Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Connors, Basel semi-final, 1989

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat Jimmy Connors 6-1, 7-5 in the Basel semi-final, 1989 on indoor hard court

Edberg would go onto lose the final to Jim Courier. Connors had won the pair’s most recent meeting at the US Open in straight sets shortly before. Connors would win his next two tournaments in Toulouse and Tel Aviv, the last two titles of his career, taking his total to a still Open Era record 109 titles

Edberg won 68 points (including a point penalty), Connors 50

Edberg serve-volleyed off all but 3 first first serves and all but 4 seconds, Connors serve-volleyed about a third off the time off first serves

[Note: I’m missing partial data for 2 points

Set 1, Game 1, Point 2 - serve direction and corresponding return data missing. Ending of the point has been recorded as an unknown Edberg FH or BH UE - probably a neutral shot but this has not been marked
Set 1, Game 4, Point 1 - unknown serve point and return type. Ending of the point has been recorded and point has been marked a net point for Edberg but not a serve-volley (it was probably a serve-volley)]

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (35/53) 66%
- 1st serve points won (28/35) 80%
- 2nd serve points won (7/18) 39%
- ?? serve points won (1/1)
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (17/54) 31%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (43/63) 68%
- 1st serve points won (24/43) 56%
- 2nd serve points won (8/20) 40%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/63) 11%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 68%
- to BH 24%
- to Body 8%

Connors served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 58%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 56 (25 FH, 30 BH, 1 ??), including 2 runaround FHs, 1 return-approach & 1 drop-return
- 1 Winner (1 FH), a drop-return
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (2 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach attempt
- 3 Forced (3 BH)
- Return Rate (56/63) 89%

Connors made...
- 34 (22 FH, 11 BH, 1 ??)
- 15 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 FH)
- 14 Forced (12 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (34/51) 67%

Break Points
Edberg 5/9 (7 games)
Connors 1/4 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 21 (4 FH, 3 BH, 2 FHV, 8 BHV, 4 OH)
Connors 14 (6 FH, 2 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Edberg had 11 from serve-volley points
- 7 first volleys (7 BHV)
- 3 second volleys (3 OH)
- 1 fourth volley (1 OH)

- FHs - 2 dtl passes, 1 drop return and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc pass at net
- BHs - 1 dtl and 2 cc passes (1 slice)

Connors' FHs - 1 cc pass, 4 dtl (3 passes) and 1 net chord dribbler
- BH passes - 1 cc and 1 dtl

- 3 from serve-volley points - 2 first volleys (2 BHV) & 1 second volley (1 FHV)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 26
- 15 Unforced (5 FH, 5 BH, 1 ??, 2 BHV, 2 OH)... with 2 FH pass attempts (1 lob), 1 OH on the bounce from the baseline & the ?? was a ground FH or BH
- 11 Forced (6 BH, 1 FHV, 4 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.1

Connors 30
- 20 Unforced (7 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH, 1 Point Penalty)... with 1 FH at net
- 10 Forced (4 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.9

(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
Edberg was...
- 35/52 (62%) at net, including...
- 29/41 (71%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 24/30 (80%) off 1st serve and...
- 5/11 (45%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 0/3 forced back

Connors was...
- 15/30 (50%) at net, including...
- 8/16 (50%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 8/15 (53%) off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Comfortable result for Edberg who’s at net much more and volleys much better than his opponent on a fast court

Edberg as ever serve-volleys. 91% off first serves and 73% of seconds. His serve isn’t overly powerful, and he has just 2 aces, nor does he overly direct them to the body. Possible for Jimbo to hammer returns and give him a tough time - though it’d take some doing

Jimbo does what he can pretty well. 67% return rate against constant serve-volleying is generally good enough to create break chances, provided the returns are about net high; the returner will get the odd error and a few passing chances from volleys that aren’t putaway (and putting away every volley around net high is usually not reasonable). Bit lower than the net, bit more power than average on the return and returners chances go up

Jimbo doesn’t get many returners low, but certainly biffs them powerfully. There’s potential for trouble for Edberg against it. His staying back off a few serves is testament to respect for the powerful Jimbo return

His swishing volleys away as if there isn’t anything else to do with them is testament to how good a volleyer he is. On the volley, Edberg has 14 winners, 3 UEs, 5 FEs

The odd UE isn’t too important - and 3 is small enough not to be a problem. Makes maybe slightly fewer tough volleys than he misses on the FE front. And then there are the winners - nearly double all his errors - most anything that’s dispatchable (including powerful returns that most players would find trouble controlling) is dispatched

Standard Edberg stuff

And Jimbo? Its quick enough court that even his serve is not easy to return. Just 11% unreturneds is normal for him, especially against a returner as solid as Edberg, but he does draw weak returns that leave him in command or at least, with initiative of rally. Serve-volleys a fair bit too - 35% off the first serves to be exact, often behind a sliced serve that he’s able to get decently wide

When not serve-volleying, he hammers groundies. Its kind of court where that might be enough to pressure or beat errors out of opponent, but Edberg’s up to handling it. Jimbo’s BH has hitting advantage over Edberg’s loopy FH, but along other diagonal, hitting strength is about even. Little advantage from Jimbo, but he utilizes it to look to come in. He’s neither in a foolish rush, nor waits too long to do so - well balanced from Jimbo

From rallies, he approaches 14 times to Edberg’s 10 - potentially happy things to follow from that for Jimbo (they don’t though)

