Duel Match Stats/Reports - Chang vs Lendl, French Open fourth round, 1989 & Cincinnati semi-final, 1992

[Waspsting]

Michael Chang beat Ivan Lendl 4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 in the French Open fourth round, 1989 on clay

Chang would go onto win the title, beating Stefan Edberg in the final. He became and to date remains the youngest Slam winner. Lendl was the top seed

Chang won 156 points (including a point penalty), Lendl 156

[Note: I’m missing ending of one point, beginning of one other and (possibly) unknown number of others
Set 1, Game 9, Point 6 - serve and return info recorded, ending unknown. Point was a break point and is won by server Lendl
Coverage resumes in same game during a rally, so serve and return info unknown, but ending recorded. Winning the point raises break point for Chang

Possibly, no missing points, so only missing serve and return data for 1 point. And also possibly, some multiple of 2 missing points (evenly won by two players), in addition to above

Shortly after, presented stats indicate Chang having had 1 more break point than what I’ve recorded, suggesting at least 2 missing point, but they also indicate confirmed, incorrect Lendl having 2 more break point than he actually did

On small number of other points in first set, I’ve deduced or made confident guesses regarding serve type]

Serve Stats
Chang...
- 1st serve percentage (128/160) 80%
- 1st serve points won (79/128) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (12/32) 38%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (11/160) 7%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (78/150) 52%
- 1st serve points won (54/78) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (33/72) 46%
- ?? points won (0/1)
- Aces 13 (1 not clean)
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (28/151) 19%

Serve Patterns
Chang served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 57%
- to Body 9%

Lendl served....
- to FH 31%
- to BH 64%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Chang made...
- 119 (38 FH, 80 BH, 1 ??), including 2 runaround FHs & 3 return-approaches
- 15 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 12 Forced (8 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (119/147) 81%

Lendl made...
- 148 (70 FH, 78 BH), including 12 runaround FHs, 2 return-approaches & 1 drop-return
- 2 Winners (2 FH)
- 11 Errors, all unforced...
- 11 Unforced (7 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- Return Rate (148/159) 93%

Break Points
Chang 9/19 (10 games)
Lendl 6/19 (12 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Chang 46 (13 FH, 18 BH, 7 FHV, 4 BHV, 4 OH)
Lendl 40 (26 FH, 5 BH, 4 FHV, 5 BHV)

Chang's FHs - 2 cc, 4 dtl (2 passes), 2 dtl/inside-out, 4 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs - 9 cc (3 passes), 6 dtl (1 pass), 1 inside-out, 1 running-down-drop-shot drop shot at net, 1 net chord dribbler

- 1 from a return-approach point, an OH

Lendl's FHs - 9 cc (6 passes), 1 cc/inside-in, 4 dtl (1 return, 2 passes, 1 at net), 1 dtl/inside-out pass, 3 inside-out, 4 inside-in (1 return), 1 inside-in/cc pass, 1 drop shot, 2 lobs
- BHs - 1 cc, 3 dtl (2 passes), 1 running-down-drop-shot dtl pass at net

- 1 from a return-approach point, a BHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Chang 86
- 56 Unforced (29 FH, 25 BH, 2 BHV)
- 30 Forced (14 FH, 13 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2

Lendl 95
- 69 Unforced (45 FH, 22 BH, 1 BHV, 1 Point Penalty)... with 1 BH at net
- 26 Forced (11 FH, 13 BH, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index

(Note 0: Lendl's Point Penalty UE has been excluded from his UEFI)

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Chang was 32/54 (59%) at net, with...
- 1/3 (33%) return-approaching
- 1/3 (33%) forced back

Lendl was 23/35 (66%) at net, with...
- 1/2 return-approaching
- 1/2 forced back

Match Report
The gutsiest, most resourceful of showings by Chang is all one is likely to remember of this match, as he shakes every last trick out of his sleeves to impressively seize the deciding set while cramping, moving poorly, serving very gently. That’s the glass half-full version. Glass half-empty is a boring, slow, who-blinks-first encounter for 4 sets, and Lendl’s overall showing is unresourcesful, rigid of approach and quite poor

More like glass 3/5ths empty, 2/5ths at best, from positive point of view. So memorable is the finale though that it goes a long way to erasing memory of what the match has been for 4 sets

This match is famous for Chang cramping. And delivering an underarm serve. And drawing a double fault on match point while ready to return serve from near the service line. That’s tip of iceberg. He also strikes the most stunning baseline winners of the match, particularly off the BH, towards the end. Shot-making standard for the match is not high (to put it mildly), but Chang’s near the end is. Nor are they products of wild, hit-&-miss desperation that happens to come off. He rallies along normally. He moonballs (and squats to ease his pains in between shots, to give some idea of what kind of shape he’s in), he rallies normally (with norm of match being slow, who-blinks-first rallying). He suddenly hits a ball much harder from normal rally. He makes obviously steeled effort to run fast as he can to reach wide balls. He comes to net, but not desperately and from good appraoches - and is rewarded with success there

He remains standing and shakes legs about to keep them from getting worse at changeovers, while guzzling water. Gulps down water between points when he can too, but rarely abuses it. Just once or twice does he keeps server Lendl waiting a bit to start next point and then, only minimally and he stays on pace on his own service games

All this, with Lendl seemingly normally fit. Parlour games of underarm serves and returning from service line aside, Chang outplays a normal Lendl in the decider - and does so with handsome play and style. Were he not cramping, it’d be easier to see it simply as excellent tennis. The cramping and parlour tricks is what’s made it legendary

There is irony to some of the matches reputation
This is actually not a crazy-effort match from Chang, by his unique standard. Generally, Chang runs full tilt after everything, even balls he obviously has no chance of retrieving. He does not do that here, including pre-cramps. When Lendl hits an obvious winning shot, Chang doesn’t chase it. This is normal and sound, what he does generally is exceptional (read: crazy)

The famous return-from-service line finale does not come out of the blue. He does the same thing a couple times right at the start of the match. Moves upto just behind service line as Lendl’s about to deliver second serve, then fall back to about half-way between service line and baseline to make a pretty normal return and have a normal rally after. Lendl doesn’t bat an eye-lid those times, but he’s put off by the move at the end, and his first reaction is to look to the Chair and complain (about the crowd making noise, not Chang’s move), before double faulting

For all Chang’s heroics, this is foremost a ‘how did Lendl manage to mess this up?’ story. Some of Chang’s play near the end gets to just how little Lendl has done all match, and how much more he was capable of - but doesn’t try, let alone do

He can excused for not feeling need to do much because what he has a good formula for victory. Action of match is very simple, sans the cramping

Match Prospects
- Lendl big first serve, Chang 2 second serves
- Lendl can count on winning large lot of first serve points (based on a few freebies and drawing a few weak returns that he can command with FHs at once)
- remaining 3 service points are 50-50 deals… Lendl wins his share, he can expect to break as often as not

Hard to see how Chang can win with this going on

- baseline action is who-blinks-first stuff, bar occasional Lendl overpowering FH stuff. Chang doesn’t seem to have power or shots to bother Lendl. Off the BH, Lendl’s happy to keep ball in court without doing much. Most of the time off the FH too, but now and then, he’s able to take charge with FH and end point aggressively (beating Chang back and ending with overwhelming powerful shot or a winner). Often set up by drawing weak return with first serve, but not always. Were he inclined, he could look to do so a lot more often from neutral rally than he does - and expect to win most of the time

So ‘remaining 3 service points are 50-50 deals’ isn’t quite accurate. Lendl with ability to shift those his way too. And would probably be favoured to win majority of who-blinks-first rallies on top of that

Even harder to see how Chang win this

Lendl’s able to pound and go to town on Chang’s second serves regularly too. ‘Chang with 2 second serves’ isn’t quite accurate either. Its more like a second serve for a first serve and an invitation to smack winning returns off his actual second serve

How can Chang possibly win this?

