Match Stats/Report - Cash vs Wilander, Wimbledon fourth round, 1986

[Waspsting]

Pat Cash beat Mats Wilander 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3 in the Wimbledon fourth round, 1986 on grass

Cash, a wild card, would go onto lose to Henri Leconte in the next round. He would win the title the next year, again beating Wilander in the quarter final en route. Wilander was the second seed

Cash won 136 points, Wilander 124

Cash serve-volleyed off all serves, Wilander off all but 1 first serve and majority of seconds

(Note: I’ve made an educated guess regarding serve type for 1 point)

Serve Stats
Cash...
- 1st serve percentage (100/145) 69%
- 1st serve points won (64/100) 64%
- 2nd serve points won (23/45) 51%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (34/145) 23%

Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (67/115) 58%
- 1st serve points won (44/67) 66%
- 2nd serve points won (22/48) 46%
- Aces 8 (1 bad bounce related)
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (35/115) 30%

Serve Patterns
Cash served...
- to FH 41%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 10%

Wilander served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 68%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
Cash made...
- 78 (22 FH, 56 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 11 return-approaches
- 4 Winners (4 BH)
- 27 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (2 FH, 2 BH)
- 23 Forced (6 FH, 17 BH)
- Return Rate (78/113) 69%

Wilander made...
- 109 (43 FH, 66 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 1 runaround BH
- 9 Winners (5 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 26 Errors, all forced...
- 26 Forced (16 FH, 10 BH)
- Return Rate (109/143) 76%

Break Points
Cash 7/10 (8 games)
Wilander 5/16 (7 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Cash 58 (5 FH, 15 BH, 19 FHV, 15 BHV, 4 OH)
Wilander 41 (17 FH, 11 BH, 7 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)

Cash had 30 from serve-volley points -
- 11 first volleys (7 FHV, 4 BHV)... 1 BHV not clean and bad bounce related
- 14 second volleys (6 FHV, 6 BHV, 2 OH)... 1 FHV can reasonably be called an OH
- 3 third volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV)... 1 diving BHV
- 1 fourth volley (1 FHV)... a diving volley
- 1 fifth volley (1 OH)

- 6 from return-approach points (4 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 swinging FHV that was also a pass

- 20 passes - 4 returns (4 BH) & 16 regular (5 FH, 11 BH)
- BH returns - 2 dtl, 2 inside-in
- regular FHs - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 2 lobs
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 6 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out, 2 lobs

Wilander had 12 from serve-volley points -
- 2 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 1 BH at net)... the FHV was not clean
- 8 second volleys (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 OH)
- 1 fourth volley (1 BHV)
- 1 re-approach volley (1 FHV)

- 28 passes - 9 returns (5 FH, 4 BH) & 19 regular (12 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 4 dtl (1 runaround)
- BH returns - 1 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 6 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in at net, 1 longline, 2 lobs
- regular BHs - 3 cc (1 one-handed), 1 dtl, 1 inside-out
- FHVs - both swinging - 1 cc, 1 non-net inside-out

- regular (non-pass) BH - 1 dtl/inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Cash 46
- 18 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH, 7 FHV, 9 BHV)... with 1 FH pass attempt at net
- 28 Forced (5 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 2 FH running-down-drop-shot at net, 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.7

Wilander 42
- 11 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH, 4 FHV, 4 BHV)... with 1 FH pass attempt, 1 FH at net & 1 BH pass attempt at net
- 31 Forced (9 FH, 15 BH, 2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54.5

(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
Cash was...
- 91/157 (58%) at net, including...
- 79/135 (59%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 56/92 (61%) off 1st serve and...
- 23/43 (53%) off 2nd serve
---
- 8/11 (73%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Wilander was...
- 53/96 (55%) at net, including...
- 49/85 (58%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 36/58 (62%) off 1st serve and...
- 13/27 (48%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/4 (25%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
Serve-volley match with both players looking for 2 volleys to finish points. Wilander’s first volley is the weakest thing on show and Cash is able to exploit the good looks on pass he gets to come out ahead in a close encounter

Perception of quality of match is liable to shaped by its divided nature. The final set is top-drawer, gorgeous stuff from both players, but the first 3 sets are quite ordinary. In such cases, match tends to get overrated. The one it most resembles of progression is the ‘80 Wimbledon final

Cash serve-volleys of all serves, Mats 98% off first serves (all but 1) and 59% off seconds, so very little baseline play with plenty of Cash return-approaching or someone approaching net on Mats’ non serve-volley second serves

Stat that points in direction of what shapes the result is Mats with 0 genuine first volley winners (he has 1 BH at net and a not clean FHV). 2-part volleying isn’t necessarily a bad thing - Sampras is a 2-part volleyer, as is Cash and they’re among the best serve-volleyers off all - but nature of serve-volley is such that even someone not looking for winners off the first volley would strike a few. Mats though has 0 clean, true first volley winners - despite serve-volleying 85 times.

