Stats for 1987-88 USO finals (Lendl and Wilander)

[krosero]

1987 - Lendl d. Wilander 6-7 (7-9), 6-0, 7-6 (4), 6-4

The match lasted a then-record 4 hours 47 minutes (but it was listed as 4 hours 53 minutes in a graphic displayed during the 1989 final).

The win evened their head-to-head in Slam finals at 2-2. It lifted Lendl to 6-8 in Slam finals, while dropping Wilander to 4-4.

Wilander had double set point in the third set, taken away by four strong first serves in succession.

The following are my own stats. This was my first attempt, six months ago, to count winners in an entire match.

Lendl had 11 aces, 7 double faults.
Wilander had 2 aces, 4 df's.

(CBS gave Lendl two more aces on judgment calls).


Lendl hit 56 clean winners apart from service: 18 FH, 14 BH, 13 FHV, 7 BHV, 4 overheads.

Wilander hit 34 clean winners apart from service: 4 FH, 9 BH, 6 FHV, 12 BHV, 3 overheads.

Lendl's winners by set: 9, 7, 24, 16
Wilander's winners by set: 10, 1, 15, 8

Wilander had more winners from volleys and overheads than from ground strokes (21 to 13). Lendl didn’t – but according to the stats he was the one coming in more.

At 3-4 in the first-set tiebreak, CBS had Lendl winning 18 of 23 approaches, Wilander 11 of 14. At 4-3 in the third, CBS had Lendl at 35 of 50, Wilander at 21 of 39.

In 1988 Wilander came in more than Lendl, whose rate of approaches was similar in both years.

A projection for the full 1987 final would have Lendl approaching about 85 times, Wilander about 67. Lendl’s published number for 1988 was 77, while Wilander’s jumped up to 131.


Some stats in the print media:

Per the Globe and Mail, Lendl served at 50%.

(And he faced deuce in 7 service games).

Per the Miami Herald, Lendl had 13 aces and 15 service winners.

Per the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Lendl made 51 unforced errors.


More stats by CBS:

At 4-3, 15-30 in the third, Lendl had made 29 unforced errors, Wilander 33.

At 1-all in the third, Lendl had converted 5 of 7 break points, Wilander 1 of 5. At exactly 4-all in the third, Wilander had converted 4 of 13 break chances.

At 2-3 in the third, Lendl was serving at 48%, Wilander at 64%.

 

[krosero]

1988 - Wilander d. Lendl 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4

Wilander had lost to Lendl 6 straight times, including the FO, USO and Masters finals in 1987.

The match lasted a record 4 hours and 54 minutes.

Wilander was broken five times, Lendl six.

Wilander had 33 winners apart from service: 7 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 6 BHV, 8 overheads.

Lendl had 81 winners apart from service: 23 FH, 30 BH, 12 FHV, 3 BHV, 13 overheads.

Wilander had twice as many winners from volleys/smashes than from ground strokes. In the fourth set all of his winners were volleys/smashes.

Wilander's winners by set: 4, 7, 7, 6, 9
Lendl's winners by set: 13, 23, 12, 19, 14

Wilander had 2 service return winners, both backhands off second serves. He had one BH lob winner, plus 7 passing shots that were not returns or lobs: 6 forehands and 1 backhand.

Lendl had 7 service return winners: 4 forehands and 3 backhands. Two forehand returns were off second serves, but the remaining 5 were all returns of first serves (and passes). He had 3 lob winners, two from the BH. He had 30 passing shots that were not returns or lobs: 7 forehands and an astonishing 23 backhands.

So altogether, Wilander had 8 passes of one kind or another, while Lendl had 38.


Per the New York Times, Wilander had 36 unforced errors, Lendl 83. Wilander served at 86%, Lendl at 43%. Wilander came to net 131 times (winning 58%), Lendl 77 times.

Per Steve Flink’s The Greatest Tennis Matches of the Twentieth Century, Wilander won 76 of 131 net approaches (or 58%) and served at 86%.

Per the Washington Post, Wilander had 39 outright winners, Lendl 89.

That last count looks like it includes service.

I counted 2 aces by Wilander, 8 by Lendl.

