Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Becker, Masters final 1986

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Boris Becker 6-4 6-4 6-4 in the final of the Masters (Year End Championship/ World Tour Final) 1986 on carpet

It was Lendl's 4th Masters title and 7th final in a row. The match itself was a repeat of the previous years https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ecker-masters-final1985.611378/#post-12067779

Lendl won 107 points, Becker 78


Serve Stats
Lendl....
- 1st serve percentage (45/73) 62%
- 1st serve points won (38/45) 84%
- 2nd serve points won (23/28) 82%
- Aces 8, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/73) 34%

Becker. ...
- 1st serve percentage (58/112) 52%
- 1st serve points won (45/58) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (21/54) 39%
- Aces 8, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (35/112) 31%



Serve Pattern
Lendl served...
- to FH 39%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 6%

Becker served...
- to FH 29%
- to BH 69%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 73 (21 FH, 52 BH), including 1 chip-charge
- 5 Winners (1 FH, 4 BH)
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1BH)
- 23 Forced (5 FH, 18 BH)
- Return Rate (73/108) 68%

Becker made...
- 47 (16 FH, 31 BH), including 1 runaround FH and 5 chip-charges (1 FH, 4 BH)
- 16 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (1 FH, 3 BH), including 1 runaround FH and 1 chip-charge attempt
- 12 Forced (9 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (47/72) 65%


Break Points
Lendl 3/11 (6 games)
Becker 0

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 30 (12 FH, 13 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)
Becker 15 (2 FH, 1 BH, 3 FHV, 6 BHV, 3 OH)

Lendl had 18 passes (7 FH, 11 BH)

- breakdown of FH passes (3 cc, 3 i-o, 1 i-i). 2/3 of the cc's were on the run and 1 of the inside-outs was from just behind the service line

- breakdown of BH passes (2 cc, 5 dtl, 2 i-o) + 1 at net and 1 dtl/i-o. This includes 4 return winners (2 dtl, 2 inside-out) all off 2nd serves

- 5 non-pass FHs are cc, i-o, longline down the middle of the court, inside-in return and a shot almost around the net post

- 2 non-pass BHs are a cc and a dtl from just behind the service line

- the BHV was a drop volley off a chip-charge return. 1 FHV was played with both players at net, the other was close to an OH

Becker had 1 pass - FH dtl

- 1 other FH dtl hit just behind the service line

- the BH was very sharply angled cc and I'm not sure if it was clean but would include it as a judgement call if it weren't

- 4/6 BHVs were off S/V points - 2 first volleys, 2 second volleys

- 1/3 FHVs were off S/V points, a first volley. Another was to a high ball


Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Lendl 27
- Unforced 7 (4 FH, 2 BH, 1 BHV)
- Forced 20 (5 FH, 13 BH, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.4

Becker 48
- Unforced 33 (11 FH, 18 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Forced 15 (4 FH, 7 BH, 4 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.3

[Note: The Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is a measure of how forceful the average UE was.

20 is minimum (defensive), 60 is maximum (aggressive). 40 is neutral]

(Note 2: All half-volleys refer to such shots played at net)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was 12/18 (67%) at net, including 1/2 serve-volleying and 1/1 chip-charge returning

He was 0/1 when forced back from net

Becker was 38/66 (58%) at net, including 20/32 (63%) serve-volleying - 16/22 (73%) off 1st serves, 4/10 (40%) off 2nd - and 2/5 chip-charge returning

He was 1/1 when forced back from net




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Match Report
The scoreline is flattering to Boris Becker... this was an out and out thrashing. Lendl held easily throughout - he didn't face a break point and won 82% points on his second serve to go with 84% on the first while it seemed just a matter of time before Becker was broken

In this case, Lendl serving 73 points to 112 for Becker is exactly reflective of what you'd think

Other than riding on his big first serve, Becker was completely outclassed. Unlike the previous year, he targetted Lendl's BH return but the Czech seemed very comfortable with that...not once did he runaround a BH return

Also unlike the previous year, Lendl wasn't single minded in sending everything to Boris' BH. Inevitably, there were who-blinks-first BH cc exchanges (many of them slicey ones) and though Becker's showing was better than in '85, he was still coming off second best

Still, Lendl was more open to testing the dangerous Becker FH. Lendl was as powerful and a lot more secure than his opponent on this wing too....and also able to redirect the action longline when necessary smoothly

