Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Connors, Cincinnati semi-final, 1987

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat Jimmy Connors 6-2, 6-3 in the Cincinnati semi-final, 1987 on hard court

Edberg would go onto win the title, beating Boris Becker in the final. Connors had recently reached the semi-final of Wimbledon and would do so at the US Open, both times losing to the eventual winner

Edberg won 58 points, Connors 43

Edberg serve-volleyed off all serves

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (43/54) 80%
- 1st serve points won (31/43) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (7/11) 64%
- Aces 5 (1 whiff)
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (21/54) 39%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (38/47) 81%
- 1st serve points won (22/38) 58%
- 2nd serve points won (5/9) 56%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (5/47) 11%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 68%
- to BH 30%
- to Body 2%

Connors served...
- to FH 65%
- to BH 28%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 41 (30 FH, 11 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 5 Errors, all unforced...
- 5 Unforced (3 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (41/46) 89%

Connors made...
- 32 (23 FH, 9 BH)
- 4 Winners (2 FH, 2 BH)
- 16 Errors, all forced...
- 16 Forced (12 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (32/53) 60%

Break Points
Edberg 3/4 (3 games)
Connors 0/2 (1 game)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 14 (1 FH, 3 FHV, 9 BHV, 1 OH)
Connors 13 (7 FH, 3 BH, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Edberg had 12 from serve-volley points
- 9 first volleys (3 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)
- 3 second volleys (3 BHV)

- 1 from return-approach point, a BHV

- 1 FH cc

Connors had 11 passes
- FHs - 3 cc (1 return), 3 dtl (1 return) and 1 dtl/inside-out
- BH returns - 1 cc and 1 dtl
- 2 BHVs (1 non-net)

- 1 non-pass BH cc
- the OH was on the bounce

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 24
- 17 Unforced (3 FH, 6 BH, 4 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 7 Forced (5 BH, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50

Connors 22
- 11 Unforced (9 FH, 2 BH)
- 11 Forced (4 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.5

(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...
- 39/61 (64%) at net, including...
- 33/48 (69%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 26/38 (68%) off 1st serve and...
- 7/10 (70%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Connors was 6/8 (75) at net

Match Report
Straightforward match on a quick, high bouncing court. Edberg serve-volleys 100% of the time while having no trouble returning and getting into Connors’ service games, which consist of baseline rallies

Standout positive for Edberg would be his serve. It’s a good, strong serve but he gets a full 80% first serves in - just 1% less than Connors, whose serve is harmless

There’s a lot of bounce in the court. Both players have to return from high chest, shoulder height - and not just against kick serves. Edberg’s loopy FH also rises that high. At good pace, Edberg’s serve coupled with the high bounce would make his serve tough to handle even sans serve-volleying. But it’s a pacey court too, and both players are rushed on their shots when the other puts his back into groundies (or Edberg’s case, the serve too)

Jimbo returns uncomfortably. Can’t spank the serves, that hurry him some and ends up putting good lot of returns high above the net where they’re easy to putaway. In addition to missing. Edberg with high 39% unreturneds, and comfortable and easy volleys to deal with

Edberg’s not at his best on the volley. Misses a good number of routine ones, and or 1 or 2 easy even. 8 UEs is not small in such a short match. He also volleys a number of routine balls back down the middle to Connors (as opposed to swishing them into corners). That’s a step down for him, but the volleys are well punched and deep. Not much chance for Jimbo on the pass against it

On other side, Jimbo serves gently. Edberg even spontaneously runsaround to play FH returns against first serves a couple times. 11% unreturneds for Jimbo and all 5 errors he draws have been marked UEs. He does send down 2-3 good serves, but Edberg returns them all

With the return comfortably put in play, the two rally from the back. The high net clearance of Edberg’s loopy FH is eyecatching. These tend to rise shoulder high

They rally til someone makes an UE or someone comes to net. Jimbo mildly forces an error, and Edberg hits 1 FH cc winner, but those are the exceptions

Ground UEs
- Edberg 9, Jimbo 11

Both players being much more secure of a particular side. Ground UE breakdowns -
- Jimbo BH 2
- Edberg FH 3
- Edberg BH 6
- Jimbo FH 9

Its Jimbo who directs rallies, occasionally getting to move Edberg side to side. Doesn’t do him much good - Edberg moves swiftly and silently, no problem. The higher balls to his BH cause him some trouble to control. Jimbo’s movements aren’t very good. The hustling, bustling feet never still thing that characterized his play just isn’t there. Gets frustrated at times with Edberg’s volleys being just out reach

Rallying to net (virtually all of which takes place on Jimbo’s serve games) -
- Edberg 5/12
- Jimbo 6/8

