Sampras - Edberg 1993 AO serve speeds

[stephenJ]

Was watching a replay of Sampras/Edberg 1993 AO semifinal and was
reminded of how serving has changed.

For the first two sets, I watched for the serve speeds on the court's
speed gun.

Edberg's fastest first serve was 174 KPH or 108 mph. His average was
clearly lower than that, his typical first serve was around 164 KPH or
102 MPH. And MANY of Edberg's first serves, maybe 40% of them, failed to
reach 100 MPH.

His second serves were typically around 84 MPH and he did hit several
that failed to hit 80 MPH.

Huge-serving Pete? Yes, he clearly hit harder serves. But not by today's
standards. In two sets of action, Pete reached the 120 MPH mark ZERO
times, his biggest first serve was 193 KPH, which is just short of 120
mph. His second biggest, fair or fault, was 190 KPH or 118 MPH.

More typically, his first serve was about 180 KPH or 111 MPH, and his
vaunted second serve clocked in around 150 kph or 93 MPH.

For example, in game 3 of the second set, Pete hit *first* serves of
116, 113, 107, and 99 MPH. Sampras hitting a 99 MPH first serve? Yep.

As a result, I saw Edberg hit *several* return winners off of Pete's
first serve. Pete did the same thing to Stefan.

No wonder the match was filled with lots of volleying and very little
service aces or winners?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[PeteWasLucky]

You opened can of worms for yourself by this post :)

Alex, where are you?

[Guypers]

+1
Good post!

[Scott]

If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.

[undecided]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 5:04:47 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:

Nonsense....Pete in his last USO was hitting 130mph serves. I was there watching it happen. The radar guns were changed to show higher speeds over the years. Pete was still ace'ing people on the seniors tour just like he did when he played the ATP. He wasn't the biggest server but he was precise and his 2nd serve was not much slower than his 1st. That was the key to his success.

[John Liang]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:15:25 AM UTC+11, Scott wrote:
> If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.

Edberg's serve was designed to get him to the net as quickly as possible, he hit a lot of body serve to cram his opponent, he also hit a lot of kicking serve. Edberg had quite a few injuries to his back in 89/90 and forced him to retire in 89/90 Australian Open. The injuries forced him to make subtle changes to his serve to put less stress on his back. Edberg was underrated as a returner, he got a lot of ball back against big servers and was very difficult to ace him repeatedly.

[stephenJ]

Radar guns are radar guns. Pete DID hit a ton of 130 MPH serves at 2002
USO, but that's because his serving got much bigger as time went by.

Everyone's did! Rackets and strings, or somesuch, changed around
1995-1996, such that serves got a lot bigger.

If you doubt it, WATCH the serves at that 93 AO! They clearly are slow
by today's standards.

There's no way Pete was actually hitting 130 mph serves that were
registering as 110 MPH serves. Not a chance.

[stephenJ]

Yes, as a Becker fan, i was aware of Edberg's returning. Edberg was a
big guy, 6'2" and well built. He didn't have power on his serve but he
was big and strong enough that big servers could not easily bully him.
He could get those balls back if he got a racket on them.

[Shakes]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:

> Edberg's serve was designed to get him to the net as quickly as possible, he hit a lot of body serve to cram his opponent, he also hit a lot of kicking serve. Edberg had quite a few injuries to his back in 89/90 and forced him to retire in 89/90 Australian Open. The injuries forced him to make subtle changes to his serve to put less stress on his back. Edberg was underrated as a returner, he got a lot of ball back against big servers and was very difficult to ace him repeatedly.

Edberg had a back injury in 1989 (retired from the 1989 AO QF and then had surgery around March or April, IIRC). He retired from the 1990 AO F because of an abdominal injury, not back injury.

However, you are right that he changed his service action after the 1989 back surgery. He didn't arch his back as much as he did from 1985-1988. IMO, his serve lost some of it's vicious spin though it was still a great kick serve.

