Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Becker, Masters final1985

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Ivan Lendl beat Boris Becker 6-2 7-6 (1) 6-3 in the final of the Masters (Year End Championship) 1985 on indoor carpet at Madison Square Garden, New York

It was Lendl's third title Masters and the first of 3 finals in 4 years the pair would play

(Note: I'm missing serve direction data for one Becker serve and corresponding return for Lendl)

Lendl won 100 points, Becker 73

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (51/87) 59%
- 1st serve points won (40/51) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (21/36) 58%
- Aces 6, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (18/87) 21%

Becker...
- 1st serve percentage (49/86) 57%
- 1st serve points won (31/49)63%
- 2nd serve points won (16/37) 43%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/86) 28%

Serve Pattern
Lendl served...
- to FH 12%
- to BH 83%
- to Body 5%

Becker served...
- to FH 55%
- to BH 35%
- to Body 10%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 57 (37 FH, 19 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 11 Forced (9 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (57/81) 70%

Becker made...
- 66 (11 FH, 55 BH), including 2 runaround FHs and 7 chip-charge returns
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 10 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (6 BH), including 1 chip-charge attempt
- 4 Forced (4 BH)
- Return Rate (66/84) 79%

Break Points
Lendl 5/8 (5 games)
Becker 2/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns)
Lendl 26 (7 FH, 9 BH, 4 FHV, 5 OH, 1 BHOH)
Becker 17 (7 FH, 2 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)

- Lendl had 12 passes (4 FH, 8 BH)

- of the FH passes, 1 glanced the top of the net to throw Becker off, 1 was hit on the run dtl

- the 2 other FH passes were turnaround shots as Lendl was forced back from the net while Becker approached

- of the 3 non-pass FHs, 2 were cc, 1 was inside-in

- 8 BH passes - 5 were cc, 3 dtl. He stepped in for 2 crosscourts and just pushed 1 more from just behind the service line as Becker fell down at net

- sole non-pass BH was an acutely angled running down of an inadvertent Becker drop return

- 1 FHV was a swinging shot played from just behind the service line, 2 were serve-volley points - 1 1st volley, 1 2nd volley and 1 was a cc that sent a chasing Becker over/through the advertising boards which resulted in a cut to his knee

- 1 OH was struck on the bounce from around the baseline. 2 others were hit on the back pedal behind the service line (1 on the bounce)

- Becker had 1 return winner - an inside-out BH. The other BH was a dtl pass

- he had 1 other clear pass - a FH dtl hit slightly off-balance, plus a running FH dtl with Lendl in no-mans land that can be interpreted as a 'pass'

- 2 FHs were at net - 1 a put-away, the other hit behind Lendl

- 3 inside-out FHs, all powerful strikes

- of the FHVs, 1 was a swinging shot from slightly behind the service line as he cleverly approached to meet a forced weak get from Lendl, 1 was a stretch volley to a high-ish ball and 1 was a cc where he anticipated/guessed right the direction of an at-net Lendl's attempted pass

- Of the BHVs, 3 were into the open court and was played longline behind Lendl

Errors(excluding returns and serve)
Lendl 29
- Unforced 10 (5 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV)
- Forced 19 (5 FH, 13 BH, 1 BHV)

Becker 51
- Unforced 35 (15 FH, 14 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
- 16 Forced (3 FH, 8 BH, 2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV)

(Note: All half volleys refer to such shots played at net. Groundstroke half volleys have been included within the broader category of groundstrokes)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was 22/28 (79%) at net, including 1/3 serve-volleying

He was forced back twice but won both points

Becker was 29/53 (55%), including 12/23 serve-volleying (1/1 off the second serve, the rest first serves)

He was 4/7 (57%) on chip-charge returns in which he made the return (0/1 against the first serve, the rest second serves)

He serve-volleyed 22/43 off his 1st serve when he could (i.e. discounting aces and service winners), about half the time.... it should be noted, he wasn't necessarily looking to S/V on his aces and SW's either
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Match Report
A meeting between a master and young gun with potential for brilliance