It’d be unusual in that light for him to be making good first volleys that leave poor passing looks - and so it proves. Cash gets good looks on the pass all match. Cash’s first volleying isn’t great either, but considerably better than Mats’ in terms of the passing looks he leaves, but Mats is better on the pass (taking into account his having to make considerably harder ones)

That difference, flowing out of Mats’ inferior first volleying, pushes prospects Cash’s way but isn’t decisive and match is close

Cash wins 52% of the points, but also has to serve 56% of them
Raw numbers illustrate the gap better. He wins 12 more points, while serving 30 more
That difference is almost entirely due to a 24 point game that Cash holds (he also serves 1 game extra, which accounts for the 6 extra points excluding the 24-pointer).

In high point final set, Cash serves 54 points or 10.8 points per game to hold 3 times, while being broken twice. Mats serves 27 points or 6.75 points per game to hold once and be broken 3 times

Stats for that glorious final set
- Winners - Cash 20, Mats 19
- Errors Forced - Cash 10, Mats 9
- UEs - Cash 5, Mats 2

Cash 9 passing winners, just 2 passing errors. Mats has 16 and 8
Cash with 11 volley winners, 5 UEs, 7 FEs
Mats with 3 volley winners, 2 UEs, 2 FEs

4 sets, let alone 5, of that kind of tennis would make it a greatest match ever candidate. Cash volleying with great authority, Mats’ passing errors being hopeless ones but still nailing winners off unlikely looks and seemingly off every normal look. Mats’ volleying isn’t great, but misses precious little and Cash also nails normal look passes for winners at a remarkable rate. With variety of lobs thrown in. Top drawer stuff

Rest of the match -
- Winners - Cash 38, Mats 22
- Errors Forced - Cash 21, Mats 19
- UEs - Cash - Cash 13, Mats 9

Nothing majorly wrong with those numbers, if not as handsome as the finale. The tennis is mundane though (not just in comparison to the last set, but generally). Cash’s volleying UEs are both to easy routine first volleys and pretty comfortable reaction seconds. He has plenty of good looks at passes that he can’t make most of. Mats’ first volleying is downright poor, one step up from plonking them in middle of court and his passing isn’t anywhere close to the lethal stuff at the end (he also gets pretty good looks on the pass, with Cash’s volleying nothing to write home about either)

Call it a good match - mundane first 3 quarters, top drawer last. With the after-taste of the last staying on the tongue of that judgement.

All sets are 1 break differential. Breaks points end up reading Cash 7/10 (8 games), Mats 5/16 (7 games). Quite normal for a grass court in terms of closeness, Cash just a little better off, not least for being to hold off Mats in 14 and 24 point games at start of 4th set (4 break points and 5, respectively)

So sans those long holds, Mats is 5/7 on break points, converting in every game he has them. Cash having just 10 break points in 8 games speaks to Mats not being able to do much of anything in such games by contrast. A little strange, since despite the weak first volleying, his first serve is a major weapon. Would think it would be good to get him out of a jam or 2, but no

Serve, Return & Serve-Volleying Foundations
100% serve-volleying from Cash
High 69% first serves in. His first serve is above average of pace and width at most. Mats’ is more powerful - trade off for which is lower in count of 58%

Aces/service winners - Cash 8, Mats 8
1st serve ace/SW rate - Cash 8%, Mats 12%

Cash’s second serve is on average more powerful than Mats’ - as it almost has to be since he’s serve-volleying behind it all the time, but both players send down some portion of second serves asking to be thrashed (Mats’ a few more - both when serve-volleying and not)

 

[Waspsting]

Mats leads first serve points won 66% to 64% and first serve-volleying points 62% to 61%. Call it even
If Mats’ first serve is stronger, than for first serve-points and first serve-volleying points to be virtually equal, either Cash is returning better or Mats is volleying less well
That’s be Mats’ volleying less well - as suggested earlier

