Match Stats/Report - Enqvist vs Krajicek, Stuttgart Indoor final, 1999

[Waspsting]

Thomas Enqvist beat Richard Krajicek 6-1, 6-4, 5-7, 7-5 in the Stuttgart Indoor final, 1999 on indoor hard court

Enqvist defeated Michael Chang, Gustavo Kuerten, Marcelo Rios and Andre Agassi to reach the final. Krajicek was the defending champion

Enqvist won 128 points, Krajicek 114

Krajicek serve-volleyed off all first serves and vast majority of second serves

(Note: I’m missing virtually an entire game
Set 2, Game 8 - an Enqvist service game that Krajicek won
From partial footage, last point of the game was a first serve point, successfully returned and has been marked an Enqvist FH FE pass, with Krajicek at net
Number of points in the game unknown
Krajicek’s total points include an extra 3 points, i.e. as if the game was to love, which is unconfirmed)

Serve Stats
Enqvist...
- 1st serve percentage (61/114) 54%
- 1st serve points won (47/61) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (33/53) 62%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (39/114) 34%

Krajicek...
- 1st serve percentage (75/125) 60%
- 1st serve points won (59/75) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (18/50) 36%
- Aces 25
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (54/125) 43%

Serve Patterns
Enqvist served...
- to FH 41%
- to BH 54%
- to Body 6%
(raw 43-57-6)

Krajicek served....
- to FH 39%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
Enqvist made...
- 65 (25 FH, 40 BH)
- 12 Winners (6 FH, 6 BH)
- 29 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 BH)
- 27 Forced (8 FH, 19 BH)
- Return Rate (65/119) 55%

Krajicek made...
- 68 (24 FH, 43 BH, 1 ??), including 10 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 29 Errors, comprising...
- 15 Unforced (6 FH, 9 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 2 return-approach attempts
- 14 Forced (8 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (68/107) 64%

Break Points
Enqvist 6/14 (7 games)
Krajicek 3/6 (5 games) {includes a deduced 1/1 (1 game)... the games and points won is accurate, but there may have been more break points}

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Enqvist 36 (13 FH, 18 BH, 2 BHV, 3 OH)
Krajicek 18 (5 FH, 2 BH, 6 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 OH)

Enqvist had 22 passes - 12 returns (6 FH, 6 BH) & 10 regular (3 FH, 7 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc, 2 dtl, 2 inside-in
- BH returns - 2 cc, 2 dtl, 2 inside-in
- regular FHs - 2 dtl (1 at net), 1 longline
- regular BHs - 3 cc, 2 dtl (1 at net), 1 longline, 1 running-down-drop-shot dtl at net

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

Krajicek had 10 from serve-volley points -
- 9 first 'volleys' (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 FH at net)
- 1 second volley (1 OH)

- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 FH at net)

- FHs - 1 inside-in return, 1 longline
- BHs - 1 dtl, 1 cc/down-the-middle pseudo drop return (a mishit)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Enqvist 32
- 12 Unforced (4 FH, 7 BH, 1 BHV)
- 20 Forced (7 FH, 13 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.8

Krajicek 47
- 28 Unforced (6 FH, 12 BH, 5 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH)
- 19 Forced (3 FH, 3 BH, 7 FHV, 6 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.1

(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 14/15 (93%) at net

Krajicek was...
- 58/105 (55%) at net, including...
- 48/85 (56%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 34/50 (68%) off 1st serve and...
- 14/35 (40%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/10 (40%) return-approaching

Match Report
Very impressive, all-areas power showing from Enqvist convincingly outdoes a typical, big serving, (virtual) full serve-volleying one from Krajicek. While the passing (including the return) takes the eye, strong serving (particularly second serves) is also excellent from the winner, as well a beat-down strong ground game (especially targetting opponents BH). Court is fast

Krajicek serve-volleys virtually always (100% of time off first serves, 80% off seconds), with typically huge serving. Among other things, it gets him huge yield of 25 aces or 33% of first serves (the big serving Enqvist has 9 and 15% to contextualize). With a serve that successful, would expect plenty of hard forced return errors being drawn and weak returns that the capable volleyer Kraj can have his way with

In the event, he can only win 56% serve-volleying points, most of it with unreturned serves

Match long, Kraj can only win 23/71 or 32% of points when his serve is returned (including double faults, which he’s pressured into with the pounding his serve takes). Almost all credit to that to Enq’s return-passing, which is top drawer

First serve in - Enq 54%, Kraj 60%
First serve won - Enq 77%, Kraj 79%
Second serve points won - Enq 62%, Kraj 36% (Sans double faults - Enq 72%, Kraj 41%)
(above figures are slightly biased to Enq’s favour due missing game in which he’s broken, but 1 game, even if it’s a break to love wouldn’t distort overall figures much)

