance to reach the final, and then probably Agassi would have won.

A Henman/Agassi final would’ve been big news!

Well, Agassi would have to play against a home player in a final. Unlike Sampras, his mental strength was not always great.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Well, Agassi would have to play against a home player in a final. Unlike Sampras, his mental strength was not always great.

Agassi is not mentally tougher than Sampras, but hands down way more tougher than Henman. The 'home player' and a Brit who did not win a slam like in 1000 years pressure would be too much for Henman. That he could not get over the semi's line speaks volume. I would fancy Mark as more tougher for Agassi than Henman.

 

[Nostradamus]

Philippoussis was the 7th seed and was playing Sampras in the QF and was up a set when he injured his knee and had to retire. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon that year by defeating Henman in 4 sets in the SF and Agassi in 3 sets in the Final.

Do you think Philippoussis could've pulled off the victory or tired Pete enough to have him loses his SF or Final?

Their H2H was 6-1 to Pete at that point but Mark's only win was at the 1996 Australian Open. They played against each other then at 2 Wimbledons, a US Open, a Davis Cup match and a Paris Masters match with Sampras winning all of them in straight sets.

Sampras was the 2x defending champ and had won 5 Wimbledon titles in his career at that point.

Was the first set just an outlier or did Sampras really 'dodge a bullet' as he called it.

NO NO NO. Mark was dominating that match and Pete couldn't handle that serve and befuzzled the entire time. Mark would have blown pete away in straight sets like Richard Krijchek did in the past.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Any video of this ?

 

[JasonZ]

We’ll never know. Reality.



If Sampras played in the zone like he did against Agassi in the final, he would beat anyone.
In that Legends of Wimbledon video, he was it was the best he ever played.
(Agassi said all he remembers is walking on the court, then walking off the court.)

Sampras lost only two sets in the entire tournament: the one to Philippoussis and one to Henman in the semis. So Sampras was playing at a pretty high level.

Given the H2H, I am tempted to say the first set was an outlier.

It is one thing to play against an average server like Agassi, and a total different thing to play against a monster serve like Philippoussis.

It doesnt matter how much in the zone was Sampras when you cant get a racket on those bombs.

He definetely got very lucky that day. I also consider his victories over Ivanisevic much more impressive than his 1999 final win over Agassi, who could never hurt Sampras on a fast court if Sampras was playing well.

 

[ChrisRF]

It is one thing to play against an average server like Agassi, and a total different thing to play against a monster serve like Philippoussis.

It doesnt matter how much in the zone was Sampras when you cant get a racket on those bombs.

He definetely got very lucky that day. I also consider his victories over Ivanisevic much more impressive than his 1999 final win over Agassi, who could never hurt Sampras on a fast court if Sampras was playing well.

But normally Sampras won against both Philippoussis and Ivanisevic. Even the biggest servers usually have a letdown here and there with easy volley mistakes, and then Sampras could very well turn everything around.

If he beat Philippoussis two other times in straight sets in Wimbledon, there is no reason to believe just one lost set would be the end for him. In the SF against Henman he lost the 1st set as well and came back rather easily. 1998 he lost the 1st set against Ivanisevic and came back.

Of course it’s possible to have another AO 1996 moment, but Sampras winning in 4 sets is more likely, only judging how things normally went between them.

 

[marc45]

I know he would have won the U.S. Open that year if his back didn't go out on him, he was having a great Summer

 

[Thetouch]

I know he would have won the U.S. Open that year if his back didn't go out on him, he was having a great Summer

I believe that as well. Pete in the 1999 summer was lethal.

As for his game against Mark, I don't know, maybe Mark was having a good day then and could have beaten him. But wasn't Pete already a break up in the 2nd set? I can see Sampras turning things around anyway, after all it was just 1 set he was down. Not a big deal.

 

[hoodjem]

The 7-3 H2H does not favor Philippoussis.

He beat Sampras only three times: twice on clay and once on hard court.
They met three times on grass, all at Wimbledon, and all for Sampras.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

One should not read too much into this. A hell lot of people were up a set against Sampras at Wimbledon only to lose in the end. This being said, I find Sampras at Wimbledon 99 sometimes a little overrated. He gets much credit for his final performance, but the other rounds he did not look unbeatable. Agassi was also his pigeon and did not really play well in that final. If I remember correctly he had a first serve percentage below 50 % which is crucial against a guy like Sampras who is hard to be broken and goes for it on your second serves.

