Wayne Ferreira beat Todd Woodbridge 6-2, 6-4 in the Canada final, 1996 on hard court in Toronto
It was Ferreira’s first Masters title. Woodbridge was unseeded and this would be his only Masters finals
Ferreira won 63 points, Woodbridge 48
(Note: 1 point has been tracked through audio and immediate post point footage
Set 1, Game 6, Point 2 - has been marked a FH inside-in return winner
It being a winner is confirmed. Minority chance that shot was instead BH dtl
Serve direction and return shot are confident, educated guesses)
Serve Stats
Ferreira...
- 1st serve percentage (30/55) 55%
- 1st serve points won (22/30) 73%
- 2nd serve points won (18/25) 72%
- Aces 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (22/55) 40%
Woodbridge...
- 1st serve percentage (26/56) 46%
- 1st serve points won (17/26) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (16/30) 53%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (11/56) 20%
Serve Patterns
Ferreira served...
- to FH 35%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 5%
Woodbridge served...
- to FH 21%
- to BH 74%
- to Body 6%
Return Stats
Ferreira made...
- 42 (10 FH, 32 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 9 Errors, all unforced...
- 9 Unforced (3 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (42/53) 79%
Woodbridge made...
- 33 (11 FH, 22 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 4 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 13 Unforced (8 FH, 5 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 4 Forced (2 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (33/55) 60%
Break Points
Ferreira 3/6 (4 games)
Woodbridge 0/1
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Ferreira 6 (3 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
Woodbridge 9 (3 FH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)
Ferreira's FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl/inside-out pass, 1 inside-in
- BH pass - 1 dtl
- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley, swinging inside-out FHV
Woodbridge's FHs - 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in return
- 1 from a serve-volley point, a second volley, swinging FHV
- 1 from a return-approach point, a BHV
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Ferreira 28
- 13 Unforced (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)
- 15 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.2
Woodbridge 32
- 23 Unforced (11 FH, 10 BH, 2 BHV)... with 1 BH at net
- 9 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2
(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
Ferreira was...
- 8/12 (67%) at net, including...
- 3/5 (60%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
Woodbridge was...
- 12/19 (63%) at net, including...
- 2/3 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 1/2 off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 2/4 (50%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated
Match Report
A stale, pale match. Woodbridge is awkward, slow and returns terribly. Ferreira does the basic needful to garner an easy win. Court is normal and its just about breezy enough to be a minor factor
Wood with return rate 60%; you’d be hard pressed to find a softer serving display that draws 40% freebies. Elite returner might keep it down to under 20% and even 30% would be a bad job. Wood gives up 40% freebies against below average serving
Fer leading freebies 40% to 20% is main difference between 2 players
Fer also has 0-2 advantage in double faults and is +1 rally points won (most of which occur on Wood’s serve)
Neither player is impressive in court action. ‘Stale’ is good description for it. Both serve-volley a touch, Wood power return-approaches a little. In baseline rallies, his BH is weak of both consistency and force. He’s very awkward looking. Fer isn’t exactly a joy to watch either
Its not a good sign when the most memorable thing about telecast of a match are some stats they present
Telecast gives stats for the first set, according to which Fer has 16 winners, 12 UEs, Wood 10 and 15
At that stage, Fer has 4 winners, Wood 5. Including aces, Fer 7, Wood 6
Even counting all unreturned serves as service winners (and I’ve marked most of them UEs, let alone not service winners), Fer would have 15, Wood 13
Match long, let alone first set, Fer has 6 winners, Wood 9 (including aces, both 11)
How and where they came up with 16 and 10 winners for each player in the first set is a mystery. Either they’re marking certain errors as winners or they just made up the numbers
Unreturned serves - Fer 40%, Wood 20%
Average serve from Fer at 55% in count, harmless from Wood at 46%
The figure for Fer is criminally high and complete discredit to Wood’s returning for it
He’s slow to react and just plain poor of consistency. His serve is weak enough that Fer might look for higher return rate, though he hardly needs a bigger advantage
Virtually same number of points served (Fer 55, Wood 56) and -
- Aces - Fer 5, Wood 2 (2 of Fer’s are clear tanks from Wood)
- Return FEs drawn - Fer 4
- Return UEs drawn - Fer 13, Wood 9