Forget smacking second serves to take charge. Lendl could probably do so against first serves were he so inclined, shifting even Chang’s first serve points prospective 50-50 balance his way

 

[Waspsting]

How does Lendl manage to mess this up?
For starters, 0 smacking of first returns. Its not difficult. Chang has 0 aces, all 11 return errors he draws have been marked UEs. He doesn’t send down 1 serve all match that’d be considered forceful (that is, would have been marked FE had Lendl missed the return). Lendl content to push the return in play and have 50-50 rally on Chang’s first serve, where attacking with the return is readily do-able. You’d never see John McEnroe spare such weak serves the aggressive treatment just because they happen to be first serves in this manner

Chang wins 62% first serve points, 38% second serve ones. Looking at his 2 serves, would expect similar winning rates across them. That’s mostly down to Lendl returning second serves aggressively, not doing so against firsts. And to be clear, the first serves are there to be smacked, without much risk
(Chang also serves huge 80% first serves in to minimize troubles he faces via Lendl’s big second returning)

Chang wins bulk of who-blinks-first rallies, with Lendl’s FH chief culprit

- 45 FH UEs from Lendl. That’s more than all his 40 winners, just 1 shy of Chang’s yield of 46. Remaining groundies range from 22-29. Just missing a lot of FHs, usually in long rallies

- Lendl blowing chances. Break points read Chang 9/19 (10 games), Lendl 6/19 (12 games). He has runs of getting into every return game, but often can’t finish the job. Including giving up a point penalty to lose a 14 point game he’d had 3 break points in, while down a break late in fourth set. Also yells out something like “this court is absurd” after missing an umptenth routine FH in the same game. If that’s true, its very strange that the 17 year old is able to adjust to it better than the 10 year veteran, 3 time former champion, #1 in the world and all around nice guy that is Lendl

- Chang finally realizing you can hit baseline winners on clay. For first 2 sets, he barely plays a powerful shot and is pure who-blinks-first. There’s no shortage of weak and/or short balls in such rallies from Lendl’s BH in particular. No reason Lendl to be be mindful of force and depth of his shots when whatever he sends down just gets pushed back in court blandly and many of his push-slice/chip BHs are, like Chang’s serves, very attackable

Takes Chang awhile, but once he realizes it, he occasionally steps in and takes Lendl’s weaker balls to the cleaners

Chang BH with outstanding 18 winners, 25 UEs. Next best winner/UE differential is -16. He has 2 particular spurts with it - first when he cleans up with a series of early taken cc winners and right at the end when he adventurously dismisses a series of dtl ones

To be clear, Chang doesn’t change gears from who-blinks-first to attacking or anything so clear cut and dramatic. He continues to play who-blinks-first, but as with Lendl’s FH, with an edge to him that gives opponent something to fear

Quite a lot of things going here - Lendl returning passively, Lendl content to play who-blinks-first, Lendl’s FH going off and Chang winning the blink-contest, Chang finally realizing he’s got a weapon or 2 of his own. Approaching net is another under-utilized ploy by Lendl. He plays a very badly thought out match

Given Chang’s cramping, one might expect that Lendl blew the final set. He doesn’t, he’s outplayed in it. It’s the sets earlier sets he blows in all kinds of ways (not returning aggressively, not taking charge with FH, not coming to net, low in count) all very, very doable

Might have done Lendl good were he sloppy off the ground and giving up ground UEs quickly and losing short games. That might have shaken him up to doing things differently. As it plays out, he stays tantalizingly close in games - just a point shy of breaking through or resisting being broken through amidst long rallies, repeated many times over - as to stick to his ‘guns’ of bland rallying, who-blinks-first passive ground game. The actual guns of power FHs, big returns, taking net etc. He keeps in his pocket

Serve & Return
First serve in - Chang 80%, Lendl 52%
Aces - Chang 0, Lendl 13

Roller of a point starting serve from Chang. All match. Forget aces. There isn’t a single serve he sends down that would qualify as forceful
Lendl has more aces than Chang draws return errors (all UEs) 13-11

Lendl returning first serves normal-passively, just putting ball back in play from standard position.
Meanwhile, he looks to hammer second returns early. If he can do that to the seconds, he can do it to the firsts

7 Lendl return errors are against first serve, 4 against seconds. Given 80% in count, he’s missed fair few second returns, but damage his big, early return does is worth it
Chang wins 62% first serve points, 38% seconds. Discrepancy is almost all down to difference in way Lendl returns the two serves

93% return rate from Lendl is about right for what he’s up against

As he likes to do against weak serves, Lendl moves over wide to be ready for FH return against second serves. He’s in doubles alley in ad court, in less extreme position in deuce. Chang either doesn’t shirk the threat and serves down the center in ad court. Slow enough that Lendl can run over and smack the ball, but Chang not looking to avoid Lendl’s FH return (or resigned to not being able to)

Lendl with big fat first serve that he sends down with abandon. Generally, he serves this way when up against opponents he’s confident of outrallying. First serve is his free-hit and he biffs them down full throttle looking for quick easy point. If he makes it, probably quick easy point and if he doesn’t, no problem as he can win majority of second serve points outlasting opponent

Chang with just 3 return UEs, 12 FEs, to go with Lendl’s heavy 13 ace load. On clay, a very FE heavy yield (helped by Chang taking first returns relatively early from on baseline). Chang makes a good lot of tough returns too

Play - Baseline & Net
Lendl ends up winning 69% first serve points. That’s not great, given considerable freebies

When Chang makes first return, Lendl wins 29/53 or 55% of his first serve points. And he’s usually in commanding position after the return. Large lot of his large 26 FH winners comes early in rallies on his first serve points

Essentially, on his first serve, Lendl scoring fair lot of freebies (32% of his first serves don’t come back) and drawing weak returns that he can putaway at once or within 2-3 shots after a big first FH that gives him complete control of point. To only win 55% of rally points with head start of high load of quick, successful points, he must be losing bulk of the ones that descend into neutral rally.

Chang winning 62% of his first serve points (realisitically, like second serve points that start neutrally) is further confirmation of Chang outlasting Lendl in consistency contest

The staple of action is consistency, and rallies are passive. Ticked up warm-up rallies. UEs, particularly neutral ones, are on frontline

Neutral UEs - Chang 32, Lendl 44
Attacking UEs - Chang 19, Lendl 14
Winner attmpet UEs - Chang 5, Lendl 10

… with ground UEs -
- Lendl BH 21
- Chang BH 25
- Chang FH 29
- Lendl FH 45

Lendl FH is the big blinker. It also has substantial 26 winners (other groundies having 5-18)

In ‘81 final, Lendl had similar high winners, much higher UEs off the FH, but there he was pounding beat down FHs constantly and his opponent’s shot tolerance was tested. Very different to here, where he’s just playing neutral FHs (other than when he’s not - and 26 winners is a quite an exception)

On BH, Lendl throws in his usual mix of drives, slices, chips. It’s the opposite of his FH - match low winners of 5, and UEs too. The UE win isn’t much as Chan ghas just 4 more of his own BH, but winners are very low

So Lendl’s game -
- look to keep ball passively in court and outlast Chang for errors
- occasionally take charge with FH and aggressively finish with it (largely set up by big serve, but not exclusively). It looks very much like he can up FH hitting to pressuring, beat-down levels and possibly overpowering whenever he wants, but mostly sticks to passive, keep-ball-in-play (hopefully) 1 ball longer than Chang
- Always keep-ball-in play stuff on the BH, with variety of different kinds. Plenty of weak and short balls coming from BH too

Its success?
45 FH UEs and about 25% more neutral UEs. Chang’s the one able to put 1 more ball in play more often
26 FH winners. 13 are in baseline rallies, the rest passes or at net
Match low BH UEs by a little, match low winners by a lot. Not bad

 

[Waspsting]

Chang’s shot tolerance isn’t great. More powerful FHs beat him back. As powerful FHs are designed to do. Would take particularly good resistance for it not to, but Chang doesn’t have it

Chang’s movement is good, but not the super-human outstanding it often was. It not tested much, with action being as slow as it is. Lendl’s is skirting dipping below average. He’s just about upto reaching wid-ish balls hit not hard. Doesn’t reach ball with luxary of extra time

Net points - Chang 32/54 at 59%, Lendl 23/35 at 66%

Mistake number 17 from Lendl to come in so rarely. He’s more in control of rallies, and beat-down FH + approach would be probably be good to win large lot of points. Instead, sticks to who-blinks-first - and the 45 FH UEs follow

Lendl with 9 volley winners, Chang with 6 passing winners. Not bad from Chang, but 66% at net is good enough for Lendl to win. Thankfully for Chang, he doesn’t have much interest in coming in

