Archive | Pete Sampras RSS feed for this section

Rare Species: 90′s Style Tennis

6 May

Endangered Species

While I do not feel as rare as the East African Bongo (pictured above), I was watching some top junior players in my region hitting.  They all hit with extreme grips, generated a lot of topspin and hit two-handed backhands that were slightly different from the form I observed as a kid (I have hit a one-handed backhand for all but two weeks of my tennis life).  It was great to see young players who love tennis hitting the ball as hard as they were.

It was also a bit jarring.  Certainly in the 1990s, a lot of players had patterned their games after Andre Agassi, Jim Courier or Michael Chang.  Still, Pete Sampras, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Patrick Rafter, Michael Stich and others gave templates for one-handed players who built their game around their serves.  I fell into this category.  My first year of regularly playing matches with neighborhood friends was an exercise on how to lose.  However, once I learned to serve with some acumen in the seventh grade, I routinely beat my friends, did well in leagues and began to play tournaments.  I hit big serves, moved forward, volleyed well and generally played a clean style of tennis.  As I moved into high school and larger pools of opponents, I did not always meet with success, but my game was fairly straight forward.  Win or lose, I was going to serve pretty big and get to the net during my matches.

My one-handed backhand at that age was a liability because I could really only slice the ball unless an ideal situation arose for driving though the ball.  By the time I was in college, I was strong enough to have really good versatility on my backhand wing.  In the early part of the 2000′s I was living in a remote location, but a man from Spain lived near me and we played tennis four or five days per week for a solid year (even in very cold weather). His topspin based game helped me round out my game and become a more all court player.  Still, I generally beat him.  I did so because I was willing to serve and volley and willing to chip and charge.  He said as much when I eventually moved ending our one year run of singles competition.  He told me he had to learn to come forward as well.

Edberg vs. Muster 1994

I love this clip because it captures two very different approaches for constructing and winning points. 

Where You Are the Endangered Species

That was the tagline for the very mediocre film adaptation of the novel Congo.  Watching these juniors, I thought my grips, my court positioning, my backhand and my general approach to tennis is anathema to how they play.  I do not begrudge the pros for turning away from more net centric styles of tennis.  The percentages just are not there.  However, I am not convinced that the average junior player or club player has the hand eye coordination or racquet head speed to really push an opponent off of the net.  Regardless of the racquets and strings available to an average player, he or she is average just like me.

That makes me think forward moving styles of tennis are still quite viable.  I have had a chance to hit for a few minutes here and there with junior players this year.  The one shot that they struggle with the most is my one-handed slice backhand.  I hit the shot reasonably well, but it is also a shot they never see.  Therefore, the advantage of unorthodoxy or the element of surprise alone should keep players like me who honed their games in the 1990s or prior happy to maintain our style of play.  Throw in that an attacking player knows what to expect from almost every younger player and that younger players are not used to hitting passing shots or lobs, and the future just gets brighter for a style that is seemingly obsolete.  I just got my preferred racquets restrung, and I was cracking serves like it was 1993.  I simply say that if tennis that focuses on getting to the net is a dinosaur, it is the job of practitioners of attacking tennis to be Jurassic Park.

The Law of Eternal Recurrence?

Youtube Tennis for the Week of 4-10 through 4-14-2012

10 Apr

1. Edberg vs. McEnroe at Wimbledon 1989

2.  Muster vs. Sampras 1995

3.  John Isner vs. Gilles Simon 2012

Youtube Tennis for April 2 – April 6, 2012

2 Apr
  1. Novak Djokovic is Number One
  2. Radwanska vs. Sharapova Highlights
  3. Pete Sampras vs. Boris Becker

Youtube Tennis for March 20 – March 24

20 Mar

1. Steffi Graf’s 1988 Golden Slam

2.  Jim Courier vs. Andre Agassi at the 1991 French Open

3.  Guga Kuerten vs. Pete Sampras at Miami 2000

4.  Guga vs. Agassi – 2000 Year End Championships

Youtube Tennis for the Week of 3-12-2012 through 3-18-2012

12 Mar

With Indian Wells Underway this Week will be all Vintage Highlights

  1. – The video quality is not great, but two legends in a stakes match is worth a view.  
  2. – 1994 Australian Open quarterfinal – Edberg puts on a paralyzing display of serve and volley tennis
  3.  - 1995 Australian Open quarterfinal
  4. – Safin and Agassi in a baseline brawl.   Agassi once said, “If a player can’t take his backhand up the line he can’t beat me.”  Safin answers the call.

