Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Lendl, Masters semi-final, 1989

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat Ivan Lendl 7-6(5), 7-5 in the Masters (Year End Championship) semi-final, 1989 on carpet in New York, USA

Edberg would go onto win the title for the only time, beating Boris Becker in the final. Lendl had reached the final for the last 9 years. This was the last edition of the tournament to held in New York

Edberg won 82 points, Lendl 73

Edberg serve-volleyed off all but 5 serves (all 2nd serves)

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (49/77) 64%
- 1st serve points won (39/49) 80%
- 2nd serve points won (16/28) 57%
- Aces 3, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (36/77) 47%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (46/78) 59%
- 1st serve points won (31/46) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (20/32) 63%
- Aces 10, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/78) 32%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 23%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 21%

Lendl served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 57%
- to Body 1%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 52 (21 FH, 31 BH), including 5 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (5 FH, 3 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 6 Forced (2 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (52/77) 68%

Lendl made...
- 39 (7 FH, 32 BH)
- 5 Winners (4 FH, 1 BH)
- 31 Errors, all forced...
- 31 Forced (10 FH, 21 BH)
- Return Rate (39/75) 52%

Break Points
Edberg 2/7 (3 games)
Lendl 1/7 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 26 (3 FH, 5 BH, 3 FHV, 9 BHV, 6 OH)
Lendl 20 (10 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

Edberg had 16 from serve-volley points
- 10 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 7 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BH at net)
- 6 second volleys (1 BHV, 5 OH)

-1 other FHV was a net chord dribbler

- FHs - 2 dtl passes and 1 inside-in return
- BHs - 2 dtl (1 at net pass), 1 dtl/inside-out and 1 inside-out return

Lendl had 12 passes - 4 returns (3 FH, 1 BH) & 8 regular (5 FH, 3 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc and 1 inside-in
- BH return - 1 cc
- regular FHs - 3 cc, 1 dtl and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 1 cc (that Edberg left), 1 dtl and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc at net

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 2 inside-in (1 return)
- BHs - 1 dtl and 1 cc/drop shot at net (played at extreme angle, almost parallel with the net)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 26
- 13 Unforced (4 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 13 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50

Lendl 19
- 5 Unforced (1 FH, 2 BH, 2 FHV)
- 14 Forced (4 FH, 9 BH, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48

(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...
- 62/86 (72%) at net, including...
- 48/65 (74%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 34/44 (77%) off 1st serve and...
- 14/21 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 3/5 (60%) return-approaching

Lendl was...
- 9/17 (53%) at net, including...
- 4/7 (57%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves

Match Report
Both players are on song on a fast, low bouncing court and it makes for a great match. Edberg serve-volleys and Lendl plays from the baseline. Both are excellent at what they do. Edberg has better of things because his serve does more damage than Lendl’s

Statistically, that’s the only difference in the match. Edberg wins 9 more points (they serve virtually the same number - Edberg 77, Lendl 78) and 11 more unreturned serves, 1 more double fault for a net lead of 10 on the serve shot

In rallies, Edberg has 6 more winners, Lendl 7 fewer error to leave things virtually 50-50. That favours Edberg as most of those points take place on Lendl’s serve

It’s a combination of factors which makes Edberg’s serve more effective. It isn’t a better serve than Lendl’s. If anything, its worse. But Edberg’s returning and the natural enhancement the serve gets by serve-volleying has a hand

Serve & Return
Unreturned rates - Edberg 47%, Lendl 32%

Edberg serves exceptionally well. Lots of zip on the ball, and he uses kick serves sparingly. As usual, he serves much to the body and body-ishly (21% to the body, just shy of the 23% he directs to the FH. Lendl has 1% to the body by contrast) and cramps Lendl

Cramping Lendl by serving close to his body is a standard feature of this match-up, but its even more effective than usual here. Lendl looks like someone’s throwing rocks at him and he’s trying to defend himself with the racquet. The wider serves by Edberg are genuinely, damagingly wide (which isn’t normal). Particularly good spot serving for Edberg by his standard - and the results show. 47% is a huge yield of freebies

Lendl’s serve though is stronger still. He places serves wide and with a lot of power. Substantially more than the extra zippy Edberg. It’s the kind of serving display that could draw 40%+ unreturneds

Edberg keeps it down to 32%, moving beautifully to the sides to get tough returns in play. Even serves in swing zone are tough, let alone wide ones. Plenty of credit to both Lendl’s serve and Edberg’s returning. Also Edberg’s serve, while Lendl would need to do better with the return to make inroads. He’s as helpless on the return as I’ve seen him here - but he is up against a big challenge there

