Duel Match Stats/Reports - Kafelnikov vs Enqivst, Australian Open final, 1999 & Kafelnikov vs Stich, French Open final, 1996

[Waspsting]

Yevgeny Kafelnikov beat Thomas Enqvist 4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 7-6(1) in the Australian Open final, 1999 on hard court

It was Kafelnikov’s second and last Slam title and unseeded Envqist’s only Slam final

Kafelnikov won 130 points, Enqvist 113

(Note: I’m missing 2 points completely and 1 partially

Set 4, Game 6, Points 1-3 on Kafelnikov’s serve
- Points 1 and 2 are completely missing, 1 point won by each player
- Point 3 is a BH return error, marked as 1st serve and forced error)

Serve Stats
Kafelnikov...
- 1st serve percentage (80/132) 61%
- 1st serve points won (57/80) 71%
- 2nd serve points won (28/52) 54%
- ?? serve points won (1/2)
- Aces 15 (1 second serve), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (40/132) 30%

Enqvist...
- 1st serve percentage (64/109) 59%
- 1st serve points won (47/64) 73%
- 2nd serve points won (18/45) 40%
- Aces 19
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (36/109) 33%

Serve Patterns
Kafelnikov served...
- to FH 50%
- to BH 47%
- to Body 2%

Enqvist served...
- to FH 35%
- to BH 58%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Kafelnikov made...
- 66 (23 FH, 43 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (1 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 14 Forced (4 FH, 10 BH)
- Return Rate (66/102) 65%

Enqvist made...
- 85 (43 FH, 42 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 24 Errors, comprising...
- 14 Unforced (7 FH, 7 BH)
- 10 Forced (4 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (85/125) 68%

Break Points
Kafelnikov 5/10 (6 games)
Enqvist 2/5 (5 games)

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Kafelnikov 15 (8 FH, 2 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)
Enqvist 27 (13 FH, 10 BH, 1 BHV, 2 OH, 1 BHOH)

Kafelnikov's FHs - 2 cc (1 pass), 3 dtl (1 pass), 2 inside-out, 1 longline/cc
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 1 dtl

- 1 OH was on the bounce

Enqvist's FHs - 6 cc (1 pass at net), 2 dtl (1 pass, 1 at net), 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in return, 1 inside-in/cc
- BHs - 2 cc, 6 dtl (2 passes), 1 inside-out, 1 inside-out/dtl

- 1 OH was on the bounce

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Kafelnikov 42
- 24 Unforced (10 FH, 12 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 18 Forced (6 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.9

Enqvist 67
- 52 Unforced (28 FH, 22 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BHOH)
- 15 Forced (5 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.5

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(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
Kafelnikov was...
- 16/25 (64%) at net, with...
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 2/2 forced back/retreated

Enqvist was...
- 10/16 (63%) at net, with...
- 1/1 return-approaching

Match Report
Baseline match with Enqvist taking charge with power hitting, Kafelnikov falling back to counter-punching and sneaking into net when he can. Not much in the result and untimely let downs from Enqvist decides the outcome more than anything else. Court is normal of pace and bounce

On paper, action could be a big fight for command of play; Kafelnikov is a formidable hitter himself
On court, it plays out differently. Enqvist steps up to lead with powerful groundies of both sides and Kaf doesn’t make much effort to challenge him for control

So Enq leading, Kaf reacting is the staple dynamic, with odd flashes of Kaf stepping up to hit first or sneaking in to net for offence. Enq also has bigger serve, though Kaf’s isn’t too far behind

Matches like this tend to hinge on contest between aggressive damage done by lead player (winners and forcing errors) vs self-damage done straining to be aggressive (unforced errors). This one is no different

Winners - Kaf 15, Enq 27
UEs - Kaf 24, Enq 52
FEs - Kaf 18, Enq 15

Most essentially, Enq +13 on winners but -28 on UEs to be well in the negatives relative to his opponent. Slight edge in forcing errors reducing the gap but nowhere near enough to equalize

Enq also has slight advantage in unreturneds (33% to 30%), with double faults even to cut the gap some more

