Match Stats/Report - Henman vs Pavel, Paris final, 2003

[Waspsting]

Tim Henman beat Andrei Pavel 6-3, 7-6(6), 7-6(2) in the Paris final, 2003 on carpet

It would be Henman’s only Masters title. He beat Andy Roddick, Roger Federer among others en route to the final. Pavel was unseeded

Henman won 111 points, Pavel 90

Henman serve-volleyed occasionally off first serves, Pavel most of the time

Serve Stats
Henman...
- 1st serve percentage (66/102) 65%
- 1st serve points won (60/66) 91%
- 2nd serve points won (17/36) 47%
- Aces 8
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (33/102) 32%

Pavel...
- 1st serve percentage (64/99) 65%
- 1st serve points won (46/64) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (19/35) 54%
- Aces 7
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (31/99) 31%

Serve Pattern
Henman served...
- to FH 40%
- to BH 54%
- to Body 6%

Pavel served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 45%
- to Body 14%

Return Stats
Henman made...
- 65 (29 FH, 36 BH), including 12 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 24 Errors, comprising...
- 9 Unforced (4 FH, 5 BH), including 4 return-approach attempts
- 15 Forced (10 FH, 5 BH)
- Return Rate (65/96) 68%

Pavel made...
- 65 (24 FH, 41 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (2 FH, 8 BH)
- 15 Forced (8 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (65/98) 66%

Break Points
Henman 3/4 (3 games)
Pavel 1/3 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Henman 40 (24 FH, 3 BH, 6 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
Pavel 28 (6 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV, 6 BHV, 4 OH, 1 BHOH)

Henman's FHs - 8 cc (3 passes), 4 dtl (2 passes), 2 dtl/inside-out, 6 inside-out (2 passes - 1 return), 1 inside-in, 2 longline (1 pass),
- BH passes - 1 cc, 2 dtl (1 return)

- 3 from serve-volley points - 2 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 1 FH at net) & 1 second volley (1 OH)
- 5 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 2 other FHVs were swinging cc (1 non-net)

Pavel had 11 from serve-volley points -
- 7 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 BH at net)
- 4 second volley (3 OH, 1 BHOH)

- 1 from a return-approach point, a BHV

- FHs - 4 cc (1 return, 2 passes), 1 dtl pass, 1 inside-out
- BHs - 4 cc (2 passes), 2 dtl, 1 inside-in return

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Henman 27
- 18 Unforced (14 FH, 3 BH, 1 BHV)
- 9 Forced (2 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BH1/2V)... including 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50

Pavel 35
- 15 Unforced (6 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 5 BHV)
- 20 Forced (7 FH, 11 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)... including 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH at net (a pass attempt)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.7

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(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
Henman was...
- 36/47 (77%) at net, including...
- 15/16 (94%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
--
- 7/12 (58%) return-approaching
- 1/1 retreated

Pavel was...
- 34/58 (59%) at net, including...
- 30/46 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 26/40 (65%) off 1st serve and...
- 4/6 (67%) off 2nd serve
--
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Beautiful, all-court, varied action match, especially from Henman. FH shot-making and attacking play, easy, virtually perfect net play (volleying shines brightest chip-charge returning) are high points, but his low block return-passing and follow-up passing against serve-volley is quality too. Pavel serve-volleys a lot (and much more than Henman), is also elegent from the back (especially off the BH, where he has better of opponent). His returning has room for improvement. Court is quick

40 winners, 27 errors (18 UEs, 9 FEs) from Henman alone is top drawer. Add 20 errors forced out of opponent and we’re approaching dizzying heights of play. His serve is effective, but all those winners are more product of shot-making and point construction than the serve shot

28 winners, 35 errors (15 UEs, 20 FEs) ain’t too shabby from Pavel either. Those figures, coupled with 31% unretuned serves… would think this was an easy win for him. He’s not quite turned invisible by Henman’s showing, but does drift back into background for it. Fact that he’s neck and neck competitive for two-thirds of the match must mean he’s pretty high end too

Early on, Henman zones. Can’t seem to miss anything - a pass, a volley, a winner from the back
In taking first set 6-2, he has He has 12 winners, 5 errors (2 UEs, 3 FEs)
Breaks and holds for 2-0 to start second set, doing which Henman’s numbers move to 18 winners, 2 UEs, 6 FEs

This is McEnroe ‘84 Wimby final level stuff. Virtually perfect of quality and very stylishly so. Without serve shot dominating things
He cools to merely excellent and rest of match is played out that way; 2 excellent players competing closely

