2 Responses to uo97rusedski_krajicek_wb98ivanisevic_siemerink

1. Voo de Mar says:

   December 6, 2024 at 9:04 am

   Points won by each set: | 34-30, 43-42, 40-37 |
   Points won directly behind the serve:
   41 % Rusedski – 49 of 118
   35 % Krajicek – 38 of 108

   Points won by each set: | 54-48, 38-35, 47-46 |
   Points won directly behind the serve:
   46 % Ivanisevic – 62 of 134
   41 % Siemerink – 38 of 134

   Comparison of two major quarterfinals of the late 90s lost by the Dutchmen, involving three left-handers. These matches were totally dominated by serves even though Simerink was never labelled “big server”, he was a natural serve-and-volleyer. No classical baseline rally in both duels, however, Rusedski didn’t run to the net a few times on his serve – each time when Krajicek made a successful return in this situation, he attacked the net with his second shot though. Matches like these two certainly made an impact on decision of the officials to slow the conditions down at the beginning of the 2000s; these two quarterfinals exemplified a huge contrast to the women’s game at the time, and the perception of a casual tennis follower was that men’s matches were super boring.

   =========================================

   After the UO ’97 fourth round exit of Sampras and Agassi, Krajicek [18] – beside Chang – unexpectedly became a favorite to win his second major title, but the quarterfinal task on Arthur Ashe Stadium was challanging for him – on the other side of the net stood the fastest server in the world at the time, Rusedski [20]. Krajicek was generally unable to return with his backhand fast slice serves of left-handed opponents, and finished his career with a negative record against the best left-handed servers he faced (3-9 Ivanisevic, 4-6, Rusedski, 0-1 Forget). That day in New York City the wind was gusty, thus both players needed a few minutes to adapt – they both lost their serves quickly at the beginning, but afterwards for three sets they were holding easily, with one exception in the 12th game of the opener when Krajicek committed two double faults (set point included). Despite very tight scoreline, Rusedski was constantly ahead (in the 2nd set he was serving second, yet didn’t face a break point); in the tie-breaks he led 6:2 and 5:2 respectively. In the second tie-break Krajicek improved to 6:5 on serve, but hesitated to deliver a first big serve, and Rusedski forced a volley error with one of his best backhands that day.

   In spite of much lower status in tennis hierarchy of the 90s, Siemerink [23] entered that quarterfinal on court no. 2 probably with the feeling he’d win it against the two-time Wimbledon runner-up because he led 5:2 in their rivalry with three wins coming in 1998! And who knows what would have happened if he had converted his first set point. In the first tie-break he improved from 0:4 to 6:5* and lobbed Ivanisevic [25]. Well, I generally estimate that a player who’s lobbed and chases the ball (while his opponent attacks the net), has only 10-20% of winning the point, it was the “20% case” – the Croat didn’t need to sprint, he had time to make a pirouette and got a forehand passing-shot winner! That first tie-break certainly helped Ivanisevic to get the right mood, to the end of the match he remained unusually calm despite plenty of difficult moments. Siemerink wasted set points in all three sets, serving to win sets 2 and 3! I know only two cases that in three-set matches, the loser wasted set points in all three sets [the second case comes from the French Open ’08 when Almagro defeated Chardy 7-6(0), 7-6(7), 7-5]. Here are wasted opportunities by Siemerink (seven set points in total):
   1st set TB: 6:5 (forehand winner), *7:6 (forehand winner), 8:7 (ace), 10:9 (service winner)
   2nd set: 5:2* (40/30) – ace, also *5:3 in the tie-break
   3rd set: *5:4 (40/30) – double fault, 6:5 in the tie-break (service winner)
   Ivanisevic survived it after 2 hours 24 minutes (12/10, 7/5, 8/6) enforcing Siemerink’s volley error on the first match point, just a few weeks after losing a three-set tie-break match to an obscure Italian player Marzio Martelli at Roland Garros (3/7, 6/8, 2/7) in a nine-minute shorter encounter.

   Points away from losing sets… percentage of points obtained directly behind the serve… number of ‘deuce’ games in each set:
   Rusedski vs Krajicek (7-3-1)… 38%… (1-2-2)
   Ivanisevic vs Siemerink (1-1-1)… 43%… (5-1-4)
   

   Log in to Reply
2. Voo de Mar says:

   December 6, 2024 at 11:48 am

   Siemerink’s only major quarterfinal, in the 4th round he was defeated twice: Aussie Open (1991) and US Open (1998), poor results at Slams for someone who was able to play on equal terms against all the best players of the 90s. Especially strange that as many as eight times he lost in the Wimbledon first rounds being one of the best volleyers of his era

   Log in to Reply