Match Stats/Report - Bruguera vs Berasategui, French Open final, 1994

[Waspsting]

Sergi Bruguera beat Alberto Berasategui 6-3, 7-5, 2-6, 6-1 in the French Open final, 1994 on clay

Bruguera was the defending champions. Berasategui was unseeded and this would turn out to be his only Slam final

Bruguera won 125 points, Berasategui 104

Serve Stats
Bruguera...
- 1st serve percentage (64/112) 57%
- 1st serve points won (49/64) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (25/48) 52%
- Aces 2, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (21/112) 19%

Berasategui...
- 1st serve percentage (95/117) 81%
- 1st serve points won (59/95) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (7/22) 32%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (4/117) 3%

Serve Patterns
Bruguera served...
- to FH 15%
- to BH 84%
- to Body 1%

Berasategui served...
- to FH 4%
- to BH 93%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Bruguera made...
- 112 (8 FH, 104 BH), including 4 runaround FHs, 2 return-approaches & 2 drop-returns
- 4 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 1 Forced (1 FH)
- Return Rate (112/116) 97%

Berasategui made...
- 90 (44 FH, 46 BH), including 34 runaround FHs
- 18 Errors, comprising...
- 11 Unforced (5 FH, 6 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 7 Forced (3 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (90/111) 81%

Break Points
Bruguera 6/10 (8 games)
Berasategui 3/9 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Bruguera 26 (8 FH, 4 BH, 6 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 5 OH)
Berasategui 34 (23 FH, 6 BH, 3 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

Bruguera's FHs - 2 cc, 1 cc/inside-in, 2 inside-out, 2 inside-in, 1 drop shot
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 2 dtl (1 pass), 1 inside-out

Berasategui's FHs - 4 cc (1 pass, 1 at net), 2 cc/inside-in, 2 inside-out, 11 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc, 2 longline, 1 longline/cc
- BHs - 3 cc (2 passes), 2 dtl (1 pass), 1 running-down-drop-shot at net net chord dribbler

- 1 FHV was a swinging inside-in & the OH was on the bounce

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Bruguera 65
- 45 Unforced (22 FH, 22 BH, 1 Sky Hook)
- 20 Forced (13 FH, 6 BH, 1 FH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8

Berasategui 77
- 61 Unforced (41 FH, 19 BH, 1 FHV)... with 2 FH at net
- 16 Forced (8 FH, 6 BH, 1 OH, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)… with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & the OH was flagrantly forced on the bounce from baseline against an at net smash
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.4

(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
Bruguera was 20/27 (74%) at net, with...
- 1/2 return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Berasategui was 16/25 (64%) at net, with...
- 0/2 forced back

Match Report
Old fashioned, grindy, top-spinny, gruelling baseline tussle. Berasategui leads action, Bruguera reacts - and Bruguera has sizably better of it, doing what he does

‘Leads and reacts’, in context of gritty, grindy, top-spinny stuff. Within considerable confines of that context, Bers leads thoroughly. Almost to attacking and having Brug defending extent

He leads with FH inside-outs, Brug responding with BH cc’s. Its not rare for players to aim FH inside-outs to opponents BH occasionally. It is very, very rare to do so persistently and for that to be the staple rally of a healthy length match. Probably unique, unless Bers is involved

Bers doesn’t hit a BH if he can help it. He’s got a Borg like 1 and half handed BH - swinging both with hands, but releasing the left just before contact. Little odd looking in an air-fairy sort of way, and probably not reliable enough to to play who-blinks-first with Brug’s sculpture form BH

Only “probably” because he plays so few BHs that we don’t get to see how BH-BH rallies would go

BH UEs - Brug 22, Bers 19
Ordinarily, that would be an even match. Here, its very bad from Bers’ point of view because 60-70% of the time, Brug’s BH is dealing with Bers’ FH inside-out probing, not BH cc’s. Brug having about same number of UEs in that light = Brug’s BH performing much better than Bers rarely seen one

On FH side, UEs Brug 22, Bers 41
Now, a fuller picture is emerging. Bers’ FH front and center of all action, with said action being grindy. A mountain of UEs, almost as much of all Brug’s groundies

Full picture comes with winners. Action is grindy. At times, even moonball-y, but its Bers pushing towards bossing, controlling and eventually attacking. Rarely in a hurray
FH winners - Bers 23, Brug 8

All those FH inside-outs, and the court position that goes with it. Bers is able to play FH inside-in for the winner when he gets right ball. He’s got 11 FH inside-in winners + 2-3 others around that dynamic but when he’s not as far over to side of court (among them have been marked 1 inside-in/cc, 2 longline, 1 longline/cc, 2 cc/inside-in). Not to mention a swinging inside-in FHV.

