Points won by each set: | 41-45, 36-30, 33-25 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
47 % Sampras – 48 of 101
53 % Ivanisevic – 58 of 109
Ivanisevic [4] saved a set point at *5:6 (30/40) in the 1st set with a second-serve ace, he tried to repeat it at *5:6 in the 3rd set – committed a double fault with a 1st serve speed (186 kph)… He won the first tie-break 8/6, Sampras [1] won the second 7/4. The Croat never got ‘deuce’ in Sampras’ 18 service games. A day before he also lost a dramatic three-set match to Chang (wasting a match point… 7-6, 6-7, 1-6), but that match didn’t affect the first place in his group, so perhaps he tanked the 3rd set. That Hanover match which he lost to Sampras, meant Ivanisevic’s third and last semifinal defeat at Masters, following the years 1992 & 93 (both in Frankfurt); every time a few points decided the final outcome and every time a player who defeated the Croat, ultimately claimed the title.
Points won by each set: | 41-45, 36-30, 33-25 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
47 % Sampras – 48 of 101
53 % Ivanisevic – 58 of 109
Ivanisevic [4] saved a set point at *5:6 (30/40) in the 1st set with a second-serve ace, he tried to repeat it at *5:6 in the 3rd set – committed a double fault with a 1st serve speed (186 kph)… He won the first tie-break 8/6, Sampras [1] won the second 7/4. The Croat never got ‘deuce’ in Sampras’ 18 service games. A day before he also lost a dramatic three-set match to Chang (wasting a match point… 7-6, 6-7, 1-6), but that match didn’t affect the first place in his group, so perhaps he tanked the 3rd set. That Hanover match which he lost to Sampras, meant Ivanisevic’s third and last semifinal defeat at Masters, following the years 1992 & 93 (both in Frankfurt); every time a few points decided the final outcome and every time a player who defeated the Croat, ultimately claimed the title.