Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs McEnroe, Wimbledon semi-final, 1989

[Waspsting]

Stefan Edberg beat John McEnroe 7-5, 7-6(2), 7-6(5) in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1989 on grass

Edberg, the defending champion, would go onto lose the final to Boris Becker in a reversal of the previous years final. It was McEnroe's first Slam semi in 4 years and he would go onto finish the year ranked 4th

Edberg won 129 points, McEnroe 120

Both players serve-volleyed off all serves

Serve Stats
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (65/125) 52%
- 1st serve points won (54/65) 83%
- 2nd serve points won (32/60) 53%
- Aces 5 (1 second serve, 1 not clean), Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (41/125) 33%

McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (61/124) 49%
- 1st serve points won (48/61) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (33/63) 52%
- Aces 8 (1 second serve), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 9
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (50/124) 40%

Serve Patterns
Edberg served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 18%

McEnroe served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 55%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
Edberg made...
- 65 (26 FH, 39 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 13 Winners (6 FH, 7 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 41 Errors, all forced...
- 41 Forced (21 FH, 20 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (65/115) 57%

McEnroe made...
- 78 (43 FH, 35 BH), including 4 runaround FHs
- 13 Winners (7 FH, 6 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 33 Errors, all forced...
- 33 Forced (15 FH, 18 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (78/119) 66%

Break Points
Edberg 2/6 (5 games)
McEnroe 1/3 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edberg 50 (12 FH, 12 BH, 9 FHV, 10 BHV, 7 OH)
McEnroe 40 (9 FH, 9 BH, 7 FHV, 10 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 4 OH)

Edberg had 27 from serve-volley points
- 13 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 7 BHV, 1 FH at net)
- 13 second volleys (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 7 OH)
- 1 fourth volley (1 FHV)

- 13 returns (6 FH, 7 BH), all passes
- FHs - 3 dtl (1 would-be return-approach) and 3 inside-in (1 runaround)
- BHs - 2 cc, 2 dtl and 3 inside-in

- 10 regular passes (5 FH, 5 BH)
- FHs - 2 dtl (1 running-down-drop-volley at net) and 3 lobs
- BHs - 1 cc, 2 inside-out (1 at net), 1 inside-out/dtl and 1 lob

McEnroe had from serve-volley points
- 13 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 7 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- 9 second volleys (2 FHV, 3 BHV, 4 OH)… 1 FHV played net-to-net

- 13 returns (7 FH, 6 BH), all passes
- FHs - 2 cc (1 runaround), 2 dtl (1 runaround), 1 inside-out and 2 inside-in (1 runaround)
- BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out and 2 inside-in

- 5 regular passes (2 FH, 3 BH)
- FHs - 1 dtl and 1 inside-in
- BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl and 1 inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edberg 24
- 6 Unforced (2 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 4 BH, 3 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 Back to Net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 55

McEnroe 29
- 4 Unforced (2 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 25 Forced (10 FH, 5 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)… 1 FHV and 1 BHV were non-net points
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 53.0

(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...
- 80/114 (70%) at net, including...
- 78/111 (70%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 47/58 (81%) off 1st serve and..
- 31/53 (58%) off 2nd serve
--
- 0/2 forced back

McEnroe was...
- 74/110 (67%) at net, including...
- 72/106 (68%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 40/53 (75%) off 1st serve and..
- 32/53 (60%) off 2nd serve
--
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
The best match for volleying I've seen. Both players are near flawless, Edberg just a little bit more so, though McEnroe has the greater variety in taking the ball on full. And that's probably the key difference in a tight, 100% serve-volleying grass match

Before getting to action, lets get the unfortunate out the way

Non-enforcement of foot faults
Right from the start, commentators Bud Collins and Dick Enberg stress Edberg's tendency to foot fault. According to them, he'd been doing it all the time in French Open, where he'd been runner-up without being called. They make a point of keeping an eye out for it

On one end of the court, there's a linesperson, who looks like Agent Smith from the Matrix movies, that's willing to call foot faults. On the other end, no calls. After being called twice in his first game from the particular end, Edberg adjusts when serving only from that end. The other end, he continues playing normally. Commentators point out particular points where he's clearly foot faulting. It seems to be a very regular thing... probably as often as not

This is an ugly, often overlooked aspect of Stefan Edberg's game. God alone knows how many foot faults he got away with. His adjusting so as not to foot fault from the end where they're calling him suggests he's quite aware of it. No protests at any of the foot fault calls - though that's normal for him for all calls

Poor officiating here. and its probably not uncommon, as far as looking for foot faults. I've never understood the lax attitude towards... unlike code of conduct or time violations, its a hard rule beyond interpretation. Letting foot faults go, or not bothering to look for them is like calling an ace to a ball that was out because it was close enough to being in

Edberg's play doesn't suffer from the end he's liable to be called from. Doubt having the rule enforced would make a difference to quality of his play, he'd just adjust (as he does from one end) and go on playing the same way, a fraction of a second behind. But he does appear to be foot faulting regularly throughout the match from one end - and officials seem to have no interest in calling it

Bud Collins notes that if this were baseball, somebody on the McEnroe team would tell the officials to keep an eye out for it. It ain't baseball