Evidence shows that top level 2HBH players with good/attacking returning skills always bothered Edberg (Connors, Courier, Agassi). Once Courier, Agassi started making it to the top of the game, Edberg struggled more often than not. They were able to hit the returns earlier, harder, forcing him to hit tough volleys time and again. Occasionally, he would be in such fine form that he could take whatever they threw at him (1991 USO), but, by and large, he had a tough time with them.

[John Liang]

Evidence also showed Edberg was well passed his peak after 92. 91 USO was probably his last peak level performance.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:10:53 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> You opened can of worms for yourself by this post :)
>
> Alex, where are you?

God yes... 10 or 11 years ago that exact issue ignited a (fascinating) storm of posts about the 'relative' nature of serving, speeds, effectiveness given the surfaces, etc... I offered up the statement that Patrick McEnroe made (around 2006 or 2007, I can't remember) and he said - at that time - that the average serving speed on the men's tour was THEE key metric of DIFFERENCE, (though NOT the only one) when comparing tennis of the mid-80's and mid-90's and then c. 2006... Not only had the 130 threshold been broken and routinely bettered, the 140 threshold had been... THOUGH, more to the point was that it was just normal serving to hit 124-132 on the men's tour, throughout the top 100, not an outlying fact... and that had changed men's tennis... WELL... that blew open a whole on the board... even though obvious, it lead to the usual silliness on all sides, HOWEVER, it also stimulated a FASCINATING and EPICALLY long post(s) on the topic...

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

No... there are other issues, but that's a MYTH about the radar guns... and many examples were cited (articles about the integrity of the radar guns since the 1980s!... That particular point is a red herring... have to say...

P

[Shakes]

Possibly, but Connors' record against Edberg shows that he was always vulnerable to good 2HBH returning players.

[Jason White]

How sophisticated were those radar guns, though?

[StephenJ]

Highly. Radar guns are radar guns. Pretty much the same now as then.

Also, just eyeballing it, it's obvious that Sampras and Edberg were
hitting serves at those speeds. All you have to do is compare to
tonight's Kyrgios/Fed match to see the serves are clearly much faster
now, comporting with what the guns at both times say.

[Shakes]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:15:25 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
> If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.

That's a very unrealistic "if", though.

[John Liang]

Connors played Edberg 6 times won 5 before Edberg won 85 Australian Open and turned 20 , Edberg won 5 of their last 6 matches when Connors was well over 35.

[Shakes]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:

> Connors played Edberg 6 times won 5 before Edberg won 85 Australian Open and turned 20 , Edberg won 5 of their last 6 matches when Connors was well over 35.

Fair enough, though my main memory was their 1989 USO match that Connors won in straights (IIRC). I saw that era live and I thought it was pretty clear that Edberg struggled against Courier for the most part. Courier mostly got the serve back before it could bounce too high. If you look at the 1992 AO match (which was just 4 months after Edberg's peak in the USO F), it was clear that Courier posed a challenge that was quite different from Becker or Lendl.

[Pelle Svanslös]

The word is the USO spices up their guns. Like they occasionally do
their draws and such.

> Everyone's did! Rackets and strings, or somesuch, changed around
> 1995-1996, such that serves got a lot bigger.

Not Sampras' racquets or strings, that's for sure. Could be somesuch.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[The Iceberg]

no it's not, I know for a fact the radar gun at Queens was upped compared to the ones at Wimbledon. Also at Indian Wells, so that Roddick could set the 150mph record.

[The Iceberg]

mostly due to equipment, the spin Sampras put on the 2nd serve is a lot more than the modern guys put on it, there was a lot more weight. Why is anyone trying to pretend(again) that Sampras/Edberg weren't as fit or strong as the current "young guns" it really is a joke, please, just look at Edberg's legs and speed compared to them. Fed at 35 is thrashing them all and yet people are still trying to say this nonsense.

[Whisper]

Weak troll post you mean. No newbies in rst willing to bite for the
1,000th time.



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Whisper]

On 1/04/2017 9:15 AM, Scott wrote:
> If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.
>

You don't see any strengths in Sampras' ground strokes?

