Match Stats/Report - Corretja vs Enqvist, Indian Wells final, 2000

[Waspsting]

Alex Corretja beat Thomas Enqvist 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 in the Indian Wells final, 2000 on hard court

Corretja was unseeded and this would be his last Masters final and only one on hard court. 10th seeded Enqvist beat Pete Sampras and defending champion Mark Philippoussis among others en route to the final. He had won Stuttgart late in previous season and would win Cincinnati later in the year

Corretja won 99 points, Enqvist 78

Serve Stats
Corretja...
- 1st serve percentage (38/77) 49%
- 1st serve points won (30/38) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (28/39) 72%
- Aces 11 (1 second serve, 1 not clean), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (28/77) 36%

Enqvist...
- 1st serve percentage (54/100) 54%
- 1st serve points won (33/54) 61%
- 2nd serve points won (26/46) 57%
- Aces 8
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (22/100) 22%

Serve Patterns
Corretja served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 55%
- to Body 14%

Enqvist served...
- to FH 43%
- to BH 55%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Corretja made...
- 71 (29 FH, 42 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (5 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 7 Forced (5 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (71/93) 76%

Enqvist made...
- 48 (18 FH, 30 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 3 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 16 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (8 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 8 Forced (2 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (48/76) 63%

Break Points
Corretja 5/13 (5 games)
Enqvist 1/7 (4 games)

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Corretja 16 (10 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV)
Enqvist 26 (13 FH, 7 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Corretja had 10 passes (6 FH, 4 BH) -
- FHs - 3 cc, 3 dtl
- BHs - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 longline, 1 lob

- regular FHs - 2 dtl (1 return, 1 at net), 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-out
- regular BH - 1 dtl

Enqvist's FHs - 7 cc (1 pass), 1 dtl, 4 inside-out, 1 inside-in return
- BHs - 3 cc (1 pass), 3 dtl, 1 inside-out

- 1 from a return-approach point,

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Corretja 29
- 10 Unforced (6 FH, 4 BH)
- 19 Forced (8 FH, 11 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50

Enqvist 48
- 38 Unforced (22 FH, 11 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 10 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50.5

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(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
Corretja was 4/6 (67%) at net

Enqvist was...
- 21/38 (55%) at net, including....
- 1/2 serve-volleying, both 1st serves
---
- 2/3 (67%) return-approaching

Match Report
Corretja is neat and tidy counter-punching, while Enqvist looks to overpower him, and finish both from the back and at net. Enqvist returning quite badly is biggest factor in the result. Court is on slow side

Enq’s returning flops in both consistency and more than that, quality of shots. He makes Cor’s normal second serve look like a decent first serve. Leaving Cor to fire away full blast with first serves (which are impressive), and start second serve points from comfy positions

As for consistency, Cor gains impressive 36% unreturned serves, despite low 49% in count. The generally bigger serving Enq has 22% freebies from 54% in count (also, double faults 7 times, to Cor’s 1)

Once rally is underway, Enq power hits and looks to boss action. Start the power hitting a shot earlier with the return - which is do-able against Cor’s normal enough second serve, and within Enq’s general capabilities - run of play probably goes his way. Especially with Cor’s low in count
Instead, Enq returning second serves as if they’re firsts

Statistically, it’s a curious match
First serve in - Cor 49%, Enq 54%
First serve won - Cor 79%, Enq 61%
Second serve won - Cor 72%, Enq 57%

All of Cor’s stats are unexpected. Low in count and very high winning rates behind both serves.
Would suggest all in serving, which is largely true; he’s going for point ending serve virtually everytime with the first serve. Thus low in count, high ace (29% of his first serves are aces/service winners, Enq has 14%) and unreturned rates (he has 36%-22% lead) and high first serve points won

Its unclear (translation - I don’t know enough about Cor’s general ways) how common this is for Cor. Given his steady baseline game (strength - outsteadying opponents, having fewer UEs), would think uncommon. He plays like Ivan Lendl, who liked to blaze down first serves as a sort of free hit, seemingly unconcerned about low percentage because of (justified) confidence in his ability to grind out bulk of second serve points. Wouldn’t think Cor would feel that way about second serve points with Enqvist, a capable bashing returner and strong court player

Can’t ask for more than winning 72% second serve points. Big second serving too? That much better than Enq from the baseline?

