Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Lendl, Wimbledon semi-final, 1990

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat Ivan Lendl 6-1, 7-6(2), 6-3 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1990 on grass

Edberg would go onto win the title, beating Boris Becker in the final. Lendl had recently won the Queen’s Club title and this would be the last of his 7 semi-finals showing at the event

Edberg won 101 points, Lendl 76

With exception of 2 Edberg second serves, both players serve-volleyed off all serves

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (57/87) 66%
- 1st serve points won (46/57) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (20/30) 67%
- Aces 2, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (36/87) 41%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (54/90) 60%
- 1st serve points won (39/54) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (16/36) 44%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (30/90) 33%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 15%
- to BH 64%
- to Body 20%

Lendl served...
- to FH 45%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 58 (25 FH, 33 BH), including 7 return-approaches
- 13 Winners (9 FH, 4 BH)
- 22 Errors, all forced...
- 22 Forced (9 FH, 13 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- Return Rate (58/88) 66%

Lendl made...
- 48 (9 FH, 39 BH), including 2 return-approaches
- 8 Winners (3 FH, 5 BH)
- 33 Errors, all forced...
- 33 Forced (4 FH, 29 BH)
- Return Rate (48/84) 57%

Break Points
Edberg 3/8 (4 games)
Lendl 0/1

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 41 (12 FH, 6 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 11 BHV, 7 OH)
Lendl 27 (7 FH, 5 BH, 7 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 2 OH, 1 Sky Hook)

Edberg had 22 from serve-volley points
- 12 first volleys (3 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 OH)
- 8 second volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 5 OH)... 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 2 third volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)... the OH can reasonably be called a FHV

- 1 from return-approach point, a FH1/2V

- 18 passes - 13 returns (9 FH, 4 BH) & 5 regular (3 FH, 2 BH)
- FH returns - 4 cc, 4 dtl and 1 inside-out
- BH returns - 2 cc, 1 dtl and 1 inside-out
- regular FHs - 2 cc and 1 lob
- regular BHs - 2 dtl

Lendl had 15 from serve-volley points
- 8 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- 7 second volleys (2 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH, 1 Sky Hook)

- 12 passes - 8 returns (3 FH, 5 BH) & 4 regular (4 FH)
- FH returns - 2 cc and 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 4 cc and 1 dtl
- regular FHs - 2 cc, 1 inside-out and 1 lob

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 16
- 3 Unforced (1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 13 Forced (6 FH, 5 BH, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 60

Lendl 22
- 4 Unforced (1 FH, 3 FHV)
- 18 Forced (1 FH, 6 BH, 4 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BHOH)... the FH was a running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 52.5

(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...
- 68/87 (78%) at net, including...
- 62/79 (78%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 43/54 (80%) off 1st serve and...
- 19/25 (76%) off 2nd serve
---
- 6/7 (86%) return-approaching

Lendl was...
- 48/83 (58%) at net, including...
- 47/80 (59%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 31/46 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 16/34 (47%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/2 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Sublime from Edberg as he breezes by a well-playing Lendl in a virtual 100% serve-volley match (2 points are non-serve-volley)

The standout difference between the players is Edberg's superior returning. More so than his volleying better, which if not a given, comes as no surprise

Edberg strikes returns cleanly off both wings throughout. Lendl does not, and particularly struggles against body and body-ish serves that cramp him

If Edberg’s superior volleying is all but a given, what isn’t is his being at his very best on the full. Volley after volley are whisked away for winners. Lendl has maybe 4-5 normal - let alone ‘good’ - looks at a pass. When Edberg very firmly volleys a ball back deep at Lendl (who’s too rushed to do anything with it anyway), it comes as a surprise that he didn’t just dispatch into the other corner

Edberg doesn’t face too many difficult, shoelace volleys and but makes the one’s he does too. Just 2 FEs

For that matter, excellent volleying from Lendl too. Misses precious little (3 UEs, same as Edberg - and he has to make a good deal more volleys) and again like Edberg, the tough ones he misses are very, very difficult - to the feet and wide kind of stuff

He doesn’t have Edberg’s killer finish (who does?), but his finishing is as good as you could ask for from anyone. As good as a good Boris Becker showing

With such great volleying from both sides, passing chances are small -

Non-retun pass winners - Edberg 5, Lendl 4
Passing FEs - Edberg 11, Lendl 7

The particularly small number of passing winners and FEs indicate just how killer Edberg is on the volley. He’s got double the volley winners as all of Lendl’s passing shots - hit or miss. Lendl’s done pretty well on the pass, but his chances are so rare it doesn’t register amidst all the flying volley winners (and 40% unreturned serves - more on that later)

Edberg has a few more chances on the pass, but his looks aren’t much better. They come more frequently, so he does appear to have more chances

The opposite side of the numbers above are -

‘Volley’ winners - Edberg 23, Lendl 15
Volley UEs - both 3
Volley FEs - Edberg 2, Lendl 11

Both players putting away volleys well (Edberg about as well as humanly possible), both missing very few regular volleys (all of Edberg’s misses are winner attempts), both leaving passer poor chances. Nominally, Lendl’s got a better hit rate on the pass, but his chances are rarer. Lendl's volleying FEs are very difficult, many impossible. Excellent serve-volley tennis from both players

All of that is shaped by…

 

[Waspsting]

Serve & Return
Both with healthy in-counts (Edberg 66%, Lendl 60%). Lendl with the more powerful serve, though Edberg’s zippy too

Second serve differences are more important. Lendl’s are a toned down version of his firsts, the pace lower, the placement closer. As it turns out, problematically close, in Edberg’s swing zone

Edberg kicks his second serves at or close to Lendl's body. Edberg serves 20% to body (just 15% to FH, by contrast), Lendl just 2%. And much of his serves to the BH are crampingly close to Lendl too. Standard stuff for him

The returning is more important. Lendl adjusts his, Edberg remains constant of style

From get-go, Edberg strikes exceptionally cleanly off the second shot. There’s 13 winners and there are returns that yield impossible volleys wide and at shoe level. Even the ones above net are firmly struck

In final set, he ups it still more by coming in behind the particularly good returns. He’s 6/7 return-approaching, which is a bit deceptive; Most of those returns would have forced errors regardless

Edberg takes first returns from close to baseline, and second returns from slightly inside it

Lendl for his part keeps similar return position in the first set, during which he pokes and guides returns, trying to get them wide or to drop low. It doesn’t work - Edberg swoops to the net before the balls can fall under net and cuts off any width to flash away volley winners. Looks like Lendl was trying the same style of returning that had destroyed Boris Becker at Queen’s, but Edberg’s serve isn’t so fast, he’s at net that much quicker and gets that much closer in. His body serving also makes these types of returns harder to make

After first set, Lendl steps up a bit against both serves. All but on the baseline against firsts, and inside court for seconds. He cuts out blocking and chipping and strikes the ball. His swing is compact - far removed from the flaying of the ‘87 final

He has trouble with the cramping serves. Doesn’t have room to free his arms, and gets jammed by them. Strikes fairly cleanly, though good ways less so than Edberg

Edberg stays back off 2 second serves and Lendl does what he’s supposed to when he sees it; comes in behind the return. Wins 1, loses 1 - as with Edberg, the one he wins probably didn’t need an approach. It’s a powerful strike right to the baseline

Unreturned rates - Edberg 41%, Lendl 33%

That’s a good cushion for Edberg to launch from

Return shot does most of the returners work -

Return pass winners - Edberg 13, Lendl 8
Non-return pass winners - Edberg 5, Lendl 4

Return draws most of the volleying errors too. With the volleying so splendid, the pass in play takes on a very distant second place in the business of getting a break