… with 2-3 approach errors for Jimbo too

When Jimbo’s serve is returned, he wins 22/42 points (including a double fault). In other words, other than the small 11% unreturneds, he gets little advantage from the serve, but at least, he doesn’t give one away. Not much attacking returning from Edberg - just the one return-approach

Its unlikely Jimbo can hold regularly like this, and he doesn’t. He holds 5 times and is broken 3. Edberg faces break points in one game, which he holds

What else? Note both players unusually serving majority to FH (Edberg directs 68% there, Jimbo 65%). Both have reputations for having weaker FHs than BHs, though that isn’t necessarily true (particularly for Edberg) and doesn’t necessarily extend to the return shot (for both)

Doesn’t mean much. Regardless of direction, Edberg’s serve would be troublesome to Jimbo and Jimbo’s serve would be easy to handle for Edberg

Edberg winning more 2nd serve-volley points than 1sts 70% to 68%. Few kickers among his second serves, but its not a regular thing. Second serves are dialled down versions of his firsts. Doesn’t aim at body much either (just 2% directed there - Connors’ 7% is more about very safe serving rather than aiming at body). Classic, out wide serving by Edberg here

Jimbo’s FH falters much more than his BH in baseline rallies, but is much better on the pass. 5 passing winners, 4 FEs for FH (sans returns), while BH has just the 1 winner, 5 FEs

Match Progression
Edberg holds to love, then breaks to 15. Couple of regulation third ball errors from Jimbo bring up break point, for which Jimbo takes net, but can’t handle a wide pass

Edberg nurses his break to 4-2, but faces a tough hold, brought on by missing easy and routine volleys. He saves the 2 break points he faces with unreturned serves (1 ace) and moves to 5-2

Edberg breaks again to finish the set and make it look as one sided as its actually been. Couple of net points for both players and a couple of ground UEs by Jimbo - a BH to open the game and a FH to end it

3 holds into the second set, Edberg breaks again. 3 FH UEs from Jimbo and a double fault in the game

Edberg misses a few routine or easy volleys from thereon, both in serve and return games, without it doing him much harm as match continues on serve. A token thrill as Edberg serves it out with Jimbo striking back-to-back return-pass winners (BH cc and FH cc) to level at 30-30, before 2 more FH return errors puts an end to things

Summing up, simple match. Edberg serve-volleys always behind a pacey serve that bounces up high and Connors struggles to return at all, much less with authority. And Edberg returns a harmless serve easily to neutralize servers advantage, from where he wins his even share of 50-50 points - rallying from the back ‘til an error comes up

Not a great match from the winner though, with his volleying having room for improvement. But more than good enough for Connors, can’t outplay him from the back and can’t get counter-play against the serve-volleying

Stats for the final between Edberg and Boris Becker - Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Becker, Cincinnati final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[WCT]

Very high unreturned % for a hard court. I have no memory of ever watching this match. I mean back in 87 and I would try to see all Connors' matches if they were televised. I'd tape them if I wasn't home. Looks like it was pretty much an ass kicking, though.

 

[buscemi]

Very high unreturned % for a hard court. I have no memory of ever watching this match. I mean back in 87 and I would try to see all Connors' matches if they were televised. I'd tape them if I wasn't home. Looks like it was pretty much an ass kicking, though.

I wonder how much this match was on Jimbo's mind during their next match, at the 1989 U.S. Open, which was an even bigger ass kicking, but in the other direction.

 

[WCT]

I wouldn't imagine too much since it was 2 years later. I know they played in a special event in 1988. On clay, Edberg won in straight sets. Maybe the AT&T Challenge? I remember taping that one. But the 89 Open was indeed an ass kicking. That was one of his higher levels of play that I saw in his last few years on tour. Beat Mcenroe in Toulouse. That was another.

 

[buscemi]

I wouldn't imagine too much since it was 2 years later. I know they played in a special event in 1988. On clay, Edberg won in straight sets. Maybe the AT&T Challenge? I remember taping that one. But the 89 Open was indeed an ass kicking. That was one of his higher levels of play that I saw in his last few years on tour. Beat Mcenroe in Toulouse. That was another.

I remember Connors being furious during that U.S. Open match, but I think it was at the umpire/line judges, not Edberg.

 

[WCT]

I remember Connors being furious during that U.S. Open match, but I think it was at the umpire/line judges, not Edberg.

You are right, he was. Didn't hurt his level of play, though.

 

[WCT]

Now that I think of it, there was a decent amount of that match that we didn't see. USA kept switching away to other match/matches. Quite annoyed me at the time.

 

[NedStark]

One myth that is usually perpetuated here is that Connors was a horrible matchup for Edberg and their 6-6 H2H and the USO89 match were used as evidence.

Reality: 5 out of 6 Connors’ wins were before AO85. After that, it was 5-1 for Stefan, with the USO89 match being Connors’ only win.