Play
Action is fairly simple

- Both players serve-volley all the time
- Both serve well. Mac maybe a touch stronger, but prone to double fault at bad times
- Returning style is polar opposite. Mac takes it early, Edberg hangs back and looks for big cuts
- Both volley incredibly well. Edberg better
- Edberg's superiority in volleying shapes passing. Mac has the harder passes to make so makes them not as well. Quality of passing is about the same, adjusted for difficulty of volleys being faced... Edberg has more chances
- Key points - Edberg tends clutch, Mac tends to have little let downs

Serve & Return
Edberg serves at just 52%, but very good first serves from him. Lots of balls out wide that throw Mac sideways and strong body and body-ish serves too. The second serves are often directed to body and tend to kick up high. His serve is about as strong as Mac's of power and is placed better than usual

Mac returns particularly well. He stands in close, just behind baseline for first serves and with a foot inside for seconds. Times the ball well, with a short swing, he send sit flying with surprising power. Initially, he's very deft in stepping away from body serves to hit FHs... apparently reading the serve well. Though later on, he gets cramped by them

Mac achieves something I've been on the lookout for. Note his hitting at least 1 of all 8 basic return type winners - FH/BH X cc/dtl/inside-out/inside-in. Clearly there's no shortage of variety in his returns. While getting into a tangle to some body serves due standing close in, on the whole its worth it. Taking the ball early doesn't unduly hamper him from getting balls in play (66% return rate is healthy against 100% serve-volleying), and it enables him to do so exceptionally damagingly as his 13 winners bear out. The problem he has is... Edberg's volleying is too good (more on that later)

Mac's serving is as powerful as Edberg's and with Edberg hanging back to return in a position reminiscent of Bjorn Borg, he has greater scope to exploit angles. He doesn't do the best jobs at this... while utilizing it to an extent, he also aims body-ish serves. Edberg misses a small number of relatively makeable returns, especially against second serves. And he has shots at winners on a number of them

Mac distributes serve wisely. Initially, he goes mostly to FH, which many people seemed to think was a good idea against Edberg. When he finds that not working so well - Edberg hits back a number of strong returns, he shifts to a more even distribution, more to the BH.

For most of the match, Edberg's FH return was the stronger side. He's particularly clutch on BH in the final tiebreak, where he reels of 3 winners... that would have been very difficult to foresee given how play was going

Overall, serve-return complex is near even. Mac perhaps a touch better on both shots... counter-balanced by timing. Edberg often finds his best serves and returns at clutch times, while Mac is the opposite. He double faults twice to get broken the first time and once in each tiebreak. Apparently a problem for him in the tournament. According to commentary, he had 57 double faults in his 6 matches

 

[Waspsting]

Volleying & Passing
The two players combine for the staggeringly low 10 volleying UEs about 120 relevant net points (i.e. sans unreturned serves, when a volley was needed. Edberg doesn't make his first til game 5 of second set. Mac's made 3 in first set, which means he made 1 in rest of the match. Staggering

Again, timing is important. Mac makes back to back ones to lose the first set. Edberg also shocking makes two in a row in the final tiebreak... but he zones on returns in it too to compensate

Not only is it not just the infrequency of errors that's the impressive thing, it isn't even the main part. Virtually every single Edberg volley - even low to low-ish ones, including ones that would be marked forced error had he missed - are put in deep. A ball that's just deep but not in the corner to boot is a bad volley for him in this match

He's not at his absolute best at hitting winners off first volley, but not far off it. He gets significantly more low and low-ish volleys than Mac does... and not only barely misses (just 7 FEs), but hits those near as well as net high balls. Deep and usually in a corner. Like clockwork. Mac basically has to half-volley all his passing attempts - and that's just when Edberg hasn't hit a winner (which he does 27 times when coming in to volley + twice running down drop shots)

Given what he's up against, Mac does well passing. Its his returns that give Edberg a good chunk of low or wide balls (more often low than wide). After the first volley to those, Mac's forced to deal in near half-volleys and its almost impossible to hit passes from those

Aesthetically, Edberg's could be more pleasing still with more stop volleys. He doesn't hit one intentionally, and just the odd one here and there when fully stretched. Of effectiveness, his volleying is close on perfection

Mac is also excellent at net and that his showing there doesn't completely get lost next to Edberg's is itself testimony to its quality. He's even more sure at net - 4 UEs to Edberg's 6, though that was even going into final tiebreak - and just as sure at putting away winners. Coincidentally, both men have exactly 13 first volley winners and of the same type (5 FHV, 7 BHV)… with each having an additional first shot at net winner

He has the advantage in look with his feathery touch volleys

Nominally, he's just as good dealing with difficult ones. He has 8 forecourt FEs to Edberg's 7... but Edberg faced a significantly larger number

Where he trails the most is in how he deals with difficult ones. Mac makes 'defensive' volleys to them, which is normal. Edberg puts them deep

Its this difference that opens up greater chances for Edberg on the pass. He passes well... but Mac volleys better. A few makeable misses on the pass from Edberg, more so than Mac, who scarcely has a shot at one. Particularly on the lob, Edberg excels. In addition to the 4 winners, he gives Mac a number of awkward OHs (which Mac usually makes). By contrast, Mac's attempts at lobs are swatted away like flies

Despite his superiority, Edberg's game is too grooved for anything to stand out and the highlights of the highlights are mostly Mac's. A feather, first FHV inside-out drop. A perfect first BH1/2V cc. A point where he forces Edberg back with a lob, approaches but is lobbed himself as Edberg re-approaches, only to be lobbed again, finishing with Edberg unable to retrieve the ball, as Mac slipped and was on the ground with Edberg trying to put a ball in play with his back to the net

