Match Stats/Report - Kuerten vs Rafter, Rome final, 1999

[Waspsting]

Gustavo Kuerten beat Pat Rafter 6-4, 7-5, 7-6(6) in the Rome final, 1999 on clay

It was Kuerten’s only title at the event and he’d recently won the Monte Carlos title. Rafter would have become world #1 had he won this match

Kuerten won 129 points, Rafter 110

Rafter serve-volleyed off almost all first serves and more than half the time off seconds

Serve Stats
Kuerten...
- 1st serve percentage (62/105) 59%
- 1st serve points won (49/62) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (28/43) 65%
- Aces 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (31/105) 30%

Rafter...
- 1st serve percentage (91/134) 68%
- 1st serve points won (59/91) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (23/43) 53%
- Aces 4
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (37/134) 28%

Serve Patterns
Kuerten served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 2%

Rafter served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 51%
- to Body 11%

Return Stats
Kuerten made...
- 94 (34 FH, 60 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 13 Winners (4 FH, 9 BH)
- 33 Errors, all forced...
- 33 Forced (17 FH, 16 BH)
- Return Rate (94/131) 72%

Rafter made...
- 74 (21 FH, 53 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 19 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 23 Errors, comprising...
- 13 Unforced (8 FH, 5 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 2 return-approach attempts
- 10 Forced (8 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (74/105) 70%

Break Points
Kuerten 4/16 (9 games)
Rafter 2/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Kuerten 45 (16 FH, 25 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
Rafter 30 (5 FH, 6 BH, 7 FHV, 5 BHV, 6 OH, 1 BHOH)

Kuerten had 26 passes - 12 returns (4 FH, 8 BH) & 14 regular (4 FH, 10 BH)
- FH returns - 3 cc, 1 inside-out
- BH returns - 2 cc, 2 dtl, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 3 cc (1 at net), 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 4 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-out, 1 longline, 1 lob,

- regular (non-pass) FHs -2 cc (1 at net), 1 dtl, 4 inside-out, 1 longline at net
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 5 dtl (1 return), 1 drop shot

- 1 from a return-approach points, a FHV

Rafter had 17 from serve-volley points
- 9 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 2 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 OH)
- 5 third 'volleys' (1 FHV, 2 OH, 1 BHOH, 1 FH at net)... the FH at net was also a pass
- 1 fourth volley (1 FHV)

- 3 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

- FHs - 2 cc (1 pass), 1 running-down-drop-shot cc pass at net
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 1 dtl pass, 1 drop shot, 2 running-down-drop-shot at net (1 cc pass, 1 drop shot), 1 net chord dribbler return

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Kuerten 43
- 16 Unforced (5 FH, 8 BH, 3 BHV)... with 1 BH pass attempt & 1 BHV was a lob
- 27 Forced (11 FH, 12 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 Tweener)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot (non-net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 55

Rafter 50
- 22 Unforced (4 FH, 8 BH, 4 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)
- 28 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 3 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV, 4 BH1/2V, 1 BHOH, 1 Back-to-Net)... with 1 FH at net (a pass attempt), 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net, 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net, 1 BHV was played to ball on FH side of body & 1 BH1/2V can reasonably be called a BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.6

(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
Kuerten was...
- 17/31 (55%) at net, including...
- 0/2 serve-volleying, comprising...
- 0/1 off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Rafter was...
- 80/138 (58%) at net, including...
- 66/105 (63%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 52/81 (64%) off 1st serve and..
- 14/24 (58%) off 2nd serve
---
- 6/19 (32%) return-approaching
- 1/4 (25%) forced back

Match Report
Top class showing from Kuerten, particularly passing and especially off the BH (including the return). Scoreline being relatively close for a straight setter is a little flattering to Rafter - who serve-volleys regularly and otherwise seeks net, including via chip-charge returning - his serve isn’t effective, he doesn’t volley particularly well (while being faced with a terrific passing showing), doesn’t return too well and is outgunned from the baseline. This could easily be a 3, 3 & 4 job. Court is low of bounce, but typically slow

Guga wins 54.0% of the points, serving just 43.4% of them. And break point figures are even more telling -
- Guga 4/16 (9 games), Rafter 2/4 (3 games)

Guga with 45 winners and just 43 errors (16 UE, 27 FE) at 1.29 winners per game. Only 4 of those winners are volleys/OHs, while there’s a whopping 26 passes. Rafter has 19 volley/OH ones to compare
Guga with 11 return-pass winners. Rafter has 9 first ‘volley’ winners
Guga with 23 ground FEs (almost all of them passes). Rafter has 10 UEs and 15 FEs on the ‘volley’

Amidst regular serve-volleying, the above numbers are liable to see Rafter steamrolled, with his freebie cushion needing to be huge to make up for his trailing in so many ways. Its 28% - nothing to sneeze at it, but nowhere near good enough to override how badly the volley-pass contest goes for him. For starters, its less than Guga’s 30%, which has no serve-volley support to bolster it