(CBS put Lendl at 9 aces because one of his serves tipped off Wilander's racquet).

And Wilander had no double-faults, Lendl 2.


Some other CBS stats:

At 1-2 in the fourth, Wilander had 23 winners, Lendl 58. Wilander had 21 unforced errors, Lendl 48.

At 4-3 in the fifth, Wilander had 37 winners, Lendl 83. Wilander had 32 unforced errors, Lendl 76.

At 1-all in the fourth, Wilander had won 51 of 81 points at net (or 63%), Lendl 40 of 60 points (or 67%). At 4-3 in the fifth, Wilander was winning 59% of his net rushes, Lendl 63%.

At exactly 1-2 in the fourth, they had played 212 points, and on 141 points one or the other had been at net.

By my own count, jumping off from the stat given at 1-2 in the fourth, they played 327 points in the match.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

These bring back some good old memories. I remember Matt Wilander was having his best year (or for anyone in a while) in 88 winning 3 Grand Slams. But it still took him 5 sets to take down Lendl, and it was pretty sad to see him just faded away after 88.

 

[Moose Malloy]

In 1988 Wilander came in more than Lendl, whose rate of approaches was similar in both years.

A projection for the full 1987 final would have Lendl approaching about 85 times, Wilander about 67. Lendl’s published number for 1988 was 77, while Wilander’s jumped up to 131.

This is a pretty amazing stat, for a player to completely change his strategy from one year to the next, on the same stage, vs the same opponent is quite impressive.

Do you know (approx) how many points were played in the '87 final? Because I was wondering how the length of both finals could be so similar, considering one was a set longer.

 

[krosero]

This is a pretty amazing stat, for a player to completely change his strategy from one year to the next, on the same stage, vs the same opponent is quite impressive.

Do you know (approx) how many points were played in the '87 final? Because I was wondering how the length of both finals could be so similar, considering one was a set longer.

No, I didn't count them. And my notes say nothing about CBS stats for total points.

This is one match I would have gone back to get additional stats like the total points, but I have to admit the length of the match is just intimidating.

My impression just from watching the matches -- both then and now -- is that the 1988 final contained shorter rallies, because of the net-rushing. At the start of the fifth set Carillo noticed the same time discrepancy between the finals and thought it was because they were doing more to finish the points. Trabert said the 1987 final had been a little like watching paint dry, with the two going back and forth from the baseline and not trying anything.

That CBS stat from 1988 tells the story: at 1-2 in the fourth, 141 of 212 points had featured net-rushing.

But I also remember long games in the 1987 final, particulary in the third set (they played 7 deuces at 2-4).

By contrast, when I counted forward from the midmatch stat given by CBS in 1988, I noticed that there was only one deuce game in the fourth set, and two in the fifth.

One other factor might be Wilander's service percentage. Going by the incomplete 1987 stat, his percentage the next year went up by 22 points. That would make for faster points, because these guys were so deliberate in getting on with both second and first serve.

 

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy
Do you know (approx) how many points were played in the '87 final? Because I was wondering how the length of both finals could be so similar, considering one was a set longer.

No, I didn't count them.[...]

My impression just from watching the matches -- both then and now -- is that the 1988 final contained shorter rallies, because of the net-rushing. [...]
But I also remember long games in the 1987 final, particulary in the third set (they played 7 deuces at 2-4).

I remember it the same way. Longer games and especially longer points in the 87 final. This was around the time Wilander had developed a pretty good one-handed backhand slice, if I remember well. And Lendl had also gotten back into slicing the backhand, (which he hadn't done much since his early days). So I remember this endless series of well executed crosscourt sliced backhands, each identical to the previous one, corner to corner, each man like taunting the other to do something. It was long...
They were both a bit less patient in 88.

 

[krosero]

This was around the time Wilander had developed a pretty good one-handed backhand slice, if I remember well.

Six months ago I had been watching the 1988 final, and I popped in the '87 match, which I hadn't seen in 20 years or so. I got some instant impressions: that Lendl was coming in more than Wilander in '87; and that Wilander was slicing his backhand less often and less effectively than in '88.