Chang occasionally manufactures approaches but much more often, comes in behind dtl shots after outmanuvering Lendl. He also foregoes many good chances to come in. He either ‘dummies’ approaches or changes his mind after taking step towards approaching quite often. He’s not wrong to be choosey. Lendl passes well

Lendl with 15 passing winners, Chang with 15 volleying ones. Chang’s favourite approach is BH dtl, and Lendl’s on point on running FH cc pass where he has 6 winners. Good idea to come in dtl, not such a good one to do so to Lendl’s FH

Much safer to go to Lendl’s BH, even if its cc. Lendl’s BH has 13 FEs, most of them passes, for 3 passing winners

Ground FEs - Chang 27, Lendl 24, both near evenly divided across wings

Most of Lendl’s are passes. The ones he gives up in baseline rallies are often balls that are simply dying for lack of pace as they reach him. The opposite of ‘overpowered’. Lendl by contrast, is able to force errors from baseline, with his big FHs

Ground to ground winners
- Lendl 15 (13 FH, 2 BH), Chang 22 (10 FH, 12 BH)

Chang with near equal FH winners in this situation is little surprising. He does little bossing or commanding with the shot. But when he goes for the it, often makes it. Lendl does plenty of bossing and commanding by contrast (including forcing errors in a way Chang doesn’t). In that light, Chang’s overperformed, Lendl under in hitting FH winners

Chang’s BH is shot of the match. Steady, though not as much as Lendl’s. Always firm shots (as opposed to slices, chips, push-slices that Lendl reguarly employs). Lendl’s BH drives are probably more powerful, but Chang’s shot tolerance is upto handling that. And when he turns to shot-making, excellent

Lendl’s softer BHs are attackable. Plenty of short balls there and Chang goes after relatively few of them. 6 cc winners from Chang (he has a spurt of striking them) and 5 dtls (even more adventurous, and probably necessary right at the end when he’s physically low)

To be emphasised is all this is in context of warm-up vigour dual winged rallies as staple and of course, bulk of points ending with blinked up UEs. Not much sloppiness (that is, series of quick errors in short rallies), and rallies are generally long. This is not an entertaining match

Gist - Chang with better ground consistency, with Lendl’s FH faltering. Lendl under-utilizing power-hitting, beat-down FH play which is very much there to be done (also, approaching net). Chang taking net too with circumspection but much more than Lendl, and sometimes, superb with BH shot-making and attacking play

Match Progression
First point, ace
Second point, ace. Chang not lunging for the return desperately is uncharacteristic
Third point, Chang creeps up about half way to service line as Lendl’s bouncing ball ready to second serve, falls back a bit to return normally and a routine rally develops

Quite a beginning. Chang repeats his move-in move once more early on, again falling back and playing a normal return. Foreshadowing

Action settles into unlively groove. Lendl boxing down first serves, Lendl usually boxing down FH returns to second serves and Lendl following up boxed down shots with more boxed down FHs. Otherwise on Lendl’s second serve points and Chang’s firsts, two settling into who-blinks first rallies, with mild move-opponent-around component (Lendl more often the one leading it), Chang occasionally coming to net

Chang survives 12 and 10 point holds to reach 3-3, with Lendl holding much more comfily before Lendl grabs break to 30 for 5-3. Couple of FH blinks by hang I the game, Lendl striking a FH cc pass winner and a very rare double fault
Chang breaks back in long, blinky baseline game, but Lendl breaks right back in another blinky game to take the set 6-4

Lendl gets more comfy in second and there are higher lot of short ralllies. Chang’s more loose off the ground and Lendl still pounding big FHs not infrequently. Also coming to net a little more, while Chang comes in less

Chang breaks to start the set and consolidates for 2-0. Doesn’t matter much. This looks like a match where you might have more breaks than holds (it not turning out that way is actually a blackmark against the match)

After Lendl gets break back, couple of aggressive games on the trot where each player holds ot love. Chang with 2 FH winners and forcing error with strong third ball FH in his, Lendl with 2 winners and a foricng an error with a strong third ball BH line shot

Chang survives a break point in reaching 4-4, but is broken next go around. Great BH running-down-drop-shot dtl net to net winner by Lendl wraps up the set

Time for a grand turnaround? Nope. Lendl continues to have better of things in third set
If anything, he looks even more dominant because he’s banging down aces regularly. He’s got 6 of his 13 aces in the match come in the set

‘Looking’ and ‘being’ are two different things. Chang’s ground consistency gets a boost and he’s occasionally taking on the short balls Lendl gives up with push-chip/slice BHs. Plays some nice wide FH cc - FH dtl 1-2s too. Boost in consistency sees Lendl blink more often, but he’s on top of things with controlling big FHs and he starts going for a few attacking BH dtl’s

Chang knocks away 5 BH cc winners (1 pass) in span of 15 points between games 3-6. He only has 1 other all match

 

[Waspsting]

Lazy game by Lendl of no hustle as Chang holds for 3-3, and then Chang breaks. Couple of third ball FH UEs from Lendl in the game, and Chang neatly approaches FH dtl to complete the break
2 long games to wrap up set. Chang saving a break point in 10 point hold and taking his only break point in 12 point game after it. Just a little more consistent from him, making a couple fewer errors as rallies get on

Fourth set is most passive of the match, with seemingly every rally turning into a who-blinks-first deal. Lendl starts runaround FH returning against first serves finally, but does so neutrally. What’s the point?

The UE contest stays close, and Lendl’s frustrations grow. Break points for the set read Chang 1/4 (2 games), Lendl 0/7 (4 games), with Chang serving 45 points in his 5 games, Lendl 27

Sole break comes in game 6. Double fault gets things to 30-30, Chang surprisingly comes in FH cc (he’s been approaching dtl almost exclusively and FH cc pass by Lendl had been very effective) to knock away an OH and on break point, Lendl makes a very poor BH at net UE to a bad drop shot

Chang consolidates for 5-2, with Lendl’s frustrations boiling over as he’s thwarted on 3 more break points. He yells out something about the court being absurd after missing routine FH on the second break point, and the third one is erased with a belted, third ball FH inside-out winner. Lendl’s BH pass is called out point after and he has a fit over the call. Linesperson and Chair both can’t find the mark and Chair sticks to linesperson’s call. Lendl is fluent in expressing what he thinks of the decision, which gets him a point penalty to give Chang the hold

Its on the serve-out that tone of 5th set is set. Chang serves even more gently than he had been doing, takes net few times (not in a rush to to) and moonballs for a point. Lendl has 2 break points in this game too - nice BH line approach and angled BHV winner by Chang to erase the first and Lendl’s FH blinks again on the second. Lendl misses routine FHs last 2 points after that too, including after rally where Chang introduces moonballs fro the first time

Chang cramps in the final set, but plays heroically. Rallies along match’s soft norm more often than not. Moonballs to slow it down still further (while squatting between shots). Finds/makes approach opportunities - some daring and low percentage, some well constructed. Occasional unleashes a powerful shot from routine position. He’s guzzling water whenever he can, including between points, without wasting delaying game. Occasionally steels himself to run as fast as he can to chase ball, occasionally lets balls go. His serving is very gentle

Lendl plays along. For starters, can only muster 12/31 first serves and power of his serves are down too (though not as much as Chang’s movement). Routine returning and continues to prolong rallies for who-blinks-first type stuff. Little taking charge of rallies, little approaching net. He’s already wet-hen upset and though not cramping, also not moving too well

Strong game to break out the gate by Chang - BH dtl approach forces passing error, a rare slugged return to baseline forces another ground error and a wrong footing FH cc goes for clean winner. Lendl’s FH blinks up third ball UE to complete the break

Some wonderful BH dtl’s and net play sees Chang consolidate for 2-0, but Lendl levels at 2-2 soon after in kind of feeble game you’d expect every game to see condition Chang’s in
Just 1 more hold after that. 4 winners from Chang to break for 3-2 (return-approaching OH, BH dtl, BHV and a well set up BH cc)
Blinky game to Lendl, with Chang giving up 3 ground UEs. 3-3

Lazy, poor FH inside-in winner attempt miss by Lendl on game point sees next game go to deuce. Brilliant points from Chang to break from there - a sudden power FH inside-out winner and a BH cc winner after a tough rally that he defends with full effort on. 4-3 Chang with a break