Lendl was looking to end points with the first serve, and did a lot when he got it in. Becker couldn't attack the second serve much though and those points fell into standard baseline rallies. ... With Lendl superior in every way

Becker did go in for a few attacking chip-charge returns with moderate success, but Lendl was excellent on the pass all day and one can understand the Germans reluctance to overuse the manuver. Lendl himself pulled off a rare, but picture perfect chip-charge return, which he finished with a neat BHV drop

I was struck by how slow Becker's foot speed was. Charging the net, he's ambling/jogging to get there the way a player might when they know the serve is probably going for an ace.... but he was doing it at all times

Contrast with Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg, who are at the net in a flash

Final verdict - clinical from Lendl, below par from Becker to the point it wasn't a great match

 

[Moose Malloy]

I've only seen the espn broadcast(which was edited), didn't know there was a complete broadcast available. yet another example of how different carpet was compared to grass(at least in the 80s), you would never see Becker stay back on so many serves on grass in 1986. The game really changed a lot from the 80s to the 90s, Becker looks like he's twice as fast vs Sampras in their 90s indoor battles and is hitting so much harder than he did in these 80s masters matches(including that famous 88 final)

I'm always taking note of when players go an entire match without facing break point. I wonder if this is the only YEC final where the winner didn't face a bp. Don't know Feds numbers offhand.

Also per the LA Times, Lendl only faced one break point the entire tournament(was broken by Gomez)
Who knows if it is a tournament record(it's a shame how limited historical stats are)
But it's one of the most amazing feats I've heard of considering the era(a lot more breaks of serve back then)
I wonder how often players got to deuce on Lendl's serve that event, he must have been in the zone.

 

[fezer]

One of the best matches Lendl ever played. On the absolute peak of his powers.
Many said that this match should be the final for the complete season, who`s the real #1. Becker held a 3-1 h2h over the year vs Lendl and had won pretty comfortably the Wimbledon & Sidney finals. BTW there were no ranking points awarded in the Masters. So the rankings were already clear. But with another prestigious win, Becker could have been seen as let's say a co#1. Ivan let the racket do the talking and settled things straight vs still teenage Boris.
After that Lendl had his next peak year in 87 with RG, USO and Masters titles. Whereas Becker had his first slump with only 3 titles and one grandslamsemi (RG, losing to Wilander) in 87

 

[BringBackWood]

I've only seen the espn broadcast(which was edited), didn't know there was a complete broadcast available. yet another example of how different carpet was compared to grass(at least in the 80s), you would never see Becker stay back on so many serves on grass in 1986. The game really changed a lot from the 80s to the 90s, Becker looks like he's twice as fast vs Sampras in their 90s indoor battles and is hitting so much harder than he did in these 80s masters matches(including that famous 88 final)

I'm always taking note of when players go an entire match without facing break point. I wonder if this is the only YEC final where the winner didn't face a bp. Don't know Feds numbers offhand.

Also per the LA Times, Lendl only faced one break point the entire tournament(was broken by Gomez)
Who knows if it is a tournament record(it's a shame how limited historical stats are)
But it's one of the most amazing feats I've heard of considering the era(a lot more breaks of serve back then)
I wonder how often players got to deuce on Lendl's serve that event, he must have been in the zone.

How did rackets/strings evolve from the 80's to the 90's, or are you saying that players simply upped their games?

From a spectacle point of view I am finding the 80's possibly the best period, though I'm not enamoured by match up's like Becker vs Lendl. They didn't seem to produce great matches.

 

[Moose Malloy]

How did rackets/strings evolve from the 80's to the 90's, or are you saying that players simply upped their games?

From a spectacle point of view I am finding the 80's possibly the best period, though I'm not enamoured by match up's like Becker vs Lendl. They didn't seem to produce great matches.

I think players upped their games. I recall the 89 season vividly. Guys like Stolle, Drysdale, etc seemed rather taken aback by the way Courier, Sampras, Ivanisevic were playing, it was a whole new type of power. Becker was one of the few who could ramp up his own power game to even higher levels(and he got a heck of a lot fitter)

I recall an old tennis magazine saying that players circa 1992 were literally hitting twice as many aces as they were only a few years earlier.

 

[krosero]

A good report with some stats, emphasizing that it was one of Lendl's alltime serving performances:

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-09/sports/sp-1666_1_boris-becker

Wasps' stats show him actually beating Becker in unreturned rate (34% to 31%). How often has Lendl gone this high? Maybe on grass he's gone higher but this was not the fastest surface.