Just a lot of simple, routine returns missed by Wood. On plus side, he occasionally gets aggressive with second shot. He’s got 1 winner and some thrashed return-approaches. Not chip-charges, but strong returns dtl. Even doing this all the time, for return rate of 60% would probably not be worth it - and he only does it occasionally. And wins just 2/4 return-approaching anyway
Which is great for him, given he only wins 27% first return points and 28% seconds, but no likely to make much dent. Fer winning virtually equal number of first and second serve points further sign of his serve being not strong and suggesting blame for his success lies with Wood’s returning
9/9 return errors from Fer have been marked UEs. Scope to do better, but 79% return rate is good to be going on (and in light of opponent having 60%, very good to be going on)
In baseline rallies -
- Winners - Fer 2, Wood 3 (1 return)
- Errors forced - Fer 4, Wood 5
- UEs - Fer 12, Wood 20
UEs the key and key to UEs the discrepancy in BH
FH UEs - Fer 10, Wood 11
BH UEs - Fer 3, Wood 9
For starters, pretty passive action. Fer’s BH is commendably secure, so not all discredit to Wood’s here. Its made to look worse for how awkward it is. 1-handed shot that he push-slices much of time. Near 0 pressure exerted by the shot
Underlying baseline action is how awkward Wood is. Being ‘awkward’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing and can be just mean ‘unorthodox’. John McEnroe had awkward ground shots
Wood moves around as if hoping rather than expecting to find the ball where he’s moving. This is the closest thing you’ll see to professional tennis player looking like a literal beginner
Add ugly shots to that and its not a pretty picture. Stiff FH from Wood too, though its not a weak shot. Early on, he regularly looks to strike winning third ball FH inside-outs. Got a couple winners, forces a couple of errors with it and its pressuring. Drops it in second set. Habitual third ball FH inside-out finishing shot wasn’t all that common in 1996
Neutral UEs - Fer 7, Wood 14 is big difference from perspective of error type (Wood has 2 more attacking UEs and 1 more winner attempt too)
Ugly shots, awkward movement and, simply getting outlasted trading groundies. With harmless, soft BH the main offender
Rallying to net - Fer 5/7, Wood 8/12
No need for Fer to come in as things are going. Wood could look to do so more. Despite most rallies being on his serve, he rarely has hitting advantage. Never off the BH and off the FH, looks to power-hit his way to points. Limited chances to get to net, could probably do so a little more
Not that Wood’s great at net. 6 winners, 3 UEs, 1 FE there. The UEs aren’t small
Bit of serve-volley for both (Fer 3/5, Wood 2/3) and Wood’s 4 powerful return-approaches make up rest of net play
Match Progression
Bunch of ground errors by Wood and Fer quick enough to reach a short volley on full run and dispatch it from near service line leads to break to open match
Wood gets a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct for tossing his towel carelessly behind him as he gets up from first change-over. Seems harsh
Fer misses a bunch of FHs to consolidate, but Wood misses returns. Wood with his only break point in the match (he misses a routine second return on it), before Fer consolidates the break
2 double faults and routine BHV miss get Wood broken again to fall 1-4 behind
In time, Fer serves out to 15, with Wood tanking the game and making no move as couple of ordinary serves go through for aces
Odd incident in opening game of second set. Down break point, Wood seems to think his BH is long and starts walking to his chair upon hitting it. Its not called and he has to come back to play, upon Fer missing the very deep ball
Just the 1 break in the set. Come in Game 5, 8 points, all UEs (1 return, 1 thoroughly covered but low-ish volley at average pace)
Fer has one not easy hold after that, where he’s down 0-30 in game 8. Missing returns has hand in Fer going on to hold, though he sends down couple of good strong winning ones also
In time, Fer serves out to 15. Best point of the match in the game, with Wood approaching behind a strong FH dtl return against first serve and needing a lunging, third volley winner to take the point. It’s the only one he does take though and Fer wraps up with a third ball approach
Summing up, ugly match and the kind you don’t remember a week after. Or remember if you watched at all a year after
Ferrreira with conventional game - average serve, return, groundies,movement, bit of serve-volley. Nondescript stuff
Woodbridge with ungainly game - awkward movement, awkward shots with particularly weak BH. His returning in particular is horrendous
It was Ferreira’s first Masters title. Woodbridge was unseeded and this would be his only Masters finals
Ferreira won 63 points, Woodbridge 48
(Note: 1 point has been tracked through audio and immediate post point footage
Set 1, Game 6, Point 2 - has been marked a FH inside-in return winner
It being a winner is confirmed. Minority chance that shot was instead BH dtl
Serve direction and return shot are confident, educated guesses)
Serve Stats
Ferreira...