Men Who Stare at Tennis GOATS Part 4 – The Usual Suspects: Roger Federer

23 Feb

Part 1 Laid out key questions

Part 2 Looked at Bjorn Borg’s Credentials and the difficulties of the GOAT Debate

Part 3 Looked at Pete Sampras’ Credentials

Roger Federer

Why Roger Federer might be the GOAT - Roger Federer has a compelling case to make on both fronts of the GOAT argument.  He holds many of tennis’ most important records and is close to the leader in the records that he does not (yet?) hold.  He fills Sampras’ requirement for GOAT by holding the most Grand Slam singles titles.  Therefore, he has probably the strongest answer to the question of who has accomplished the most as a male tennis player. Federer’s sixteen Grand Slam singles titles and career Grand Slam seem to separate him from even the great Pete Sampras.

In terms of who has played the best tennis ever, Federer’s game is quite adaptable to all surfaces.  His style of play has an aesthetic quality to it that may turn off some but has won the allegiance of many fans.  Federer’s success indoors and stroke mechanics make it easy to envision adapting his game to previous eras with faster courts and less advanced string technology.  Rafael Nadal is an incredible competitor and athlete so he likely would have had success in other eras as well, but his game would need to be radically rebuilt to succeed in the past.

Federer’s strongest argument comes from his streaks.  He has not only set records, but he has generally obliterated the previous or second place marks.  Here are a few of the highlights:

  • Federer reached Ten consecutive Grand Slam Finals (a record) followed by his own a streak of eight consecutive Grand Slam Finals (Agassi, Laver and Nadal are in third place with four consecutive Grand Slam final appearances)
  • Federer won eight consecutive non-clay court Grand Slam titles from Wimbledon 2005 through the US Open 2007
  • Federer has reached the final round of each Grand Slam event at least five times (His record in these finals: Wimbledon 6-1, US Open 5-1, Australian Open 4-1, French Open 1-4)
  • Federer has won a record sixteen Grand Slam singles titles and reached a record twenty-three Grand Slam singles final rounds
  • Federer made twenty-three consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances.  That translates to 5.75 years of placing no worse than the top four at tennis’ biggest events.  I bolded this because I think this is his greatest achievement.
  • Federer has an active streak of thirty-one consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal appearances.  That translates 7.75 years of finishing no worse than the top eight at tennis’ biggest events.
  • Federer, like Bjorn Borg, won five consecutive Wimbledon titles and reached six consecutive Wimbledon finals.  Unlike Borg, Federer added a sixth title and seventh consecutive championship appearance to his collection in 2009.
  • Federer also won a record twenty-four consecutive championship matches when reaching the final of a tournament.

One could go on, but beyond Federer now holding the most season ending championships, I think the biggest accomplishments have been named.  These records are so gaudy that it may take a decade or two after Federer’s retirement to fully grasp what they represent.

Why Roger Federer is not the GOAT – Two arguments are frequently cited in debating Federer’s status.  The first is that Federer did not face stiff competition in setting his records.  This seems like a hollow argument as Rafael Nadal first became a credible Grand Slam threat in June 2005 and Federer won twelve of his sixteen majors after this point.  Also, consider the 2004 Australian Open in which Federer defeated Lleyton Hewitt, David Nalbandian, Juan-Carlos Ferrero and Marat Safin in succession.

The other typical argument against Federer’s GOAT status has more heft.  Roger Federer has a poor head-to-head record against his main rival in Rafael Nadal.  Federer is 9-18 versus Nadal.  This feeds into the second question relevant to GOAT debates regarding who has played the best tennis or held the highest standard of tennis. Some of this can be contextualized.  Namely, during Federer’s best years he was reaching the final round of clay court events only to face Nadal, but Nadal did not often return the favor on faster hard courts and indoor courts.  Still, Federer’s head-to-head record versus Nadal is a real number that impacts this debate.