With Kraj having bigger serve (he leads firs serve ace rate 33% to 15%), the in-count points to his likely winning. That’s thrown for a loop by second serve points, where Enq’s superiority shines through

Enq, a big server in his own right, dominating his first serve points isn’t surprising on a court like this. His thoroughly commanding second serve points though isn’t to be taken for granted. Hefty second serves - if not a dangerous weapon, enough to draw returns where he retains initiative of rally and certainly, very difficult to attack - from Enq

And to complete picture, Enq is clinically hard hitting from the back court (he doesn’t serve-volley at all, unlike Kraj) and stays on top of opponent in baseline rallies to pressuringly control or command them. Kraj’s BH in particular isn’t upto rallying with the powerful Enq

36 winners, 32 errors (12 UEs, 20 FEs) from Enq is top drawer. To go with healthy 34% freebies of his own
Kraj has 18 winners, 47 errors to compare. Low in winners (not much easy stuff to volley), high in errors (beaten up in baseline rallies, faced with devastating passes constantly). 43% freebies keeps him in the match. Even there, he’s really under the gun, with almost half of them being clean aces (he has 25 aces, draws 29 return errors). In other words, almost anything shy of an ace is likely to get him into trouble - despite much of what is less than an ace still being very damaging stuff

Great stuff from Enq, against strong opposition. Kraj’s serve alone, let alone serve-volley game, would likely steamroll most opponents. Here, he’s left lunging about as returns and others passes fly by him for winners, almost anytime he can’t serve an ace

Enqvist’s serve games
Strong serving from Enq, below average returning by Kraj

Enq’s first serve would qualify as strong or even big by any normal standard. Pete Sampras might serve this way without raising an eyebrow. Its not as strong as Kraj’s - but whose isn’t?

54% in count isn’t great, but almost all first serves are challenging to return. Even in swing zone stuff is fast enough to be troubling. It draws soft returns Enq can command when its not drawing errors and its kind of first serve where returner would simply be resigned to not winning much against for those reasons

In such situation, returner would look to make as much hay as possible against second serves and this is where Enq shines; Excellent, hefty second serves from him that would be very difficult to attack and still draws soft enough returns for Enq to start rallies on front foot

It has a price. 7 double faults or 13% of second serves, which is 1 higher than Kraj (who has to serve big seconds since he’s serve-volleying so much)

34% unreturned serves is good. 9 aces, 1 service winners comes to 16% of first serves
Enq’s 9 aces, 7 double faults looks a fail for a big server. Its not as bad as it looks - he’s able to reliably draw errors without going too near lines and the hefty second serves keep Kraj on back-foot. The 54% in count isn’t so good, given relatively safe placement of serves

Kraj has 15 return UEs and 14 FEs. He’s prone to missing the ‘routine’ in-swing zone serve. Pace of serve and court make such returns not easy and high UEs aren’t as bad as it looks. Serves that aren’t much trouble to put in play, but are difficult to return with authority type stuff. Could do better though on consistency front of just making the return

He blocks and looks to return first serves as he can. Has an eye to attacking second serves, but they’re too good for it. Stumped, Kraj even turns to quick-dash return-approahes against first serves if he can get the return wide

1 good return winner (the other is a mishit fluke), 10 return-approaches (he wins 4 such points). Mostly blocking returns in play at most, neutrally and closer to soft side of neutral

Then they rally from the baseline. Baseline-to-baseline -
Winners - Enq 9, Kraj 4 (2 returns)
Errors forced - both 2
UEs - Enq 11, Kraj 18

Enq is hard-hitting off both wings. Not quite effortless power, but closer to it than straining for force. Kraj has powerful FH of his own, but it tends to get pushed back as rally goes on. On BH, Kraj is relegated to reacting, counter-punching, usually with slices more readily. BH hitting is a no-contest

Ground UEs -
- FHs - Enq 4, Kraj 6
- BHs - Enq 7, Kraj 12

Kraj’s BH is beaten down more than being inconsistent and credit to Enq for his advantage on that side. He also has finishing shots off that wing and has 4 winners (excluding a net chord dribbler) to Kraj’s 1 (excluding a fluke return)

 

[Waspsting]

Kraj’s sole winner is a dispatched FH longline against a short ball, that brings home how very rare short balls come out of Enq. Kraj’s FH is potential weapon, but spiked by Enq’s being that much more powerful. Kraj for that matter, doesn’t give up short balls off the FH, and he’s under slightly more pressure against Enq’s power

Rallying to net -
- Enq 14/15, Kraj 6/10

Enq’s approaches are product of drawing weak returns and to lesser extent, taking command of baseline rally. They have very little to do with good volleying or net instincts. If anything, he prefers to keep banging away groundies after gaining enough ground that coming in would be viable option

