Match Stats/Report - John McEnroe vs Patrick McEnroe, Chicago final, 1991

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe beat Patrick McEnroe 3-6, 6-2, 6-4 in the Chicago final, 1991 on indoor carpet

It would be the last title of John McEnroe’s career and the first final of Patrick McEnroe’s, who had recently been semi-finalist at the Australian Open

John won 91 points, Patrick 78

John serve-volleyed off all but 1 first serve and about half the time off seconds, Patrick off most first serves

(Note: I’m missing serve direction for 2 points
Set 1, Game 7, Point 1 - a John ace
Set 1, Game 8, Point 3 - a Patrick unreturned serve, on which he was serve-volleying that’s been marked ?? forced return error)

Serve Stats
John...
- 1st serve percentage (46/80) 58%
- 1st serve points won (37/46) 80%
- 2nd serve points won (16/34) 47%
- Aces 16 (1 possibly not clean), Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/80) 48%

Patrick...
- 1st serve percentage (61/89) 69%
- 1st serve points won (34/61) 56%
- 2nd serve points won (17/28) 61%
- Aces 3 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (18/89) 20%

Serve Patterns
John served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 51%
- to Body 7%

Patrick served...
- to FH 41%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
John made...
- 69 (35 FH, 34 BH), including 4 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 11 Winners (5 FH, 6 BH)
- 15 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (3 FH, 3 BH)
- 9 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 ??)
- Return Rate (69/87) 79%

Patrick made...
- 36 (13 FH, 23 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 6 Winners (2 FH, 4 BH)
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (3 FH, 2 BH)
- 14 Forced (7 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (36/74) 49%

Break Points
John 4/16 (7 games)
Patrick 3/6 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
John 25 (9 FH, 8 BH, 5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
Patrick 31 (3 FH, 8 BH, 6 FHV, 12 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)

John had 6 from serve-volley points -
- 4 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 3 FH at net)... 1 FH at net was a drop shot
- 2 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV)

- 1 other FHV was a non-net shot

- 12 passes - 9 returns (4 FH, 5 BH) & 3 regular (1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- FH returns - 2 inside-out, 2 inside-in
- BHs returns - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- regular BH - 1 cc
- volleys - both FHV and BHV were non-net shots

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 cc, 1 inside-out return
- regular BH return - 1 inside-in

Patrick had 17 from serve-volley points -
- 10 first volleys (4 FHV, 6 BHV)
- 7 second volleys (2 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BHOH)

- 7 passes - 5 returns (2 FH, 3 BH) & 2 regular (1 FH, 1 BH)
- FH returns - 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs returns - 2 cc, 1 dtl
- regular FH - 1 dtl
- regular BH - 1 inside-out dtl

- regular (non-pass) BHs - 3 dtl (1 return), 1 inside-in/cc

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
John 23
- 9 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)... with 2 FH pass attempts (1 at net)
- 14 Forced (1 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot (non-net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.1

Patrick 26
- 12 Unforced (5 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 14 Forced (1 FH, 3 BH, 3 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 BH1/2V, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.5

(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
John was...
- 27/46 (59%) at net, including...
- 22/39 (56%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 17/26 (65%) off 1st serve and...
- 5/13 (38%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching

Patrick was...
- 38/66 (58%) at net, including...
- 31/54 (57%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 29/51 (57%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/3 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/4 (25%) forced back

Match Report
John’s serve dominates while his early taken, just-so placed returns do plenty of damage in a bright, serve-volleying based match. Court is very fast

Aces/Service Winners - John 19, Pat 3 (1 second serve)
1st serve unreturnable rate - John 41%, Pat 3%

The rate of unreturnables is probably the highest I’ve seen from John. Odd for it to come at this late stage in his career, when his serve tended to not have the disguise of former years. It seems to have it here; Pat seems to have no read on the serve and is stone as serves fly by for aces either side of him, even if they’re not too far out of reach