In a nutshell, sublime volleying from Edberg. Half a cut below from Mac

Match Progression
Match overall is serve dominated as low number of break points indicate (Edberg has 6, Mac has 3... only once does either have more than 1 in a game). Its Mac draws first blood with break in game 5. He opens with BH cc return winner and ends with an inside-in one, and has another BH dtl winner in the game. Still needs back to back doubles from Edberg to see him through

Edberg breaks back in similar fashion. Pair of FH return winners - 1 dtl, 1 inside-in - to go with a pair of Mac doubles, puts the match back on serve. And breaks again to take the set. Wonderful first point in which Mac has to make awkward, non-offensive OH and BHOH on successive shots before Edberg swats away a BH cc passing winner. That's followed by a FH inside-in return winner and a Mac first volley into corner winner. Then Mac misses 2 volleys to give up the break

Edberg has better of second set. Both players save a break point in middle of set, but Mac is further pushed to 14 and 8 points in his last two service games. In the latter game, Edberg changes his return tactics and looks to take ball early. So doing, he puts away a pair of winners, but Mac's able to serve his way to a hold. In the tiebreak, an early Mac double puts him behind the curve. A perfect BH lob winner from Edberg keeps him there

There's a 3 and 1/2 hour rain delay after 5 games in the third. Those first five games were easy holds. The next 7 are much tougher. Mac, who had been superb in anticipating body serves and making room to hit his returns before, is jammed by these same serves. Only he squeezes them out for winners anyway. Edberg isn't far behind. Previously, most of his damaging returns had come against second serves. Now, he takes a couple of firsts to the cleaners too

Tiebreak is a bit strange. Like the earlier one, Mac double faults to open the door, and Edberg whacks a first serve away BH inside-in for a winner to go up a commanding 4-1 with two serves to follow. Shockingly, he misses 2 routine first volleys of them... it came as a surprise when he didn't make difficult volleys deep, let alone missing easy ones. A pair of BH return winners put things right for him though. On match point, he swats the return cc from well behind the baseline at a sharp angle for the win

Summing up, a volleying extravaganza of a match with style, grace, precision and also power on show. Edberg's just a bit better at it (foot faulting or not) but not so much as to guarantee a win. That's done by the usual, who-plays-important-points-better dictum of grass. Its appropriate that it turns out to be Edberg

Stats for pair's match in Rotterdam '87 - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...s-mcenroe-rotterdam-indoor-final-1987.651853/

 

[andreh]

In this and the FO89 final there's alot of whining about Edberg not being called for footfaults, BUT, I think that Collins (mainly) and Enberg are exaggerating grossly. Many times when Collins excalims "There! He did it again!" Edberg didn't seem to footfault as I saw it on the TV images and Edberg was in fact called for foot faults, in this and many other matches. Can't argue with the guy who's actually on the line. Certainly Collin's comment at one point that "he footfaults most of the time" isn't correct.

I also don't think it's "an ugly part of Edberg's game". A foot fault is like any other line call. You get called or you don't. It's on the line judge, not the player. Not Edberg's problem if he doesn't get called. Saying it's an ugly part of the game insinuates that Edberg deployed a deliberate strategy to cheat, which he didn't. He just got a bit too close with his right pinky toe every once in while.

 

[California]

In this and the FO89 final there's alot of whining about Edberg not being called for footfaults, BUT, I think that Collins (mainly) and Enberg are exaggerating grossly. Many times when Collins excalims "There! He did it again!" Edberg didn't seem to footfault as I saw it on the TV images and Edberg was in fact called for foot faults, in this and many other matches. Can't argue with the guy who's actually on the line. Certainly Collin's comment at one point that "he footfaults most of the time" isn't correct.

I also don't think it's "an ugly part of Edberg's game". A foot fault is like any other line call. You get called or you don't. It's on the line judge, not the player. Not Edberg's problem if he doesn't get called. Saying it's an ugly part of the game insinuates that Edberg deployed a deliberate strategy to cheat, which he didn't. He just got a bit too close with his right pinky toe every once in while.

Look Collins was a tool. Very opinionated and thought he was always right... he is saying that he, from the press box can tell if Edberg's toe is hitting the line before the serve better than the linesman, on the court, looking down the line? Yeah, ok.

He was a homer and wanted the American players to win. Yet, he was so irritating that even the players didn't like him. Ask John McEnroe. Stefan was a class act in every way. The sportsmanship award is named after him! If he foot faulted, call him on it and be done with it. I am sure he knew he did it from time to time. Not really a big deal.

 

[Breakpointerer]

OP could you do one for the FO84 final( if you haven't before)?

 

[Waspsting]

OP could you do one for the FO84 final( if you haven't before)?

