Match Stats/Report - A. Medvedev vs Bruguera, Monte Carlo final, 1994

[Waspsting]

Andrei Medvedev beat Sergi Bruguera 7-5, 6-1, 6-3 in the Monte Carlo final, 1994 on clay

It was Medvedev’s first Masters title and he would win Hamburg shortly after. Bruguera was the defending champion and would go onto win the French Open

Medvedev won 95 points, Bruguera 72

Serve Stats
Medvedev...
- 1st serve percentage (60/80) 75%
- 1st serve points won (41/60) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (10/20) 50%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/80) 9%

Bruguera...
- 1st serve percentage (57/87) 66%
- 1st serve points won (33/57) 58%
- 2nd serve points won (10/30) 33%
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (11/87) 13%

Serve Patterns
Medvedev served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 59%
- to Body 4%

Bruguera served...
- to FH 18%
- to BH 78%
- to Body 4%

Return Stats
Medvedev made...
- 72 (13 FH, 60 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 4 return-approaches
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (2 FH, 8 BH)
- 1 Forced (1 FH)
- Return Rate (72/83) 87%

Bruguera made...
- 72 (29 FH, 43 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (3 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 3 Forced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (72/79) 91%

Break Points
Medvedev 8/12 (8 games)
Bruguera 3/6 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Medvedev 36 (17 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 6 OH)
Bruguera 12 (9 FH, 1 BH, 2 FHV)

Medvedev's FHs - 5 cc (2 passes), 1 cc/inside-in, 2 dtl (1 pass), 4 inside-out, 2 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc, 2 drop shots
- BHs - 5 cc (2 passes - 1 at net), 3 dtl

- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV)

Bruguera's FHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl (2 passes), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in 1 longline/inside-in
- BH pass - 1 dtl at net

- 1 FHV was a baseline passing shot

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Medvedev 48
- 35 Unforced (19 FH, 14 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)
- 13 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 FH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.1

Bruguera 48
- 23 Unforced (10 FH, 13 BH)
- 25 Forced (12 FH, 12 BH, 1 FHV)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2

(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
Medvedev was 28/36 (78%) at net, with...
- 3/4 (75%) return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Bruguera was 9/16 (56%) at net

Match Report
Impressive showing from Medvedev as he out-powers Bruguera, who eventually gets a bit harried by it

Some shiny stats coming out of it
- Med with 36 winners, 35 UEs. Always good to have more winners than UEs

- Brug with 23 UEs, 25 FEs. For largely baseline match, having more FEs than UEs either happens when player is so amazingly consistent that he make so few UEs that opponent has to force errors to end points or because opponent has played very well to force so many errors. While solid, Brug’s not a wall, so in this case, credit Med for forcing all those errors

Serve-return matters, though statistically very minor, do have hand in shaping play. Unreturned are very low, there are no aces, but Med has stronger serve and is able to draw not-strong returns

In itself, that’s not much. Wouldn’t be unusual on clay for rally to peter down to neutral from such situation. Not when Med’s the server though. He collars action with strong groundies from half-chances to, setting in motion the overpowering thing. And he does it off both wings

Does the same from genuinely neutral rallies too. Hits harder, and hits deep. Brug’s shot resistance is tested and while not failing, he tends to give up softer, weaker balls. And then as with the return - viz. against a ball not so weak that attack is obvious option, Med takes charge with yet more powerful shots. He’s constantly looking to move up the court to hit his groundies. 2-3 steps inside baseline is common for him

He’s powerful enough of stock+ shots as to potentially beat-down Brug even from on the baseline. Brug not being the easiest of players to beat-down in such a way. It remains ‘potentially’ because he doesn’t stay on the baseline but keeps moving forward

He is powerful enough to beat Brug down from his forward position but that’s not all he does. Hits through him a bit, but more goes wide for winners or otherwise winning shots (that is, drawing FEs), combined with coming to net to finish aggressively