Take away the bagel (for which Kaf’s superiority is acknowledged), and rest of match is about even. 3 sets between equals with outcome up in the air. If anything, Enq with slight advantage (beyond the clear stylistic one of dictating action)

Those 3 sets (all but the second, which we’ll get to in a sec) could all go either way - so realistic possibilities range from straight set win for Kaf or 4 set win for Enq. Enq winning 2/3 sets is most likely, pushing the match into a decider

(For that matter, even the bagel is pretty competitive with just 1 poor game from Enq and all the rest being 6 pointers. Not easy holds for Kaf, not easily broken by Enq. One of the most ‘competitive’ bagels you’ll see)

Good equanimity by Kaf to take it in 4. He’s not the kind of player who’s used to being relegated to counter-punching and defending from the baseline, nor is Enq so wild that Kaf would feel confident that given enough rope, Enq will hang himself. But if he feels any need to try to break out of reactive role and take charge, he controls it and Enq does indeed end up hanging himself a bit. Attempts to snatch lead position would be difficult and likely to falter, strong hitter as Kaf is because Enq has sizable hitting advantage. Kaf’s decision making is neither obvious, nor in line with is capabilities or general inclinations and there’s obvious reason to fear sticking to it (that Enq will overwhelm him).

If results are something to go by, very smartly judged play from Kaf

Serve & Return
Both players with powerful serves, Enq more so
Kaf returns better in that he’s more regular

Comes out to slight advantage for Enq. He leads unretunreds 33% to 30% and when the return is made, he has higher lot of neutralizing or initiative snatching ones

Kaf looks like one of those hefty servers who sans aces, doesn’t serve damagingly wide. Most of his first serves are in swing zone at hefty pace, not too problematic to handle

Enq’s first serve is a mightier beast and not far short of the super heavyweight category of the Goran’s and Krajicek’s

First serve Aces/Service Winners - Kaf 15, Enq 19
First serve ace rate - Kaf 19%, Enq 30%

Enq’s ace rate speaks for itself. And his non-aces are considerably more challenging than Kaf’s regulation stuff - he gets them wide and with the same greater pace. Some big second serves too, more so than Kaf’s which aren’t easy to attack but not dangerous either

In that light, good in counts for both players (Kaf 61%, Enq 59%) and going beyond the serve shot itself, trailing first serve points won by just 2% (71% to 73%) is a win for Kaf

Enq draws a good few more soft returns he can readily attack or even end point off at a stroke. From Kaf’s point of view, better than missing the return in first place

Kaf’s general counter-punching game doesn’t extend to when his serve gives him advantage, as the first serve often does. At such times, he attacks in similar way as Enq - power, beat-down groundies. Less often, coming to net

Enq’s ability to put the regulation placed but pacey serve back in play could do with a bump. It suffers even more in comparison to Kaf, who not only misses very little that isn’t wide on top of pacey (and the pace he faces is greater than the pace Enq does too), but gets fair few tough serves back too. The kinds of serves that are good to draw error fro Enq don’t from Kaf - more credit to Kaf’s ability to manage against tough serves than discredit to Enq for that

Return UEs - Kaf 3, Enq 14
Return FEs - Kaf 14, Enq 10

 

[Waspsting]

Kaf with very few UEs speaks for itself. Enq’s high lot are combo of his missing a few regulation first returns and also failing to attacks with the return. His second returning is heftier than Kaf (along lines of each’s ground play), and he occasionally also tries for dtl point finishers. Almost always misses

Enq seems to prefer hitting BHs to FHs (both on return and in play), though there’s not much in it between his 2 wings. Kaf knows it and serves to 2 wings all but equally (50% to FH, 47% to BH) and everything (returns made, FEs, UEs) are about equal across wings for Enq

Gist - Enqvist with bigger, more potent serve, Kafelnikov more able to handle tough returns with Enq also failing on the occasional aggressive return attempt. Small advantage for Enqvist coming out of serve-return complex - he’s getting a few more freebies and and more advantageous starting positions for upcoming rallies

Play - Baseline (& Net)
Action is as described earlier - Enqvist commandingly power hitting, Kaf counter-punching

No preference of wing for Enq. Goes hard and heavy off both sides. Kaf slices BHs frequently - not entirely out of necessity

Enq’s no net player. Comes in rarely (16 times to Kaf’s 25), almost never actively manufactures approach and isn’t very good when he is at net.