Sure - its on my list, but will be awhile

I like to do clay matches in bunches - play is so different that intermingling clay with other surfaces too much probably affects judgment

some old stuff, Mac-Lendl final on green clay not long before French - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rt-mcenroe-vs-lendl-forest-hills-1984.607707/

and the two semi's - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...wilander-french-open-semi-finals-1984.656465/

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-mcenroe-vs-connors-french-open-semi-final-1984.656176/

Haven't forgotten @NicoMK request either... that one I'm drawing out with so few matches of Mats lying around

 

[Breakpointerer]

Sure - its on my list, but will be awhile

I like to do clay matches in bunches - play is so different that intermingling clay with other surfaces too much probably affects judgment

some old stuff, Mac-Lendl final on green clay not long before French - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rt-mcenroe-vs-lendl-forest-hills-1984.607707/

and the two semi's - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...wilander-french-open-semi-finals-1984.656465/

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-mcenroe-vs-connors-french-open-semi-final-1984.656176/

Haven't forgotten @NicoMK request either... that one I'm drawing out with so few matches of Mats lying around

Thanks! I'll check those out.

 

[Waspsting]

In this and the FO89 final there's alot of whining about Edberg not being called for footfaults, BUT, I think that Collins (mainly) and Enberg are exaggerating grossly. Many times when Collins excalims "There! He did it again!" Edberg didn't seem to footfault as I saw it on the TV images and Edberg was in fact called for foot faults, in this and many other matches....Certainly Collin's comment at one point that "he footfaults most of the time" isn't correct.

I watched the final in question - and confirming 100% agreement with all of the above

Leaving aside the obvious matter of how clearly commentator can see and judge such a thing from his position, there are only small number of clear camera shots of Edberg's serving where you can see his feet. About 4 or 5

He's as close to the line as you can get - the front foot a fraction of an inch away from it, the back foot joining it at same distance beside it when he leaps up and in

He's well in court when he strikes the serve, but both feet are well in the air by then

multiple times, Collins in particular describes these as clear foot faults. Either his eyes are off or mine are - he does not touch the line on those points

I assume rules haven't changed... a foot fault is when you physically touch the line. Your allowed to jump into the air and be beyond the line when serve is struck

Some very irresponsible commentary from Bud here. In another match - can't remember which one - he says (paraphrasing) "Edberg was serving from the service line in French Open"

Couple of times, he interviews Tony Trabert, who was commentating for a different channel and asks if he Tony is as struck by Edberg foot faulting every serve as "we are". Trabert just talks about something else in replying, though he's very open in that he's rooting for Chang to win (more so than Collins and Enberg). As an ex-player who's being interviewed for another channel's coverage, he's not wearing his commentator hat at the time (doubt he's so open while commentating)

...he is saying that he, from the press box can tell if Edberg's toe is hitting the line before the serve better than the linesman, on the court, looking down the line? Yeah, ok.

Adding some irony to it, when chair umpire comes down to double check for a mark after the line judge had already done so, he thinks its silly and says something like "how can (the chair) tell from his position?"

I think he means relative to the line judge, but Bud himself makes good number of calls that he's obviously in far worse position to judge. Not just the supposed foot faults

Look Collins was a tool. Very opinionated and thought he was always right...He was a homer and wanted the American players to win. Yet, he was so irritating...

Fair description of his performance in the '89 French final at very least

 

[andreh]

In Bud's defence, he also said a lot of good things about Edberg. But in those particular matches it was clear he was rooting for the American. Arguably, he could have rooted in a different way than lambasting Edberg for footfaults

 

[Judge Holden]

Just watched this match for the first time as a younger fan with a revealed passion for attacking tennis. [I like Sinner and Alcaraz, especially Sinner, but grass should not play like a hard court. It just shouldn't. Bring back indoor carpet events so attacking players can make some hay at tournaments besides Wimbledon. Expanding the grass court season instead or banning winning points from the baseline on serve, as people are suggesting, strike me as folly. Anywayyy....] Don't be surprised if I make a habit of bumping these threads because they are seriously brilliant work. In fact I'm hoping to start writing myself about classic matches and using these threads as inspiration.

What stuck out to me more than anything else was Edberg's movement and footwork. What a perfect physique for tennis. He's built like a #6 in soccer where he somehow has a low center of gravity combined with a decent height. He blankets the net extremely well but moreover whenever there were scramble situations Edberg would fly around the court and have the answers, including some sick slides on grass [I didn't know anyone did that before Nolak and Sinner]. He made some amazing gets in this match as well.

I will say this about Edberg's strokes. His forehand is definitely more effective than the reputation and visual appearance would suggest, but I still got the sense that, during big points and/or handling difficult returns/passes, the backhand was liable to do more damage. The forehand is steady too and good at reflecting power [and also very good at lobbing] but it doesn't have the dynamic range and ability to generate power and angles at will that the backhand does. The truth of the two strokes is probably somewhere in the middle.

McEnroe's forehand return was absolutely cooking during this match. When he wasn't hitting down-the-line winners with it he was dipping it at Edberg's feet and making first volleys quite challenging -- that Edberg did so well at the net in this match is total credit to him and basically no fault of McEnrore's. I recently watched the ECC 1985 F against Lendl [another superb match and great thread from you] and was much more impressed with his backhand return in that match. He took Lendl's first serves and effortlessly reflected back the pace with his wrist/hand suppleness and reflexes. Given that Edberg's serve has significantly more action on it than Lendl's combined with the lower bounce on grass the discrepancies make sense. McEnroe's reflexes and anticipation seem a bit declined here from 1985 and that was enough to let Edberg back into some of the scramble points.

Still, classic match and splendid play from both players. Younger fans should watch this match to disabuse themselves of the ideas that a) surface homogenization is good, b) rallies are the only interesting part of tennis and c) matches need to go the distance to be all-time classics.