Cash serve-volleys off all second serves also
Mats second serve-volleys 59% of the time
He wins 48% serve-volleying and 47% staying back
Big factor in that would be Cash winning 8/11 or 73% return-approaching. He’s 2/4 doing so against first serve - confronting the serve-volleying Mats - and 6/7 against second serves
The only 1 he loses against second serve is when Mats is serve-volleying (he wins the only other point where that happens)

Putting all that together, Cash’s return-approaching is a grievous threat to Mats staying back. Cash has no return-approach attempt errors (he also somewhat delays approaches some of the time, or looks to at others). Probably be a good move for Cash to have looked to return-approach more against second serves. Mats doesn’t beef up second serves to make it harder and only double faults twice. He even conveniently follows standard procedure of serving bulk 68% to BH (generally, Mats likes to serve majority to FH, and with Cash having a reputation for having better BH than FH, one would think he’d be even more so than usual do so in this match)

On points starting on baseline (i.e. no serve-volley, no return-approach), both players look to come in

Rallying to net, the two have identical 4/11 figures (not all of which of course occurs from baseline starting points). There’s virtually no pure baseline contests. Just 1 bona fida ground-to-ground UE (a Cash BH), with 4 remaining groundstroke UEs being passes and/or net shots and Mats has the only ground-to-ground winner

Gist of it all is Cash leading second serve points won 51% to 46%
Just second serve-volleying, he leads 53% to 48%, with Mats staying back a hair behind at 47%

That 47% Mats wins goes down very hard when Cash return-approaches, so starting on baseline, Mats getting better of things. Its not too difficult to return-approach and Cash maybe missing a trick in not indulging more. Mats regular but unpredictable (as in, he’s coming in often but no sure of knowing if he’ll do so on any given point) second serve-volleying probably protecting him against facing more chip-charge returns. Its risky because his second serve is thrashable (it doesn’t get thrashed much) and his volleying isn’t confidence inspiring, but probably better than the alternative of regularly hitting third ball passing shots on his second serve points

Volley & Pass
Unreturned rates - Cash 23%, Mats 30%

Not expected, but not surprising rather

Cash serve-volleying more and having high 69% first serves in favour his prospects of leading freebies. Mats’ returning habit of being willing to make weak return and leave easy volley (as opposed to missing going for more to avoid leaving easy volley) back-cuts that, and he has the bigger first serve

Might also expect lot of aggressive return errors from Cash against second serves, though that doesn’t really happen

Quality of returns are normal from both players (both bumping up in last set). Fair few easy, high volleys at average pace for Cash to face. Cash missing more returns not for being more aggressive with the shot but just because he’s not as good at it making them than Mats. Mats is exactly the kind of volleyer one would look to make play easy volleys rather than err in missing return going for too much as he’s liable to not putaway volleys

In deciding set, quality of Mats’ returning improves in particular. He misses very little and gets them slightly under net with some down low. Cash also misses less than earlier, without the returns themselves being too much better

Then the volley vs pass contest
Both players are 2-part volleyers - the first volley to give a difficult pass (even if return is putaway-able), the second to finish). Or at least, they would be if the only choices are 1-part of 2-part volleying; Mats’ volleying is better described as volleying however many times is needed to draw error, a multi-part volleyer

Between Cash’s 2-part volleying and Mats’ scrambling, speed and willingness to put another ball in play, there’s potential for that contest to be a lot of fun. And so it proves

Serve-volleying, Cash has 11 first volley winners, 14 second volleys, 3 third volleys (including a diving one), 1 fourth volley (a diving one) and 1 fifth volley. Hard to think of a pair of players in such a contest that would be more likely to give a yield like that

For 3 sets, Cash isn’t particularly good with his volleys. Misses good few easy, high first volleys and not small number of second reaction volleys that are easy enough to be have been marked UEs

In all, he’s got 38 volley winners, 16 UEs, 13 FEs
Mats has 28 passing winners (8 returns, 2 volleys), 24 ground FEs and 2 passing UEs

That’s a very good yield from Mats. While Cash falters considerably on easy volleys, he does volley with authority when he makes the shots. Lot of hard forced and even impossible passing errors in Mats’ errors. And as Cash’s very unusual breakdown of volley winners by number of volleys needed indicates, Mats always making him hit the extra ball. As always with Mats, some proportion of Cash’s UEs are also on the tricky side (also, some of the FEs are merely even more tricky and not ‘very difficult’)