By the time Brug hits his first FH winner in the last game of second set, Bers has 13 FH winners

As with UEs, Bers FH matching Brug’s everything. Brug has 12 ground winners and 26 total. The large lot of net winners is surprising (more on that later)

Serve & Return
Good serve from Brug, rolled in point starter from Bers
Brug gets a few freebies - its nowhere near front line, but doesn’t hurt. Bers next to none

Unreturneds - Brug 19%, Bers 3%

2 aces and service winner indicating Brug with occasional damaging serve. Few aimed wide and few powerful, that draw returns he can hit from up the court. Barely attacking, but better than defending. And when he can do so to take net early, that goes well for him

Bers’ best serves go well wide. Not much pace, and Brug’s up to moving over and returning comfily. Still tends to return short, and Bers on look out for attacking FH inside-in if there’s chance for it. Rarely does he overindulge in looking for point ending FH inside-in right off, but with FH inside-out his stock, inside-in is his go to attack

No aces for Bers and 3/4 return errors he draws have been marked UEs. The exception is only so because Brug’s moving wrong way as the serve comes down. Understandable, given Bers directs 108/116 serves to BH

Brug also directing huge 84% to BH (Bers’ percentage is 93%), with Bers running around every chance he gets. He’s got 34 runaround FH returns (+ 2 errors trying). That he never tries against first serve, given his obvious inclination, is indicator of Brug with a decent serve. Brug with 47 legitimate second serves, so Bers essentially running around to play FH return against them all the time in both courts

Credit Brug for the return rate of 97%. Harmless as Bers’ serve is, there has to be some number that qualifies as returning it well - and whatever it is, its less than 97%

Only occasionally does Brug look to attack the return. Couple of early taken return-approaches and most cutely, 2 drop-returns. Brug’s drop shots (including the returns) are a sight. The most casual droppers you’ll see. Stands upright and chops down on the ball late. Late enough to disguise it. It looks like someone clowning around with trick shots in practice

Odd outcome of Bers winning 62% first serve points but only 32% seconds. Its not too important, given he serves at very high 81%, but why such a vast difference when both serves are harmless (admittedly, second a more so)?

Brug does take second serves earlier, making it harder for Bers to hit FH first up, but those rallies more often than not settle into Bers FH ‘ng from ad court same as the rest.
Brug’s second serve points is even 52%, so he’s done a lot better returning than serving second serves

Best interpretation is Brug erring in not being more aggressive (in this case, that simply means contesting for control of rallies, as opposed to playing along with whatever Bers leads with) in general

With Bers’ two serves being close to equal (if they weren’t, he wouldn’t have 3% unreturned serves), in theory, he should win similar number of across those 2 serves
Instead, he wins 62% firsts, with Brug content to follow and react (both with return and in rallies after), but 32% seconds, with Brug contesting for control

Small amount of ‘good’, wide first serves undercutting the above, but nowhere near enough to explaining a 30% difference
Still, Brug’s methods work. And is in line with old school clay court mentality. If you can patiently outlast them to win, do it. No need to for unnecessary aggression

Last set is also telling, with Brug being more aggressive (how much of that is due to his initiative and how much due to Bers’ tiring is open to interpretation too - more on that later), and winning 6-1 in commanding fashion

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline (& Net)
Grindy tennis, playing for errors, leaning towards Bers leading, Brug reacting. Bers playing FHs as much as possible. Staple rally Bers FH inside-out to Brug BH, with Bers taking his shots at FH inside-in finisher or attacking shot. Brug content to play along, with error spilling from Bers at greater rate than he can afford

Where ‘grindy’ is base, UEs are forefront of action. Ground UEs -
Bers BH 19
Brug FH & BH 22
Bers FH 41

With Bers’ BH in play as little as possible, having so many UEs is poor. Meanwhile, both of Brug’s groundies go up against the ad-court camped Bers’ FHs. In that light, Bers’ FH not as bad as it looks - though its not good

Bers’ FH also with by far match high 23 winners, just 3 shy of Brug’s total and about double the 12 groundstroke winners Brug can muster. 11 of them are inside-in, with further 4-5 in that general region/from that general position. Bers uses FH inside-out + inside-in the way classic baseline action would see a player hitting cc as stock and dtl to finish