You Decide - Federer has unquestionably been more consistently excellent than any other player in the Open era.  Outside of Novak Djokovic, Federer has handed Nadal his biggest defeats by topping Nadal twice in the Wimbledon final, four times at the Masters Cup/World Tour Finals, and in the final round of three Masters 1000 events. Federer still leads his non-clay court head-to-head with Nadal seven to five.  To be sure, Nadal has more frequently inflicted big losses on Federer, but it is not as if Roger has never drawn blood in this rivalry.  Is Federer’s preternatural talent and consistent excellence enough to earn GOAT status or does Nadal’s record over Federer throw the debate into chaos?

Next – Rafael Nadal’s Credentials

Men Who Stare at Tennis GOATS Part 3 – The Usual Suspects: Pete Sampras

22 Feb

Part 1 – Laid Out Key Questions

Part 2 – Discussed the Difficulties of Naming a GOAT while Examining Bjorn Borg’s Case

Men Who Stare at Tennis GOATS Part 3

Pete Sampras

Why Pete Sampras Might be the GOAT - Pete Sampras holds fourteen Grand Slam singles titles and seven Wimbledon titles.  Pete Sampras spent more weeks ranked number one than any other player.  He finished a record six consecutive years ranked number one.  Pete Sampras also shares an Open Era record of five US Open titles with Roger Federer and Jimmy Connors.  These numbers are staggering.  Considering that a player as strong as Rafael Nadal has finished two non-consecutive years as the number one ranked player and that Andre Agassi only finished one year ranked first, Sampras’ best claim might be his consistent finishes during the 1990′s.

I think Sampras best claim is found in the surface speeds of the tour when he played.  Each Grand Slam in the 1990′s played at significantly different speeds.  Pete Sampras won fourteen majors without the luxury of being able to play similarly at each major.  All four slams playing somewhat similarly makes piling up major titles easier.  The significantly different cast of contenders at the French Open and Wimbledon in the 1990′s meant that a player would have to make serious adjustments to contend in Paris and London.

Finally, Pete Sampras generally controlled key rivals in his career.  He tended to get the better of Andre Agassi.  Sampras beat Boris Becker at Wimbledon three times.  Sampras’ only significant blemish was losing to Stefan Edberg at the 1991 US Open final and in the semifinal round of the 1992 Australian Open.

Why Pete Sampras is Not the GOAT - Sampras repeatedly set out the goal of holding the most Grand Slam singles titles in history.  By his own definition of greatness, Sampras is number two.  He even said Federer is the greatest player of all time following the 2009 French Open.  That seems like an air tight case against Sampras as the GOAT, but of course his failure to reach a French Open final also looms large.  Bjorn Borg reached the US Open final on four occasions and came up empty.  Sampras did not once get that close to his white whale.  Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andre Agassi all holding the career Grand Slam further damages Sampras’ GOAT credentials.    Like Sampras, The French Open is Federer’s worst Grand Slam.  Still, Roger Federer reached the final round of the French Open five times including his 2009 title run.  Sampras may very well be the best fast court player ever, but GOAT seems out of reach.

You Decide - Does an impeccable record against his main rivals, unmatched season ending rankings, and fourteen major titles overcome Sampras’ difficulties on terre batu?

Next – Roger Federer’s Case

Men Who Stare at Tennis GOATS Part 1

13 Feb

Part 1 – Arriving at the Relevant Questions

A Question from California

Shortly after Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in the 2012 Australian Open semifinal round, I was asked how I thought Roger Federer’s record against Rafael Nadal impacted his arguable status as the Greatest of All Time (GOAT). Federer winning only one third of his matches versus his primary rival since 2005 is not a great resume line to be sure.  Oddly enough, Rafael Nadal losing seven consecutive tournament finals to the same opponent while Rafa is in his mid-20′s is not a great resume line either.  I am not a huge proponent of GOAT debates for reasons I will express in this series.  However, I respect my friend’s tennis mind and game enough to try to give this topic a thorough examination.

When Did All of this GOAT Stuff Become so Prevalent?

