Michael Chang beat Andrei Chesnokov 6-3, 6-4, 7-5 in the Indian Wells final, 1992 on hard court
Chang would follow-up by winning Miami. Chesnokov was unseeded and this would be his only final at the event
Chang won 108 points, Chesnokov 83
(Note: I’m missing serve direction and corresponding return data for 2 points -
Set 1, Game 3, Point 9
Set 1, Game 7, Point 6)
Serve Stats
Chang...
- 1st serve percentage (57/86) 66%
- 1st serve points won (38/57) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (19/29) 66%
- Aces 4
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/86) 17%
Chesnokov...
- 1st serve percentage (57/105) 54%
- 1st serve points won (30/57) 53%
- 2nd serve points won (24/48) 50%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (13/105) 12%
Serve Patterns
Chang served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 2%
Chesnokov served...
- to FH 45%
- to BH 43%
- to Body 12%
Return Stats
Chang made...
- 90 (48 FH, 41 BH, 2 ??), including 1 runaround FH & 8 return-approaches
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (5 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- 4 Forced (4 BH)
- Return Rate (90/104) 88%
Chesnokov made...
- 70 (36 FH, 34 BH), including 9 runaround FHs
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 9 Unforced (6 FH, 3 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (70/85) 82%
Break Points
Chang 7/14 (9 games)
Chesnokov 3/7 (5 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Chang 24 (13 FH, 4 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)
Chesnokov 11 (3 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
Chang FHs - 4 cc, 3 dtl (2 passes), 1 dtl/inside-out, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc
- BH passes - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 1 lob
- 2 from return-approach points (1 BHV, 1 OH)
Chesnokov's FHs - 1 cc, 1 cc/inside-in, 1 inside-out
- BHs - 3 dtl (1 at net, 2 passes), 2 drop shots (1 at net), 1 lob
- 1 FHV was a non-net, swinging cc
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Chang 58
- 46 Unforced (20 FH, 22 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)... the FHV was a swinging, baseline shot & 1 OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 12 Forced (6 FH, 5 BH, 1 FH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.3
Chesnokov 68
- 46 Unforced (22 FH, 23 BH, 1 BHOH)
- 22 Forced (8 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.1
(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
Chang was 27/38 (71%) at net, with...
- 6/8 (75%) return-approching
- 4/7 (57%) forced back
Chesnokov was 10/20 (50%) at net, with...
- 0/2 forced back/retreated
Match Report
Amidst staple of slow, who-blinks-first passive baseline rallying, Chang is more aggressive and that aggression is the only difference between the two players; The blink-rate ends almost identical, though it varies across the match. Court is slow
Rarely has a match come out so perfectly in numbers
First serve points won - Chang 67%, Ches 54%
Second serve points won - Chang 66%, Ches 50%
For starters, and deducible from the above, serve and return are non-factors. Hence the two players winning same lot of points across their two serves. Hence, in count is also not important (though it does cutely end in line with points won across serves for both players - Chang 66%, Ches 54%)
Next, those basic stats nicely sum up who has better of things and by how much
Finally, what makes up that difference has come out beautifully. In context of staple passive rallying -
UEs - both 46 (both have just 1 net UE)
Neutral UEs - Chang 30, Ches 31
UEs by shot -
- Chang FH 20
- Chang BH & Ches FH 22
- Ches BH 23
(Chang also has a couple of baseline errors from FHV and OH on bounce)
As even as you can get. Leaving difference to be made up from -
Winners - Chang 24, Ches 11
Errors forced - Chang 22, Ches 12
Net points of Chang 38, Ches 20 (Chang wins 71%, Ches 50%) play into the above numbers
Serve -return unimportant
Staple passive rallying, ending up virtually equal
Chang a lot more attacking and successful at it, with Ches being on low end of aggressive intent. And to be clear, that in context of general passivity from both players. Tune into match at a random point and most likely you’ll hit upon a passive, who-blinks rally
Weak serves from both players and court is slow. Returns are easy to make
Low freebies of Chang 17%, Ches 12%. 16/22 return errors have been marked UEs
Chang occasionally following a thumped return to net, Ches just putting the return in play
5% freebie advantage doesn’t seem like much (and isn’t). In light of Chang with more return aggression (he wins 6/8 return-approach points - hard hit shots that he follows to net, not chip-charges and always against second serves), nice for Chang to have it in his favour
Chang would follow-up by winning Miami. Chesnokov was unseeded and this would be his only final at the event
Chang won 108 points, Chesnokov 83
(Note: I’m missing serve direction and corresponding return data for 2 points -
Set 1, Game 3, Point 9
Set 1, Game 7, Point 6)
Serve Stats
Chang...