Non-pass ground winners - Enq 19, Kaf 7

… and Inq again is evenly distributed across wings (11 FH, 8 BH) while all but 1 of Kaf’s are FH

Those numbers tell a tale. For starters, Enq obviously the aggressor, but also, his BH hitting advantage. More than FHs, its among BH cc rallies that Enq’s greater power is most evident, with Kaf even slicing to stay in the rally. Whether its Kaf’s choice to stay in reactive role or he’s forced to stay there isn’t clear. Either way, not a bad position because Enq overdoes the dtl attacking stuff off that side

Ground UEs - Kaf 22, Enq 40, broken down as…
- Kaf FH 10
- Kaf BH 12
- Enq BH 22
- Enq FH 28

… with UE breakdown (including forecourt UEs, of which both players have 2)
- Neutral - Kaf 12, Enq 22
- Attacking - Kaf 5, Enq 16
- Winner Attempts - Kaf 7, Enq 14

Harder hitter or not, Enq has a hard time breaking Kaf down, whose shot tolerance, movement and defence is very good. Better than Enq’s ability to persist with attacks for as long as needed (and a considerable amount is needed)

Of the neutral UEs, more of Kaf’s would be beaten out of him and relatively hard for UEs. Enq isn’t sloppy either and rarely gives up quick UEs in short rallies. The difference says good things about Kaf’s basic consistency

Unable to beat-down Kaf to point ending degree, Enq turns to regularly going BH dtl. He overdoes it. He’s got high 4 winners of the shot and forces about half Kaf’s not inconsiderable 6 FH FEs… but ends up missing more than that. Lots of credit to Kaf on the running, counter FH against these BH dtls - usually just a counter-punch, rarely a counter-attacking shot - but main point is, Enq doesn’t win nearly as many points going for risky BH dtl as he could have done

16 attacking UEs for Enq, while forcing just 18 errors is terrible from Enq. Some credit to Kaf’s defence for it

Players evenly matched in efficiency of going for winners, with both about double the winners for winner attempt UEs

The biggest offender is Enq’s FH with 28 UEs
Unlike with the BH dtl, there’s no 1 specific play that it falters, nor does it falter as badly as the numbers look

28 UEs is 4 more than Kaf’s total off all shots, but 13 winners is just 2 less than all of Kaf’s winners too. And with his dual winged attacks, the FH sets up BH attacking plays as much as the other way around

Still, Kaf’s FH with match low 10 UEs and by far the best winner/UE differential of -2 (next best is -10) has got better of it. Kaf counter-punches and defends better than Enq punches and attacks, especially of the FH

Outhit as he is, Kaf chances of taking net aren’t great (and Enq’s hitting promises a hot reception). He sneaks in a few times to come away with a credible 64% net points won. A move Enq doesn’t have (and he wouldn’t have had to sneak in to come to net)

3 FEs in forecourt to Enq’s 1 speaks to his having a tougher time there (UEs are equal at 2 apiece, with Kaf being at net 25 times to 16), but he also volleys well and certainly far better than Enq who looks all kinds of uncomfortable up front

Enq’s movements are outstanding. Not just ‘good for his size’ but genuinely good by any standard. Finally, a possible flaw in Enq’s game. He’s neither a take-the-ball early nor a big-wind-up hitter. While usually commanding rallies, he doesn’t step up to enhance the effectiveness of his power, despite not needing a big wind-up swing to generate said power

It doesn’t look like he needs to because what he dishes out is challenging enough as is, but in the event, Kaf’s up to handling it. Stepping in more might have been effective adjustment for Enq

Match Progression
From the get go, Enqvist takes charge of action. Serves big, including a few seconds and returns comfortably against in-swing zone stuff from Kaf. In baseline rallies, he’s more powerufl of shot and pushes Kaf back. Enq prefers to lead attacks with FH early on, without being dependent on that side