With finish line in sight, Chang sneaks in the famous under-handed serve. Wins the pint too by getting a low, wide pass off. Other 3 points he wins are Lendl ground UEs - 2 attacking BH dtl’s and a routine FH around middle of court that he’s not trying to do anything with. 5-3 Chang

3 fantastic BH dtl winners from Chang - the first a strained, running effort, the second after Lendl’s targets BH for whole rally, the third after a dual winged rally - get him to 15-40 and 2 break/match points, and Chang moves up to service line to take the upcoming second return

This elicits some noise from the crowd, that Lendl doesn’t like and he turns to complain to Chair. He has a point as it causes a delay between his serves. As he’d done early in the match, Chang falls back to about half-way to baseline as the serve comes down and he’s readying a FH return as the serve goes long to his BH to famously end the match

Summing up, great guts, resourcefulness and bloody good play from Michael Chang to see out a match where he’s barely in fit condition to play for the final set. While that takes the eye, its even more remarkable he’s competitive - let alone wins - the match

Lendl first serve points - advantage Lendl because of big serve
Chang second serve points - advantage Lendl because of big returns
Other two serves - 50-50 prospects

Throw in even Chang’s first serve being susceptible to being aggressively returned and Lendl with ability to take charge of 50-50 rallies with powerful FHs in a way Chang is not and even other 2 serves prospectively favour Lendl

Despite Chang’s ultimate heroics, overall match is more about Lendl blowing things with passivity and bulk of action is slow and dull baseline exchanges on par with a lively warm-up

Does not return aggressively against first serves - its there to be done
Does not often take charge with FHs - its there to be done
Does end up getting outlasted in rallies more and more, with FH faltering. More credit to Chang for being more consistent for that rather than discredit to the loser. Lendl’s rarely sloppy, its just that Chang misses less so Lendl ends up doing so

Does persist with passive rallying and waiting for errors. And remains ever so close to Chang so doing, close enough that he wouldn’t feel need for substantial change to a sound enough starting game plan
Close enough - but on the behind side

Some nice, choice attacking play from Chang (especially off the BH) and good use of net, along with his consistency advantage slenders him past his handicaps to a famous win

@Debraj - thoughts?

Stats for the final between Chang and Stefan Edberg - Match Stats/Report - Chang vs Edberg, French Open final, 1989 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[dryeagle]

I don’t think Lendl cared about clay too much after 1988. As Connor’s later said, he was just bunting the ball around. He tended to play this slow paced style against rising baseliners like Chang and Agassi.

He put a lot of focus into grass and chasing Wimbledon later in his career. Guess he was saving his power for that.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

He tended to play this slow paced style against rising baseliners like Chang and Agassi.

simply not as talented at this style as Wilander,,,

 

[borg's headband]

Interestingly, this is eerily similar to the Lendl-Wilander match of 1982. Twice did Lendl, being the no.1 favorite to win the title at Roland Garros, choke in the fourth round against a 17-year old kid that eventually ended up winning the tournament and becoming the youngest player ever to do so.

It would be interesting to get your analysis @Waspsting on differences and similarities between these two Lendl breakdowns. Wilander in 1982 vs Chang in 1989.

 

[Debraj]

Thank you for doing this,must say this is quite myth-shattering(at least to me), didn't know lendl was quite "meh" in this match

 

[urban]

What stood aout for me, when i watched the young Michael Chang, was his double handed backhand. It was very aggressive and deceptive in his early years, and like Connors he could drill it cross court for winners. In the match stats he has 18 backhand winners, more than forehand winners, and more than Lendl. I feel, he gave up this aggressive backhand style later on, and was far more reluctant and defensive in his prime. I still think, he would have stayed better with that aggressive Connors style backhand.

 

[I get cramps]

For all Chang’s heroics, this is foremost a ‘how did Lendl manage to mess this up?’ story.

Juan Aguilera defeated Michael Chang in the 1990 Hamburg tournament in the second round with a score of 6-3 and 6-2. https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/juan-aguilera-vs-michael-chang/a007/c274

In the hour before the match against Michael, Juan ran into Niki Pilić. As Aguilera tells us in a lengthy interview with Gonzalo López during the confinement, Pilić, who had worked at the Spanish Tennis Federation, told Aguilera, “If that kid ever wins a grand slam again, I'll cut off my c*j*nes [testicles] and eat them.”

As Juan Aguilera continued to be interviewed, he failed to use foul language.

 

[WCT]

Wasp,would you rank Chang's as the weakest mens' serve of any of the matches you've done?

 

[jrepac]

Juan Aguilera defeated Michael Chang in the 1990 Hamburg tournament in the second round with a score of 6-3 and 6-2. https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/juan-aguilera-vs-michael-chang/a007/c274

In the hour before the match against Michael, Juan ran into Niki Pilić. As Aguilera tells us in a lengthy interview with Gonzalo López during the confinement, Pilić, who had worked at the Spanish Tennis Federation, told Aguilera, “If that kid ever wins a grand slam again, I'll cut off my c*j*nes [testicles] and eat them.”

As Juan Aguilera continued to be interviewed, he failed to use foul language.

and luckily, he did not have to follow through on that promise!

 

[jrepac]

What stood aout for me, when i watched the young Michael Chang, was his double handed backhand. It was very aggressive and deceptive in his early years, and like Connors he could drill it cross court for winners. In the match stats he has 18 backhand winners, more than forehand winners, and more than Lendl. I feel, he gave up this aggressive backhand style later on, and was far more reluctant and defensive in his prime. I still think, he would have stayed better with that aggressive Connors style backhand.

Funny you mention that. As he got older, I thought some of that crispness of the BH shot had gone away. He went with the extended length frame to get more pop on his serve. Wasn't sure it helped elsewhere.

 

[Waspsting]

I don’t think Lendl cared about clay too much after 1988. As Connor’s later said, he was just bunting the ball around. He tended to play this slow paced style against rising baseliners like Chang and Agassi.

'bunting the ball around... slow paced style' doesn't sound too different from what I've seen him doing on clay '88 earlier
Generally speaking, Lendl does as little as he has to win
If bunting ball about wins him bulk of points via blinks, that's what he does
If its not enough (for example, against Wilander, who can do it right back indefinately), only then does he up the power

Some amount of power FH'ng usually (any period) even if he doesn't need to. I think in this match, he just underestimated Chang's consistency and though he could outlast him.
If he took him more seriously, might have gone in for more of it. Its not difficult

What stood aout for me, when i watched the young Michael Chang, was his double handed backhand. It was very aggressive and deceptive in his early years, and like Connors he could drill it cross court for winners. In the match stats he has 18 backhand winners, more than forehand winners, and more than Lendl. I feel, he gave up this aggressive backhand style later on, and was far more reluctant and defensive in his prime. I still think, he would have stayed better with that aggressive Connors style backhand.

We were having a discussion not long ago about which players resemble Jimmy Connors the most
No one really does, but I'd nominate Chang

In this match, on top of the BH aggression, the hit hard and approach thing is similar to Connors
The high lot of BH winners is a little deceptive in that they're clusterd in bursts
4/6 baseline to baseline cc winners within 15 points (also 1/3 passes)
3/5 dtl winners within 4 points right at the end, when he's somewhat desperate to end points

Most of match, he's normal, if not passive with the BH. Lendl's more passive, with his mix of chips and push-slices. Chang usually just neutrally puts back into play the ones that drop short

BH dtl approach main weapon - good, firm shot, with disadvantage of going to Lendl's FH
And he's a good volleyer. Looks a 2 categories more comfy at net than say Agassi or Courier

Wasp,would you rank Chang's as the weakest mens' serve of any of the matches you've done?

I think so. Bare minimum, its a very strong contender for it, especially post wooden racquet

Good few clay matches where players are just rolling serves in, including by Borg, but they might dart 1 in rarely
But literally 0 forceful serves out of 160 might be a first
The underarm serve is probably the most likely to draw an error serve he sends down all match

Interestingly, this is eerily similar to the Lendl-Wilander match of 1982. Twice did Lendl, being the no.1 favorite to win the title at Roland Garros, choke in the fourth round against a 17-year old kid that eventually ended up winning the tournament and becoming the youngest player ever to do so.

It would be interesting to get your analysis @Waspsting on differences and similarities between these two Lendl breakdowns. Wilander in 1982 vs Chang in 1989.