- 1st serve percentage (30/55) 55%
- 1st serve points won (22/30) 73%
- 2nd serve points won (18/25) 72%
- Aces 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (22/55) 40%
Woodbridge...
- 1st serve percentage (26/56) 46%
- 1st serve points won (17/26) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (16/30) 53%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (11/56) 20%
Serve Patterns
Ferreira served...
- to FH 35%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 5%
Woodbridge served...
- to FH 21%
- to BH 74%
- to Body 6%
Return Stats
Ferreira made...
- 42 (10 FH, 32 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 9 Errors, all unforced...
- 9 Unforced (3 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (42/53) 79%
Woodbridge made...
- 33 (11 FH, 22 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 4 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 13 Unforced (8 FH, 5 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 4 Forced (2 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (33/55) 60%
Break Points
Ferreira 3/6 (4 games)
Woodbridge 0/1
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Ferreira 6 (3 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
Woodbridge 9 (3 FH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)
Ferreira's FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl/inside-out pass, 1 inside-in
- BH pass - 1 dtl
- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley, swinging inside-out FHV
Woodbridge's FHs - 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in return
- 1 from a serve-volley point, a second volley, swinging FHV
- 1 from a return-approach point, a BHV
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Ferreira 28
- 13 Unforced (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)
- 15 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.2
Woodbridge 32
- 23 Unforced (11 FH, 10 BH, 2 BHV)... with 1 BH at net
- 9 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2
(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
Ferreira was...
- 8/12 (67%) at net, including...
- 3/5 (60%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
Woodbridge was...
- 12/19 (63%) at net, including...
- 2/3 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 1/2 off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 2/4 (50%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated
Match Report
A stale, pale match. Woodbridge is awkward, slow and returns terribly. Ferreira does the basic needful to garner an easy win. Court is normal and its just about breezy enough to be a minor factor
Wood with return rate 60%; you’d be hard pressed to find a softer serving display that draws 40% freebies. Elite returner might keep it down to under 20% and even 30% would be a bad job. Wood gives up 40% freebies against below average serving
Fer leading freebies 40% to 20% is main difference between 2 players
Fer also has 0-2 advantage in double faults and is +1 rally points won (most of which occur on Wood’s serve)
Neither player is impressive in court action. ‘Stale’ is good description for it. Both serve-volley a touch, Wood power return-approaches a little. In baseline rallies, his BH is weak of both consistency and force. He’s very awkward looking. Fer isn’t exactly a joy to watch either
Its not a good sign when the most memorable thing about telecast of a match are some stats they present
Telecast gives stats for the first set, according to which Fer has 16 winners, 12 UEs, Wood 10 and 15
At that stage, Fer has 4 winners, Wood 5. Including aces, Fer 7, Wood 6
Even counting all unreturned serves as service winners (and I’ve marked most of them UEs, let alone not service winners), Fer would have 15, Wood 13
Match long, let alone first set, Fer has 6 winners, Wood 9 (including aces, both 11)
How and where they came up with 16 and 10 winners for each player in the first set is a mystery. Either they’re marking certain errors as winners or they just made up the numbers
Unreturned serves - Fer 40%, Wood 20%
Average serve from Fer at 55% in count, harmless from Wood at 46%
The figure for Fer is criminally high and complete discredit to Wood’s returning for it
He’s slow to react and just plain poor of consistency. His serve is weak enough that Fer might look for higher return rate, though he hardly needs a bigger advantage
Virtually same number of points served (Fer 55, Wood 56) and -
- Aces - Fer 5, Wood 2 (2 of Fer’s are clear tanks from Wood)
- Return FEs drawn - Fer 4
- Return UEs drawn - Fer 13, Wood 9