Kaf settles into counter-punching role to the extent that he relies on sneak in approaches for offence

Deuce hold for Kaf to open, where he wins 3 net points. 3 easy holds later, Enq breaks for 3-2. Wonderful BH inside-out winner and the sole return winner of the match (FH inside-in against a body serve) in the game, and Kaf gives it away in the end by missing an easy BHV and double faulting (albeit, with Enq looking to blast second returns in the game)

Cute pair of points in game 8 where Enq awkwardly misses a not difficult BHOH and point afterwards, gets the exact same ball that he putsaway

Nervy, 14 point serve-out from Enq. Kaf has 1 break point, on which he misses a BH dtl winner attempt before Enq closes

Second set seems to come out of the blue and funniest thing is, action doesn’t change much despite the bagel scoreline. Enq continues to be harder hitter, Kaf continues to scamper and defend and sneak in. Enq eventually missing a power groundie (after not short rallies) is the big difference from previous set. Kaf also returns more regularly than earlier

1 bad game from Enq, where he’s broken to love. Other 5 games all go to 30. If you tune in for 3 points in succession at a random point in set, you won’t see significant difference between this and the first set

If you see the score, its 6-0 Kafelnikov, not 6-4 Enqvist

Kaf makes it 8 games in a row by holding 14 pointer to open set 3 and then breaking to 30 again to go up 2-0. After that, action returns to normal of competitiveness in terms of who wins and loses points and games (rallies themselves had remained competitive even during Kaf’s 8 game winning run)

End breaks back to love in a very good game (2 FH dtl winners - a running pass and a shot at not to a bad drop shot - and forcing a ground error of either wing) for 2-3

Remaining games of set last 8, 12, 6 (the decisive break for Kaf) and 8 points, with Kaf breaking in the only game he has break points (poor FH attacking errors by Enq the main cause) and saving a break point apiece in his two holds. On whole, Enq has had better of the set. He serves 25 points in it, to Kaf’s 48, with the only Kaf game not going to deuce being the love break. Excellent defence from Kaf too, least it be thought Enq outright chokes, though he does start overdoing the BH dtl line of attack and ends up failing more often than not with it

Similar action in the fourth set. No breaks and no break point, but there’s still tension with plenty of 30-30 type situations or 30-15 and the returner in drivers seat of the rally

Terrible tiebreak from Enq end the match, with BH dtl misses and pair of double faults - the second of them on match point

Summing up, good match of hard hitting baseline action with Enqvist leading, Kafelnikov counter-punching and resisting. Some good serving from both players too, particularly Enqvist

Kafelnikov is a little better defending and counter-punching than Enviqst is at attacking and progressing towards overpowering. No net game and decision not to step in more while hammering groundies keeps Enqivst from being more potent, but he’s challengingly strong just as he is and a fine display from Kafelnikov to hold him off

Not much in the result, with Enqvist having better of 2 sets, Kafelnikov 1 by a larger amount and 1 even. Few points here and there see Kafelnikov take the even set and pinch 1 where he’s slightly worse off to claim the win

 

[Waspsting]

Kafelnikov beat Michael Stich 7-6(4), 7-5, 7-6(4) in the French Open final, 1996 on clay

It was Kafelnikov’s first Slam title. Stich was playing his third and last Slam final - 1 on each surface

Kafelnikov won 136 points, Stich 125

Stich serve-volleyed about a third off the time off first serves

Serve Stats
Kafelnikov...
- 1st serve percentage (67/130) 52%
- 1st serve points won (53/67) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (31/63) 49%
- Aces 10 (1 second serve), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (36/130) 28%

Stich...
- 1st serve percentage (64/131) 49%
- 1st serve points won (46/64) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (33/67) 49%
- Aces 15, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (35/131) 27%

Serve Patterns
Kafelnikov served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 2%

Stich served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 65%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Kafelnikov made...
- 90 (25 FH, 65 BH)
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (2 FH, 5 BH)
- 12 Forced (6 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (90/125) 72%