(Cliff Drysdale said that it was a “medium-paced” court on which it wasn’t easy to hit winners.)

Lendl even beat Becker in winning 1st serve points. Topped him slightly in aces, and 2 to 1 in non-service winners. Made fewer UE's too, as expected. He edged Becker in nearly everything (Becker has a lead in forcing non-return errors, 20-15). No wonder he had such a large lead in overall points, and it felt like a rout.

My strongest impression of the match was actually how well Lendl returned -- how well he neutralized Becker's serve. Especially with chip returns.


New York Times:

He was broken only once in winning all five matches and 13 sets in the Masters. Lendl lost only 60 points on serve, an average of 12 per match....

Lendl believed the key to the match was returning Becker’s serve, and he was right. Becker had nine aces and a number of service winners, but those figures probably would have been doubled against any other opponent. Lendl blocked the returns, keeping the ball in play, lulling Becker into a baseline game of chipping backhands and changing speeds on his topspin forehand.​

UPI:

Only once, in the third game of the final set, did Becker reach deuce on Lendl’s serve and, in the match, Lendl won 61 of 73 points on his serve.​

 

[krosero]

Serve Stats
Lendl....
- 1st serve percentage (45/73) 62%
- 1st serve points won (38/45) 84%
- 2nd serve points won (23/28) 82%

82% on second serves, that's why Becker didn't even sniff a break point.

At his peak Lendl was really tough on second serve. There were some later matches at Wimbledon where Becker punished Lendl's second serve, but I thought that was partly because Lendl served to Becker's (dangerous) backhand side so predictably in those matches.

Nine months after this Masters match, Lendl had a similar performance against McEnroe, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 in the USO qf. He was zoning in that match too, faced no break points. And look at his numbers on second serve:

1st serve % - 67
1st serve pts won % - 76.6
2nd serve pts won % - 78.6

He won 77% of all his service points against Mac, compared to 83.6% against Becker. Also topped Mac in unreturned percentage (38.7 to 36.8) - I seem to recall something about that being the only such instance we'd seen that happen.

Lendl in these years was at his absolute peak and it shows up in all his numbers.

 

[krosero]

I'm always taking note of when players go an entire match without facing break point. I wonder if this is the only YEC final where the winner didn't face a bp. Don't know Feds numbers offhand.

2003 YEC final (Houston) Fed faced no break points against Agassi. Don't know about his other YEC's.

 

[Waspsting]

I wonder how often players got to deuce on Lendl's serve that event, he must have been in the zone.

In this match, Becker did once

Becker led 0-15 a total of 4 times, and 15-30 once... that's as close to a break as he got

Lendl held to love 7 times

A similar Herculean feat for Lendl was winning the 1990 Queens title - dumping out McEnroe and Becker in the semis and finals - without dropping serve (not 100% sure about this)

Lendl... against McEnroe, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 in the USO (1987)... topped Mac in unreturned percentage (38.7 to 36.8) - I seem to recall something about that being the only such instance we'd seen that happen.

I've tracked one other, 1982 Masters final -

Lendl 26/80 @ 33%
McEnroe 27/95 @ 28%

and a near miss at USO 1985 -

Lendl 29/88 to McEnroe 30/88... but with Lendl serving 4 doubles to Mac's 1, he edges the return rate (returns made/non-double faults serves faced)

-----------

Putting together various parts of Lendl's game, I'm struck by the flexibility of his mental approach

Usually, guys with big serves have a game based on ending points quickly (be it at net or from the baseline), while guys with gentler serves tend to be more ready to out-rally or outlast their opponent

Lendl seems to transition seamlessly between the two

He uses his first serve as a killing weapon, just like Becker (w/ less S/V support). He does not hold back on it - and frequently has a sub-50% delivery as a result

But on 2nd serve, he seemingly alters his mindset to be ready to duke it out from the back patiently (or pass if necessary)

Its like Becker's mind and Wilander's coexisting without contradiction in him... plus an ability to attack relatively safely

Like Borg, percentage play and safety seem to be his mental comfort zone, but he's more willing and able to turn to aggressive if called for

 

[krosero]

In this match, Becker did once

Becker led 0-15 a total of 4 times, and 15-30 once... that's as close to a break as he got

Lendl held to love 7 times

A similar Herculean feat for Lendl was winning the 1990 Queens title - dumping out McEnroe and Becker in the semis and finals - without dropping serve (not 100% sure about this)



