Match Stats/Report - Cash vs Wilander, Wimbledon quarter-final, 1987

[Waspsting]

Pat Cash beat Mats Wilander 6-3, 7-5, 6-4 in the Wimbledon quarter-final, 1987 on grass

Cash would go onto win the event, beating Ivan Lendl in the final and Jimmy Connors in the semis. It was his only Slam title. It was the first of Wilander's 3 consecutive quarter-final showings at the event, his personal best result. The two had met in the previous years fourth round, with Cash having won. The two would go onto meet at the next Australian Open final on hard court, with Wilander winning

Cash won 103 points, Wilander 71

Cash serve-volleyed off all serves, Wilander off all but 3 first serves and most of the time off second serves

Serve Stats
Cash...
- 1st serve percentage (61/79) 77%
- 1st serve points won (52/61) 85%
- 2nd serve points won (10/18) 56%
- Aces 5 (1 not clean - bad bounce related), Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (19/79) 24%

Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (67/95) 71%
- 1st serve points won (43/67) 64%
- 2nd serve points won (11/28) 39%
- Aces 2 (1 possibly not clean)
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (13/95) 14%

Serve Patterns
Cash served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 47%
- to Body 15%

Wilander served...
- to FH 60%
- to BH 32%
- to Body 9%

Return Stats
Cash made...
- 81 (47 FH, 34 BH), including 1 runaround FH, 1 runaround BH & 10 return-approaches
- 9 Winners (5 FH, 4 BH)
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 FH)
- 9 Forced (6 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (81/94) 86%

Wilander made...
- 59 (22 FH, 37 BH)
- 5 Winners (1 FH, 4 BH)
- 12 Errors, all forced...
- 12 Forced (6 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (59/78) 76%

Break Points
Cash 4/9 (6 games)
Wilander 1/2 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Cash 49 (8 FH, 11 BH, 14 FHV, 8 BHV, 8 OH)
Wilander 24 (7 FH, 4 BH, 5 FHV, 5 BHV, 3 OH, 1 BHOH)

Cash had 26 from serve-volley points -
- 11 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 BH at net)... the BH at net was a running-down-net-chord-dribbler
- 11 second volleys (5 FHV, 6 OH)
- 3 third volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 fourth volley (1 FHV)

- 3 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 2 BHV)

- 1 other OH was on bounce and hit an on the baseline Wilander in the head

- 17 passes - 9 returns (5 FH, 4 BH) & 8 regular (2 FH, 6 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc and 4 inside-in (1 possibly not clean)
- BH returns - 1 dtl and 3 inside-in
- regular FHs - 2 cc
- regular BHs - 3 cc, 1 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out and 1 lob

- non-pass FH - 1 running-down-drop-shot net chord dribbler (with Wilander at net)

Wilander had 13 from serve-volley points
- 5 first volleys (1 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)
- 5 second volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)
- 2 third 'volleys' (1 BHOH, 1 FH at net)... the FH at net was a pass
- 1 re-approach volley (1 FHV)

- 10 passes - 5 returns (1 FH, 4 BH) & 5 regular (5 FH)
- FH return - 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in and 1 net chord dribbler (which technically, isn't a pass)
- regular FHs - 2 cc (1 at net), 1 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out and 1 lob

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Cash 33
- 5 Unforced (1 FH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 28 Forced (12 FH, 11 BH, 1 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54

Wilander 34
- 8 Unforced (1 BH, 3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 BH pass attempt
- 26 Forced (7 FH, 15 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)... with 2 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52.5

(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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Cash was...
- 68/91 (75%) at net, including...
- 55/71 (77%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 45/54 (83%) off 1st serve and...
- 10/17 (59%) off 2nd serve
---
- 7/10 (70%) return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Wilander was...
- 49/85 (58%) at net, including...
- 46/82 (56%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 38/62 (61%) off 1st serve and...
- 8/20 (40%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/5 (20%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
Good match and great showing from Cash, who's a class above in virtually all areas. Wilander's not bad - Cash is simply, just considerably better.