Return winners - John 11, Pat 6 (all but 3 passes - 2 non-passes for John, 1 for Pat)

With John serve-volleying a lot more, more scope for Pat to hit return winners, however many aces go by him. Pat almost never serve-volleying of second serves and staying back on fair few firsts too. In that light in particular, 11 is a lot of winners. Still more end points by drawing the hardest of volleying errors. There’s not much of a volley vs pass contest with John on baseline, Pat at net. It’s a return vs serve contest - and with low aces for Pat, high return winners for John, returner is doing enough to break as needed

Pat also his hits 10 first volley winners (John has just 1 genuine volley one and that’s on last point of match + 3 other FH at net winners), so its not a shellacking, but enough to put John over to break

And Pat’s prospects for breaking? Basically double faults. John has 6 or 18% of second serves. They cost him both breaks in first set, which costs him the set. Only 1/6 is after first set, leaving Pat needing to find other ways to make returning inroads. He returns with authority when he can connect, but at 48% return rate, nowhere not enough to be a threat

John’s serve-volleying and net play
John starts match looking to serve-volley all the time. Adjusts fairly quickly to desisting behind second serves after it gets considerable stick from Pat’s returning

1st serve breezes down aces all match as outlined earlier. No read on serve for Pat, and John serves for aces. 42% serves to FH, 51% to BH and 7% body is not pattern of one targetting a particular side, but one to keep returner unsure

41% aces/service winners aside, John is 17/26 or 65% first serve-volleying. He stays back just once and hits a third ball volley winner from no-man’s, about half way between service and baseline

18% double faults aside, off second serve, John -
- serve-volleys 46% of time, winning 38%
- stays back 54%, winning 73%

65% behind firsts and 38% behind seconds (particularly in light of few very easy putaways drawn by big first serve, as 3/4 first ‘volley’ winners being FH at net attest to) isn’t good. And that’s down to Pat’s returning

Not much to be done against the aces, but whatever Pat can connect with, he does well. John is slow which doesn’t help his cause, but extra speed wouldn’t help too much against kinds of returns he’s met with
On the ‘volley’, John with 6 winners serve-volleying and 8 net winners (excluding 3 non-net volleys, including 3 groundies at net), while he has 3 UEs and 8 FEs

More errors at net than winners, with almost half the winners being putaway groundstrokes and bulk of errors hard forced ones, including 3 half-volleys
Throw in Pat with 7 passing winners (5 of them returns) and very small passing errors (he has 4 ground FEs)

John’s success on serve is all down to his aces. He’s not done well when having to volley. He’s slow, but by far, credit to Pat’s returning for that. Specifically, the returning, not the follow-up pass - it the return that has 5/7 winners and also forces the errors (also, draws the UEs)

Good returning from Pat. Its not a ‘give-up-aces-in-exchange-for-more-damaging-returns’ showing. Returns from normal position, the aces are just too good and whatever he can reach, he tends to hit well enough to win point with. He’s got enough good returns off that can’t even fault him for not resorting to guessing against first serves. If he looks silly standing still as ace flies by, next point he might smack a winning return (as long as its in reach) and won’t be looking silly moving one way while it goes for another ace the other

At 48% return rate, ‘good returning’ probably won’t get the break. He needs John’s help with that, and John obliges considerably, almost handing 2 breaks over with double faults

Gist - John’s aces are key to his service games. Even good serves shy of that get smacked to give him tough volleys. Contest of volley vs pass would be one of making tough volleys, not dispatching routine stuff from John’s point of view. He’s slow and the returns are too good for him

Lends opponent a helping hand with double faults too

 

[Waspsting]

Pat’s serve-volleying and net play
Early on, Pat looks to play a serve-volley off firsts, stay back off seconds game. In time, he randomly stays back off a few first serves and throws in rare surprise second

Sans aces and double faults (both small, unlike John) -
1st serve-volleying frequency - 57%
1st serve-volleying winning - 57%
Not 1st serve-volleying winning - 38%
Not second serve-volleying winning - 64%
2nd serve-volley - 2/3