Kraj has little chance to get forward, and eventually turns to somewhat desperate, quick-dash approaches. Its worth a shot - he’s losing from baseline and would have to wait forever for a weak ball to come in against

Gist - Enq serving strongly, especially 2nd serves that keep Kraj not just honest, but alert against danger. Room for improvement in Kraj’s returning consistency, but more credit to Enq’s serving for how that plays out

Enq persistently powerful off both wings in baseline rallies, and enjoying particularly power advantage on the BH. Kraj is pinned back, beaten down and denied counter-play

Krajicek’s serve games
Virtual full serve-volleying from Kraj. Starts off literally so, but after 2nd serves take a heavy pounding, he eventually stays back occasionally off those

33% of his 1st serves are aces
He wins 68% serve-volleying off the remainder
12% of his 2nd serves are double faults
Serve-volleys 80% of the remainder, winning 40%, and 44% staying back

For starters, 60% 1st serves in is good, and its even better than it looks. He makes just 1/11 to start match (gets broken both times, due to brilliant returning), so for rest of match 65% 1st serves in

Effectively, the slow start gives up a set (practically, he doesn’t give it up but Enq seizes it - at most, he leaves not-good opening for that to happen), and he serves 65% for rest of match. As well as he serves, would like his chances of winning 3/4 sets with that in count

Brilliant returning from Enq is biggest result determining aspect of match
Take returns relatively early, a step and half behind baseline at furthest back. And power thumps them wide of the incoming Kraj. Its not full ‘blasting’, its certainly not chicly placed to perfection that doesn’t need power to get by. A perfect balance of the two, regularly leaving Kraj with no chance

Generally, 65% return rate with firm returns around net high is good to break in time
Enq’s return rate is just 55%, but force of his returns is a good ways above rule-of-thum

He’s got 12 return winners, evenly distributed across wings. FHs particularly good as he only has 8 return errors (he has 21 on BH, including 2 UEs). Plenty more drawing impossible volley errors, and good lot lowish & powerful, that present tough volleys that Kraj might miss or can’t put in play with great authority

12 return-pass winners, while Kraj has 9 first volley winners (he only has 1 post-first for that matter) is as clear a sign as can you get that Enq’s returning sets him off to get better of volley-pass contest
Especially impressive is Enq’s handling of second serves to the body. They’re good, powerful serves but he just takes a quick step out the way and swats them with immaculate timing

On the ‘volley’, Kraj with 14 winners (3 are FHs at net), 10 UEs and 16 FEs
On top of his 12 return-pass winners at cost of 29 return errors and return rate 55%, Enq has 10 passing winners (3 FH, 7 BH), 18 FEs (6 FH, 12 BH)

Both high UEs and FEs for Kraj. The UEs are his discredit. If the passes he faces are travelling, that only makes it easier to volley with authority for a good volleyer. He does putaway much of what’s there to be so treated and 9/10 serve-volleying winners are first ‘volley’s, but few 10 UEs is blackmark territory

The FEs are to Enq’s credit, good deal of them virtual winners leaving Kraj no chance through combo of wide and low (and always powerful)

Enq’s passing hit rate is on good side of middling, and best sign of Kraj volleying decently. He doesn’t leave easy looks when he does make the volley. Enq’s passing shot is like rest of his ground game - powerful, controlled, almost clinical

All this in context of a serve strong enough that 33% of the first go for aces. 68% first serve-volleying is low in that light. 43% freebies is excellent. It could easily be over 50%
Not only does Kraj have to be satisfied with 43%, he faces first class returns combining power, width and going wide. Too much for him to handle

Gist - typical big serving from Kraj and Enq’s terrific return-passing is a lot better than Kraj’s volleying, which has room for improvement but is up against very, very strong opposition

Match Progression
Its 5-0, with 2 breaks to Enq is quick time as he wins 20 of the first 26 points
Kraj lands just 1/11 first serves in that period, throws in a double fault and volley UE in each game. The rest though is down to Enq striking super returns. He’s got 3 return-pass winners there

Meanwhile, big serves and follow up power groundies see Enq hold easily

When Kraj finds his first serve, he makes it count. He gets on the board for 1-5 with 4 aces in a hold to 15 and adds 3 more to start the next set

In between, Enq serves out the set after saving a break point in a deuce game. Couple of double faults in the game and Kraj striking what proves to be gold-dust rare BH dtl winner (he rarely gets a powerful BH off rest of match and his only other BH winner is a mishit return), but Enq takes net from very commanding serves to see out the game. Kraj also misses a coupel of second returns

Second set is more along expected lines of server domination, but Enq pulls out 2 blinder return games to break twice, sandwiching a break by Kraj (that I’m missing)