You can see Edberg's control of volleys from Lendl's passing figures. He doesn't have a single genuine FH passing error (just a running-down-drop-shot at net shot). Edberg, while seemingly volleying freely, clearly isn't going there. And for good reason - Lendl, 0 errors, 4 winners on the FH pass. Meanwhile, he has 0 winners, 6 FEs on the BH

Quality of Edberg’s returning of second serves is rather more than Lendl can handle on the volley, and Lendl wins 47% of second serve points

Clearest indicator of things favouring Edberg sizably: his second serve-volleying winning rate of 76% is higher than Lendl's first of 67%

Better returning - cleaner hit and more regular - is at heart of it. Nothing wrong with Lendl’s volleying or even his second serve

Match Progression
1st serve percentage and Lendl’s returning strategy are main factors of the first set sweep

Lendl makes just 10/19 first serves - and wins just 1/9 second serve points. That’s Edberg striking returns powerfully. Just 1 volley UE for Lendl in the set, so its not as though he’s messing up in forecourt

As for his return, Lendl looks to poke, block, guide and chip returns wide and low. Edberg cuts of the width and gets there before ball can get low and swishes away these returns away for winners. Edberg wins 13/14 first serve points in the set - better than he does afterwards

Opening games gives no sign of things to come. Lendl holds to love to level at 1-1- with 2 service winners and a BHV winner after having to make a shoelace volley first up

He doesn’t win another game. First game features 4 passing winners from Edberg - a brilliant running dtl against a good, deep volley and 3 returns. The last 2 - FH dtl and BH cc - are perfect strikes and seal the break

Low volley errors and a double fault lead to the second break and Edberg serves out to 15. He stays back at 30-0 for the first of 2 times in the match, a point he loses and probably would have even without Lendl coming in behind the return

Second set is a beautiful show from both players. Both face break points in 1 game (Lendl saves 5 in a 20 point game, Edberg 1 in a 10 pointer) and 1 other Edberg game goes to deuce. Holds are comfortable, but not overly so

Standout points include a surprise FH lob from Lendl, Edberg BH dtl slicing a return and following it to net to force a shoelace volley error, a FH lob by Edberg every bit as good as Lendl’s and a wonderful, running, turning FH cc pass winner from Lendl

To the tiebreak. There isn’t a contest. Edberg strikes 4 passing winners in successive Lendl serve points - FH cc (set up by a wide FH inside-out return), FH cc return, BH cc return (a replica of the same shot Lendl had hit a couple points before) and at 6-2, another FH cc return. 7-2 Eberg, 2-0 in sets

Edberg loses 4 service points in his 4 holds in the last set. Lendl first service game has 3 consecutive aces

The break comes in game 6, with Edberg return-approaching 3 times. He wins all the points - the best of them being a FH1/2V winner that’s also a pass, from just behind service line. The other 2 are such strong returns that the approach likely didn’t influence the outcome (Lendl missing shoelace volleys off powerful returns)

He adds a couple more return-approaches game after too. Lendl deftly BH1/2V winners the return away from an at net Edberg the first time. Later in the game, a backtracking Lendl sky hooks a winner and goes on to hold

Edberg serves out to love, with 3 unreturned serves

Summing up, top class showing from Edberg. The finest volleying from the finest of volleyers is a sight to behold but important is the crisp, clean returning he dishes out all match

A very good one from Lendl too, particularly on the volley, on which he’s as decisive as anyone could ask for and only stumped by the unplayable return-pass

He tries different styles of returning but neither soft blocking/guiding or striking works against his opponent’s net game and he struggles to return cramping body and body-ish serves

Stats for the final between Edberg and Boris Becker - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...edberg-vs-becker-wimbledon-final-1990.675878/

Stats for Edberg’s third round match with Amos Mansdorf - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...s-mansdorf-wimbledon-third-round-1990.725627/

 

[Vincent-C]

Serve & Return
Both with healthy in-counts (Edberg 66%, Lendl 60%). Lendl with the more powerful serve, though Edberg’s zippy too

Second serve differences are more important. Lendl’s are a toned down version of his firsts, the pace lower, the placement closer. As it turns out, problematically close, in Edberg’s swing zone

Edberg kicks his second serves at or close to Lendl's body. Edberg serves 20% to body (just 15% to FH, by contrast), Lendl just 2%. And much of his serves to the BH are crampingly close to Lendl too. Standard stuff for him

The returning is more important. Lendl adjusts his, Edberg remains constant of style

From get-go, Edberg strikes exceptionally cleanly off the second shot. There’s 13 winners and there are returns that yield impossible volleys wide and at shoe level. Even the ones above net are firmly struck

In final set, he ups it still more by coming in behind the particularly good returns. He’s 6/7 return-approaching, which is a bit deceptive; Most of those returns would have forced errors regardless

Edberg takes first returns from close to baseline, and second returns from slightly inside it

Lendl for his part keeps similar return position in the first set, during which he pokes and guides returns, trying to get them wide or to drop low. It doesn’t work - Edberg swoops to the net before the balls can fall under net and cuts off any width to flash away volley winners. Looks like Lendl was trying the same style of returning that had destroyed Boris Becker at Queen’s, but Edberg’s serve isn’t so fast, he’s at net that much quicker and gets that much closer in. His body serving also makes these types of returns harder to make

After first set, Lendl steps up a bit against both serves. All but on the baseline against firsts, and inside court for seconds. He cuts out blocking and chipping and strikes the ball. His swing is compact - far removed from the flaying of the ‘87 final

He has trouble with the cramping serves. Doesn’t have room to free his arms, and gets jammed by them. Strikes fairly cleanly, though good ways less so than Edberg

Edberg stays back off 2 second serves and Lendl does what he’s supposed to when he sees it; comes in behind the return. Wins 1, loses 1 - as with Edberg, the one he wins probably didn’t need an approach. It’s a powerful strike right to the baseline

Unreturned rates - Edberg 41%, Lendl 33%

That’s a good cushion for Edberg to launch from

Return shot does most of the returners work -

Return pass winners - Edberg 13, Lendl 8
Non-return pass winners - Edberg 5, Lendl 4

Return draws most of the volleying errors too. With the volleying so splendid, the pass in play takes on a very distant second place in the business of getting a break

You can see Edberg's control of volleys from Lendl's passing figures. He doesn't have a single genuine FH passing error (just a running-down-drop-shot at net shot). Edberg, while seemingly volleying freely, clearly isn't going there. And for good reason - Lendl, 0 errors, 4 winners on the FH pass. Meanwhile, he has 0 winners, 6 FEs on the BH

Quality of Edberg’s returning of second serves is rather more than Lendl can handle on the volley, and Lendl wins 47% of second serve points

Clearest indicator of things favouring Edberg sizably: his second serve-volleying winning rate of 76% is higher than Lendl's first of 67%

Better returning - cleaner hit and more regular - is at heart of it. Nothing wrong with Lendl’s volleying or even his second serve

Match Progression
1st serve percentage and Lendl’s returning strategy are main factors of the first set sweep

Lendl makes just 10/19 first serves - and wins just 1/9 second serve points. That’s Edberg striking returns powerfully. Just 1 volley UE for Lendl in the set, so its not as though he’s messing up in forecourt

As for his return, Lendl looks to poke, block, guide and chip returns wide and low. Edberg cuts of the width and gets there before ball can get low and swishes away these returns away for winners. Edberg wins 13/14 first serve points in the set - better than he does afterwards

Opening games gives no sign of things to come. Lendl holds to love to level at 1-1- with 2 service winners and a BHV winner after having to make a shoelace volley first up

He doesn’t win another game. First game features 4 passing winners from Edberg - a brilliant running dtl against a good, deep volley and 3 returns. The last 2 - FH dtl and BH cc - are perfect strikes and seal the break