I've tracked one other, 1982 Masters final -

Lendl 26/80 @ 33%
McEnroe 27/95 @ 28%

and a near miss at USO 1985 -

Lendl 29/88 to McEnroe 30/88... but with Lendl serving 4 doubles to Mac's 1, he edges the return rate (returns made/non-double faults serves faced)

-----------

Putting together various parts of Lendl's game, I'm struck by the flexibility of his mental approach

Usually, guys with big serves have a game based on ending points quickly (be it at net or from the baseline), while guys with gentler serves tend to be more ready to out-rally or outlast their opponent

Lendl seems to transition seamlessly between the two

He uses his first serve as a killing weapon, just like Becker (w/ less S/V support). He does not hold back on it - and frequently has a sub-50% delivery as a result

But on 2nd serve, he seemingly alters his mindset to be ready to duke it out from the back patiently (or pass if necessary)

Its like Becker's mind and Wilander's coexisting without contradiction in him... plus an ability to attack relatively safely

Like Borg, percentage play and safety seem to be his mental comfort zone, but he's more willing and able to turn to aggressive if called for

Very interesting perspective and I basically agree. Funny about Becker and Wilander, those two along with Borg were my favorites back then, and I couldn't stand Lendl. Now I'd consider Lendl one of my favorites (but of course I'm not alone in warming up to Lendl many, many years later; he's viewed now far differently than he was then).

He did have a variety of weapons and gamestyles; and he was a hybrid, like Borg. He could rally all day on clay, and SV all day at Wimbledon. And he was doing the latter much better than the "unnatural volleyer" tag would suggest, as @WCT has been saying.

However, I never thought of Lendl as particularly flexible with his game plan, once a match was started. His gameplan itself could be complex (like playing vastly differently on 1st and 2nd serves as you said). But his approach was methodicalHe really should not have lost to Chang at the French, but Chang messed up the game plan, so to speak; Lendl couldn't quite adapt, couldn't quite get a grip on what was happening to him.

At Wimbledon he may have been too welded to the Big Game style of SVing on all serves, 1st and 2nd, come hell or highwater. And I thought against both Cash and Becker he served too often to the backhand, allowing those players to get into a groove.

Incidentally you've got Lendl getting a high percentage of first serves in against Becker in this Masters match, which is good to see. I posted a list once, showing that his first-serve percentage tended to be 50 or lower against baseliners who would not make him pay for missing his first serve (Connors, Wilander), but he would typically serve at 60 or higher against net-rushers like Mac, Edberg, Cash, Becker. Smart tactic, and this match fits right into the pattern.

 

[krosero]

AM’s for the two YEC finals, using Wasp's stats for both:

1986
Lendl: 30.27%
Becker: 14.59%

1985
Lendl: 21.97%
Becker: 6.36%

 

[krosero]

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Lendl 27
- Unforced 7 (4 FH, 2 BH, 1 BHV)
- Forced 20 (5 FH, 13 BH, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.4

Becker 48
- Unforced 33 (11 FH, 18 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Forced 15 (4 FH, 7 BH, 4 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.3

[Note: The Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is a measure of how forceful the average UE was.

20 is minimum (defensive), 60 is maximum (aggressive). 40 is neutral]

Interesting, I have not heard of this Index, how is it calculated?

 

[Waspsting]

Interesting, I have not heard of this Index, how is it calculated?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...erer-barcelona-r64-2000.609887/#post-12007015

"I've done stats for a few matches now and like to look at it as "painting a picture with numbers"

Now a picture is never as authentic as the real thing... but there are a couple of areas where the pictures that were emerging were more black & white than I'd like them to be in a world of colour

Unforced errors is one such area

Take a typical Roger Federer vs Novak Djokovic encounter and imagine they finish with similar number of UEs

If you know the players in question, you can probably make a reasonable picture of the play; Federer attacking probably and Djokovic counter-punching

If you don't know the players though... you're probably not getting an accurate picture of the play

To remedy this, I came up with this index

Unforced errors can be attacking shots, neutral rallying shots or even mildly defensive shots (too defensive and it'll tend to go into 'Forced Error' territory)

I classified each unforced error into one of these 3 categories and gave each category a numerical value

- 6 Attacking
- 4 Neutral
- 2 Defensive

To get the Index score, we multiply all attacking UEs by 6, all neutral UEs by 4, all defensive UEs by 2 and add them together