 

[Waspsting]

Don't be surprised if I make a habit of bumping these threads because they are seriously brilliant work. In fact I'm hoping to start writing myself about classic matches and using these threads as inspiration.

Most welcome to bump and will be glad to see more takes on classic matches
Its funny how so many matches on rewatch are so different from how I remember them

What stuck out to me more than anything else was Edberg's movement and footwork.

Just perfect. Unfortunately so, giving completely erroneous impression of how difficult tennis is
Exposure to Edberg for someone who hasn't played substantially is likely to not impress, but just elicit reaction of "so what's so hard about that? its easy"
You need to see other players struggling or not being in perfect position every ball to realize it isn't that easy

In '85 Aus semi, Lendl slips a few times and is complaining about the court being slippery
What to make of it? Lendl complains about a lot of things, especially when things aren't going right for him. Maybe its slippery, maybe its just him
Then Edberg missteps some and almost even slips couple times
What to make of it? 100%, court is too slippery

I will say this about Edberg's strokes. His forehand is definitely more effective than the reputation and visual appearance would suggest, but I still got the sense that, during big points and/or handling difficult returns/passes, the backhand was liable to do more damage. The forehand is steady too and good at reflecting power [and also very good at lobbing] but it doesn't have the dynamic range and ability to generate power and angles at will that the backhand does. The truth of the two strokes is probably somewhere in the middle.

In baseline rallies, I've found Edberg's FH and its supposed weakness to be the biggest falsehood in tennis
Its only shot of his (other than the serve, which looks an invitation for a cricked neck), that doesn't look silkly smooth and isn't very powerful
But its safe as bank. Over and over and over again it comes up... Edberg's FH with match low UEs, and by a long way
He tends to react, rather than lead FH rallies. If that makes it weak, its weak
If winning and losing points is what makes a shot strong or weak, its actually one of the strongest shots in the game

Story from commentary from a mid 90s match between Edberg and Sampras
Camera catches Leo Levin in attendance, the original match statter
Commentators talk about his pioneering work and mention how Edberg was one of the first players to see the value of it
One day in the mid 80s, Edberg challenged Levin with "Tell me something about my game that I don't know"

Levin's said to have replied, "Your FH is as good as your BH"

I agree with the BH having more variety, but not sure its actually more successful on the pass. Maybe because we automatically have lower expectations for BH pass success?
In baseline rallies, he does actually move over to play BHs in lieu of FHs a little. And he's the only 1-hander I can think of who plays BH inside-out relatively often
Still, that one seems overrated to me. Its a good BH, but I don't get the 'greatest of all time' takes on it. It doesn't outshine say Becker or Sampras' - and they're said to have average, normal BHs

...a revealed passion for attacking tennis. [I like Sinner and Alcaraz, especially Sinner, but grass should not play like a hard court. It just shouldn't. Bring back indoor carpet events so attacking players can make some hay at tournaments

The difficulty would be in finding a court speed/bounce that encourages attacking play, without promoting serve-bottery

A match like this - beautifully, crafted attacking play - that'd be a jewel in the games crown. And I believe bring in more fans who are moved by it
How do you create such conditions, without also opening the gates for more Sampras-Ivanisevic type matches though? Which i don't think would bring in more fans, in fact, would probably repel a few

Have you seen the '98 Grand Slam Cup final? Fast indoor court and glorious match with Rios engaging all kinds of brilliant aggression, and Agassi the perfect, hard anvil to set platform for it
Match like that is great for the game of tennis. The appeal of tennis to fans and potential fans

It did occur to me though that full field tournament in such condtiions would more often than not end with Sampras vs another big server, and turn into a serving shoot-out

Old fans might swoon over the '96 YEC final between Boris and Sampras because of the scoreline and the German crowd getting so enthusiastic
The organizers, meanwhile, immediatly slowed down the conditions, presumably to prevent such server dominated matches - and no one complained at the time

 

[Judge Holden]

Just perfect. Unfortunately so, giving completely erroneous impression of how difficult tennis is
Exposure to Edberg for someone who hasn't played substantially is likely to not impress, but just elicit reaction of "so what's so hard about that? its easy"
You need to see other players struggling or not being in perfect position every ball to realize it isn't that easy

When I heard people who had watched Edberg play say that he played all his strokes with his feet, I immediately was able to conjure what they meant. He, Federer, and Justine Henin seem to be players who were able to play on the balls of their feet but also with extremely minimal noise and exceptional balance.

Contrast some like Andy Murray or Martina Hingis who have great footwork and balance but with more planted gait and lower adjustability. Some others like Stefanie Graf, Iga Swiatek, or Reaver Nadal have similar adjustability on their footwork but with much more noise [lower stability and worse balance] so more prone to long-term knee, ankle, and foot injury.

Just watched the Sampras/Courier QF at Melbourne 1995 last night. Have you seen that one? Courier, it was clear to me as someone who has seen very little of his play, is an example of a guy who is as fast, or nearly as fast, as Edberg in terms of raw athletic speed but lacks quite a bit of the Swede's footwork. On some occasions in that match he would arrive at a ball clearly in time, particularly when trying to run around his backhand behind the baseline, but not have his load transferred properly with the correct footwork and mistime the shot as a result. In a match as close and well-played as that one, even a handful of these sorts of regulation errors clustered at the wrong interval can be fatal.

