Match Stats/Report - Becker vs Lendl, Masters final 1988

[Waspsting]

Boris Becker beat Ivan Lendl 5-7, 7-6(5), 3-6, 6-2, 7-6(5) in the final of the Masters (Year End Championship/ World Tour Final) 1988 on carpet

It was the first of Becker's 3 Year-End titles and he had previously lost finals to his opponent in 1985
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ecker-masters-final1985.611378/#post-12067779 and 1986 https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rt-lendl-vs-becker-masters-final-1986.622294/ , as well as a round robin match at the event in 1987. For Lendl, it was the last of his 9 finals - consecutive or otherwise

Becker won 164 points, Lendl 162

Becker serve-volleyed off all but 1 first serve and rarely on the second

(Note: In a small number of points - about 3 or 4 - it seems probable that the video of the match cut out missed first serves. In these cases, I've exercised judgment in assessing if the point was a first serve or second)


Serve Stats
Becker....
- 1st serve percentage (85/164) 52%
- 1st serve points won (66/85) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (42/79) 53%
- Aces 12 , Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (53/164) 32%

Lendl. ...
- 1st serve percentage (93/162) 57%
- 1st serve points won (64/93) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (42/69) 61%
- Aces 10, Service Winners 4
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (39/162) 24%



Serve Pattern
Becker served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 70%
- to Body 4%

Lendl served...
- to FH 21%
- to BH 76%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Becker made...
- 121 (26 FH, 95 BH), including 3 runaround FHs and 8 return-approaches (mostly not chip-charges)
- 23 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (2 FH, 8 BH), including 2 chip-charge attempts
- 13 Forced (4 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (121/160) 76%

Lendl made...
- 107 (23 FH, 84 BH)
- 6 Winners (1 FH, 5 BH)
- 39 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (3 FH, 3 BH)
- 33 Forced (9 FH, 24 BH)
- Return Rate (107/160) 67%


Break Points
Becker 5/10 (6 games)
Lendl 5/13 (8 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Becker 39 (1 FH, 8 BH, 8 FHV, 16 BHV, 1 OH)
Lendl 47 (18 FH, 17 BH, 10 FHV, 2 BHV)

Becker had 18 S/V point winners - 11 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 1 OH) and 7 second volleys (4 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

- 2 return-approach point winners (1 BHV, 1 OH)

- the FH was i-o

- 5 passes, all BH dtl (1 a slice)

- 3 non-pass BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl and a net chord dribbler on match point

Lendl had 24 passes (9 FH, 14 BH, 1 FHV)

- the 9 FH passes (3 cc, 3 dtl, 2 i-o, 1 straight down the middle longline). 1 of the inside-outs was a return

- the 14 BH passes (5 cc, 6 dtl, 3 i-o). 5 were returns

- the FHV pass was a swinging shot from well behind the service line and not a net point for Lendl

- 9 non-pass FHs (4 cc, 2 dtl, 1 running down a drop shot). 3 non-pass BHs (2 dtl, 1 @ net)

- in addition to the pass, 1 other FHV was a non-net shot. It was a swinging shot struck from closer to the baseline than the service line

- almost all volleys were deeply hit


Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Becker 72
- 36 Unforced (11 FH, 20 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
- 36 Forced (13 FH, 12 BH, 2 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 7 BHV)


Lendl 70
- 24 Unforced (5 FH, 16 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 46 Forced (18 FH, 26 BH, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV)

(Note: All half-volleys refer to such shots played at net)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Becker was 95/135 (70%) at net, including 57/78 (73%) serve-volleying - 53/70 (76%) off 1st serves, 4/8 (50%) off second - and 7/10 return-approaching

He was 1/1 when forced back from net

Lendl was 25/38 (66%) at net, including 1/3 (33%) serve-volleying - all off first serves

He was 1/2 when forced back from net




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Match Report
A great match. Becker's play has gone up in leaps and bounds from his sorry showings in '85 and '86 though I do think Lendl's has dropped a bit (even considering his facing a tougher opponent). The end result is the two men are virtually even in their (high) level of play, and the match goes down to the wire. What more could you want?