Then divide by total # of UEs

The result is an indicator of -

how forceful the Unforced errors a player made were

In this match, Bruguera had 6 UEs - 2 attacking, 2 neutral, 2 defensive

So we have [(2 × 6) + (2 × 4) + (2 × 2)] ÷ 6 = 4

Federer had 32 UEs - 18 attacking, 13 neutral, 1 defensive

Index is [(18 × 6) + (13 × 4) + (1 × 2)] ÷ 32 = 5.06

(To make the picture easier to see, I've multiplied by 10 to give the final answer)

So Bruguera 40, Federer 50.6

---

20 is the minimum possible score, 40 is neutral, 60 the maximum

The more aggresive the player, the higher we'd expect their Index to be. Realistically, we wouldn't expect to see many scores below 40

Guys like Djokovic who hit up and down the middle a lot you'd expect to be a bit above 40.
Guys like Federer who go for winners, you'd expect to up above 50

Borg would typically score low, Connors higher

This can be expanded to any area if one wants. McEnroe's returning would probably score very high or Sampras' serving for example. A a pilot, I chose to start with UEs in play only (serves and returns excluded)" (3rd February, 2018)

-----------------------------------------------------------

24 July, 2018

I was thinking of splitting category aggressive into two -

- 6 for a winner attempt
- 5 for an aggressive shot (hitting the ball harder or placing it to make the opponent run)... you could say 5 is for "an attempt to force an error"

Your feedback - especially critique and possible amendments - would be welcome

 

[krosero]

I've seen this idea before, of breaking down UEs into categories. This is the first actual attempt I've seen, though it's been some years since I was doing this work and I may have missed other attempts.

The last match I charted was so long ago, my thoughts on this are not very concrete -- but I agree fundamentally that there's a need for this kind of breakdown. Not every UE is the same, by a long shot, and you've honed in on one of the biggest differences, ie, the risk-taking in the shot.

Another suggestion I've heard, and I'm sure you've familiar with it too, is differentiating between an UE in a rally of short/normal length against errors made after long, exhausting points. You often hear announcers saying after such a rally, "That error was NOT unforced." But how that would be measured statistically, I don't know.

I think these kinds of distinctions are most useful in a match of contrasting styles. I wouldn't bother splitting up UE's in a match like Newcombe-Smith, 1971 Wimb final, because the style was uniform throughout, on both sides: SV on all 1st and 2nd serves. Both players were trying to do the same thing, in the same way.

Similarly, Borg-Vilas.

But a matchup like Becker-Lendl is a good one, Borg-Connors too.

If I chart matches again maybe I'll give this a try, and then perhaps I'll have more specific thoughts about the method.

In general I would only say, watch out for creating too many categories! There's a tendency -- I certainly have it -- to multiply categories, looking for different ways to tell the story of the match. It's like digging, but with numbers; or like painting, and trying out as many different kinds of brushes/colors as possible. But that can be overdone. Certainly the reader can get lost in so much detail; but even for the charter, I know from experience that trying to record so many things can make charting a bit onerous after a while.

As always, simple but not simplistic, is the best.

 

[krosero]

This boxscore was in the Tampa Tribune.

Here also is their report (the free version of the text so with some typos)

No doubt about it

Lendl's solid at No. 1

Tribune Wires NEW YORK

For Ivan Lendl, the Masters tennis tournament was a chance to reaffirm his position as the world's No. 1 tennis player, and he made the most of it.

For Boris Becker, the windup to the tournament provided a revelation and a a tennis lesson from the world's best player.

After nearly 2 1/2 hours, Lendl walked off the Madison Square Garden's indoor carpet Monday night with a 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 victory a win not nearly as close as the score might indicate.

"It says two things," Lendl said of his ninth title of the year. "No. 1, I'm playing well. ... Outside of that, it means that the people who were ready to make Boris No. 1 will have to wait a little bit.

"That's nice, too, at least for me."

Going into the conclusion to the year-long, world-wide Nabisco Grand Prix circuit, Becker talked about how he had surpassed Lendl as the world's No. 1 player. On Monday night, Lendl had Becker talking to himself and angrily throwing his racket.

"I just kept saying to myself, 'Don't let him get out of it, keep him in it,' " Lendl said of Becker's befuddlement. "That's his end. That is great what he's doing."