Low volley errors and a double fault lead to the second break and Edberg serves out to 15. He stays back at 30-0 for the first of 2 times in the match, a point he loses and probably would have even without Lendl coming in behind the return

Second set is a beautiful show from both players. Both face break points in 1 game (Lendl saves 5 in a 20 point game, Edberg 1 in a 10 pointer) and 1 other Edberg game goes to deuce. Holds are comfortable, but not overly so

Standout points include a surprise FH lob from Lendl, Edberg BH dtl slicing a return and following it to net to force a shoelace volley error, a FH lob by Edberg every bit as good as Lendl’s and a wonderful, running, turning FH cc pass winner from Lendl

To the tiebreak. There isn’t a contest. Edberg strikes 4 passing winners in successive Lendl serve points - FH cc (set up by a wide FH inside-out return), FH cc return, BH cc return (a replica of the same shot Lendl had hit a couple points before) and at 6-2, another FH cc return. 7-2 Eberg, 2-0 in sets

Edberg loses 4 service points in his 4 holds in the last set. Lendl first service game has 3 consecutive aces

The break comes in game 6, with Edberg return-approaching 3 times. He wins all the points - the best of them being a FH1/2V winner that’s also a pass, from just behind service line. The other 2 are such strong returns that the approach likely didn’t influence the outcome (Lendl missing shoelace volleys off powerful returns)

He adds a couple more return-approaches game after too. Lendl deftly BH1/2V winners the return away from an at net Edberg the first time. Later in the game, a backtracking Lendl sky hooks a winner and goes on to hold

Edberg serves out to love, with 3 unreturned serves

Summing up, top class showing from Edberg. The finest volleying from the finest of volleyers is a sight to behold but important is the crisp, clean returning he dishes out all match

A very good one from Lendl too, particularly on the volley, on which he’s as decisive as anyone could ask for and only stumped by the unplayable return-pass

He tries different styles of returning but neither soft blocking/guiding or striking works against his opponent’s net game and he struggles to return cramping body and body-ish serves

Stats for the final between Edberg and Boris Becker - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...edberg-vs-becker-wimbledon-final-1990.675878/

Stats for Edberg’s third round match with Amos Mansdorf - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...s-mansdorf-wimbledon-third-round-1990.725627/

Wonderfully thorough, waspsting- it'll take some time to take this all in. Thank you.

 

[BringBackWood]

@Waspsting , Great report as usual but I think you're a little too kind on Lendl's returning performance. Early in the first set, he briefly tried chipping, didn't get his timing, and then gave it up. For the rest of the match he tried hitting through the return (with short takeback). For my money he should, in the main, be standing further back and trying to unsettle Edberg with dipping topspin returns, while mixing this in with standing closer and chipping. He simply hasn't got the 'Boris BH block' to be able to stand on the baseline and deflect back Stefan's serve on grass.

At no point did he vary his returning position - incredible stubbornness reminiscent of Federer vs Nadal. Amazingly several times he even half stepped around to hit a BH when the body serve was aimed more towards the FH. I guess that's something to do with his default grip, but surely that would tell him something is badly wrong with his strategy?

On second serves Edberg didn't need to go near the lines in this match to be effective. In fact a serve landing shorter in the box gave time for the ball to rear up to a more awkward height (something commentators never mention - John Barrett in particular was obsessed with 'good length'). There are several ways that can ne counteracted of course, but what did Lendl do? He chose to stand in the place, on both axes, for the entire match. Letting himself time and again to be handcuffed by safe serves landing not far from the centre of the box.

I don't want to take away from the virtuoso performance of Edberg. His FH returns on the deuce side (something else Ivan strangely persisted with) stood out. And by this time he really had perfected the art of serve of volley. Getting to the net quicker than any man in history, and sublimely whisking away that sharply angled CC BH volley which was his trademark. I'll be re-watching their 87 SF (with the opposite result) soon, and will be interested to make comparisons. At that time, Edberg still had his old service motion. I believe the 91 incarnation was superior. He probably got fewer aces, as it was geared more towards 'kick', but it gave opponents a much rougher time.

 

[Waspsting]

@Waspsting , Great report as usual but I think you're a little too kind on Lendl's returning performance.

I wouldn't describe my take on Lendl's returning 'kind'
What I wrote sounds very similar to what you did - chipping early, swatting later, getting trapped by body serves etc.

You think he returned particulalry badly? I'd say that'd have to be the take to think my one was 'too kind'

Essentially, I just though Edberg's serve got better of Lendl's return... without stressing if Edberg's serve or Lendl's return was more the reason for that
You seem to think it was specifically returning badly?

For my money he should, in the main, be standing further back and trying to unsettle Edberg with dipping topspin returns,

Don't think that's part of his repetoire
I've never seen him return any serve-volleyer this way
Either slap returns ferociously or less often block-chip to try to get them wide and/or low them are his standard moves
Dipping top spin returns standing further back sounds like a Borg thing

Amazingly several times he even half stepped around to hit a BH when the body serve was aimed more towards the FH. I guess that's something to do with his default grip, but surely that would tell him something is badly wrong with his strategy?

He does this in general
Gets into groove of BH returning, and goes to it as default, when FH return is possible

On second serves Edberg didn't need to go near the lines in this match to be effective.

I don't think he's capable. He is not a good spot server and can't think of a single match where he goes near lines with his second serves (doing so with firsts is exception rather than rule too)

Best example I can think of is '89 French final, with Chang returning from pace, pace and a half inside baseline virtually all match
Anything close to line would be very difficult to return from there, even moderately paced stuff. Edberg just keeps serving in that early swing zone
Same thing in their match in this '90 Wimby. Chang, inside the court, gives the return such a creaming that Edberg regularly takes to staying back off second serves (which is good move, as he can come in quickly - without the set position passes he has to face when serve-volleying)


Notice also that his 'body serves' aren't full tight to the body. I think they'e intended to be, but he doesn't have that kind of accuracy

In fact a serve landing shorter in the box gave time for the ball to rear up to a more awkward height (something commentators never mention - John Barrett in particular was obsessed with 'good length')....Letting himself time and again to be handcuffed by safe serves landing not far from the centre of the box.

true, true
I didn't get the sense that height was too bothersome to Lendl though. Its more the cramping line. What do you think?
Generally speaing, he does not return body serves well
Doesn't react to them early enough to get out of way and free his arms

(in 1987) Edberg still had his old service motion. I believe the 91 incarnation was superior. He probably got fewer aces, as it was geared more towards 'kick', but it gave opponents a much rougher time.

His serve-volley style changed sustantially before and after his back injury in early '89

Before that, he was classic of style
- Powerful serve
- serve out wide to open the court,
- volley into the open court for winner

After -
- average pace serve, often kicky
- serve close to returner, drawing 'jammed' returns but court not opened up and returner not far from center of court
- volley to open half of court for winner (way he volleys, he doesn't need wide open court target to score winners)

I'll be re-watching their 87 SF (with the opposite result) soon, and will be interested to make comparisons

Great! - will be interested to get your take

Couple of suggestions to go with it, both short matches

'90 Queen's final vs Becker... which I believe is what Lendl was trying to replicate to start this match
'90 Wimby vs Chang.... an example of whats possible against Edberg's serve, even on grass, from a returner whose better at taking ball early, and how it pertains to Edberg's placement

I believe the 91 (serve) incarnation was superior. He probably got fewer aces, as it was geared more towards 'kick', but it gave opponents a much rougher time.