You have to be trolling or legally blind.

Stupid is an option, but this level of stupidity would mean your writing
skills would be lower, so I'm going with troll.

[Whisper]

I can't figure if Jaros is just yanking chains or.....?

Has to be surely?

[Whisper]

Edberg was a terrific player. Hard to get a sense how good he was
unless you watch the right matches.

eg his AO s/f win over Lendl at '85 AO is about as good as you'll ever
see on a tennis court, & he was only 19 at the time;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZTwyYejy8I

[Whisper]

100% wrong.

I see nobody serving better than Sampras/Goran/Krajicek today.

I wish it were true.

[Whisper]

Don't have to say sorry. You're completely wrong & deluded.

[Makarand Patil]

I remember during Becker-Stich Wimbledon 1991 Final, their average 1st serve
speeds were 108 mph and 109 mph respectively.

From your data, Sampras's average first serve speed in that match against
Edberg was as much as Sampras's average SECOND serve speed in his
match against Fed in Wimbledon 2001 (110 mph). And Sampras won only 46% of
his second serve points against Fed in 2001.

Here are Sampras serve stats against Fed in 2001
First Serve% = 70% (!)
Fastest serve = 136 mph
Avg 1st speed = 121 mph
Avg 2nd speed = 110 mph
1st points won = 76.5% [his 3rd lowest at Wimbledon since 1992]
2nd points won = 45.6%

Sampras had several serves above 130 mph. Astonishing serving stats by
Sampras's standards, and yet Sampras's balls were on the guillotine
practically in his every service game.

Later on in his career, when it came to his serve, Pete could turn it on
when he liked, especially on the faster surfaces. In Wimbledon 2001, Pete's
serve stats against Barry Cowan were nowhere as impressive as his stats
against Fed a few days later.

[Whisper]

But this was a Federer who couldn't compete with Tim Henman at Wimbledon
2001. Fed was a talented youngster, but his level was well below Tim
Henman at Wimbledon 2001.

Yes that was a great match v Sampras for the fans to watch, but Sampras
was a non-factor on tour for 2+ yrs & that tournament was actually his
career bottom performance - right in the middle of the 2.5 yr winless slump.

But let's not let facts spoil a nice Fedfucker fantasy. Carry on.

: )

[John Liang]

Federer had a pretty good match against Henman, he lost two sets to Henman in tiebreaks, his level was not that much below Henman. Henman did win more important points in this match and that was the crucial factor. Henman won 2 more points in this match so it was a pretty close match.

>
> Yes that was a great match v Sampras for the fans to watch, but Sampras
> was a non-factor on tour for 2+ yrs & that tournament was actually his
> career bottom performance - right in the middle of the 2.5 yr winless slump.

Yes, he was in 3 USO finals that is some career bottom performance.

[stephenJ]

Yes, if Pete kept his same rackets and strings, then it was because he
got physically stronger, or improved his technique to develop more power.

Something, because he wasn't serving nearly as big at that 93 AO match
as he was later in his career.

[PeteWasLucky]

lol, bye-bye Sampras

[stephenJ]

You say "wrong", but then back that up with a point that fails.

When it comes to serving, "better" doesn't just mean "faster", though
faster is a big part of it. Sampras has arguably the "best" server ever
because he combined big pace with other important factors like spin,
placement, disguise, and consistency.

My post wasn't about any of those other things, just pace. And it's
astonishing how Sampras's pace increased from the early 90s to the early
00s.

The radar gun proves that, as does the eyesight of anyone who isn't
legally blind. Just watch the tape, Pete's serving isn't nearly as hard
in 93 as it is later.

[Makarand Patil]

After losing 2000 US Open Final to a young 20 yr old Safin, Sampras was
asked about the resemblance between him in 1990, and Safin then. Sampras
clearly told that when he burst into the Tennis World in 1990, he didn't
serve as big back then as Safin did as a 20 year old [in 2000].