Neutral UEs - Bers 25, Brug 27 (+1 defensive UE)

In line with Bers leading action, his neutrals are that much edgier towards attacking, Brug’s that much more reactive, beaten-out even. Virtually equal on consistency, but any edge is good and Bers has it

Attacking UEs - Bers 21, Brug 15
Errors Forced - Bers 20, Brug 16

Again, virtually identical outcome in terms of points won and lost, with Bers more aggressive

On clay, attacking shots often don’t force errors but rather, gets opponent moving or pushes them out of position. In grindy action, especially so. Even more so with good defenders that tend to get attacking shots back in play

For starters, the last point isn’t particularly true here. Neither player is particularly impressive defensively. Brug’s shot tolerance is tested more. Its not bad, but nothing to write home about either. Bers slides with obvious comfort, but isn’t too good at the defensive ‘get’

Winners - Bers 34, Brug 26
Winner Attempt UEs - Bers 15, Brug 2

And there is the big difference. Brug rarely goes for winners from the back. 14/26 winners are ‘volley’s, where he has just 2 errors (a half-volley FE and a net-to-net sky hook UE). Bers does regularly - as all the inside-in winners (among other things) testify to, he’s good with them, but Brug’s proves a lot more efficient finishing

Of course, its not all FH inside-outs and inside-ins. Brug’s first serve points tend to be more orthodox, cc rallies off either side. Again, Bers tends to have power off the FH and is more willing to go on attack, but not by much. Action stays grindy, as Bers overall, with edge in that area

For someone who’s so disinclined to play BHs, Bers likes going dtl with it. Brug’s able to get his BH cc wide enough that Bers elects to play BH instead of moving still futher over for another FH. Such situations, ball is wide enough to make BH dtl viable attacking option. Bers indulges some. He’s got 1 winner but misses more than he makes and Brug’s usually upto running and sliding to make FH defensive shot, which gets things back to FH-FH rally. Bers plays FH dtl as move-opponent a bit change-up (mildly attacking at most), more often than full blown attacking dtl shots from this position. Trading FH cc’s, he blinks a bit more, with a small power advantage

Net points - Brug 20/27 at 74%, Bers 16/25 at 64%

Brug’s go to attack. He’s never thirsty for net, but prefers coming in from good position, rather than try to bang down a winning shot from the back. 74% winning rate is a lot better than Bers’ FH shot-making efficiency

Finally, physicality and stamina is a factor. Action is gritty enough to wear both players down. There’s a twist to it. Its Brug who seems to be worn down more by third set, and both movement and shot tolerance are a little off. Good outlook for Bers going into the fourth

Though showing no obvious signs of fatigue, its Bers’ energy that comes into question in that fourth set. For only time in match, he doesn’t move over regularly to play FHs. Brug also looks to command play more

And succeeds. 6/10 Brug’s ground-to-ground winners come in that set. Meanwhile, Bers has equal UEs by wings for only time in match at 7 (other sets range from FH having 4-11 more than BH) - function of not having energy to move over so much, but also product of Brug dictating more and not making it feasible. Probably, Bers’ drop in intensity is bigger cause for the changing dynamic, but both players are worn down

Match Progression
Who-blinks-first first set with Bers playing FH inside-outs to Brug’s BH. Its not pressuring stuff. Much of it is moon-ballish from both players. Brug responds to missing a few BHs by looping the shot even more. Typical net clearance from both players in baseline rallies is such that a player at net would have to OH the ball

Bers, in good time, looks to play FH inside-in to attack moderately. He himself is shakey on running FH and apt to give up error on the slide to balls good clay courters are in habit of making

And Brug has better of set cozily. He’s got 1 FH UE in it, to Bers’ 11. Breaks in a 10 point game for 3-1, with Bers missing a bunch of edgy FHs

More missed FHs see Bers down 2 break points next time around. Bad bounce helps him save one and he goes on to hold

Lovely BH inside-out winner from Brug later in the set, after being forced back from a return-approach. He serves out to 30, the set ending with a good, long rally that Brug gradually seizes control of, finishing it by coming in and dispatching a smash winner

In second set, Bers immerses himself in ad court even more and almost completely and plays inside-in shots earlier in rallies and more powerfully than earlier. Brug’s BH errors are more pressured out of him than they were earlier, but Bers’ FH gives up still more

14 FH UEs fro Bers in the set. Brug has that many of both wings. That still leaves things close to even, with Bers out of sight BH having just 3