 

[JasonZ]

One should not read too much into this. A hell lot of people were up a set against Sampras at Wimbledon only to lose in the end. This being said, I find Sampras at Wimbledon 99 sometimes a little overrated. He gets much credit for his final performance, but the other rounds he did not look unbeatable. Agassi was also his pigeon and did not really play well in that final. If I remember correctly he had a first serve percentage below 50 % which is crucial against a guy like Sampras who is hard to be broken and goes for it on your second serves.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[trownjeff]

He stood a chance, for sure.

Yet, Sampras' mentality was second to none, and he certainly would have done his best to put Mark in his proper place.

If you mean Philippoussis, I doubt he would have gone on to win the title even if he had won that match; which was certainly possible if he didn't get injured. I just don't see him having winning that match, beating Henman in the semis (which he probably does but not a certain task with the home crowd), and then Agassi in the final all in a row. I see best case scenario is losing to Agassi in the final.

 

[helterskelter]

Winning a set, or even two, against ATGs is good and essential to setup for a win in the slams. However, not much is assured though. In the 2000 finals, Rafter was up a set and I think a mini break in the second set tie-breaker. What happened next is known to all.
I think Berdych was 2-0 sets up against Fed in 2009 AO. Nothing happened, Fed won the remaining 3 without any problems. Isner went 2-0 sets up in 2011 FO, first round. He did not even trouble (much) Nadal in the last three sets.

Good for Philippoussis, and unfortunate for him to get injured. He performed and improved his record in the 2003 Wimbledon, albeit went down to Fed in straights, and lost two sets in tie-breakers. I don't doubt he was better in 2003 than in 1999.

I think he was a lot better in 1999 than in 2003.

 

[helterskelter]

Philippoussis was the 7th seed and was playing Sampras in the QF and was up a set when he injured his knee and had to retire. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon that year by defeating Henman in 4 sets in the SF and Agassi in 3 sets in the Final.

Do you think Philippoussis could've pulled off the victory or tired Pete enough to have him loses his SF or Final?

Their H2H was 6-1 to Pete at that point but Mark's only win was at the 1996 Australian Open. They played against each other then at 2 Wimbledons, a US Open, a Davis Cup match and a Paris Masters match with Sampras winning all of them in straight sets.

Sampras was the 2x defending champ and had won 5 Wimbledon titles in his career at that point.

Was the first set just an outlier or did Sampras really 'dodge a bullet' as he called it.

If I recall correctly, Philippoussis was also break point up when he injured his knee. But it's possible that it was deuce and Sampras had saved the break point on the previous point.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Sampras got very lucky. Philippoussis was dominating that match.

Similar to how lucky Serena got when Azarenka was beating her at AO in a QF, then had an injury.

 

[DIMI_D]

I remember watching that match live. I was 16 at the time. I remember Mark was swinging for the fences and hitting everything big! I honestly thought it was going to be a repeat of the 1996 Wimbledon QF when Krajicek took out Sampras. I really think Pete got lucky that day. Maybe Pete would have turned things around, or maybe Mark would have dropped his level a bit, but we will never know. As history will have it, Pete went on to beat Agassi in the final that year, and Pete was in the zone.

I remember watching this match live when I was 15 and it looked like Phillipousis was going to hit Sampras off the court and win the match. Mark’s level needed to drop but obviously we will never know but my gut feeling was without the injury Mark was going to win the match, he was all over Pete and he tactically was brilliant up to the injury and maybe go on to win the whole thing.. I dug this up after watching AO 96 breakthrough when Phillipousis shocked the world and hit Sampras off the court at AO.
Sampras was of course my favourite player and got me into tennis they were both of Greek decent.

 

[DIMI_D]

Philippoussis was the 7th seed and was playing Sampras in the QF and was up a set when he injured his knee and had to retire. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon that year by defeating Henman in 4 sets in the SF and Agassi in 3 sets in the Final.

Do you think Philippoussis could've pulled off the victory or tired Pete enough to have him loses his SF or Final?

Their H2H was 6-1 to Pete at that point but Mark's only win was at the 1996 Australian Open. They played against each other then at 2 Wimbledons, a US Open, a Davis Cup match and a Paris Masters match with Sampras winning all of them in straight sets.

Sampras was the 2x defending champ and had won 5 Wimbledon titles in his career at that point.

Was the first set just an outlier or did Sampras really 'dodge a bullet' as he called it.