This is something I found here at TW:

Bjorn Hellberg, rare among Swedish journalists in that he was reporting Wimbledon in the pre-Borg era, makes interesting comparisons between Borg, Wilander and Stefan Edberg. “I watched them as juniors, when they were 11 years old”, Hellberg tells me, “and from the very beginning Wilander and Edberg have always been nice to work with: extremely pleasant young men. Always modest, helpful and generous. Wilander has kept his calmness, his controlled mood, during his whole career. Edberg was a little patchy as a junior, - more temper on court - but that disappeared very early. Two gentlemen. Borg is a different story but on court Borg, too, was a gentleman. What would have happened if they had all been at their best at the same time? Well, Borg always had trouble with attacking players and because of that I think it would have been extremely difficult for him to beat Edberg on fast surfaces. On the other hand I believe Borg would have beaten Edberg on clay, any time.

“With Wilander it is more difficult to say, because he has such a high standard when he is motivated. When he is really ‘on’ he is probably the best of them. The highest potential. Wilander has changed his game all the time. When he beat Vilas in the 1982 final in Paris he won only on his patience, his youth, his willingness to work, and his safe ground strokes. After that he gradually improved his game. He still has his double-fisted backhand but he also has a one-handed sliced backhand, which won him the final of the 1988 U.S. Open against Lendl. He has also improved his attack - his approach game and his net play. On the other hand tennis meant more to Borg and means more to Edberg than it does to Wilander, who finds other values in life. He can have spells when he doesn’t look so interested.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

Tennis Channel definitely should rerun these 2 matches.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Lendl had 81 winners apart from service: 23 FH, 30 BH, 12 FHV, 3 BHV, 13 overheads.

I counted 2 aces by Wilander, 8 by Lendl

I can't recall seeing a match before where someone hits 80+ winners with only 8 of them aces. Amazing.

Wilander served at 86%

Ok, that's an insane % for a match of that length. Its one thing doing that vs Leconte in a blowout in Paris, but this is on another level. I wonder how often anyone(including women) have served 80% in a major final. Do you know what Mats served in the '88 AO final?

In his Masters win over Wilander a few months, he served at 48% (per the New York Times). And in their 1988 USO final, he served at 43%.

so was this a common stat for Lendl? in the other matches you've done I notice he's frequently under 50%. like vs Agassi in '88.

 

[krosero]

so was this a common stat for Lendl? in the other matches you've done I notice he's frequently under 50%. like vs Agassi in '88.

Lendl's first-serve percentage was so low in the '88 final, I went hunting for other matches and found that it was nothing unusual for him to be under 50% against Wilander.

But he almost always was above 50% against net-rushers, particularly McEnroe.

(I'm excluding Wilander, who turned into a net-rusher in the '88 match but had always been known as a baseliner).

Here is Lendl's first-serve percentage against various players, either calculated by us or provided in the media:

Wilander
83 AO - 42%
85 RG - 49% (one set to go)
87 RG - 49% (two sets to go)
87 USO - 48% (18 games left)
87 Masters - 48%
88 USO - 43%

(50% and 47% in their two remaining matches, in 1994)


Connors
82 USO - 52%
83 USO - 43% (several points to go)
87 USO - 49%
92 USO - 54%


Agassi
88 USO - 48%
89 USO - 48%

(45% in each of their last two matches, in '92-93)


McEnroe
83 W - 72%
84 TMC - 46% (3 games left)
84 RG - 73% (6 games left)
84 USO - 66% (one set left)
85 USO - 57% (2 games left)
87 USO - 62%
88 RG - by set: 47, 63, 60, 95
89 Dallas - by set: 51, 51, 39, and 77, w/ six games left)

(52% and 54% in their last two matches, in '91-92)


Becker
88 TMC - in first four sets: 63, 74, 52, 60
89 USO - by set: 58, 61, 75, 59, w/ 6 games left)
91 AO - 62%
92 USO - 61%

(62% in their last match, in '93)


Edberg
89 TMC - 57%
90 AO - 54%
91 AO - 57%
91 USO - 49%
92 AO - 60%
92 USO - 64%


Cash
84 USO - 57% (20 games left)
87 W - 61%

I'm sure Lendl was trying to prevent net-rushers from coming in on his second serve.