- 1st serve percentage (57/86) 66%
- 1st serve points won (38/57) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (19/29) 66%
- Aces 4
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/86) 17%
Chesnokov...
- 1st serve percentage (57/105) 54%
- 1st serve points won (30/57) 53%
- 2nd serve points won (24/48) 50%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (13/105) 12%
Serve Patterns
Chang served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 2%
Chesnokov served...
- to FH 45%
- to BH 43%
- to Body 12%
Return Stats
Chang made...
- 90 (48 FH, 41 BH, 2 ??), including 1 runaround FH & 8 return-approaches
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (5 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- 4 Forced (4 BH)
- Return Rate (90/104) 88%
Chesnokov made...
- 70 (36 FH, 34 BH), including 9 runaround FHs
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 9 Unforced (6 FH, 3 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (70/85) 82%
Break Points
Chang 7/14 (9 games)
Chesnokov 3/7 (5 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Chang 24 (13 FH, 4 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)
Chesnokov 11 (3 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
Chang FHs - 4 cc, 3 dtl (2 passes), 1 dtl/inside-out, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc
- BH passes - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 1 lob
- 2 from return-approach points (1 BHV, 1 OH)
Chesnokov's FHs - 1 cc, 1 cc/inside-in, 1 inside-out
- BHs - 3 dtl (1 at net, 2 passes), 2 drop shots (1 at net), 1 lob
- 1 FHV was a non-net, swinging cc
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Chang 58
- 46 Unforced (20 FH, 22 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)... the FHV was a swinging, baseline shot & 1 OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 12 Forced (6 FH, 5 BH, 1 FH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.3
Chesnokov 68
- 46 Unforced (22 FH, 23 BH, 1 BHOH)
- 22 Forced (8 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.1
(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
Chang was 27/38 (71%) at net, with...
- 6/8 (75%) return-approching
- 4/7 (57%) forced back
Chesnokov was 10/20 (50%) at net, with...
- 0/2 forced back/retreated
Match Report
Amidst staple of slow, who-blinks-first passive baseline rallying, Chang is more aggressive and that aggression is the only difference between the two players; The blink-rate ends almost identical, though it varies across the match. Court is slow
Rarely has a match come out so perfectly in numbers
First serve points won - Chang 67%, Ches 54%
Second serve points won - Chang 66%, Ches 50%
For starters, and deducible from the above, serve and return are non-factors. Hence the two players winning same lot of points across their two serves. Hence, in count is also not important (though it does cutely end in line with points won across serves for both players - Chang 66%, Ches 54%)
Next, those basic stats nicely sum up who has better of things and by how much
Finally, what makes up that difference has come out beautifully. In context of staple passive rallying -
UEs - both 46 (both have just 1 net UE)
Neutral UEs - Chang 30, Ches 31
UEs by shot -
- Chang FH 20
- Chang BH & Ches FH 22
- Ches BH 23
(Chang also has a couple of baseline errors from FHV and OH on bounce)
As even as you can get. Leaving difference to be made up from -
Winners - Chang 24, Ches 11
Errors forced - Chang 22, Ches 12
Net points of Chang 38, Ches 20 (Chang wins 71%, Ches 50%) play into the above numbers
Serve -return unimportant
Staple passive rallying, ending up virtually equal
Chang a lot more attacking and successful at it, with Ches being on low end of aggressive intent. And to be clear, that in context of general passivity from both players. Tune into match at a random point and most likely you’ll hit upon a passive, who-blinks rally
Weak serves from both players and court is slow. Returns are easy to make
Low freebies of Chang 17%, Ches 12%. 16/22 return errors have been marked UEs
Chang occasionally following a thumped return to net, Ches just putting the return in play
5% freebie advantage doesn’t seem like much (and isn’t). In light of Chang with more return aggression (he wins 6/8 return-approach points - hard hit shots that he follows to net, not chip-charges and always against second serves), nice for Chang to have it in his favour