Match Stats/Report - A. Medvedev vs Kafelnikov, Hamburg final, 1994

[Waspsting]

Andrei Medvedev beat Yevgeny Kafelnikov 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 in the Hamburg final, 1994 on clay

It was Medvedev’s first title at the event and he would defend it the following year. Kafelnikov was unseeded and this would be his only clay Masters final. The two had recently met in Monte Carlo semi-final, with Medvedev winning en route to the tile

Medvedev won 120 points, Kafelnikov 115

(Note: I’m missing 2 points entirely and serve direction for 1 other
Missing points -
- Set 1, Game 2, Points 1-2 - 2 Medvedev service points that he won
- Set 3, Game 2, Point 3 - serve direction and corresponding return data unknown)

Serve Stats
Medvedev...
- 1st serve percentage (85/117) 73%
- 1st serve points won (51/85) 60%
- 2nd serve points won (19/32) 59%
- ?? serve points won (2/2)
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (19/117) 16%

Kafelnikov...
- 1st serve percentage (60/116) 52%
- 1st serve points won (41/60) 68%
- 2nd serve points won (27/56) 48%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (14/116) 12%

Serve Patterns
Medvedev served...
- to FH 52%
- to BH 43%
- to Body 5%

Kafelnikov served...
- to FH 27%
- to BH 62%
- to Body 12%

Return Stats
Medvedev made...
- 99 (36 FH, 63 BH), including 4 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 12 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (2 FH, 4 BH)
- 6 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (99/113) 88%

Kafelnikov made...
- 94 (51 FH, 42 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 12 Unforced (6 FH, 6 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 5 Forced (5 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (94/113) 83%

Break Points
Medvedev 6/13 (7 games)
Kafelnikov 4/4

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Medvedev 32 (15 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)
Kafelnikov 27 (15 FH, 5 BH, 4 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

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

- the FHV was a pass from no-man's land

Kafelnikov's FHs - 7 cc (1 at net, 3 passes), 1 cc/inside-in, 4 dtl (1 return, 3 passes), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-out/dtl,
- BHs - 4 dtl (1 at net, 1 pass), 1 inside-out/longline

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Medvedev 70
- 52 Unforced (30 FH, 20 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)
- 18 Forced (10 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.0

Kafelnikov 64
- 52 Unforced (26 FH, 25 BH, 1 BHV)
- 12 Forced (7 FH, 5 BH)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.7

(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 15/25 (60%) at net

Kafelnikov was...
- 22/34 (65%) at net, including...
- 3/3 (100%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
Winds mold this match into a who-blinks-first affair that looks 10 years behind its time, with two players trading routine groundies until someone misses. Medvedev has slightly better BH and wins, but there’s barely anything between the two players

Despite Med winning full 4 games more, he only wins 5 more points
Another way of looking at it is he wins 1 more point than he serves, Kaf 1 less

Break points - Med 6/13 (7 games), Kaf 4/4

That looks more convincing from Med’s point of view. Its also a bit strange. Med having so many more break points and having them in almost twice the number of games speaks to Kaf having a harder time holding. But he hasn’t really - points served in match read Med 119, Kaf 116

Its more like a game here, a game there - a game Med holds to 30, a game Med breaks to 30 amidst both players holding to 30 regularly, with Kaf having a few more holds to 15 than Med. Something like that. The point is, there isn’t a definitive trend that would promise one player or other coming out ahead

Breakdown of points looks even closer. Med’s +5 unreturned serves (in percentage, he has 16% unreturned serves, Kaf 12%) accounts for his 5 point overall lead (I’m also missing 2 points Med wins)

With action being fairly passive (to be clear, its not as passive as 1984 type stuff - but it is closer to it than typical 1994 stuff, which was generally considerably more harder hitting and attacking), UEs are good place to start looking for differences between the players

UEs - both players 52

Neutral UEs is usually the backbone of matches like this
Neutral UEs - Med 30 (+1 defensive UE), Kaf 35

Slim advantage for Med, again, like the freebies, fitting right into the overall difference slot

UEs by groundstrokes
- Med BH 20
- Kaf BH 25, Kaf FH 26
- Med FH 30

If Med has better BH (he also leads winners on that side by a good 10-5 margin), his FH is as far behind Kaf’s as Kaf’s BH is from his

Both players with 15 FH winners and 7 volley/OH winners - so Med leading BH winners by 5 makes up full difference in total winners (Med 32, Kaf 27)