I hadn't noticed that parallel before

In the '82 match with Wilander, they traded moonballs for very, very, very long rallies (even duller and longer than the slow, warm-up type action in this match)
Things eventually turning to drop-shot + approach plays led by Lendl (here, Lendl doing fair amount of power FH'ng, Chang approaching orthodoxly)
He lost because he got gassed and was hitting out like a lunatic for the last 2 sets (here, he loses because he's 1 step behind for last 3 steps, but is never out of it)

Here are stats/report for that match

Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Lendl, French Open fourth round, 1982

Mats Wilander beat Ivan Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2 in the French Open fourth round, 1982 on clay The unseeded 17 year old Wilander was playing his first French Open and would go onto win the first of 3 titles there - following up this win over the 2nd seeded Lendl with wins over the 3rd, 4th...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

More broadly, you can find all my stuff here

Match Stats/Reports - Catalogue

This is a full list of all the matches I've statt-ed chronologically arranged I'll keep it updated. List will continue to grow, probably not at the same rate, and disproportionately heavily towards more recent players Slam pre-final matches are in blue Slam finals are in red Happy holidays...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Thank you for doing this,must say this is quite myth-shattering(at least to me), didn't know lendl was quite "meh" in this match

Debraj, if you have plans to go through this match, there's a perspective I'd be interested in getting that you can offer

I'd like to hear what someone who only watchs the final set thinks of it

I watched the final set after being primed by the first 4 sets (which are dreary), and am mindful that I might be over-impressed by the 5th set, because of how it contrasts to earlier part of match

(and unless your having trouble sleeping, wouldn't recommend watching first 4 sets)

 

[Galvermegs]

and luckily, he did not have to follow through on that promise!

Hopefully he didnt hear too much about chang between 1995 and 1997.
Rafter is such a top bloke.. goes without saying

 

[Angrybirdstar]

there's a perspective I'd be interested in getting that you can offer

I'd like to hear what someone who only watchs the final set thinks of it

I watched the final set after being primed by the first 4 sets (which are dreary), and am mindful that I might be over-impressed by the 5th set, because of how it contrasts to earlier part of match

hi i did this just now! i felt like despite Chang's cramping, it was more a match (or at least set) won by Chang than one lost by Lendl, and that Chang's play was admirable in its thoughtfulness and bravery and execution. that being said, it did make me think unfavorably about Lendl's strategic and attacking capabilities in this specific instance, and perhaps in general. a few quotes of yours that i thought were relevant:

Putting together various parts of Lendl's game, I'm struck by the flexibility of his mental approach

Usually, guys with big serves have a game based on ending points quickly (be it at net or from the baseline), while guys with gentler serves tend to be more ready to out-rally or outlast their opponent

Lendl seems to transition seamlessly between the two

He uses his first serve as a killing weapon, just like Becker (w/ less S/V support). He does not hold back on it - and frequently has a sub-50% delivery as a result

But on 2nd serve, he seemingly alters his mindset to be ready to duke it out from the back patiently (or pass if necessary)

Its like Becker's mind and Wilander's coexisting without contradiction in him... plus an ability to attack relatively safely

Like Borg, percentage play and safety seem to be his mental comfort zone, but he's more willing and able to turn to aggressive if called for

And [Lendl] remains ever so close to Chang so doing, close enough that he wouldn’t feel need for substantial change to a sound enough starting game plan

combining these two quotes, i was reminded of your perspective on Djokovic - someone who Does What's Necessary for better and for worse. better, in that he can attack (with much more margin than anyone else), he can defend (with much more quality than anyone else), and he can do both relentlessly within the scope of a point or match. worse, in that he doesn't necessarily concern himself with playing good quality tennis, only the level necessary to beat his opponent (even if he has higher "gears" to go into). so when Djokovic is called upon to play against a theoretically strong opponent, yet is still doing well enough with his chosen strategy that he's not losing terribly, he can get complacent and sloppy and leave an opening for his opponent to exploit (i think this is clearest in his baselining against Wawrinka, Medvedev, and Alcaraz).

I think his [Murray's] biggest problem is mental

Of play, he's roughly as far behind Djokovic as Mats Wilander was from Ivan Lendl

But Wilander was mentally tough, clutched up and gave as good as he got in big matches against Lendl. Murray seems to do the opposite

There was an interesting incident in this match, in conjunction with some commentary. Mary Carillo brought up how Djokovic's father had apparently strongly criticized Murray not long ago for being mentally weak and wasting emotional energy on exchanges with his box

Apparently, one of the TV guys had tried to interview Murray before the match and Andy had declined. During the match, this guy was in Murray's box, looking to interview someone there. Murray talked to the referee somewhat heatedly about having something done to prevent that

Your playing a Grand Slam final. Why on earth would something this trivial even cross your mind, much less distract you from business at hand?

I don't think its a problem in this match, but I stat-ted (i.e., watched very carefully) his finals against Roger Federer at AO '10, USO '08 and Olympics '12

In all of them, he basically just puts the ball in play... and hopes for the best, I guess(?) Pushes short balls back, particularly in Australia match

When you do this, your essentially looking to win by your opponent playing badly. And its not like he didn't know how to work Federer around the court - he did and was very successful against him during those periods. But come the big final, and he plays like that

i also thought about this Murray quote and how it relates to Lendl, especially with the forehand gap elephant in the room. i think Lendl's grinder mentality might have led to subpar forehand performances when the shot could reasonably have been expected to have bailed him out, and this felt particularly relevant in a match where a cramping and desperate Chang still had total initiative over the match (whether moonballing or net rushing or anything else) and had more standout shots off both baseline wings. that's just embarrassing for Lendl, imo. the narrative coming out of the match seemed similar to the narrative for Taylor Fritz against Djokovic in any of their matches - sure, there's a clear athletic deficit that makes it a hard proposition for Fritz to guarantee offensive points or deny Djokovic's offense, and there's a technical quirk on the backhand that makes going down the line difficult, and Djokovic will always be able to come up with some magical counter-attacking shots, but Fritz should still be able to do more and be more daring and efficient on offense.

 

[buscemi]

i think Lendl's grinder mentality might have led to subpar forehand performances when the shot could reasonably have been expected to have bailed him out, and this felt particularly relevant in a match where a cramping and desperate Chang still had total initiative over the match (whether moonballing or net rushing or anything else) and had more standout shots off both baseline wings.

It's interesting b/c this script repeated itself 2 years later, with an injured (groin) and desperate Chang still somehow having initiative in his match against Lendl at the Grand Slam Cup, coming back from two sets down to win (on indoor carpet no less). Chang winning both of his BO5 matches against Lendl is big mark against Ivan.

 

[BringBackWood]

i also thought about this Murray quote and how it relates to Lendl, especially with the forehand gap elephant in the room. i think Lendl's grinder mentality might have led to subpar forehand performances when the shot could reasonably have been expected to have bailed him out, and this felt particularly relevant in a match where a cramping and desperate Chang still had total initiative over the match (whether moonballing or net rushing or anything else) and had more standout shots off both baseline wings. that's just embarrassing for Lendl, imo. the narrative coming out of the match seemed similar to the narrative for Taylor Fritz against Djokovic in any of their matches - sure, there's a clear athletic deficit that makes it a hard proposition for Fritz to guarantee offensive points or deny Djokovic's offense, and there's a technical quirk on the backhand that makes going down the line difficult, and Djokovic will always be able to come up with some magical counter-attacking shots, but Fritz should still be able to do more and be more daring and efficient on offense.

Totally agree with this, excellent analysis. 'Embarrassing' is a very apt descriptor- not that he lost, but the manner in which he did. And as you allude, it certainly wasn't the only time in his career his self-imposed rigidity cost him. His loss to Svensson the year previous is a lesser, but still very relevant, example.

 

[I get cramps]

I couldn't believe Mike would do it again (moonballing as a tactic) until a mentally and physically exhausted Sergi hit a short ball. In this case, Mike would take it on the rise and go to the net. Mike had thought subtly and sharply about how to beat Sergi—to standing ovations.

It is no secret that Bruguera injured his knee in the first quarter of the year and did not have time to regain the physical (and therefore psychological) strength to withstand Mike's plan and how he executed it, especially from the mental aspect of the clash.