He definately got more aces with earlier one

He's such a calibre volleyer that I'm sure he'd be successful with any serve (lets define 'successful' here as potential Wimby champion). Chang or old Connors' serve would do

With him, seperating serve shot from his volleys isn't practical, especially with the post back trouble version, so I'd limit the comparison to his serve-volleying across time, not the serve shot alone

His serve around '91... if he weren't serve-volleying, would almost be harmless. On hard court, good returners could look for 80% return rates, and occasionally 90% wouldn't surprise me
Just look at his serve in the Sunshine double finals of '90. Could block or push those back in play all day

Pre-injury, no. That's a a powerful serve. Not far short of Lendl or even Boris'

Also, in some of the hard court matches, I've watched first 10-15 minutes and anticipated possiblity of seeing 4 passing winners in a row at some point in the match. For example, the '91 Aus match with Lendl (in the event, Lendl hit 3 at one stage)
I'm sure he got hit for return-winners now and then pre-injury, including clusters, but doubt its something one would expect to happen, just looking at quality of his serve

 

[BringBackWood]

You think he returned particulalry badly? I'd say that'd have to be the take to think my one was 'too kind'

Essentially, I just though Edberg's serve got better of Lendl's return... without stressing if Edberg's serve or Lendl's return was more the reason for that
You seem to think it was specifically returning badly?

Yes I think if you have an unreturned rate of 41% (plus many returns made didn't make for difficult volleys) and, as you point out, your opponent is not doing anything special with the serve, that is a bad returning performance. Made worse by the fact he didn't try to change anything on his side. Why is Lendl not trying the obvious play of moving around to hit FH's on second serves. That would give him a much better chance of hitting telling returns, or force Edberg to play more risky seconds. Do you agree?

Perhaps Borg returning (which is indeed what I had in mind) on firsts is not Lendl's usual game, but he is surely capable of it. It matter less what his usual strength or way of playing is. It is whether that will match up sufficiently well with what he faces (and I think he knew by this point what he would be getting with Edberg's serve). That can be standing back a la Borg, standing in and chipping a la Queens 90, running around his BH, or a judicious mixture. But I do maintain that stubbornly doing the same thing practically the whole match, when it plainly was not working, is ridiculous.

I'm also in the camp that thinks always S&V'ing on second serves was another reason Ivan didn't win Wimbledon. I think the effect of mixing it up, where for instance, your opponent plays the return short thinking you'll be approaching, leaving you with an easy approach rather than a shoelace or half volley, is greatly underestimated. I'm really surprised barely any players employed that strategy. Perhaps they were worried it would get themselves out of rhythm?

 

[andreh]

I'm also in the camp that thinks always S&V'ing on second serves was another reason Ivan didn't win Wimbledon. I think the effect of mixing it up, where for instance, your opponent plays the return short thinking you'll be approaching, leaving you with an easy approach rather than a shoelace or half volley, is greatly underestimated. I'm really surprised barely any players employed that strategy. Perhaps they were worried it would get themselves out of rhythm?

Too many bad bounces on 1990 grass, I would guess, especially in the later rounds.

 

[jrepac]

I'll have to look for this one on You Tube....never did watch it. Surprised to read about Eddy's return prowess. This just sounds like a very off day for Lendl on the turf. But, I've always believed that at this best, Edberg was notably better than Lendl on grass. Sometimes though, I just don't call it right, like in '87, where I figured Edberg would take him out in the SF. Perhaps I'll watch both '87 and '90 to compare. Like what was it in '87 that Lendl did better/differently?

 

[andreh]

^^ The difference was Edberg - playing GOAT level grass tennis in 1990 instead of merely very well in 1987.

 

[BringBackWood]

I'll have to look for this one on You Tube....never did watch it. Surprised to read about Eddy's return prowess. This just sounds like a very off day for Lendl on the turf. But, I've always believed that at this best, Edberg was notably better than Lendl on grass. Sometimes though, I just don't call it right, like in '87, where I figured Edberg would take him out in the SF. Perhaps I'll watch both '87 and '90 to compare. Like what was it in '87 that Lendl did better/differently?

I know I've been harping on about Lendl, but in this match Edberg really was at the zenith of his powers. Both return and volley were absolutely on point. I'm only bemoaning the fact we didn't get to see more of his wonderful volleys (due to Lendl's poor return strategy).

 

[Hard Court]

Edberg just played so well. A lot of people thought Lendl was finally going to win Wimbledon that year. Was not meant to be.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Pre-injury, no. That's a a powerful serve. Not far short of Lendl or even Boris'

Which serving style do you think would have produced his ultimate peak, if injury hadn't forced the choice?

 

[Waspsting]

Yes I think if you have an unreturned rate of 41% (plus many returns made didn't make for difficult volleys) and, as you point out, your opponent is not doing anything special with the serve, that is a bad returning performance. Made worse by the fact he didn't try to change anything on his side. Why is Lendl not trying the obvious play of moving around to hit FH's on second serves. That would give him a much better chance of hitting telling returns, or force Edberg to play more risky seconds. Do you agree?

I agree - but will add the context that in general, he doesn't return Edberg well

Put another way. Its a bad returning performance. Compared to what?
Compared to Mansdorf, Chang and Boris in the same event? - probably. Assuming no drastic difference in Edberg's serving across the matches (I think he serves better here than he did against Mansdorf, but not categorically so), that comes out in cold numbers

Seems to me more appropriate to compare it to how he typically returns Edberg
I've looked at a whole bunch of their matches from this period - bunch of Aus and US Opens, Sydney Indoor, Masters '89, one in Tokyo... Lendl, simply does not return Stefan Edberg well. Ever. Even when he wins or match is tight

He always gets tied up with the body-ish serving line
Sometimes he hits out wildly, seemingly frustrated. Occasionally he just patiently pops the return harmlessly into play

In that light, this return showing here didn't strike me as pointedly bad
Emphasising it is like emphasizing Federer's BH didn't hold up to Nadal's FH in some clay match

Perhaps Borg returning (which is indeed what I had in mind) on firsts is not Lendl's usual game, but he is surely capable of it. It matter less what his usual strength or way of playing is. It is whether that will match up sufficiently well with what he faces (and I think he knew by this point what he would be getting with Edberg's serve). That can be standing back a la Borg, standing in and chipping a la Queens 90, running around his BH, or a judicious mixture. But I do maintain that stubbornly doing the same thing practically the whole match, when it plainly was not working, is ridiculou

Taking a few steps back and top-spinning would be good move, specifically against Edberg
Would allow him time to get out of way of the body'ish serves - which is Lendl's biggest problem
Almost anything would be an improvement

Edberg himself demostrates this type of returning in the final. He takes Boris' second serve from well-back (by standard of the day, so not the backboard like Borg), gets good, long look at the return and top spins in direction of his picking. Wonderfully done

Don't think pure Borg style, from the backboard returning would be a good idea. Edberg's locked into net even against on-baseline returning
Borg didnt' actually return to serve-volleyers feet. He used to hit good lot of perfectly placed return winners - they have to be perfect to get by, given how far he returned from. But the stuff he returned down the center was typically around net high, with the ball on its way down, but still, routine, comfy height

Edberg's not a guy you want to count on missing or not doing enough on the net high volley

Won't see too many shoelace volleys and half-volleys against Borg. Compare to Connors, who could dish out the shoelace music - and who did give Edberg quite a tough time

Which serving style do you think would have produced his ultimate peak, if injury hadn't forced the choice?