Not big second serving. And if he were so much better than Enq from baseline, Enq wouldn’t be winning 57% of his own second serve points. Put it down to Enq returning not well (both missing returns and not not returning with heat) + some ground superiority for Cor

Cor’s figures look like shut-out ones. Along with routine 4,4 & 3 scoreline, wouldn’t be surprised to see Enq with 0 break points

Break points - Cor 5/13 (5 games), Enq 1/7 (4 games)
That is a surprisingly large lot of break chances for Enq, given scoreline and Cor’s serving stats

Most plausible explanation would be low percentage aggressive return game strategy from Enq - blasting every return (missing a lot but doing damage with what he lands), resulting in a lot of very easy holds, but odd game where Enq gets in, he gets in good. You see stats like this for returners against big serving, serve-volleyers on fast courts, where they’re half throwing away good lot of return games
This ain’t a fast court. And Cor’s at net 6 times all match, none of them serve-volleying. And that ‘most plausible explanation’ is nowhere close to what actually happens

Enq returns normally of style and not well of quality. Misses a lot of returns, and makes no headway with the return shot. Its just plain wacky that its turned out the way it has - his having break chances in 4/14 or 29% of return games, while winning just 25% return points

Enq’s figures are odd too. 61% first serve points won, 57% seconds. Looks like a weak server with a good court game

He’s not a weak server. And if he had a good court game, he probably wouldn’t be winning just 28% second return points
Double faults a lot (7 times, or 13% off second serves. Cor has 1 or 3% to compare). Sans those, he wins 67% second serve points - cozily more than the 61% first serve points won

He does serve hefty seconds, so at least, there’s some logic to his winning high lot of points (also, high lot of double faults). Odd that it’d be more than first serve points though. He’s got 8 first serves aces or 15% of first serves. Smaller than Cor, but pointing to good enough serve that would probably win more rally points than even big seconds. Not what happens

There’s a lot going on there that doesn’t fall under common trends. Gist of it -

- Enq winning about same amount of first and second serve points. Low for first serves, high for seconds. Strong second serving accounts for relatively high second serve points won. But he’s underperformed behind his first serves. That’d largely be over-eager, badly executed aggression

- Cor winning similar number of first and secong serve points and both are very high
All in first serving largely explains high first serve points won, check
Very high second serve points won is strange. Decent second. “Not asking to be attacked” is best way to describe them. They can be attacked, with a bit of moxie from returner (something Enq generally has). Enq returning not well - missing returns and returning normally (leaving server with initiative of upcoming rally) is behind some of it, but 72% points won is too high for that to explain all of it, especially since Cor doesn’t do a whole lot with the small initiative he has to start such rallies

- and Enq with a lot more chances as returner than you’d think looking at figures

Serve & Return
Biggest take away is Enq not returning well

Cor big first serving, at cost of low in count. Decent second serving
Enq his normal, hefty first serving. About same force as Cor’s firsts. Pretty hefty second serving too, at cost of considerable double faults

First serve in - Cor 49%, Enq 54%
Cost of Cor’s pointedly big serving. Enq’s isn’t a good figure, given just his normal delivery. Given his normal delivery is same calibre as Cor’s all-in, this is relative win for Enq
Enq’s normal includes a normal mix of bigger serves and checked ones. Cor’s almost all in with every first serve

First serve ace/service winner rate - Cor 29%, Enq 15%
Unreturned serves - Cor 36%, Enq 22%
Value of Cor’s pointedly big serving. That’s good value. Enq’s freebies are on low side, so good returning consistency from Cor

 

[Waspsting]

2nd serve double fault rate - Cor 3%, Enq 15% (Cor also has a second serve ace to go with his sole double)
Significant cost of hefty second serving for Enq. It has value in allowing him to start rallies from lead position. Just 1 double, with low 49% in count is very good for Cor. Enq unable to do damage with the return. He usually isn’t trying to