Cash's volleying is top drawer (and its up against good passing and returning), particularly, his ability to make tricky or difficult volleys with authority (i.e. leaving very low percentage passing chances). His returning is also excellent (against ordinary calibre serve) and he regularly gets the ball in under the net or wide. That kind of returning at very high 86% return rate is also, top drawer

The serve is merely decent - above average is a fair descrition for its power and placement. The passing is very good - helped and set up by both his excellent returning and Mats' not- damaging (but consistent) volleying, so Mats does make him have to make the pass

And what of Wilander? The serve is ordinary. The volleying almost as consistent as Cash himself (which makes it high end), but not decisive even against regulation or comfortable balls above net. Lower the ball gets, the less decisive Mats' volleying (which is normal), but he remains consistent even to the shoelace volleys

Some fine returning from Mats. Like Cash, he gets the return in under the net regularly and often well below that even. When he can't, he leaves the comfortable volley above net (as opposed to missing the return going for too much). In other words, he's willing to test Cash on the regulation volley. He usually doesn't get much of a shot on the pass after Cash's first volley and when he does, he hammers passes well - only again, Cash keeps making tough volleys

Boiled down to essentials -
- Cash's superiority on the volley is biggest difference between the 2 - specifically, at every difficulty level of volley, his shots leave small chances on the pass, while Mats' leaves reasonable ones even ont he routine volley
- He's also got better serve, with neither player having a particularly damaging one
- the differecne in serve quality trickles down to how well each can return somewhat... they both return well in getting the ball down low with high consistency. If Cash does better on the return, its not by too much and due to facing weaker opposition
- combination of the above - but mainly the difference in volleying - leads to Cash passing much better. He usually has reasonable to decent shots at it but is also relentless in chasing down hopeless balls to put one more in play. Almost Chang like. Precison rather than power is at heart of Cash's passing, including with excellent lobs. Mats' passing chances are crumbs.
Cash serve-volleys 100% of the time, Wilander 95% of the time off 1st serves (all but thrice) and 74% of the time off 2nds (all but 7 times). So overwhelming bulk of action is serve-volleyer vs return passer

On what little that isn't, Cash seeks net quickly, off the return if possible. Wilander looks to play from baseline which, due to Cash's initiative, usually turns into his having to make passes

From passers point of view (i.e. when other player is already at net), Wilander sticks to orthodox, baseline passing. Of course, bulk of Cash's passing is of same type, but he also looks to edge his way forward to net or return-approach on top of that. Not just chip-charges. He comes in when he sees Mats has to make half-volley or shoelace volley

Which such dynamics, net points and their breakdown is sufficient to compare how the 2 do - and Cash leads in all ways

serve-volleying - Cash wins 77%, Mats 56%
- off 1st serve - Cash 83%, Mats 61%
- off 2nd serve - Cash 59%, Mats 40%
- return-approaching - Cash 7/10, Mats 0
- rallying to net - Cash 6/10, Mats 3/7

More basically -
- 1st serve in - Cash 77%, Mats 71%
- 1 st serve won - Cash 85%, Mats 64%
- 2nd serve won - Cash 56%, Mats 39%

As Cash's very high in-count suggests, not big serving from him. 71% in from Mats is probably normal for him. Cash has 7 unreturnables to Mats' 2 from roughly same number of first serves and both players double fault just once. Cash leads unreturned rate 24% to 14%

86% return rate - even against Mats' ordinary serving - is potentially outstanding number (depending on damagin quality of returns). Said damaging quality is A-ok, with plenty of firmly blocked, below net balls making up the staple, a good few down by Mats' feet and 9 return winners for good measure. On top of that, Cash return-approaches (including against first serves and while Mats' is serve-volleying) and wins 7/10 doing so. Great showing

Mats serving 60% to FH and just 32% to BH is unusal by a general standard. For him, its a bit different. In general (i.e. beyond this match), Mats serves more to FH than BH when he's staying on the baseline. When serve-volleying, he usually switches to BH, particularly out wide in ad court

Cash's reputation for having stronger BH than FH might have hand in Mats' choices too. Its justified - return errors across wings is in proportion to serving patterns (FEs - 6 FH, 3 BH), but Cash has 2 FH UEs to 0 on BH (in line with Mats' general habit of serving there when not serve-volleying) and disproporitionately high number of BH winners (4 to 5 FHs)

 

[Waspsting]

'Volleying' figures (including 1/2volleys and groundstrokes at net when appropriate), with roughly equal approaches requiring a volley -
- Winners - Cash 31, Mats 15
- UEs - Cash 4, Mats 7
- FEs - both 5

The winner discrepancy speaks for itself, but there are points of interest in further breakdown of serve-volleying winners
- first volleys - Cash 11, Mats 5
- second volleys - Cash 11, Mats 5
- third/fourth volleys - Cash 4, Mats 2 (excluding a Mats 'reapporach volley')