Previously, Lendl was apt to control Becker with steady crosscourt backhand exchanges. Not this time. First, Becker hits his own BH cc with more authority than in previous years and second, he turns the dynamics around with BH dtl shots. There aren't many slices hit by either men and the ones that are are hit defensively, out of necessity. In other words, these are fast paced, dynamic BH-BH exchanges

Both players utilize runaround or backaway FHs inside-out to the others BH. Here Lendl stands better off... he holds off the Germans FH in such exchanges fairly comfortably, while Boris struggles when the roles are reversed

Becker's ground game is tight. He makes fewer errors than before while hitting with greater power, overall putting him close to Lendl. Still, Lendl remains the better baseliner, though he's a bit more error prone than usual

Becker serve-volleys off all his first serves (except one point towards the end of the final set tie-break) and keeps Lendl at bay with aces, forced return errors, volley winners, forced errors on the pass.... the bread and butter of the big serve-volleyer. He's also actively looking to approach in rally situations and does so well

I think Lendl was the better player for three sets - or even the tightly contested first two. He has little let downs at times (for example, he dropped serve in the first set through 3 successive BH UEs), but for all Becker's improvements, the Czech still edged him in play for all the old reasons; his steadiness and solidity > Becker's aggresion... but it's a livelier mix, with both Lendl's baseline aggresion and Becker's steadiness up from previous encounters

The fourth set turns that on it's head. Lendl had held 15/16 games going into it and not faced a break point since the first set. But in the fourth, he's broken 3/4 times and what's more, that's down to Becker raising his level. 0 UEs in the set for Boris

Lendl restores parity in the 5th, til we reach the epic climax. I don't think i've watched a more thrilling finale

No break points for either player and seemingly headed to a tiebreaker, Lendl breaks sensationally with three pass winners and a double fault from Boris to leave himself serving for the match

Becker breaks back just as sensationally - taking the net to force an error, return-approaching to dispatch a smash and finally, passing Lendl. So we get that "inevitable" tiebreaker after all

The tiebreaker is high quality stuff too- Becker taking the net the first seven points (4-3), Lendl hammering passes and return winners. The crucial point is one where Lendl makes a complete hash of a fairly simple pass.... given the consistent pressure he was put under, it's understandable

And of course, that famous 30+ stroke last point that ends with a net chord winner

Statistical points of interest/surprises
- Note Becker with just the 1 FH winner

- Lendl leading on winners and UEs, with total errors almost the same. It's the serve that kept Becker even stevens

- near identical non-S/V net percentages

Becker 38/57 @ 66.7%
Lendl 24/35 @ 68.6%

Given Lendl's clear superiority on the pass, I think its reasonable to say Becker was the better volleyer in this match

 

[krosero]

This looks great, it's one of my favorite matches and I've always been curious what the full stats might be. Will read with interest (I also have a boxscore).

 

[krosero]

So Becker and Lendl have very similar numbers in a lot of categories: aces/service winners (14 for each player), 1st serve percentage, break points. Service direction, they look practically like the same player.

Lendl does have significantly fewer UE's as expected, and an edge in non-service winners, all offset as you said by Becker's edge in unreturned serves.

But nothing really unexpected in those numbers.

Lendl. ...
- 1st serve percentage (93/162) 57%
- 1st serve points won (64/93) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (42/69) 61%
- Aces 10, Service Winners 4
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (39/162) 24%

Lendl on second serve stands out. How often would you expect to see someone lose a match while winning 61% of his second-serve points? Offhand I can't recall any others.

Becker was pretty high on second serve too, 53%. For both players to be comfortably above 50% on second serve, seems like an indication of a well-played match.

And they were fairly close in this category, but in some of their later matches it happened again, with bigger gaps. 1989 USO, Lendl lost despite winning 59% on second serve -- and Becker was way down at 39%.

How often would you expect to see the winner of the match so shaky on second serve?

1991 AO, Lendl was 52% on second serve, Becker 49%, and Becker won but not such a great difference there.

From these numbers, especially the '89 match, I wonder if Lendl wasn't taking full advantage of his opportunities.

But maybe it reflects nothing more than Becker living (somewhat dangerously) on the power of his first serve.

When you look at Lendl's success on 1st or 2nd serve, there's not a great difference. With Becker there's a greater contrast; it mattered more whether he got his first serve in.

Below the numbers for 1st serve percentage - success on 1st - success on 2nd

1988 YEC
L 57-69-61
B 52-78-53

1989 USO
L 63-63-59
B 55-77-39

1991 AO
L 55-75-52
B 68-69-49

____________________

In any case, at least here Lendl was mostly getting his first serve in. I guess that's not such a critical factor since he turned out to do so well on 2nd serve -- but at least he didn't miss as many first serves as he did in the USO final that he lost to Wilander three months earlier. He made only 42% of his first serves in that match, which was low enough, but what really hurt him was that in the fifth set he dropped to 24%.