In the same year's final in Rome, Thomas and Sergi played two opening sets on clay at the highest level, each winning one. In the third, Sergi collapsed for the reasons mentioned above. I'm not saying, far from it, that if Sergi had been in complete physical condition, he would have been able to win two more sets against Thomas by any means.

As a left-hander and a clay-court player able to take the ball very early, Thomas systematically denied the flow of points that Sergi, in his prime, used to win with his off-forehand*. This meant that the Barcelona player (and this can be well observed in the first two sets of the match at the Foro Italico) had no choice but to hit DTL backhands and cross-court missiles (not to lose position by running around his forehand in reverse). This was not his usual system.

*With Thomas taking the ball on the rise with his forehand and Sergi out of position, Muster could hit DTLs to the open court.

 

[Galvermegs]

It's interesting b/c this script repeated itself 2 years later, with an injured (groin) and desperate Chang still somehow having initiative in his match against Lendl at the Grand Slam Cup, coming back from two sets down to win (on indoor carpet no less). Chang winning both of his BO5 matches against Lendl is big mark against Ivan.

And yet at the same time lendl managed to go that one better at the aussie open and defend queens. Its a pity but i think chang dragged him to a lower level. Rivals like mcenroe, connors, edberg and becker could often bring out his a game.

 

[buscemi]

And yet at the same time lendl managed to go that one better at the aussie open and defend queens. Its a pity but i think chang dragged him to a lower level. Rivals like mcenroe, connors, edberg and becker could often bring out his a game.

Yeah, I would say that Wilander could have that same effect on him, which explains why they were more successful against him in BO5 than BO3.

 

[Galvermegs]

Yeah, I would say that Wilander could have that same effect on him, which explains why they were more successful against him in BO5 than BO3.

Pretty much what i was getting at. Its a shame wilander doesnt come to wimbledon more as a pundit. He still won the thing in doubles.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

think so. Bare minimum, its a very strong contender for it, especially post wooden racquet

Good few clay matches where players are just rolling serves in, including by Borg, but they might dart 1 in rarely
But literally 0 forceful serves out of 160 might be a first
The underarm serve is probably the most likely to draw an error serve he sends down all match

Don’t really get, how professionals, who live and breath tennis and also have coaches play such a stupid tactics. I mean how can anyone see any benefit in that? even if you have the worst serve of all it should still give you more free points than double faults.

 

[Galvermegs]

Don’t really get, how professionals, who live and breath tennis and also have coaches play such a stupid tactics. I mean how can anyone see any benefit in that? even if you have the worst serve of all it should still give you more free points than double faults.

That is a good point but chang was very fit and could grind long matches out. If he made both him and the opponent play longer points perhaps that was to his benefit more.

 

[Waspsting]

hi i did this just now! i felt like despite Chang's cramping, it was more a match (or at least set) won by Chang than one lost by Lendl, and that Chang's play was admirable in its thoughtfulness and bravery and execution. that being said, it did make me think unfavorably about Lendl's strategic and attacking capabilities in this specific instance, and perhaps in general.

Thanks for this, and the going into beyond parallels of style with other playres

The masterful type baseliners (like Lendl) all seem to ease up on their aggression as they gain experience

Djokovic is one example. A more drastic one is Andre Agassi

as a young player, Agassi was a spectacular power-hitter and shot-maker, reaching a particularly good balance by '95 with sound coaching
Fast forward to the early 2000s, which remained one of the most successful periods of his career
He doesn't do anything with the ball that he doesn't have to
BH cc, cc, cc, cc, cc.... he'll keep at it until he gets the error. Hitting just hard, deep, wide enough to keep his opponent from getting funny ideas about attacking him, but not attacking himself
FHs a little harder and little wider cc
His 1 nod to his showman old ways was he liked to end sets with a special shot and heave the same kind of ball he'd been playing metronomically for a winner. Impression he gave was he could do this almost anytime he wanted

I'd be surprised if Jannik Sinner is still pounding balls the way he does 3-4 years from now

Chang still had total initiative over the match (whether moonballing or net rushing or anything else) and had more standout shots off both baseline wings. that's just embarrassing for Lendl, imo.

That's a very good summary
My gut take away from this match was Lendl must really be kicking himself. Even more than admiration for Chang's heroics

Don’t really get, how professionals, who live and breath tennis and also have coaches play such a stupid tactics. I mean how can anyone see any benefit in that? even if you have the worst serve of all it should still give you more free points than double faults.

For Chang here, I think he might just not have been capable of anything more at this stage in his career
Served similarly in the final against Edberg. I imagine this take -

Pilić (in 1990 clay season), who had worked at the Spanish Tennis Federation, told Aguilera, “If that kid ever wins a grand slam again, I'll cut off my c*j*nes [testicles] and eat them.”

- was largely based on the serve. It'd be a pretty crazy take based on Chang's groundies
Chang won Canada shortly after it, beating Agassi and Sampras in back to back thrillers

Lendl was maybe one of the first great clay courters to still use serve as a weapon. Borg didn't and he was capable (he darts a few big aces down against Lendl in '81 French final), Wilander usually didn't (for example, famous 97% first serve percentage '88 final)

But they could - and did if/when they felt need, even if moderately. Wilander wouldn't have been serving too gently when he's serve-volleying in '87 final

 

[I get cramps]

Lendl could have gone toe-to-toe with Pérez Roldán in the Rome '88 final but did so as a counterpuncher; the Argentine, who was not a decent volleyer, ended up going to the net. Lendl could have lost that final. For obvious reasons, I don't think the 1988 campaign is the right one to judge the Czech style of play. You could watch the entire Rome '88 final on YouTube recently.

Martín Jaite and Emilio Sánchez said, not too long ago, that the Czech often gave them the initiative in their clay court matches: “Come and beat me; open the court and take the net.”

The 1987 Roland Garros final is a splendid match. I know you find it one of the most interesting matches you have ever seen because of both players' changing play patterns.

Regarding this match, @Waspsting wrote: "
Match Report
Excellent match and different from the pairs first two encounters at the venue. There's an element of attacker vs defender in this one - Lendl the attacker, Wilander the defender

Note both players having more winners than unforced errors in play (Lendl 53/43, Wilander 25/23)… very rare for a clay court match, where UEs tend to plentiful and winners relatively rare. Even in high quality encounters." http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...dl-vs-wilander-french-open-final-1987.658697/

Five years ago, I asked @urban what he thought about this match. Hearing his take on a complex match will always be more than interesting.

Let's just say it's not something we can watch daily in tennis, which has since become increasingly linear.

During the monotonous exchange of cross-court backhands between the two players, Lendl hit a barrage of them almost in a fully open stance, well inside the court, at his shoulder height as Wilander's ball was weightless. This is something that should not be mentioned in this holy house. It is not proper to do so, nor would it be proper to state that when you see Hewitt play in terre battue, you notice that his ball can be mistreated (Gaudio defeats Hewitt in the quarterfinals of RG 2004 by a score of 6-3, 6-2, 6-2). Why didn't Nadal steamroll the Adelaidean when they played on clay? Because it was not the manacorí's system of play at the time.

Going back to the 1987 RG final, Lendl hit many heavy crosscourt backhands with sidespin to get the Swede out of position, and he succeeded. However, Mats was so fast that when Ivan subsequently looked for a forehand winner with his forehand, offset forehand DTL, Wilander regained position at breakneck speed (an amazing slider). Mats' defense was almost impossible to penetrate.

However, with Lendl down 4-5 in the first set, he takes his chances and goes to the net with forehands, winning most of the approaches he tries with them. The Czech wins three consecutive games and the set. Lendl returns an interesting number of times more inside the court than Andre would; he is left with no choice if he wants to defeat the Växjö player.

I watch this match about twice every year. I re-watched it a few weeks ago, and I enjoyed it more each time.

It's my belief, I would bet a great deal of money if such a thing were possible, that about 90% of the people who talk about this match watched it only on the day it was played. Countless fans speak ill of this match. Let's say Lendl pressured the Swede to stop playing defensively and instead go on the offensive for the rest of the match. In that case, it might not be a matter of interest to them, and they would have good reason given what had happened on the Chatrier for an hour since the start of the final.

 

[Waspsting]

Let's just say it's not something we can watch daily in tennis...

