Match Stats/Report - Enqvist vs Henman, Cincinnati final, 2000

[Waspsting]

Thomas Enqvist beat Tim Henman 7-6(5), 6-4 in the Cincinnati final, 2000 on hard court

It would be Enqvist’s only title at the event and his third and last Masters title. It was Henman’s first Masters final and he beat defending champion Pete Sampras and Gustavo Kuerten among others to reach it

Enqvist won 86 points, Henman 78

Henman serve-volleyed of all bar 1 first serve and return-approached about half the time against second serves

Serve Stats
Enqvist...
- 1st serve percentage (44/90) 49%
- 1st serve points won (37/44) 84%
- 2nd serve points won (23/46) 50%
- Aces 13 (1 not clean), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/90) 27%

Henman...
- 1st serve percentage (43/74) 58%
- 1st serve points won (33/43) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (15/31) 48%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (27/74) 36%

Serve Patterns
Enqvist served...
- to FH 43%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 1%

Henman served...
- to FH 37%
- to BH 59%
- to Body 4%

Return Stats
Enqvist made...
- 41 (10 FH, 31 BH), including 3 return-approaches
- 5 Winners (2 FH, 3 BH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 15 Forced (8 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (41/68) 60%

Henman made...
- 63 (23 FH, 40 BH), including 21 return-approaches
- 10 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- 5 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (63/87) 72%

Break Points
Enqvist 1/5 (3 games)
Henman 0/7 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Enqvist 25 (10 FH, 14 BH, 1 OH)
Henman 12 (1 FH, 1 BH, 4 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)

Enqvist had 11 passes - 3 returns (2 FH, 1 BH) & 8 regular (2 FH, 6 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 inside-in/longline
- BH return - 1 inside-out
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl
- regular BHs - 5 cc, 1 inside-out

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 2 cc, 1 cc/inside-in, 2 inside-out (1 at net), 1 net chord dribbler
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 2 dtl (1 return), 1 inside-out return, 1 inside-out/longline, 1 longline/cc

Henman had 4 from serve-volley points -
- 2 first volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHOH)

- 2 from return-approach points (2 BHV)
- 1 other BHV was left by opponent

- FH - 1 inside-in/cc
- BH pass - 1 cc

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Enqvist 36
- 12 Unforced (6 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV)
- 24 Forced (8 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.3

Henman 31
- 20 Unforced (6 FH, 8 BH, 5 FHV, 1 OH)
- 11 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46

(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
Enqvist was 8/13 (62%) at net, with...
- 1/3 (33%) return-approaching

Henman was...
- 43/67 (64%) at net, including...
- 24/35 (69%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 23/32 (72%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/3 (33%) off 2nd serve
---
- 11/21 (52%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated

Match Report
Peculiar match. Enqvist is contained in virtually all areas (serve, return, groundstrokes, passes), Henman serve-volleys (all but 1 first serve), chip-charge returns (about half the time against second serves) and has an eye out for rallying to net. Enqvist has better of ground battle, and there’s a nice contest between Henman’s neat net game and Enqvist’s firm passing. It all comes out near even on a quickish court

First set tiebreak is a coin flip, with a double fault separating the 2 players. Henman has better of the break-less set otherwise
Enq grabbing only break of match to start second set (its to love), otherwise, that set is 50-50 deal too
Match ends with net chord dribbling winner after long rally, shades of ‘88 Masters final

Enq wins 52.4% of points, but also serves 54.9% of them
Another way of looking at it Enq winning 4 fewer points than he serves, Henman 4 more
Break points - Enq 1/5 (3 games), Henman 0/7 (5 games)

By set, break points read -
1st - Henman 0/4 (3 games)
2nd - Enq 1/5 (3 games), Henman 0/3 (2 games), so sans the outlier break, Enq 0/4, Henman 0/3 (both in 2 games)

Enq wins, but there’s no demonstration of superiority there. An outlier game and a coin flip decide the result, but Henman’s right up there with the winner

Match is too varied, too close and has too many things going on for their to be any neat, single determining factor. Or 2. Or even 3. Things that nudge the result the way it goes -
- Substantial aces and lack of double faults from Enq
- Henman returns hefty first serves very smoothly, but underperforms from baseline after
- Double faulting problem from Henman

Action - Baseline
First serve in - Enq 49%, Henman 58%
First serve won - Enq 84%, Henman 77%
Second serve won - Enq 50%, Henman 48%

Enq’s figures are both strange and deceptive
Low in count + high first serve points won suggest particularly big serving
High ace/service winner rate of 31% (Henman has healthy 23% to compare) supports that. Would expect lot of unreturend serves
He doesn’t have a lot of unreturned serves. Sans the aces, 83% of his first serves are returned. He serves heftily, but not overwhelmingly. ‘Contained heftiness’ is good way of describing it

Henman doesn’t just return very regularly (other than when he’s aced), he returns in effect neutralizingly. Blocks the return back. Not a lot of force but not soft either. From there, would take some pointed intent for Enq to attack or take charge of rallies (as opposed to weak return, where it’d be natural for server to dominate)
He doesn’t show such pointed intent. Enq’s happy to initiate and maintain a neutral baseline rally, preferably, BH cc based one. Contained, solid hitting. Nothing near overpowering, not even really pressuring. Just solid, stable hitting. Its better than Henman’s ball striking, and Henman slices fair bit too