At t 6-2, 2-0 -
- Points won - Henman 36, Pavel 17
- Break points - Henman 3/4 (3 games), Pavel 0
Zoning Henman breezing into lead

Rest of match -
Points won - Henman 75, Pavel 73
Break points - Henman 0, Pavel 1/3 (3 games)
High quality, even contest (that Henman happens to pip)

Note that in ‘rest of match, Henman has 22 winners, 16 UEs, 3 FEs. That’s the ‘bad’ part of his showing. And If Pavel’s edging action (despite losing) in that phase, those numbers are good to reflect his match long showing too

Action is free-flowing and varied, net and ground action intertwined
Both players serve-volley some. Off first serves, Henman does so 28% of the time, Pavel 70%. Pavel also does so 19% off second serves

So much of Pavel’s service games are serve-volley vs return-pass contest
Henman return-approaches 12 times (also has 4 errors trying), always against second serves. Classic, bona fida chip-charges, not hit and runs. Once or twice, coinciding with Pavel serve-volleying
So another substantial chunk of Henman chip-charging vs Pavel passing on third ball
Rest is neutral starting point baseline rallies

With relatively low 28% first serve-volleying (and just 1 return-approach by Pavel), most of Henman’s service points start on baseline. With decent first serve drawing not-strong returns, he’s often on the attack right away, and putsaway FH winners or strikes attacking FHs that he comes in behind

Most of the rest is neutral starting point baseline rallies

Serve, Return & Play
Both players with 65% first serves in
Near same aces and ace rate - Henman has 8/66 first serves, Pavel 7/64
Serve quality is but average, at best, above average. Little danger of this turning into a serve-bot fest of freebies
Henman with slightly stronger serve. A little pacier and he mixes them up more, so the faster ones are that much more effective

‘Slighlty stronger serve’, with both serves about average, but he wins mammoth 91% first serve points. 15/16 serve-volleying, 8 aces and 37/42 staying back

Much of it due to beautiful, high quality FH shot-making and volleying, but still, 91% points is indicator of Pavel not being able to return well enough. Middling quality returns, leaving Henman with normal first serve initiative - Henman’s outstanding in making most of it, but a little needs-to-do-better mark on Pavel’s returning

In context of near same number of serves - Henman 102, Pavel 99 - and identical 65% in counts, near identical freebies, and they’re breakdown-
Unreturned serves - Henman 32%, Pavel 31%
Aces - Henman 8, Pavel 7
Return FEs drawn - both 15
Return UEs drawn - Henman 10, Pavel 9
Double faults - Henman 4, Pavel 3

Given damaging quality of Pavel’s serve augmented by so much more serve-volleying and Henman making more aggressive return UEs (he’s got 4 chip-charge errors), freebies being equal is a win for Henman. Back cut slightly by Henman having slightly stronger serve (as in, that’s a reason for reason for him to ‘win’ the contest), but those other factors carry more weight

Returning against serve-volleys, Henman neatly blocks return to get them low and draw up volley. His return-passes aren’t powerful in general and he doesn’t often go wide looking for the winner with it

Pavel as return-passer returns normally around net high, looking for firm strength. He’s up against surprise element too, with Henman only indulging about a quarter of the time. Gives up routine first volleys, that Henman’s commands

Henman wins 15/16 serve-volleying, Pavel 30/46 - same rate across his two serves.
Henman’s 7/12 chip-charge returning, Pavel 1/1
Rallying to net, Henman’s 14/19, Pavel 3/11

On the ‘volley’, Henman has 13 winners, 1 UE, 2 FEs
Pavel has 15 winners, 6 UEs, 2 FEs
Difference in UEs key to to Henman being better

On the pass, Henman with 2 return and 9 (7 FH, 2 BH) regular winners, 4 FEs (1 FH, 3 BH)
Pavel with 5 winners (3 FH, 2 BH), 13 FEs (4 FH, 9 BH)
Top drawer winners to FEs ratio from Henman, while Pavel’s are leaning to below average
Henman doing better passing too

What those numbers are saying are
- Henman bloody good volleying, bloody good passing

 

[Waspsting]

Volleying, balanced winners and forcing passing errors, literally next to 0 UEs, barely an FE
It doesn’t convey how easy he makes every kind of volleying look
Routine stuff - dealt with, easy as you like
Tricky stuff - made to look like routine stuff, with natural, little less authority
Difficult stuff - handled, again, gracefully

