Stefan Edberg beat Pat Cash 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3 in the Australian Open final, 1987 on grass
This was the last edition of the tournament to be played on grass. The two had recently played a Davis Cup final rubber at the same venue with Cash winning.
Edberg was the defending champion from 1985. Cash would go onto win his sole Slam at Wimbledon later in the year and finish runner-up again the following year to Mats Wilander on hard court
Edberg won 163 points, Cash 153
Edberg serve-volleyed off all but 4 serves (2 firsts and 2 seconds). Cash serve-volleyed off all serves
Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (91/149) 61%
- 1st serve points won (64/91) 70%
- 2nd serve points won (31/58) 53%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (37/149) 25%
Cash...
- 1st serve percentage (95/167) 57%
- 1st serve points won (68/95) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (31/72) 43%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 12
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (45/167) 27%
Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 39%
- to BH 54%
- to Body 7%
Cash served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 37%
- to Body 26%
Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 110 (50 FH, 60 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 2 return-approaches
- 10 Winners (4 FH, 6 BH)
- 38 Errors, all forced...
- 38 Forced (18 FH, 20 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- Return Rate (110/155) 71%
Cash made...
- 109 (40 FH, 69 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 11 Winners (3 FH, 8 BH)
- 30 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 29 Forced (14 FH, 15 BH)
- Return Rate (109/146) 75%
Break Points
Edberg 6/18 (9 games)
Cash 5/10 (8 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 57 (12 FH, 10 BH, 13 FHV, 14 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 7 OH)
Cash 48 (11 FH, 12 BH, 10 FHV, 6 BHV, 9 OH)
Edberg had 33 from serve-volley points
- 22 first 'volleys' (9 FHV, 11 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH)... the BH1/2V was possibly not clean & OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 9 second volleys (3 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)
- 2 third volleys (2 OH)
- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 10 returns (4 FH, 6 BH), all passes
- FHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl and 1 inside-in
- BHs - 3 cc, 2 dtl and 1 inside-in
- FHs (all passes) - 3 cc (1 at net, 1 net chord pop over), 4 dtl and 1 dtl/inside-out
- BHs (all passes) - 1 cc and 3 dtl
Cash had 25 from serve-volley points
- 7 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 FH at net)
- 15 second volleys (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 8 OH)
- 2 third volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 fourth volley (1 FHV)
- 1 from a return-approach point, 1 FH longline at net pass
- 1 from a non-serve-volley point, a FHV
- 11 returns (3 FH, 8 BH), all passes
- FHs - 1 cc and 2 dtl
- BHs - 3 cc (1 not clean), 4 dtl and 1 inside-in
- FH (all passes) - 3 cc, 2 dtl and 1 longline/cc
- BHs (all passes) - 2 dtl, 1 inside-out dtl and 1 lob
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 57
- 16 Unforced (7 FHV, 9 BHV)
- 41 Forced (10 FH, 19 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 baseline BHV pass attempt
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 56.3
Cash 57
- 15 Unforced (1 BH, 5 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 1 BH at net
- 42 Forced (8 FH, 18 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 8 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 Over-Shoulder)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52.7
(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
Edberg was...
- 94/144 (65%) at net, including...
- 87/135 (64%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 56/82 (68%) off 1st serve and...
- 31/53 (58%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/4 (100%) return-approaching
Cash was...
- 97/153 (63%) at net, including...
- 92/148 (62%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 61/88 (69%) off 1st serve and...
- 31/60 (52%)off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back
Match Report
Close match with a nervy finish, with the two players switching having the momentum at different stages of the match. On the whole, Edberg does most things more aggressively for majority of match but also has more periods of dipping level of play. The contest is decided in the fifth set however by just chance, who-has-bad-serve-game/good-return game. Fitness and nerves might also play a part. Edberg appears tired or/and mentally down in fourth set and comes very close to choking away his lead in the deciding set
Match is virtually 100% serve-volley contest. Edberg stays back off 4 serves (2 firsts, 2 seconds), while Cash follows all his serves to net
To paraphrase Ivan Lendl, it doesn't matter how many (insert anything you like... good/bad X serve/return/volley/pass) you have, it matters when you have them. Overall stats are uncannily similar for the two players
-First serve in - Edberg 61%, Cash 57%
- First serve won - Edberg 70%, Cash 72%
- Aces/Service Winners - Edberg 6/1, Cash 6/1
- Unreturned serves - Edberg 25%, Cash 27%
- Returns made - Edberg 110, Cash 109
- Return winners - Edberg 10, Cash 11
- Breaks - Edberg 6, Cash 5
- Games with break points - Edberg 9, Cash 8
- Groundstroke winners - Edberg 22, Cash 23
- FHV and OH winners - Edberg 20, Cash 19
- Unforced errors - Edberg 16, Cash 15....