What was his 1st serve % in the fifth set here?

 

[krosero]

a UPI boxscore

After '88 I didn't see this match again for about 20 years. I was thrilled in '88 that Lendl was beaten. But two decades later, the deepest impression the match left on me was how hard Lendl fought.

Everyone knows how hard Lendl worked to get to the top. But you can see that tenacity in these marathon matches that he lost in '88. He did not give up his top ranking by fading away or dropping off. The top spot had to be wrested away from him, point by arduous point.

 

[Moose Malloy]

@krosero
Mac was at 62% on 2nd serve pts vs Lendl at the 82 USO. I mentioned it in the thread on all their Masters meetings. Definitely one of the strangest stats I've come across in all the matches I've taken stats on(for someone to have that good a % on 2nd serve and lose in straights)

 

[krosero]

@krosero
Mac was at 62% on 2nd serve pts vs Lendl at the 82 USO. I mentioned it in the thread on all their Masters meetings. Definitely one of the strangest stats I've come across in all the matches I've taken stats on(for someone to have that good a % on 2nd serve and lose in straights)

Thanks Moose, that's what I was looking for, post more if you know of more.

Totally forgot you posted that so recently!

Those numbers are pretty wild -- Mac 71% on 1st, 62% on second, still loses in 3 straight. Lendl 84% on 1st, 57% on 2nd, good enough to win in straights but all the sets were close and Lendl's edge in total points was only 110-99.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Came across another one - Cash was at 61% on 2nd serve vs Becker at 88 W and lost in straight sets.

 

[Waspsting]

Lendl had 61% second serve points won in '83 Masters finals straight set loss to McEnroe

1991 AO, Lendl was 52% on second serve, Becker 49%, and Becker won but not such a great difference there.

From these numbers, especially the '89 match, I wonder if Lendl wasn't taking full advantage of his opportunities.

But maybe it reflects nothing more than Becker living (somewhat dangerously) on the power of his first serve.

When you look at Lendl's success on 1st or 2nd serve, there's not a great difference. With Becker there's a greater contrast; it mattered more whether he got his first serve in.

I think Becker is a hard guy to capture with stats.

Like Sampras, he was keyed in on the important points and might take it easy or have a wild swing on unimportant ones.... which doesn't get reflected so well in the total stats. Lendl is the opposite - seems like he approaches every point the same way

I don't think Becker did much of that in this match, but generally speaking

I'd like to see what he's made of when he has a bad serving day, a low 1st serve percentage day, say sub 45%

What was (Lendl's) 1st serve % in the fifth set here?

55%, but I think you'll agree the raw number comparison looks better here

Lendl 21/38
Becker 22/38

First serve points won
Lendl 15/21
Becker 16/22

Second serve points won
Lendl 9/17
Becker 8/16

But maybe it reflects nothing more than Becker living (somewhat dangerously) on the power of his first serve.

I agree. But credit to him for having the guts to serve-volley 100% on first serves. Didn't even come close to doing so in '85 and '86.

The power of s/v off a good serve is telling. See 86 and 82 finals

In words, I say Lendl thrashed his opponents those years.
In facts, 1 break per set

By contrast, when a non-Serve-volleyer "gets thrashed"... you usually see something like a 3, 2 and 1 scoreline

The 1st and 2nd serve points won for each player you've honed in on are showing how much better Lendl was from the baseline.... it appears greater than my subjective impression was

They both have excellent second serves. Lendl's gives him enough of an edge that he can control the points.... i've seen this in virtually every Masters final ( '84 is his worst - "only" 52%) - McEnroe, Becker, Wilander it doesn't matter: Lendl owns his second serve

Becker's ain't shabby either. Lendl mostly just push-slices it back, I wouldn't say he "attacks it"

a UPI boxscore

Look at that - identical finding for Lendl's net numbers!

Becker they have about 30 fewer approaches - and about 30 more 'service winners', just like the '86 box score you provided

I thought a "placement winner" is a clean winner, while "winner" includes non-clean winners?

Doesn't look like it... including aces, I have Becker with 51 (5 short of their figure), Lendl with 57 (8 short), so they've probably chucked a few of my forced errors into the placements

Simeltaneously, they're harder than me in judging unforced errors. Including doubles and returns I have Becker with 50 (7 short) and Lendl 32 (9 short), so they've chucked some of my FEs into UEs as well as placement winners?