His success rallying to net is a little deceptive in that there’s fair amount of ‘token approaches’, based on exquisite FH shots (more on that later). For same reason, Pavel’s passing figures look a little worse as same amount of hopeless passing looks

Henman’s passing comes from blocking return low, drawing an up volley and dispatching it. Not weak ‘up’ volleys. Normal, decent placement and punch from Pavel on volley. Perhaps better more actively seeking Henman’s BH. That’s not a small number of UEs he has, but quality of volleys are ok. Henman just too good on the follow up pass

Henman with 9 passing winners, while forcing just 2 volley FEs. That’s sign of getting his passes off perfectly

Unreturned serves drawn serve-volleying keeping Pavel in the game. The his volley vs Henman’s pass numbers are disastrous for him. Among other things, they encourage him not to serve-volley so much. Early on, he looks ready to do it 100% of the time, but starts staying back after early, Henman zoning phase

Staying back off first serves, Henmna wins 37/42 or 88% (serve-volleying, its 15/16), Pavel 13/17 or 76% (serve-volleying, its 65%)
Second serve points won - Henman 47%, Pavel 54%
Second serve points, sans chip-charges (including return errors trying) and serve-volleys - Henman 46%, Pavel 47% (with double faults near equal)

In baseline rallies -
Winners - Henman 16 (15 FH, 1 FHV), Pavel 8 (3 FH, 5 BH)
Errors forced - Henman 5, Pavel 3
UEs - Henman 17 (14 FH, 3 BH), Pavel 9 (6 FH, 3 BH)

More high end stuff, this time by both players, Henman more aggressive, Henman making more aggressive errors

Henman’s FH dominates proceedings with by far match highs on both winners and UEs. Most of those UEs are winner attempts too (he has 7 of those from baseline. Pavel has 2)
Whether dispatching not-obvious third ball winner or finding the winner after rallying, splendid FH shot-making from Henman. The emphasis is on precision placement more than brute power and he goes all direction with it. He’s got 5 cc, 4 inside-out and a couple dtl winners. Doesn’t back-away unduly and strikes his finishers from around center of court or in deuce court

Still, Pavel’s got slightly better of things, as both these and the second serve points figures suggest. Its here that Henman having more damaging serve and Pavel unable to return it with neutralizing force becomes more apparent

Most of those FH winners aren’t putaways, and credit Henman for both the adventurous shot-choices and execution, but he does need the initiative his first serve gives him to score so freely with it

Neutral UEs read Henman 8, Pavel 5
Significant ratio difference. Henman going on attack with FHs and net play good move. A who-blinks-first contest would favour Pavel

Both have 2 attacking UEs from the baseline. On winner attempts, Henman has 7, Pavel 2
With just 3 BH UEs each, its FHs where Henman’s making his more aggressive errors. Worthwhile price for all the winners

Henman’s slices clinging to the ground and secure, but Pavel’s BH is better. Just as secure and he’s got some beautiful shot-making winners of his own off that side. He’s got 4 ground-to-ground winners post return off the BH (2 cc, 2 dtl) to just 2 FHs (Henman has 0 BHs of this sort)

On the FH, Pavel a little more secure neutrally and more efficient offensively, but Henman’s not inefficient and well in positives nailing winners to missing going for them

Rallying to net - Henman 14/19, Pavel 3/11
These figures have been covered by volley and pass figures earlier. Part of the seamless blend of net and ground action on show. Henman’s passing taking away a Pavel offensive move, while his net play - more the approach, which are toned down versions of his FH winners, than the volleying behind it - giving him an extra finishing option

Crediting Henman’s approach shots for large lot of rallying to net points won goes some way to equalize how the two stack up from back of court. There isn’t much question of ‘purely from the back’ here because net and ground play are so closely wound by Henman

Still, Pavel leading second serve points won 54% to 47%, which becomes virtually equal sans immediate net points (serve-volley or chip-charges)

He hasn’t gotten better of baseline rallies (and exercise of isolating pure baseline points is academic point only) overall. He has gotten better of them for bulk 2/3s of the match, with high concentration of Henman’s success being in early zoning phase

Match Progression
In first set, Pavel serve-volleys off every first serve, Henman just occasionally (3/12 to be exact)
Henman can do no wrong

After 3 holds to start. Henman wins 7 games in a row. During this phase, he wins 29 points, loses 9

