Edberg vs Mecir, Wimbledon semi-final, 1988 & Australian Open quarter-final, 1987

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat Miloslav Mecir 4-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1988 on grass

Edberg would go onto win the title, beating Boris Becker in the final. This would be Mecir’s sole semi-final at the event

Edberg won 153 points, Mecir 155

Edberg serve-volleyed off all serves bar 3 second serves, Mecir off most first serves and about half the time off seconds

(Note: I’m missing serve direction and corresponding return data for 1 point
Set 5, Game 3, Point 1. Its been confidently marked a serve-volley
I’ve deduced or made educated guesses regarding serve type for virtually every first point after a change-over)

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (117/171) 68%
- 1st serve points won (73/117) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (30/54) 56%
- Aces 4 (1 hits opponent), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (43/171) 25%

Mecir...
- 1st serve percentage (86/137) 63%
- 1st serve points won (58/86) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (29/51) 57%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (32/137) 23%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 40%
- to BH 50%
- to Body 10%

Mecir served...
- to FH 24%
- to BH 72%
- to Body 4%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 103 (29 FH, 73 BH, 1 ??), including 1 runaround FH & 8 return-approaches
- 8 Winners (4 FH, 4 BH)
- 30 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (2 FH, 6 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 22 Forced (3 FH, 19 BH)
- Return Rate (103/135) 76%

Mecir made...
- 122 (55 FH, 67 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 26 Winners (10 FH, 16 BH)
- 38 Errors, all forced...
- 38 Forced (20 FH, 18 BH)
- Return Rate (122/165) 74%

Break Points
Edberg 5/8 (8 games)
Mecir 5/21 (11 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 57 (8 FH, 7 BH, 19 FHV, 16 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 5 OH, 1 BHOH)
Mecir 68 (17 FH, 26 BH, 10 FHV, 11 BHV, 4 OH)

Edberg had 38 from serve-volley points -
- 22 first 'volleys' (12 FHV, 9 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- 11 second volleys (4 FHV, 2 BHV, 5 OH)
- 3 third volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 2 fourth volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHOH)

- 2 from return-approach points, both BHVs

- 15 passes - 8 returns (4 FH, 4 BH) & 7 regular (4 FH, 3 BH)
- FH returns - 1 inside-out, 3 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 2 inside-out
- regular FHs - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 1 lob
- regular BHs - 1 dtl, 2 lobs

Mecir had 26 from serve-volley points -
- 14 first 'volleys' (7 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 FH at net)... the FH at net was a drop shot
- 11 second 'volleys' (2 FHV, 4 BHV, 3 OH, 2 FH at net)
- 1 third volley (1 OH)

- 33 passes - 26 returns (10 FH, 16 BH) & 7 regular (4 FH, 3 BH)
- FH returns - 4 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out, 3 inside-in
- BH returns - 5 cc, 2 dtl, 5 inside-out, 4 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 1 inside-out/dtl, 1 inside-in/longline at net, 1 lob
- regular BHs - 1 inside-out, 2 inside-out/dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 49
- 15 Unforced (2 FH, 2 BH, 3 FHV, 8 BH)
- 34 Forced (10 FH, 9 BH, 6 FHV, 3 FH1/2V, 4 BHV, 2 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52

Mecir 51
- 22 Unforced (3 FH, 4 BH, 7 FHV, 8 BH)... with 1 FH pass attempt
- 29 Forced (9 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 55

(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
Edberg was...
- 105/175 (60%) at net, including...
- 97/157 (62%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 68/112 (61%) off 1st serve and...
- 29/45 (64%) off 2nd serve
---
- 3/8 (38%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Mecir was...
- 69/109 (63%) at net, including...
- 58/94 (62%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 47/72 (65%) off 1st serve and...
- 11/22 (50%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Edberg survives a fusillade of wide return-pass winners to sneak out a win. The placement of his serve is poor, his returning of an at most average serve is not good but his volleying proves to be by a hair, good enough to get over the formidable obstacle of Mecir’s return-passing. Mecir has better of the match on whole. He doesn’t volley too well either, but is faced with far weaker return-passing than the formidable stuff he dishes out

Point won are virtually same - Edberg 153, Mecir 155 - but Edberg has to serve 171 or 56% of them. Or Mecir winning 2 more points, serving 34 fewer
Break points - Edberg 5/8 (8 games), Mecir 5/21 (11 games)

Break point figures are reflection of points won/points served ratio
Edberg enduring tough, long service games, and managing to save a few
Mecir holding more comfily, in trouble less, but not managing to save as many. 8 break points from 8 games is very strange figure, especially given his average serve

Most clearly illustrated in sets 3 and 4
Having obliterated Edberg in second set 6-2, with 3 breaks and 10 return winners, momentum is clearly with Mecir leading into them
He’s 0/12 (5 games) on break points for next 2 sets. Edberg takes both with 2/4 (4 games) break points
Edberg serving 84 points in those sets, Mec 53

There’s no neat, magic reason Mec can’t break. Certainly not Edberg serving superbly (he serves pretty badly all match - more on that later), not Edberg volleying unduly well either. Mostly, Mec falling one winning return short. Most of the headway he makes in return games is done via not just ‘winning returns’ but clean return-winners, no need for ambiguity of how effective the return shots been

Edberg serve-volleys virtually always (100% first serves, 94% off seconds)
Mecir serve-volleys 86% off first serves and 45% off seconds. With random, pattern-less choices off second serves

Raw total serve-volley points - Edberg 157, Mecir 94
Return-pass winners - Edberg 8, Mecir 26
Or Mecir hitting return-pass winner 17% of time, Edberg 9%
Overall return rates - Edberg 76%, Mecir 74%

The nature of Mecir’s return-winners is not usual
Usually, when a player has a lot of return-pass winners, its through a combo of power and placement. The return going by the server before he’s reached net properly or/and very low at that point in time
In that normal situation, if return doesn’t go for winner, its liable to hard force volley error
Or draw a forced, weak volley that returner has a good passing look at

Mecir’s are a little different, with emphasis on wide placement (and variety), not power. Edberg’s in pretty good net position as they go by. Balls at a comfy or even easy height for volleying even. Only its wide enough to go for winner

Unlike normal situation, most likely alternative to return-winner is Edberg volley winner, not hard forced volley error or weak volley leaving good look pass. In other words, if Edberg can get a racquet on potential return-winners, he wins the point. Very different from the kinds of return winners Becker or Lendl strike (let alone even heavier hitters from the generation after), where most likely alternative is hard forced volley error or forced weak volley that leaves a blast of a pass to face next up