Wilander didn't come in on Lendl's second serve too much in the '88 final, but he did it once early in the match and nearly broke. Trabert remarked that he couldn't remember the last time he saw Wilander do that.

 

[krosero]

Ok, that's an insane % for a match of that length. Its one thing doing that vs Leconte in a blowout in Paris, but this is on another level. I wonder how often anyone(including women) have served 80% in a major final. Do you know what Mats served in the '88 AO final?

ESPN put him at 77%.

They said that he'd served at 60% for the tournament.

You asked me if I was doing a thread on that match, but there's not much to tell. I did what you did with Edberg-Mecir; I counted forward from a midmatch stat.

At 4-3, 15-love in the fifth, Wilander had 14 volley winners, Cash 40.

I counted 4 more Cash net winners (2 FHV’s, 2 smashes) and 2 more for Wilander before the end. That would put Wilander at 16 volley winners, Cash at 44. Three of Wilander’s points at 4-5 are missing from my disc, but I think it's fairly safe to leave him at 16.

And ESPN provided full-match counts on other stats:

Wilander had winners on 20 FH's and 17 BH's. He had 2 aces, 2 doubles, and 14 ue's. He served at 77%, winning 67% of points started on first serve. He won 38 pts. at net.

Cash had winners on 6 FH's and 12 BH's. He had 7 aces, 9 doubles, and 56 ue's. He served at 61%, winning 69% of points started on first serve. He won 78 pts. at net.

(Per the Washington Post, Wilander had 21 unforced errors, Cash 48 ).

At 3-love in the fourth, both players had a winning rate of 63% at net.

At 2-1 in the fifth, both had made 22 service winners.

They had played 300 points as of 4-5, 40-15 in the fifth. Wilander led 156-144. By my count through the end, Wilander increased his edge to 175-157.

That's basically what I've got for that match. Doing it that way involves three missing points, but if I did my own full count from the beginning I would actually have to deal with 5 points missing on Wilander's serve and a full Cash service game, all missing on my dvd.

 

[BeHappy]

Do you have a job Krosero?

(Just curious).

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

Krosero, nice statistics, keep them coming!

 

[Moose Malloy]

No, I didn't count them. And my notes say nothing about CBS stats for total points.

This is one match I would have gone back to get additional stats like the total points, but I have to admit the length of the match is just intimidating.

I just counted the points for some of the games in the '87 final(I only have an edited version)

For 11 games I have a total of 88 pts. So if that average of 8 points a game stayed consistent throughout the match, that would mean they played a total of around 320 points, which would make it almost the same amount of points as the '88 final, even though it was a set shorter.

 

[krosero]

I just counted the points for some of the games in the '87 final(I only have an edited version)

For 11 games I have a total of 88 pts. So if that average of 8 points a game stayed consistent throughout the match, that would mean they played a total of around 320 points, which would make it almost the same amount of points as the '88 final, even though it was a set shorter.

I wouldn't be surprised if they kept up something like that pace, though 8 points a game is very high. It would be the highest in the data I've collected, which includes all the matches for which we got the total points played, plus 31 other matches I researched. The highest on my Excel chart is Lendl-Becker at the 1992 USO, 7.77 pts. per game. Becker and Agassi at 95 W are right behind, followed by Agassi-Eltingh. The lowest -- the match with the shortest games -- is Federer-Roddick at 2007 AO, 5.33 points per game.

The range is so large, that increasingly I don't want to talk about winners-per-game. It's better than nothing when you've got nothing else, but a more accurate number is the winners as a percentage of the total points played. That's why I'm thinking that on a lot of matches where we didn't get the service percentages, I'd like to go back and get those.

 

[krosero]

A boxscore I found in the Orlando Sentinel for the '87 final.

United Press International CHART:
Lendl vs. Wilander
Len. Wil.
1st serve pct. 50 66
Aces 13 3
Service winners 15 25
Double faults 7 4
Placement winner 59 34
Unforced errors 51 43
Service games held 16 12
Service games broken 4 8
Total points won 162 143
Approaches to net 77 71
Points at net 55 39

 

[SusanDK]

mis-read - 10char

 

[krosero]

A question for those who have seen these two finals -- did you enjoy either one of them more than the other?

