Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Gilbert, Cincinnati final, 1990

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat Brad Gilbert 6-1, 6-1 in the Cincinnati final, 1990 on hard court

The match was a repeat of the previous years final, which Gilbert had won

Edberg won 52 points, Gilbert 27

Edberg serve-volleyed off all but 1 first serve point and all but 2 second serves

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (28/41) 68%
- 1st serve points won (22/28) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (7/13) 54%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (12/41) 29%

Gilbert....
- 1st serve percentage (27/38) 71%
- 1st serve points won (12/27) 44%
- 2nd serve points won (3/11) 27%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/38) 18%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 23%
- to BH 69%
- to Body 8%

Gilbert served....
- to FH 47%
- to BH 50%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 30 (14 FH, 15 BH, 1 ??), including 2 runaround FHs and 1 return-approach
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (3 FH)
- 4 Forced (2 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (30/37) 81%

Gilbert made...
- 27 (6 FH, 21 BH)
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 11 Errors, all forced...
- 11 Forced (3 FH, 8 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (27/39) 69%

Break Points
Edberg 5/6 (5 games)
Gilbert 0

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 15 (2 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 1 BHV)
Gilbert 10 (6 FH, 2 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)

Edberg had 8 from serve-volley points
- 7 first volleys (6 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 1 second volley (1 FHV)

- 6 passes (2 FH, 4 BH)
- the FHs - 1 dtl return and 1 lob (possibly not clean)
- the BHs - 2 dtl, 1 cc return and 1 inside-in return

Gilbert had 8 passes (6 FH, 2 BH)
- the FHs - 5 cc (1 return) and 1 dtl (a running-down-a-drop-volley)
- the BHs - 2 cc

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 8
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 FHV)
- 6 Forced (1 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45

Gilbert 24
- 9 Unforced (5 FH, 1 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 15 Forced (6 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.6

(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...
- 33/44 (75%) at net, including...
- 26/35 (74%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 20/26 (77%) off 1st serve and...
- 6/9 (67%) off second serve
----------------------------------
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Gilbert was...
- 11/23 (48%) at net, including...
- 4/11 (36%) serve-volleying, all first serves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Match Report
Not a competitive match. Edberg is well nigh flawless and Brad Gilbert can't find any way to ruffle his feathers.

Edberg all but serve-volleys 100% and Gilbert receives the first serve from the baseline and for the second, frequently is actually inside the court to return. But, he takes relatively gentle swings at the ball and doesn't get much power on the return. In the first set in particular, Edberg just picks off volley winners one after another. The Swede has the ability to make volleying look deceptively easy but in the case of his winners here, they actually are easy.

In the second set, Gilbert makes more return errors, but when he gets the ball over, its the same story. On the minority of times that Gilbert can get a good return in, Edberg low volleys efficiently (makes very few errors - just 2 FEs in the forecourt). From there, Gilbert usually misses the pass (most of his 13 groundstroke FEs are missed passes), or makes it (8 passing winners, including 1 return)

Suffice to say, Edberg breezes through his service games.

On his own serve, Gilbert is keen to take the net. He typically either does this early in the rally or serve-volleys (always off first serves). Neither works particularly well. He has the look of an unnatural volleyer and Edberg makes precise passing shots. Furthermore, Gilbert's serve itself isn't damaging (just 18% unreturned serves, despite serve-volleying a healthy chunk of the time and serving at 71%. 0 aces or service winners), and Edberg looks very comfortable returning

And Gilbert's second serve is even worse. A buffet serve one imagines an aggressive returner would lick his lips at the prospect of having a go at. Edberg returns it conservatively and they settle into baseline exchanges. Nothing special about these. Neither player looking to take the attacking initiative. Edberg proves the steadier from the back, and usually Gilbert is the one to make yield UEs. Or one of the men manufacture an approach. In those cases, its the same story as the serve-volleying tale.... Edberg in control when at the net, Gilbert a bit shaky

Almost all of Gilbert's passes are cc. Of the winners, all are (with the exception of a running-down-a-drop-volley which he hits from just past the service line). He doesn't even attempt dtl passes

Summing up, smooth and consummate from Stefan Edberg, toothless from Brad Gilbert

 

[andreh]

Summer of 1990. From Wimbledon to Long Island was the best Edberg ever played, together with the 1991 USO.

 

[BTURNER]

When Edberg was on a role, he was not only incredibly effective, he played with awe inspiring grace. Every shot rolled smoothly into movement directly into another. All his limbs and muscles seemed seamlessly and flowing whether they involved his stroke production, his follow through or his footwork into the next stroke. .

 

[Nadal_Lendl]

My stats

 

[Waspsting]

Welcome to the forum.... its good to have another match stats taker onboard, and to check numbers against another source

Unfortunatly, I can't find my scoresheet for this one but...