- Forced errors - Edberg 41, Cash 42.... (even breakdown by groundstrokes and net shots are near identical for both FEs and UEs)
- Net points won - Edberg 65%, Cash 63%
- Serve-volleying points won - Edberg 64%, Cash 63%
And significant differences?
- 2nd serve points won - Edberg 53%, Cash 43%
- Double Faults - Edberg 3, Cash 12
- BHV/BH1/2V winners - Edberg 15, Cash 6
- UEFI - Edberg 56.3, Cash 52.7
... and most of those don't really matter. Double faults cost Cash a couple of games, but only in sets he would win anyway. They also account for his lower 2nd serve points won. That is not why he loses.
BHV winners and especially, UEFI are best indicators of the slim difference between two players. Edberg is more aggressive in his volleying. Break down of UEs (all of them net shots) -
- Attacking UEs - Edberg 37.5%, Cash 73.3%
- Winner attempts UEs - Edberg 62.5%, Cash 26.7%
... is a fair indicator of how aggressive each player is. Note also Edberg with 22 first 'volley' winners or 67% of his serve-volley volley winners, to Cash with 7 or 28%
All that just describes a stylistic (not qualitative) difference, viz. Edberg being more aggressive, in the context of both players being at net virtually all the time on service games. It does put odds more in favour of Edberg coming out ahead though.... for Cash's chances to go up, he'd need Edberg missing more volleys. In light of how each player volleys, its unlikely Cash could make more passes.... if anything, he's able to stay close because Edberg has a lower hit rate on passing shots
According to telecast and confirmed by ATP site, Cash was seeded 10th but ranked 24? How?
This was the last edition of the tournament to be played on grass. The two had recently played a Davis Cup final rubber at the same venue with Cash winning.
Edberg was the defending champion from 1985. Cash would go onto win his sole Slam at Wimbledon later in the year and finish runner-up again the following year to Mats Wilander on hard court
Edberg won 163 points, Cash 153
Edberg serve-volleyed off all but 4 serves (2 firsts and 2 seconds). Cash serve-volleyed off all serves
Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (91/149) 61%
- 1st serve points won (64/91) 70%
- 2nd serve points won (31/58) 53%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (37/149) 25%
Cash...
- 1st serve percentage (95/167) 57%
- 1st serve points won (68/95) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (31/72) 43%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 12
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (45/167) 27%
Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 39%
- to BH 54%
- to Body 7%
Cash served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 37%
- to Body 26%
Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 110 (50 FH, 60 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 2 return-approaches
- 10 Winners (4 FH, 6 BH)
- 38 Errors, all forced...
- 38 Forced (18 FH, 20 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- Return Rate (110/155) 71%
Cash made...
- 109 (40 FH, 69 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 11 Winners (3 FH, 8 BH)
- 30 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 29 Forced (14 FH, 15 BH)
- Return Rate (109/146) 75%
Break Points
Edberg 6/18 (9 games)
Cash 5/10 (8 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 57 (12 FH, 10 BH, 13 FHV, 14 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 7 OH)
Cash 48 (11 FH, 12 BH, 10 FHV, 6 BHV, 9 OH)
Edberg had 33 from serve-volley points
- 22 first 'volleys' (9 FHV, 11 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH)... the BH1/2V was possibly not clean & OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 9 second volleys (3 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)
- 2 third volleys (2 OH)
- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 10 returns (4 FH, 6 BH), all passes
- FHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl and 1 inside-in
- BHs - 3 cc, 2 dtl and 1 inside-in
- FHs (all passes) - 3 cc (1 at net, 1 net chord pop over), 4 dtl and 1 dtl/inside-out
- BHs (all passes) - 1 cc and 3 dtl
Cash had 25 from serve-volley points
- 7 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 FH at net)
- 15 second volleys (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 8 OH)
- 2 third volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 fourth volley (1 FHV)
- 1 from a return-approach point, 1 FH longline at net pass
- 1 from a non-serve-volley point, a FHV
- 11 returns (3 FH, 8 BH), all passes
- FHs - 1 cc and 2 dtl
- BHs - 3 cc (1 not clean), 4 dtl and 1 inside-in
- FH (all passes) - 3 cc, 2 dtl and 1 longline/cc
- BHs (all passes) - 2 dtl, 1 inside-out dtl and 1 lob
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 57
- 16 Unforced (7 FHV, 9 BHV)
- 41 Forced (10 FH, 19 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 baseline BHV pass attempt
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 56.3
Cash 57
- 15 Unforced (1 BH, 5 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 1 BH at net
- 42 Forced (8 FH, 18 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 8 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 Over-Shoulder)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52.7
(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
Edberg was...