Clearly doing better serve-volleying than not, though not doing particularly well. Understandable to stay back some, given 9 return-pass winners go by him

And a little odd that he’s done so badly not 1st serve-vollyeing, given how well he’s done staying back off second serve points

In Pat’s service games, main contest is between his volley and John’s return

For starters, ordinary serve, average of pace (which still shoots through on this court), not placed too wide. Hence the low 3 aces (1 a second serve). John returning from about the baseline - half a step back against first serves, half a step in for seconds

John punching, placing, guiding and most of all, timing returns on the up to be effective. Typical variety to it. He’s got return-pass winners in all 4 basic directions off the BH

Lots of volleying winners from Pat too

Pat with 20 volley winners (10 first volleys, 7 second volleys among them), just 2 UEs and 9 FEs
John with 10 ground passing winners (9 returns), and he’ got 6 ground FEs, along with rare 2 passing UEs

Normal stuff. Some volleys left net high or above and Pat’s good at dealing with those. Puts them away or directs them wide to John’s BH, which has 5 of his 6 ground FEs. But along with spate of return winners is a whole host of near impossible, shoelace volleys. The occasionally gorgeous winning low volley from Pat, but he’s usually forced into error. All credit to Mac’s returning for that

For John, 79% return rate while delivering winning returns as often as he does is good to break. Not a great serve, but excellent, strainlessly aggressive returning from John

John swipes a couple volley-passes from close to the baseline. He’s got 2 such winners. One is called out, but Pat, whose at net and not in great position to judge, overrule the call

Pat with a 2-handed BHV. Looks awkward, but he volleys solidly and well off that side. Better than the FHV, and including on the shoelace stuff (not that his shoelace volleying is great, but its in line with his normal volleying). And he makes 2 difficult BHOHs - 1 for a winner - fine shots

Gist - contest between Pat’s volleying and John’s return-passing. Good contest - Pat with some good volleying, especially the net high stuff that he putsaway or volleys with authority, but John finding the point ending return often too. Often enough to be threat to break

Pat’s average serve open up this type of contest, as opposed to the serve-bot vs return contest when roles are reveresed

Baseline Play
Mac staying back on second serves wins 73%
Pat staying back on first serves wins 3/8 or 38%
Pat staying back on second serves wins 64%

Mac’s service points are bolstered by a few missed returns. All 5 of Pat’s return UEs would be in this scenario. Perhaps slightly helped by uncertainty factor of whether John might be coming in but also, a good, not easy to attack second serve from John

Pat’s first serve points is a bit odd. Serve is readily returnable and John returning early and the way he’s returning against serve-volleys. Solid return, but not enough to peg Pat back on the baseline
Pat’s second serve points make up 22 points, so that’s good indicator of his baseline play

Pat’s BH looks a solid shot, more so than FH, but he’s looser off both sides than John
Ground UEs - Pat 5 off both wings, John 2 of both wings (he also has 2 passing UEs on FH)

Testament to quality of Pat’s returns against anything shy of overwhelming that John stays back so much, and John’s choices justified. He doesn’t do much from baseline, just keeps it in play, not looking to approach (he has just 6 approaches from rallies - at least 3 of them forced)

Pat’s just 7/12 rallying to net so coming in not helping too much bridge the back-court consistency gap. He’s done well to win so many second serve points - his 61% is not only higher than John’s 47% but than his first serves of 56%

61% second serve points won is excellent, and he’s played well from back there. 56% firsts is about his serve being average (and John’s excellent returning it)

Limited to non serve-volley points, little odd for both servers to dominate such points. John gets more out of his serve to win his lot, suggesting its Pat whose underperformed in baseline rallies, not John for them to share the pie evenly

He does have greater power, particularly off BH, but John’s steadier

Match Progression
In first set, John is close to serve-volleying all the time (stays back on a few seconds), Pat off all first serves and never off seconds