This difference is crucial in making sense of dynamics of this match. 74% return rate, with 17% of returns being winners under normal dynamics would likely result in 50-50 games, as many breaks as holds. Mecir is devastating with his 26 return-pass winners, but he’s long way from being 50-50 returning. Edberg holds 19 games, is broken 5 times

In short, when Mecir’s not hitting return-winners, Edberg’s dominating with the volley (as opposed to being bested on it against potential winner calibre returns). Its an uncommon situation

Variety is more important to Mecir’s returns effectiveness that power
Off both wings, in both courts, he goes both ways
Just on the winners front, on the FH return he has 4 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out, 3 inside-in
On the BH, 5 cc, 2 dtl, 5 inside-out, 4 inside-in

And of course, plenty more in all those directions that don’t go for winners. If Edberg delivers the exact same serve in consecutive points in a given court, there’s no telling which way Mecir will send the returns

Big part of Edberg’s usual serve-volley game is a grooved vibe, borne of knowing/anticipating where the return is headed and what kind of volley he’s going to have to play. Against Mecir’s random, seemingly freestyling directional choices way, that’s impossible

To completely preliminary picture of this contest, placement of Edberg’s serve is not good. At all. He doesn’t just serve in Mec’s swing zone, he serves right onto his racquet good lot of time. These aren’t body serves, though he sends down fair lot of those, and Mecir deftly makes room to deal. Just normal paced serves that Mecir can swing through without any foot movement at all because he’s already in perfect position

Overwhelming credit to Mec’s returning for all the winners, but yes, Edberg doesn’t make it hard for him

Edberg’s serve game
Virtual full serve-volleying (he stays back off 3 second serves), good 68% first serves in

 

[Waspsting]

Serves pace and placement not good. The pace average and the placement worse than that, as outlined above. Both serves are placed so where they can easily be reached. Forget ‘easily reached’, it’d take effort not to reach them. Right onto Mec’s racquet even

Around this period, Edberg was apt to serve classically - out wide to open the court and set up room to put aggressive volley to

Does he choose not to do that? Way Mecir returns, its very understandable to deny him angles to work with. He’s quite capable of making his own from next to nothing. Wide serve that isn’t challengingly out of reach is liable to get artful ‘rough’ treatment

Or does he have a bad placement day? Whatever the initial plan, surely he’d adjust to serving wider after the treatment his serve gets early on?

He does serve a little wider and harder after third set, but if this is the best he can do, its not much
Edberg with 3 wide aces from 117 first serves (he has another body serve ace that hits Mec). Beyond those, he has Mec lunging for the return maximum 10 times all match. From 171 serves
Just very safely placed serving from Edberg. Its not too surprising in that light that he’s actually won more second serve-volley points at 64% than firsts of 61%

Given being passed 26 times by the return, Edberg staying back off just 3 serves all match and double faulting relatively low 6 times (from 54 second serves) is worth a look. Realizing earlier mentioned unusual dynamic that despite all the winners, Mec’s returns leave him with good prospects for a first volley winner? Or just his way? In general, he tends to persist with serve-volleying even when getting terrific stick, so the latter is simpler explanation

Mecir does strike a good balance of going for wide winners and presenting routine volleys. And not bad ‘routine’ returns, typically net high. Edberg’s are worse and leaves easy, chest high volleys (more on that later). Occasionally something low to the feet. And of course, wide-ish average power returns that Edberg’s able to cut off for the winner

Edberg on the ‘volley’ has 42 winners, 11 UEs, 15 FEs
Mecir on the pass in play has 7 (4 FH, 3 BH) winners, 22 FEs (9 FH, 13 BH), 1 UE
(These are for all net points, not just serve-volley. Edberg has 18 non- serve-volley net points and 157 serve-volleys)

Edberg with 22 first ‘volley’ winners, 16 post-first (including 3 thirds and 2 fourths)
He’s got 7 attacking volley UEs, 4 winner-attempts

That’s quite a lot to unpack

11 UEs could do with a cut. But 7 attacking and 4 winner-attempts gets to them not being too easy (unlike Mec’s ones). Edberg volleys in his customary, killer way, sweeping away anything easy at a stroke. These UEs aren’t readily dispatchable ones

11 is a middling total. Throw in Edberg thrown off groove by all the return-winners, not bad

15 FEs would be a good outcome from Edberg, given the 26 return-winners. Less so given almost unique nature of them. 5 are half-volleys and he’s also got a BH1/2V winner and makes others
Its rare to see Edberg have to make so many half-volleys at all. This was more common in ‘88 when his serve was a little faster
Mecir presenting a few shoelace volleys to the most difficult serve-volleyer to do so is getting to his hitting a nice balance. Its not all wide, potential winners from him. And of course, good lot of wide volley FEs drawn by the return

15 FEs reflecting a good contest. Not too high from either player’s point of view. Looks better from Edberg’s, due to how many return winners Mec has, but that’s just looks

42 winners is a fine yield, with just 4 winner attempt misses more so
Not much wrong wit Edberg’s typical swishing finishing

22 first ‘volley’ winners, 16 post-first, including multiple third and fourth volleys is reflective of an even better contest. Edberg dispatching the stuff that’s there for it and it turning into a rally sometime when he can make commanding volley, or forced into a pseudo-defensive one

Mecir’s 7 winners, 22 FEs, 1 UE on the pass are not good figures. The return does most of his winning, and gets him into rally with multiple looks at passes some of the time, despite Edberg’s decisive volleying

Its more Edberg’s decisive volleying and net coverage than any flaw in Mec’s passing that’s behind it. Still, room for improvement there from Mec’s point of view. If Edberg’s got 5 post second volley winners, Mec’s had a few good looks at passes he hasn’t been able to finish

Towering above all things of course is Mec’s 26 return-pass winners - from both courts, off both wings, in all directions. Against serves he’d have to work hard not to comfily reach, admittedly, but that is an extraordinary yield of perfectly placed strikes. That rate of nailing winners at 50-55% return rate would be a threat to break. He returns at 74%

Half that rate of hitting return winners - 17% of all return-passes he makes are winners, and 21% of all returns he makes - would be break threat

And he hasn’t given Edberg easy time outside it. Edberg just about managing to keep half a nose ahead of even more trouble than he gets into

5/21 (11 games) break points for Mec
Sans the second set - for which Mec’s superiority (he has 10 return-winners, including 5 in succession, in the set) is duly noted, that shifts to 2/15 (7 games), which looks like pretty normal (as opposed to being on receiving end of one of the stiffest challenges in Wimby history)

There’s still 16 return winners flying around in those 4 sets, and plenty more not far from it. That’s very well handled by Edberg