Pre-injury
Better serve is better serve
More freebies, more easy volleys to make

Only drawback might have to make a few more half-volleys because he wouldn't be able to get to net as quickly, relative to the return coming back. Post injury, you rarely see Edberg having to half-volley because his slower serve allow him to get tight in to net

I don't think his volleying improved post injury, its just that it got more scope to shine, with the serve not as potent, so became more eye-catching

'85 Aus final. The volleying is so perfect it almost becomes boring to follow
'88 Wimby final. If you don't see the volley being made, but only see the ball go through, you'd think it must've been a swing volley. He could volley like that right back to opponent and they'd have next to no chance to make pass
'86 YEC vs Noah. Virtually perfect

Specific to Lendl though, post-injury serve was probably more effective

What do you think?

 

[andreh]

^^ Lendl said many times he hated Edberg's serve. It's a chronically underrated serve because it was 10mph slower on average, but the action on it was insane, and you can't see it in TV images. I've seen Edberg twice IRL - once I sat courtside, and I got a good look. I get why players didn't want to play Edberg.

Edit: I'm not sure there's justification for talking about a pre- vs post-injury (I assume it's the AO 1989 back injury we're talking about?) serve with Edberg. It's mostly a change to the motion, but the serve's character and effectiveness seem mostly the same to me. There's certainly no proof it was faster before with radar guns being absent in those days. I also think any change affected the second serve most, and it wasn't until about 1993-ish. His first was pretty much the same.

 

[bigbadboaz]

What do you think?

Can't comment, which is partly why I asked you. I was growing up during his career, and he was already into the second phase when I got old enough to really watch matches.

the action on it was insane, and you can't see it in TV images.

People here have said they saw Edberg easily kick balls completely over returners, and indeed the bounce doesn't look anything like that on a telecast.

Edit: I'm not sure there's justification for talking about a pre- vs post-injury (I assume it's the AO 1989 back injury we're talking about?) serve with Edberg. It's mostly a change to the motion

My understanding had always been that the injury came from trying to kick the ball so hard, which wouldn't really jive with his proceeding to move to the kick almost exclusively. But I certainly don't have detailed information on this.

It's always been interesting to me how his motion continued to evolve, even past where it looks like it should have stopped. When he was winning Wimbledon he looked to be cocking the wrist to emphasize the grip, which was a really unique and nice look. As the years went by the arm extended farther and farther out and it just started to look ugly. It was like he couldn't stop the motion from continuing to change. By the time he played a few seniors matches for Courier, he was splaying a nearly stiff arm straight out behind him.

 

[jrepac]

^^ Lendl said many times he hated Edberg's serve. It's a chronically underrated serve because it was 10mph slower on average, but the action on it was insane, and you can't see it in TV images. I've seen Edberg twice IRL - once I sat courtside, and I got a good look. I get why players didn't want to play Edberg.

Edit: I'm not sure there's justification for talking about a pre- vs post-injury (I assume it's the AO 1989 back injury we're talking about?) serve with Edberg. It's mostly a change to the motion, but the serve's character and effectiveness seem mostly the same to me. There's certainly no proof it was faster before with radar guns being absent in those days. I also think any change affected the second serve most, and it wasn't until about 1993-ish. His first was pretty much the same.

I thought it was mostly the same as well. Not like when Agassi changed his serve, for instance. But maybe I wasn't looking closely enough. Love this quote: "Compare to Connors, who could dish out the shoelace music".....got to remember that one. Yeah, for whatever reason, Jimmy was less bothered by Edberg's kick serve. Now I want to compare to Eddy's matches vs. Andre and see how he did. I've thought that Lendl had a lot of struggles on grass, including on the return. Yes, he accomplished a lot on his least favorite surface. But, to a casual observer, it looked like he was playing on his least favorite surface.

 

[yama]

@Waspsting

What level would you say Lendl’s return was at throughout his career?

One of my friends is a huge Lendl fan and claims he was one of the best returners on tour at the time.
Since I’m not from that generation, I can’t really confirm or deny that.
But surprisingly, I haven’t been able to find many articles that talk about his return.

People always praise Lendl for his great forehand and backhand, and for having a good serve.
His weakness is usually described as his “decent, but not outstanding” volley.
But his return doesn’t seem to get mentioned very often.

 

[jrepac]

@Waspsting

What level would you say Lendl’s return was at throughout his career?

One of my friends is a huge Lendl fan and claims he was one of the best returners on tour at the time.
Since I’m not from that generation, I can’t really confirm or deny that.
But surprisingly, I haven’t been able to find many articles that talk about his return.

People always praise Lendl for his great forehand and backhand, and for having a good serve.
His weakness is usually described as his “decent, but not outstanding” volley.
But his return doesn’t seem to get mentioned very often.

Lendl? I don't see it. Of course, he was probably being compared to Connors and Agassi, so that's a very high bar. His return on grass was pretty bad, actually. It was his forehand and serve that made him dominant, moreso than anything else. He was not a natural volleyer, like a McEnroe or Edberg. Serviceable, not natural at it. At W, he had a tendency to sometime "scoop" volleys rather than punch them. Again, serve and forehand was a killer combo for him. He was incredibly steady from the baseline as well, battling the likes of Borg, Connors and Wilander, so given him kudos there.

 

[yama]

Lendl? I don't see it. Of course, he was probably being compared to Connors and Agassi, so that's a very high bar. His return on grass was pretty bad, actually. It was his forehand and serve that made him dominant, moreso than anything else. He was not a natural volleyer, like a McEnroe or Edberg. Serviceable, not natural at it. At W, he had a tendency to sometime "scoop" volleys rather than punch them. Again, serve and forehand was a killer combo for him. He was incredibly steady from the baseline as well, battling the likes of Borg, Connors and Wilander, so given him kudos there.

I had a vague sense it wouldn't be a return worth passing down through generations.


How does it measure up by the standards of the time?

"Not bad?"

"Good?"

"Not the best, but very good?"

 

[sandy mayer]

Brad Gilbert said he didn't have a great second serve and that Lendl would demolish it. Lendl was great at attacking weak serves. I wouldn't call him great at returning big serves like Agassi or Connors. I don't think his return was particularly attacking like their's but Lendl broke serve more often than most pros so I think his return was good enough to allow him to win many points using his formidable groundstrokes in rallies.

 

[Mustard]

A very anti-climatic match for Lendl, was this. All that buildup, all that preparation on grass, the brilliant 1990 Queen's Club win, and Edberg played him off the park in this 1990 Wimbledon semi final.

 

[WCT]

Lendl? I don't see it. Of course, he was probably being compared to Connors and Agassi, so that's a very high bar. His return on grass was pretty bad, actually. It was his forehand and serve that made him dominant, moreso than anything else. He was not a natural volleyer, like a McEnroe or Edberg. Serviceable, not natural at it. At W, he had a tendency to sometime "scoop" volleys rather than punch them. Again, serve and forehand was a killer combo for him. He was incredibly steady from the baseline as well, battling the likes of Borg, Connors and Wilander, so given him kudos there.

Where was Lendl's forehand a huge factor in his winning his serve. He was playing s/v on every single point. IMO, he volleyed clearly more than capably in those years.
You don't make 2 finals and 5 semifinals if you don't. Not when you play s/v on every point. Hell, maybe if you serve like Goran. Lendl didn't serve like that. Or return serve like Connors or Agassi. Lendl didn't return like that, surely not on grass.

 

[JasonZ]

Brad Gilbert said he didn't have a great second serve and that Lendl would demolish it. Lendl was great at attacking weak serves. I wouldn't call him great at returning big serves like Agassi or Connors. I don't think his return was particularly attacking like their's but Lendl broke serve more often than most pros so I think his return was good enough to allow him to win many points using his formidable groundstrokes in rallies.

agassi wasnt great at returning big serves either, that is a myth.

 

[Mustard]

At W, he had a tendency to sometime "scoop" volleys rather than punch them.

Connors pointed that out about Lendl at Wimbledon, didn't he?