Guga doesn’t even appear to be straining on the return against the regular serve-volleying. Its not a make-some-miss-some while going-after-everything showing. More like just clinically hitting the ball wherever he wants. Rafter (not wisely) serve majority to BH and and Guga’s return passing winners off that wing comprise -

- 2 cc, 2 dtl, 3 inside-out and 1 inside-in (on top of a non-pass dtl), with plenty of difficult and error forcing shots in all the same directions too

With all that in mind, Rafter’s done very well or been very lucky that scoreline looks tough. The break point numbers and large discrepancy in points served being best indicator of how hard a time he’s had keeping it so. In this case, its probably very lucky. He doesn’t up his game at crucial times and Guga’s doesn’t drop… just seems to be that the percentages fall in line with Guga missing the return or the pass at such times fairly often

Rafter’s serve game
Rafter mostly serve-volleys. Virtually all the time at the start and then less and less as his serve gets more and more punished

Off first serve, serve-volleys 93% of the time, winning 64%
Not serve-volleying, 7% (just 6 times), winning 50%

Off second serve, serve-volleys 60% of the time, winning 58%
Not serve-volleying, 40%, winning 56%

Small 4 aces and 3 double faults to go with that
The second serve numbers are impressive, but firsts aren’t. Essentially, Guga returns both serves equally well. First serve isn’t doing Rafter much good

He rarely draws hard forced errors. If he weren’t serve-volleying and Guga were only looking to put returns in play, return rate of 80-85% might be on the card. As is, Guga returns at 72%, with most of his 33 return errors (all are FEs, including a second return Rafter wasn’t serve-volleying behind) a product of the serve-volleying that promises to dispatch weak returns

In general, 65% return rate with typical return firmly around net high is good to get breaks. Guga returning considerably higher than that and much, much more damagingly than ‘firmly around net high’ - 12 winners and about the same number of hard forced volleying errors drawn by the return, and rarely does Rafter get an easy volley

Not particularly good volleying by Rafter too. He doesn’t get many easy ones, but inevitably there is some routine, net high stuff. He tends not to place these well. To the side, where Guga can reach them without rush and take a shot on the pass

As for the difficult stuff (some combo of low and/or wide), Rafter faces so much of this that it’d be impossible to not lose a whole bunch of points no matter how good he was at putting them in play. He’s not bad, but there’s just too many of them raining down for comfort

Just above two points make Rafter’s holding prospects ‘iffy. Beyond that is the small matter of 26 passing winners - almost every one of them perfect, unanswerable

He also errs in serving as much as he does to BH. Its standard operating procedure, though Guga would be a guy against who one would consider deviating from beaten path on

Serves 51% to BH, 38% to FH, but FH has 17 errors to 16 from BH
12% of FH returns are winners, to 13% of BHs

Beyond numbers, BH seems to be the side placing the ball wider and getting returns in low more often. Nor is there much change to pattern of BH being stronger return side. Right from get go it’s the case. First game of match is a break to love with 2 BH return winners (also, a flagrantly forced half-volley error by the BH return). More of the same in next game too, though Rafter manages to hold after saving 2 break points

To be clear, Guga’s FH return is very good too, but not as good as the BH - and Rafter’s not done well to keep going to the BH

Guga’s passing is outstanding, without much need for further analysis. Precision placement is more prominent in its effectiveness than pure power. And he has great variety of direction, especially of the BH, where Rafter serves and volleys bulk too

 

[Waspsting]

Kuerten’s serve game
For starters, Guga has 30% unreturned rate. 13/23 return errors he draws have been marked UEs. Good, healthy serve by Guga (he’s got 8 aces), but not 30% freebies on this slow clay good. That’s largely down to Rafter not returning well

Guga’s erred in same way Rafter has in not serving to FH more. Not much reason for him to as he holds comfortably, but no question Rafter’s FH return is a lot shakier than BH

Guga directs 32% to FH, 66% to BH. But draws 13 FH errors (including 8/10 FEs) to just 10 BHs (and that’s counting 3 runaround FHs as BHs). Rafter at times a bit slow to move for FH returns, which suggests that surprise element does have a hand in the shot not holding up

Even so, he’s made just 18 FH returns (not counting 3 runaround FHs), while making 13 errors (again, not counting 3 runaround FHs)… surprise element, no surprise element, any way you slice it, that’s an awful showing on the FH return by Rafter on a slow clay court

Guga draws fair few weak returns and likes to press home his advantage from them. Plenty of winners from the back, but that’s not his first line of attack. Likes to come to net after big groundstroke to finish and also indulges with drop shots from well up the court

Ground UE figures are all but identical
- FHs - Guga 5, Rafter 4
- BHs - both 8 (1 of Guga’s is a pass)

