Agassi vs Sampras 1993 Wimbledon

[gzhpcu]

In this video, Agassi apparently changed his serve motion because he had a shoulder problem. Still serving well, though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCpjys2heNA

[don_budge]

Agassi...the Great Pretender

One of the biggest hot dogs to hit the big time. Agassi's Head Radical measured in at a whopping 107 sq. inches compared to Sampras' Wilson Pro Staff at 85 sq. inches. A full 20% advantage in hitting surface. Image is everything according to the ultimate hot dog in sports ever. The Great Pretender. See how he carry's his racquet...I think that he is almost embarrassed.

Image is everything? Mark this motto as the downfall point in American tennis. There were a few last hurrah's courtesy of Andy Roddick but in reality...it was over. Dead in the water. Nick Bollettieri's mission just so happened to destroy American tennis or it only miraculously coincided with it. Strong gripped forehands...two-handed backhands and anything goes for service motion. Serve and volley, approach game...forget about it. Smoke and mirrors. Snake oil. Plenty of snake oil.

[stotty]

Good find...be interesting to know the stats.

Was is that long ago...1993...time flies.

I remember Agassi resorting to this technique, wasn't it for around a year he persevered like that? I wonder what his stats were compared to his normal service action during his career. You'd imagine his first serve percentage would have been lower (and service speed) being that the wind up is all about rhythm and timing. It would be interesting to know.

Nice find, Phil. Always great to dig these things up. I found a great clip of Frank Sedgman and others which I posted as a thread somewhere. The clips are clear too.

[don_budge]

Yes...but what about the obvious?

Was is that long ago...1993...time flies.

I remember Agassi resorting to this technique, wasn't it for around a year he persevered like that? I wonder what his stats were compared to his normal service action during his career. You'd imagine his first serve percentage would have been lower (and service speed) being that the wind up is all about rhythm and timing. It would be interesting to know.

Nice find, Phil. Always great to dig these things up. I found a great clip of Frank Sedgman and others which I posted as a thread somewhere. The clips are clear too.

Any thoughts on the differences on the disparaging sizes of the racquets...licensedcoach?

[stotty]

Stotty if you please...the racket is a big deal

Any thoughts on the differences on the disparaging sizes of the racquets...licensedcoach?

It's Stotty...NEVER Licensedcoach.

Licensedcoach is the universal username for all British LTA coaches posting on Tennisplayer. A post from Licensedcoach wouldn't necessarily be mine. Luckily, I am virtually the sole LTA poster. If any other LTA coach (which is very seldom) does post using Licensedcoach, John intercepts them after their first post and gives them there own username. It's complicated, and there is a reason all the LTA coaches have Licensedcoach as a user name, but lets not go in to it. I have become a prolific poster and have unintentionally hogged the spot. But it's Stotty never Licensedcoach just like it's don_budge and never Don Budge. It's just my preference.

About the racket. Looking back Agassi capitalised more than I thought. The bigger racket never struck me as a big deal back then, but having recently seen the improvement in Federer game in certain areas of the court over the last few months, I've finally concluded it's far bigger issue than I realized. I always thought the middle of the racket is the middle of the racket, and pro's hit the middle all the time, so what's the deal? But it's on the wide balls and high backhand balls where it's made the difference to Federer. It's made him a contender again. Other than Nadal, Federer can beat anyone again.

I am not too sure where it benefitted Agassi at the time because I wasn't paying attention back then. I imagine it helped his volley somewhat.

[don_budge]

Papers please...

It's Stotty...NEVER Licensedcoach.

Please get johnyandell to amend your username as I ALWAYS refer to posters by their username.

[stotty]

Please get johnyandell to amend your username as I ALWAYS refer to posters by their username.

He can't do that...or at least he can't and retain all my posts. You can call me Licensedcoach if you feel your ALWAYS weighs in more than my NEVER. I'll live...

[don_budge]

Size matters...sure it does. Standardize the equipment!!!

About the racket. Looking back Agassi capitalised more than I thought. The bigger racket never struck me as a big deal back then, but having recently seen the improvement in Federer game in certain areas of the court over the last few months, I've finally concluded it's far bigger issue than I realized. I always thought the middle of the racket is the middle of the racket, and pro's hit the middle all the time, so what's the deal? But it's on the wide balls and high backhand balls where it's made the difference to Federer. It's made him a contender again. Other than Nadal, Federer can beat anyone again.