Sans aces and service winners, Cor faces 85 serves, Enq 64
Cor with 14 return errors (7 UE, 7 FE), Enq 16 (8 UE, FE)

Cor’s consistency is better, back-cut just slightly by quality of returns. Both players return normally. Leaving as small an initiative for server on third ball is good returns for the match. There’s little neutralizing, let alone initiative snatching stuff. Enq tries a bit with a few hard-hit return-approaches, including delayed ones

Enq’s BH return the loose one, with all 8 UEs and 6/8 FEs. It cops 55% of serves

Gist - unreturned serves Cor 36%, Enq 22%, with Enq also double faulting fair bit and little difference in quality of returns. Enq with limited attempts at aggressive returns (a natural move, given Cor’s 49% in count), which is do-able
Cor with big advantage on serve-return complex

Play - Baseline & Net
Starting from baseline, Cor is controlled, orthodox. Enq is more powerful and looks to overpower Cor. Cor rarely unleashes a big shot - wide BH cc or a power FH - from routine position to end or take charge of point. Enq takes on not obvious finishing shots from the back regularly enough, when he’s not looking to overpower

In time, Enq cuts to the chase of looking to overpower (strangely, not often with the return)
And Enq cut to the chase of that by coming to net to finish while doing it
He does not volley well, and is apt to miss easy ones. Cor passes well too, independent of Enq’s so-so volleying

In baseline rallies -
Winners - Cor 4 (3 FH, 1 BH), Enq 18 (11 FH, 6 BH)
Erros forced - Cor 7, Enq 4
(Aggressively ended points - Cor 11, Enq 22)
UEs - Cor 10 (6 FH, 4 BH), Enq 33 (22 FH, 11 BH)

… and UE breakdowns (excluding volleys)
- neutral - Cor 4, Enq 10
- attacking - Cor 2, Enq 12
- winner attempts - Cor 4, Enq 11

Standard, counter-puncher vs attacking player figures. Throw in Enq being in a hurry to get on the overpower-&-attack gig and those figures paint good picture of play

Cor more secure trading groundies (which are tilted towards Enq moving to outhit, Cor counter-punching, as opposed to straight out netural exchanges). Those rallies don’t go on for long, with Enq pressing forward to outhitting (or taking on winner from back). Its more Enq determined to take charge of action, rather than wisely attacking because he’s ousteadied from back

Interestingly, Cor with poor winner to winner attempt UEs ratio of 1:1, while Enq’s closer to 2:1
Its middle-ground attacking that Cor’s much better. Forcing 7 errors, just 2 attacking UEs, while Enq with terrible 4 errors forced, 12 attacking UEs. Most of his winners aren't set up by attacking combos either

Rallying to net - Cor 4/6, Enq 18/33
Enq’s also a combined 3/5 serve-volleying and return-approaching for total 21/38 or 55% at net

Theoretically, power-hitting + approaching net is a great way to attack. Plain ol’ beating up a solid baseliner from Cor from baseline is uphill work. Nailing winners from the back is uphill work
Well-judged out-hitting (without overtly straining to end points via power) + approach can make being aggressive so much more efficient

Enq is not a good net player. Brick hands, prone to miss easy volleys, not very good quality volleys. To be highly successful at net, he’d need the ‘out-hitting from the back’ part of approaching to be on heavy side
He does outhit Cor, but not enough to comfily take net. He turns more and more to net play as match goes on, and its replaced back court power and shot-making as his first string attack in middle of match. Doesn’t waste much time looking for net either

On he volley, he’s got 6 winners, 5 UEs, 2 FEs
Cor on the pass has 9 winners (6 FHs), 15 FEs (5 FHs)

The volley winners are dollies. He doesn’t even go for the clean winner off some dollies. And he misses fair few, with UEs being simple.
The FEs he draws are low percentage shots, with the overpowering approach doing most of work and act of being at net the cincher. More about back-court power. It is a good move, given his poor in-between attacking efficiency from the back