I've been musing about this for awhile because I've heard it pinpointed as stock example of boring match
As late as 2001, Jim Courier refers to to as during wind affected French Open final with lot of passive rallying so - and exampls in immediate aftermatch are far more common

I didn't think it was bad for reasons you've quoted relating to changing dynamics and strategies across the match. And while I'm not far away from common takes, as far as the moonball rallies go... I do appreciate the skills it takes to play in such a way

Borg massacared even highly reputed players with similar shots - Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Pecci in French Open final - so clearly, its effective and not easy to deal with
Though easy to dismiss as dull, boring, my-grandmother-could-do-better
More recently, similar thing going on with Djokovic clincially dismantling opponents with pace and depth (minus the grandmother-could-do-better part)

It's my belief, I would bet a great deal of money if such a thing were possible, that about 90% of the people who talk about this match watched it only on the day it was played.

90% is sellling is it short

The common takes I've seen - see any list of 'greatest ever matches' - makes me sure 90%+ sure that these takes are based on a combo of -

- looking at names of players
- looking at scoreline of match
- watching highlights or/and fast forwarding to the ending
- knowing what media have said about the match

... as opposed to actually watching, let alone re-watching the whole matches

 

[urban]

Lendl often was a bit tentative on clay or slow hardcourt, especially when he played Wilander. Given his assets, he had a very heavy forehand, and a solid and deep backhand. In Eliot Berrys book Topspin, many players around 1990 said, that Lendl had a much heavier shot than even Courier, who was called a heavy pounder himself. But somehow against Wilander, he often camped on the baseline, and got in long and longer rather stationary exchanges. I think, those long rallies tired him out, much more than Wilander. He had heavier feet than the Swede, and despite all his diet, his stamina wasn't the very best. I found him a bit lucky, even in 1987 at RG and Flushing, when he won barely after exhaustive matches. I saw him beating Wilander pertty easily on clay at the Düsseldorf WC, when he pounded away with his forehand and stayed aggressive.

I think, some players saw him in the locker after the Chang match, and noticed that Lendl was completely dead on his feet. Many thought Chang was at the end of his powers, but even more Lendl was near exhaustion. I also remember a AO semi with Muster on a very hot day, when he also was out on his feet at the end.

 

[Galvermegs]

Lendl often was a bit tentative on clay or slow hardcourt, especially when he played Wilander. Given his assets, he had a very heavy forehand, and a solid and deep backhand. In Eliot Berrys book Topspin, many players around 1990 said, that Lendl had a much heavier shot than even Courier, who was called a heavy pounder himself. But somehow against Wilander, he often camped on the baseline, and got in long and longer rather stationary exchanges. I think, those long rallies tired him out, much more than Wilander. He had heavier feet than the Swede, and despite all his diet, his stamina wasn't the very best. I found him a bit lucky, even in 1987 at RG and Flushing, when he won barely after exhaustive matches. I saw him beating Wilander pertty easily on clay at the Düsseldorf WC, when he pounded away with his forehand and stayed aggressive.

I think, some players saw him in the locker after the Chang match, and noticed that Lendl was completely dead on his feet. Many thought Chang was at the end of his powers, but even more Lendl was near exhaustion. I also remember a AO semi with Muster on a very hot day, when he also was out on his feet at the end.

Fast hardcourt and indoors were different and whilst no grasscourter he still did pretty well at wimbledon.. maybe the quicker surfaces freed him from both gameplan issues and stamina ones (the 1987 wimbledon final was a tough day out despite just 3 sets)

Regardless of stamina, lendl was amazing at coping with the grind of the tour. He made so many semis, finals and converting those tour finals into wins. It is quite odd though how he was dominating like novak quite some time before he got the first major.

 

[Waspsting]

Lendl beat Chang 6-3, 6-2 in the Cincinnati semi-final, 1992 on hard court

Lendl would go onto lose the final to Pete Sampras. Chang would win the title the following two years. It as Lendl’s first win over Chang, who had won both the pair’s first 2 matches fromcoming 2 sets to love down

Lendl won 66 points, Chang 50

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (26/54) 48%
- 1st serve points won (22/26) 85%
- 2nd serve points won (12/28) 43%
- Aces 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (17/54) 31%

Chang...
- 1st serve percentage (35/62) 56%
- 1st serve points won (17/35) 49%
- 2nd serve points won (13/27) 48%
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (10/62) 16%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 63%

Chang served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 68%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 47 (14 FH, 33 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 3 Winners (3 FH), including 1 runaround FH
- 10 Errors, comprising...
- 9 Unforced (5 FH, 4 BH)
- 1 Forced (1 BH)
- Return Rate (47/57) 82%

Chang made...
- 37 (11 FH, 26 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 8 return-approaches
- 12 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (2 FH, 3 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- 7 Forced (5 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (37/54) 69%

Break Points
Lendl 5/8 (6 games)
Chang 1/6 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 14 (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BHOH)
Chang 8 (3 FH, 4 FHV, 1 BHV)

Lendl's FHs - 1 runaround cc return, 1 cc/inside-in, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out pass, 5 inside-in (2 returns, 1 pass)
- BH passes - 2 cc, 1 dtl at net

Chang's FHs - 1 dtl, 1 inside-in, 1 longline

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a second volley FHV
- 3 from return-approach points (3 FHV)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 32
- 15 Unforced (8 FH, 7 BH)
- 17 Forced (8 FH, 9 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.3

Chang 30
- 21 Unforced (8 FH, 11 BH, 2 OH)... with 1 FH at net & 1 baseline OH on the bounce
- 9 Forced (3 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.1

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was...
- 8/9 (89%) at net, including...
- 1/1 serve-volleying, a 1st serve
---
- 0/1 retreated

Chang was...
- 16/26 (62%) at net, including...
- 2/4 (50%), serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 7/8 (88%) return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Perfect illustration of the theoretical prospects of the match-up between the two players. Big serve and big FH load things Lendl’s way against weak serve, normal FH of Chang, who nonetheless, back-cuts it some by aggressive second serve returning and other net play. Not enough to prevent a thrashing, let alone defeat. Court is quick side of normal

This is what the French Open match could have been. To recapitulate from prospects from that match -

"...- Lendl big first serve, Chang 2 second serves
- Lendl can count on winning large lot of first serve points (based on a few freebies and drawing a few weak returns that he can command with FHs at once)
- remaining 3 service points are 50-50 deals… Lendl wins his share, he can expect to break as often as not

Hard to see how Chang can win with this going on"

Well, here -
First serve points won - Lendl 85%, Chang 49%
Second serve points won - Lendl 43%, Chang 48%

Lendl making hay with big first serve (5 aces, 31% unreturned. Chang has 0 and 16% to compare)
Lendl making hay with big FH (9 winners. Chang has 8 from all shots, Lendl has 5 from non-FHs)
And Lendl happening to edge the 50-50 baseline rallies (ground UEs - Lendl 15, Chang 19)

Lendl executes with the attacking return thing too. Chang with moderate 56% first serves in, so lot more scope to than in Paris, but unlike earlier match, he occasionally wallops first serves too (which was do-able in Paris, but he didn’t try). He’s got 3 return winners and pressured Chang to double fault 5 times from just 27 second serves

There are differences from the French Open match too
- Baseline rallies are solid - to - lively (as opposed to drably passive). Chang indulges back-away FH game of looking to breakdown Lendl’s BH with FH inside-out and change up to attack with FH inside-ins. I haven’t seen Chang play this type of game in any other match. Things turn particularly lively when Lendl lands his running FH against FH inside-in - he hits a winning shot, or Chang’s left to play a defensive one and the rally becomes open, side-to-side one

- Chang’s aggressive second returning. Chang takes to return-approaching behind pounded returns against second serve. There was none of that going on in earlier match. He’s 7/8 so doing and that’s behind Lendl with 43% second serve points won - lower than Chang has off either serve

Chang with break points in 3 games is a little surprising, given the scoreline. That’d be the effect of his second returning - and could potentially ruffle a feather or 2 in Lend’s fearless big first serving at low 48% in count

- Chang pointedly looks to attack net after a certain point of getting short end of baseline stick. He’s far more keen to get up then he had been in French match. 26 approaches, including 4 serve-volleys and 8 return-approaches (Lendl has 9 approaches) is large for 116 point match

