Match Stats/Report - Courier vs Edberg, Australian Open final, 1993

[Waspsting]

Jim Courier beat Stefan Edberg beat 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5 in the Australian Open final, 1993 on hard court

The match was a repeat of previous years final, which Courier had also won. This would turn out to be Courier’s last Slam title, though he’d reach the final of both French Open and Wimbledon (beating Edberg in the semi’s en route) later in the year. This was Edberg’s 11th and last Slam final

Courier won 115 points, Edberg 86

Edberg serve-volleyed off all first serves and slightly more than half the time off seconds

Serve Stats
Courier...
- 1st serve percentage (56/96) 58%
- 1st serve points won (44/56) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (22/40) 55%
- Aces 8
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (32/96) 33%

Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (57/105) 54%
- 1st serve points won (37/57) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (19/48) 40%
- Aces 6 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (26/105) 25%

Serve Patterns
Courier served...
- to FH 47%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 1%

Edberg served...
- to FH 27%
- to BH 63%
- to Body 10%

Return Stats
Courier made...
- 71 (16 FH, 55 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 15 Winners (4 FH, 11 BH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 FH)
- 19 Forced (7 FH, 12 BH)
- Return Rate (71/97) 73%

Edberg made...
- 59 (22 FH, 37 BH), including 16 return-approaches
- 24 Errors, comprising...
- 14 Unforced (7 FH, 7 BH), including 5 return-approach attempts
- 10 Forced (8 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (59/91) 65%

Break Points
Courier 7/14 (8 games)
Edberg 4/10 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Courier 42 (20 FH, 18 BH, 2 BHV, 2 OH)
Edberg 27 (3 FH, 2 BH, 6 FHV, 9 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 4 OH, 2 BHOH)

Courier had 28 passes - 14 returns (4 FH, 10 BH) & 13 regular (10 FH, 4 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc and 2 inside-in
- BH returns - 5 cc, 4 inside-in and 1 lob/cc (a mishit)
- regular FH passes - 2 cc, 3 dtl (1 at net), 2 inside-out, 2 inside-in and 1 lob
- regular BH passes - 3 cc and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc at net

- regular FHs - 2 cc (1 at net), 3 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 cc and 2 dtl (1 return, 1 at net)

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley BHV
- both OHs were on the bounce (1 behind the service line, but counted as a net point)

Edberg had 14 from serve-volley points -
- 8 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 5 second 'volleys' (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH, 1 BH at net)
- 1 third volley (1 BHOH)

- 5 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)
- FH passes - 1 cc and 1 lob
- BH pass - 1 dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Courier 28
- 7 Unforced (5 FH, 1 BH, 1 OH)... with 1 FH pass attempt & 1 FH at net
- 21 Forced (9 FH, 12 BH)... with 2 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52.9

Edberg 33
- 21 Unforced (3 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 OH)
- 12 Forced (5 FH, 1 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.0

(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
Courier was...
- 15/24 (63%) at net, including...
- 2/3 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 2/2 off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 forced back

Edberg was...
- 64/109 (59%) at net, including...
- 43/76 (57%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 33/53 (62%) off 1st serve and...
- 10/23 (43%) off 2nd serve
---
- 10/16 (63%) return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
A strange match and not in a good way. On a slowish court, Courier is at his best (bar a cluster of double faults) and hits with exceptional clean vigour on the return and off the ground (including passes) to gain the win. The shine of his performance though is somewhat dimmed by Edberg playing very poorly for much of the time

Its not an even match and can be divided into 3 parts - the first 2 sets, the third set and the fourth set

Part 1 (First 2 sets)
Courier is very impressive. Serves powerfully enough to be called a ‘big server’, though not going too wide. Takes returns early and smacks them for winners. Hits beat-down strong groundies off both wings in baseline rallies with top class depth and is just as clean off shot on the pass

Edberg is terrible in just about all ways.
- Serve lacks place of placement. He neither serves threateningly wide nor crampingly close, he serves in swing zone closer to the body than otherwise
- Struggles to return the power serves, which is understandable and not a major blackmark, but he is down from his personal norm on the second shot
- Volleys poorly - missing routine balls, missing not-easy or slightly-hard volleys and not putting away the ones he make
- Offers puny resistance in baseline rallies, giving up the beat-out errors quickly or missing desperate dtl attacking shots

To be clear, Courier’s showing has a hand in all of the above, but still, very weak stuff from Edberg

After 2 sets (15 games), Edberg’s held 3 times and been broken 4 times. He has 17 UEs and won 3/20 second serve points. He’s tried serve-volleying behind it and got clobbered. Tried staying back and got clobbered some more

Courier meanwhile loses 5 points in holding 8 times

Part 2 (3rd set)
Courier maintains his standard, Edberg improves to tune of getting more returns in and hanging in the baseline rallies a bit better. These changes are unlikely to turn the result

What is and does is Edberg’s top notch return approaching. The BH chip-charges cut through the air flat and very deep and he even comes in behind FH dtl returns against first serve. It’s the approaches more than the volley that does the trick, but Edberg also finds his peerless finishing volleys behind them