Should be noted that a lot of crucial break points end with Mec missing the return, but it’s more a marvel that he’s made so many than a he can’t do it on call on break points - having reached said break points on back of them as well

Gist - almost uniquely high end returning from Mecir. ‘Brilliant’ isn’t a good word for it as his manner is too relaxed for the connotations of that word. Whatever it is, its superb. Wide return-winners in all directions off both wings and both courts. Edberg’s serve placement around Mecir’s racquet helps

High end follow-up contest between Edberg’s volleying and Mecir’s passing. Bit of everything there - Mec with good balance of making Edberg volley when he doesn’t breeze the return by. There’s some shoelace stuff, low-ish stuff, net high stuff, easy stuff and a lot of stuff testing Edberg’s sideways movement. Edberg’s not flawless but does get better of it. He’d be straight sets loser if he hadn’t

Mecir’s serve game
Mecir serve-volleys virtually always of first serves and randomly off seconds
To be precise, 86% off first serves, 45% off seconds. No telling if/when he will behind seconds
Wins 65% first serve-volleying and 50% second. By contrast, wins 67% staying back off seconds - which is better than either player does serve-volleying off either serve

His serve is weaker than Edberg’s. Slightly less powerful, as mundanely placed. He’s got 2 aces from 86 first serves. Unlike Edberg, he doesn’t serve much to body (Edberg does 10%, Mec 4%)
Run-of-the-mill serve. The kind that if up against Andre Agassi, you’d think would take a terrific pounding

Its good to be going on against Edberg, who’s stock return is high.
If Mec’s stock return is around net high presenting routine volley, Edberg’s is high presenting easy volley. Lot of chest high first volleys for Mec first up
Edberg with just 2% higher return rate than Mec. And that’s facing a lot less serve-volley
8 return-pass winners. Mec’s rate isn’t reasonable frame of comparison, but this is low side against weak serve

Gist of serve-volley contest here is Edberg returning consistently but not damagingly. Against an ordinary serve at best. To break, would need Mec to mess up easy volleys

Mec on ‘volley’ has 26 winners, 15 UEs, 8 FEs. Just 3 more winners than errors - not good
15/22 UEs are winner attempts, with 7 groundstrokes in their. In other words, almost all his volley UEs are winner attempts

Edberg has 7 winners (4 FH, 3 BH), 17 (9 FH, 8 BH) FEs, to go with modest 8 return winners at 76% return-rate

That’s not good contest by any standard, and made to look even worse by comparison to the one going on at other end
Easy volleys first up for Mec. He does dispatch them most of the time. 14/25 of his serve-volley winner are first volleys, as are most of his UEs
He doesn’t really face enough tough volleys to get a clear grade on how well he handles those. 8 FEs is on side, given how little he faces. Give him a tricky or hard volley, he probably misses

Edberg passing number aren’t good. But he has bad looks - a function of simple returns that are punished, when Mec doesn’t miss them

The gist of this is a sub-par contest in almost ways
- ordinardy serve from Mec
- harmless, consistent returning of it by Edberg
- easy volleys for Mec and he misses a good lot. Does volley with authority what he makes
- not much tough volleying type contest, Mec not doing well rare times he’s called on to make low or wide volleys. Edberg’s passing (return or otherwise) usually not upto testing him so

Staying back, Mec wins 9/12 first serve points and 18/27 (sans negligible 2 aces and 2 double faults). A lot better than the 65% and 50% he does serve-volleying of those respective serves

In baseline rallies -
- Winners - Mecir 1
- Errors forced - Mecir 2
- UEs - Mecir 6, Edberg 4

… and rallying to net -
- Edberg 5/10, Mecir 11/15

The surprise there is Mec coming in considerably more than Edberg. At least 2 of Edberg’s approaches are forced ones to deal with drop shots (he loses both)

Edberg’s also just 3/8 return-approaching. Both the frequency and success are low. On grass, Edberg generally tends to rush in anytime opponent doesn’t serve-volley

 

[Waspsting]

Normal baseline rallies, mostly BHs. No pointed rush to come in (would expect Edberg to do so). Mec lightly outmanuvering Edberg before coming in. His approaches aren’t overly strong ones but clearly, very successful

Most surprising thing about all this is Edberg’s relative lack of net thirst, both on the return and in rallies. And Mec controlling action

Edberg’s also got 8 return UEs, which would all be against non serve-volley and most against second serves. That’s not very good either

Gist - ordinary contest
Mundane serve-return one - ordinary serve, ordinary return
Easy first volleys for Mec, he misses discredit worthy number though he puts away the rest (as they’re begging to be treated)
Not good looks on pass for Edberg, and doesn’t do well there
Edberg fairly content to keep up baseline rallies, Mec lightly outplaying him and coming in to finish. Edberg’s passing short-comings coming through here more than serve-volley situation
Whether by design or otherwise, Edberg’s return game seems to be about waiting for Mec mess up
Mec’s volleying doesn’t promise that he won’t, but largely, keeps at it well enough to hold comfily

Match Progression
In first set, Mecir first serve-volleys virtually always and randomly does so off seconds
Both players with poor, in swing zone serving
In baseline rallies on Mec’s second serves, he usually works his way to net after short exchange
Mec misses quite a lot of easy volleys, but does putaway the ones he makes

Just the one break, but quite a few long games
Mec has a 10 point hold and two 8-pointers. Faces just 1 break point, which he rallies to net to save
Edberg has a 10 point hold and is broke to love

Ironically, its Edberg who strikes the first return-pass winner. Its just Mec’s second service point of the match. Mec hits his first early in the next game

Mec has to save a break point in 10-point game 4, where he makes just 3 first serves. Lucky, net chord pop up return helps Edberg come away with net to net BHV winner and he follows up with FH lob one to reach break point. Mec rallies his way to net to thwart it and eventually, finishes game with 2 first serve points, ending the game with a third volley smash winner

Games 6-9 are all eventful. Mec holds 2 deuce games, which sandiwch a 10 point Edberg one

Mec making and breaking action. 3 ground UEs prolong first of these games. Terrible volley UEs prolong the second. And great passes are behind the middle
No break points in any of them

Mec breaks to love for 5-4. Return-pass winners from BH inside-out, FH dtl and BH cc and an Edberg double. Would call it spectacular, only its pretty normal for this match
Mec serves out to 15, losing a point with another terrible FHV miss

In second set, Mec second serve-volleys more than earlier
More importantly, dismisses return winners at will. Edberg only holds once - and he has to save break point there

Couple volley UEs (1 particularly bad) by Edberg and couple of nice passing winners from Mecir (FH lob set up by wide FH dtl return and a BH inside-out return) lead to break to start set
Edberg hits right back with some of his own (3 passing winners, forcing a wide volley error), though its another easy volley miss that cements the break back

