Match Stats/Report - Kuerten vs Safin, Hamburg final, 2000

[Waspsting]

Gustavo Kuerten beat Marat Safin 6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6(3) in the Hamburg final, 2000 on clay

With the title, Kuerten completed the set of clay Masters titles, having previously won Monte Carlo and Rome in '99 and he would follow up soon after with his second French Open. Safin would go onto win his first Masters at Canadian Open and first Slam at the US Open later in the year. The two would compete for the year end number 1 position at the Year End Championship at end of the year, with Kuerten claiming it by winning the title

Kuerten won 178 points (including 1 point penalty), Safin 164

Serve Stats
Kuerten...
- 1st serve percentage (86/165) 52%
- 1st serve points won (64/86) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (41/79) 52%
- Aces 7 (1 not clean), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/165) 23%

Safin...
- 1st serve percentage (93/176) 53%
- 1st serve points won (65/93) 70%
- 2nd serve points won (39/83) 47%
- Aces 13
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/176) 22%

Serve Patterns
Kuerten served...
- to FH 20%
- to BH 71%
- to Body 9%

Safin served...
- to FH 22%
- to BH 73%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Kuerten made...
- 136 (47 FH, 89 BH), including 19 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 3 Winner (2 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 12 Unforced (4 FH, 8 BH)
- 13 Forced (4 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (136/174) 78%

Safin made...
- 126 (29 FH, 97 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 30 Errors, comprising...
- 16 Unforced (1 FH, 15 BH)
- 14 Forced (5 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (126/164) 77%

Break Points
Kuerten 7/11 (9 games)... 1/1 (1 game) was a point penalty
Safin 7/11 (9 games)

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Kuerten 44 (18 FH, 12 BH, 5 FHV, 6 BHV, 3 OH)
Safin 44 (16 FH, 10 BH, 6 FHV, 8 BHV, 4 OH)

Kuerten's FHs - 9 cc (3 passes), 4 dtl (2 returns - 1 runaround, 1 at net), 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 longline at net and 2 drop shots (1 at net)
- BHs - 5 cc passes (1 return), 4 dtl, 1 longline/inside-out pass and 2 drop shots

- 1 FHV was a swinging dtl

Safin's FHs - 5 cc (1 pass, 1 at net), 3 dtl, 4 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc and 2 drop shots (1 at net)
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 2 dtl (1 return), 2 inside-out (1 pass), 3 drop shots, 1 running-down-drop-shot cc pass at net and 1 net chord dribbler

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley FHV

- 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Kuerten 81
- 54 Unforced (20 FH, 29 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 FH at net, 1 BH at net & 1 FHV lob
- 27 Forced (12 FH, 11 BH, 3 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.7

Safin 94
- 70 Unforced (39 FH, 25 BH, 4 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 Point Penalty)... with 1 FH at net & 1 swinging FHV
- 24 Forced (9 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 4 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 3 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.5

(Note 0: Safin's Point Penalty UE has been excluded from his Unforced Error Forcefulness Index)

(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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Kuerten was...
- 36/54 (67%) at net, including...
- 2/4 (50%) serve-volleying, all 2nd serves
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 2/3 (67%) forced back/retreated

Safin was...
- 45/76 (59%) at net, including...
- 1/2 serve-volleying, both 1st serves
---
- 1/6 (17%) forced back

Match Report
Meat & potatoes clay match of baseline rallying, livened up a bit by drop shots (particularly by Kuerten) and net play (especially by Safin). Kuerten has better of things by an indecisive bit

Very even encounter too, with little fluctuation in who has better of action at any given time. Towards the end, it's Safin

After going up a break at start of 5th set, Guga calls for trainer. According to commentary, he's "cramping all over". From then on, he semi-tanks return games, his movement on the return shot itself drops significantly (which brings home how efficient it had been earlier) and he remains standing at changeovers. Still, he moves just fine in rallies with no more than the natural slight decline that comes with playing over 3 hours of challenging baseline tennis. He's a little more aggressive with his serve and shot choices. Emphasis on 'little'

Safin though is clearly the fresher, stronger player in last set. Without outstripping or leaving Guga in his dust. In other words, action is much like rest of match - 1 player with slight advantage amidst essential equality

Safin eventually snatches break back and has 0-30 and a 2nd serve to look at as Guga serves to send match into tiebreaker

Guga holds and couple of loose attacking errors from his opponent gives him the 'breaker and the match

Prior to that, match long action is even keeled. Normal, dual winged, point building rallies. Roughly even. When 1 or the other has better of action, it isn't by much

Both players use drop shots to attack (and approach behind), including drop volleys. Guga does more of it and at times, overdoes it to point of predictability.