He doesn’t find them behind his serve though and is content to knock volleys back to Courier. A step up from missing them. On his second serve, Edberg fixes on a staying back and coming in early

Still, set is a bit disappointing. Edberg breaks thrice. Once his due to his excellent return-approaches. The other two times, Courier double faults twice. For that matter, a bad call keeps Edberg from doing so too, when down break point, his 2nd serve which was out is called in for an ace - and he goes on to hold

Part 3 (4th set)
The only great set of the match. Edberg’s found his best volleying and taken to 2nd serve-volleying again. Courier’s returning standard hasn’t dropped either. Baseline rallies are competitive - Courier hammering balls, Edberg gracefully counter-punching. Edberg returning surely and keeping up the return-approaches. Looks like the match’s redemption

The two trade breaks at 3-3, with both players breaking with 3 winners

Which makes the ending all that more disappointing. Imitating his opponent in set 3, Edberg’s broken serving at 5-5 via 2 double faults. As Courier reaches 40-15 serving for the match after, Edberg fights back to deuce. Only 2 miss 2 routine second serve returns to end it

The changing phases of the match make match long stats somewhat deceptive

 

[Waspsting]

Points of Interest
The defining aspect of the match is Courier’s return vs Edberg serve (and serve-volleying)

Courier is bold and wonderful. He’s on the baseline or a step behind for first returns and takes a step in for the shot itself. Against second serves, he’s a little further up still

Contacts the ball clean as a whistle. Against first serves, it’s a bit hit and miss, which against first serves is a good outcome. Against second serves, it looks like target practice. Far up as he is in court, whatever high kick Edberg might have got is a non-factor and balls at optimal height for Courier to have a rip through

Courier has 14 return pass winners, Edberg has the same number of serve-volleying ones. That’s not likely to end well for the server

Edberg’s serve isn’t great. Generally, he likes to tie up returners with body and body-ish serves. His placement is off though and most serves, particularly the seconds are in Courier’s swing zone, slightly closer to the body than ideal. Courier goes to town on these. His inside-in returns are struck straight as arrows, parallel to the center line and Edberg has no chance of reaching the volley

Edberg wins 10/23 points 2nd serve-volleying and 7/15 staying back. And the pressure he’s under leads to costly 8 double faults

Edberg adjusts his first serve, which also isn’t pacey (if it were, Courier wouldn’t be taking them from inside the court) to be directed wider. It works to an extent, but good lot of these get clobbered too

Edberg volley vs Courier pass is the follow-up battle, though its not as connected to the first as it might be. Courier’s returns are one shot deals, going for winners or at comfortable height (though powerful). There isn’t much draw-weak-shoelace-volley-with-return & follow-up pass going on

The power of Courier’s returns and his early position means even the regulation volley is on Edberg quickly. They’re still regulation volley, but Edberg has no excess of time on them

Almost all of Edberg’s volleying errors come in part 1. He finishes with 10 UEs (relatively difficult for UEs for reasons given above) and 5 FEs (relatively easy for FEs for not being low, though they’re usually a bit wide). In part 2, Edberg doesn’t miss much without being devastating and in part 3, he adds the devastation too

The overall figures favour Courier. Edberg with 24 ‘volley’ winners, Courier with 27 passing ones is certain to lead to breaks

Funnily enough, its Courier, in 1 of only 3 serve-volley points that pulls of the best volley of the match, BHV’ng a firmly struck, low-ish return for a winner on the line

Edberg’s return-approaches vs Courier’s second serve is the battle that turns the match. Edberg’s 10/16 return-approaching is excellent, but that excludes 5 errors trying. About 50% success rate for Edberg with his return-approaches, which is wonderful after winning just 2/12 second return points in Part 1

Baseline rallies are strongly led by Courier, who is by far the meatier hitter and does all kinds of damage beyond just UEs, while Edberg’s limited to getting UEs from Courier or somehow coming to net to get out of the rally

Baseline-to-baseline UE counts -
- Courier BH 1
- both FHs 3
- Edberg BH 8

Is a win all around for Courier. His FH does all kinds of damage that Edberg’s doesn’t and distancing Edberg on the BH isn’t something he’d want to have counted on

Edberg’s return being just a big off comes through in his 14 return UEs. Much of it are ‘good’ errors, aggressive ones, but in part 1 in particular, he misses a few routine errors. Courier leading unreturned rate 33% to 25% isn’t a good omen for the serve-volleyer

Finally, double faults. The 2 share 13 double faults (Courier 5, Edberg 8). 9 of them come in break games (Courier 4 in 2 games, Edberg 5 in 3), with Edberg escaping being broken one other time via an incorrect line call

Both players are under pressure with their second serves, what with Courier stepping in and pulverizing returns and Edberg kniefing chip-charges to the baseline, but those are both bad figures and badly timed

Match Progression
First 2 sets are gone in a blur of Courier power serving, power returning, power baselining and power passing, with Edberg’s serve not up to the stick, his both missing volleys and not putting them away, struggling to return and being beat-down from the baseline