Mec goes into return-winners overload after that. Makes it 3 breaks in a row, with 3 return winners to end game 3 (BH cc against a racquet serve, nicely hooked FH cc and another BH cc), and starts next go around with 2 more (BH inside-out and BH cc) to have 5 consecutive return winners across 2 games

Breaks there too. And isn’t far from adding another next go around, where he has 3 more return-winners, but Edberg scraps out the hold, finishing with a a very rare, wide wining serve

Mec serves out to love and has all the momentum going into third

Edberg serves a little harder in third set and Mecir actually has to lunge for a return or 2
Still, Mec remains the more break-threatening for most of it

Edberg saves 3 break points in game 3. 3 volley UEs are his sin for the game - 2 from slightly under net, 1 easier
On the break points, Edberg draws 2 return errors (1 with a ‘racquet serve’, 1 with a wider one) and makes a good, lunging first volley winner to typical wide return

He has a break point of his own next game, raised on the back of excellent returns. Mec stays back on the first serve on the break point, casually moves Edberg side to side before dismissing a BH longline winner around the middle of court

Edberg’s down 0-40 in game 7 - another Mecir return winner, a makeably wide FHV miss and routine BHV miss
Mec misses returns on 2 of the break points and has a good look at BH pass that he can’t make on the other

Excellent game from Edberg to break to love to finish the set with couple shoelace returns and a FH inside-out return-pass winner to wrap up

Mec still remains more threatening player in the fourth and Edberg has to save a break point in consecutive service games as score reaches 3-2

Just the 1 UE from Edberg in combined 20 points of those games. Nice drop BHV saves the first game, but he needs a prolonged rally and a fourth volley BHOH winner to save the game after

The break point he has game after is easily dealt with (weak return, putaway volley), and Edberg has to save 4 more break points right after that. How long can he keep this up?
Long enough. It’s the best ‘save-game of the match, with Edberg making a series of difficult volleys to hold on

Which is followed by the worst donation game of the match, which is pretty bad. Mec giving up 3 volley UEs (1 is against pretty powerful return, another slightly wide). Game ends when a plonky, under-net from Mec leaves door open for Edberg to come away with BH lob winner. Plonk volley is better than missing the volley at least

Edberg serves out to love - and its onto decider

It’s the only one of match that Edberg doesn’t clearly have worse off, and sans being broken once, holds comfily all other games (says something about the match that that’s what constitutes ‘good’ for Edberg). And still needs a stroke of luck to win it

Great exchange of breaks early on
Mec with a return to his second set form swats 3 return winners in 4 points (FH inside-out, FH cc, BH inside-in) to break for 3-1

Edberg strikes back at once to love in just as impressive a game, reeling of winners last 3 points (BH dtl and BH inside-out returns, and a quick return-approach finishing with a lunging second BHV winner, with Mecir staying back off the first serve). A Mecir like game, with added dash of the return-approach

The decisive break though is pure luck. At 30-40, Edberg’s return hits the net post and deviates back into court. The serve-volleying Mecir does very well to make the ball but is forced onto defensive, forced back to baseline and Edberg breaks with a BHV winner

Serving for match awhile later, Edberg’s at 30-0 when Mecir slaps a typical FH dtl return winner. One last twist?
Turns out no. 40-15 down, Mecir forces Edberg back to baseline and takes net himself, but misses easy BHV to end things

Summing up, very memorable and unusual match, with the ultimate loser having better of things almost throughout

Mecir’s almost casual flood of return-pass winners is most eye-catching feature. Its made easier for Edberg serving almost right onto his racquet much of the time, but is still, extremely impressive. Both wings, both courts, all directions - the return winners flow down all match from him

With heavy emphasis on wide placement (not power), those types of returns don’t have secondary benefit of being likely to hard force volleying errors or draw weak ones; If Edberg can cut them off, they go for winners - and Edberg cuts off a good few

The contest of Edberg serve-volleying vs Mecir return-passing is a top notch one. Mecir with his wide return winners, and making Edberg play the volley much of the time when he can’t get anything that strong off. Edberg volleying well, facing all kind sof things - wide volleys, low volleys, slightly under-net volleys. Fine showings from both players

Other match up is mundane - ordinary serving from Mecir, ordinary returning from Edberg, easy volleys for Mecir and he makes mess of significant amount of it, only occasional bursts of strong returning against a serve where regularly so doing is on the cards

Mecir has better of most of match, and Edberg survives that in all kinds of ways and comes away with pretty lucky win

Stats for the final between Edberg and Boris Becker - Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Becker, Wimbledon final, 1988 | Talk Tennis
Stats for Mecir’s quarter-final with Mats Wilander - Match Stats/Report - Mecir vs Wilander, Wimbledon quarter-final, 1988 | Talk Tennis

 

[Judge Holden]

I was struck in this match by the athleticism and quality of Edberg's play on scramble points. Whenever the court was opened, especially near the end of sets. Edberg had the answers.

 

[Waspsting]

Edberg beat Mecir 6-1, 6-4, 6-4 in the Australian Open quarter-final, 1987 on grass

Edberg would go onto win the title, beating Pat Cash in the final. Mecir was seeded 6th.

Edberg won 92 points, Mecir 59

Edberg serve-volleyed off all serves, Mecir about a third off the time off both serves

(Note: I’m missing 1 game and 2 points -
Set 2, Game 3 - a Mecir service game that he lost
Set 2, Game 4, Points 1 & 2 - 2 Edberg service points that he won
The points total assumes the missing game was to love, which is unconfirmed)

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (36/67) 54%
- 1st serve points won (31/36) 86%
- 2nd serve points won (21/31) 68%
- ?? serve points won (2/2)
- Aces 4, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (28/67) 42%

Mecir...
- 1st serve percentage (48/78) 62%
- 1st serve points won (23/48) 48%
- 2nd serve points won (21/30) 70%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (16/78) 21%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 36%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 8%

Mecir served...
- to FH 23%
- to BH 69%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 59 (15 FH, 44 BH), including 4 return-approaches
- 6 Winners (1 FH, 5 BH)
- 15 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (3 FH, 5 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- 7 Forced (1 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (59/75) 79%

Mecir made...
- 38 (13 FH, 25 BH)
- 6 Winners (2 FH, 4 BH)
- 23 Errors, all forced...
- 23 Forced (10 FH, 13 BH)
- Return Rate (38/66) 58%

Break Points
Edberg 5/11 (7 games) [includes a deduced 1/1 (1 game). The points won and games are accurate, but there may have been more break points]
Mecir 1/1