I am not too sure where it benefitted Agassi at the time because I wasn't paying attention back then. I imagine it helped his volley somewhat.

The fundamental concept on hitting any type of shot...be it a tennis shot or a golf shot...is following through the path of the ball with the face of the racquet or club. When you increase the area of the hitting tool you decrease the amount of effort it takes to keep the hit in the sweet spot. Hence you will have discrepancies in the equipment which creates unfair advantage to contestants.

To eliminate this fundamental ability to gain unfair advantage over another is total compliance of the old tennis etiquette. Anything less creates an environment of less that perfect playing conditions. This is why that classic tennis played with standard size racquets will only ever be the "truest" form of tennis. Everything afterwards creates a shadow of doubt regarding the equality of the equipment in any give contest. This example posted by gzhpcu is a prime example.

I wrote extensively on the 1983 Wimbledon final between John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors where McEnroe had switched to more "state of the art" equipment and Connors was holding onto his traditional T2000. Even though McEnroe's new Dunlop was "only" 80 sq. inches compared to Connors' 68.5 sq. inches it created a disparaging unlevel playing field. This sort of nonsense has been reoccurring throughout the "modern" age of tennis over and over. It has also made it impossible to compare players of today with the players of yesterday which is probably the biggest crime seeing as tennis "was" so steeped in tradition.

These players today look like they are playing with huge snowshoes compared to the standard sized wood racquets that were in play for over a century. Then man's need for speed...and the need for greed took over.

It's good that you are coming to grips with the equipment conundrum. The sport of tennis will hopefully do the same someday. With regards to all of the factors...racquet size and springback, string regulation, court engineering and ped's. Tennis needs to do some soul searching about the way forwards. But my guess is that it has strayed so far from the past that it will never resemble the "true" game that it used to be.

[10splayer]

But is a 107 inch racquet an advantage? I find it very interesting, since there inception, very, very, very few players have chosen to use them. Is there perhaps a point of diminishing returns? One thing for sure, these guys have access to the very best equipment and spend an infinite amount of time fine tuning and making sure their tools work for them. (of course, not to the extent Geoff Williams fine tunes)

As for Agassi, the guy was an incredible talent. A ball striking machine, who could of used anything. Boring? hardly. Watch an Eddie Dibs vs Harold Solomon clay court match.....snoozefest. No, Andre was one of the pioneers of the aggressive baseline game and it had nothing to do with his racquet..

[hockeyscout]

Funny

Funny how Agassi's dad recommended to his son's coach at the time, Brad Gilbert, he needed to change Andre to a smaller racket head, or he wouldn't be able to compete against the likes Sampras.

[GeoffWilliams]

But is a 107 inch racquet an advantage? I find it very interesting, since there inception, very, very, very few players have chosen to use them. Is there perhaps a point of diminishing returns? One thing for sure, these guys have access to the very best equipment and spend an infinite amount of time fine tuning and making sure their tools work for them. (of course, not to the extent Geoff Williams fine tunes)

As for Agassi, the guy was an incredible talent. A ball striking machine, who could of used anything. Boring? hardly. Watch an Eddie Dibs vs Harold Solomon clay court match.....snoozefest. No, Andre was one of the pioneers of the aggressive baseline game and it had nothing to do with his racquet..

Some of the pros are using silicone in the handles, lead on our under the grommets: Nadal/Djokovic/etc. Some are now using the jet or mini jet methods to fine tune their frames/string jobs. The three top: alu/gut hybrid users: Joker/Murray/Fed. Tsonga switched to rpm blast, as did Nadal from duralast.

For those who want to find out the best string job for their game style: do this:

Choose, without giving the same priority number to any one category:

What's most important to your game/feel/style: Mark down 5 for most important, and 1 for least, not giving more than one number to any one category.

Easy on the arm/shoulder/elbow

Control

Power

Spin

Touch

If you chose easy/arm: #5 most important:
Os L-tec premium 1.28mm/vs touch gut crosses, strung with jet method, lower than your usual reference string tension by 5lbs. First four mains in center off both sides: 5lbs lower than your first 4 mains tension. Next two, drop 4lbs. Skip off to last main, raise by 6lbs, and then string second to last main, up from beginning tension: 6lbs. Crosses: First three down from top: Raise 4lbs above beginning mains (ref.) Next crosses down until third from bottom: 2lbs under ref. tension, then skip to last from third, up to 2lbs over ref, and then second to last cross( last one strung) 2lbs over ref. tension.