So same match-up features -
- Lendl with ‘free hit’ chance on first serve and with second return
- having a bit of a free hit with first return is on too, and he dabbles in it some
- Lendl FH able to command action, the big dog on the court
... and here, Lendl able to get better of baseline rallies by being more consistent. Rallies normal, not ticked up warm-up rallies of the clay match

Couple of differences
- Chang aggressively returning second serves, with power approaches
- Chang getting around to attacking the net

Good changes by Chang, but nowhere near enough to turn the tide. He’d have to dominate neutral starting baseline rallies, as he did in the clay match, to have a shot at that

First serve in - Lendl 48%, Chang 56%
First serve ace rate - Lendl 19% , Chang 0
Unreturned serves - Lendl 31%, Chang 16%

Same deal as before for Lendl. First serve is his ‘free hit’ and he booms them down full power. Serve doesn’t come back of does so weakly and then he pounds FHs to end point quickly. Low in count, relatively high aces and freebies

Slightly different deal for Chang. He’s not intentionally doing nothing with the serve like other match, his serve is just that calibre of unthreatening pace to be harmless. Probably the best he’s capable of serving of pace - it lowers his in count and is still no bother to return

 

[Waspsting]

Return winners - Lendl 3, Chang 0
Second serve double fault rate - Lendl 0, Chang 19%

Similar deal as before for Lendl on the return. He takes exaggerated second return position, looking for booming FH return that’s liable to not come back. Occasionally, he goes for full rip return against first serve too - which is doable. Not always, and he does push-slice first returns into play too. His choice big FH first returns seem to be premeditated shots

He’d got 3 return winners, few more that’s point ending. Chang does respond by trying to go for bigger second serve to FH side (which is wide open and Lendl needs to run to make the return). Not powerful enough to get the serve through, but enough to draw a not-killing return. When ‘drawing a not killing return’ is a success, guy’s probably in a lot of trouble. And he’s pressured into high 5 double faults

Return UEs - Lendl 9, Chang 5
Return FEs - Lendl 1, Chang 7

Lendl’s sole FE is due to Chang serve-volleying. Best to be said about Chang’s first serve is its not always an invitation to attack. Maybe 3-4 mildly forceful first serves from him, none of which draw an error (as opposed to literally 0 in earlier match)

In baseline rallies -
Winners - Lendl 7, Chang 3 (all FHs for both players)
Errors forced - Lendl 3, Chang 7
(aggressively ended points - both 10)
UEs - Lendl 15, Chang 19

Purely as baseliners, Chang probably edges things (pure here defined as ‘without undue influence from serve or return shots’). A ‘pure’ edge is an overall loss, given how much he’s outgunned on both the serve and the return though

3 of Lendl’s winners are returns. He otherwise sees home points where serve or return has given him attacking position to start rallies. By contrast, Chang has to earn virtually everything with his groundstrokes

When rally gets going (as in, Lendl hasn’t finished it off quickly), Chang moves over to play FH inside-outs to try to draw error from Lendl BH. Lendl often as not slice-pushing the BH back cc. Its not really defensive, but a shot choice. Chang switches to attacking FH inside-ins, and Lendl has a running FH to make

Chang’s FH inside-out isn’t powerful enough to be too pressuring. He’s got Lendl reacting, but not in serious trouble to handle it
Chang’s FH inside-in is to have Lendl running (which is a given), but not a sure kill shot. Just the 1 winner from the shot, though it draws most of Lendl’s high 5 FH FEs. Lendl also wins points with counter-attacking running FHs - directly or soon after

On UE front, Lendl’s 2 shots and Chang’s FH have 7 or 8 apiece
Chang’s BH has 11, the loose one on show

So a good move from Chang to turn to back-away FH play, instead of BH cc’ng. He hit firm BHs and Lendl responds with his usual mix of drives, chips and push-slices. And Lendl’s steadier

In time, Chang takes to seeking net, including off the serve and the return
He’s 2/4 serve-volleying, 7/8 return-approaching
Rallying to net, Lendl’s 7/8, Chang 7/14

Lendl’s trips to net are borne of big serve or big FH (oftentimes, set up by big serve) drawing weak ball begging to be commanded. Not much work to do up there, though he does have a well played BHOH winner. No volley errors for Lendl of any kind (sidebar - this happens quite a lot with him)

The best of Chang’s net play are strong second returns to Lendl’s BH. Would be enough to at least have Lendl on defensive even without the approach and with it, very very strong
Serve-volleys, given his serve, is desperate. Probably wouldn’t go well for if he did it more often, but its not worse than what he’s getting staying back

And Chang creating approaches from neutral baseline rallies. Fair approaches, far from overwhelming but at least when he’s got slight power/position advantage in the back court rally. He usually doesn’t approach from pure neutral positions. And he seeks Lendl’s BH when he approaches

Chang with 5 volley winners, 2 UEs, 2 FEs
Lendl on pass with 5 winners (2 FH, 3 BH), 10 FEs (3, FH, 7 BH)

Both of Lendl’s FH pass winners are back-away shots (1 inside-out, 1 inside-in), so to balls around his BH side. And the FE breakdown getting to Chang going for that BH
It’s a good contest - Chang’s good on the volley, Lendl the same on the pass

So Chang holding up well in rallies - from baseline and at net. And being smart about it - shifting away from BH play when he sees himself outlasted there and switching to attacking net

Its mostly serve-return where Lendl has crushing advantage. And 3 & 2 is a crushing advantage

Match Progression
Interesting first set and not as uncompetitive as 2 break 6-3 scoreline looks
Lendl bangs down big first serves, bangs choice take-charge FHs in baseline rallies, bangs big second returns, while being patient on the BH. Enough banging there to overpower Chang who in time, adjusts his response by increasing net play, going for strong return-approaches, controlling Lendl with back-away FH inside-out’ng

First point of match - bang, runaround FH cc return winner
Second point of match - bang, FH inside-in winner
Third point of match - whimper, double fault
And Lendl goes on to break

Powerful return-approach and a return to the baseline help in getting Chang to 15-40 at 1-2
Big serve + third ball FH winner saves first break point
Neat BH slice pass to FH dtl approach draws not strong volley that Lendl dismisses FH inside-out to save second
Couple other big first serves rest of game as Lendl holds

More big returns - including a winner and a miss going for another - has Chang spooked enough to serve-volley game after. He’s forced into BH1/2V error to a chipped return on it and double faults after that, before Lendl breaks again

Chang grabs a break back for 3-5, with couple of winning return-approaches and forcing FH error with a wide FH cc
But Lendl breaks right after to end the set, in a game of very good, open rallies

Chang comes to net more and more as second set goes on, and he’s not baseline stuck at the start either

He’s got break point in opener on back of couple approaches (1 off the return) and a rare Lendl third ball BH blink
Lendl holds with some style - taking on Chang’s FH inside-out BH dtl and taking net and following up with a neat, wide BH cc third ball slice - before holding

What should be Chang’s first ace of the match is erroneously called out the game after - and Lendl rubs it in by smacking the second return for a winner. Its not the only bad call in the match
Lendl goes on to break, completing the job with a big FH first return that he uses to take net and knock away BHV winner

Chang’s at his net thirstiest of the match for last part of the set. He has 12 approaches in last 5 games, including manufactured ones
Makes for fun but isn’t too effective. Has a to save break point to get on the board and not go 2 breaks, 0-4 down and doesn’t have any more break points

In due time, Lendl breaks to 15 to end the match. FH dtl winner, winning BH dtl pass get him to break/match point and Chang misses attacking inside-in FH on it

Summing up, a better match than scoreline would suggest and great illustration of the match-up between the two players
Lendl sends down his biggest first serves, unbothered by low in count
And Lendl blasts big FH returns - including rarely against first serves
Chang’s serve is harmless, though he puts what back he has into it

With this for backdrop, things are loaded in Lendl’s favour before rally starts. Even with Chang back-cutting into it with some very good, powerful return-approaches against Lendl’s second serves

Court action is actually close - more so than it probably looks like. Lendl’s FH still the biggest bully in the yard and his varied BH steadier than Chang’s solid form shot, but Chang uses net play and back-away FH line of play to get his licks in too, and he isn’t too far behind once an even rally gets underway

He’d have to be way, way in front to overcome huge serve-return handicap to have any chance
Stats for the final between Lendl and Pete Sampras - Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs Lendl, Cincinnati final, 1992 | Talk Tennis