It’s a wonderful showing from Med

High in counts (Med 75%, Brug 66%) and not much damaging serves. 0 aces in match. 14/18 combined return errors have been marked UEs, and that’s not because both players are making all the tough returns. They’re just not facing many

Its well balanced serving, particularly from Med. His serve is a decent one, likely to draw some amount of short, weak returns. And does. At that high an in count and the way he backs it up, good to be going on. On simple consistency grounds, fine returning from Brug too to return 91%

Its rare to see anyone return at over 91%, and while virtually impossible to do against a strong serve, Med’s serving is about as strong as you’ll see for an opponent to have returned that high a rate.

So credit Brug for returning consistency. Few weak returns is small price to pay for keeping freebies down to 9%. And Med ‘only’ wins 67% of his first serve points, so not-strong returning doesn’t hurt Brug much (Med’s game is a different matter)

Brug serving a little gentler. Roughly 20-30% of his first serves could pass for seconds, and he looks to go big maybe once or twice all match. Bigger than a rolled in point starter, but only just

Med nominally missing a few more returns, but returning with a lot more authority. As with his groundies, he likes to move up to whack the second returns from well inside court. Just a few more errors than Brug (his return rate is 87%) wouldn't matter much anyway, but even less than that, with 3/11 return errors coming in 1 love game (not a tank, but just Med going off for a bit) - well worth damage those early returns cause

Brug wins just 33% second serve points

And then rally, with Med hitting harder and with particular depth. Both sides are powerful, but BH stands out more. Generally, Brug has an excellent BH. Its hammered down here considerably. I have not seen Bruguera’s BH discomfitted to this extent, not even by Thomas Muster’s FH cc’s

Few errors going long striving for depth by Med, kind Brug doesn’t make. Cost of pushing Brug back and moving forward himself. Which leads to -

 

[Waspsting]

Winners - Med 36, Brug 12
Errors forced - Med 25, Brug 13
UEs - Med 35, Brug 23

Points won - Med 84, Brug 60. Very convincing outcome for Med

To start, Neutral UEs - Med 16, Brug 14. Given the court position and each players aggression, that spell big trouble for Brug. Despite his aggression, Med isn’t streaky. His hitting is sound and percentage shots - he just happens to hit the ball particularly hard and deep. So contrary to common tendancy of more aggressive player also being looser, its not actually much surprise that neutrals are virtually equal

Brug’s BH falters a little in missing routine shots. Just a little and measured against high standard. And many of his errors are against relatively difficult balls. His FH though is very consistent

FH UEs - Med 19, Brug 10
BH UEs - Med 14, Brug 13

Does that look like Brug would do well to keep things FH-FH as much as possible? Yes. Is it practical for him to do so? No. He’s usually reacting and has little choice which side to play off or target. And if his length or force wavers for a shot (FH or BH), Med’s sure to pounce and put him fully on defensive and with even say in direction of play

Med’s FH has match high 17 winners also (Brug has 9, so he actually does 1 better on winner/UE differential off that wing, though a lot less often in aggressive position). It’s the BH stuff that keeps Med well ahead

He’s got 8 winners - including 3 cc and 3 dtl, with other 2 being passes. Med has 1, a putaway pass at net

And he’s apt to take charge with big BHs, both cc and dtl. The latter works just as well from on or behind the baseline, the former is most effective from inside the court. Its no picnic to handle from on the baseline either and he could probably outhit Brug from orthodox, both players on or just behind baseline, but where’s the fun in that? So much better to step in pound the ball into corners for point ending shots - winners, forcing an error or a very favourable net approach

Rallying to net - Med 25/32, Brug 9/16

The last piece of the puzzle. Med’s attacking play is well judged. He has the power and the shots from the back and makes plenty of hay with it, but this is even better way to finish. Not faced with many difficult volleys because he comes in from such commanding shots, but he can’t seem to miss a volley either