… but Guga only has 3 neutral UEs to Rafter’s 8

Baseline to baseline winners - Guga 13, Rafter 2
Still, Guga with large 11 winner attempt UEs (he has 3 volley UEs), so he’s paid a price for those beautiful winners from the back. On FH, inside-out stars with 4, on the BH, its dtl that has 5 (1 return)

Guga’s UEFI of 55 is probably the highest I’ve seen for a baseline showing. 3 neutrals, 2 attacking and 11 winner attempts

In conjunction with 30% freebies, he does whatever he likes from the back. Rafter’s BH is shakey and prone to giving up errors. Guga can overpower and come in. Guga can push Rafter back and go for winner from the back. He probably can, but rarely goes for the winner from out of nowhere. He doesn’t have to - as rally progresses, his position in it improves

Finally, there’s Rafter’s return-approaching. He wins just 6/19 on the play (+ 2 errors trying)

They’re not bad returns. Gets them deep, but Guga’s at his absolute best on the pass in this situation and over and over again nails passing winners. Nor are they all just chip-charges. Odd rip-charge in their too - Guga still makes the passes

Of the 2 breaks Rafter scores, 1 features 3 consecutive chip-charges return points won. So other than that little block, Rafter’s 3/16 on the play - and they’re good approach shots. Amazing stuff from Guga on the pass against the return-approaching of Rafter

Gist - lot of freebies (mostly discredit Rafter’s returning consistency) and Guga commanding baseline action as he wants - coming in early, gaining ascendancy and going for power winners or drop shots afterwards or even just outlasting his opponent. And Rafter’s chip-charge returns are met by the best passing of the match, which is saying a lot because Guga’s passing in all situations is outstanding

Match Progression
High quality first set in terms of returner getting into games. Rafter serve-volleys virtually always and Guga regularly hits winning returns. On flip side, Guga’s service games go to deuce 3 times and he’s broken once when it doesn’t (on top of a love serve-out)

Guga serves 36 points in the set, to Rafter’s 29 points, but is always ahead after breaking to love to start the match (2 BH return pass winners - inside-out and dtl - plus a wide BH1/2V forced error)

Rafter wins his first return point of the match with a chip-charge and BHV winner and has 2 break points brought up with another net point and Guga missing an attacking FH. Couple of aces and couple of winners (third ball BH drop shot and neat drop FHV) see Guga through. He’s got break points next game with more terrific returns, but Rafter comes through to hold

Guga breaks again for 4-1 with still more great returns. He takes net on the serve-out but some strong wide passing by Rafter thwarts him to get one of the breaks back. Guga serves out to love second time of asking, with a couple of lovely BH winners (third ball dtl and inside-out pass against a chip-charge)

Guga ups the ante still more in second set with a flurry of winning passes off both sides, both returning and on his service games. Game 5 is particularly thrilling, lasts 20 points but Rafter manages to come away with the hold having saved 4 break points

Rafter takes a tumble in the game and after rinsing himself courtside, goes off court for a full change, which seems excessive. Later in match when Guga takes a similar fall and is left similarly dirty, he just rinses himself briefly and continues with the game

Pressure tells and Guga breaks for 4-3 lead. After this, Rafter starts staying back off serves now and then. Having taken Guga to a 10 point hold, he again breaks with Guga serving for the set. 30-15 down, he wins 3 chip-charge points in a row to level at 5-5

No matter, as Guga breaks right back in a game where Rafter doesn’t serve-volley half the time but comes to net from rallies. It’s the serve-volley points that are punished with top quality returns and passes yet again to gain the break

Complete ease in holding for Guga in the third set. He loses 3/34 service points in the set (including the tiebreak), while a by now fairly often staying back Rafter still gets the treatment. Rafter has to save 4 break points across 3 games to reach the tiebreak. He serves 49 points for his 6 holds to Guga’s 27

Even so, tiebreak proves to be up for grabs, though there ends up being just 1 mini-break in it. Rafter gets a good chip-charge return off early, but Guga nails BH dtl pass winner. 2 crucial points are Rafter missing an approach shot and a sitter of a FHV after another chip-charge return

Guga finally grabs the necessary mini with a wide BH inside-out return pass that forces a FHV error to go up 7-6. On match point, a big BH cc gives him control of point, and he’s at net to putaway a line BHV winner to end things

Summing up, a great showing from Kuerten who feeds the serve-volleying Rafter a regular diet of return winners and otherwise near impossible volleys. On top of that, Rafter doesn’t even volley the limited routine stuff he’s faced with too well in terms of placement

Meanwhile, Rafter’s returning against hefty serves leaves much to be desired and when he chip-charges the second shot well, is met by even better, more precise passing than he faces when serve-volleying
On top of all that, Kuerten commands baseline rallies by pushing Rafter around, outlasting him or coming to net to finish or with back court winners to corners

All this has potential to be a mismatch or a thrashing and its more to the point that Rafter’s a bit lucky to keep it from being so than he’s done well to achieve that distinction