Cor better on the pass than Enq is on the volley. For starters, its actually a good sign for Cor that Enq has so few volley FEs. No sense going for a lot on the pass when moderate one is liable to win point against Enq
On the FH pass, Cor with outstanding 6 winners, 5 FEs. All credit to him. Enq at least isn’t a plonk volleyer and those aren’t lined up easy shots

55% net points won, coming in so often, enough to make up for attacking efficiency problems from the back? Close to it
There’s the 14% freebie handicap and 7 double faults to make up for too - and 55% is far from overriding that too

Match Progression
First set is competitive and break points in it read Cor 1/2 (1 game), Enq 0/4 (2 games), with Cor escaping from 15-40 twice and needing a spot of luck to gain his break

Cor with low 13/30 first serves in, but Enq not moving well for the return; seems to be slow reaction to the ball that’s behind it, rather than slow movement

Enq more powerful hitter from back off court, also more giving with the errors looking to hit hard. Cor’s more contained, but able to surprise with a big FH from routine position and some hits some nice attacking BH dtl’s. Enq is poor at net

Cor breaks early for 2-1, with luck on his side. Double fault and couple bad FH UEs from up the court put Enq down 30-40. After serving away the first break point, he’s at net commandingly, but net chord pop pass necessitates adjusted volley. He manages quite well, but Cor upto delivering a fine FH cc pass winner to raise second break point

Beautiful, take charge BH cc from routine position from Cor on it and he completes the break by taking net

Cor’s strained to hold the break lead. He’s down 15-40 in game 6, with Enq defending ably until Cor finally misses big FH inside-out. Reaches safety of deuce with with some authority (strong serve setting up winning OH on bounce from baseline and pressuring out a BH UE with FH inside-out), but its pair of poor BH return UEs from Enq that end the game

He’s down 15-40 on the serve-out too, with Enq aggressively winning first two points (error forcing BH dtl and FH cc winner against a decent FH inside-in)
Enq misses makeably tough return on first break point, and gives up neutral FH UE on second. He loses the set missing an easy BHV, afte setting point up with a strong return

Second set’s competitive too. Takes Cor 16 points to break to open the set. Later on, he holds off a break point with a very unlikely pass winner

Enq switches tacks to net play for primary offence. Comes in in a bunch of ways - after pointedly overpowering Cor or quite sneakily or behind powerful returns. Its an odd choice, given he doesn’t look comfy at net, or good on the volley

He’s at net 7 times in 16 point opening game. Wins 3 of those points, with Cor pulling off a couple of good FH dtl pass winners. Lovely, running chip-pass to get ball low on penultimate point and force a BH1/2V error from Cor. Enq misses a FH dtl winner attempt to finally end it

Enq continues approaching and it gets him to break point in game 6. Big FH dtl’ish approach looks like potential winning shot even without approach on it, but Cor with a mavelous full running, block BH dtl pass winner. A 15-20% shot that comes off. He goes on to hold with aces and a service winner and in time

Is the frustration building in Enq? He’s playing with reckless, 1-shot aggression by end of set, missing often as not, and carries on that way in the third set

It pays, as he breaks for 2-0 with 3 winners (FHV from a quick dash approach, FH cc and to finish, FH inside-in return)
And it fails, as he’s broken back immediately, missing 3 aggressive third ball shots (2 attacking FHs and a winner attempt BH dtl)

Beautiful BH lob winner off balance by Cor game after

Cor breaks twice more to end the set. First is a 14 point game, with Cor striking fine passing winners early on, Enq double faulting couple times in the middle and Enq missing attacking FHs at the end
The second ends the match. Couple BH UEs by Enq to start (1 dtl/inside-out winner attempt, 1 neutral shot), a winning FH dtl by Cor and BH cc pass winner to raise break/match point, on which Enq double faults

Summing up, composed and tidy match from Corretja. His first serve is a big weapon and he holds off the considerable power off Enqvist from the back of the court coolly and passes very well as needed

Enqvist returns badly, both for missing a lot of returns and not making an impact against large lot of second serves he faces; seemingly due to not picking up the ball early enough
He is the aggressor in court action - looking to overpower opponent, going for his shots from the back, and attacking net to finish. Dangerously so, but not well played, harried and he’s messy in forecourt