Match Stats/Report - Bruguera vs Pioline, Monte Carlo final, 1993

[Waspsting]

Sergi Bruguera beat Cedric Pioline 7-6(2), 6-0 in the Monte Carlo final, 1993 on clay (the last third, indoor clay)

Bruguera, would go onto win the French Open for the first time shortly after. He had previously won Monte Carlo in 1991. Pioline was unseeded and beaten top seed Stefan Edberg and third seed Petr Korda among others in reaching the final. He would eventually win the title in 2000

Bruguera won 75 points, Pioline 49

Serve Stats
Bruguera...
- 1st serve percentage (24/48) 50%
- 1st serve points won (20/24) 83%
- 2nd serve points won (15/24) 63%
- Aces 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (10/48) 21%

Pioline...
- 1st serve percentage (42/76) 55%
- 1st serve points won (24/42) 57%
- 2nd serve points won (12/34) 35%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (9/76) 12%

Serve Patterns
Bruguera served...
- to FH 29%
- to BH 67%
- to Body 4%

Pioline served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Bruguera made...
- 64 (38 FH, 26 BH), including 13 runaround FHs
- 8 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (3 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 4 Forced (2 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (64/73) 88%

Pioline made...
- 38 (17 FH, 21 BH), including 8 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH), a runaround FH
- 9 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 3 Forced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (38/48) 79%

Break Points
Bruguera 5/17 (8 games)
Pioline 2/2

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Bruguera 9 (4 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)
Pioline 15 (3 FH, 2 BH, 2 FHV, 7 BHV, 1 OH)

Bruguera's FHs (all passes) - 2 cc, 1 inside-out, 1 longline at net
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 2 dtl (1 pass)

Pioline's FHs - 1 dtl, 1 runaround inside-out/dtl return (from deuce court), 1 lob
- BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl pass (net chord flicker)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Bruguera 25
- 10 Unforced (6 FH, 4 BH)... with 1 FH at net
- 15 Forced (8 FH, 6 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43

Pioline 53
- 46 Unforced (26 FH, 14 BH, 3 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 7 Forced (2 FH, 4 BH, 1 BHV)
- 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
Bruguera was 8/14 (57%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back

Pioline was...
- 24/37 (65%) at net, including...
- 3/5 (60%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 1/3 (33%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/2 off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
A) Pioline can’t keep the ball in play from the back
B) Pioline does well at net
C) A >> B

QED. Match starts outdoors on center court than moves what looks to be indoors for last third of match

Ground UEs Brug 9, Pioline 40 (26 FH, 14 BH)
Doesn’t need much explanation

Pioline 24/37 or 65% at net (Brug has 14 approaches)
Also doesn’t need much explanation in 124 point match

Circumstance, conditions and progression of match are very strange. It’s a Monday final, reduced to best of 3 sets. Presumably due to rain. Stands are almost empty (which becomes important, believe it or not) and the few who have braved the elements are in jackets and have their umbrellas out. Near end of first set, rain gets heavy enough to force the players off

They resume in what looks like an indoor, practice court (still clay). Area around court is small, limiting players ability to fall back. One camera angle, which doesn’t capture player on near side of if he falls too far back behind baseline (which Brug tends to)

29 points into the match, Brug has won 23 of them. 17 of them via Pioline UEs (19 counting a double fault and a missed return). Brug’s at 0-5, 15-40 with 2 break/set points

Pioline coming back to level match at 5-5 from that position is one of the most remarkable turnarounds you’ll see. 1 point goes this way instead of that, and all other things remaining the same, final score would shift from 7-6, 6-0 to so 6-0, 1-6, 6-0

Its not a 180 degree turn. Pioline tightens up his game to cut back on the errors, leaving it to Brug to miss a few. And Pioline utilizes net play to good effect (he hadn’t much before but had been broken for first time missing 3 would-be approach shots in a row). But Brug continues getting into return games, and has 3 more break/set points on Pioline’s next go-around (10 point game) and another 1 when Pioline sends set into tiebreak (10 point game)

Its with Brug up 6-5 that rain drives the players off and rest of match is played in what appears to be an indoor practice court. Can’t tell for sure if its indoor because camera doesn’t move around. Move is made possible by the sparse crowd, who can all fit into the new venue. The new site of the final looks jam packed. Also looks like a match in a high school gym or maybe a challengers event

Tiebreak and onward, balance of play reverts to what it had been from the start, with Brug skating through tiebreak 7-2 and then delivering the bagel he couldn’t. Only exception to complete one-sidedness is an 18 point game (which Brug of course wins). Sans that game, Brug 27 points, Pioline 6

Ordinary serving from both players, with good one thrown in. 1 ace apiece and combined 10/17 return errors have been marked UEs. Normal Enough for clay. Getting squashed to extent he is, its on Pioline to do something more substantial with the serve and he does serve more strongly. He’s forced 4 errors and drawn 4 UEs with the serve (Brug draws 6 UEs and 3 FEs) by contrast. Brug slipping in the odd faster serve

Poor in-count of 50% for Brug, but it hardly matters when he’s so much better in play. Wins 63% second serve points, which is more than Pioline’s 57% first serves ones

Winners - Brug 9, Pioline 15
Errors Forced - Brug 15, Pioline 7
UEs - Brug 10, Pioline 46

Brug has just 1 baseline-to-baseline winner, with the rest being passes and net shots. With such a mammoth consistency advantage, its the way to go

Baseline rallies are dual winged. Both players at times leaning over to play FHs to others BH. Pioline showing decent variety off the BH, throwing in a few rare drive slices. Rallies are medium of length - so not too sloppy. End of rallies are predictable - Pioline giving up the ground error