John’s aces and double faults make or break him. Not much of a volley vs pass contest going on. Pat wins points serve-volleying with second volley winners and is stronger hitter from the back

John starts match with an ace and service winner. End the game with back to back double faults to get broken. In between is routine BHV miss, a FH1/2V FE and a FH dtl passing winner from Pat. After first 2 points, no first serves for Mac in the game

Neat stop-volley winner by Pat in his first hold
Slightly odd point in Mac’s next serve game where he forces Pat back from net but doesn’t approach himself

Games are competitive, with 5 of the first 6 going to deuce. Pat saves 1 and 3 break points respectively in holding for 3-1 and 4-2, his volleying coming good in nick of time to get out of situations caused by John’s great winning returns

3 double faults in 5 point game from John to get broken again and end set. He’s made just 14/33 first serves for the set

By contrast, he doesn’t lose a service point in his 4 holds in the second set. Breaks in a 10 point game to start - beginning and ending with return-pass winners (FH inside-in and BH inside-out). In between, there’s a point where a fully rushing John lifts a running-down-drop-shot shot at net only way he can - and that happens to be right over the center where its headed towards Pat’s face. Not a case of hitting ball at opponent, but one of playing only available shot

Top class BHOH winner back-pedalling by Pat awhile later, but he’s broken again to go down 1-4 - missing 2 third ball groundies to start, and John delivering to returns to his feet that he can’t handle to end

In due time, John serves out to love, finishing with 2 aces and its onto decider with momentum firmly with John

John starts it with a BH cc return-pass winner. Couple of good inside-out BHV winners from Pat in rest of game, and lovely shoelace volley to get him the hold

Pat breaks for 2-0. In between aces and service winners he forces 2 volleying errors (1 makeable, 1 very difficult) and seals the break with a fully stretched, poked BH dtl return-pass winner
John hits back at once. 2 return winners for him (FH inside-in and a flicked BH cc) and couple of forced errors (makeable BHV and about as makeable as possible BH1/2V) do the job

John breaks next go around too. Bad OH miss from Pat early in the game, but result is mostly down to John. Starts game with a BHV passing winner from no-man’s land. Pat climbs out of 0-40 to deuce with third ball BH dtl winner, a return FE and a surprise second serve-volley first volley FHV winner. John responds with a very casual looking, lifted FH inside-out return pass winner to raise a 4th break point, where he delivers a return that yorks Pat (ball, racquet, ground all meeting at same point)

John’s down 15-40 game after. He stays back off a first serve for only time in match on the first break point, but ends up hitting a third ball volley winner from no-man’s land. Ironic, given he hadn’t hit any third ball volley winners all match, despite serve-volleying off all first serves and about half the time off seconds. Rest of games are missed returns, including 1 UE

No more competitive thrills. John’s down 0-30 on the serve-out before 3 big serves (2 aces) get him to match point. Some joking around between the players before it, and on it, John delivers his only first volley winner of the match

Summing up, fun little match with John McEnroe’s serve in particular, followed by his return the most important shots in determining the outcome. Aces and service winners rain down in both courts, both directions all match and he gets winning returns off against serve-volleys regularly too. Not much volleying for him to do and no need for follow-up passing

Patrick McEnroe’s ordinary serve is a handicap he can’t overcome. He volleys solidly against routine stuff and not too badly against the tough stuff, but the latter comes down too often for him to make them all. And he returns strongly when he’s not being aced, but again, finds himself being aced too often to be able to make in-roads

 

[Galvermegs]

Ive wanted to see this one since the clip of the handshake/hug at the end.

Silverware guaranteed for the mcenroe clan, but of course it was the williams who would have a proper duopoloy in years to come.

I quite like patrick as a commentator and personality in the media. He is one smart guy but often forgotten as he never really accomplished the things john did oncourt or have a uniquely stylish game. Also infamously lost to old jimbo at the us open, which would have hurt johns feelings at least as much.