Stich made...
- 86 (25 FH, 61 BH), including 14 return-approaches & 2 drop-returns (1 possibly unintentional)
- 2 Winners (2 BH), including 1 drop-return
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 18 Unforced (4 FH, 14 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 7 Forced (4 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (86/122) 70%

Break Points
Kafelnikov 4/13 (7 games)
Stich 3/9 (6 games)

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Kafelnikov 26 (10 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)
Stich 31 (8 FH, 10 BH, 2 FHV, 8 BHV, 3 OH)

Kafelnikov's FHs - 4 cc (2 passes - 1 at net, 1 at net), 4 dtl, 2 inside-out (1 pass)
- BHs - 3 cc (1 pass), 2 dtl, 1 drop shot, 2 lobs, 1 running-down-drop shot cc pass at net

Stich's FHs -1 cc, 2 inside-out, 4 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc
- BHs - 4 cc (1 pass), 1 dtl return, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-out/dtl, 1 longline, 2 drop shots (1 return)

- 7 from serve-volley points -
- 4 first volleys (1 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 third volley (1 BHV)

- 3 from return-approach points (2 BHV, 1 OH)

- 1 other BHV was a non-net pass

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Kafelnikov 51
- 34 Unforced (13 FH, 19 BH, 2 BHV)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- 17 Forced (6 FH, 11 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.4

Stich 68
- 46 Unforced (16 FH, 27 BH, 3 BHV)... with 1 FH at net
- 22 Forced (8 FH, 5 BH, 3 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 BHOH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(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
Kafelnikov was 18/24 (75%) at net

Stich was...
- 36/58 (62%) at net, including...
- 19/25 (76%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 14/17 (82%) off 1st serve and...
- 5/8 (63%) off 2nd serve
---
- 9/14 (64%) return-approaching

Match Report
Kafelnikov has much better of things from the baseline, Stich goes a long way towards compensating with big serving, serve-volleying and return-approaching but still ends up short of his opponent in an unusual and not particularly good match

The court seems relatively quick for clay. There’s reward for good serving and in baseline rallies, neither player has excess time to set up, if not being overly rushed. Also appears to be very hot and by third set, both players selectively let balls through without giving chase to conserve energy

Some interesting implications come out, concerning wisdom of net play amidst below par baseline action. Below par, with Kafelnikov having large advantage. He hits hard and commands play readily, but he’s far from being a wall. Stich though, just isn’t upto hanging in for long from the back and is both prone to loose errors and unduly bothered by good depth to give up errors

Stich plays very randomly, with no pattern to anything he does and fluctuating of quality too

He delivers a low in count. He stays back. He throws in odd surprise second serve-volley. He first serve-volleys in clusters - doing so regularly for awhile, than not doing so for awhile. He throws in odd surprise first serve-volleys amidst the latter phases. He mixes and matches the second serve-volleys to his first serve-volleying phases. He chip-charges returns. Or he doesn’t. He throws in a couple of drop returns. He slices. He drives. He goes for his shots. He doesn’t go for his shots

On the whole, he’s borderline poor off the baseline and very, very successful serve-volleying and return-approaching. But he fails when approaching from rallies

Kaf by contrast never serve-volleys or return-approaches. He doesn’t need to seeing how well he’s doing (as in, how large a chunk of points he’s winning) in baseline rallies. He doesn’t approach from rallies much either, though he has lots of scope to with his hitting advantage and despite being very successful when he does - and way Stich is from the back, coming in promises much success

Stich at net vs Stich on baseline
Stich delivers an ace 25% of the time off first serve. Of what remains -
- he serve-volleys 35% of the time, winning 82% of those points
- he stays back 65% of the time, winning 52%

Off second serves, double faults 9% of the time. Of what remains -
- he serve-volleys 13% of the time, winning 63%
- he stays back 87% of the time, winning 53%

For that matter, he’s 9/14 return-approaching, broken down as 2/2 against first serves and 7/12 against seconds (with 1 return error trying)

The first return-approaches are opportunistic, but lets look at the seconds
Against second serves, return-approaching (all chip-charges, not hit-&-runs), he wins 58% (or 54% counting the return error)