My stats

My points won equal to the sum of your points won by rally lenght - check
Double faults = check

Your service winners correspond to my unreturned serves - same for Gilbert and where we differ, your right and I'm 1 off (for my stats, Edberg's unreturned serves should total his aces plus Gilbert's return errors)

Winners - I've made an adding error (Edberg's should total 15, not 14), but that's 1 shy of your figure.

That can't be the 'possibly not clean' winner I've given Edberg because that was a FH, where our numbers are the same... you've got 1 more volley/smash winner for him than I do

Errors - you've got 1 more for Gilbert than I do... interestingly, our breakdown into forced vs unforced is near identical for Gilbert, but wider for Edberg. Not surprising though... volleying errors tend to split people's judgment more than groundies

Correcting my winner count and unreturned serves for Edberg.... thanks - can't resolve the 1 point difference between our stats in winners and errors without my match sheets (or rewatching the match)

---

Have you taken stats for other matches? Would be fun to compare

The first thread on this side of the forum is a catalogue of matches done by members over the years - a real smorgasbord - that you might find interesting

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-statistics-1959-present.552865/

 

[Nadal_Lendl]

Welcome to the forum.... its good to have another match stats taker onboard, and to check numbers against another source

Unfortunatly, I can't find my scoresheet for this one but...




My points won equal to the sum of your points won by rally lenght - check
Double faults = check

Your service winners correspond to my unreturned serves - same for Gilbert and where we differ, your right and I'm 1 off (for my stats, Edberg's unreturned serves should total his aces plus Gilbert's return errors)

Winners - I've made an adding error (Edberg's should total 15, not 14), but that's 1 shy of your figure.

That can't be the 'possibly not clean' winner I've given Edberg because that was a FH, where our numbers are the same... you've got 1 more volley/smash winner for him than I do

Errors - you've got 1 more for Gilbert than I do... interestingly, our breakdown into forced vs unforced is near identical for Gilbert, but wider for Edberg. Not surprising though... volleying errors tend to split people's judgment more than groundies

Correcting my winner count and unreturned serves for Edberg.... thanks - can't resolve the 1 point difference between our stats in winners and errors without my match sheets (or rewatching the match)

---

Have you taken stats for other matches? Would be fun to compare

The first thread on this side of the forum is a catalogue of matches done by members over the years - a real smorgasbord - that you might find interesting

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-statistics-1959-present.552865/

Thanks. It is never easy to have the identical numbers for unforced / forced errors, sometimes I check the points, especially with clean and non-clean winners.. but, to have such a small margin means we both did the same job

You have done amazing job, many great matches, will try to add some as well. I'm a huge match collector but don't have too much time to write a lot of analysis

For example, this is 2002 Hamburg semi-final between Federer and Mirnyi.. crazy fast match consaidering clay, with just four rallies longer than eight strokes and 48 service winners overall

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Summer of 1990. From Wimbledon to Long Island was the best Edberg ever played, together with the 1991 USO.

I saw that match, and while the numbers suggest a blow out, Gilbert was intelligent enough to be unconventional to what Edberg expected.

As you say, this was (likely) the best Edberg ever played, although I did find him too textbook a S&V player, rather, not as creatively interesting/effective as a Laver, McEnroe or Becker.

 

[BTURNER]

I saw that match, and while the numbers suggest a blow out, Gilbert was intelligent enough to be unconventional to what Edberg expected.

As you say, this was (likely) the best Edberg ever played, although I did find him too textbook a S&V player, rather, not as creatively interesting/effective as a Laver, McEnroe or Becker.

Gilbert was intelligent enough to be unconventional but wasn't intelligent enough to win many games. Being 'creatively interesting' is not what the job description entails

 

[Waspsting]

... will try to add some as well. I'm a huge match collector but don't have too much time to write a lot of analysis

Post 'em up - analysis or not - its all welcome

It took quite awhile for me to be able to take stats while retaining ability to understand play enough to analyze

Initially, I could either watch a match and have an understanding of it or take stats for it and end up with numbers (couldn't make head or tails of the action while focusing on getting the stats). Used to watch matches a second time to do the analysis

Got better with pratice, and now I can do both together

Its great that you take rally length figures. I've never done that (I think it would kill my viewing pleasure if I tried)... but its such an important stat to give a picture of play. Especially on clay

One thing I've been doing for awhile now is while watching a rally, noting each shot as 'forced' or 'unforced' (as in if the shot doesn't come back, will it be a forced error or unforced error)... so many interesting patterns of play emerge when you do this. I guess one would go about tracking rally length in the same way?