Both net UEs come very late in the match - a wide FHV and a smash. Otherwise, virtually every volley played to where Brug isn’t, including dropped for winners. He’s 3/4 return-approaching too - big, early taken shots, similar to kind of approaches from rallies of strength

Finally, movement. Both players are efficient without being super-fast. Brug with excellent late ‘get’ shot technique. Problem is, he has so, so many opportunities to showcase it

Match Progression
In opening set, Brug looks to grind, Med looks to move forward into court and take attacking position. Med’s more successful, with his BH in particular beating Brug back and allowing him to move forward. Some very good, dtl BH shots from Med too, well chosen and not overdone

There are 5 breaks in the set, with Med always ahead. At 2-2, he’s hit 7 winners (volleys, third ball FHs, BH dtl’, passes - the works) to Brug’s 1 (a volley)

He breaks for for 3-2 with Brug missing couple of attacking FHs to open door, Med winning a point at net after a delivering a series of bruising BHs and Brug double faulting to end it

4 breaks on the trot, starting with Med serving 4-3 up. Misses pair of BHs (1 neutral, 1 dtl winner attempt) to end the game
Med breaks back, scoring with 2 net points early, including a return-approach, there’s another double and and Med outlasts Brug for the error to close
Bad game by Med, missing groundies in short-ish rallies to again restore parity
Med’s power BHs are in thick of things as he breaks again. And he serves out by utilizing net from 15-30 down

6-1 second set accurately reflects gap between players. Action remains similar, with Med more often than before able to move in and punish anything short with power and/or net play. After going down a break for 1-2, Brug begins to play very quickly

He plays quickly by default (so does Med), but it becomes unnaturally swift, with hardly any time between points. If he’s harried, it doesn’t extend to his shot choices, which remain similar to before. BH stumbles a bit briefly, but nothing too bad

And despite scoreline, games are competitive. Med’s 3 service games last 8, 8 and 6 points respectively. After Brug opens to hold, Med wins next games

Particularly spectacular finale to ecnd second set, with Med lashing FH inside-out winner from routine position and BH cc one after drawing a weak-ish ball he can move to to bring up break/set point. Where he overpowers Brug to take net and draw passing error

Then moves to 3-0 with a break in the third. Just more of the same to get the break

Brug doesn’t roll over and stages mild fight back. He’s got break points in game 5 (both erased with winners), and survives deuce game to hold after that, with Med finally missing a volley, that’s slightly wide and another BH dtl winner attempt

Sight of Brug overpowering Med to take net and win point brings home how rarely he’s been able to do so (and how often boot has been on other leg). Couple of winner attempts misses from Med - the last a particularly bad OH, sees Brug break for 3-4

And that’s the last game he wins. Med opens next game with maybe the shot of the match, in a match hardly lacking for contenders for that prize, an unlikely FH cc passing winner. His FH continues to wreck havoc as he breaks from an excellent FH inside-out approach to take lead again

He serves out to love

Summing up, high end demonstration of drawing and attacking short ball tennis from Medvedev. He has power off the ground off both wings, which allied to depth, draws not-strong and weak balls that he then steps inside court to hammer again, but wider and more aggressively still

FH has most winners, but BHs ability to dominate action is just as impressive and important. There’s no safe place to play to him, and his BH particularly bosses Bruguera’s about, which is not an easy task. Also makes full trip forward to forecourt to finish, judging well when to do that, and when to aim for a winner from inside baseline

Bruguera’s not bad. He looks to grind, but those plans are whopped away and he can’t cope with opponents very strong attacking play. He gets a little flustered at times, but that doesn’t affect how he plays

 

[Galvermegs]

There is a thread about best claycourters not to win roland garros. I cant say thiem and coria are worse players than medvedev in any way. However soderling and corretja while perhaps better in general and with better results elsewhere on other surfaces... are actually not as impressive on clay as medevedev at his best.
Without the rain delay maybe med would have won RG. But then his namesake showed a collapse from a big lead,without interruption, was possible too.