 

[Waspsting]

@Waspsting
What level would you say Lendl’s return was at throughout his career?
One of my friends is a huge Lendl fan and claims he was one of the best returners on tour at the time.

I'd say very good
And agree with one of the best of his time

How does it measure up by the standards of the time?
"Not bad?"
"Good?"
"Not the best, but very good?"

"not the best, but very good" - yeah that's perfect

Few points
There were a lot of serve-volleyers around in Lendl's time, thus forcing the receiver to use return as a counter-weapon
Lendl's return-passing is good, but not the best. For example, Connors was clearly better. Possibly even McEnroe, Becker, Edberg

He didn't take the return-pass early and was apt to be uncontrolled in slapping it furiously
Less often, he'd soft-block it to get it low

Against baseliners though, he was possibly the best returner of his time
There, emphasis of good returning is simply making the shot, more than force of the shot as is against serve-volley

Lendl could be wall like with the return. More so than Connors - who is justly considered a GOAT candidate returner
He wasn't just about consistency either. He could punish second serves with very big FH returns (runaround or otherwise).

Andre Agassi, another consensus GOAT candidate returner, struggled to handle big serve of Gomez in '90 French Open final, which was the main reason for the result
Lendl by contrast beat Gomez 4 times at the French. I've watched just 1 and can confirm he handled the serve better than Agassi did

Connors lost '75 US Open on green clay, mostly because of return errors against big first serve. I seriously doubt Lendl would have given up that many errors against that calibre a serve

So there were aspects of the return where he was elite. And he's no slouch at any aspect

These quick takes on judging who had the best FH, BH, volley, return etc. tend to be biased toward the aggressive aspects of the shots in question
Which for the return, is the return-pass against serve-volleyers. Forced counter-aggression. Lendl lower than elite there

He's as good as you could ask for on more overlooked, bread & butter returning against baseliners though

His showing in '90 Queen's Club final is a very strong candidate for best returning performance ever (or best performance ever period, for that matter), though that is a freak outlier showing and not indicative of his norm
He returned Stefan Edberg's close-to-body serving badly

So yeah. Lendl's return - solidly strong stuff and very good, the best of it in areas that tend to get overlooked or taken for granted, the relative shortcomings in areas that tend to be more eyecatching

 

[yama]

Against baseliners though, he was possibly the best returner of his time

Thanks for the details. Very helpful.

He really does seem like a modern player.
Had he been born 20 years later, his returns would have been more highly regarded.

His solid foundation beyond volleys is truly impressive.
He reminds me of Sinner.

 

[WCT]

I'd say very good
And agree with one of the best of his time


"not the best, but very good" - yeah that's perfect

Few points
There were a lot of serve-volleyers around in Lendl's time, thus forcing the receiver to use return as a counter-weapon
Lendl's return-passing is good, but not the best. For example, Connors was clearly better. Possibly even McEnroe, Becker, Edberg

He didn't take the return-pass early and was apt to be uncontrolled in slapping it furiously
Less often, he'd soft-block it to get it low

Against baseliners though, he was possibly the best returner of his time
There, emphasis of good returning is simply making the shot, more than force of the shot as is against serve-volley

Lendl could be wall like with the return. More so than Connors - who is justly considered a GOAT candidate returner
He wasn't just about consistency either. He could punish second serves with very big FH returns (runaround or otherwise).

Andre Agassi, another consensus GOAT candidate returner, struggled to handle big serve of Gomez in '90 French Open final, which was the main reason for the result
Lendl by contrast beat Gomez 4 times at the French. I've watched just 1 and can confirm he handled the serve better than Agassi did

Connors lost '75 US Open on green clay, mostly because of return errors against big first serve. I seriously doubt Lendl would have given up that many errors against that calibre a serve

So there were aspects of the return where he was elite. And he's no slouch at any aspect

These quick takes on judging who had the best FH, BH, volley, return etc. tend to be biased toward the aggressive aspects of the shots in question
Which for the return, is the return-pass against serve-volleyers. Forced counter-aggression. Lendl lower than elite there

He's as good as you could ask for on more overlooked, bread & butter returning against baseliners though

His showing in '90 Queen's Club final is a very strong candidate for best returning performance ever (or best performance ever period, for that matter), though that is a freak outlier showing and not indicative of his norm
He returned Stefan Edberg's close-to-body serving badly

So yeah. Lendl's return - solidly strong stuff and very good, the best of it in areas that tend to get overlooked or taken for granted, the relative shortcomings in areas that tend to be more eyecatching

Very interesting and insightful analysis.

 

[jrepac]

Brad Gilbert said he didn't have a great second serve and that Lendl would demolish it. Lendl was great at attacking weak serves. I wouldn't call him great at returning big serves like Agassi or Connors. I don't think his return was particularly attacking like their's but Lendl broke serve more often than most pros so I think his return was good enough to allow him to win many points using his formidable groundstrokes in rallies.

that's probably about right

 

[Waspsting]

His solid foundation beyond volleys is truly impressive.
He reminds me of Sinner.

There are more similarities, than differences, especially in umbrella wide basic approach to the game

Lendl's reputed to always thrashing and beating people up with the FH
I'd say he does so about, say 50% of the time. Rest of 50%, he's just keeping ball in play and outlasting opponents, not pressuring and punsihing them with power
And he rarely beats down with the BH. Variety - mix of drives, top spin, chips, push-slices - is calling card and consistency is the game. Wins rallies for hitting one more ball than opponent

Sinner's beat-down powering the ball all the time off both wings, by contrast

Lendl's volleying is good too, contrary to common takes, and 'solid' would be best one word summary for it
Sinner's made use of finishing by taking net after beating opponet back - something Lendl would have been even better for doing more of
0 volley errors for Lendl in full match is notably common

Both with solidly strong serves, and regular returns - as with rallying, Lendl blocking/slicing BH returns more often, Sinner always thumping them
Sinner moves better, but Lendl's just shy of elite

The guy whose game Sinner resembles most to my eyes is actually lesser known Thomas Enqvist

 

[WCT]

0 volley errors for Lendl in a full match is common? I didn't realize that it was that extreme. And I am in the Lendl volleyed better than people think camp, specifically at Wimbledon.

Perception vs reality. I freely admit to being in the camp that Lendl was more consistently aggressive from the backcourt than your take. And I give your opinion more credence because of how detailed charting of numerous Lendl matches. For me, the exception for Lendl was Connors where much of it was keeping the ball in play. Apparently, that was more common than I remembered.

Very interesting to see you compare and contrast him and Sinner.

 

[jrepac]

There are more similarities, than differences, especially in umbrella wide basic approach to the game

Lendl's reputed to always thrashing and beating people up with the FH
I'd say he does so about, say 50% of the time. Rest of 50%, he's just keeping ball in play and outlasting opponents, not pressuring and punsihing them with power
And he rarely beats down with the BH. Variety - mix of drives, top spin, chips, push-slices - is calling card and consistency is the game. Wins rallies for hitting one more ball than opponent

Sinner's beat-down powering the ball all the time off both wings, by contrast

Lendl's volleying is good too, contrary to common takes, and 'solid' would be best one word summary for it
Sinner's made use of finishing by taking net after beating opponet back - something Lendl would have been even better for doing more of
0 volley errors for Lendl in full match is notably common

Both with solidly strong serves, and regular returns - as with rallying, Lendl blocking/slicing BH returns more often, Sinner always thumping them
Sinner moves better, but Lendl's just shy of elite

The guy whose game Sinner resembles most to my eyes is actually lesser known Thomas Enqvist

Enqvist huh? Interesting. Would not have thought of him, but I get it. His game could be explosive at times. Lendl's volleying not horrendous, obviously. He just was being compared to guys like Mac and Edberg. But, his FH could be a real beat down. Maybe a "wear down" is a more apt description...he could keep hammering it deep, even if not for a winner. His BH was a mix. I think he sliced it a lot more later in his career. Sinner is amazing off the ground, maybe better than Lendl actually.