Some questions about the GOAT likely began when Pete Sampras made public his career goal of breaking Roy Emerson’s then record twelve Grand Slam singles titles.*  Still, I think 1999 was the year when the levy started to break.  What has followed is a more than decade long debate in tennis.  Andre Agassi won the 1999 French Open and questions began to emerge as to who had the better career between Sampras and Agassi.  Pete Sampras had eleven major titles at that time and Andre Agassi had a career Grand Slam.   One month later, Sampras beat Agassi in straight sets to win his sixth Wimbledon title while also tying Emerson’s twelve major singles titles.  Agassi did not fade from the conversation as he captured both the 1999 US Open and 2000 Australian Open titles to become the first man since Rod Laver to reach four Grand Slam finals in a fifty-two week period of time.

Blame it on 2004?

While Sampras and Agassi each won two more majors after the 2000 Australian Open ended, consensus began to settle on Sampras as the GOAT.  He was taller and more powerful than Rod Laver.  He did not get to play three majors per year on grass.  He won fourteen Grand Slam titles in total.  Sampras’ lack of success on clay was overshadowed by his Grand Slam successes, finishing six consecutive years with the number one ranking and winning five season ending championships.

In 2004, Roger Federer put together what appeared to be a year for the ages.  Federer did not match Mats Wilander’s Grand Slam match record from 1988, but he did win three Grand Slams in a single season.  This was something Pete Sampras had never done.  Federer also won four Masters Series events, won tournaments on every surface, won the season ending championship and won eleven total tournaments.  Pete Sampras’ best single season tournament haul had been ten titles in 1997.  It was not just that 2004 had been a better year than any that Sampras had numerically posted, Federer was eerily excellent in 2004.  His 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 dismissal of Lleyton Hewitt in the 2004 US Open championship match was a virtuoso performance that had people wondering if Federer had just played the best match for big stakes in the Open Era.

Star Light, Star Bright

Was Federer’s brilliance enough to make one forget that he had ten fewer Grand Slam titles than Pete Sampras?  I remember thinking that Federer had just completed the best year since Jimmy Connors’ 1974.  I also thought that Federer would retire with somewhere between eight to ten majors because he would not be interested in playing tennis past his late twenties.  It was simply a hunch I had that Federer would not be driven by the idea of longevity.  A great deal of Federer vs. Sampras rhetoric arose from 2004-2009.  I remember writing Jon Wertheim with a solution at which I had arrived.  I simply said, “Some stars shine brighter than others while some stars shine longer than others.”  While Carl Sagan or Timothy Ferris might have been influencing my thoughts, I simply felt that Federer in 2004 and 2005 had produced two better years than any on Sampras’ resume, but I doubted that Federer would grind out another eight or nine majors to tie or surpass Sampras in the major title column.  Therefore, Federer would be the brightest star in the tennis sky, but Sampras would be the star had the longest high quality life.

By the end of 2006, my thinking had changed.  Federer had put together a year that dwarfed even his impressive 2004 marks.  In 2006, Federer won three majors, the season ending title, was runner-up at the French Open, and won twelve total titles.  Given that Roger had also reached six consecutive major final rounds winning five majors in that stretch and given that Federer had now posted thirty-six months that were better than any single year or three year stretch in Sampras’ career, I felt Roger had done enough to surpass fourteen majors.  Three years is a long time to shine so brightly.  Plus, Sampras had never reached a French Open final.  By the end of 2007, I thought the case was more or less closed despite Federer only holding twelve major titles.  Reaching ten consecutive Grand Slam final rounds and winning eight of those matches seemed to be a strong closing argument.

Determining the GOAT: Two Separate But Related Questions

The pre-2009 Federer-Sampras debate did yield some data that is going to be helpful for exploring the topic of the tennis GOAT.  During the 2004-2009 debates regarding the Sampras and Federer claims, the pro-Sampras crowd generally argued about raw numbers of major titles, years finished ranked number one and total weeks ranked number one.  The pro-Federer crowd argued that Federer had done enough in these categories to make his superior play on clay and domineering brilliance the deciding factor. These two lines of argumentation rest on two different questions.