Not chip-charging, he wins 17/42 or 40% (that’s counting the attempted chip-charge error as a return-approach point)

Straight out facts are he’s doing much, much better serve-volleying (off either serve) and return-approaching than he is staying on baseline

Implication is clear too. He should be doing a lot more off it

Second serve-volleying carries risk of raising double faults, so pure numbers don’t capture fully wisdom of doing it more or not
Return-approaching naturally involves judgement in which serve to go after and which not, so again, pure numbers don’t capture fully the wisdom of doing it more or not

First serve-volleying is a different story. Winning 82% doing it, 52% not … no brainer that he should be doing it more (serve-volleying doesn’t seem to affect his low in count of 49%, he’s apt to miss first serves whatever he’s doing)

There are other strange things about Stich’s numbers. Its strange that he’s won equal percentage of points staying back off both first serves and seconds and that its as high as 52-53%, given how badly he’s outplayed in baseline rallies when returning

No plausible explanation for it - as stated earlier, he plays a very random match. The second serve, staying back success is particularly strange as Kaf’s 2nd returning is usually pressuring enough to put Stich on back foot at once

Meanwhile, rallying to net -
Stich wins 8/19 or 42%
Kaf 18/24 or 75%

… and 2 of the points Kaf loses are to deal with drop shots (he also wins other points when he does so)

For Stich, implication is again clear. He needs a good approach shot to be successful at net. Outhit as he is from the back, he can’t get those off - and gets creamed coming in behind so-so approaches

Kaf meanwhile would do well to come in more often from rallies. He outhits Stich to such an extent he can do it anytime he wants. No particular need to, but however well he’s doing in baseline rallies, its certainly to tune of winning 75% of points (as Stich’s above 50% numbers staying back off both serves prove)

Gist - neither player optimizes net play strategy. This is not a well thought out match by either

Serve & Return
Low in counts and high aces from both players

First serve percentage - Kaf 51%, Stich 49%
Ace/Service Winner frequency off first serve - Kaf 15%, Stich 25% (Kaf also has a second serve ace)

Kaf again showing tendency when not serving aces to be serving in swing zone. Its good enough for Stich (oftentimes - as with everything else, his standard varies) who misses boatload of regulation first returns. Stich’s first serves are a handful all the time though, justifying his low in count. Typically, he looks as casual when serving as a man starting a warm-up rally, so you need the in-count figure to judge just how much he’s going for

Unlike Stich, Kaf returns the stuff that eh can reach without strain, regarless of pace (and the pace is greater than what Stich can't handle)

Return UEs - Kaf 7, Stich 18
Return FEs - Kaf 12, Stich 7

... and that's with Stich's serve-volleying having hand in forcing errors

Stich’s iffy returning (similar to his handling of power groundies off the ground, which we’ll get to in a bit) and Kaf’s very good handling of anything shy of untouchable results in Kaf edging freebies (Kaf 28%, Stich 27%) - a big win for Kaf, a very big loss for Stich

Note similarity of the dynamic to the Envqist match from Kaf’s point of view. Seems to handle big first serves shy of untouchable particularly well - which is a mirror image of his non-ace first serves being relatively unchallenging

 

[Waspsting]

Fun stuff going on on second serve points. Both players relatively big second serves, out of necessity. Kaf likes to return them from a pace and half inside court and hit them hard and deep down the middle. Misses a few, but what he makes pays off, often drawing error from Stich

More a blackmark against Stich’s handling of depth than a check for Kaf’s return. Good returns by Kaf, but but not to error-forcing depth. Neutralizing, sure, initiative grabbing at times, not point ending, but Stich hops back and often can’t handle the return or is pushed into completely defensive by it

Stich does all kinds of fun things with the return. His chip-charge are excellent in their depth and not only does he win 9/14, the ones he loses require great passing shots against difficult balls by Kaf, whose rushed or/and pushed off balance by the width of the returns

Couple of drop returns from Stich. 1 might be unintentional (probably not), but the winner is most definitely not