Great nostalgia mate!

 

[martinezownsclay]

Mark missed an easy shot to go up a break in the 2nd. I think if he makes that he likely wins the match. Since he didn't make it, and was not up a break in the 2nd, I would still slightly favor Pete to pull through.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

The 2nd set would have been crucial. Sampras takes it and it's a somewhat routine 4-set win and if Philippousis takes it he has a really strong chance.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[JasonZ]

i think that match is one of the biggest "what if" in tennis. also this match is the reason sampras final performance against agassi is overrated. agassi would lose 100% if pete just served and played well (well, not great). mark was the only player in sampras draw who could beat sampras if sampras played well. and here pete had a lot of luck.

 

[toth]

I vote for yes

 

[Mustard]

i think that match is one of the biggest "what if" in tennis. also this match is the reason sampras final performance against agassi is overrated. agassi would lose 100% if pete just served and played well (well, not great). mark was the only player in sampras draw who could beat sampras if sampras played well. and here pete had a lot of luck.

There was a key part of the 1999 Wimbledon final. It was something like 3-3 in the first set, Sampras down 0-40 on serve. Sampras got out of that and was soon at a score like 6-3, 3-0 on his way to winning 6-3, 6-4, 7-5. If Agassi had taken one of those break points it would have been a very different kind of match to what it ended up being.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

There was a key part of the 1999 Wimbledon final. It was something like 3-3 in the first set, Sampras down 0-40 on serve. Sampras got out of that and was soon at a score like 6-3, 3-0 on his way to winning 6-3, 6-4, 7-5. If Agassi had taken one of those break points it would have been a very different kind of match to what it ended up being.

I watched that on TV as a big Agassi fan at the age of 13. On the back of his FO win and impressive 7-5, 7-6, 6-2 demolition of Rafter in the semis I was quite sure he would beat Pete who had not done much that year at this point and looked vulnerable against Scud and Henman. The 0-40 Situation was indeed at 3-3 in the first and I was sure Andre would win from here (young fanboy naivity). Pete shattered all dreams quickly. A return error, a serve Andre could barely get back setting up an easy forehand winner at net, a service winner, an ace, and a first volley forcing a passing error and over. Andre himself writes in his book that nobody in the history of the game could have returned those serves.
Then Pete wins 5 games in a row to 2-0 (not 3-0) in the second. It was almost 3-0 though, Andre got lucky to not go double break down. Did not help him much though, Pete was clearly too good for him that day.

 

[NatF]

I watched that on TV as a big Agassi fan at the age of 13. On the back of his FO win and impressive 7-5, 7-6, 6-2 demolition of Rafter in the semis I was quite sure he would beat Pete who had not done much that year at this point and looked vulnerable against Scud and Henman. The 0-40 Situation was indeed at 3-3 in the first and I was sure Andre would win from here (young fanboy naivity). Pete shattered all dreams quickly. A return error, a serve Andre could barely get back setting up an easy forehand winner at net, a service winner, an ace, and a first volley forcing a passing error and over. Andre himself writes in his book that nobody in the history of the game could have returned those serves.
Then Pete wins 5 games in a row to 2-0 (not 3-0) in the second. It was almost 3-0 though, Andre got lucky to not go double break down. Did not help him much though, Pete was clearly too good for him that day.

I think the 1999 final is a little overrated but that stretch from BP's down in the first to 2-0 in the secondary he was nearly unplayable.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think the 1999 final is a little overrated but that stretch from BP's down in the first to 2-0 in the secondary he was nearly unplayable.

Tbf Agassi played pretty bad during that stretch with multiple unforced errors. The game where he got broken to 3-5 was particularly bad.

 

[NatF]

Tbf Agassi played pretty bad during that stretch with multiple unforced errors. The game where he got broken to 3-5 was particularly bad.

Yeah that's fair. IMO the 1994 and 1995 Wimbledon finals were Pete's best there.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I think the 1999 final is a little overrated but that stretch from BP's down in the first to 2-0 in the secondary he was nearly unplayable.

Less than 15 minutes later...

And a screengrab from during those fifteen minutes, for the benefit of Nick Kyrgios. He tweeted a couple of weeks ago that "A big serve back then was like 197–200 kmh" [122–124 mph].