That's a question for those who were watching tennis closely at that time, like Susan or PC1, or for anyone who's just recently seen the matches. Doesn't matter. Just wondering what your impressions were/are.

 

[Mustard]

A question for those who have seen these two finals -- did you enjoy either one of them more than the other?

Both were epic in different ways, but I preferred the 1988 final, because there was more variety in the match and Wilander was perfect with his tactics.

 

[SusanDK]

I enjoyed 1988 because Wilander won.

Seriously, though, in 1987 I never felt like the match was that close, despite splitting the first two sets and the third set almost going either way. For some reason, Lendl's victory never seemed in doubt to me. Nor did it seem in doubt to Lendl who played with amazing confidence that year.

I also remember in 1987 that Wilander beat Edberg in the semis which was an upset (however slight). Edberg was playing incredibly well that year and only dropped one set going into the semi against Mats. If memory serves, Edberg was ranked #2 and was probably also seeded #2 in 1987. The way he was playing, I feel like he could have beat Lendl that year. He had the game that could beat Lendl, more so than Mats at that point in time. You can actually see the disappointment in Edberg when he shook hands at the net after Mats beat him.

The 1988 final between Wilander and Lendl was epic and tense from the first point to the last. It really could have swung either way up until the last point was won - I was on the edge of my seat. Both players really used strategy and tactics and were very intense. Lendl had been owning the Open up until that time and had such a strong powerful game, it was hard to imagine Wilander being able to beat him on that surface with his less-powerful game. So the drama was quite high - really great match.

 

[Mustard]

Wilander had set points to go 2 sets to 1 up in the 1987 final. I think Wilander would have won the title if he had won that set. But he didn't, and that's that.

 

[kiki]

The difference between both finals was mainly Wilander had done a lot of workout and was in the best shape of his life.He even made look easy reaching all those big strokes Lendl was launching at him.

And Lendl, being used to wipe everyone else on hard courts, was never a patient guy and, once his A game was put into pieces, he clearly didn´t have another B game.

Wilander proved to be a smart guy, learning the lessons of his 1987 defeat and doing just 2-3 new adjustments.

 

[krosero]

Both were epic in different ways, but I preferred the 1988 final, because there was more variety in the match and Wilander was perfect with his tactics.

The '88 final might still be my favorite tennis match, though I enjoy the '87 final more than I did back then. I think the level of play is higher in that match than I used to assume, though I agree with you about the variety in '88.

I enjoyed 1988 because Wilander won.

Seriously, though, in 1987 I never felt like the match was that close, despite splitting the first two sets and the third set almost going either way. For some reason, Lendl's victory never seemed in doubt to me. Nor did it seem in doubt to Lendl who played with amazing confidence that year.

I also remember in 1987 that Wilander beat Edberg in the semis which was an upset (however slight). Edberg was playing incredibly well that year and only dropped one set going into the semi against Mats. If memory serves, Edberg was ranked #2 and was probably also seeded #2 in 1987. The way he was playing, I feel like he could have beat Lendl that year. He had the game that could beat Lendl, more so than Mats at that point in time. You can actually see the disappointment in Edberg when he shook hands at the net after Mats beat him.

The 1988 final between Wilander and Lendl was epic and tense from the first point to the last. It really could have swung either way up until the last point was won - I was on the edge of my seat. Both players really used strategy and tactics and were very intense. Lendl had been owning the Open up until that time and had such a strong powerful game, it was hard to imagine Wilander being able to beat him on that surface with his less-powerful game. So the drama was quite high - really great match.

My impressions were virtually the same. After the RG final of '87 it just seemed to me that Wilander's game was not aggressive enough to beat Lendl. That was on clay, so when the USO rolled around, I don't think I had Wilander in mind among the men who could beat Lendl. I thought Edberg might have a shot but then somewhat surprisingly Wilander beat him in 4.

The final did feel a little unequal. Wilander barely won the first set in a long tiebreak, with a controversial call -- and then he got bageled in the second set. And yet for all that, they were tied at one set all, and Mats had his chances in the third.