When first serve comes back, Enq wins 18/25 or 72% of points, with mostly baseline action

In those baseline rallies, -
- Enq has 3 winners, 3 UEs,
- Henman has 9 UEs
(there are no FEs)

All remaining baseline rallies (mostly on Henman’s second serve points and half of Enq’s) -
- Enq has 9 winners, forces 1 error, 8 UEs
- Henman 1 winner, forces 4 errors, 5 UEs

Enq getting better of both scenarios, but especially the first. And that’s due to Henman underperforming with all the UEs. Hefty served, coolly blocked returns, medium length neutral rallies, Henman UE. He wins a his share of such rallies (the way he does all other baseline points), probably breaks once or twice in those 5 games he has break points on

In all baseline rallies -
Winners - Enq 12, Henman 1
Errors forced - Enq 1, Henman 4
UEs - Enq 11, Henman 14
… and rallying to net Enq 7/10, Henman 8/11

That’s a poised showing from Enq. Not hard hitting, but enough to keep Henman from getting to net much And Henman does have an eye to do so. Manufactures approaches via slices (got a good few errors trying) and comes in whenever he can hit the ball wide. Enq getting to net just as often without having an eye to. He leads rallies (short of attacks), is firmer of shot and with Henman like pointed intent to approach, could do so more often

12 winners, 11 UEs is fine output, especially given contained style of play. Most proactively aggressive he gets is mid-late second set and its done via approaching, including surprising return-approaches of his own

 

[Waspsting]

Action - Henamn at net
Rest of action is Henman’s serve-volleying and return-approaching
Henman serve-volleys off all but 1 first serve
He return-approaches (all chip-charges, not hard hit stuff) 21/43 or 49% off the time off second returns. Couple of his 5 return UEs are also likely potential chip-charges (its not clear, so has not been marked so)

Just 3 second serve-volleys and no return-approaches against first serves

Wins 72% first serve-volley points (to go with healthy 10 aces/service winners). Good, strong serving. Not categorically beneath Enq’s even - and he gets 11% more first serves in.
Good 36% unreturned (only 2 return UEs among the 27 freebies he has)

Enq return-passes firmly and again, contained. Not going for too much, not trying to blitz overpowering returns or aiming wide for sure winners. Firm, around net high, the better ones a little wide
Henman volleys neatly, well away from Enq usually to BH. Volleys he faces aren’t easy to putaway and he plays them with suitable aggression

The chip-charges are different. For starters, Enq beefing up his second serves in response to them and delivering some good ones. Not easy to get strong approach off to. Henman deftly chipping them and coming in but he’s not in as good position at net as other approaches and Enq with a bit more time to make the pass. Decent depth on the returns, but not wide

In a nutshell, Enq in better passing position against chip-charges than other approaches

Figures for Henman’s serve-volley and rallying net point, in which he wins 32/46 or 70% points-
- Henman on the volley has 8 winners, 4 UEs, 3 FEs
- Enq on pass has 7 winners (3 returns, 4 regular), 8 FEs

Chip-charge returning, Henman wins 11/21 or 52%
- On the volley, he has 2 winners, 2 UEs, 3 FEs
- Enq on the pass has 5 winners, 9 FEs

Pure volley-pass contest is good from Enq’s point of view against serve-volley. But Henman with 36% unreturned serves to bolster it. Good to be winning 70% points, good to be holding all but once

Earns the 36% freebies with strong serving, which isn’t far short of Enq’s first serve for quality. Its not just due to serve-volleying pressure

On his second serve points, Enq -
- double faults 3 times or 7% of second serves
- draws 5 return errors (1 FE) or 11%
- Wins 10/21 when he’s chip-charged
- Wins 8/17 starting from baseline

To start, Enq has good second serve as default. And beefs it up to discourage the chip-charges
Good job by Henman to do so so often anyway. He’s on active look out to, but not desperate; if serve is too good, blocks it back and stays put

Well done by Enq to double fault so rarely, given pressure second serve is under. By contrast, Henman has 6 double faults or 19% off second serves, without the pressure of hot returning (Enq returns firmly, clinically, only rarely biffing one), including giving up decisive point of tiebreak and 1 in the only game he’s broken

Henman’s chip-charging could easily lead to more double faults and a maybe a break, especially since Enq does deliver stronger second serves to counter. ‘Not double faulting’ is kind of thing that gets taken for granted, but deserves praise here, accentuated by opponent’s stumble in same area

Volleying and passing quality doesn’t change from serve-volleys, but start position more favourable to passer Enq for chip-charge points

With Enq returning in firm, contained style, he volleying errors he draws tend to be ambivalent. The 2 UEs Henman has are right on the border of FE - firm, wide-ish, little under the net. Would take top quality volley to put such a ball away. 1 of those UEs is also in the tiebreak, hence, crucial to result