So, Med winning 5 more points in the match, while having…
- 5 more BH winners
- 5 fewer neutral UEs
- 5 more unreturned serves
(with 2 of the points he wins unaccounted for)

Slim margins for 4 good length sets of tennis on clay, and 3 different ways of looking at how he has better of things, however slightly. The differences are so minor over such length of a match as to seem almost a coin flip deal. Flip a coin 4 times, its not odd for it to land 3 times on 1 side, once on the other

Med generally plays more maturely in his shot choices. He also has a few more minor fluctuations, when he goes off and gets loose with errors. That’s about it - match is even, Med just happens to win it

Serve & Return
In counts - Med 73%, Kaf 52%

Is what it looks like. Med rolling in serves to keep high in count, Kaf trying to get them down with some force. Breeze makes effective serving tricky, leaving aside surface not suiting it

Amidst rolled in serving, Med occasionally biffs one down. Surprise element tends to make these effective in drawing error or soft return. Kaf serves conventional - powerful firsts (not too troublesome for Med to handle), toned down seconds, but even his first serve points tend to peter down to who-blinks-first rallies

First serve won - Med 60%, Kaf 68%
Second serve won - Med 59%, Kaf 48%

Those figures are in line with Med’s 2 serves being equally strong (or weak), Kaf with bigger first serve than second. Taking Med serving to be a 2 ‘second’ serves showing, his court superiority also comes seems to come through

That’d be most logical interpretation. Its not quite accurate. There’s a lot of shades of grey in the actual picture

Med does serve slightly stronger first serves with occasional powerful one. So Med has either under-performed on first serve points or over-performed on seconds to keep the two virtually equal. And while Kaf does serve bigger firsts - you’d be able to confidently guess what type of serve he’s sent down on a blind test, whereas it wouldn’t be easy for Med - its not to extent of his winning rates. Kaf’s either over-performed on first serves or under-performed on seconds

To be clear, there are differences across service points. Its not a Borg-Vilas match where all 4 types of points are interchangeable - the serve just a rolled in point starter, the return readily made and then 50-50 rallies. The point is, the difference across service points is (no variation for Med across his 2, big one for Kaf) is surprising and not in keeping with different type of action

Med’s way of not going for much with the serve and keeping high in count seems smarter way of going about things, but Kaf’s been success going his route too

On the return, both players are smartly conventional. Med’s able to get a few good, deep thumped returns off. In line with differences in Kaf’s serve, more are against second serves, which is one reason for discrepancy in Kaf’s success across his 2 serves. He’s not particularly troubled by first serves, but gives up the odd soft return

Kaf is more pointed in looking to return bossily, taking second return from a pace in the court. Realistically, he could look to do the same against firsts, but usually doesn’t

Taking above 2 points together, biggest surprise is Med winning evenly across his two serves, while differences in returning quality somewhat explains Kaf’s. Stress on ‘somewhat’. Med’s not blasting second serves all the time or fending back firsts either. Subtly and over a good number of points does differences in his return emerge. And its not big enough difference that you’d think Kaf would win full 20% more first serve points than seconds

Ultimately, what matters is Med with 16% to 12% advantage in freebies, Med with 6 return UEs to Kaf's 12. Its not much, but every little bit helps

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline (Net)
Mostly who-blinks-first, some attempts at power hitting (more from Kaf, just like the serve)

UEs dead equal at 52. Off the ground, Kaf with 1 fewer

UEs by groundshots -
- Med BH 20
- Kaf BH 25
- Kaf FH 26
- Med FH 30

UEs by type
- defensive - Med 1
- neutral - Med 30, Kaf 35
- attacking - Med 9, Kaf 15
- winner attempts - Med 12, Kaf 2

Errors forced - Med 12, Kaf 18
Winners - Med 32, Kaf 27

With action so simple, play can readily be analyzed like a mathematical excericse

From neutral base, Kaf is more apt to edge towards pressuring, if not forceful, with his hitting. Its probably not worth it. He’s not hitting hard or wide enough to force errors or even strain Med’s movement or shot tolerance. That little bit extra he hits with though does raise his error rate

That might be all there is in the neutral UE difference. Coupled with Med’s UEs being slightly tougher shots because they’re drawn by slightly more powerful ones