As for Mats’ passing winners, they’re made up both by drawing weak volleys to force a good look pass and by Cash not volleying with enough authority when its possible to do so. More the high quality former in last set and probably the opposite for rest of match

On the ‘volley’,Mats has 12 winners (excluding passes, including a groundstroke at net), 9 UEs, 7 FEs
On the pass, Cash has 20 winners (+ 1 or 2 net-to-net volleys from return-approaches), 14 ground FEs (excluding an error from serve-volleying) and 1 UE

Cash looks like he’s got much better fo this contest. That’s where Mats’ +7% advantage in freebies is pulling his success rate up

Mats has just 2 first ‘volley’ winners (a groundstroke and a not clean one), 6 seconds and 1 fourth
That has nothing to do with Cash’s tricky, multi-part passing (of which there is none), just Mats not being able to put volleys to bed.

And that’s a very good passing yield from Cash, just like Mats, with significantly different dynamics. He gets good and decent looks at passes all match because of Mats’ put-ball-in-play volleying. Also like Mats, he’s at his best nailing those winners in last set, where his hit rate is exceptional - 9 winners, 2 errors

 

[Waspsting]

Gist - serve-volleying points won - Cash 59%, Mats 58%. Virtually even, with different roads leading to Rome

For Cash, a combo of missing good lot of easy and not-difficult volleys + making authoritive first volleys to go with Mats scrambling about to put one more pass in play + making some unlikely winning passes + drawing weak volley with return and following up with passing winners

For Mats, combo of not missing much (difficult or otherwise) but volleying tamely and Cash getting his winning passes off against it

Overall net points read Cash 58%, Mats 55%, which is getting to signficant difference area. Cash’s 8/11 return-approaching big difference from the overall and just serve-volleying figures

Match Progression
Cash serve-volleys off all serves in first set (as he does all match). Mats serve-volleys off all first serves and frequently off seconds. When Mats stays back, Cash either return-approaches or comes to net early in rally

Cash’s volleying is unimpressive of placement and punch. And he can’t get even a decent pass off though having normal looks, but he also misses a lot of returns
No passing winners from Cash in the set (Mats has 4), though he has winners from 2 return-approach points. Mats wins 15/15 first serve points

Mats with the sole break and it’s the only game with break point in it. He also takes Cash to deuce once

Good game to break - FH cc pass winner after drawing a first 1/2volley, a running FH dtl pass winner and net chord flicking return is good to force another volleying error. It puts Mats 2-1 up, which he nurses through to take the set. Has good shot at a second break late in the set too, where missing an easy enough BH pass that its been marked a UE keeps score at 15-30 instead of 0-40 (other 2 points passing winners - FH lob and running BH cc) before Cash holds

Mats serves out to 15, winning a point with a fourth volley winner where Cash meets him at net return-approaching in the game

Cash breaks early fro 2-0 in second set with 3 passing winners (2 BH dtl’s - 1 return, 1 regular, a net chord flicking BH cc where the net chord flick doesn’t effect Mats’ coverage of the pass). Mats has better of rest of set though - holding readily, while regularly getting into return games

Mats ends up serving 28 points in the set, to Cash’s 39

Mats breaks back for 3-4, with Cash’s 2 UEs (reaction second volley and easy regulation first) bigger contributors than couple of aggressively won points by Mats
Cash needs a fifth volley to put a point away with an OH winner game afer
Cash finally breaks to love to end the set. He’s got 3 winners in the game, but weak first ‘volley’s from Mats is more behind the result than anything else

Things change slightly in third set. Cash is less regular in looking to find net when Mats stays back and he’s not trying to inch forward while passing as earlier either. Mats instead comes in off his non serve-volley points

2 trade breaks in middle of set, both of them mostly bad ones from the server. Cash wins a point involving a lob volley as he breaks but other points he wins are directly or indirectly products of Mats’ poor shots (a weak first ‘volley’ BH at net that leaves him open to be passed and 2 net UEs)

Cash is just as poor to hand back the break with 3 volley UEs (1 tricky), though Mats finishes with a swinging FH cc passing winner
Cash again breaks to end the set, with Mats making ploppy volleys in the game. Cash has had better of this one, serving 26 points in set to Mats’ 34