 

[jrepac]

I remember this one.....whatever happened to the Chicago event? Another one that vanished???

 

[Waspsting]

I remember this one.....whatever happened to the Chicago event? Another one that vanished???

This was the last edition. Didn't last long... 4-5 years

...infamously lost to old jimbo at the us open, which would have hurt johns feelings at least as much.

imagining Jimbo's feelings if he'd lost to li'l Mac is funnier to me

 

[jrepac]

This was the last edition. Didn't last long... 4-5 years


imagining Jimbo's feelings if he'd lost to li'l Mac is funnier to me

I wonder why? I'd think Chicago would be a GREAT town for an indoor tennis event.
Feels like the men's tour has been gutted, frankly.
So many events, some smaller, granted, have simply vanished into thin air.
someone should do an analysis of that.

Obviously, PMAC should have won that USO match vs. Jimmy...but the old lion still had some roar....it was a pretty impressive win down the stretch. I was more impressed with that than the Krickstein match in many ways.

 

[WCT]

Patrick with more net points than John. Interesting. I remember NBC televising this event for several years. So it was reasonably big.

 

[Waspsting]

Patrick with more net points than John. Interesting. I remember NBC televising this event for several years. So it was reasonably big.

because of all the aces John serves (aces and service winners not being counted as serve-volley or net points)

John actually serve-volleyed considerably more than Pat

I wonder why? I'd think Chicago would be a GREAT town for an indoor tennis event.
Feels like the men's tour has been gutted, frankly.

It was played in the University there

Is is practical to hold professional events at Universities? They still play at UCLA, don't they? Anywhere else?

not sure how well a college campus stacks up for providing adequate player facilities. Demands for and standards expected for that type of stuff has probably gone up for the players

 

[WCT]

because of all the aces John serves (aces and service winners not being counted as serve-volley or net points)

John actually serve-volleyed considerably more than Pat

Whoops, I missed all those aces. What is your criteria for a service winner? They barely touch the ball with the racket? How weak does the attempt at a return have to be to qualify?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

imagining Jimbo's feelings if he'd lost to li'l Mac is funnier to me

Reminds me of Agassi grousing that the guy he lost his very last match to was a guy called B.Becker.

 

[marc45]

I wonder why? I'd think Chicago would be a GREAT town for an indoor tennis event.
Feels like the men's tour has been gutted, frankly.
So many events, some smaller, granted, have simply vanished into thin air.
someone should do an analysis of that.

Obviously, PMAC should have won that USO match vs. Jimmy...but the old lion still had some roar....it was a pretty impressive win down the stretch. I was more impressed with that than the Krickstein match in many ways.

I agree about Chicago, great sports town...believe there was talk some years back about Chicago replacing Cinci....Cinci has had to hold on for many years until they finally beat Charlotte down and now have a long-term contract with many improvements announced just this week

 

[Waspsting]

Whoops, I missed all those aces. What is your criteria for a service winner? They barely touch the ball with the racket? How weak does the attempt at a return have to be to qualify?

To me, a service winner is

- completely unreturnable, but returner got a reasonable racquet on ball
- returner got nowhere near to returning it

If returner just nicks the ball - the kind of thing you probably wouldn't notice without audio - I'll mark that a non-clean ace

I don't like the idea of service winners because it doesn't correspond to anything in play
- aces correspond to winners
- non-clean aces to non-clean winners (both very rare)
- Return FEs/UEs to FEs/UEs

.... what's the 'service winner' equivalent to something in play? Informally (as in, not marked in stats), what I call 'flagrantly forced errors'... the kind of ball guy had no chance getting back in play but got a decent racquet on

But nobody marks 'flagrant forced error', but they do mark 'service winner'. They used to mark 'flagrant forced errors' as 'winners' on judgement... that's gone the way of the dodo, but 'service winners' has remained. Which is ok since serve is a uniquely powerful shot, but it leaves an asymmetry in stats taking across different areas of the game