- 94/144 (65%) at net, including...
- 87/135 (64%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 56/82 (68%) off 1st serve and...
- 31/53 (58%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/4 (100%) return-approaching
Cash was...
- 97/153 (63%) at net, including...
- 92/148 (62%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 61/88 (69%) off 1st serve and...
- 31/60 (52%)off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back
Match Report
Close match with a nervy finish, with the two players switching having the momentum at different stages of the match. On the whole, Edberg does most things more aggressively for majority of match but also has more periods of dipping level of play. The contest is decided in the fifth set however by just chance, who-has-bad-serve-game/good-return game. Fitness and nerves might also play a part. Edberg appears tired or/and mentally down in fourth set and comes very close to choking away his lead in the deciding set
Match is virtually 100% serve-volley contest. Edberg stays back off 4 serves (2 firsts, 2 seconds), while Cash follows all his serves to net
To paraphrase Ivan Lendl, it doesn't matter how many (insert anything you like... good/bad X serve/return/volley/pass) you have, it matters when you have them. Overall stats are uncannily similar for the two players
-First serve in - Edberg 61%, Cash 57%
- First serve won - Edberg 70%, Cash 72%
- Aces/Service Winners - Edberg 6/1, Cash 6/1
- Unreturned serves - Edberg 25%, Cash 27%
- Returns made - Edberg 110, Cash 109
- Return winners - Edberg 10, Cash 11
- Breaks - Edberg 6, Cash 5
- Games with break points - Edberg 9, Cash 8
- Groundstroke winners - Edberg 22, Cash 23
- FHV and OH winners - Edberg 20, Cash 19
- Unforced errors - Edberg 16, Cash 15....
- Forced errors - Edberg 41, Cash 42.... (even breakdown by groundstrokes and net shots are near identical for both FEs and UEs)
- Net points won - Edberg 65%, Cash 63%
- Serve-volleying points won - Edberg 64%, Cash 63%
And significant differences?
- 2nd serve points won - Edberg 53%, Cash 43%
- Double Faults - Edberg 3, Cash 12
- BHV/BH1/2V winners - Edberg 15, Cash 6
- UEFI - Edberg 56.3, Cash 52.7
... and most of those don't really matter. Double faults cost Cash a couple of games, but only in sets he would win anyway. They also account for his lower 2nd serve points won. That is not why he loses.
BHV winners and especially, UEFI are best indicators of the slim difference between two players. Edberg is more aggressive in his volleying. Break down of UEs (all of them net shots) -
- Attacking UEs - Edberg 37.5%, Cash 73.3%
- Winner attempts UEs - Edberg 62.5%, Cash 26.7%
... is a fair indicator of how aggressive each player is. Note also Edberg with 22 first 'volley' winners or 67% of his serve-volley volley winners, to Cash with 7 or 28%
All that just describes a stylistic (not qualitative) difference, viz. Edberg being more aggressive, in the context of both players being at net virtually all the time on service games. It does put odds more in favour of Edberg coming out ahead though.... for Cash's chances to go up, he'd need Edberg missing more volleys. In light of how each player volleys, its unlikely Cash could make more passes.... if anything, he's able to stay close because Edberg has a lower hit rate on passing shots
According to telecast and confirmed by ATP site, Cash was seeded 10th but ranked 24? How?