Pavel starts match with a lovely first ‘volley’, BH at net drop shot winner, where he checks his approach and holds back for the shot. He serves volleys off all points in the game, including the sole second serve and has an ace in holding
Henman starts his service match with a first ‘volley’ FH at net winner and adds a pair of winning third ball FHs from the back (inside-out winner and error forcing inside-in) to hold to love

First signs of magic appear in game 3, where Henman follows an utilizes an attacking FH inside-out return to dispatch a swinging FHV winner from no-man’s land, followed by a chip-charge return ending with a BHV winner to reach 15-30. Pavel goes on to hold

Next thing you know, its 6-2, 2-0 Henman. Passes, return-passes, the odd chip-charge and serve-volley, groundstrokes… he can’t not seem to hit winners. There’s no savagery to it either and its all easy, poetic grace

Henman cools to merely normal high quality, down to Pavel’s level, for rest of match
Pavel wisely takes to staying back occasionally. He’d done so at the end of the zoning phase and rallies forward, only to get passes FH cc. He plays some wonderful BHs, both passes and in baseline rallies

Henman misses a few FHs. Uses net sparringly, but remains sublime when he does

Serving at 4-3, 40-0, Henman misses 3 FH winner attempts in a row, followed by a fourth FH UE to a deep return to be down break point for first time. He comes away to hold with a net point, a third ball FH winner and an unreturned first serve

Takes Pavel to deuce before serving for the set
Pavel breaks to to level at 5-5. Couple of by now normal winners from Henman (third ball FH inside-out to decent return and a swinging FHV cc after drawing weak return), but gives up errors, including 2 aggressive FH UEs. Pavel helps with a winning return to the baseline

Tiebreak soon after
Henman opens with BH cc pass winner and build on the mini-break to reach 5-2
Bold of Pavel to second serve-volley twice to reach 4-5. Second time, he’s met by a chip-charging Henman but is up to putting away the BHV
Pretty soft second serve from Henman that Pavel misses BH dtl return winner attempt too; Worth the risk, but it raises set point for Henman at 6-4
Double fault and strong serve later, its 6-6
Gorgeous chip-charge point from Henman to take lead again. The return is good, Pavel’s wide, low pass is excellent, but Henman steps over and lightly drop 1/2volleys as easily as though it were a routine volley. He comes away with net-to-net FHV winner
Henman wraps up with a strong winning FH dtl

Pavel has break point in opening game of third set, with Henman double faulting to start the game and missing an inside-in FH winner attempt. Misses routine first return on it and Henman goes on to hold

No more break points in the set. Pavel serve-volleys a little more often than previous set, Henman does so more than at any stage of match but still not often
Action remains smooth and polished from both

After the first 10 point game, Henman loses 3 points on serve for 5 hold. Pavel loses 6 for his 6 holds - 3 of them in 1 game

Nice pair of cc winners, 1 of each wing, by Pavel to usher in the tiebreak
Henman stays on top of this one. Mini-breaks for 2-1 by running down corner volley to slink through a FH dtl pass winner. Gains another mini for 5-1 with Pavel missing routine third ball FH.
In between and beyond, wins his service points with the kind of smooth aggression that’s characterized his play all match, eventually finishing off the match with a serve-volley that forces a return error

Summing up, beautiful match and especially beautiful showing from Tim Henman in all areas
Good serve, hits his spots. Easy, controlled block-return passes and the chip-charge returns are better still. Lovely FH shot-making from the back, along with a tidy BH. Virtually perfect at net, making everything look simple as can be. All of it coming together so that he doesn’t seem to have ‘moves’. Its all 1 continuous move, as silky as a good violin solo

Other than when Henman’s on upper-end of zoning, Pavel stays with the winner. Serve-volleys a lot, serve is a little less effective than opponent. Doesn’t return with enough authority or to put it another way, would have to return with more to have chances against such a fully on-song opponent. Some lovely BH play too, which is better than opponent, while having no answer to flow of winning FHs coming from other side

Stats for Henman’s quarter-final with Roger Federer - Match Stats/Report - Henman vs Federer, Paris Indoor quarter-final, 2003 | Talk Tennis

 

[Galvermegs]

Pavel played well against jiri novak to come back and make this final. Not sure if he was more tired mentally or physically than henman, who had a pretty simple win over roddick by comparison. We all got excited for tims chances in a major but it never quite happened and 2005 was a swift decline phase.

 

[Galvermegs]

Just saw this pavel semifinal pop up on youtube. Will definitely rewatch it as 2 decades has unsettlingly passed by now for me.

 

[Mainad]

Henman's 2003 run to the Paris-Bercy title was perhaps the best moment of his career.