For sure Sampras serve continued to improve in power and consistency
throughout the 90s.

Same applies to Fed's serve in 2000s as well, albeit to a lesser extent.
In his 2001 Wimb match against Sampras, his fastest serve was 123 mph and
average 1st serve speed was 114 mph. For sure, his serve is much bigger now.

[stephenJ]

Yes. Whisper is very ideologically touchy about the 2001 Sampras/Fed
match and so if you mention that, he instantly recoils into defensive mode.

My point wasn't about that at all, just about how NOT just Pete, but
many guys hit bigger serves in the late 90s than they did in the early
90s, Pete being just one example.

And I agree, Fed is a bigger server now than he was 12-13 years ago. His
serve has bigger pace than it used to. As guys get older and their
youthful fluidity and quickness fades, they rely more on developing power.

[undecided]

Pete's equipment had not changed. He retired with the same racquet & strings he used when he won his 1st USO.

[undecided]

Interesting fact, yesterday's semi Kyrgios/Fed their avg 2nd serve speed was quite low. Lower than peak Sampras avg. And, although Kyrgios hit some really impressive 1st serve speeds. His avg was 118 or 121 (don't remember exactly). Not much higher that Pete's peak and the kid is much bigger and uses much newer equipment.

[Makarand Patil]

Where did you get your match stats from? Kyrgios's avg first serve speed in yesterday's match was 127 mph (and Fed's was 117 mph).

[Patrick Kehoe]

W's "he lost the round after beating Pete in 2001" is cited as a daggering criticism/point of limitation on Federer... well, it's normative to lose the match after a massive/'career shifting' match for a kid (Fed a teen at the time)... happens all the time in tennis... it actually an outlier if it DOESN'T happen... AND... it's the only point of redress W has to belittle Federer beating his hero... which, is OK actually... everyone gets touchy when their fanboy-idols lose... to be expected really...

Players get slightly heavier and stronger into through their 20s into their 30s and their over all serving speed tends to go up... but, that's only one component to 'effective' serving as has been noted... many more elements... but Pete had them all... including a career defining second serve, which he tended to MAKE under pressure, at the most critical junctures of important matches... which is what "having a great second serve" is really all about... not merely MPH's... Pete was an outlier and a championship god of the art of second serving in championship tennis...

P

[Whisper]

On 2/04/2017 8:15 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 8:08:28 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 4/1/2017 9:34 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>>>
>>> Same applies to Fed's serve in 2000s as well, albeit to a lesser extent.
>>> In his 2001 Wimb match against Sampras, his fastest serve was 123 mph and
>>> average 1st serve speed was 114 mph. For sure, his serve is much bigger now.
>>
>>
>> Yes. Whisper is very ideologically touchy about the 2001 Sampras/Fed
>> match and so if you mention that, he instantly recoils into defensive mode.
>>
>> My point wasn't about that at all, just about how NOT just Pete, but
>> many guys hit bigger serves in the late 90s than they did in the early
>> 90s, Pete being just one example.
>>
>> And I agree, Fed is a bigger server now than he was 12-13 years ago. His
>> serve has bigger pace than it used to. As guys get older and their
>> youthful fluidity and quickness fades, they rely more on developing power.
>
> W's "he lost the round after beating Pete in 2001" is cited as a daggering criticism/point of limitation on Federer... well, it's normative to lose the match after a massive/'career shifting' match for a kid (Fed a teen at the time)... happens all the time in tennis...

But you're not painting a complete picture here. Did you forget Pete
failed to win anywhere the year before & the year after that loss to
Fed? He lost in everything he entered for more than 2 yrs. That's the
period this match took place.

If you were a truly impartial analyst you'd want to know the true
context of that match. It's not difficult to find out these days with
google, even if you didn't live it.

[The Iceberg]

he had no idea why he was still playing, he'd kind of retired, he even got beat by George Bastl the next year at Wimbledon.

[John Liang]

Of course he knew why he was playing, he always thought he had another grand slam win in him and his best chance were at Wimbledon and USO.