Lendl serving an ace/service winner 24% of the time off first serves, Edberg 10%. The gap in serve quality isn’t as much as that would suggest, due to Edberg’s body serving strategy, but it does point in the right direction; Lendl with the more potent serve

Edberg’s has 14 return errors (8 UEs, 6 FEs). That says good things about his showing

- being aced/service winner’d 11 times to just 6 FEs speaks to the serve having to be almost perfect to get by him. He’s not shuffling as much as he usually does just before the return, but Edberg moves superbly for the second shot

- the 8 UEs come through aggression (a theme that extends to baseline rallies - more on that later). Given Lendl’s likely to (and does) hold most of the time regardless of what Edberg does, good idea to be aggressive with the return. He’s got 2 return winners (both with Lendl on the baseline) and at returns storngly to the baseline at other times to start rally from strong position (and Lendl doing well to not make the third ball at all)

A sign of of the strength of Lendl’s second serve is that the net hungry Edberg only return-approaches 5 times. And 3 of those are are against first serves that he comes in off after hitting the ball to a corner. Edberg prefers to attack second serves and looking to smack them into corners rather than chip-charge

If there’s an area Lendl’s dangerous with the return, its off his FH. He’s made 7 such returns, and 4 of them are winners (as opposed to 32 and 1 off the BH). There’s a good reason to avoid that side

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline & Net
Edberg serve-volleys almost always. All the time off first serves and 81% of the time off second serves

While his serves twists Lendl into knots, Lendl is able to strike cleanly most of the time when he gets the return back. It doesn’t do him a whole lot of good with Edberg in all out killer mode on the volley, flashing anything around net high for winners or at least into corners

Lendl with 13 ground FEs (most of them passes), Edberg with 18 volley winners speaks to how final Edberg’s volleying is

Just 3 volley UEs for Edberg, but he’s got 10 FEs. Pace of court enhances returns and passes power too and Lendl’s clean hits are on Edberg quickly, even at comfy heights. Wide and/or low, they’re very difficult volleys. Edberg misses more than he makes

Pretty good job by Lendl on the pass, all things considered. 8 non-return pass winners, though at least half are from rally and return-approaches, which aren’t as strong as the serve. When he has time to set up the pass - or to be more accurate, when he isn’t rushed on the pass, Lendl passes well

Points starting on Lendl’s serve are more interesting and the dynamics of it again, favour Edberg to conjure a break at some point

BH cc slices are the cornerstone. Beautiful shots from both players, landing deep. Both are willing to change directions, Lendl a bit more so. Lendl hammers the odd FH much harder than Edberg can, but Edberg handles the pace without trouble. The BH drives are no less elegant or precise from both players

What Lendl lacks is a way to finish points early against the softer returns that he draws (which Edberg with his serve-volleying obviously has in spades. He serve-volleys a bit, but his volleying isn’t very good. Misses a couple, doesn’t place them too well and Edberg’s no help with a couple of great passes himself. Lendl’s just 5/10 rallying to net and 4/7 serve-volleying (mostly return errors)

It works for him because he can’t seem to miss a ball, despite lively, moving-around play. Ground UEs -

Lendl 3, Edberg 10

But there’s nothing in the rallies themselves to inspire confidence that this will last. Lendl has no hitting or depth or ability to push Edberg onto defence or counter-punching. The rallies stay 50-50 and fluid. Would not back Lendl to keep such consistency advantage indefinitely (certainly less so than one would back Edberg to keep holding via serve-volleying)

The potential clincher is Edberg’s quick-dash approaches. He can’t draw short balls from Lendl, just as Lendl can’t from him, but he can and does dash to net from neutral positions with calculated risk. They’re not high percentage approaches, he has to deal with tougher volleys in these situations than from serve-volleying. He’s not in hurry to do so either. Quite happy to play the baseline game where things seem even. His approaches come as surprises - and work

Rallying to net - Edberg 11/16 at 69%, Lendl 5/10 at 50%

In nutshell, great baseline rallies, both players hitting and slicing beautifully, neither able to conjure an advantage from the back. Great movement to back it up by both, and its needed because there’s significant moving-opponent-around play involved. Lendl comes out on top because he’s in prime form and can’t seem to miss a ball, Edberg makes risky, surprise net trips successfully while Lendl isn’t able to do well at net after coming in after gaining an advantage

Lendl’s wall like enough to hold playing thusly (backed by the substantial 32% unreturneds), but it doesn’t look as sustainable as Edberg’s serve-volleying success

Prospects aside, Lendl does in fact hold steadily. 63% second serves won speaks to his superiority in play, but 67% first serve points behind that fat serve, the freebies it gets and some of the weak returns it draws, isn’t a good number. Speaks to both Edberg’s excellent returning and Lendl lacking weapons to put a point to bed at once