Kaf’s little extra force doesn’t open up anymore attacking chances either. Med’s more tempered rallying is wiser way of playing, and gets him an edge on first line, who-blinks-first error rates from medium and more length rallies, usually

(This entire report would be replete with the ‘word’ slightly, so unless stress is required, I’ll leave it out. Suffice to say, the two are very even matched and there are no big differences between them)

Both players with 15 FH winners, both with 7 volleying ones
Difference in winners is thus entirely made up of Med’s significant 10-5 advantage in BH

Winner attempt UEs - Med 12, Kaf 2

That doesn’t look like Med being tempered or wise. In fact, it looks like Kaf is brilliant in his judgment of when to go for the finisher. That’s not fully true. Med picks his times to go for winner very wisely, indulging when down in return games, or well up in service ones, when it doesn’t matter too much if he makes or misses them. Its part of the maturity he shows. To a degree, he’s bought himself the luxury by being more consistent neutrally

He’s also more apt to take on BH winners. On BH, he has easy power when he wants to use it. Unlike Kaf, whose average BH is more powerful but has to strain for point ending power. Kaf also doesn’t look for BH dtl winners the way Med does

5 more winners from Med, due to his BH shot-making and finishing - good for him
The extra winner attempt UEs - not too important, he picks his moments well

Errors forced - Med 12, Kaf 18
Attacking UEs - Med 9, Kaf 15

Both coming away +3 points won
In general, an ‘attacking shot’ usually won’t draw an error on clay and even if it does, error has good chance of being marked UE anyway (situation is very different, faster the surface gets)
In this match, with checked hitting, that’s all doubly so

Those are poor ratios for both players. They stay even, so it doesn’t matter from competitive stand point. It speaks to how its good idea not to attack and just play who-blinks-first. Only who-blinks-first is also very equal, so that wouldn’t matter competitively either

Extent of what those numbers are saying is Kaf is harder hitting, a little more attacking. Neither player gets ahead of the other on that front

Rallying to net - Med 15/25 at 60%, Kaf 19/31 at 61%

No difference there either. Kaf being a little more adventurous (he also wins 3/3 serve-volleying). Coupled with being slightly harder hitter, coming in more might do him good. Winning rate might be same, but whoever comes in more is likely to get further and further ahead

Its not that simple. Approaches have to be worked out just so. Its in fact Med whose more proactive in seeking net. He tends to manufacture approaches from neutral positions, while Kaf comes in after gaining advantage from back

Among other things, that leaves Kaf with better passing propects, so for Med to win at same rate in forecourt is a relative win for him. Kaf getting to net a little more is part of his reward of being harder hitter and looking to ‘boss’ action a little more

Gist of all this - Medium to long length rallies, largely who-blinks-first is staple. Kaf slightly harder hitter and looking to lead action a little more. It has advantages (drawing more mildly pressured errors, giving him little more chances to come in from good position). It has its disadvantages (his errors going up)

Med a little more steady in the who-blinks-first stuff. Has a little loss of concentration at one stage. Is less hard hitting, but more capable of upping his force without risk. Chooses his times to go for his shots so that it doesn’t matter much if he misses
His BH is better. More varied, more in control, more capable of attacking effectively - particularly in going for point ending shots

Virtually nothing between the two players is ultimate gist

Match Progression
Firm-ish, neutral rallies make up base of action for first set, as it more or less does all match. Play is dual winged. Kaf has slightly bigger serve, Med throws the odd bigger one out. Kaf returns from inside court regularly, Med occasionally thumps a return deep. Kaf tends to come in after pushing Med back, Med manufactures approches from neutral positions (neither player comes in much)

Match starts with trade of breaks. 3 BH blinks get Kaf broken to 15. Med has 3 BH UEs in getting broken back in 8 point game too, with Kaf striking a FH cc winner from up the court for good measure

From 40-0 up, Med misses FHs to get game to deuce, before holding for 3-2. Then breaks in another deuce game, where FH blinks opens door for Med. He helps in getting through with a big BH inside-out return against first set that forces an error, before Kaf misses a BH to a deep ball to lose the game and fall behind 2-3

Both players, particularly Med, start coming to net more after that (this is part of Med adjusting his aggression, depending on situation). Kaf survives 2 more deuce games, and Med’s taken to deuce on the serve-out (no break points in any of the games). Few good shots and plays - the pick of them is Med drop-shotting Kaf to net and making a wide, low FHV passing winner from no-man’s land to the get