So far, match has been mediocre. Ordinary serving, returning, volleying. Passing’s a little better but hardly worth remembering either

That changes in the fourth set, which is fantastic. Stats presented for it earlier covers the very impressive numbers for both players, which does justice to it

Cash returns regularly, Mats misses little enough to be credit worthy but still not volleying with authority. Still, Cash’s hit rate on the pass - he has 9 winners, 2 errors - is astounding. They’re decent to good look passes, but that’s be fantastic even if they were easy. Has variety on the pass too, with some lovely lob winners

Mats returns at his best, getting returns slightly under net. Cash hasn’t been too dependable even on volleys comfily above net til now, but doesn’t miss much against this tougher stuff. Mats nails passing winners after drawing weaker first volleys, but Cash also hard forces passing errors

Cash endures 14 point hold to start (just 1 UE in the game), from 0-40 down (all winners to get to that stage), saving 4 break points in all
Then breaks to 15 with 4 gorgeous passing winners in a row (lob, inside-in return, dtl and cc - all BHs)

Then endures 24 point hold, saving 5 break points. Just 2 UEs in that game too
From 3-0, 4/6 remaining games are breaks, and 1 which isn’t lasts 10 points (Mats’ sole hold)
Lots of great passes from both players and both players tasked to make difficult volleys which they succeed at too. Plenty of both spectacular shots and exchanges

As Cash steps up to serve for match, Mats opens with a FH dtl pass winner and forces a BH1/2V error to reach 15-30 and invite hopes of a continuation of high end action. At 30-30, he forces Cash back to baseline and takes net but Cash is able to get a strong pass wide enough to force a makeable FHV error before finishing with an ace

Summing up, match of parts with the first 3 sets forgettable and ordinary but the last spectacular. The ending being the best part - and top drawer tennis - probably leaves a better impression of the match as a whole than is deserved

On the whole, Cash misses too many routine, not-difficult and easy volleys to be said to be volleying well. He isn’t always very decisive with his 2-part volleying either. Wilander gives him plenty of room to be destructive with the volleys and in that light, not a great volleying showing from Cash. Meanwhile, he has good and decent looks at the pass almost all match and is forgettable on it for most of it too

Wilander is more secure on the volley but is 1 step ahead of just plonking them in middle of court to leave good passing looks. His scrambling around and putting one more pass in play or drawing a weak first volley (early on due to Cash not volleying well, later due to his own more forceful returning) and following-up with winning passes is probably the high point of play

Not much in the result. Cash’s return-approaching giving him an extra little weapon that pushes near equal his way and the result follows suit

Stats for the final between Boris Becker and Ivan Lendl - Match Stats/Report - Becker vs Lendl, Wimbledon final, 1986 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[jrepac]

this was one of those great S&V vs. baseliner match ups. I did not see this one, unfortunately. Cash was awfully effective on grass. His '87 run was amazing. Talk about the right time to get "hot". But, Mats did take his revenge in the AO final....I watched that one....was pretty painful to see Pat lose. I liked both guys, but was rooting for Pat. Mats was also a little unlucky at Wimbledon. You need a little luck on the unpredictable grass courts.

 

[Hard Court]

This particular match was not a S&V vs a baseliner. Wilander came in almost all the time on his serve as well. That is how the game was played at Wimbledon at the time.
One stat that jumped out at me was the amount of service breaks. Cash was broken 5 times and Wilander 7 times! At Wimbledon in those days, that was almost unheard of.
Wilander may have been better off had mixed it up and not came to the net so often. Of course that is easy to say after the match was over.
If you would have said before the match that Wilander would break Cash 5 times in 4 sets, you would like Wilander's chances.

 

[jrepac]

This particular match was not a S&V vs a baseliner. Wilander came in almost all the time on his serve as well. That is how the game was played at Wimbledon at the time.
One stat that jumped out at me was the amount of service breaks. Cash was broken 5 times and Wilander 7 times! At Wimbledon in those days, that was almost unheard of.
Wilander may have been better off had mixed it up and not came to the net so often. Of course that is easy to say after the match was over.
If you would have said before the match that Wilander would break Cash 5 times in 4 sets, you would like Wilander's chances.

Well, Wilander was something of an all-court player, Cash was certainly S&V. I'm very familiar with that era. I did not see this particular match, was mildly surprised at the result. That is a lot of service breaks, I would agree.