Dualities of a Dutch win at Wimbledon
By: Vickey Maverick
Tags: London, Netherlands, Sports, Features, Tennis

Richard Krajicek’s title triumph at the All England Club in 1996 can be considered as a surprise result and might as well be dismissed as a fluke, as he could neither repeat the feat in the same tournament, or for that matter in any other Grand Slam competition during the course of his career

However, there can be no question mark raised as regards the most significant win en route to the most memorable success of his pro career

Richard Krajicek at the All England Club for BBC Breakfast Show, with the Wimbledon trophy behind him [Image used for representational purpose (Courtesy: Twitter (@ RichardKrajicek)]

In the final analysis Pete Sampras’ three-year domination, and a 25-match win streak at the All England Club, ended with the longest and arguably the most frustrating match of his life, a 30-hour ordeal that left the American looking helpless and hopeless, possibly for the only time in his illustrated career.

Sampras had already dropped two sets when he took to the court for a second day. His quarter-final encounter had spilt over to the next day, thanks to the typically irritating weather in London.

However, it was only a matter of 23 minutes before the American’s title defense was over, and his hopes for a fourth straight title lay in shambles. Sampras’ opponent over the two days had been a Dutchman who was one of the few players who could boast of an upper hand over him. It stayed that way with Richard Krajicek winning in straight sets, 7–5, 7–6 (7–3), 6–4, and sealing a spot in the semi-finals.

In his autobiography, A Champion’s Mind, Sampras describes Krajicek as “the rangy, tall, hard-serving Dutchman who was always a threat on fast surfaces. He could pop up at any time and win a tournament. At other times, he was just another big guy with a good serve who didn’t seem to have the confidence or drive to win, week in, week out.”

An ordinary record at the All England Club

The Rotterdam-born player’s prior record at the All England Club was anything but enviable. He had won only seven matches while being at the receiving end in five, and had been a first-round loser the past two years at Wimbledon. In 1996 though Krajicek had caused twin upsets in a matter of days, first taking out 1991 champion Michael Stich of Germany in straight sets, in the fourth round, before another memorable win over Sampras.

Sampras’ exit had ensured one of the most bizarre men’s singles semi-final line-ups at Wimbledon ever, with Krajicek taking on Australian journeyman Jason Stoltenberg, and Americans Todd Martin, who at №13 was the highest seed left, and MaliVai Washington fighting it out for a place in the final. No points for guessing none of the four gentlemen had ever lifted a Grand Slam trophy. Martin had albeit played in a final, losing to the Sampras at the Australian Open in 1994.

As things panned out Washington came back from two sets to one down, and won 10–8 in the fifth. Krajicek had a comfortable straight sets win over Stoltenberg, losing eight games — two more than it had cost him to win their opening round encounter at the Australian Open that year.

Richard Krajicek holds aloft the Wimbledon trophy after winning the gentlemen’s singles in 1996 [Image used for representational purpose (Courtesy: Twitter (@ RichardKrajicek)]

The final, despite featuring two first-timers, was surprisingly one-sided. A 6–3, 6–4, 6–3 win ensured Krajicek his maiden Grand Slam title.

A surprise win or a fluke

It was a memorable success in more ways than one.

Coming into the Wimbledon that year Krajicek had not won a title of any kind for 14 months, and had never previously won a top level title. Three Championship Series — the precursor to ATP World Tour 500 tournaments — titles in Barcelona and Sydney (both 1994) and Stuttgart (1995) was his best results. The Dutchman albeit had made it to his maiden Super 9 — precursor to ATP Masters Series 1000 tournaments — final in Rome a few weeks prior, losing to Thomas Muster, a player whose withdrawal would give him an alternate seeding at Wimbledon.

The Dutchman’s record in Grand Slam tournaments was also not something to boast of. He had reached the Australian Open semi-final in 1992 — beating Michael Chang and Stich en route, but was forced to withdraw ahead of his match against American Jim Courier — the eventual winner — due to injury.

A year later, Krajicek made it to the last four at the French Open, playing Courier and losing in four sets. In 1996, Krajicek made it to the last eight at Roland Garros, losing to eventual champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov of Russia. However, there was no consistency when it came to performances at the Grand Slams. Was Krajicek’s 1996 triumph a fluke?

In defense it can be said that winning a major title for the loss of just one set — to New Zealand’s Brett Steven in the third round, and beating a former champion and a three-time defending champion en route was without doubt a great achievement. And if that major happens to be Wimbledon it becomes all the more significant. The grass court major is historic and is considered the most prestigious among the four Grand Slams, and even its one-time winners have a special place in the annals of tennis. This is precisely why Krajicek’s triumph remains significant, even after 25 years.

However, it is also a fact that the player could never build on that success. It took the Dutchman 22 attempts before he could lay his hands on a major title. Krajicek took part in 18 Grand Slam tournaments after that success, but failed to reach another final. At the All England Club in 1998 he did come back from two sets down to force a fifth against Goran Ivanisevic in the semi-finals. The Croat albeit won the decider 15–13.