If you chose control as top: Os l-tec 1.23mm/4s l-tec

If you chose power as top: vs touch mains/4s l-tec crosses

If you chose spin as main, drop tension down from normal ref. tension, 8lbs down, and use an edged string as mains, 4s crosses.

If you chose touch: vs touch/4s crosses, your normal ref. tension.

All using jet or mini jet, holding crosses for 20 seconds before clamp off, and mains for ten seconds, pinging out mains to match tension until final two on peripheral sides, which are going to be higher in pitch.

You think I am picky? Why did Borg play bongo drums over all 50 of his frames before big matches? Why did he notice 4g of water soaking into his frames at London? (Put them on top of radiator until they dried out). Why did Lendl notice, blind folded, what color paint was on the strings stencilled? Why did Sampras pick through 30-45 towels each day to find the one that felt right? Why did he cut out $65 string jobs, ten a day, for each slam whether used or not? Why did he reserve all the courts around him to hear his own shots better?
Why did Russel notice one g of difference on a test frame disguised to look like his own frame?


Wilander is a rarity, a pro who did not care about equipment/string/frames at all. He was a defender who concentrated on not missing anything at all, that's why, not a big hitter with very tiny margins, but huge ones. (As told to me by himself in Berkeley, ca.)

For most pros, they are fanatical about the right feel/control/power/spin/touch on the string jobs and don't care as much about the frames. String is 70%. Frames are 30%, of whether you are going to win or lose a close match.

If you don't believe me, ask me to customize/string your own frame. Let's do an article about it, with you taking notes about your feel/results against a close opponent, and see if it makes a difference in your own controlled/power/spin/touch/feel/ win/loss ratio. Your control will incease if strung for that. Your /power/spin/touch/feel/ win/loss ratio will all increase if strung for that. You have to honest about your weak points. Serve/fh/bh/return/consistency/touch/etc. all have to looked at as if seen by an objective bystander who is a good analyst.

Send me a video you you playing a few points in a match. Who cares about durability when your pride is on the line? Your pride is worth more to you than anything on this earth other than your loved ones.

[don_budge]

As for Agassi, the guy was an incredible talent. A ball striking machine, who could of used anything. Boring? hardly. Watch an Eddie Dibs vs Harold Solomon clay court match.....snoozefest. No, Andre was one of the pioneers of the aggressive baseline game and it had nothing to do with his racquet..

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Di/E/Eddie-Dibbs.aspx

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/So/H/Harold-Solomon.aspx

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ag/A/Andre-Agassi.aspx

Here is an interesting note for you...Solomon was 6-8 against the likes of Stan Smith. Stan won the first eight meetings and Harold won the last six. Not bad...for a "snoozer" against top class competition of the day. Eddie Dibbs actually owned a career 3-2 advantage against "Stan the Man".

Likewise Nastase has a reversal of fortunes against the iron willed Eddie Dibbs...he was only 3-5 against Dibbs. Similarily...Nastase was 5-3 against the little tough guy Solomon. Real testimony to the contrast of styles and play in classic tennis. Being the pioneer of today's style of play is not a great compliment. Perhaps a left handed one though.

Speaking of left handed...the respective records of Harold Solomon and Eddie Dibbs against the great John McEnroe were 3-4 and 2-5. Even McEnroe took the Bagel Boys serious. If he lapsed and took them for granted he could have been looking at the short end of the stick. By contrast...Bjorn Borg was 15-0 versus Solomon and 13-0 versus Dibbs. Interesting comparisons in style and such. No longer issues into todays game by the way. Comparisons of players today can no longer be made with those of yesterday. Truly a tragedy...if anybody is truly paying attention. Not that they are.

The classic era of tennis offered a plethora of tennis styles that were plausible successful means to an end. To say that a Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon match is a snoozer is not so far removed from reality. Ironically modern tennis is only a derivative of a typical Dibbs and Solomon "snoozer" as you put it. But you certainly had to admire the "dogfight" in either of these two players...in particular you would hate to play Dibbs on clay. Maybe not you per se...on account of your account of your great forehand.