Ground to ground UEs
- Brug BH 4, Brug FH 5
- Pioline BH 14
- Pioline FH 26

Neutral UEs - Brug 8, Pioline 29

Rallying ability being so, its on Pioline to attack. He doesn’t have the power to do so from the back, and what attempts he makes are readily handled by an unstrained Brug

He attacks by coming to net
Rallying to net - Pioline 21/32 at 66%, Brug 8/14 at 57%

 

[Waspsting]

Rallies are long enough that sooner or later, chance to approach comes up. But Brug also gets a lot of ball up shoulder height, which would be difficult to create approach off. Its these height balls that trouble Pioline most. Its not persistent, but does come up often enough to be uncomfy for Pioline

Pioline has room for improvement at net. He’s got 6 UEs there for 10 winners. Tends to miss cute, touch volleys, but its necessary to do something more than just punch the volley as Brug’s 6 passing winners hint at. He does volley well in getting them well away from Brug. Not many stationary passes for Brug to look at, he’s usually on the move, often rushed to just get racquet on ball usually

Its getting to net that’s difficult. Serve isn’t strong enough for serve-volleying to be an obvious answer, thoug he does serve-volley 5 times. The surprise of doing so behind 2 second serves sees him win both points, knocking off easy volleys but Brug’s aware of possibility on first serves. Would not expect Pioline to do well serve-volleying persistently (still, how much worse can he do than what he does from the back?), so not bad thinking in keeping it to a spice

Waiting around for ball to approach against. Despite mountain of UEs, Pioline stays in rallies long enough to see not-bad ball to approach from. ‘Not-bad’, as opposed to ‘good’. Very few outright weak balls from Brug, but there are not-strong ones. Pioline never gets desperate or in mad rush to get to net - neither when winning 5 games in row, nor losing something similar

UE discrepancy as big as in this match happens because 1 guy is complete wall, so other guy has to miss or because 1 guy is very sloppy and ends up blinking up the errors. More wall from Brug than Pioline being sloppy here

Most FEs for both playes (Brug has 15, Pioline 7) are passing shots. Brug occasionally flowing to net from good position, but not often. Why would he?

Match Progression
0-5, 15-40, down 2 set points is where Pioline finds himself in about half an hour

Upto this stage, Brug 0 UEs, Pioline 17 (16 of them groundies)

Brug takes net to seal love hold first game
Pioline with a good serve that forces error and a trip to net to reach 30-0 in response before wheels come off. Misses 3 FH approach shots in a row to get broken
Adds 4 more ground UEs (1 approach attempt, a BH) as Brug holds to love again
Makes it to net twice game after - hits FHV winner, make BHV UE, before blinking up BH UE after a long rally
Brug tries to seal 5-0 with a manufacutred approach but gets a low volley he misses. Sends down a big serve to hold instead
Pioline serve-volleys for first time. Brug expertly handles it with a lob that forces a defensive BHOH that Brug dispatches FH cc for a winner and a BH blink couple points later gets us to 2 break/set points

Rest of set is only good, competitive tennis of match. Pioline wins 3 net points, including pullsing off a lunging, winning FHV down set point and holds as Brug misses a FH

From that miss to Pioline levelling at 5-5, UEs read Brug 8, Pioline 3
By Brug’s iron standard, sloppy, but not bad from any normal one. And very clean from Pioline. Rallies are long in this part of match - good job by Pioline. Comes to net more and more to

After breaking - Brug missing 2 BHs to end the game, having started it missing a FH drop shot at net he tried to get too fine with - Pioline’s faces 3 more break/set points. He’s at net 5 times in the 10 point game, including 2 serve-volleys (1 of each serve) to hold

Brug comes to net a bit next game, but gets broken again but he counters Pioline’s 3 approaches to stop the rot and hold for 6-5
Pioline at net 5 times in 10 point hold, saving another break/set point to push things to tiebreak

Pioline’s first 2 serves go unreturned (both UEs) to stay on serve, up 2-1 and he doesn’t win another point. Brug drawing weak volley to dispatch FH inside-out passing winner and taking net himself to move ahead again. And Pioline losing both service points - first missing a third ball FH dtl to open court, next a dipping pass with court wide open for winner. Brug closes out with an unreturned serve

Last regular game and tiebreak had been played on new, (probably) indoor court, without excess room for players to fall back. And rest of match is played out there

Back to first 5 games form - Brug’s high balls causing lots of trouble. He makes full use of limited space to fall back and loop ball in
4-0 in quick time, with Pioline winning 4 points. Then a long 18 point game, but outcome doesn’t change. Finally, Brug serving out to love, finishing with FH inside-in that mildly forces an error

Summing up, a match to remember for its strangeness more than anything else, mid match change of court to a small, indoor one among the things that make it so
And the trends. Bruguera sweeping through 5 games points to deliver a bagel, before Pioline comes good to push things to tiebreak. And Bruguera sweeping through rest of match from there

6-0, 1-6, 6-0 would have made for a memorable scoreline. 1 point (twice repeated) is what keeps it from being realized

Bruguera much more consistent from the back. More credit to him for walling up than discredit to Pioline for sloppiness. Rallies are medium of length, and Bruguera’s higher bouncing balls to Pioline’s shoulders prove particularly troublesome

Pioline taking net to gain counter-play. Does it well, without undue rush and waiting for not-difficult ball to come in off (there aren’t many easy ones). The volleys he misses are on tricky side for being unforced errors, dipping a little or a bit wide, and he punches and places volleys well

It’s tap on the shoulder to a punch in the face against his groundstroke consistency handicap and result is comfortable for Bruguera

Stats for Pioline’s semi-final with Stefan Edberg - Match Stats/Report - Pioline vs Edberg, Monte Carlo semi-final, 1993 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)