Second set begins and Med abandons net seeking, falling back to who-blinks first. The tennis is similar to earlier

2 trade breaks in moving from 1-1 to 2-2. Med breaks first in 10 point game of long rallies ending with errors. He finishes with some style, squeezing an unlikely BH dtl passing winner to bring up second brreak point, where he forces an error with depth
Bad game by Med to hand break back, giving up UEs quickly in rallies

Nice, lively game as Med holds deuce game to move to 3-3. And then breaks in another deuce game, less lively but more than match’s norm. Again, it’s a BH dtl passing winner that brings up break point, which he pulls off after being run from side to side all point. Kaf misses an edgy, third ball BH dtl on break point

Remaining games are all holds to 30. Med’s at net 3 points in a row on the serve-out, setting up the last one with a nice third ball FH dtl and ending the game with a wonderful BH dtl winner from routine position

There’s a little more power-hitting, attacking tennis in third set. Kaf survives break point in opening game when Med misses a FH dtl approach shot

Med goes ‘off’ for 5 minutes and its enough to get him broken. Misses a couple of FH winner attempts to go down 0-30, serving at 2-3 - and the shot choices stand out like sore thumbs, even with action being a little hotter than earlier. Good, winning wide FH inside-out return from Kaf seals the break

Med starts next game with another winner attempt miss, but gets his head back together soon after. Damage has been done though, and Kaf holds his way to ending the set. The BH dtl winner attempt Med misses on set point, with score at 40-30 is a little odd

Horrendous game from Med to lose his serve to love to open the fourth set - errors to routine balls in short rallies. But he breaks right back in a typical game of long rallies, scoring with a FH cc passing winner that he holds, and plays late, working with very little angle

Brilliant game by Med in holding to love for 3-2 - 3 third ball ground winners (FH cc, BH inside-out, FH inside-in) and drawing an error after defending well. The BH inside-out stands out, and is one of the more angled ones you’ll see

Breaks to love to follow up, Kaf blinking up the errors and double faulting on break point
Med’s taken to 10 points to consolidate, without facing break point. Game starts with a Kaf BH dtl winner from up the court and ends with one from Med, a shot out of routine position
Med serves out awhile later, ending the match with a blistering BH cc from slightly soft ball

Summing up, rather passive match, with considerable and constant breeze curbing the players power and dampening their willingness to attack. That being so, action turns into who-blinks-first neutral rallies for the most part, with occasional attacking spikes

Kafelnikov is harder hitting and looks to lead action (if not attack). He’s not hard hitting enough to bother Medvedev much and if anything, his errors go up for his approach a little more than Medvedev’s do for being slightly more reactive

Medvedev’s BH is better than his opponents - it’s the steadiest groundstroke on show but at choice times, deadly too. Kafelnikov’s on average is a little harder hit, but he doesn’t indulge in shot-making with it
FHs are about equal in shot-making. Kafelnikov’s is steadier and again, on average harder hit

Medvedev seems to have a grip on what’s needed at different stages a little more than Kafelnikov. While more passive in general, seems to pick his moments to go for bigger serve, deeper return, manufacture an approach, go for winner from the back

Still, next to nothing between the two players. Medvedev, playing with a more match-savvy head, comes out ahead

 

[Galvermegs]

Kafelnikov was very unlucky to not win a masters and i dont think it is fair to say his majors were flukes or anything just because he didnt quite collect a masters. Many other accomplished players did not make a yec final either
Medvedev also may have expected more than one major final at rg. He never found his peak form for that lomg.. a shame.

 

[JasonZ]

my two unfavourite 90s players (and stich), after thomas muster.

 

[Galvermegs]

my two unfavourite 90s players (and stich), after thomas muster.

Was there anything wrong with stichs game for its actual style?

 

[JasonZ]

Was there anything wrong with stichs game for its actual style?

no, i disliked his personality.

 

[Galvermegs]

no, i disliked his personality.

Yes he was a bit pompous
I dont know if its worth criticising medvedev these days.. the female players only fight on court, from over that way.