 

[jrepac]

One myth that is usually perpetuated here is that Connors was a horrible matchup for Edberg and their 6-6 H2H and the USO89 match were used as evidence.

Reality: 5 out of 6 Connors’ wins were before AO85. After that, it was 5-1 for Stefan, with the USO89 match being Connors’ only win.

This may be true, but I always thought Jimmy was not a match up Stefan looked forward to. Typically, Jimmy returned his serve quite well, even as an elder. Why are you marking AO '85 (December) as the start point? Just curious.

 

[NedStark]

This may be true, but I always thought Jimmy was not a match up Stefan looked forward to. Typically, Jimmy returned his serve quite well, even as an elder. Why are you marking AO '85 (December) as the start point? Just curious.

AO85 was Edberg’s first Slam title. Before that, as late as USO, I think Edberg was not yet even a Top 10 player.

 

[jrepac]

AO85 was Edberg’s first Slam title. Before that, as late as USO, I think Edberg was not yet even a Top 10 player.

Just outside T10 it appears....he was seeded 11th at the 85 USO.

 

[WCT]

The age disparity makes it difficult, 13 plus years. All but 1 of Connors' wins against Edberg came before Edberg turned 20. All but 1 of Edberg's wins against Connors came after Connors turned 34.

Generally speaking, though, Edberg's game was predicated on s/v without a really big serve. Against a player with one of the greatest service returns in history. In theory, and the matches don't always work out the way theory says, this is not an ideal matchup for Edberg.

 

[jrepac]

The age disparity makes it difficult, 13 plus years. All but 1 of Connors' wins against Edberg came before Edberg turned 20. All but 1 of Edberg's wins against Connors came after Connors turned 34.

Generally speaking, though, Edberg's game was predicated on s/v without a really big serve. Against a player with one of the greatest service returns in history. In theory, and the matches don't always work out the way theory says, this is not an ideal matchup for Edberg.

I think you hit the nail on the head...age disparity plays into it. But, the '89 USO match was a bit of a bloodbath...Stefan (ranked #3 at the time) seemed really off that night and Connors was certainly 'on'. Stefan didn't do well at the Open back then.....1990 was even worse as I watched him (in-person) go down the tubes in R1! Losing to Connors at night is one thing, but losing to Volkov?? Jeepers!

But, to your point, Stefan did not serve like Mac or even Lendl. Jimmy was able to handle the kick serve pretty well. And, typically, Stefan was not beating Connors from the back of the court unless he was having a really bad night. They played a very tight match in '91 at the Hamlet, right before the USO...that was an entertaining one! Who knew what was to come in the following weeks.....nearly a rematch....

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

The '89 match did have a high level from Connors, but Edberg stank the place up. Given that he was 5-0 in his other post-'85 matches versus Jimmy, I give more credit for the outcome to Stefan's form. As mentioned, a 13 year age gap is just too much to overcome under normal circumstances.

Connors Forfeits a Game, Then Beats Edberg (Published 1989)

www.nytimes.com

Still mean and once-again lean, Jimmy Connors, the 37-year-old perennial rabble rouser who shed 15 pounds to be match-tough for this tournament, was in his element last night.

The glaring lights of the stadium court were trained on him. And despite distracting shrieks emanating from fans watching Ivan Lendl's five-set ordeal on the adjacent grandstand court, the stadium crowd was in his pocket as he cursed his way into forfeiting the second game of the second set. A steady stream of planes roared overhead to complete the sound track for a portrait of chaos.

Connors, the five-time champion who is appearing in his 20th United States Open and thrives on uproar, could do nothing less than rise to the raucous occasion and overwhelm mild-mannered Stefan Edberg, 6-2, 6-3, 6-1. Connors, who is seeded 13th, his lowest placing since 1972, had exited his third-round victory against Andres Gomez with a case of severe dehydration that caused lower body cramps, but he showed no signs of ill health last night.

''I went out there and played the kind of match everybody dreams of playing,'' said Connors, who improved his round of 16 record to 16-0 and advanced to the quarterfinals against Andre Agassi, the 19-year-old matinee idol who defeated him in last year's quarterfinals. Agassi incited Connors's ire after that match, their first career meeting, when he disclosed that he had predicted an easy victory for himself. Agassi advanced to the quarterfinals this year with a 6-1, 7-5, 6-3 victory over Jim Grabb yesterday and said he anticipated ''a tough match'' from Connors.

The veteran refused to regard this year's quarterfinal as a grudge match, but Connors did say he hoped the sprightly form with which he dazzled the third-seeded Edberg would have a similar impact on Agassi.

With an uncharacteristic display of compassion for a younger and favored opponent, Connors said that his dream had certainly been the 23-year-old Edberg's nightmare.