The stats taker was simeltaneously harsher and gentler than me!

 

[krosero]

Came across another one - Cash was at 61% on 2nd serve vs Becker at 88 W and lost in straight sets.

Great, here's the full numbers:

B 54-82-58
C 60-67-61

I found three others, all in very tight 4-setters or 5-setters, all GS finals: Connors at '75 AO, Mac at '80 Wimb, Borg '81 Wimb.

1975 AO
N 62-80-45
C 71-64-66

1980 W
B 62-71-59
M 63-68-63

1981 W
M 62-76-49
B 53-70-61

All of these, and Becker-Cash, were described at the time as high-quality matches. And logically a match probably is high quality, if the loser is serving very well.

Will keep looking.

I think this could be most common on grass since all service numbers are highest there.

 

[krosero]

Lendl had 61% second serve points won in '83 Masters finals straight set loss to McEnroe

Good.
This is clearly more common than I had expected.

55%, but I think you'll agree the raw number comparison looks better here

Lendl 21/38
Becker 22/38

First serve points won
Lendl 15/21
Becker 16/22

Second serve points won
Lendl 9/17
Becker 8/16

Ha, yes! Numbers are nearly identical. They're practically in lock-step with each other.

I thought a "placement winner" is a clean winner, while "winner" includes non-clean winners?

"Placement winner" (the old term for non-service winner) probably always included judgment calls on top of clean winners. Bud Collins once referred to a rule that was used -- a player's racquet might touch the ball but it's a placement, or winner, if you judge that there's no realistic play on the ball -- and he attributed the rule to Allison Danzig, the journalist for the New York Times who was writing about tennis as far back as 1920 IIRC.

What's unclear is just how many judgment calls were added to the clean winners, by Danzig or anyone else in the pre-video era.


EDIT TO ADD: You have Becker and Lendl with 39 and 47 placement winners, respectively. The boxscore has 56 and 65. So that's a lot of judgment calls that they added -- almost 20 for each player.

 

[Moose Malloy]

@Waspsting
Becker served at 46% vs Edberg in the 89 W final. And per the commentators he was 48% for the tournament coming into the final. Guessing he was sub 45 in at least one match that tournament.

 

[krosero]

We now can do the AM's for all three of the Lendl-Becker YEC finals, using Wasp's UE's

1985
Lendl: 21.97%
Becker: 6.36%

1986
Lendl: 30.27%
Becker: 14.59%

1988
Lendl: 24.54%
Becker: 25.15%

So Wasp these numbers agree with your observation about Becker being much better in '88 and Lendl still great but just down from his very best.

 

[Waspsting]

I notice I've made a mistake - Lendl's point tally is adding up to 160 - 2 short. Becker's is fine. Let me correct that and I'll get back to making sense of the box score methodology, but I have made some headway on that front.


They have Lendl with 10 aces and 19 service winners for a total of 29
I have Lendl with unreturned serves 39
Difference is 10. And I have Becker with 10 "Return Unforced errors" - match

Same thing with Becker

They have him with 12 aces and 35 service winners for a total of 47
I have Becker with 53 unreturned serves
Difference is 6. And I have Lendl with 6 "Return Unforced errors" - match

It seems what they're calling "Service Winners" is what I call "Service Winners + Return Forced Errors"

----

Now lets look at Total Points

Per their stats, X's total points should be made up of -
- X's Aces
- X's Service Winners
- Y's Double Faults
- X's Placement Winners
- Y's Unforced Errors

For Becker that comes out to 148 - 16 short
For Lendl, comes out to 155 - 7 short

So there's a category they haven't presented... what could it be? Forced errors?

I have Becker with 39 winners and Lendl with Lendl with 46 forced errors in play.
They have Becker with 56 "placement winners". Assuming the +17 they've given are from Lendl's forced errors, that'd leave Lendl with 29 of my forced errors

They have Lendl with 41 UEs, I have 24. Assuming the +17 are taken from my Lendl forced errors, that leaves Lendl with 29-17 = 12 of my forced errors

They seem to have a very small window for what I call "forced errors"

What I call "forced errors"... they take the more forced of them and put them in "placement winners" and the less forced of them and put them in "unforced errors", leaving precious little in category "forced error" (if that is the missing category)

Let me correct my Lendl breakdown before having another crack at it