It all happened because of what Lendl was doing on his end. The Czechoslovak who now lives in Greenwich, Conn., was taking all-the pace off Becker's booming serve, that rocketing shot that carried the 19-year-old West German to his second straight Wimbledon title last summer. Lendl also showed his foe early in the match who would be in control of the baseline rallies. He was content to trade sliced backhands until Becker's impatience caused an unforced.

"He told me it happens to many players, especially the young ones," Becker said his coach, Ion Tiriac, consoled him after the match. "I got too tight and I wanted to make too good a shot..

"I guess I just wanted to win too badly. I was playing under average and he was getting better and better."

Lendl never faced a break point on his serve, and he was taken to deuce just once, in the eighth game of the second set.

Becker always was in trouble on his serve, always seemed to be fighting from behind, a step too slow, a forehand too long.

"It was another learning lesson for me," the young German said. And it was an embarrassing one for the player who had publicly proclaimed himself ready to ascend to the No. 1 spot now held by Lendl. .

Completely dominated by the 26-year-old Lendl, the frustrated Becker shouted, "Does anybody want to play tennis for me?"

At the other end of the court, Lendl raised his hand.

"I thought he asked if anybody wanted to play tennis with him," Lendl said. "That's why I said, T do. I'm ready.' "

And that's the way it was. Lendl was playing tennis. Becker was playing catch-up. Against the world's No. 1 player, the teen-ager found he was in a battle without a weapon.

Lendl lost just 12 points on his serve the entire match, continuing the domination he had displayed during the entire tournament that saw him drop his serve just once, against Ecuador's Andres Gomez in his first match.​

 

[Waspsting]

Krosero - many thanks for the feedback

In general I would only say, watch out for creating too many categories! There's a tendency -- I certainly have it -- to multiply categories, looking for different ways to tell the story of the match. It's like digging, but with numbers; or like painting, and trying out as many different kinds of brushes/colors as possible. But that can be overdone. Certainly the reader can get lost in so much detail; but even for the charter, I know from experience that trying to record so many things can make charting a bit onerous after a while.

As always, simple but not simplistic, is the best.

In my mind, there's a clear line between stats and analysis

1st serve %age, 1st and 2nd serve won... these are true stats
Forced/Unforced errors, service winners etc.... these are analysis - but commonly presented and accepted ones, so they're virtually taken as stats

What I try to do is be rooted in stats but tiptoe into analysis with stuff like serve direction, return data

I have a few ideas that I don't track because in my opinion, they are too far over in analysis (and too time consuming)

one of them you've touched on -

Another suggestion I've heard, and I'm sure you've familiar with it too, is differentiating between an UE in a rally of short/normal length against errors made after long, exhausting points. You often hear announcers saying after such a rally, "That error was NOT unforced." But how that would be measured statistically, I don't know.

I call these "Patience errors"

How to track them? We'd need to track rally length (which I don't) and have a cut off (15? 20?) for rally length, beyond which, any UE that's made is labeled a "patience error"... I'd be interested in looking at this figure for say, Borg-Vilas on clay

They can be a category of their own or a sub-set of UEs.... but crossing them with the 6-4-2 forcefulness index of mine goes into 'too complicated' territory you warned against

Another area I breakdown in my head (but haven't statistified) are net points

There are "Insurance Policy" net points.... approach has done all the work, and the guys just come up to make doubly sure. Probably don't have to make a volley. this is the equivalent of giving a net point off a Service Winner. I don't like including these as net points - it misses the point of what net points are in my opinion - but I do include them, because technically, they are

Incidentally, that seems to be what's going on in the discrepancy between my stats and the Tampa Tribune one's you've posted.... they have Becker with 20 fewer approaches than I do, and about the same number of greater service winners (I think they've marked all unreturned first serves as service winners)

So they've excluded what they've given as service winners from the net points, while I've marked them Return Forced Errors, so included them. There way is better (that is, paints a truer picture) in this case and is making me re-think how I give service winners

I'm fairly hard on service winners ("guy did well to get a racquet on the ball" is the basis of it), the alternative seems to be "guy can get a racquet on the ball ok, but very hard to get back in play"

I prefer to call that an error than a service winner... but calling it an error means it goes into net points, and that's where the picture is getting distorted badly

Ideally, I'd like to isolate a number that's assessing volley vs pass (i.e. the approach hasn't done too much of the work), but that requires plenty of interpretation... and we start going too far away from real stats and into analysis.