Safin prefers to approach behind orthodox, hard hit groundies by contrast. Guga does too, but goes with drop shots more often

From back, Safin is usually more powerful of shot, Guga more consistent. Rarely does Safin's power threaten to be overwhelming though. At most, it's mild 'beat-down' play. It's at least, a step beyond outright passive, just-keeping-ball-in-play

Occasional forays into attacking shotmaking by both players. Guga a little more often. Fails as often as not

Guga usually further behind baseline of court position. No clear lead or reactive partner in the rallies

In short -

- normal clay court tennis with some drop shots and net play thrown in

- near equal between 2 players at all times, and just small advantages whenever either gains ascendancy temporarily

It's come out very nicely in stats. Stats can sometimes be deceptive. Not here. Very close, similar of style, and Guga a touch better

Points won - Guga 178, Saf 164
Points served - Guga 165, Saf 176
Break points - both 7/11 (9 games)... [Safin incurred point penalty down break point)

With break points and the number of games in them identical, points won and points served are pointing to Guga on average holding serve just a bit easier. Just a bit mind you - the points served discrepancy is due to 1 outlier 16 point game that Saf ends up holding

Double faults - Guga 1, Saf 2
Unretunred rates - Guga 23%, Saf 22%

Good job by both to keep the doubles down to minimum. There are significnat differences in the breakdown of the unreturneds, which we'll get to in a bit

Winners - both 44
Errors Forced - Guga 24, Saf 27

Amazing coincidence in the winners. Even the breakdowns are very similar - Guga +2 on FH, +2 on BH and Saf +4 on volleys/OHs

Which leaves...

UEs - Guga 54, Saf 70

breaking down further, the BHs are similar (Saf has 4 fewer), volleys are dead equal, leaving...

FH UEs - Guga 20, Saf 39

And there's your match, basically. Guga more secure off the FH. Its usually the way on clay that consistency of ground (i.e. who makes fewer UEs) is biggest determinant of result. Its rare for it to come out so perfectly clear - with everything else virtually equal, leaving just 1 significant difference to look at

 

[Waspsting]

Other Differences
Unreturned rates are near identical but there is a slight difference in how each players is made up

Proporiton of unreturnable serves (aces and service winners), forced return errors and unforced return errors in each players unreturned serves

- Aces/Service Winners - Guga 21%, Saf 34%
- Errors forced - Guga 37%, Saf 34%
- UEs drawn - Guga 42%, Saf 32%

The little black mark here goes against Saf's returning consistency. Neither player serves with particular aggression, but Saf's is the stronger. Signficant number of routine return misses by Saf. Guga's UEs tend to be a little bit tougher by contrast (as he's facing bigger serve, as also hinted at by Saf's 13-8 lead in unreturnables)

Net points read - Guga 36/54 at 67%, Saf 45/76 at 59%

Those numbers are complicated by forced approaches and approaches behind drop shots. In orthodox, coming to net to volley while opponent is on baseline, Saf is the better on the volley. His finishing on the volley is almost perfect. Pete Sampras doesn't finish so cleanly. Not only does he look a natural, you might even wonder if he isn't an out and out net player or 100% serve-volleyer to see him. He's tested on the low volley too and rarely misses. Just 2 'volley' FEs (Guga has 4)

Guga isn't bad either, but about half his volleying comes from drop shot related points (mostly, but not entirely he being the one to play the first drop shot). He also takes to playing a lot of drop volleys

All the drop shotting complicates interpretation of net numbers in assessing each players net game. Volleying winners, FEs and even UEs feature in net-to-net situations springing from drop shots

Guga's use of drop shots to such an extent speaks to his inability or disinclination to go in for shot making from the back. In general, his favoured way to attack, with drop shots thrown in to supplement it. He's slightly overpowered from the back, but not to extent of being pushed on defensive that he has no chance to unload with is shots. Just doesn't go that route

Saf's greater hitting and orthodox, power baselining and net approaches way is more obviously attacking than Guga's drop shots, but on whole, there's little in who is the more aggressive player too