Cash's greater ability to putaway the volley is in evidence, though that's helped by his facing more readily dispatchable ones and so is Cash essentially being a 2-step volleyer (as opposed to a 1-volley killer)

4 third/fourth volleys is very unusual. Mats isn't unduly good at scampering to put 1 more ball in play (to be more accurate, he doesn't get a chance to be beyond 2 volleys) and speaks more to Cash's volleying style - strongly authoritive but not killer. Its actually Cash who shows more never-let-a-ball by effort. He's like Michael Chang in his scampering to throw up one more ball when in hopeless situation

Mats by contrast isn't even a 2-part volleyer. He's a 'keep-volleying-back-into-court-'til-you-get-error' type - with volleys not placed wide or punched through too much

Mats' high consistency and handling of the tough volley is credit worthy. Little in the UE counts - both players are very consistent. And Mats makes the tough volley as well as Cash himself

On the post-return pass (taking virtually all groundstroke FEs to be passes)
- Winners - Cash 8 (2 FH, 6 BH), Mats 5 FH
- FH FEs - Cash 11, Mats 7
- BH FEs - Cash 11, Mats 13
- BH passing UE - Mats 1

Cash with BH > FH is shinging through. a 1:2 winners to errors ratio on the pass is very good on the BH. Mats doesn't target a particular side - he volleys simply to keep ball in play

Mats with 0 winners, 13 FEs and a rare UE on the BH pass. Cash does target it in classic serve-volley fashion. He's not particularly bad and gets good BH passes off - only Cash keeps making the tough volleys. Mats' FH passes are easier - Cash volleys there when he's not in great control of the volley, preferring to go to BH when he has choice. Despite the numbers, Mats is pretty even of strenght across wings - he gets more makeable passes on FH than on BH because Cash targets BH when in control but significant lot of his volleys to the FH are when he's not in control. And Cash makes tough volleys off both sides, regardless of which side Mats hits his passes

Match Progression
Dominant showing by Cash in the opening set as he loses 4 points in holding 5 times and he's always ahead having broken to go up 2-0

Mats' returning isn't challenging. Puts returns comfortably over net. Cash copes easily because it is pretty easy, in 2-volley style to pu poitns to bed like clockwork. On other side, some superb, blocked returning from Cash, getting balls in low and/or wide to give Mats difficult first volleys. Mats handles them well but early on, he stays back of second serves. Cash comes in on those points and edges forward when Mats is dealing with low volleys while serve-volleying too.

Mats' first 2 service games total 12 points - and Cash is at net 6 times in them

Cash gets his break by taking net and winning both Mats' 2nd serve points in game 2, forcing a shoelace BHV error and misses misses a regulation BHV too. Mats survives another tough 10 point hold ann adjusts by serve-volleying regularly off second serves for rest of match

Second set is gorgeous, one of the best dual serve-volley vs reutrn-pass contests you'll see. Both players serve solidly enough and both return wonderfully. Most first volleys faced by both players are some combo of low, wide and powerful and there are plenty of half-volleys to make too. Wilander's returning in this part of the match is much better than anything Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl would manage in the next 2 rounds against Cash

Cash still holds fairly easily, being taken to deuce just once. Instead of commandingly putting Mats in his place like in first set though, he needs mutliple volleys to finish points, many of them difficult ones. He doesnt' miss them - and he faces a lot

Mats faces almost as difficult a time in forecourt. He makes the bulk too, but is passed eventually after similar 3-4 shot exchanges more often. He's taken to deuce 4 times in holding 5 times

Cash breaks to love with 4 passing winners in a flawless game - different kinds of good returns to draw not strong volleys that he dispatches FH cc eventually, a perfect BH inside-out return pass againast a body serve and finally, a hooked BH cc to a ball well wide and nearly passed him - to go up 6-5 and then serves out the set to 15

Third set is a let down from the second. Cash gets comfortable volleys with just the odd low one and holds more readily. Mats' mediocore volleying leaves Cash shots on the pass that he takes (as opposed to Cash's returning forcing weak volleys that Cash takes). This is what one player simply being better than the other looks like

What things look like and what the scoreboard says are often at odds on grass and athats' true here too. Mats snags his only break of the match to go up 2-0 in a game faeturing 2 return winners and a makably forced reflex FHV error from Cash. Cash responds immediatly with 3 passing winners to bring up 3 break points and goes on to break back