Lendl's plan was straight forward: everything to the backhand. If Becker had a plan, I didn't notice

The court was slow as carpet goes. Both players were able to return with reasonable comfort and Becker eschewed serve-volleying to a large degree - he followed his first serve in about half the time

You can see Lendl directed 83% of all his serves to the Becker backhand, which is the highest proportion I've come across yet. Boris in turn, showed no systematic preference in his choice

Once in play, Lendl looked to keep things to Boris' backhand. Occasionally he hit inside-out forehands - the emphasis on control and safety more than power - but mostly stuck to crosscourt backhands of his own

The difference in aesthetic quality of the two backhands was noticeable. Lendl's is regal and has the look of authority, while Becker's is stifled and crabby of look. More importantly, Becker's was prone to loose errors, Lendl's was steady

The then Czech hit several dtl BH passing shots but avoided going longline in baseline-to-baseline situations. Becker, I think might have been missing the BH longline from his arsenal of shots... he had 1 passing winner dtl, but otherwise, barely tried the shot at all though it's the obvious choice to escape the BH-BH exchanges that clearly weren't going his way

On the FH side of things, Becker was the more powerful though one senses Lendl mostly held back from unleashing full throttle. This was wise as the German, though more dangerous off this wing, was still a lot more prone to error than the #1

Still, Becker's muscling forehand inside-out winners were a treat to watch

Becker was below par at net. Beyond the errors, he could have placed the volleys he did make better

Two interconnected areas of difference between the players is footwork and speed. Lendl looked significantly faster, and Becker a bit imprecise in positioning himself for his shots... the cause for this seemed to be more about his footwork than any undue pressure Lendl was creating

There were at least 3 outstanding points - all won by Lendl

In one, an approaching Becker exquisitely half-volleyed a drop shot. Lendl had to be at his quickest to reach the dying ball and delicately played ìt crosscourt at an extreme angle. A still at net Becker was forced to dive to make a very low volley. For the finale, Lendl raced back to retrieve the ball and placed a turnaround forehand pass for the winner

There was a similar point where Lendl ran to net to deal with an inadvertent drop shot return from Becker. The ball was low enough that Lendl had to hit up, only for an alert and approaching Becker to lob volley the ball from behind the service line. Again Lendl ran back to retrieve as Becker took the net and again he dispatched a turnaround FH pass down the line for the winner

There was a scintillating baseline point as Lendl served for the match in which both players used a variety of shots and angles off both wings, which ended with a Lendl FH cc winner

All in all, a thorough and clinical performance from newly minted #1 Lendl and a learning experience for the young Wimbledon champion Becker
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Intersting that you and abmk post stats on a Lendl match the same day, with great net numbers for him(and both were on non grass surfaces), he was a lot more versatile than people gave him credit for.

As far as the speeds of carpets go, I've been saying this for years. Most here just act like it's pretty much as fast as grass, when you can see from this match and the Becker Lendl Wimbledon final that they both played very differently on those surfaces. I mean Lendl being arguably the best carpet player of all time and not being an all time great on grass should be enough to prove that. Commentators in the 80s sure seemed to think that carpet was a fair, medium pace surface for the most part.

But indoor surfaces did start to seem very fast in the 90s, which may be more due to the increased power in the game, I doubt carpet was 'sped up.' Watching Lendl Becker Indoors and Sampras Becker indoors there is just an incredible increase in power in a few years. But even then sampras wasn't coming in on all serves like he was on grass.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
Intersting that you and abmk post stats on a Lendl match the same day, with great net numbers for him(and both were on non grass surfaces), he was a lot more versatile than people gave him credit for.

As far as the speeds of carpets go, I've been saying this for years. Most here just act like it's pretty much as fast as grass, when you can see from this match and the Becker Lendl Wimbledon final that they both played very differently on those surfaces. I mean Lendl being arguably the best carpet player of all time and not being an all time great on grass should be enough to prove that. Commentators in the 80s sure seemed to think that carpet was a fair, medium pace surface for the most part.