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 30 (5 FH, 9 BH, 8 FHV, 7 BHV, 1 OH)
Mecir 21 (5 FH, 7 BH, 5 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)

Edberg had 14 from serve-volley points -
- 10 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 4 second volleys (1 FHV, 3 BHV)

- 2 from return-approach points, both FHVs

- 11 passes - 5 returns (1 FH, 4 BH) & 6 regular (3 FH, 3 BH)
- FH return - 1 inside-out
- BH returns - 2 dtl, 2 inside-out
- regular FHs - 3 cc
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 2 lobs

- regular (non-pass) BHs - 2 dtl (1 return)

Mecir had from serve-volley points -
- 1 first volley (1 FHV)
- 5 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)

- 10 passes - 6 returns (2 FH, 4 BH) & 4 regular (2 FH, 2 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 2 inside-out, 2 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl
- regular BHs - 1 cc slice, 1 dtl

- regular (non-pass) FH - 1 cc
- regular BH - 1 drop shot/dtl slice

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 21
- 9 Unforced (2 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 12 Forced (2 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.6

Mecir 25
- 7 Unforced (2 FH, 5 BH)
- 18 Forced (9 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.3

(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
Edberg was...
- 54/71 (76%) at net, including...
- 47/61 (77%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 26/31 (84%) off 1st serve and...
- 21/30 (70%) off 2nd serve
---
- 2/4 (50%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Mecir was...
- 23/40 (58%) at net, including...
- 13/26 (50%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 7/16 (44%) off 1st serve and...
- 6/10 (60%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Same players, same surface, same result, very, very different match. Full serve-volleying Edberg whips largely baselining Mecir

Routine scoreline. Edberg winning 60% of points serving 47% of them (that’s excluding deductions about missing game, where Edberg breaks). Break points of Edberg 5/11 (7 games), Mecir 1/1 (that’s including partial deductions from same missing game). Simply, a whipping

Edberg serves powerfully and swishes volleys away
And Edberg strikes groundies, including returns and passes crisply
Holds like clockwork, regularly threatens to break, regardless of Mec’s serve-volleying choices

Mec with same harmless serve and it gets stick enough to keep him back. He does try to return damagingly wide like the Wimby match, but usually misses the returns

Edberg serve-volleys 100% of the time. Mecir 34% off first serves, 37% off seconds, so not a serve-volley match. Its troublingly breezy for much of it, and good job by Edberg serving powerfully anyway

Odd stat for the match is how well Mec does on his second serve; wins 70% of those points,

Mecir wins 48% first serve points, 70% seconds
Serve-volleying, its 44% for first serves, 60% for seconds
Stayin back, its 50% for first serves, 75% for seconds. That’s including aces and double faults. Sans those, 48% for first serves, 88% of seconds

He’s got a normal second serve. Serve-volleys and not about same rate as the first, but does a lot better regardless. And does ridiculously well. Even better than Edberg, who wins 2% fewer second serve points

Still strange is highest winning rate is staying back, where he wins 15/17 or 88% - which is even better than Edberg can manage of first serves
Very weird. Not explainable by small sample size. He has 30 second serve points in all

Doesn’t matter much. You could say the anomaly keeps him from getting thrashed even worse

Compared to the Wimby match, Edberg -

- serves stronger here (both for power and aiming wide)

- returns cleaner and more powerfully here, at about same return-rate

- he’s not tested to anything like same degree on the volley. Mostly faces routine volleys and misses them at lower rate than he did at Wimby, but his swished finishing is about same calibre. Quite a big of drop and touch volleys

Mecir for starters, plays differently of style. At Wimby, he was virtual full first serve-volley and 50% seconds. Here, he’s about a third off both serves, which is an adjustment. He starts full first serve-volleying, takes a pounding and eases back

- same calibre serving, good in count. This match largely brings out how badly Edberg returned at Wimby. What he does here is doable against Mec’s serve, and its not some great return display. It was just as doable in Wimby
(for simplicity’s sake, I’ll refer to Wimby match in past tense, where for this presentation, is where it is)

- funnily enough, he does continue to have his way with Edberg from the back in same way as Wimby

 

[Waspsting]

Edberg’s serve game
Full serve-volley, powerful, wide serving
Mec looking to return wide, as at Wimby, often missing the return. And facing a smaller proportion of in reach serves. He has his moments with it
Edberg in fine nick at dispatching whatever’s dispatchable. He wasn’t bad at Wimby either, but he’s faced with higher lot of such stuff here and swishes them away
Not much passing chances for Mec

54% first serve is decent, with powerful serving
4 aces, 1 service winner is coincidentally the exact same yield as Wimby. Here it comes from 36 first serves, there it took 117. The first serves he misses are often would be aces. So aggressive use of the serve as a finishing shot by Edberg.

Draws 42% freebies. Both hard forced errors (where serve likely wins regardless of serve-volley or not) and through serve-volley pressure. Mec looks for wide returns, usually missing
Mec has 6 return-winners. He had 5 in 5 points at Wimby

10/13 serve-volleying winners being first ‘volleys’ is typical Edberg

On the ‘volley’, Edberg with 17 winners, just 2 UEs, 4 FEs
Mec on the pass in play has 4 winners, 12 FEs, to go with 6 return winners at 58% return rate

What you’d expect for facing 1 break point in the match

Edberg volleying routine or easy stuff hard for winner or leaving bad look passes. He doesn’t ace many difficult volleys to start with. Mec doing what he can and its not much

Gist - clockwork efficient serve-volleying from Edberg. The serve is considerably more powerful than Wimby match. Would be correspondingly harder for Mec to return as well, and he even adjusting for that, he returns worse (way he returned at Wimby was obviously exceptional and not a reasonable standard to expect), while having the odd moment. Edberg with class volleying demo, leaving Mec little chance

Mecir’s serve game
Mec serve-volleys 34% off first serves, 37% off seconds. Starts first serve-volleying virtually always and it ends up getting a lot of stick, and he tones it back. Second serve-volleys randomly

Same, unthreatening serve. 21% freebies leaves him plenty of court work to do to keep holding

In baseline rallies -
- Winners - both 2
- Errors forced - Edberg 2
- UEs - both 7 (identical 2 FH, 5 BH)

Good outcome for Edberg. Given fair bit of strong returning, could be worse for Mec

Rallying to net - Edberg 5/6, Mec 10/14

Like Wimby, Mec taking net much more often. Its not because he outmanuvers Edberg though. He’s just more net thirsty, and Edberg isn’t

This is a change from ‘90 onward period, when Edberg would always be on look out for chance to come in from baseline rallies. Here, he’s quite happy to keep at the rally without any pointed intent to attack from back or front. Th