Very rarely, you'll see a guy get an unreturnable serve almost back... maybe he skies it and it lands a foot inside his court. I'll usually exclude those from service winners too. If serve being completely unreturnable is contingent on returner moving around or standing in unorthodox position (e.g. inside-court or particularly wide), I'll exclude those too

I tend not to mark service winners to balls that are hit forward at least

I try to minimize number of service winners I give behind logic of if guy got racquet on ball, it was conceivably returnable (whether he got close to doing so or not)

The alternative is to mark it based on how close returner got to returning ball... but that might be based on returners shot or the serve itself. I want to keep it about the quality of the serve alone... factoring in returners effort opens up a degree of subjectivity that's too much for my liking and I prefer leaving those in forced error, with obvious understanding that some FEs are more forced than others

How do you do it?

 

[WCT]

I don't keep stats in nearly the same detail as you. I don't even keep that stat. I only have unreturned serves, aces and double faults. If I did keep it, I think it would be a serve that they got their racket on, but not any sort of even semi decent swing on. It would not be a return that was anywhere close to being in play.

 

[WCT]

because of all the aces John serves (aces and service winners not being counted as serve-volley or net points)

John actually serve-volleyed considerably more than Pat



It was played in the University there

Is is practical to hold professional events at Universities? They still play at UCLA, don't they? Anywhere else?

not sure how well a college campus stacks up for providing adequate player facilities. Demands for and standards expected for that type of stuff has probably gone up for the players

I did some research on this venue. It was played in a pavilion. It was new, built in 1982. Hosted numerous sporting events and concerts. Seating capacity was smaller. 8-10 thousand depending on the event.

That 8 man special event from the early 80s was played in the Rosemont Horizon. That was a big arena. All the bigger events didn't have large venues, though. The US National Indoors was played at the Memphis racket club. Seated 5000.

None of this explains what happened to the tournament. One would think they'd like a city as large as Chicago hosting a tournament.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Silverware guaranteed for the mcenroe clan, but of course it was the williams who would have a proper duopoloy in years to come.

Indeed.

 

[Waspsting]

If I did keep it, I think it would be a serve that they got their racket on, but not any sort of even semi decent swing on. It would not be a return that was anywhere close to being in play.

That's sort of stock definition

Like I said, I dislike the the whole idea, and would cheerfully do away with the whole thing

Main reason I haven't is because of these serve-volley situations

From rallies, when an approach shot draws an error it can be for 2 reasons
a) guy coming on his way or at net shapes the error makers shot - hence, net point
b) the approach shot was so strong it'd draw the error regardless of approach or not - in which case, I don't mark it a net point

Extended that principale to excluding very, very hard forced return errors from serve-volley points by moving them over to 'service winners' instead

 

[WCT]

That's sort of stock definition

Like I said, I dislike the the whole idea, and would cheerfully do away with the whole thing

Main reason I haven't is because of these serve-volley situations

From rallies, when an approach shot draws an error it can be for 2 reasons
a) guy coming on his way or at net shapes the error makers shot - hence, net point
b) the approach shot was so strong it'd draw the error regardless of approach or not - in which case, I don't mark it a net point

Extended that principale to excluding very, very hard forced return errors from serve-volley points by moving them over to 'service winners' instead

I'm surprised to see this take on approach shots from you. Only because it should result in my having more net points than you, but in general I don't. For me, it is a net point whether the other player might have been likely to draw an error with the quality of the approach. The only exception is them just nicking th ball or a VERY weak attempt at a pass. I mean like goes sideways. If they can get that pass hit with any degree of forecefullness towards the net I count it as a net point. I have had very few non outright winner approaches that I haven't counted as net points.

Again, I'm surprised because we are only talking Connors matches here. And since he is known for very forceful, penetrating approaches I would think your methodology might have matches where I have him with more net points than you.

 

[bigjimbofan]

Here are the highlights. The Mac daddy was thrilled to watch his sons play that final.