He has 2 problems though. First, he might be stronger hitter, but Edberg shades consistency. Ground UEs read -

- Edberg FH 3
- Edberg BH 5
- Jimbo FH 6
- Jimbo BH 7
(excluding net shots, pass attempts and an unknown Edberg error, probably a BH). Off the ground, Edberg’s winning

 

[Waspsting]

The second problem is bigger. He only wins 50% at net. 8/16 serve-volleying and 7/14 rallying to net

Edberg gets returns and passes around net high, firmly or a little lower. And that’s good enough

Jimbo’s got 6 forecourt UEs. Not reaching sloppy levels - the balls he misses are more make-able than otherwise but not readily putaway-able - but certainly with room for improvement. Just 3 FEs - he doesn’t face many outright tough volleys, but can’t handle the ones he does. And 6 winners. Edberg is swift and particular in running after everything to give Jimbo one more volley to make. Comparing volleying numbers -

Winners - Edberg 14, Jimbo 6
UEs - Edberg 3, Jimbo 6
FEs - Edberg 5, Jimbo 3

With Edberg at net 52 times, Jimbo 30. Taking away return errors drawn narrows the gap on net points where a volley is actually required

Those extra UEs Jimbo makes are to types of balls that Edberg swishes away for winners. And the FEs Edberg makes against very powerful low balls are tougher than the low, but not too powerful passes that Jimbo can’t handle. And of course, its fear/respect for Edberg’s volley that makes Jimbo need to hit returns hard enough that he makes more return errors than he otherwise might (or not. Jimbo isn’t one to adjust return for anyone and tends to return the same way regardless of opponent)

Gist - Edberg volleying much better, specifically, in his killer finishing. Also consistency, but that’s secondary

Jimbo turns to lobbing quite a lot. No winners, but he wins all 3 points he forces Edberg back and draws 2 OH errors (both UEs, 1 not too easy), while Edberg’s got 4 smash winners. Not bad on the OH by Edberg - the lobs he faces are excellent and he’s well behind the service line usually when he has to make them - but gone is near flawless fluency he used to have on the shot. And again, good idea by Jimbo… better to test Edberg on the OH than the volley, if the OHs are difficult and Jimbo makes it so they are

Jimbo’s not too good on the OH either and has a couple UEs on the shot

Shot of the match is a drop FH return winner by Edberg. Seems to be intentional and brings a smile to his face (he’d have acknowledged/apologized if it had been accidental)

Incident of the match - or rather, the incident that sets off a series of incidents - is a bad line call against Jimbo early in the match. His ball is more inside the court than on the line, but is called out. Jimbo isn’t happy, but confines himself to sarcastic gestures and mutterings which one would have to be paying close attention to be able to hear clearly. Chair elects to give him a warning for obscenity (I think for a gesture indicating getting screwed rather than verbal)

That does it. Jimbo goes over to Chair and gives a frank appraisal of what he thinks of him in general. For rest of match, he off and on directs angry and/or sarcastic words at the Chair, eventually getting a warning and docked a point after calling him an idiot

Funnily enough, he’s downright playful with the crowd though. Generally, Jimbo’s more apt to enjoy a light moment with the crowd even in serious matches, but he’s a little over that here and not far from clowning about. Crowd seems to like it. Doesn’t help Jimbo’s tennis any, though probably doesn’t hurt either - and perhaps there’s a chance it might have distracted Edberg. If it does, its not to troubling extent. Its Jimbo who gets broken in second set after a particularly unusual demonstration for crowds benefit of how Edberg’s shots keep staying lower and lower - though he’s quite capable of making the kinds of looses errors that get him broken whether he’s playing to the crowd or not

Match Progression
Things are going on nicely at 1-1, 30-30 with Jimbo serving when his FH is called out. Ball looks to have been well in. That sets off things described earlier

It doesn’t affect his play. He’s got break point in the next game, erased with a good second serve directed at the body. And strong games from Edberg to break twice more after that

Grabs first break with BH dtl winner, a FH dtl pass winner and on break point, taking net to force error. Grabs second with 2 more passing winners (running-down-drop-volley at net and BH cc), a BHV one set up by a wide FH cc and a low pass

Its in first game of second set that Jimbo gets into it with the Chair in earnest. His BH lob is called out - it’s a very close call and there’s no way Jimbo can be sure if its right or wrong - but he takes it up with the Chair. Not politely and gets docked a point

Saves 3 break points in next game where he’s regularly at net and then breaks with good passes

Jimbo endures other tough holds, but manages to hold onto lead for awhile. Break back comes to make score 4-4. After playing too crowd about how low Edberg gets his slices, he makes a bunch of errors to lose the game. Strong passes and lobs extend Edberg’s consolidation to deuce, but he faces no break points

Edberg breaks to finish the match - couple of good passes, couple of FH UEs from Jimbo (1 at net, 1 an approach attempt) - do the trick

Summing up, good showing from Edberg with his superior volleying coupled with greater net thirst key to result. By his standard, he’s a touch wary of serve-volleying out of respect for Connors’ return, but indulges most of the time and against anything short of untouchable, sweeps volleys away for winners or into corners as a matter of course

Connors serve-volleys a good deal himself and otherwise seeks net sensibly. He’s not there nearly as often as Edberg and can neither putaway or not-miss volleys the way his opponent can and does to leave him trailing by some distance in race to finish line