 

[Waspsting]

0 volley errors for Lendl in a full match is common? I didn't realize that it was that extreme.

ok, that was overly strongly worded
Lets go with "not as uncommon as you'd think"
I didn't mean to convey he habitually has 0 volleying errors in a match

Lets see, quickly and incompletely, 0 or 1 pure volley errors

0 errors -
- '82 US semi (38 approaches, has a couple of 1/2volleys)
- '82 Masters semi (4 approaches)
- '85 Stratton Mountain semi (8 approaches)
- '85 Stratton Mountain final (14 approaches)
- '86 US Open final (17 approaches)
- '87 Tokyo final (19 approaches)
- '88 US semi (13 approaches)
- '89 Aus semi (14 approaches)
- '89 Forest Hills semi (5 approaches)
- '89 Canada final (8 approaches)
- '90 US quarter (20 approaches)
- '90 Sydney semi (11 approaches)
- '91 Aus semi (28 approaches)
- '91 US semi (20 approaches)
- '92 Canada semi (10 approaches)
- '92 Cincy semi (9 approaches)
- '92 Cincy final (14 approaches)
- '92 US vs Connors (2 approaches)

1 error -
- '81 French final (33 approaches)
- '83 Masters semi (13 approaches)
- '86 French semi (14 approaches)
- '86 Stratton Mountain final (15 approaches)
- '87 Hamburg final (16 approaches)
- '90 Aus final (18 approaches)
- '91 Aus final (15 approaches)
- '91 Memphis final (9 approaches)
- '92 Canada final (7 approaches)

Its easy for me to see because I have a formulaic presentation for errors - ( FH, BH, FHV, BHV, OH) - so when it drips down to just ( FH, BH), its easy to notice
I can tell you with confidence that other players with 10ish approaches in a match will usually have an error or 2
You won't see Connors, Borg or Wilander with perfect 0 volley errors like this, with similar numbers of approaches

You want an even weirder one?
Novak Djokovic - who has been delighting us all for 20 odd years now with those wonderful smashes - is actually one of the best half-volleyers around
Given how rarely he comes in and how rarely he has to even play a half-volley, he's got a very, very high lot of winners from them
Don't have ratios, but he'd very likely have highest winners made to shots played on the half-volley of any player I've seen

Enqvist huh? Interesting. Would not have thought of him, but I get it. His game could be explosive at times

Absolutely
Constant power hitting off both sides, seemingly not straining for power, not going for lines and clean winners much
Similar serve and return style too

Even Agassi gets outhit by him
Kafelnikov, not an easy guy to dictate too, doesn't even contest for lead position and automatically falls back to counter-punching. He doesn't do with Agassi

 

[WCT]

ok, that was overly strongly worded
Lets go with "not as uncommon as you'd think"
I didn't mean to convey he habitually has 0 volleying errors in a match

Lets see, quickly and incompletely, 0 or 1 pure volley errors

0 errors -
- '82 US semi (38 approaches, has a couple of 1/2volleys)
- '82 Masters semi (4 approaches)
- '85 Stratton Mountain semi (8 approaches)
- '85 Stratton Mountain final (14 approaches)
- '86 US Open final (17 approaches)
- '87 Tokyo final (19 approaches)
- '88 US semi (13 approaches)
- '89 Aus semi (14 approaches)
- '89 Forest Hills semi (5 approaches)
- '89 Canada final (8 approaches)
- '90 US quarter (20 approaches)
- '90 Sydney semi (11 approaches)
- '91 Aus semi (28 approaches)
- '91 US semi (20 approaches)
- '92 Canada semi (10 approaches)
- '92 Cincy semi (9 approaches)
- '92 Cincy final (14 approaches)
- '92 US vs Connors (2 approaches)

1 error -
- '81 French final (33 approaches)
- '83 Masters semi (13 approaches)
- '86 French semi (14 approaches)
- '86 Stratton Mountain final (15 approaches)
- '87 Hamburg final (16 approaches)
- '90 Aus final (18 approaches)
- '91 Aus final (15 approaches)
- '91 Memphis final (9 approaches)
- '92 Canada final (7 approaches)

Its easy for me to see because I have a formulaic presentation for errors - ( FH, BH, FHV, BHV, OH) - so when it drips down to just ( FH, BH), its easy to notice
I can tell you with confidence that other players with 10ish approaches in a match will usually have an error or 2
You won't see Connors, Borg or Wilander with perfect 0 volley errors like this, with similar numbers of approaches

You want an even weirder one?
Novak Djokovic - who has been delighting us all for 20 odd years now with those wonderful smashes - is actually one of the best half-volleyers around
Given how rarely he comes in and how rarely he has to even play a half-volley, he's got a very, very high lot of winners from them
Don't have ratios, but he'd very likely have highest winners made to shots played on the half-volley of any player I've seen


Absolutely
Constant power hitting off both sides, seemingly not straining for power, not going for lines and clean winners much
Similar serve and return style too

Even Agassi gets outhit by him
Kafelnikov, not an easy guy to dictate too, doesn't even contest for lead position and automatically falls back to counter-punching. He doesn't do with AgassiIn f

In fairness, a lot of those matches don't have many approaches. I am not looking for 50 approaches without an error. But maybe a minimum of 15. 15-20 range and above. And your list certainly has a bunch of them as well. That 1982 US Open semi number is very impressive.

Funny you should mention Wilander because that is how I think of him. I did stats for 2 matches that he played Connors. Partial matches, but 180 plus and 115 plus point matches in what I have. Not an unforced volley error in either. 29 and 17 times at net. I don't do forced errors, but I remember thinking he had almost none of them either. He was down 5-1 in the 3rd set at 1984 Cincy and won. He started s/v on every 1st serve and once Connors saw that those returns were coming back low and hard. He wasn't missing them. I didn't say he was a decisive or aggressive volleyer, but he didn't miss them. Obviously, that is only 2 matches. But it was my impression watching him at the time. Not no errors, just relatively few.

We all know about Djokovic's overhead, had no idea he was that proficient at the 1/2 volley. Also, wouldn't have thought of Enqvist as that aggressive. That is why you are insightful. Insightful make you look at, notice things, that have been there all along and you just didn't see them. Tim Mccarver was like that as an analyst in baseball. At least, early on.

 

[Waspsting]

In fairness, a lot of those matches don't have many approaches. I am not looking for 50 approaches without an error. But maybe a minimum of 15. 15-20 range and above. And your list certainly has a bunch of them as well. That 1982 US Open semi number is very impressive.

Funny you should mention Wilander because that is how I think of him. I did stats for 2 matches that he played Connors. Partial matches, but 180 plus and 115 plus point matches in what I have. Not an unforced volley error in either. 29 and 17 times at net. I don't do forced errors, but I remember thinking he had almost none of them either. He was down 5-1 in the 3rd set at 1984 Cincy and won. He started s/v on every 1st serve and once Connors saw that those returns were coming back low and hard. He wasn't missing them. I didn't say he was a decisive or aggressive volleyer, but he didn't miss them. Obviously, that is only 2 matches. But it was my impression watching him at the time. Not no errors, just relatively few.