 

[Waspsting]

Kafelnikov was very unlucky to not win a masters...

he's 1 of just 3 players to reach masters finals across all 4 surfaces/conditions
And the guy to reach the most finals without winning 1

...and i dont think it is fair to say his majors were flukes or anything just because he didnt quite collect a masters

Not for that reason, but I think he was a little lucky to win the French, with conditions that year being strangely quick. And in normal conditions, Muster would have been a strong favourite, unlike much of the 90s when French Open had no clear favourite but a lot of dark horses

Kafelnikov. Stich. Sampras. Rosset
The most unlikely set of semi-finalists at any Slam. If you look at that line-up and take a guess what the surface is, clay would be a distant last choice
Its not a coincidence that all of those guys had their best ever result at the French that year
Kafelnikov's win-loss record on clay is under 60%
He had his moments, but French Open champion material... was a bit of a stretch. Probably the weakest French Open champion there's been

The Aus title is fine. Sampras wasn't there but Sampras wasn't some brick wall at Australian Open or in late 1998 or early 1999... of course Sampras is contender for any hard court event he's in, but nowhere close to so strong a one that a win in his absence becomes 'lucky' (particularly Aus Open)

Medvedev also may have expected more than one major final at rg. He never found his peak form for that lomg.. a shame

Med was certainly good enough to win a French Open

Like Muster, he lost a lot of times to good clay courters (think it was the eventual champion 6 or 7 times)
But also like Muster, my feeling is if you lose to a strong opponent that many times without going on to win... then probably just not good enough (Muster of course, did win)

Can't expect to win a Slam without going through a tough opponent or 2

Med's greatest success' coming in Hamburg also isn't promising for French Open prospects. Hamburg was always a bit weird, with the cold and wind and fairly quick, low bounce conditions

2 qualifiers won the tournament, both beating big clay courters in the final
1 never won another tournament
the other won 2 matches for the next year
bunch of unseeded players and finalists too (Med among them)

Ironically, he reached his only final while having a terrible year (think he was 1-5 or something on clay going into the event)

Still, Med would have been a bona fida contender at French, let alone a very good dark horse contender

 

[Galvermegs]

he's 1 of just 3 players to reach masters finals across all 4 surfaces/conditions
And the guy to reach the most finals without winning 1



Not for that reason, but I think he was a little lucky to win the French, with conditions that year being strangely quick. And in normal conditions, Muster would have been a strong favourite, unlike much of the 90s when French Open had no clear favourite but a lot of dark horses

Kafelnikov. Stich. Sampras. Rosset
The most unlikely set of semi-finalists at any Slam. If you look at that line-up and take a guess what the surface is, clay would be a distant last choice
Its not a coincidence that all of those guys had their best ever result at the French that year
Kafelnikov's win-loss record on clay is under 60%
He had his moments, but French Open champion material... was a bit of a stretch. Probably the weakest French Open champion there's been

The Aus title is fine. Sampras wasn't there but Sampras wasn't some brick wall at Australian Open or in late 1998 or early 1999... of course Sampras is contender for any hard court event he's in, but nowhere close to so strong a one that a win in his absence becomes 'lucky' (particularly Aus Open)


Med was certainly good enough to win a French Open

Like Muster, he lost a lot of times to good clay courters (think it was the eventual champion 6 or 7 times)
But also like Muster, my feeling is if you lose to a strong opponent that many times without going on to win... then probably just not good enough (Muster of course, did win)

Can't expect to win a Slam without going through a tough opponent or 2

Med's greatest success' coming in Hamburg also isn't promising for French Open prospects. Hamburg was always a bit weird, with the cold and wind and fairly quick, low bounce conditions

2 qualifiers won the tournament, both beating big clay courters in the final
1 never won another tournament
the other won 2 matches for the next year
bunch of unseeded players and finalists too (Med among them)

Ironically, he reached his only final while having a terrible year (think he was 1-5 or something on clay going into the event)

Still, Med would have been a bona fida contender at French, let alone a very good dark horse contender

Interesting stuff on kafelnikov. However from what i know agassi was very inconsistent on clay some seasons and often didnt do much pre RG and still could be a factor.

Gaudio was alright in smaller events on clay.. especially those close to his home nation. But not too sure about him in masters events..he never made a slam quarter apart from the one roland garros.
Yes when he played kafelnikov on clay in davis cup it was a rout.. but a post prime kaf.

I don't really know RG champs pre 1980 too well.. but again panetta and noah can be argued to be worse champs than the grumpy russian, depending where you draw the line

My final case for his defence.. good contests with guga in all 3 qfs that guga eventually was the champion of said event in. And one other semi... losing to muster. He was much better at the biggest clay event than the biggest grass one (but perhaps flopped a bit at the us open also).