Mec on the volley has 9 winners, 3 FEs
Edberg has 5 return-pass winners, and in play 6 (3 FH, 3 BH) winners, 8 FEs (2 FH, 6 BH)

Mec winning just 50% of his 26 serve-volleys, to go with 71% of rally to net points

Edberg’s crisp returning is good to stump the serve-volleys. Mec has just 1 first volley winner, 5 seconds
No volley UEs from Mec another sign that Edberg’s return and passing deserves the credit for Mec’s relatively low success at net (as opposed to Mec’s volleying getting discredit)

Not bad quality of volleying from Mec either. Power of returns and passes is hindrance to aggressive volleying (unlike Wimby, where he faced putaways), and Edberg’s on point on follow up pass

Gist - Average serve from Mecir, powerful returning of it by Edberg
Serve-volleying, Mec doesn’t miss much, but can’t volley with much authority (credit Edberg’s returning). Edberg passing well to follow up
Lot of baseline rallies too. Mecir pointedly more net thirsty in them, with Edberg seemingly indifferent in that regard

Match Progression
Edberg breezes through the first set

Hold to love to open, finishing with a drop FHV winner
Mec serve-volleys off all serves in his first service game (5 first serves, 3 seconds) and Edberg’s got 4 passing winners in it (BH lob, FH cc and FH inside-out and BH dtl returns

Hints of Wimby match following game, with Edberg cutting off a wide return and being forced into FHV error by another such. And Mec missing 2 second returns, looking for his preferred wide returns

Another strong return from Edberg forces a body volley error to start next game, and Mec stays back for first time point after. Still gets broken, with Edberg striking BH inside-out return-pass winner to raise break point and on it, Mec staying back doesn’t help; Edberg gets a strong FH inside-out return to near baseline and comes in to putaway FHV

Mec stays back entirely in his third game, which he manages to hold in 10 points. Needs an unlikley, BH cc slice pass winner against chip-charging Edberg to end the game
Edberg serves out to 15

Mec serve-volley just once in second set but usually takes net early from baseline rally
Just 1 break (which I’m missing), but Edberg’s regularly in return games, while still fluently holding his own serve and volleying sharply

The (missing) break makes score 2-1

2/3 Mecir service games after are challenging. Its pair of poor third ball ground UEs that sets him down 30-40 serving at 2-4. Edberg misses routine second return on break point and Mec goes on to hold

Takes 8 points to hold next time too. At 15-30, Edberg’s winning return wide to the baseline is called long; it doesn’t look long. All other things remaining the same, that call goes Edberg’s way and this game would be a break too. Mec holds in 8 points in the actual event

Mec brings back serve-volleying for much of the third set and scores his only break, but is still outplayed handily

Saves to break points in holding first game
Is broken next go around to 15. Edberg with 3 winners (FH cc pass, FHV from return-approach and BH inside-out reutrn pass) and forcing a 1/2volley error
Mec breaks right back in a fine game where he’s got a couple of pass winners and forces a couple of net errors, including a BHOH one. 2-2
Edberg makes it 3 breaks in a row. This one’s to love - couple of attacking BH UEs from Mec, a skilled winning short return by Edberg and a winning, sharply angled FH cc

Mec serve-volleys for his remaining 2 games. Taken to deuce once so doing. Edberg holds routinely, losing 1 point in 3 games (a BH inside-in return pass winner), eventually serving out to love

Summing up, brisk, routine win for Edberg. Strong serving, typical swished volleying, powerful and clean passing (both return and otherwise), with good lobs thrown in
Mecir struggles to return, while trying to do aim wide with the shot. His serve-volleying is met and outdone by Edberg’s returning. He does control baseline rallies by taking net quite early in rallies

Match is largely decided by big gap in serve-return contests - Edberg strong on both shots, Mecir’s serve vulnerably weak and unable to get much done with the return

Stats for the final between Edberg and Pat Cash - Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Cash, Australian Open final, 1987 | Talk Tennis

 

[buscemi]

Break Points
Edberg 5/8 (8 games)
Mecir 5/21 (11 games)

Wow, I remember this match being close, but not this close. Looks like the Big Cat was even closer to winning than I thought. Full credit to Edberg for coming back after being two sets down and having to fight through to survive the next two sets.

 

[urban]

In that Wim semi, Mecir outplayed Edberg for 2 sets and a half, then he got yips, and could not finish him off. He returned the rather predictable Edberg kicker with gusto and precision. Mecir also had an outstanding swinging forehand volley. Maybe he had lost anyway to Beckerr due to nerves in his first Wim final. in his major finals he played way under par.

 

[Mustard]

Wow, I remember this match being close, but not this close. Looks like the Big Cat was even closer to winning than I thought. Full credit to Edberg for coming back after being two sets down and having to fight through to survive the next two sets.

If there was ever a claim that "the better player lost", I think the 1988 Wimbledon semi final between Mecir and Edberg is it. By set, the break point conversions were 0/1 for Edberg and 1/1 for Mecir in set 1, 1/1 for Edberg and 3/6 for Mecir in set 2, 1/2 for Edberg and 0/6 for Mecir in set 3, 1/2 for Edberg and 0/6 for Mecir in set 4, and 2/2 for Edberg and 1/2 for Mecir in set 5.

The first two sets, Mecir dominated. In sets 3-4 combined, Mecir was 0/12 on break points, compared to being Edberg 2/4 on break points in that period. Mecir had been holding serve much more comfortably than Edberg in sets 3-4 for the most part, but for some reason couldn't get the break. In the fifth set, it was Mecir who broke first, to go 3-1 up, finally breaking after failing with all those break points. However, instead of giving Mecir a boost, it seemed to take the wind out of Mecir's sails as Edberg then went against his then reputation of fading in long matches or not digging deep very often, by digging very deep and somehow grinding out the win.

This sort of thing almost happened to Hewitt against Schalken at 2002 Wimbledon. Hewitt was cruising 6-2, 6-2, and had something like 20+ break points in set 3 and early in set 4, and failed with every single one of them. Schalken then hit a purple patch, winning the fourth set 6-1, and twice being a break up in the fifth set, only for Hewitt to break back both times. Hewitt won 6-2, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6, 7-5.

 

[bluetrain4]

The "Swede Killer" Mecir had just as many crushing defeats to Swedes as he did upsets. Though, he was usually ranked lower (at least than Wilander and Edberg) so the upsets naturally rate higher for him and draw more attention.