I like analysis - but I do want to keep the base of what I present stats, not analysis

 

[Gizo]

Lendl in 1986 enjoyed the most dominant ever YEC campaign by a player from start to finish, only getting broken once in 5 sets as Moose said, and only once conceding more than 4 games in a set.

Excluding 1982 and 1983 when Lendl and Mac 'only' needed to win 3 knockout matches to win their titles, 1986 was the only time that a player has won a 5 match RR format YEC without dropping a set.

 

[krosero]

Incidentally, that seems to be what's going on in the discrepancy between my stats and the Tampa Tribune one's you've posted.... they have Becker with 20 fewer approaches than I do, and about the same number of greater service winners (I think they've marked all unreturned first serves as service winners)

So they've excluded what they've given as service winners from the net points, while I've marked them Return Forced Errors, so included them. There way is better (that is, paints a truer picture) in this case and is making me re-think how I give service winners

So much to comment on in your posts, I almost forgot about this part, which I've bolded.

I once made this list of all the different definitions of the term "service winner" that I'd seen:

1) Serves that the receiver reaches with a racquet, but that are judged to be as good as winners (sometimes called "unreturnable"). This is an extremely common definition, and today you can expect these winners to be included in Total Winner counts.

2) All serves that the receiver gets a racquet on but does not put back in play (what I like to call the return errors). Example: 1987 Wimbledon final, Cash-Lendl, New York Times boxscore.

3) All unreturned serves, including aces. Example: 1998 Wimbledon final, Sampras-Ivanisevic, Sports Illustrated boxscore.

4) All the serves in category #1, combined with the aces. Example: 2005 USO final, Federer-Agassi, CBS.​

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10554334

What you've got above -- counting all unreturned first serves as "service winners" -- would be yet another definition, a fifth.

Did you break down unreturned serves by 1st and 2nd?

 

[Waspsting]

So much to comment on in your posts, I almost forgot about this part, which I've bolded.

I once made this list of all the different definitions of the term "service winner" that I'd seen:

1) Serves that the receiver reaches with a racquet, but that are judged to be as good as winners (sometimes called "unreturnable"). This is an extremely common definition, and today you can expect these winners to be included in Total Winner counts.

2) All serves that the receiver gets a racquet on but does not put back in play (what I like to call the return errors). Example: 1987 Wimbledon final, Cash-Lendl, New York Times boxscore.

3) All unreturned serves, including aces. Example: 1998 Wimbledon final, Sampras-Ivanisevic, Sports Illustrated boxscore.

4) All the serves in category #1, combined with the aces. Example: 2005 USO final, Federer-Agassi, CBS.​

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10554334

What you've got above -- counting all unreturned first serves as "service winners" -- would be yet another definition, a fifth.

Did you break down unreturned serves by 1st and 2nd?

For Becker, I have -

1st serves - 30 (including 8 aces - they have 9)
2nd serves - 5

sans aces, 1st serves 22 unreturned... they have 24 service winners

For Lendl, I have -

1st serves 20 (including 8 aces)
2nd serves 5

sans aces, 12 unreturned first serves... they have 10 service winners

It looks like the definition used in Tampa Tribune for service winner is pretty close to "non-ace unreturned first serve"

 

[krosero]

For Becker, I have -

1st serves - 30 (including 8 aces - they have 9)
2nd serves - 5

sans aces, 1st serves 22 unreturned... they have 24 service winners

For Lendl, I have -

1st serves 20 (including 8 aces)
2nd serves 5

sans aces, 12 unreturned first serves... they have 10 service winners

It looks like the definition used in Tampa Tribune for service winner is pretty close to "non-ace unreturned first serve"

thanks for the breakdown; it looks to me like the boxscore's statistician was not exactly using a precise definition, restricted to first serves.

30 of Becker's 1st serves were unreturned, and since they have 9 aces, that leaves 21 first serves for them to count as service winners. But they counted 24, so presumably they counted 3 second serves.

20 of Lendl's 1st serves were unreturned, 8 of which they counted as aces, leaving 12 to count as service winners. But they counted only 10 in this case. So apparently they declined to count 2 first serves as service winners (if they didn't simply miss them in their count).

Their guideline, whatever it was, ended up encompassing most but not necessarily all first serves, and perhaps a few second serves, if I'm reading the numbers correctly.

So I'm not going to consider this a new "definition." It doesn't look that exact.

But we do see that, deliberately or not, someone here tended to think of most unreturned first serves as service winners and tended not to do that with second serves.