Enq breaks in 8 point game for 3-2 with 4 return-pass winners (FH cc, BH inside-in, FH cc again and BH cc), with the other point he wins being a winning return to the feet

After Kraj levels for 4-4, Enq breaks again. Down 40-0, he knocks away 4 straight passing winners (FH inside-in return, BH dtl at net after forcing weak shoelace volleys, FH dtl against a good volley and FH dtl return)
Kraj saves couple of break points, but eventually succumbs to 2 more passing winners (FH dtl at net after forcing shoelace volley and BH running-down-drop-shot dtl at net). Enq serves out to love

Third set is a high quality tussle with Enq still having better of things. Kraj starts staying back off a few second serves and there’s a hint of desperation in his attempts to take net from baseline rallies. Nonetheless, strong serving and serve-volleying sees him go unbroken, though surviving a few hairy moments from more high end return-passes

Kraj serves 42 points for his 6 holds, Enq 36 for being broken once in 6 games

Kraj survives 2 deuce games without facing break point in reaching 4-3. He’s put in trouble first game thanks to Enq’s quality passes, and gets himself in trouble second time with a double fault and missing an easy volley

But its Kraj who has first break point in game 8. Starts the game with successful chip-charge return and redirected FH inside-in return winner. He chip-charges again on break point and is unlucky when Enq’s passes flicks the net chord to force volleying error, before Enq goes on to hold

2 trade tough holds to move to 5-5. Kraj aces away all 3 break points he faces, and Enq takes net to snuff out the sole one’s he’s faced with, with Kraj proactively finding net to win a couple of points

Set ends out of the blue with an odd break to love. Kraj smacks a winning wide FH cc return against first serve, Enq makes a poor approach error from near service line and Kraj chip-charges his way to 0-40. On break point, Kraj mishits a routine block return that effectively acts a drop shot that Enq strangely gives up on

Fourth set remains high on quality. The two trade breaks early
Kraj pinches a couple of net points and scores the break with a decent return that draws a BH UEs
Enq hits right back with a couple of BH cc pass winners (1 return, 1 regular), before Kraj loses points a third volley UE after not having done enough with earlier volleys and a double fault

That leaves set on serve at 3-2 and it ends up being another particularly good return game from Enq that eventually settles things

He breaks in a deuce game with a BH cc passing winner after drawing a shoelace volley, forcing a couple volley errors (1 of them as good as winner) and ending with an inch perfectly placed BH dtl pass winner, and then serves out the match to 15, finishing with a smash winner after a typical brutish serve sets Kraj back

Summing up, excellent showing from Enqvist and if one word were needed to capture his performance, that word would be ‘power’. Serve, return, groundstrokes and passes are all marked by comfy, if not easy, power

First serve is tailored to be good enough to draw errors, while seconds are excellent to draw not-strong returns that he can control. Off the ground, he’s hard hitting off both sides and is able to bully Krajicek’s softer BH in particular. Most impressively, he return-passes superbly - powerful, wide and low - and comes up with unanswerably good ones regularly

Krajicek serves typically huge and serve-volleys all but always. Almost anything shy of untouchable ace though gets smacked back hard, wide and/or low. He’s a little off in handling routine volleys, but there’s not much to be done against Enqvist’s frequent damaging returns

Off the ground, he’s bullied, pressured and despite a powerful FH, can’t find a way to get on the offence against the still stronger FH of Envist. Not unwisely, turns a little to near desperate net approaches, with scant chances and not much success either

 

[Galvermegs]

Enqvist was very dangerous indoors and i still dont quite get how he never won a slam and t johannson did (albeit both at the AO)

He never looked like he made the game look easy but inform i dont think many liked playing him. He even dismantled a reasonably strong federer in 2002.

 

[buscemi]

Enqvist was very dangerous indoors and i still dont quite get how he never won a slam and t johannson did (albeit both at the AO)

He never looked like he made the game look easy but inform i dont think many liked playing him. He even dismantled a reasonably strong federer in 2002.

Injuries. 1999 when he won this event and made the Australian Open final was one of the few seasons in his career when he was fully healthy.

He had surgery on each knee in 1994; a foot injury in 1995; a left ankle injury in 1997; surgery to remove bone spurs from his right ankle in both 1998 and 2000; a persistent left foot injury throughout 2000; right rotator cuff surgery in December 2000; did not play after August of 2002 due to right shoulder inflammation; had right shoulder surgery in 2003; and endured repeated ankle, back, and right shoulder maladies from 2004 until his retirement in April of 2006.​

 

[HBK4life]

Growing up an Agassi fan seeing Andre have to play Enqvist was nerve racking. Seemed like someone that could knock anyone around.