In '85 Aus semi, Lendl slips a few times and is complaining about the court being slippery
What to make of it? Lendl complains about a lot of things, especially when things aren't going right for him. Maybe its slippery, maybe its just him
Then Edberg missteps some and almost even slips couple times
What to make of it? 100%, court is too slippery

Ha! The man is like a credit agency -- even governments have to listen to him.

In baseline rallies, I've found Edberg's FH and its supposed weakness to be the biggest falsehood in tennis
Its only shot of his (other than the serve, which looks an invitation for a cricked neck), that doesn't look silkly smooth and isn't very powerful
But its safe as bank. Over and over and over again it comes up... Edberg's FH with match low UEs, and by a long way
He tends to react, rather than lead FH rallies. If that makes it weak, its weak
If winning and losing points is what makes a shot strong or weak, its actually one of the strongest shots in the game

Story from commentary from a mid 90s match between Edberg and Sampras
Camera catches Leo Levin in attendance, the original match statter
Commentators talk about his pioneering work and mention how Edberg was one of the first players to see the value of it
One day in the mid 80s, Edberg challenged Levin with "Tell me something about my game that I don't know"

Levin's said to have replied, "Your FH is as good as your BH"

I agree with the BH having more variety, but not sure its actually more successful on the pass. Maybe because we automatically have lower expectations for BH pass success?
In baseline rallies, he does actually move over to play BHs in lieu of FHs a little. And he's the only 1-hander I can think of who plays BH inside-out relatively often
Still, that one seems overrated to me. Its a good BH, but I don't get the 'greatest of all time' takes on it. It doesn't outshine say Becker or Sampras' - and they're said to have average, normal BHs

I think this take encapsulates your basic approach/instinctual method well -- if there is any contradiction/conflict between the theory [in this context, technical evaluation] and the mass data, the mass data should win out.

[Tennis corrollary to this is that the base elements of serving/returning and in-play are so difficult that playing not to lose -- i.e. making maximal returns, lowering UFEs, and getting to everything possible -- is not to be dismissed out of hand like in most sports.]

Proper technical evaluation is my bread and butter but ignoring pertinent data is not a sound notion in any context so I think I can see both sides of this discussion. Data describe, technical and strategic evaluation explain.

In general it's a good approach to have one groundstroke that is difficult to break down and one that is liable to hurt the opponent when given the chance. Edberg just had natural feel and power-creation on his backhand. He was smart to limit his errors on his forehand. [I'm like this too. I picked up a racquet intensively as a teenager and started ripping one-handed backhands and learned to use the forehand as a neutralizing shot.] Next time I watch one of his matches I will take particular note of his return rate, return winner/FE and passing winner/FE distribution.

Contrast with Sampras, who did not use his wrist dexterity properly on his backhand drive and had an incorrect extension with his arm too far over his head and somewhat rigid. This generated too many short balls hitting into the ad court and also harmed his accuracy and timing hitting into the deuce court. In the middle of the third set in the 95 QF in Melbourne the commentator quoted 33 backhand errors to one winner. He was getting abused on that side if he couldn't hit a decent down-the-line approach and try to finish at the net. I can't imagine Edberg getting mauled off the ground as badly by Courier's backhand cross and inside-out forehand but I've yet to watch the two play. A couple of years later Sampras seemed to cut his losses with the stroke and just go Graf with it -- slice and block everything on that side that he couldn't run around.

Becker, I agree, had a natural and highly effective backhand that was probably Edberg's equal. Good variety, stability, and shotmaking. I think he may have had a better backhand return than Edberg since he had that block return, like JMac, that he could use to get his return count up if not outright hurt big servers.

As far as players who run around their forehand, from whom I have seen first-hand: Wawrinka does it on occasion and Gasquet more than that. Zverev does it every once in awhile especially on returns. In videos I saw Nalbandian do it as well as Rios, as those guys had magic top hands on their backhand. But the king of it was, is, and perhaps shall remain Benoit Paire, who, well, barely had a challenger-level forehand.

The difficulty would be in finding a court speed/bounce that encourages attacking play, without promoting serve-bottery

A match like this - beautifully, crafted attacking play - that'd be a jewel in the games crown. And I believe bring in more fans who are moved by it
How do you create such conditions, without also opening the gates for more Sampras-Ivanisevic type matches though? Which i don't think would bring in more fans, in fact, would probably repel a few

It's true. Variety is what we all crave. Given that poly strings make two of the four basic styles of tennis [pure attacking and pure counterpunching] nearly impossible and a third [all-court] vanishingly difficult sort of independent of the surface physics, maybe they are more at fault for the bleeding-away of variety than the surfaces? What do you think?

Have you seen the '98 Grand Slam Cup final? Fast indoor court and glorious match with Rios engaging all kinds of brilliant aggression, and Agassi the perfect, hard anvil to set platform for it

I haven't, however it is high on my shortlist for indoor hard court matches along with the Hewitt/Agassi and Murray/Hewitt finals in San Jose. Have you seen the latter?

 

[Waspsting]

Just watched the Sampras/Courier QF at Melbourne 1995 last night. Have you seen that one?

not yet, its on a rather long list

Contrast some like Andy Murray or Martina Hingis who have great footwork and balance but with more planted gait and lower adjustability. Some others like Stefanie Graf, Iga Swiatek, or Reaver Nadal have similar adjustability on their footwork but with much more noise [lower stability and worse balance] so more prone to long-term knee, ankle, and foot injury.