Sans double faults and Stich’s chip-charges (i.e. on second serve points starting with both players on the baseline), Kaf wins 24/45 or 53% of his second serve points - exactly the same as Stich sans double faults and serve-volleys off his second serve points

Curious that both players win the slight majority of baseline starting point rallies off their second serve points. For Stich, the takeaway is simple - to have fewer of them. He’s done much better both serve-volleying and chip-charging second serves than he has playing from baseline

For Kaf, disappointing. He’d look to win a higher lot off baseline starting points given his power advantage and Stich’s vulnerability and its particularly strange that he wins the same lot against second serves (which he hits commandingly) as he does against firsts (which, well as he does to return regularly, of course he can’t hit with same force)

Strange match

Play - Baseline & Net
Reversal of the Aus final, with Kaf more powerful, commanding player, but Stich isn’t one to completely counter-punch and goes for his shots more than Kaf did in that match

As staple, Kaf leads, Stich counter-punches. Kaf preferring to lead with BH cc’s. Stich’s 1-hander is pretty but not reliable in response

Baseline-to-baseline -
- Winners - Kaf 10 (6 FH, 4 BH), Stich 17 (8 FH, 7 BH)
- UEs - Kaf 30 (12 FH, 18 BH), Stich 41 (14 FH, 27 BH)

The standout is Stich’s very high BH UEs. Exactly what it looks like - inconsistent and unable to handle Kaf’s not overpowering force and depth. He slices, he changes direction to longline, he pushes he strikes, he hits some lovely shots in both directions for winners (2 are inside-out based), but most of all, he coughs up errors. Neither good shot tolerance, nor consistency from Stich’s BH

Kaf’s 18 BH UEs isn’t good either. He hits harder but not to beat-down degree and it’s a luxary for that to be enough to draw errors from Stich so that Kaf doesn’t have to strain for more as Enqvist did in Aus. Still misses a good lot

Stich’s FH winners partially flow out of his big first serve putting him in good position to dominate, but there’s also shot-making involved (hitting winners from near routine position). Some lovely insid-in’s in particular, where he has 5 winners and minor point construction (setting up the shot by hitting previous one wide to open court)

Kaf by contrast hits his winners from pushing Stich back and moving forward a bit himself

Neither player is quick around court. Kaf doesn’t have as much need to be, but good court coverage would be very handy for Stich. By third set, both players are probably tired and let some balls go without chase, but even before that, Stich’s movements in particular are off. He generally (as in beyond this match) is a languid mover. Here, it seems more lazy or tired

Both players have half the FEs as UEs. Doesn’t take too much to force an error out of either, particularly Stich. Movement is one reason and slightly faster than normal court another, but still, blackmark degree of laxness here, particularly for Stich. Higher lot of Kaf’s FEs would be passes

Rallying to net, Kaf wins 18/24 (with 2 of the points he loses being UEs to deal with drop shots). He can come in whenever he wants and Stich’s hitting doesn’t promise strong passing. Kaf looks neither natural nor uncomfortable at net and with his BH not too reliable, would have done well to finish more at net

Stich’s just 8/19. Sans the kind of quality of approach shot that his serve or chip-return gives him, he’s not upto handling Kaf’s powerful passes

Kaf probably goes for too much on his passes, invariably hammering them and looking to go wide for the winner. Stich’s not too quick to get forward or in his side-ways movement up at net either. He’d have been worth testing on routine volleys more than Kaf does. Some lovely touch finishing by Stich though

Quite a mixed bag overall. There’s sloppiness by both players but also hard hitting from Kaf and artful placement based attacks by Stich. There’s low shot tolerance from Stich, but some fine shot-making too. There’s injudicious non-use of net by Kaf and possibly unnecessary over-force on the pass, but some neat volleyng from Stich. There’s not good movement even without tiredness being a reasonable factor from both players

Its not bad tennis, but not as good as the numbers coming out of it - Kaf is +14, Stich +3 points ended aggressively/UE differential. Kaf’s number in particular is very good for 3 sets on clay

 

[Waspsting]