Breakdown of UEs -
- Neutral - Guga 23, Saf 37
- Attacking - Guga 15, Saf 12
- Winner attempts - Guga 16, Saf 20

Collapsing attacking and winner attempts categories - virtually even with Guga 31, Saf 32.
And Guga with big lead in basic consistency.
And most of those being FHs (where UEs read Guga 20, Saf 39)
And Saf hitting harder on the average groundstroke

And that's the difference in play - broken down almost like controlled science experiment

Difference in play isn't the same things as the result though. As stated at start, Saf has better prospects, even when down a break, in the 5th set. The outcome hinges on a few points and could obviosly go either way, but Guga does have slightly better of action and its all down to his basic consistency advantage on the FH

Match Progression
Guga has much better of first set - losing 4 points in his 5 holds. Saf is broken once and survives a 16 point hold. Guga serves 24 points, Saf 43 in the set

Both players with low in count - Guga serves at 42% in, Saf 37%. Saf struggles to make regulation returns. Saf's FH is the culprit and breaks down in longer rallies, and he's not particularly strong in defence. He smartly enough, comes to a net to compensate

Just the 1 break to 15, featuring 4 Saf FH UEs.

Guga asks for trainer before 2nd set gets underway, who massages his leg. According to commentary, he's got a problem with his hamstring

Guga carries on where he left off and breaks early and continues to hold comfortably. Some smart changes by Saf. He eases back on the power of his first serves, gets a lot more in and reaps benefits when Guga starts missing makeable returns. After going down break, Saf trifles with beat-down strong groundies but Guga holds up. Saf tones it down accordingly to more keep-the-ball-in-court neutral hitting

It works - and Saf reels of last 4 games to take the set. Guga's also overdoing the drop shotting tricks helps. Saf brings up set point with a a FH inside-in winner out of regulation position, which stands out for being well outside the way he's playing at the time. 7-5 and match leveled

Lot of brains shown by Saf in this set. Amidst almost comical expressions of frustration

3rd set continues with orthodox, baseline tennis and Guga is more consistent. Down 0-40 and having made 2 FH UEs, Saf smacks a ball out of the stadium and is docked a point. He'd earlier been given a warning for destroying his racquet after the first set

Apparently flustered, Saf plays another horrendous game to be broken again (3 FH and 1 FHV UEs - all winner attempts). He responds by hitting harder, and grabs a break back before Guga serves it out second time of asking. There are fewer drop shots and less attacking dtl or sharply angled cc shots in this set than earlier

4th set is the livliest of the match. Both players make most returns, there's plenty of drop shots/volleys, Safin's FH dtl does damage and he comes to net a fair bit. A break to end it by Saf as he outhits Guga, who is slowing down some

Guga breaks too open the decider - and calls for the trainer. Apparently, he's "cramping all over". Thereafter, he serves bigger, uses even more drop shots but isn't overly aggressive in his power shots. On return, he pseudo-tanks games. Saf is comforably more powerful hitter and also turns to using more drop shots and approaches. He grabs the break back to level at 3-3 and looks much the stronger player

Guga's down 0-30 and down to his second serve in last normal game of match, but wins a drop shot related point before finishing the game with a third ball FH cc winner

Its Safin who uses drop shots to move ahead 2-1 in the 'breaker, but missing an easy, putaway FHV puts things back on serve. Guga wins points starting with a drop shot and outlasting Saf for BH UE before Saf overpowers him to come in and dispathc a FHV to put things back on serve

The crucial miss is Saf's winner attempt FH inside-out the point after, and Guga makes it a double mini-break by taking charge with a FH dtl and swatting a away a swinging FHV, before throwing down his sole service winner to end the match

Summing up, a very even and even keeled match. Action is orthodox baseline rallies - neither player attacks unduly, especially by their own norms - and the hitting is dual winged and somewhere in between 'power-baselining' and 'keeping-ball-in-court' style, closer to the former. Attacking variation comes up with drop shot plays (Kuerten the main user) and approaching net (Safin the main user), but both players do some of both

Safin with room for improvement on the return, where he makes more unnecessary errors than his opponent. And Kuerten's FH being a lot more steady is biggest difference in play

On the whole, Kuerten has slightly better of play but at 11th hour, its Safin who's stronger with his opponent physically weakening after a 3+ hour grind. Couple of poor attacking misses by Safin push the result Kuerten's way in the final set tiebreak