I've found assessing movement to be very influenced by the kind of aesthetics you're describing, and often, its when movement is off that it brings home to me how good it usually is

For example, Lendl, another 'noisy' mover. I've never looked at him and thought 'wow, he's so fast'
Was watching a match in early 90s, and he plays the odd ball from imperfect position - and it stood out like a sore thumb, because he virtually never played anything like that in '80s

These days in particular, something that heavily influences perceptions of quality of footwork is runaround FH shots. Which obviously requires quick and accurate footwork to do
Guys who do it regularly - like Federer and Nadal - get to demonstrate their footwork
But does that make their footwork better than someone who just plays normal BH instead?
Does the normal BH player not runaround for FHs because he's not quick enough on feet? Or because his BH is so good?

As a player, I was very much a FH stronger player, but never ran around for it because it just felt like too much work. Translating to pro terms, I'd say that's 'footwork not good enough' reason

Sampras is example of a player who seems to be much happier playing FHs to BHs, but moved over very little
His footspeed on the run was quick, but I'm not so sure about short-range footwork was same calibre
He also didn't go inside-out with the FH much, preferred inside-in for kill shot

I think this take encapsulates your basic approach/instinctual method well -- if there is any contradiction/conflict between the theory [in this context, technical evaluation] and the mass data, the mass data should win out.

[Tennis corrollary to this is that the base elements of serving/returning and in-play are so difficult that playing not to lose -- i.e. making maximal returns, lowering UFEs, and getting to everything possible -- is not to be dismissed out of hand like in most sports.]

Proper technical evaluation is my bread and butter but ignoring pertinent data is not a sound notion in any context so I think I can see both sides of this discussion. Data describe, technical and strategic evaluation explain.

Absolutely - hard facts leading to flexible theories, not facts being twisted to fit rigid theories

I'm mindful of limitations of it, due to unbalanced nature of tennis scoring system

For example, i get giddy with Sampras having 0 UEs in '95 Wimby final
in full serve-volley match, that means no volley UEs, basically
Now lets say he held to love 9 times
He could have 18 UEs, 2 for every 40-0 scoreline and he goes on to hold at 30, and it wouldn't practially matter. Still holds every game, still faces no break points
I wouldn't be singing praises for it though then

Occasionally, you have matches where UEs are secondary to shot lacking force
For example, '22 French final. Casper Ruud's BH holds up well and is consistent but it does give up weak balls that Nadal than pulverizes

But broadly, yes, UEs is the bug of eye-test evaluation of tennis
Don't we all make a snap judgement of how good someones shots are from 10 minutes of hitting with them? Its built on how hard they hit the ball and how comfy they look making the shot
But you won't get sense of consistency from 10 minutes. And as vast bulk of baseline points end with errors, not winners, the skill of not making errors is more important than the skill of hitting winners
Since turning to stat taking, I've thought about how we make eye-test evaluations because mine tend to be very common ones
I believe we just don't process consistency, unless its really, really bad. We just assume consistency is stable - everyone misses a few, its equal for everyone, so lets just look at power
It is very, very, very not true that its equal for everyone

Edberg FH, Roddick BH. 2 shots that aren't highly though of, don't look so good. For Edberg, I can tell you with full confidence that's BS, Roddick less so because I've looked at him much less, but same deal. Very low UEs most of the time, which is BHs main job

Contrast with Sampras, who did not use his wrist dexterity properly on his backhand drive and had an incorrect extension with his arm too far over his head and somewhat rigid. This generated too many short balls hitting into the ad court and also harmed his accuracy and timing hitting into the deuce court. In the middle of the third set in the 95 QF in Melbourne the commentator quoted 33 backhand errors to one winner. He was getting abused on that side if he couldn't hit a decent down-the-line approach and try to finish at the net. I can't imagine Edberg getting mauled off the ground as badly by Courier's backhand cross and inside-out forehand but I've yet to watch the two play. A couple of years later Sampras seemed to cut his losses with the stroke and just go Graf with it -- slice and block everything on that side that he couldn't run around.

Becker, I agree, had a natural and highly effective backhand that was probably Edberg's equal. Good variety, stability, and shotmaking. I think he may have had a better backhand return than Edberg since he had that block return, like JMac, that he could use to get his return count up if not outright hurt big servers.

Sampras is a funny one
In his early matches, upto about '91, commentators talk about BH being his stronger side
And he does hit it flat and hard. And look comfy doing so

At some point, he putaway the power and would just loop the ball cc, the way you describe it. Harmless as can be, but no more consistent for that
He can horrendous on the pass too. Think its '97 Wimby final where he seems to be missing every BH pass by a mile
But you get him in a BH-BH rally with Edberg (which is first situation I think of when comparing players shots), no guarentee Edberg wins bulk of points

But I agree, Edberg doesn't have the stinkers Sampras does off BH. And Edberg on a given day can hold even with Lendl or Chang on error rate off the BH, the BH rock type players in a way Sampras can't

Boris just tried to do everything with the BH - drive, top spin, drive-slice, slice, dtl, cc, short-angled slice.... he wasn't too good at any of it in baseline rallies
He was a powerhouse returner though. He loved the BH inside-out return in deuce court and that shot sets him apart
Serve-volleyers can usually be confident they'll get down-the-middle or slightly pulled inside-in return to deal with on that side
Not against Boris. Be ready for lunging FHV instead of cozy BHV

It's true. Variety is what we all crave. Given that poly strings make two of the four basic styles of tennis [pure attacking and pure counterpunching] nearly impossible and a third [all-court] vanishingly difficult sort of independent of the surface physics, maybe they are more at fault for the bleeding-away of variety than the surfaces? What do you think?