Match Progression
No breaks in the opening set, but plenty going on. 5 games go to deuce, both players are 0/4 on break points (Kaf having them in 1 game, Stich 2). Both serving at about 50% - in fact, that happens in all the sets. Stich rarely serve-volleys or return approaches and action is mostly baseline rallies, but he does go on an ace hitting spree, at one stage 5 first serves in succession going through untouched (with 2nd serve points in between). Kaf also hits 3 in a row. Kaf also misses first serves 8 times in a row in a game he manages to hold despite making just 5/18 first serves

Stich’s prone to missing regulation first returns and troubled by depth unduly. Kaf steps in to strike second returns deep, which troubles Stich considerably. Stich mixes up his second returns, taking the odd one early, a rare chip-charge, the odd dtl attacking return

First 3 games last 8, 10 and 10 points - Kaf saving break point in game 2, Stich 4 the game after. The last one Stich saves is a dangerous play where he drop shots Kaf in and passes him BH cc

Kaf holds 18 point game for 4-4, saving 3 break points in game with a lot going on - drop shots, poor handling of drop shots, return-approaches, net play, double faults and some fine shots from both players. Down 15-40 at 5-5, Stich aces his way to hold in middle of a 7 straight unreturned first serves run

Tiebreak. 3 BH UEs from Stich is crucial in the result (+ missing a second return off the same side). 0 UEs in the game by Kaf who takes it 7-4

Stich breaks to 15 to open second set. He turns to serve-volleying, return-approaching and sneaking in more often. Holds an all 2nd serve game to 15 for 4-2 and then breaks again with a couple chip-charges to be in complete control at 5-2

Doesn’t win another game. Does without net play to get broken serving for set the first time. And gets broken again despite serve-volleying regularly, though not doing so on his sole set point, on which he gets first serve in on, as Kaf levels 5-5

Tricky hold for Kaf follows, Stich scoring with chip-charge return and a beautiful drop return to make it 30-30. Game ends with Stich missing an easy, putaway BHV

Kaf completes the comeback by breaking for third time in row to end the set. Stich rallies to net in the game instead of serve-volleing, despite making 7/10 first serves and can’t handle the strong passes he’s greeted by

Action changes some in the third set. Both players decline to chase certain balls, Stich more so and his movements are sometimes lazy. Kaf’s depth isn’t as good as it had been, but Stich is more prone to loose, tired errors and Kaf can overpower him as and when needed. Stich mixes up serve-volleying and not, return-approaching and not

Stich breaks early to go up 2-1 in third set also. He wins a whole load of baseline points over a 2 game period. Kaf levels later for 4-4, with a terrible FH at net miss from a serve-volleying Stich on break point

Moving from 5-4 to 6-5, both players endure tough holds where they have to save break points (Stich 2, Kaf 1)

Tiebreak. Stich again blinks with 3 ground UEs, Kaf again makes 0. Kaf’s up 4-0 before Stich plies on the pressure by coming to net. Crucial point with Kaf serving at 5-3 where Stich gets a good, wide chip-charge return off, but a slightly off balance moving Kaf manages to come away with a BH lob winner - 1 his best and most unlikely passes off the match

He finishes with another strong pass that forces a wide, low BHV error

Summing up, interesting, unusual and not a bad match on a relatively quick surface. Kafelnikov plays a hard court game - good strong first serve, sturdily struck second returns and beat down strong groundies. Stich is at his most effective when playing a grass or indoor game - terrific first serve, serve-volleying and return-approaching but more often than not, stays on the baseline

From the baseline, Kafelnikov outhits Stich, whose consistency and shot tolerance are below par for a French Open finalist, but Kafelnikov is far from error free either and Stich has his moments with artful shot making and small attacking combinations

If a serve-volleyer having success on clay in general and at the French Open in particular is rare, everything about this match is suggesting that upping the serve-volleying would have benefited Stich still more - and he’s very competitive with curtailed use of fast court tactics as is. And Kafelnikov is also the better player as is, with his baseline power and consistency advantage coupled with Stich’s low shot tolerance outdoing Stich’s success serve-volleying and return-approaching