Here I'd like to open a somewhat sad, yet interesting topic series, to dig deeper into the "why's" and "how's" of Pete losing in a GRAND SLAM
Part I - 2000 US open - def. by Marat Safin
I'll just start at random, giving my personal impressions / reasons for the Pete being defeated:
- I thought Safin was simply playing the better match of the 2, it wasn't as much Pete playing bad as it was Safin playing (very) good
The one thought that lingers with me though is : tactics
Pete said I tried chip n charge, (no effect), serve&volley (no effect), baseline (... no effect)
Yet I have to disagree a tad, I though Pete should have stayed back more on his serve, with Marat returning the way he did.
In the final game, finally Pete started staying back more, and regardles of winning the point(s) it seemed to me that he should have stuck to that. He did it against Agassi in 2001 the next year ...
COMMENTS people, I'm interested in hearing your views !!