Probably
If you watch in black and white, would not be easy to distinguish between grass and clay even
Djokovic and Alcaraz had higher unreturned serves in Olympics than Wimbledon in 2024. Can you imagine that happening in '90s?

My experience of variety of surfaces in the 90s as a fan is there were parts of season I just found boring
I imagine this was the norm?

People enjoying the type of tennis they like and tuning out for the stuff they don't
As opposed to celebrating all the variety and enjoying them all

For me, it was clay I disliked and found boring
I'm guessing parts of the world raised on clay felt the same way about indoor season

Hewitt/Agassi and Murray/Hewitt finals in San Jose. Have you seen the latter?

I haven't. If you get around to it, let me know how it is
Hewitt-Murray sounds like scary proposition, with high chances of a push-fest bore

The other one is highly recommended, great match

 

[TheFifthSet]

When I heard people who had watched Edberg play say that he played all his strokes with his feet, I immediately was able to conjure what they meant. He, Federer, and Justine Henin seem to be players who were able to play on the balls of their feet but also with extremely minimal noise and exceptional balance.

Contrast some like Andy Murray or Martina Hingis who have great footwork and balance but with more planted gait and lower adjustability. Some others like Stefanie Graf, Iga Swiatek, or Reaver Nadal have similar adjustability on their footwork but with much more noise [lower stability and worse balance] so more prone to long-term knee, ankle, and foot injury.

Just watched the Sampras/Courier QF at Melbourne 1995 last night. Have you seen that one? Courier, it was clear to me as someone who has seen very little of his play, is an example of a guy who is as fast, or nearly as fast, as Edberg in terms of raw athletic speed but lacks quite a bit of the Swede's footwork. On some occasions in that match he would arrive at a ball clearly in time, particularly when trying to run around his backhand behind the baseline, but not have his load transferred properly with the correct footwork and mistime the shot as a result. In a match as close and well-played as that one, even a handful of these sorts of regulation errors clustered at the wrong interval can be fatal.

Ha! The man is like a credit agency -- even governments have to listen to him.

I think this take encapsulates your basic approach/instinctual method well -- if there is any contradiction/conflict between the theory [in this context, technical evaluation] and the mass data, the mass data should win out.

[Tennis corrollary to this is that the base elements of serving/returning and in-play are so difficult that playing not to lose -- i.e. making maximal returns, lowering UFEs, and getting to everything possible -- is not to be dismissed out of hand like in most sports.]

Proper technical evaluation is my bread and butter but ignoring pertinent data is not a sound notion in any context so I think I can see both sides of this discussion. Data describe, technical and strategic evaluation explain.

In general it's a good approach to have one groundstroke that is difficult to break down and one that is liable to hurt the opponent when given the chance. Edberg just had natural feel and power-creation on his backhand. He was smart to limit his errors on his forehand. [I'm like this too. I picked up a racquet intensively as a teenager and started ripping one-handed backhands and learned to use the forehand as a neutralizing shot.] Next time I watch one of his matches I will take particular note of his return rate, return winner/FE and passing winner/FE distribution.

Contrast with Sampras, who did not use his wrist dexterity properly on his backhand drive and had an incorrect extension with his arm too far over his head and somewhat rigid. This generated too many short balls hitting into the ad court and also harmed his accuracy and timing hitting into the deuce court. In the middle of the third set in the 95 QF in Melbourne the commentator quoted 33 backhand errors to one winner. He was getting abused on that side if he couldn't hit a decent down-the-line approach and try to finish at the net. I can't imagine Edberg getting mauled off the ground as badly by Courier's backhand cross and inside-out forehand but I've yet to watch the two play. A couple of years later Sampras seemed to cut his losses with the stroke and just go Graf with it -- slice and block everything on that side that he couldn't run around.

Becker, I agree, had a natural and highly effective backhand that was probably Edberg's equal. Good variety, stability, and shotmaking. I think he may have had a better backhand return than Edberg since he had that block return, like JMac, that he could use to get his return count up if not outright hurt big servers.

As far as players who run around their forehand, from whom I have seen first-hand: Wawrinka does it on occasion and Gasquet more than that. Zverev does it every once in awhile especially on returns. In videos I saw Nalbandian do it as well as Rios, as those guys had magic top hands on their backhand. But the king of it was, is, and perhaps shall remain Benoit Paire, who, well, barely had a challenger-level forehand.

It's true. Variety is what we all crave. Given that poly strings make two of the four basic styles of tennis [pure attacking and pure counterpunching] nearly impossible and a third [all-court] vanishingly difficult sort of independent of the surface physics, maybe they are more at fault for the bleeding-away of variety than the surfaces? What do you think?


I haven't, however it is high on my shortlist for indoor hard court matches along with the Hewitt/Agassi and Murray/Hewitt finals in San Jose. Have you seen the latter?

Terrific post. Bolded’s are especially spot-on.