Edberg had a reputation for fading in long matches? At the time of the 88 semi or his whole career? Because his big match 5 set outcomes seem pretty balanced overall. Getting through the 1992 USO 4th Rnd, QFs, and SFs alone would prevent me from thinking he could have that reputation overall. Plus 1987 AO final, 1988, Wimbledon SF (highlighted here), 1989 FO semi final, 1990 Wimbledon Final - all of which he won in 5 sets - 3 of the 4 matches winning two sets, losing two sets, yet still winning in the 5th. Yes, he had some big 5 set losses, but nothing overall that makes me think he should have a reputation for fading in long matches.

 

[Mustard]

The "Swede Killer" Mecir had just as many crushing defeats to Swedes as he did upsets. Though, he was usually ranked lower (at least than Wilander and Edberg) so the upsets naturally rate higher for him and draw more attention.

Edberg had a reputation for fading in long matches? At the time of the 88 semi or his whole career? Because his big match 5 set outcomes seem pretty balanced overall. Getting through the 1992 USO 4th Rnd, QFs, and SFs alone would prevent me from thinking he could have that reputation overall. Plus 1987 AO final, 1988, Wimbledon SF (highlighted here), 1989 FO semi final, 1990 Wimbledon Final - all of which he won in 5 sets - winning two sets, losing two sets, yet still winning in the 5th. Yes, he had some big 5 set losses, but nothing overall that makes me think he should have a reputation for fading in long matches.

Edberg in his earlier career did have that reputation. I don't think he fully got rid of it until that semi final win over Mecir at 1988 Wimbledon. You are listing mostly later matches above.

"The Swede Killer" nickname for Mecir started in 1986, when his record against them overall was much better to what it ended up being at the end. It was Wilander that Mecir owned most, but even Wilander fought hard enough to win 4 out of 11 matches against his nemesis.

 

[Waspsting]

Edberg had a reputation for fading in long matches?

Probably
Commentators from his earlier career mildly talk about him as being a bit soft and apt to go away when things get tough
Mildly mind you. compared to say, Lendl

One remarkable assessment I remember is from Tony Pickard during '86 YEC match with Noah
Its a great match, Noah wins first set, they're level in second, both playing well when they interview Pickard

He bluntly states Noah's playing better and Edberg's looking for excuses to lose - or words to that effect
I can't say I saw anything like that, but respect that Pickard can read Edberg very well
Even so, that's a remarkable declaration from one's coach in the middle of a match
(Edberg goes on to win in last set tiebreak, having saved match point - either 1 or 2 - late in the decider)

I'll add, just because commentators tend to have an opinion doesn't make it right. They say a fair few things that aren't. But it does seem that that Edberg in his younger days was perceived as being a bit of a softie

 

[buscemi]

I'll add, just because commentators tend to have an opinion doesn't make it right. They say a fair few things that aren't. But it does seem that that Edberg in his younger days was perceived as being a bit of a softie

Based on this comment, I thought I'd do a deep dive.

Edberg was 12-6 in five set matches at the time of his 1988 Wimbledon SF with Mečíř.

I wonder whether Edberg's reputation was based on his early results. Edberg started his career 0-3 and then 1-4 in five set matches, losing big ones to Sundstrom at Wimbledon in 1983, Krickstein at the U.S. Open in 1983, Kriek at Wimbledon in 1984, and Lendl at the WCT Finals in 1985.

But, after starting 1-4, Edberg then went 11-2 heading into the 1988 Wimbledon semifinal with Mečíř. This included (1) two big comeback five set wins on his way to his first Major at the 1985 Australian Open, taking down Masur from two sets down and Lendl from three match points down; and (2) beating Mečíř, 9-7 in the fifth set from 2-1 down in sets in the decisive fifth rubber of their Davis Cup match mere months before the Wimbledon showdown.

So, it seems like maybe the commentators were relying on outdated notions when Edberg had pretty much proven his mettle.

 

[Judge Holden]

I can't help but wonder if a lot of the early perception stayed rooted because of his demeanor.

Edberg is neither an Alcaraz/Becker-style player who relies on instinct and needs to feel pressure to play his best, nor one to remain totally detached in the Borg/Federer way, nor a McEnroe/Connors/Lendlesque gamesman/baiter, so he doesn't fit any mould of a player who might rise mentally to the occasion in pressure moments. He just seems like a very low-key but nice guy.

Without a revealed pattern of success in the clutch, people were going to look at him and assume weak.

 

[Mustard]

This included (1) two big comeback five set wins on his way to his first Major at the 1985 Australian Open, taking down Masur from two sets down and Lendl from three match points down;

I last watched the 1985 Australian Open semi final between Edberg and Lendl last year. Lendl was up an early break in the fifth set, but Lendl certainly didn't have match point. Edberg failed with 3 match points on the Lendl serve when Lendl was serving at 4-5 in the fifth set, before closing it out by breaking Lendl to win 9-7 in the fifth set. Or perhaps you are confusing it with their 1991 Australian Open semi final, where Lendl won in 5 sets after saving 2 match points for Edberg in the fourth set?

That 1985 Australian Open semi final is my favourite Edberg vs. Lendl match, actually.

 

[buscemi]

I last watched the 1985 Australian Open semi final between Edberg and Lendl last year. Lendl was up an early break in the fifth set, but Lendl certainly didn't have match point. Edberg failed with 3 match points on the Lendl serve when Lendl was serving at 4-5 in the fifth set, before closing it out by breaking Lendl to win 9-7 in the fifth set. Or perhaps you are confusing it with their 1991 Australian Open semi final, where Lendl won in 5 sets after saving 2 match points for Edberg in the fourth set?

That 1985 Australian Open semi final is my favourite Edberg vs. Lendl match, actually.

Thanks. I may be combining different matches in my head. Looks like you're right. Still, definitely a match where the young Swede came through in the clutch against his more experienced rival on the way to winning his first Major.

 

[Mustard]

Thanks. I may be combining different matches in my head. Looks like you're right. Still, definitely a match where the young Swede came through in the clutch against his more experienced rival on the way to winning his first Major.

That Edberg win also ended a match winning streak of 31 wins in a row for Lendl. Lendl's previous loss was to McEnroe in the 1985 Canadian Open final in Montreal.

 

[bluetrain4]

I last watched the 1985 Australian Open semi final between Edberg and Lendl last year. Lendl was up an early break in the fifth set, but Lendl certainly didn't have match point. Edberg failed with 3 match points on the Lendl serve when Lendl was serving at 4-5 in the fifth set, before closing it out by breaking Lendl to win 9-7 in the fifth set. Or perhaps you are confusing it with their 1991 Australian Open semi final, where Lendl won in 5 sets after saving 2 match points for Edberg in the fourth set?

That 1985 Australian Open semi final is my favourite Edberg vs. Lendl match, actually.