Just a lot of simple, routine returns missed by Wood. On plus side, he occasionally gets aggressive with second shot. He’s got 1 winner and some thrashed return-approaches. Not chip-charges, but strong returns dtl. Even doing this all the time, for return rate of 60% would probably not be worth it - and he only does it occasionally. And wins just 2/4 return-approaching anyway
Which is great for him, given he only wins 27% first return points and 28% seconds, but no likely to make much dent. Fer winning virtually equal number of first and second serve points further sign of his serve being not strong and suggesting blame for his success lies with Wood’s returning
9/9 return errors from Fer have been marked UEs. Scope to do better, but 79% return rate is good to be going on (and in light of opponent having 60%, very good to be going on)
In baseline rallies -
- Winners - Fer 2, Wood 3 (1 return)
- Errors forced - Fer 4, Wood 5
- UEs - Fer 12, Wood 20
UEs the key and key to UEs the discrepancy in BH
FH UEs - Fer 10, Wood 11
BH UEs - Fer 3, Wood 9
For starters, pretty passive action. Fer’s BH is commendably secure, so not all discredit to Wood’s here. Its made to look worse for how awkward it is. 1-handed shot that he push-slices much of time. Near 0 pressure exerted by the shot
Underlying baseline action is how awkward Wood is. Being ‘awkward’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing and can be just mean ‘unorthodox’. John McEnroe had awkward ground shots
Wood moves around as if hoping rather than expecting to find the ball where he’s moving. This is the closest thing you’ll see to professional tennis player looking like a literal beginner
Add ugly shots to that and its not a pretty picture. Stiff FH from Wood too, though its not a weak shot. Early on, he regularly looks to strike winning third ball FH inside-outs. Got a couple winners, forces a couple of errors with it and its pressuring. Drops it in second set. Habitual third ball FH inside-out finishing shot wasn’t all that common in 1996
Neutral UEs - Fer 7, Wood 14 is big difference from perspective of error type (Wood has 2 more attacking UEs and 1 more winner attempt too)
Ugly shots, awkward movement and, simply getting outlasted trading groundies. With harmless, soft BH the main offender
Rallying to net - Fer 5/7, Wood 8/12
No need for Fer to come in as things are going. Wood could look to do so more. Despite most rallies being on his serve, he rarely has hitting advantage. Never off the BH and off the FH, looks to power-hit his way to points. Limited chances to get to net, could probably do so a little more
Not that Wood’s great at net. 6 winners, 3 UEs, 1 FE there. The UEs aren’t small
Bit of serve-volley for both (Fer 3/5, Wood 2/3) and Wood’s 4 powerful return-approaches make up rest of net play
Match Progression
Bunch of ground errors by Wood and Fer quick enough to reach a short volley on full run and dispatch it from near service line leads to break to open match
Wood gets a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct for tossing his towel carelessly behind him as he gets up from first change-over. Seems harsh
Fer misses a bunch of FHs to consolidate, but Wood misses returns. Wood with his only break point in the match (he misses a routine second return on it), before Fer consolidates the break
2 double faults and routine BHV miss get Wood broken again to fall 1-4 behind
In time, Fer serves out to 15, with Wood tanking the game and making no move as couple of ordinary serves go through for aces
Odd incident in opening game of second set. Down break point, Wood seems to think his BH is long and starts walking to his chair upon hitting it. Its not called and he has to come back to play, upon Fer missing the very deep ball
Just the 1 break in the set. Come in Game 5, 8 points, all UEs (1 return, 1 thoroughly covered but low-ish volley at average pace)
Fer has one not easy hold after that, where he’s down 0-30 in game 8. Missing returns has hand in Fer going on to hold, though he sends down couple of good strong winning ones also
In time, Fer serves out to 15. Best point of the match in the game, with Wood approaching behind a strong FH dtl return against first serve and needing a lunging, third volley winner to take the point. It’s the only one he does take though and Fer wraps up with a third ball approach
Summing up, ugly match and the kind you don’t remember a week after. Or remember if you watched at all a year after
Ferrreira with conventional game - average serve, return, groundies,movement, bit of serve-volley. Nondescript stuff
Woodbridge with ungainly game - awkward movement, awkward shots with particularly weak BH. His returning in particular is horrendous