One Grand Slam title in 40 attempts, and an 89–38 match record is anything but an enviable statistic.

Blame it on injuries maybe…

A lot of Krajicek’s relatively modest career owes to inconsistencies, lack of mental strength and poor form but it can also partly be blamed on injuries. The Dutchman was severely hampered by recurring injuries at every stage of his career and his game, owing to the many injuries, declined faster than many of his peers.

That he was forced to withdraw from his first Grand Slam semi-final has already been mentioned. Then 1998, for instance, was a productive year for the Dutchman. He won indoor titles in St. Petersburg and Stuttgart (a Super 9 tournament), reached the final in Toronto (another Super 9 tournament) and also made it to the semi-finals in five other tournaments, including Wimbledon. However, in the same year he had to undergo arthroscopic left knee surgery to repair torn medial meniscus.

Krajicek albeit came back and reached a career high ranking of №4 in 1999, following title triumphs in the Championship Series tournament in London and the Super 9 tournament in Miami. The latter turned out to be his 17th and final title of his career.

In 2000 the Dutchman’s streak of eight consecutive years among the Top 20 in the rankings, and nine straight seasons with at least one ATP Tour title came to an end. Besides, he played in the fewest matches (41) of his career, partly owing to the arthroscopic left knee surgery he had in January that year.

Richard Krajicek on Centre Court at All England Club with BBC 5 Live co-commentator and legendary coach Nick Bolletieri [Image used for representational purpose (Courtesy: Twitter (@ RichardKrajicek)]

While Krajicek’s career was somewhat unremarkable, and never quite reached the heights it was expected to, his dominance over the most dominant player of that decade certainly was remarkable.

For Pete’s sake!

Sampras was so dominant in the 1990s that he played 20 or more times against only four players: Andre Agassi (20–14), Chang (12–8), Martin (18–4) and Courier (16–4). Against the other players, with whom he has played 10–20 matches in his career, the American has had dominant records. His head-to-head record against Boris Becker (12–7), Ivanisevic (12–6), Petr Korda (12–5), Patrick Rafter (12–4) and Kafelnikov (11–2) serve proof of his dominance.

Among other legendary players it was possibly only Stefan Edberg whom Sampras was not very comfortably playing against. While the American has an 8–6 career edge over the Swede, fact is he won five of their last six encounters, when Edberg’s career was on a steady decline. Besides, Sampras never beat Edberg in a Grand Slam.

There are players — like Mikael Pernfors (2–0) and Derrick Rostagno (2–1), and then there are players like Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin — who ended up with positive records against Sampras when he was either at the beginning or in the twilight of his career. During the American’s best years though there were few players who had a favorable head to head (more than one match) against Sampras. Players like Stich (5–4), Paul Haarhuis (3–1) and Sergi Bruguera (3–2) ended up with winning records against the American but none could dominate him like Krajicek did.

While Sampras did emerge victorious in their first meeting, in Miami (1993), it was the Dutchman who won six of their following seven encounters. The three biggest titles of Krajicek’s career — Wimbledon (1996), Stuttgart (1998) and Miami (1999), all had one thing in common; the fact that he had beaten Sampras en route.

Krajicek finished his career with a winning (6–4) head to head against Pistol Pete, with none of those wins coming on clay, without doubt the American’s weakest surface. But it was actually 6–2, Sampras winning their last two encounters — after the Dutchman’s surgeries, to give it a semblance of respectability. It is fact that Sampras could only win two in a row against Krajicek at the tail end of the latter’s career.

In fact, in their final match-up — in the quarter-finals of the 2000 US Open — Krajicek led 6–4, and 6–2 in the second set tie-break. It seemed Sampras would succumb to the Dutchman’s stranglehold over him again. Fortunately for him Sampras somehow, Sampras pulled off a great escape at the Arthur Ashe Stadium that evening, later admitting “I got lucky. I don’t know how I won it.”

Both the players were born in 1971 — Sampras in August, and Krajicek in December — and the American having a losing record against someone of the same age comes across as rather surprising, if not shocking. So what was the reason behind Krajicek’s overall dominance over Sampras?

Despite having a compact, all round game Sampras’ backhand was relatively weaker, if not the weakest aspect in his repertoire of strokes. Krajicek not only targeted this weak backhand regularly but also was able to exploit it, something none of his contemporaries were able to do on a consistent basis.

The 1996 Wimbledon happened to be one tournament where the Dutchman not only upset the odds but also ended up winning it, consigning the American to his only loss at the All England Club between 1993 and 2000. Krajicek could have had another shot at the Big W title had he taken his chances in that epic semi-final against Ivanisevic in 1998.

However, as things turned out Krajicek’s 1996 title win at Wimbledon remains, 25 years later, somewhat of a surprising result, even though his quarter-final win en route to that memorable title is anything but a surprise.