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

My memory of Sampras that year, not only in the final but also his semi against Henman, was that he would cruise through the opening games, go up a gear near the end of the set, get the break and win it, and then stay in a high gear at the start of the next set, exploiting his opponent if they were still distracted/annoyed and not fully focused on the present. It's exactly what he did in sets 2/3 against Tim; broke the Brit to win the set, then again very early in the third and created a 3–0 lead.

Against Agassi I had this uncanny feeling that he was annoyed at being taken out of his comfort zone, as if "how dare you have break points against me at a crucial stage in the set!" He just turned it up to eleven for fifteen minutes to restore order to his universe.

 

[Gizo]

I remember watching a feature in-between the semi-finals and finals (the tournament scheduling was heavily impacted by rain delays) at Wimbledon in 1999, with Sampras goofing around, looking so calm and relaxed, while Agassi on the other hand seemed so intense.

But I did think at the time, that Sampras just wouldn't let Agassi beat him on his turf (now at the US Open I did wrongly predict that Agassi would beat him a couple of times), especially on the 4th of July (Sampras enjoyed reminding other US players in-particular who was boss). I also thought that match-up wise he'd rather face Agassi in a Wimbledon final than someone like Ivanisevic as in the previous year (or certainly Krajicek who he could well have faced instead the previous year)

Another 'typical Sampras' game was when he was serving at *2-1 in the 2nd set, took a heavy fall after hitting that diving backhand volley winner (often replayed over the years when this match featured in Sampras related documentaries), grazed his elbow, then got up and fired down aces in the next 2 points to hold.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I was still young enough to believe the impossible could be possible, but I'm not sure if I truly believed it at this point. Pete, just too good at Wimbledon. Awk well.

 

[Rosstour]

He stood a chance, for sure.

Yet, Sampras' mentality was second to none, and he certainly would have done his best to put Mark in his proper place.

Kind of interesting how the toughest, most alpha player ever...actually lost matches, and to far worse players than Scud

 

[JasonZ]

I remember watching a feature in-between the semi-finals and finals (the tournament scheduling was heavily impacted by rain delays) at Wimbledon in 1999, with Sampras goofing around, looking so calm and relaxed, while Agassi on the other hand seemed so intense.

But I did think at the time, that Sampras just wouldn't let Agassi beat him on his turf (now at the US Open I did wrongly predict that Agassi would beat him a couple of times), especially on the 4th of July (Sampras enjoyed reminding other US players in-particular who was boss). I also thought that match-up wise he'd rather face Agassi in a Wimbledon final than someone like Ivanisevic as in the previous year (or certainly Krajicek who he could well have faced instead the previous year)

Another 'typical Sampras' game was when she was serving at *2-1 in the 2nd set, took a heavy fall after hitting that diving backhand volley winner (often replayed over the years when this match featured in Sampras related documentaries), grazed his elbow, then got up and fired down aces in the next 2 points to hold.

yeah it was much easier for him to play agassi than goran or richard. against agassi he knew that the result only depends on himself, and he plaxs (serves) well, he wins. much easier to be mentally strong in such a match than when it is a huge server.

 

[Gizo]

yeah it was much easier for him to play agassi than goran or richard. against agassi he knew that the result only depends on himself, and he plaxs (serves) well, he wins. much easier to be mentally strong in such a match than when it is a huge server.

Agreed. Against Ivanisevic or Krajicek, he knew he could go long spells without getting a look in on their serve, and that one bad service game could easily cost him the set and put him in trouble.

While against Agassi, it was the same match-up as you set out at the US Open, with the outcome pretty much on his racket, as phenomenal a player as Agassi was. He seemed very calm during the periods in those matches when Agassi was outplaying him, confident that they were nothing more than standard ebbs and flows and that he’d come out on top in the end. His amazing ability to get over bad points (I think I’d still rate him as the best I’ve ever seen in that department), was in sharp contrast to that of Agassi’s long term coach Gilbert, who both during his own playing career and then during his coaching career, would analyse every shot and especially every mistake to death.

The one time I’d be inclined to bet against Sampras in a hypothetical Wimbledon final during his dominant stretch, would be if he played Krajicek in 1998. That is considering the facts that his overall level had clearly declined that year compared to his high standard throughout much of the previous 5 years, Krajicek had already convincingly beaten him at there 2 years earlier, had won their last 2 and 4 out of their last 5 matches (though without a crystal ball to know that he’d also win their next 2 matches as well), had won their last 4 tiebreaks, his return including backhand return seemed better than most at biting into Sampras’s serve etc.