Those Lendl figures are for all errors (UE, FE both), so plain fact with no room for interpretation
Simple, straight, not missing a single ball on the full all match

For Wilander, I have 0 volley errors just twice
- '87 French vs Noah (29 approaches)
- '88 French final (9 approaches)

For Mats, I have 44 matches - and just now checked every one of them
For Lendl, 93 matches - and I didn't pointedly check all of them. There maybe more for him

So 18 matches with 0 errors + 9 more with 1 error = 27 matches, out of lets liberally say 93 matches for Lendl
2/44 matches for Wilander with 0 errors, to contextualitize (I wasn't paying pointed attention for 1 error showings for him, but weren't many of those either)

Come to think of it, "notably common" might be fair description for Lendl having 0 volley errors in a match

We all know about Djokovic's overhead, had no idea he was that proficient at the 1/2 volley.

Now that one really is a beauty - and only comes out via exhaustive look
He comes in rarely, and obviously, has to play 1/2volley still more rarely
There isn't a single matche or series of matches one can point to and say "check that out to see how good he is on the half-volley"
Overwhelming lot of matches, faces 0 1/2volleys, next highest frequency would be 1. I doubt I've ever seen a match where he's had to make little as 3 and 2 would be extremely rare

In that context, he very often comes out with a 1/2volley winner
You won't see Nadal or Agassi with this, or even Federer - who actually is a smooth net player

More funny still, its not that he looks good on the shot. He looks like you expect a guy who volleys like him to look - uncomfortable, uncertain, far from convincing
Often as not, the winner looks like a fluke
Over the number of matches I have for him, and the regularity of winners, fluke isn't a plausible explanation for it

 

[WCT]

Those Lendl figures are for all errors (UE, FE both), so plain fact with no room for interpretation
Simple, straight, not missing a single ball on the full all match

For Wilander, I have 0 volley errors just twice
- '87 French vs Noah (29 approaches)
- '88 French final (9 approaches)

For Mats, I have 44 matches - and just now checked every one of them
For Lendl, 93 matches - and I didn't pointedly check all of them. There maybe more for him

So 18 matches with 0 errors + 9 more with 1 error = 27 matches, out of lets liberally say 93 matches for Lendl
2/44 matches for Wilander with 0 errors, to contextualitize (I wasn't paying pointed attention for 1 error showings for him, but weren't many of those either)

Come to think of it, "notably common" might be fair description for Lendl having 0 volley errors in a match



Now that one really is a beauty - and only comes out via exhaustive look
He comes in rarely, and obviously, has to play 1/2volley still more rarely
There isn't a single matche or series of matches one can point to and say "check that out to see how good he is on the half-volley"
Overwhelming lot of matches, faces 0 1/2volleys, next highest frequency would be 1. I doubt I've ever seen a match where he's had to make little as 3 and 2 would be extremely rare

In that context, he very often comes out with a 1/2volley winner
You won't see Nadal or Agassi with this, or even Federer - who actually is a smooth net player

More funny still, its not that he looks good on the shot. He looks like you expect a guy who volleys like him to look - uncomfortable, uncertain, far from convincing
Often as not, the winner looks like a fluke
Over the number of matches I have for him, and the regularity of winners, fluke isn't a plausible explanation for it

Wow. I thought you were talking unforced errors. Obviously, this makes Lendl's figures more impressive. When you get into forced errors it can get muddy. You could have missed a bunch of moderately difficult volleys or a bunch of incredibly difficult volleys. Unforced has that same issue of very easy to a bit difficult, but should be made. But at least you know, or think, they should have all been made.
And that was more my point with Wlander.

I went through some of the matches you did for him. This is unforced net errors only.
I say net because in a couple he's got more overhead errors than volley errors. First is times at net than the errors. 59-0, 58-0, 76-1, 50-1, 45-1, 42-2, 52-2, 61-3, 67-3, 118-4. That match was vs Cash and he had 154-21. There was a match vs Curren with the same type of disparity.

Obviously, this is not to say he was the best volleyer. Just that I didn't think he missed many easy ones. Again, that was just my perception. You are examining these matches with a fine tooth comb. The stats are the stats and often disprove perception. My perception of Lendl was not that he missed AS few volleys as you have him often doing.

You argument about Djokovic and how he looks on the half volley is my argument with Lendl and Wimbledon. Stop worrying about how comfortable or natural he looks playing s/v on every serve. The bottom line is how effective is he at doing it.

What do your stats tell you about Nadal and errors on the volley? My perception was that he missed very few easy ones. IIRC, 1 of then was in the 2018 Wimbledon match with Novak. I thought that was possibly the highest quality of tennis match the 2 ever played.

 

[Waspsting]

What do your stats tell you about Nadal and errors on the volley? My perception was that he missed very few easy ones. IIRC, 1 of then was in the 2018 Wimbledon match with Novak. I thought that was possibly the highest quality of tennis match the 2 ever played.

Misses very few easy ones, rarely plays difficult ones
So low UEs + low FEs = obviously low errors period

Non statistically, I'd say he makes high quality volleys too, i.e. winning volleys that don't come back (go for winner, leave low percentage pass chance)
Like Djokovic, he prefers the drop volley to classic deep punched ones and is better with them

All adds up to high success at net, with underlying suggestion that coming in more would be good move for him
If you rarely face difficult volley, its because you only come in from very strong approach
He seems to be a good enough volleyer that one would think he could take more chances, come in off not as strong approaches, where his volley is likely to be tested more
But mostly, I just get the sense of never seeing him playing tough volleys because he's so particular about when to come in

On flip side, why would he come in more, given he's best baseliner around? He plays opponents from baseline, he'll win bulk of points
For most of his career, on rare occasion that he got crushingly outhit, typical response was to try to defend his way through it (as opposed to reason something like "I'm losing from back today, so I should come forward more")

He started using net more and more astutely in later years. '19 US final with Medvedev, '18 Rome final with Zverev being 2 examples that come to mind. '22 Indian Wells vs Alcaraz is another
He's not so clearly better baseliner in these matches as he's accustomed to being, and smartly mixed in choice net play to compensate. He's still not facing too many difficult volleys, but now, its testament to great judgement, rather than cautioun or reluctance to come in

I agree with 2018 Wimby match with Djokovic being possibly highest quality match the two played.
2012 Australian is the only real alternative for that prize. That's mostly about grit and hanging tough (especially for Nadal because Djokovic's more skilled), while the Wimby match is about shot-making and attacking point construction (again particularly for Nadal, to compensate for having weaker serve)

Either style, possibly highest quality match played by those two = possible highest quality match played by anybody

When he committed to it, Nadal was as good a shot-maker as I've seen and that Wimby match is him at it
He generally fell to it as 3rd or 4th option after grinding down or moving-opponent-around or even walling up defensively as a style

 

[WCT]

I'm glad you see his net play at least fairly close to how I see it. I'd hear people say he was a better volleyer and think, he doesn't play the same amount of difficult volleys. I do think he volleyed even better as time went in and came in more.
I remember being shocked seeing him s/v in the 19 US Open.

Nadal struck me as someone who really would play however he needed to win. If he had to play drop shots for 4 hours, he'd play drop shots for 4 hours. I saw him play Medvedev slicing 80-90% of his backhands. Later on, on faster surfaces, he'd step in and take the ball earlier, go for bigger shots. He said it himself, I've lost somethings and have compensated with others. Clearly,the last how many years, his mobility was not the same.

He kept winning by evolving. Although I think he was lucky, at the 17 and 19 US Opens, in not having to face Djokovic or Federer. When was the last time he beat either on a hard court.

I remember Nadal's press conference after that 18 match. He had no regrets. We both played great and it was a point here or there difference. Yes, he made a couple of costly unforced errors, but that sometimes will happen when you go for your shots.
That day those 2 were going for their shots.

I agree about that Australian final. I saw that as more about endurance and grit than tremendous shot making. It's all degrees of greatness with those 2, though. I think they have had many matches with a very high level. Just not as high a level as 18.