Its only after that little exchange, which as far as score goes, is Mats greatest success of the match that dyamics shift to whats described. After holding in a hurry with 4 returneted serves (3 of them unreturnable), Cash breaks again - 2 pasing winners from him and 2 regulation volley misses by Mats - to move ahead 3-2. No more breaks thereafter

Summing up, a great showing from Cash. In his service games, its the volleying rather than serve that does the work. He's faced with plenty of difficult low volleys, but keeps making them, with such authority that Wilander has little shot on the pass. On the return, he's compact and keeps getting balls in low or wide to test Wilander, while remaining remarkably consistent at getting the second shot in play.

Wilander's serve is harmless, he's in the same high end consistency boat on the volley as Cash (including on the difficult volley) but doesn't have anything like the winners authority on the shot and leaves reasonable passing chances that Cash snags as needed. By contrast, he gets very few good looks at passes and even when he does, Cash keeps making the volleys

More broadly, a first class run at this tournament from Pat Cash. Its his handling of difficult, low volleys that stands out the most. Shoelace volleys and low volleys and trickily low-ish or wide volleys or reaction/reflex volleys... not only does he barely miss, but he volleys with authority, depth and wide of the baseliner. And the combination of consistency while regularly getting ball in at least low-ish returning against the serve-volleying of Wilander and Ivan Lendl is a thing of beauty too. Finally, the follow-up passing after drawing weak to not-strong volleys with the return is elegant in its precision (rather than power)

Stats for the final between Cash and Ivan Lendl - Match Stats/Report - Cash vs Lendl, Wimbledon final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

Stats for Cash's semi with Jimmy Connors - Match Stats/Report - Cash vs Connors, Wimbledon semi-final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

Stats for pair's '88 Australian Open final - Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Cash, Australian Open final, 1988 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[BringBackWood]

Really fun match. I can't think of a grand slam run that was as consistently high quality as Cash 87. Maybe Edberg 91 US open? He was zoning seemingly every match. Volleying better than anybody has or will ever do.

 

[Waspsting]

Really fun match. I can't think of a grand slam run that was as consistently high quality as Cash 87. Maybe Edberg 91 US open? He was zoning seemingly every match. Volleying better than anybody has or will ever do.

Yep

When I watch stuff now that I've only heard about and that's been praised to the skys... more often than not, I'm disappointed. Usually, its great - but not 'greatest ever' stuff because I can name a bunch of other stuff as good that doesn't get praised to the sky

So that's what I was half-expecting looking at Cash's run

Nope. Deserves all the praise it gets. As you said, its hardly possible to volley better - quarters, semis and final

Aesthetically, I prefer Edberg's killer 1st volleying method to Cash's essentially 2 volley way, but they're about equally effective
And I haven't seen anyone make everything from 'tricky' to really difficult, shoelace volleys like Cash does in these 3 matches

This is my favourite style of serve-volleying to watch - a good serve, but not an overwhelming one, so the volley doing most of the work. Players like Sampras and even McEnroe may have 'played better' (been even more secure on their service games), but with much greater emphasis on the serve shot (particularly Sampras) relative to the volley

Edberg would be the first person who comes to mind as potentially being able to match the showing. Slight pity that Lendl took him out in the semis... would have loved to see Cash playing like he is here versus an in form Edberg. They played the Aus Open final earlier in the year that went to 5... good match, but short of great

Would also have loved to see Cash volleying against his own calibre returning. He gets so many balls in just under the net. Not too difficult to do against Mats, but Lendl got it the same way in the final. He does in the 2nd set here and volleys his way surely through it - even making it look routine

Trust Lendl to spoil a potentially great thing - and then get rolled over in the final

 

[Larry Duff]

I remember Navratiolava saying she watched Cash volleying and it inspired her to change her volleying a bit.

 

[jrepac]

Really fun match. I can't think of a grand slam run that was as consistently high quality as Cash 87. Maybe Edberg 91 US open? He was zoning seemingly every match. Volleying better than anybody has or will ever do.

I think it's the best I ever saw him play. Not that he did not play well in other exciting matches, mind you. But he was just so consistently good...did not see the QF but did watch semis and finals. Guy was tremendous all around, honestly. And he's playing 2 all time greats in both matches, so kudos to him. Figured he'd pick up another GS or 2 but it was not in the cards