Match Progression
Edberg’s down 0-40 in opening game, having missed a routine volley and double faulted first two points of the match. He serves his way out with 4 unreturned serves in next 5 points

Lendl himself is down 0-30 the game after. He has 2 unreturneds in the next 4 points, takes net on another and forces a wide FHV error to hold too

Set stays close to even after that. Lendl with slightly better of it. He has 3 more break points at 4-4, having forced a BHV error and hit an amazing pass winner on the full run, from well outside court and the ball inches from the ground to get to 15-40. Can’t get a good return off and Edberg smashes a second volley winner to erase first break point and others are erased with serves in the 12 point game. Edberg finishes the game staying off a second serve and hitting a delightful BH dtl/inside-out BH winner

Lendl starts tiebreak with a return FH cc pass winner, but double faults to restore parity. Things stay on serve ‘til a rare chip-charge return from Edberg puts him ahead 6-4. He putsaway a first BHV on his first service set point

Edberg breaks to open the second set. With Lendl missing an easy FHV, Edberg takes net 3 times to force passing errors

Action remains high of quality as both players hold until Edberg steps up to serve for the match at 5-4. Powerful returns and passes see Lendl break

Only for Edberg to break right back. He has some luck doing it, with a FHV dribbling over the net for a winner to bring up 2 break points, but there’s plenty of skill on show too. A great baseline rally, predominantly BH cc slice ends with Edberg dashing to net to pinch the point and a step-in FH inside-in return winner is the kind of shot he’s been going for at choice moments

Lendl saves the first two break points, but makes his only FH UE of the match at deuce against a low slice. Not an easy ball to handle - and it being his only UE off that side all match is testament to how well he’s played. Edberg wraps up the break with a picture perfect BH dtl winner, before serving it out to 15

Summing up, two great showings = a great match. Big serving from Lendl and Edberg returning as well as possible against it, with choice aggressive returns thrown in. Beautiful, fluid baseline rallies centering around BH cc slices, but going from there to moving-opponent-around play that Lendl has better off because he apparently can’t miss a ball if he tried. Risky dash approaches to net by Edberg, that he pulls off with panache against heavy opposition. Top class movement from both players. Excellent serving from Edberg - quick and well placed - and killer volleying behind it

So many positives. Just a couple things less than that. Lendl is unable to get the handcuffs of Edberg’s body-ish serving off; He’d have done very well to have done so, but dealing with these kinds of serves is a general weakness of his and Edberg serves his very best. While that’s the most important, single factor in Edberg’s overall superiority, Lendl’s lack of a consistent point-ending weapon tells too and he doesn’t do well at net. It stands out next to Edberg dispatching volleys like clockwork right off the bat

Stats for the final and round robin matches between Edberg and Boris Becker - Duel Match Stats/Reports - Edberg vs Becker Masters final & round robin, 1989 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Stats for Edberg’s round robin match with Andre Agassi - Duel Match Stats/Reports - Edberg vs Agassi & Becker vs Agassi, Masters round robins, 1989 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[Moose Malloy]

I see you called the surface at 1987 Masters "slow" in your thread on Wilander-Cash, but you call the surface in 1989 "fast." There were no differences in court speed, the same surface was used both years. Maybe Wilander can make any court look slow

 

[jrepac]

I see you called the surface at 1987 Masters "slow" in your thread on Wilander-Cash, but you call the surface in 1989 "fast." There were no differences in court speed, the same surface was used both years. Maybe Wilander can make any court look slow

I always thought of the Masters as a relatively fast indoor carpet...miss the NYC days....that and the old Slims event for the ladies. two more events I could attend in person

 

[Waspsting]

I see you called the surface at 1987 Masters "slow" in your thread on Wilander-Cash, but you call the surface in 1989 "fast." There were no differences in court speed, the same surface was used both years. Maybe Wilander can make any court look slow

That he certainly can and does

Video print might have something to do with the discrepancy. The Wilander-Cash match I saw in not very good print. This one, I saw the start in similar quality print, but most of it is up in better quality

Its during the better quality part that the pace struck me. Edberg tying Lendl up with body serves is common theme in all their matches and usually, I discredit Lendl or cite his weakness against such serves

This is the only time I've looked at it (other than Wimby 90) where I though the serve was just too good. And the ball is flying off Lendl's racquet too

Been awhile since I watched the '85, '86 and '87 finals but don't remember thinking any of them were particularly fast. Did they play with the same balls every year?

In '90, conditions are obviously quick and commentators specify that its due to lighter balls, not the court surface