Lovely anticipation from Henman at net. His movement is beautifully balanced, but not elite. Enq's just so, ambivalent passing tests it. No blackmark, but fairest to say he doesn't quite pass that test
Same winning rate chip-charging or staying back, so chip-charges have effectively just cut to the chase

Henman winning his even share of baseline rallies on second return points contrasts with getting short end of first return ones. Ordinarily that’d most likely be down to stronger serves drawing more weak returns and thus, Enq commanding first serve rallies more

Not true for this match. Starting point for baseline rallies are similar across Enq’s 2 serves and so is action

Henman’s either under-performed from baseline in first rally points to lose bulk, or over-performed rest of the time to win his even share

Balance of baseline UEs on -
- Enq’s first serve points - Enq 3, Henman 9
- everything else - Enq 8, Henman 5

Match Progression
No breaks in first set going into tiebreak and Henman has better of things
He serves 33 points for his 6 holds, Enq 42
He has 4 break points across 3 games, Enq 0

Bright start from Henman, and its early match returning yip that probably keeps him from moving ahead. Misses second return to start match and misses another one on break point. In between, knocks off an OH winner from a nice attacking FH dtl/inside-out shot, smacks BH cc pass winner and wins another net point

He only misses 2 other second returns all match

He’s got break point second go around too, where he wins points with return-approach and a BH dtl, but is also loose with routine ball errors

Henman takes to chip-charging returns quite often, helped by Enq making just 20/48 first serves for the set. He can’t seem to miss any returns, first or second, bar the occasional booming ace

He’s got 2 more break points in game 11. Enq saves the first with a low, wide pass and Henman misses approach shot on the second. Henman missing a deep second serve after that comes as a jar, so consistent has he been in returning

Fun little game to see in the ‘breaker. Henman knocks away a BHOH winner and forced into BH1/2V error point after. Enq tries his hand at return-approaching also makes BH1/2V error

Tiebreak. Henman misses easy third ball FH to fall behind 3-4, Enq returns the favour couple points later to get back on serve. At 5-5, Henman double faults kicking a second serve to go down set point. He chip-charges on it and handles tough first volley but is forced into error from a close to net Enq

Love break to start the second set - starts with FH cc return pass winner, ends with BH cc pass winner and in between, Henman double faults again and misses simple second FHV

Break points for rest of match read Enq 0/4, Henman 0/3, with both having them in 2 games

Easy, slightly wide FHV miss return-approaching in game 5 is probably what keeps Enq going up 4-1. The miss makes score 30-0 and game goes one to 12 points, with Enq having 2 break points. He misses a Henman like BH slice approach on one of them

Henman raises break point with aggressive returns and shots game after, but misses routine FH on it. His missing routine first return to end the game brings home how remarkably consistenty he’s been on such balls

After Henman holds to 30, 2 trade difficult holds again - both are down 15-40. Henman’s chip-charges relentlessly to raise his chances in 4/12 first serve game and it takes strong serves, including an error forcing second for Enq to hold

Shoes on other foot next game, with Enq scoring with back to back pass winners (BH cc and FH inside-in/longline return. His return-pass doesn’t miss the line by much on first break point, before more unreturned serves sees Henman through

10 point, tough serve-out for Enq. When he overpowers Henman to take net and dispatch smash, it brings home how rarely he’s been so proactive in the match. Henman scores with his own net points and a winning BH dtl but can’t quite reach break point. 3 aces from Enq don’t help him

Sizable rally develops on what turns out to be last point of the match, ending when Enq’s FH trickles over net chord for winner

Summing up, very close match. Enqvist solid and firm in all areas, very rarely spilling into powerful, let alone overpowering territory. Serves at low percentage, but finds unanswerable serves (amidst solidly firm strength serving) and delivers testing second serves under pressure, without faltering into double faults

Henman serve-volleying, chip-charge second returning, returning very regularly against hefty first serving. Outlasted from the back at important times and with a small, but costly double faulting issue

1 coin flip set, 1 outlier game settling one decides outcome

 

[Galvermegs]

Enqvist was a hard court menace.henman had come off a fine win over sampras although i really doubt he would manage it in a final like his good friend greg did several years prior.

Henman had that one great run at uso in 04.but despite being a good hardcourt player usually exited early in both the hardcourt majors.

 

[Waspsting]

Enqvist was a hard court menace.henman had come off a fine win over sampras

Beat Guga too, which isn't particularly noteworthy but cute in one sense

Sampras and Guga had played a very similar match in Miami final earlier in the year as this one - Sampras serve-volleying and chip-charging, Guga with effective serve and passing as forced
This isn't a bad match, but the Miami one is much better

 

[Galvermegs]

Beat Guga too, which isn't particularly noteworthy but cute in one sense

Sampras and Guga had played a very similar match in Miami final earlier in the year as this one - Sampras serve-volleying and chip-charging, Guga with effective serve and passing as forced
This isn't a bad match, but the Miami one is much better

Indeed. Wish we had more guga-sampras... just didnt happen for the obvious reasons.

Enqvist can always tell the younger generations in sweden about how he gave federer a pasting.. notwithstanding it was a very young version of the maestro.