Ironically, match starts very differently. Edberg, the returner, artfully coming in and deftly making a BH1/2V winner on the first point. It’s the only point he wins in the game, with Courier hammering a pair of third ball FH inside-out winners

First break comes in game 4. Pair of double faults in it, a makeably difficult volleying error and on break point, Courier hits a splendid running FH cc pass winner

Another break to end the set in a 14 point game. Edberg gets out of 0-40, but a pair of UEs (a routine BH and a particularly easy FHV) brings up a 4th break point in time. Courier bangs a BH return pass cc winner against what looks like it was a fault of a first serve

From 1-1 in the second set, Courier reels of 5 games in a row. Edberg double faults on break point for the first break (rest of the points he loses are all strong ones from Courier) and second break is also a product of Courier’s quality, ending with a pair of return pass winners (cc and inside-in).

You could say match begins to turn as Courier serves it out after falling behind 0-40. He’d won his previous 20 service points. Starting with the serve out, he faces break points 5 games in a row

Edberg holding to open Set 3 from 30-30 comes as a surprise at this stage. And his breaking thereafter (with 3 top notch chip-charge points, 2 ending with winners) a miracle. Courier though his right back with 3 passing winners on the trot to bring up 2 break points. The second of these is called an ace. The ball was out and should have been a double fault

Edberg makes it 4-0 with Courier double faulting twice, though Edberg seals the break with another chip-charge. Courier breaks back and survives 2 break points to keep himself in the set. He’s broken again to end it, double faulting twice again, including on break/set point

4th is top quality. Edberg serve-volleying regularly and beautifully, dispatching volleys, Courier still hitting the odd unanswerable return. Courier still serving meatily, but Edberg returning surely. Edberg still return-approaching, but Courier coping with better passes. Courier still power hitting from the baseline, but Edberg counter-punching, hanging in and looking to come in

At 3-3, they trade breaks. Courier breaks first, crushing 3 return pass winners in 4 points, 2 of them against first serves (BH inside-in, BH cc and FH inside-in). Edberg breaks right back from 30-0 down passing Courier, and then swishing 2 volley winners after chip-charge returns (1 FHV, 1 BHV), before working his way to net and forcing a passing error on break point

At 5-5, Edberg’s broken for good. Couple of good Courier plays - a running-down-drop-volley winner at net and a strong BH cc return that forces a BHV error, but the other 2 points he wins are double faults by Edberg, including on break point. The first double fault features the wildest second serve miss you’ll ever see

Courier’s taken to deuce as he serves out, with Edberg winning a pair of net points from 40-15 down. But he misses 2 second serve returns thereafter (1 of them trying to chip-charge) to end the match

Summing up, excellent all around showing by Courier. The early taken, swatted returns are the highlight but the serve, groundstrokes and passes are all powerful and high of quality too. The only drawback is a brief double faults flutter that costs him a set

Edberg is more down than up and downright poor for over two sets. Top quality return-approaches help turn things around and eventually, he reaches something like his top form too with the volleying at the end standing out. On the whole, though, a bad showing from Edberg, but more a good showing from Courier

Stats for Edberg’s semi-final with Pete Sampras - Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Sampras, Australian Open semi-final, 1993 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[tennistiger]

Match Report
A strange match and not in a good way. On a slowish court, Courier is at his best (bar a cluster of double faults) and hits with exceptional clean vigour on the return and off the ground (including passes) to gain the win. The shine of his performance though is somewhat dimmed by Edberg playing very poorly for much of the time

It was a very hot day, so the court (compared to other matches there) played relatively fast.

 

[buscemi]

I think Edberg's back injury contributed to his poor performance for him. That was kind of the beginning of the end.

 

[calculus]

It was a very hot day, so the court (compared to other matches there) played relatively fast.

Yeah, the weather is a big factor in this match. I remember (read from a report) that the AO organizer considered to close the roof due to extreme heat. Courier adamantly opposed it, threatening he'd withdraw from the match if the roof was closed. Not 100% sure if this report is true. But it makes sense that Courier wanted to fully utilize his super conditions as a weapon. Unfortunately for Edberg, he's obviously on the downside in that kind of heat.

Technically, at this stage, it seems Courier completely figured out Edberg. As the stats provided here show, his return of serves played a key role in his victory. He can consistently redirect Edberg's serve (especially 2nd serve) with his compact back swing on both sides. If Edberg got the chances to hit a quality first volley, it is difficult for anyone to chase it down most of the time. But Courier just did not give him the chance to execute his first volley with any ease.

In GS, Courier leads 4 -2 over Edberg. More significantly, he beat Edberg in SF of 1993 Wimbledon, which is considered the home court for Edberg (as a two time champion). Courier beat Edberg in all GS except US Open. Edberg beat Courier in 1991 US Open final, but I guess there's no need for Courier to blame himself too harshly because Edberg admitted that he just played the match of his life on that day, barely missing any shot.

 

[tennistiger]

Both Edberg and Courier were against closing the roof!