Here...check out their head to head. If it is not beneath you. These guys were real tennisplayers...no figment of their imaginations. No pretenders. Trust me. Eddie Dibbs with a surprising lopsided 14-5 advantage. But what a rivalry...their matches were testimonies in pluck and intestinal fortitude. They took what they were born with and played their hand. Of course it is all beneath you...it isn't all shock and awe. Plus there were some genuine intellectual tactics involved when playing more gifted and talented competition...unlike the tennis of today. Vic Seixas concurs with me by the way. He agrees about the equipment too...even if Lee didn't print that. All of the old timers do...and it isn't sour grapes. Snowshoes for tennis racquets...it's still a bad joke after all of these years.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=S065&oId=D026

Harold Solomon...5' 6" and 130 lbs, career 567-321. Eddie Dibbs...5' 7" and 160 lbs, career 586-253 won-loss record. Pound for pound really tough competitors...typical that a modern day aficionado should discount their efforts and ability. Funny too...that every single modern day tennis match amounts to a Dibbs vs. Solomon match. I would venture to bet that either of these two ventured to the net more than 95% of the players today. I seem to remember them playing doubles together.

With regards your "image is everything" poster boy...was he saying that it didn't matter what the reality of the situation was but only what it appeared to be. What about ped's and his "remarkable" comebacks with newly sculpted physiques? Size of the racquet doesn't matter? Gilbert recommended a smaller racquet? Smoke your lunch?

Agassi was of course a great athlete...but what percentage of that greatness was from unfair advantage to his opponent. Enough to have been banned for life?

Here is your "class act" pioneer in action. Embarrassing himself and everyone around him. Sampras will maybe never forgive him for this bad display...he almost takes his head off with a serve. Image is everything? Here is the reality of this pretender. It is all an illusion. What a first class jerk. It's no wonder he ends up looking like Uncle Fester. It's no coincidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSK9t6OrgU

"No, Andre was one of the pioneers of the aggressive baseline game and it had nothing to do with his racquet." If you truly believe this statement then you are truly delusional. Andre was not a pioneer of anything and it had everything to do with his racquet. If he could have played with anything...why didn't he? No...he was a pioneer of the modern game of tennis perhaps...where the golden rule of tennis etiquette was chucked out the window along with all of the true traditions of the game. The rule being...thou shalt not seek unfair advantage over your opponent.


I don't know if it is arrogance or ignorance that the classic game of tennis is not given the level of respect that it richly deserves. I think that the illusion that the big racquet has created in tennis for these modern days has a lot to do with it. Illusion is everything! At least it is...these days. These wonderful modern days of virtual reality and virtual morality. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. What did you call me? Bitch?

[klacr]

You think I am picky? Why did Borg play bongo drums over all 50 of his frames before big matches? Why did he notice 4g of water soaking into his frames at London? (Put them on top of radiator until they dried out). Why did Lendl notice, blind folded, what color paint was on the strings stencilled? Why did Sampras pick through 30-45 towels each day to find the one that felt right? Why did he cut out $65 string jobs, ten a day, for each slam whether used or not? Why did he reserve all the courts around him to hear his own shots better?
Why did Russel notice one g of difference on a test frame disguised to look like his own frame?

I can back up Geoff on the Sampras quirks. I had to deal with it when I worked at Saddlebrook and Sampras trained there. Hyper sensitive to the smallest adjustment in preparation and routine. So many towels tossed to the side for 2-3 perfect ones. Courts on every side of Sampras' practice court would get a big x across them on the court sheet. He'd also have the wilson reps bring him 40-50 racquets to feel and swing. They would line them up on a wall. Sampras would pick up a racquet, give it a shake with a continental grip and decide whether to keep it, or toss it. The racquets that Pete kept would be weighted and turned out to be all the same. The racquets he disregarded were weighted and a few grams too low. Didn't make the cut

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[10splayer]

Some of the pros are using silicone in the handles, lead on our under the grommets: Nadal/Djokovic/etc. Some are now using the jet or mini jet methods to fine tune their frames/string jobs. The three top: alu/gut hybrid users: Joker/Murray/Fed. Tsonga switched to rpm blast, as did Nadal from duralast.

For those who want to find out the best string job for their game style: do this:

Choose, without giving the same priority number to any one category:

What's most important to your game/feel/style: Mark down 5 for most important, and 1 for least, not giving more than one number to any one category.

Easy on the arm/shoulder/elbow

Control

Power

Spin

Touch

If you chose easy/arm: #5 most important:
Os L-tec premium 1.28mm/vs touch gut crosses, strung with jet method, lower than your usual reference string tension by 5lbs. First four mains in center off both sides: 5lbs lower than your first 4 mains tension. Next two, drop 4lbs. Skip off to last main, raise by 6lbs, and then string second to last main, up from beginning tension: 6lbs. Crosses: First three down from top: Raise 4lbs above beginning mains (ref.) Next crosses down until third from bottom: 2lbs under ref. tension, then skip to last from third, up to 2lbs over ref, and then second to last cross( last one strung) 2lbs over ref. tension.