Yet those chances got taken away by big Lendl serves, so it never felt like Wilander had the set on his racquet.

 

[Mustard]

The '88 final might still be my favorite tennis match, though I enjoy the '87 final more than I did back then. I think the level of play is higher in that match than I used to assume, though I agree with you about the variety in '88.

I think the Lendl vs. Wilander rivalry is underrated in general. It's a shame because those US Open finals were epics. I thought it was striking how devastated Wilander looked in his chair at the end of the 1987 final. He certainly put that right the following year.

 

[SusanDK]

As I recall, there was also a lot of commentary during the USO each year from the time Wilander and Edberg came on the scene, up until Wilander finally won in 1988, about Borg never being able to win a USO, so there was additional pressure on the Swedes to do something that Borg never managed to do.

 

[krosero]

Wilander had set points to go 2 sets to 1 up in the 1987 final. I think Wilander would have won the title if he had won that set. But he didn't, and that's that.

I always figured Mats had an excellent chance to win if it went five, considering his five-set record. It would have been brutal for Lendl, who was battling a fever that weekend. After the final he said he was cramping in the last set and a half and just going on pure emotion. He added that in a small tournament he would have defaulted the semifinal on Saturday (which he won in straights over Connors) and the final (which luckily for him was moved to Monday). Wilander, meanwhile, doesn't look tired in the least even after five hours.

Now I'm not so sure, though. I think Lendl still had reserves. The '84 RG final seems to have taken even more out of him; he looked pale as a ghost and was vomiting after the match. The strain impacted his game at least for several weeks. I also read on these boards that he collapsed after his win over Muster at the AO and after his loss to Chang at RG (that's per Jonas Svensson, according to a post by Urban). You just don't hear similar things about Lendl after the '87 USO final.

Really I think that match would always have come down to one factor: would Wilander be able to get aggressive enough to put the thing away? Somehow I doubt it.

I think the Lendl vs. Wilander rivalry is underrated in general. It's a shame because those US Open finals were epics. I thought it was striking how devastated Wilander looked in his chair at the end of the 1987 final. He certainly put that right the following year.

I should have another look at that moment. At the time I felt those losses to Lendl in '87 must have been the most painful of his career. Not because of anything he said, but simply because, in contrast to his earlier career when he was on-and-off, in '87 he was finally making a real push for the top spot. And everyone knew it. He just wasn't good enough.

But remarkably he didn't let that throw off his career.

 

[Zimbo]

I should have another look at that moment. At the time I felt those losses to Lendl in '87 must have been the most painful of his career. Not because of anything he said, but simply because, in contrast to his earlier career when he was on-and-off, in '87 he was finally making a real push for the top spot. And everyone knew it. He just wasn't good enough.

But remarkably he didn't let that throw off his career.

That's why the 80's was such a great decade for tennis. Those guys fought and had huge heart. Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg. All fighters. When Borg was dominating Mac and Connors were still in his face. Then it was Mac's turn to dominate. Connors, Lendl and Mats didn't back down. Even when Lendl was a beast guys like Becker, Wilander, and Edberg put up a huge fight. Eventhough I am a HUGE Fed fan, during his beast phase he only had Nadal who mentally didn't lose his balls when he played him. If this current crop of players can keep it up, I think it could be another golden age for tennis.

 

[SusanDK]

Wilander, meanwhile, doesn't look tired in the least even after five hours.

I don't think I ever saw Wilander look tired, even after his six-hour Davis Cup matches.

 

[krosero]

You guys may have seen Tom Perrotta's piece, "From Wimbledon to Winnebago."

In his heyday, Wilander seemed to glide along the court without expending any energy. His secret: He doesn't sweat. Lickle drenches two or three shirts during back-to-back clinics; in Florida, one young girl asked him if he had jumped into a swimming pool.

Wilander can teach for nearly four hours, in bright sun and 80-degree heat, in one cotton shirt and finish with just a trace of sweat under his arms. He drinks very little water and eats small meals. "My genetic makeup is a little bit crazy," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704005404576176790265673986.html

 

[kiki]

As I recall, there was also a lot of commentary during the USO each year from the time Wilander and Edberg came on the scene, up until Wilander finally won in 1988, about Borg never being able to win a USO, so there was additional pressure on the Swedes to do something that Borg never managed to do.