Bers’ FH grabs the break for 3-1, scoring with a flat inside-out winner and drawing a passing error with same shot to get to 15-40, before Brug double faults. Edgy FH errors put him down 15-30 awhile later, with Brug sealing the break back with 2 net points. Nice touch on FH1/2V winner to end the game and put things back on serve at 3-4

More edgy FH errors get Bers broken again, thoughs BH that misses a routine ball on break point to leave Brug serving for set

Brug falls to 0-40. Whacks away FH cc winner to save first break point, after one of the many, unnecessary, no compensation for loss of court position runaround FH returns Bers regularly indulges. Risky drop shot play by Brug sees him come away with a net to net BHV winner before he goes on to hold

Third set looks like Brug’s been worn down by the grind of it all. He’s slower to move to FH and gets beaten down somewhat. Freed up Bers even lashes a third ball BH dtl winner and occasionally goes for other attacking BH shots, while still relying on his FH most of the time

It’s competitive for 6-2, with Bers holding 2 10 point games (2 break points, both in same game - one saved by power FH, the other BH dtl). Meanwhile, he breaks early and breaks to end the set, both times in long game (10 and 14 points)

Funny turnaround in 4th set. Brug spends much of the time playing FH inside-outs to Bers’ BH and Bers doesn’t seem to have energy to play the game he’s been playing all match. Brug at his most aggressive from the baseline in the match

Set starts where last one ended, with Brug pressured into 2 FH UEs and down 30-0

That’s last bit of good news for Bers. Brug takes charge from there, with Bers not moving to and wins next 4 points to break, ending with BH dtl winner against a neutral FH inside-out and a FH cc/inside-in winner. He moves to 4-0 before Bers gets on the board

Amusing turnaround point in game 6, as Brug pins Bers to corner with FH inside-outs before dispatching a FH inside-in winner. Bers responds couple of points later with one of his own to bring up 2 break points, but his FH falters from there, including missing a putaway ball at net to allow Brug to hold

1 last FH inside-in winner from Bers in what turns out to be last game of match takes him to 15-0. 4 points and 3 ground UEs later, with a Brug FHV thrown in, match is over

Summing up, not a great match but a fascinating one with rare type of action. Berasategui’s proclivity for FHs sees him camp out in corner and play FH inside-outs as stock shot, with FH inside-ins as change-ups ranging from kill-shot to moderately moving Bruguera about. He plays BHs when he has no choice but to

Bruguera is content to play along. Action along these lines range from rare moon-ball’ishly passive to Berasategui looking to beat-down Bruguera’s BH and slap FH inside-in winners to corners

Ultimately, he makes too many errors forcing action in this way. Both players are worn down by the end - Berasategui to extent of not being able to move into position and play his game, Bruguera to not moving as well and not showing as much grit. Which leaves him to boss action instead, doing which he outplays his opponent handsomely

Might have saved a lot of time by doing so earlier, but where’s the fun in that? Safer to let opponent, who’s brought his own rope, hang himself with it, which works too, just a lot more slowly

 

[I get cramps]

LL. Bruguera - Berasategui was playing at an optimum level. Alberto had destroyed his opponents with his inside-out FH [LLuís uses the word 'drive', the word we use in Spain; perhaps this is no longer the case].

I told my son, "Sergi, what you are about to hear may seem silly, but we will win this match thanks to your better physical condition and playing Alberto on the ad court."

Sergi answered me: "Dad, are you crazy?"

LL. Bruguera: "If you play to the deuce court, we will only have 1/4 of the court to hurt him. If you play to the ad court, you will find his backhand to make him run. Berastegui's best FH is his inside-out, which is much better than his inside-in FH. And if you win at least one of the first two sets, he won't be able to beat you in a hypothetical fifth set."

Sergi: "Why?"

LL. Bruguera: "Because he will want to position himself very close to the lines to hit from there. He won't be able to play like you, far away from the lines, because his ball isn't as heavy as yours and doesn't kick as high as yours. So, in the long run, Alberto won't be able to withstand the rigors of the match, neither the distance he will have to cover nor the accumulated fatigue of fighting against your ball."

The primary concern was not about discussing tactics with Sergi before the match. Sergi needed to keep in mind his physical advantage over Alberto and what he could do with it during the match. How would he do that? By playing to Alberto's ad court. I told him: "He is going to win a lot of points, tons of points, and all you will do is applaud him. Every time Alberto hits a big FH from the ad court, you'll applaud him. But he will not win all the points by hitting inside-out FHs. You will carry on playing without forgetting what will happen in due time.