If you chose control as top: Os l-tec 1.23mm/4s l-tec

If you chose power as top: vs touch mains/4s l-tec crosses

If you chose spin as main, drop tension down from normal ref. tension, 8lbs down, and use an edged string as mains, 4s crosses.

If you chose touch: vs touch/4s crosses, your normal ref. tension.

All using jet or mini jet, holding crosses for 20 seconds before clamp off, and mains for ten seconds, pinging out mains to match tension until final two on peripheral sides, which are going to be higher in pitch.

You think I am picky? Why did Borg play bongo drums over all 50 of his frames before big matches? Why did he notice 4g of water soaking into his frames at London? (Put them on top of radiator until they dried out). Why did Lendl notice, blind folded, what color paint was on the strings stencilled? Why did Sampras pick through 30-45 towels each day to find the one that felt right? Why did he cut out $65 string jobs, ten a day, for each slam whether used or not? Why did he reserve all the courts around him to hear his own shots better?
Why did Russel notice one g of difference on a test frame disguised to look like his own frame?


Wilander is a rarity, a pro who did not care about equipment/string/frames at all. He was a defender who concentrated on not missing anything at all, that's why, not a big hitter with very tiny margins, but huge ones. (As told to me by himself in Berkeley, ca.)

For most pros, they are fanatical about the right feel/control/power/spin/touch on the string jobs and don't care as much about the frames. String is 70%. Frames are 30%, of whether you are going to win or lose a close match.

If you don't believe me, ask me to customize/string your own frame. Let's do an article about it, with you taking notes about your feel/results against a close opponent, and see if it makes a difference in your own controlled/power/spin/touch/feel/ win/loss ratio. Your control will incease if strung for that. Your /power/spin/touch/feel/ win/loss ratio will all increase if strung for that. You have to honest about your weak points. Serve/fh/bh/return/consistency/touch/etc. all have to looked at as if seen by an objective bystander who is a good analyst.

Send me a video you you playing a few points in a match. Who cares about durability when your pride is on the line? Your pride is worth more to you than anything on this earth other than your loved ones.

Thanks for this, and i have no doubt you know what you're talking about when it comes to equipment. I've read your posts. I certainly agree that pro's are not only picky, but willing and able to modify and use the newest and best money has to buy. This was my point, in response to DB's claim that Andre had an unfair advantage with his 107 inch frame. If that was the case, EVERYONE would have have used the technology. I'm actually of the opinion, that Andre was an incredible talent (striking wise) and that his skill would have transferred to any generation. He simply hit it pure...cleaner and earlier then most anyone of any era.. He could have used any racquet and been successful

[stotty]

Head size

But is a 107 inch racquet an advantage? I find it very interesting, since there inception, very, very, very few players have chosen to use them. Is there perhaps a point of diminishing returns? One thing for sure, these guys have access to the very best equipment and spend an infinite amount of time fine tuning and making sure their tools work for them. (of course, not to the extent Geoff Williams fine tunes)

As for Agassi, the guy was an incredible talent. A ball striking machine, who could of used anything. Boring? hardly. Watch an Eddie Dibs vs Harold Solomon clay court match.....snoozefest. No, Andre was one of the pioneers of the aggressive baseline game and it had nothing to do with his racquet..

It always used to be the case that rackets beyond a given head size "ballooned" the ball. This is why few pro's used the Prince 110cm when it first came out years ago. A "proper" player would never use one...didn't need one. That was the attitude back then in my neck of the woods concerning oversized rackets. I remember that well.

These days players seem to be creeping toward the 100 sq cm mark so I'm guessing this must be the optimum head size before things get too balloony. Agassi must have somehow preferred an even bigger size in his day.

I agree Agassi would have been great in any era but perhaps he was trying to eke a bit more out of himself at the time. Did he stick with this size until the end of his career, I can't remember?

I think Federer has benefitted from his new bigger racket. He seems to be coming over his backhand better with it, and doing slightly better when on the stretch. It's just no matter how well he hits his backhand it can never match Nadal's forehand. I feel slightly sorry for Federer because despite his greatness, Nadal has surpassed him in their match-ups. Their rivalry is one-sided and has been for a long time. Federer would have to pull out tactical masterpiece to win these days.