For example, this is 2002 Hamburg semi-final between Federer and Mirnyi.. crazy fast match consaidering clay, with just four rallies longer than eight strokes and 48 service winners overall

Hamburg tended to have faster conditions than most clay courts... some lively stuff coming out of there (having Federer and Mirnyi doesn't lend itself to grind fests either)

Federer with more 14 BH winners to 11 FHs + Mirnyi with 12 volley/smash winners + low average rally length = Mirnyi coming to net a lot? Serve-volleying?

If that's the case, I'm a bit surprised with Fed having the same number of FEs of FH and BH.... would have expected more of the BH. If Mirnyi's smart, that's where he'd volley mostly to and the winner count makes me think he did

 

[Nadal_Lendl]

I set:

1. Mirnyi (1-0) : 15-0(2) 30-0(2) 30-15(2) 40-15(2) 40-30(3) Game(2)
2. Federer (1-1) : 0-15(5) 15-15(1) 30-15(2) 40-15(4) Game(4)
3. Mirnyi (2-1) : 15-0(2) 30-0(5) 30-15(8) 40-15(2) Game(2)
4. Federer (2-2) : 15-0(1) 30-0(3) 40-0(2) Game(2)
5. Mirnyi (2-3) : 0-15(3) 0-30(3) 15-30(2) 15-40(4) 30-40(3) Deuce(2) Adv. Mirnyi(2) Deuce(3) Adv. Federer(4) Deuce(2) Adv. Federer(2) Deuce(6) Adv. Federer(1) Break(4)
6. Federer (2-4) : 0-15(4) 15-15(2) 30-15(7) 40-15(5) 40-30(3) Game(4)
7. Mirnyi (2-5) : 15-0(1) 15-15(4) 30-15(3) 30-30(3) 40-30(2) Deuce(2) Adv. Federer(5) Break(2)
8. Federer (3-5) : 0-15(2) 15-15(1) 30-15(2) 30-30(7) 30-40(4) Break(8)
9. Mirnyi (4-5) : 0-15(5) 15-15(5) 30-15(2) 40-15(1) 40-30(2) Deuce(3) Adv. Mirnyi(3) Game(4)
10. Federer (4-6) : 15-0(6) 30-0(4) 40-0(2) 40-15(3) 40-30(2) Game(1)

II set:
1. Mirnyi (0-1) : 15-0(7) 15-15(4) 30-15(2) 30-30(4) 30-40(3) Deuce(1) Adv. Mirnyi(3) Deuce(5) Adv. Mirnyi(2) Deuce(2) Adv. Mirnyi(4) Deuce(2) Adv. Federer(4) Deuce(3) Adv. Mirnyi(5) Deuce(3) Adv. Federer(2) Break(2)
2. Federer (0-2) : 15-0(4) 30-0(2) 40-0(2) Game(2)
3. Mirnyi (1-2) : 15-0(4) 15-15(5) 30-15(4) 30-30(1) 40-30(2) Game(5)
4. Federer (1-3) : 0-15(2) 15-15(2) 15-30(12) 30-30(4) 30-40(12) Deuce(7) Adv. Federer(1) Game(3)
5. Mirnyi (2-3) : 15-0(2) 15-15(3) 30-15(4) 40-15(5) Game(4)
6. Federer (2-4) : 15-0(2) 30-0(3) 30-15(3) 40-15(1) Game(2)
7. Mirnyi (3-4) : 15-0(4) 15-15(3) 30-15(2) 40-15(4) 40-30(4) Game(2)
8. Federer (3-5) : 0-15(3) 15-15(3) 30-15(5) 40-15(5) Game(1)
9. Mirnyi (4-5) : 15-0(2) 30-0(4) 40-0(2) 40-15(5) Game(1)
10. Federer (4-6) : 15-0(2) 30-0(2) 30-15(15) 30-30(4) 30-40(1) Deuce(2) Adv. Federer(1) Deuce(11) Adv. Federer(3) Game(4)

This is the number of shots in every point, Mirnyi rushed to the net constantly and kept the points as short as possible, knowing he had no chance against Roger from the baseline

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Gilbert was intelligent enough to be unconventional but wasn't intelligent enough to win many games. Being 'creatively interesting' is not what the job description entails

The statement was "...not as creatively interesting/effective as a Laver, McEnroe or Becker."

Effective as in that creativity leading to / being responsible for great results, which--clearly--Laver and McEnroe had no trouble earning. Becker also falls into that category, with each
taking their game beyond a textbook form of S&V.

 

[BTURNER]

The statement was "...not as creatively interesting/effective as a Laver, McEnroe or Becker."

Effective as in that creativity leading to / being responsible for great results, which--clearly--Laver and McEnroe had no trouble earning. Becker also falls into that category, with each
taking their game beyond a textbook form of S&V.

And I repeat my point. Being 'creatively interesting' is not what the job description entails whether your name is Laver or Edberg.