''He played one of those matches like the one McEnroe said he had, like one that you would never want to have in your career,'' Connors said, referring to John McEnroe's second-round ouster to a qualifier, Paul Haarhuis.

Connors, at 37 the oldest participant in the men's draw, played like a youngster, especially in the second set where his maelstrom of kinetic energy wound up producing $2,250 in fines. Connors said he became ''so wound up'' once he had sprinted ahead, 6-2, that he couldn't cope maturely when Edberg broke his serve in the first game of the second set.

Connors received an initial warning for using an obscenity after he disagreed with a line call. After losing the next point and the game, Connors directed a stray ball at the chair umpire, Richard Ings, who promptly awarded the first point of the second game to Edberg. Before that game could begin, Connors used the changeover to direct a stream of invective at Ings, and his venom cost him the forfeit of the entire second game.

''I told him I was on a really tight string,'' Connors said of the apology he made to Ings as he shook his hand at the match's conclusion.

The penalty hardly deterred Connors from his mission, which for the past week has been to prove to himself that he still gets a kick out of playing tennis and performing for the New York crowd. Connors spent 10 weeks relaxing, some of them in the calm of a Mid west fishing trip, before deciding that he was sufficiently rekindled to perform to his satisifaction at yet another Open.

''I enjoy it here more probably than any other place in the world,'' said Connors. ''Everybody's pushing and shoving, they understand what it's like to go out and break your back for them. But they're also animals, but I put myself in that group. I've played like an animal my whole life. To be put in a cage with these people is a lot of fun.''

Edberg, however, could not second that emotion when backed into a corner by Connors.

''I didn't feel I was in the match,'' said Edberg, who squandered 2-0 leads in both the first and second sets and then played at a disadvantage throughout the third set after double-faulting at game point of the first game. His befuddlement was obvious during the changeovers, where he sat in his seat like a statue with his hands folded in his lap.

''The problem was that I played very bad, I couldn't get the first serve in, and whatever I did, he came up with something better,'' said Edberg, who produced the ultimate of capitulations when he double-faulted at match point.

Edberg, the Wimbledon and French Open runner-up, said he couldn't remember the last time he played so poorly at a key event. In contrast Connors, whose last Grand Slam victory came at the 1983 United States Open, could not recall the last time he played with such conviction.

''It rates with me in terms of getting to the quarters and still being able to play in the Open,'' Connors said of the victory, his first against Edberg since he defeated him here in four sets in 1985. ''For me to come in and beat him is excellent for my feeling of still being able to go out and play like this.''

Connors was a picture of consistency amidst turbulence on the stadium court, committing just 13 unforced errors to the 29 produced by an abnormally erratic Edberg. He held 10 service games to a mere 3 for Edberg and converted 8 of 11 break-point opportunities, while Edberg went 2 for 8.

''Outstanding is the word,'' Edberg said of Connors's performance. ''He didn't make any mistakes.''

 

[jrepac]

I remember reading that article....even Connors knew that Stefan was off-form. That was obvious. Still, he played very well to dominate the match the way he did. 13 unforced errors over 3 sets is quite low for him. I have to go back and look at the match stats. Stefan was having a spotty year, despite being ranked #3....losing to Chang and Becker at FO and W. He only won 2 titles that year (assuming Wiki is correct) the big one being the Masters at year end over Becker, while being runner up at 6 events. I think the USO match, on paper, looked like an easy win over a geriatric Connors who had NOT been playing well that season. I certainly did not expect him to win. But, as we all know, the USO was his playground and in that match, he turned back the clock. He was on a bit of a run that Fall as well, winning his last 2 ATP titles, the one over Mac at Toulouse being a pretty sweet win (Mac was ranked #4 at the time). With some of the really great players, when they get well into their 30's, I think they know how to win, it's just a matter of their bodies cooperating with them. When that happens, you see the flashes of brilliance you remember from the past.

 

[Waspsting]

Connors, at 37 the oldest participant in the men's draw, played like a youngster, especially in the second set where his maelstrom of kinetic energy wound up producing $2,250 in fines. Connors said he became ''so wound up'' once he had sprinted ahead, 6-2, that he couldn't cope maturely when Edberg broke his serve in the first game of the second set.

Connors received an initial warning for using an obscenity after he disagreed with a line call..... Before that game could begin, Connors used the changeover to direct a stream of invective at Ings, and his venom cost him the forfeit of the entire second game.

The inital obsenity was something to do with jerking off

The changeover conversation was Connors trying to explain to the Chair why jerking off wasn't an obscentiy

Whole thing was ridiculous enough to be funny

 

[WCT]

Masturbating with the racket was not that unusual to see with Connors. He was known to practice scatological attempts at humor.