True.It is amazing Borg never won the Open but, then again, it is amazing he could win 5 consecutive Wimbledons.It is even more normal for Wilander winning an Open after trying many years, than Borg winning a Wimbledon, let alone 5...

 

[SusanDK]

True.It is amazing Borg never won the Open but, then again, it is amazing he could win 5 consecutive Wimbledons.It is even more normal for Wilander winning an Open after trying many years, than Borg winning a Wimbledon, let alone 5...

It also surprised me that it took Edberg so long to win a USO title. As I said, I thought Edberg looked more in form to win in 1987 when Wilander took him out in the semis, and he had some earlier than expected losses over the next couple of years before he finally put it all together in 1991 and 1992.

 

[kiki]

It also surprised me that it took Edberg so long to win a USO title. As I said, I thought Edberg looked more in form to win in 1987 when Wilander took him out in the semis, and he had some earlier than expected losses over the next couple of years before he finally put it all together in 1991 and 1992.

I think Edberg is that kind of guy who needs to take his time, work his out in his mood, balance everything and go for it¡¡¡ I always had the impression, in his early years, that it would take a bit for him ot put all pices together but he would, no doubt, and then would play like a perfect clock engine.

I was never hurried up with Edberg, you could see he´d do it, take it 2-3 years, never mind.

And, all great players from the past have said it, a S&V game of Edberg´s perfection takes much longer than a top spin baseline game as Wilander´s to develop.It is an art that needs the artist in perfect motion...

 

[kiki]

I don't think I ever saw Wilander look tired, even after his six-hour Davis Cup matches.

True,I´ve seen live Wilander about 25 or 30 times and never seemed burnt out.

 

[krosero]

1987 - Lendl d. Wilander 6-7 (7-9), 6-0, 7-6 (4), 6-4

Little trivia here. To this day only one man has been bageled in the championship round of this tournament and come back to win the match: Richard Williams in 1916 (score was 4-6, 6-4, 0-6, 6-2, 6-4 over Little Bill).

The only woman to accomplish it is Steffi Graf in 1995, against Seles.

(Gotta love Excel.)

 

[kiki]

Little trivia here. To this day only one man has been bageled in the championship round of this tournament and come back to win the match: Richard Williams in 1916 (score was 4-6, 6-4, 0-6, 6-2, 6-4 over Little Bill).

The only woman to accomplish it is Steffi Graf in 1995, against Seles.

(Gotta love Excel.)

I don´t think Lendl played better than 1987.He was the true owner of the our, except Wimbledon.

in 88 Wilander had matured his game, so Becker in 89 and Edberg in 90.But 86 and 87 belonged to Ivan.Same way 83 and 84 were Mac´s and 85 was shared, and possibly the best year of the decade.

 

[krosero]

I don´t think Lendl played better than 1987.He was the true owner of the our, except Wimbledon.

in 88 Wilander had matured his game, so Becker in 89 and Edberg in 90.But 86 and 87 belonged to Ivan.Same way 83 and 84 were Mac´s and 85 was shared, and possibly the best year of the decade.

That's true, but his very best USO final was probably '85.

 

[kiki]

That's true, but his very best USO final was probably '85.

Could be.Just as Mac´s best USO was 84.But, overall, 1987 lendl would beat 1985 Lendl

 

[krosero]

Could be.Just as Mac´s best USO was 84.But, overall, 1987 lendl would beat 1985 Lendl

Generally true, yes, and particularly on grass.

 

[pc1]

Generally true, yes, and particularly on grass.

It would be interesting to check the stats on Lendl in 1985 versus 1987.

 

[krosero]

It would be interesting to check the stats on Lendl in 1985 versus 1987.

If I recall correctly Lendl's win-loss was better in '87, both in general and on grass?

 

[kiki]

If I recall correctly Lendl's win-loss was better in '87, both in general and on grass?

Don´t know, but I´d bet that Lendl won more tournaments in 1985 than in 1987.Can you verify this?