They have an pretty incredible rivalry that seems to go unremarked upon as a rivalry that people are excited about. They didn't have any beef with each other seemingly, so maybe the lack of animosity was part of it. 14-13 Edberg over a pretty big time frame and involving a lot of big matches on big stages.

 

[andreh]

Lendl was up an early break in the fifth set

Yet another where Edberg was down a break in the fifth and then turned it around.

 

[Gizo]

The matches I know of in which Edberg was a break down in the 5th set but still won:

Australian Open 1985 SF vs. Lendl
Davis Cup 1988 QF vs. Mecir
Wimbledon 1988 SF vs. Mecir
Roland Garros 1989 SF vs. Becker
Wimbledon 1990 F vs. Becker
US Open 1992 R4 vs. Krajicek
US Open 1992 QF vs. Lendl
US Open 1992 SF vs. Chang
Davis Cup 1994 F vs. Volkov

That list might be incomplete, as I have no idea whether or not he was a break down in the 5th set vs. Tim Wilkison at Wimbledon in 1985, vs. Milan Srejber in their 1986 Davis Cup SF rubber etc. I know that during his R3 match against Mansdorf at Wimbledon in 1990, he never trailed by a break in 5th set as he didn't have a break point himself until the 15th and penultimate game at 7-7.

So he pulled that off in a Wimbledon final and semi-final, semi-finals at each of the other 3 grand slams and a Davis Cup final, which was some going in the biggest stages.

 

[andreh]

^^Too many to be a coincidence. Edberg had guts when it mattered.

 

[AleYeah]

US Open 1992 R4 vs. Krajicek
US Open 1992 QF vs. Lendl
US Open 1992 SF vs. Chang

Add taking out Sampras in the final- after an almost 5 and a half hour semi- and that's a pretty amazing tournament!

 

[Mustard]

Add taking out Sampras in the final- after an almost 5 and a half hour semi- and that's a pretty amazing tournament!

Sampras served for 2-1 sets lead in the 1992 US Open final, and failed. Edberg won in 4 sets.

Also, in their 1993 Australian Open semi final, Sampras raced out to a 4-0 first set lead, Edberg had over a dozen foot faults in the match, yet Edberg still won 7-6, 6-3, 7-6.

 

[Waspsting]

In that Wim semi, Mecir outplayed Edberg for 2 sets and a half, then he got yips, and could not finish him off. He returned the rather predictable Edberg kicker with gusto and precision. Mecir also had an outstanding swinging forehand volley. Maybe he had lost anyway to Beckerr due to nerves in his first Wim final. in his major finals he played way under par.

Couple of things I saw a little differently

I wouldn't say he got the yips later on
Basically, he's 1 return-winner short of breaking through (on multiple occasions) in sets 3 and 4
The regularity with which he strikes return-winners all match is such that that seems a let down. I'd say a more reasonable take would be awe at how he's done it all match (as opposed to not being able to do it on this or that specific point being a yip)

And the swinging FHV. What is an outstanding swinging FHV? if you're hitting a swinging FHV, anything short of a winner is a let down
in other words, we don't credit a guy for hitting a finishing swinging FHV, we discredit him if he doesn't
In the '88 match, Mecir puts a good lot a way. As one would expect him to
He misses a good few too
The '85 Hamburg match with Wilander too, which is even more spectacular than the Wimby match and where he seems to be just toying with Mats
Fair few simple volley misses. About the only thing he doesn't do perfectly there

So, it seems like maybe the commentators were relying on outdated notions when Edberg had pretty much proven his mettle.

I wouldn't be surprised at all
Its what commentators generally do

I've seen Edberg play badly and get creamed, but the only match I'd say he choked has been '91 Wimby against Stich

...at the 1985 Australian Open, taking down Masur from two sets down and Lendl from three match points down;

He didn't face match points vs Lendl (as Mustard says). Per commentary, he did face them against Masur

I can't help but wonder if a lot of the early perception stayed rooted because of his demeanor.

Edberg is neither an Alcaraz/Becker-style player who relies on instinct and needs to feel pressure to play his best, nor one to remain totally detached in the Borg/Federer way, nor a McEnroe/Connors/Lendlesque gamesman/baiter, so he doesn't fit any mould of a player who might rise mentally to the occasion in pressure moments. He just seems like a very low-key but nice guy.

Without a revealed pattern of success in the clutch, people were going to look at him and assume weak.

And agree with this, and more broadly still, possible cultural difference that invites inaccurate perceptions

The Swedes all just seem to be go about their business quietly. Win or lose, dominate or getting dominated
It seems to me to be a very American way of seeing things, that when a guys losing but not showing much emotion, that they're soft, weak
Is getting dominated any better or worse if one's fuming and and kicking up a ruckus, rather than just going about their business? Everyone gets dominated now and then

Even Borg had an early reputation for not being tough enough or wanting it enough or whatever

I was amused by Connors recently criticizing Alcaraz for acknowledging vocally that he was being outplayed in the Wimbledon final
What good did not doing so do Connors in the 1984 final?

If we lived in a world where Swedan's mentality and ways had spread, the way America's has via TV, movies etc.... I imagine we'd view a guy getting outplayed, but seemingly still believing they're the best as delusional and not a good thing

In the world we live in, such an attitude is pushed as being "champion's mind", or some such thing
Along with well noted disregard or even blindness to any alternative to one's own way of thinking about things

 

[Mustard]

I was amused by Connors recently criticizing Alcaraz for acknowledging vocally that he was being outplayed in the Wimbledon final
What good did not doing so do Connors in the 1984 final?

To Connors, tennis matches, especially against your big rivals, is like going to war, so you mustn't show any weakness, even in heavy defeat.

 

[NedStark]

In that Wim semi, Mecir outplayed Edberg for 2 sets and a half, then he got yips, and could not finish him off. He returned the rather predictable Edberg kicker with gusto and precision. Mecir also had an outstanding swinging forehand volley. Maybe he had lost anyway to Beckerr due to nerves in his first Wim final. in his major finals he played way under par.

This was perhaps Edberg’s most important win. Had he lost, there is a strong possibility that he would have ended his career at or below Courier’s tier.

 

[urban]

Maybe i wasn't precise enough about the Mecir forehand volley. It was not the wild swinging volley of say Agassi, hit as a groundstroke. Mecir had long arms, and in the good matches i have seen from him against Becker, Lendl, Mac or the Swedes, he hit a solid, sound forehand volley from a distance say 2 meters from the net with a straight arm and a bit of backswing, it had control and penetration. He certainly was no net rusher with his stomach above the net, but i found his volley pretty well executed.