1.  Who accomplished the most? 

2.  Who played the best tennis? 

Certainly, the pro-Sampras crowd might have argued and probably still argues that Pete was basically unbeatable on a fast grass court and on an indoor court.  The pro-Federer crew prior to 2009 certainly argued that Federer reaching ten consecutive Grand Slam championship matches was an accomplishment far beyond Sampras’ best stretch of three consecutive Grand Slam final appearances.  Still, the answers to these two questions generally yield different results in the search for a GOAT.  This series will pursue both lines of thought while taking into account results since 2009 in an attempt to at least place the landscape of the GOAT question into more precise relief.

* – Somehow Emerson’s sixteen Grand Slam doubles titles never made it into the discussion.  The decline of doubles as an important factor in tennis is another vexing aspect of determining a GOAT.

Next Part 2 - The Usual Suspects

Best Two Time Australian Open Champion (Poll)

17 Jan

Tennis has produced a lot of two time Australian Open champions.  All of the solo winners plus Andre Agassi (4), Roger Federer (4) and Mats Wilander (3) are not eligible, but who was the best player to win the crown twice?

Jim Courier The Entrepreneur Former Australian Open Champions Part 2

16 Jan

Jim Courier: the Entrepreneur 

The 1992 and 1993 Australian Open Men’s Champion Jim Courier has been a strong presence in tennis since retiring without  overshadowing active players.  Although Courier made his Grand Slam breakthrough in Paris on red clay, I think the Australian Open best meshed with Courier.  His off season preparation left Courier ideally positioned for solid showings in Melbourne.  The hot conditions and slow court were optimal for his grinding and counter punching.

Courier made his first strong impression Down Under with a tough 5 set loss to then world #1 Stefan Edberg in the 1991 round of 16.  Courier proceeded to beat Edberg in 4 sets en route to his first Grand Slam title at the 1991 French Open.  Edberg won the 1991 rubber match with a decidedly one-sided US Open final.  Courier looked to be in serious trouble when he set up a rematch with Edberg at the 1992 Australian Open.  However, slower courts gave Courier a better look at returns and passing shots.  Courier also used a one handed slice backhand surprisingly well.  Courier prevailed in 4 tight sets to more or less lock up the #1 ranking.  It is easy to forget that in the span of 10 Grand Slams from the French Open 1991 through Wimbledon 1993 Courier won 4 slams and was runner-up at 3 others.  Courier would repeat his victory over Edberg one year later.  His second title also came with a 4 set victory, but Courier dominated the second encounter.  The court was ridiculously hot, but Courier was so fit his level of play did not suffer much in 1993.

Courier would never win in Australia again, but he did reach the semifinal round in 1994.  He lost an instant classic 5 set tilt with Pete Sampras in 1995 and lost another 5 set match to Andre Agassi in 1996.  Courier has been a fixture on Australian television since retiring.  He helped get player contributions to ebay auctions for Tsunami relief in 2005.  This may have been the germination of the 2010 Hit for Haiti.  Courier’s fitness and Harry Hopman influenced style fit Australia well.

Business Ventures

Jim Courier has launched some music related ventures.  However, his 2007 documentary Unstrung chronicled the odd life that elite junior tennis players lead.  It is interesting to me that both Agassi and Courier came up through the cauldron that  was the early tennis academy system in the US.  Each man went on to do a reflective piece on life as a junior tennis player.  Agassi focused on an autobiography and Courier focused on telling the story of younger players.  Courier’s company Inside Out Sports Entertainment missed out on the ESPN 30 for 30 series, but one could easily see Courier doing an insightful program focusing on some little known aspect of tennis.

Inside Out Sports Entertainment also relaunched a senior tennis tour in the United States.  This tour has been flexible enough to transform from a week long tournament based tour to morph into a one night event that gives fans 3 sets of quality tennis with 4 players contesting a mini-tournament.  The longer a match goes the worse the senior players look in comparison to current players.  This adaptation will likely make the senior tour viable for years to come.  Since Roger Federer is technically old enough to play on Courier’s tour (as is Lleyton Hewitt) and Andy Roddick is close to being eligible, Courier can continue the good vibes.

Courier’s post-retirement career also included helping Patrick McEnroe with Davis Cup and eventually becoming the US Davis Cup captain.  Announcing duties, musical ventures, documentaries, and Davis Cup coaching have placed Courier in an interesting spot for former players.  I should add that Courier also taught himself French.  All of this adds up to Courier being the multifaceted renaissance man of tennis.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 893 other followers