But indoor surfaces did start to seem very fast in the 90s, which may be more due to the increased power in the game, I doubt carpet was 'sped up.' Watching Lendl Becker Indoors and Sampras Becker indoors there is just an incredible increase in power in a few years. But even then sampras wasn't coming in on all serves like he was on grass.
I think that the carpet used in the indoor tournaments of that period were very different from tournament to tournament.
Now, in retrospect, it is not possible to quantify the differences, while now it is easy to know all the speeds of tournaments 2000-2017.

As for the problem of Lendl on the grass (and not just Lendl) I don't think it was too much speed but the rebound always uncertain.

While the rebound on carpet or hc is never surprising .... on grass is always approximate.

Many players were fish in the water (I think of all the aussie, Borg, Mac for example).
Others like Lendl suffered from the almost always unpredictable and disjointed rebound.

Now the Wimbledon surface seems regular but until the 80s the rebound was very uncertain.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Intersting that you and abmk post stats on a Lendl match the same day, with great net numbers for him(and both were on non grass surfaces), he was a lot more versatile than people gave him credit for.

I would think that his net winning percentages would probably be higher off grass... he is a master, and knows exactly when to come in to his advantage off-grass, whereas on the green he was doing the whole serve-volley non-stop thing

His net numbers in the 85 US final against Mac that I did was also superb

From what I've seen, he's as versatile as they come... not just in a simplistic baseliner vs net player way, but in the style of his baseline play

He can step-in and attack, he can lay back and moonball and most everything in between. There's variety in his passing too. Of course he belts the ball, but he also gives it a little chip if the guy at net is a bit back. There was at least one point like that in this match

From the 90 Queens final match I did (which I can speak of with confidence) and my memory of 89-91 Wimbledons (which are dim), his volleying is just fine. As good as Becker's I'd say

No idea why he has the rep he does for net play. Maybe it was poor to start with and the label just stuck? Its been A-ok in everything I've seen 1985 onwards

Maybe people confuse preferring to not to approach with weak net play? - probably more so in an era where there were a lot of regular net-rushers. I've been watching a fair bit of Connors and Agassi - both are loath to come in, Connors looks hideous and Agassi alien - but both get the job done as well as you could want. And that's what counts

I like to check things out and judge for myself than go on reputations... there are a fair few reputations from the time I started watching that I don't agree with to take reputations too seriously

While the rebound on carpet or hc is never surprising .... on grass is always approximate.

Many players were fish in the water (I think of all the aussie, Borg, Mac for example).
Others like Lendl suffered from the almost always unpredictable and disjointed rebound.

Now the Wimbledon surface seems regular but until the 80s the rebound was very uncertain.

I agree.

I remember a Lendl-Becker match in 1990 on a very fast carpet court (was it Tokyo?) where he was just hammering the ball (so was Becker). I'm guessing he felt he couldn't do that on grass off the ground

Demons in his mind on grass :eek:, but that's on him

Borg is another who looks exceedingly uncomfortable at net. But he got the job done there
 

KG1965

Legend
I agree.

I remember a Lendl-Becker match in 1990 on a very fast carpet court (was it Tokyo?) where he was just hammering the ball (so was Becker). I'm guessing he felt he couldn't do that on grass off the ground

Demons in his mind on grass :eek:, but that's on him

Borg is another who looks exceedingly uncomfortable at net. But he got the job done there
Perhaps Borg's netgame is underestimated, for example Bjorn was very quick to get to the net.
He felt so strong in the netgame on grass because the opponents were much weaker in the passing-shot .... due to the irregularity of the surface.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
(Borg) felt so strong in the netgame on grass because the opponents were much weaker in the passing-shot .... due to the irregularity of the surface.

But that would apply to everyone's net game on grass, not just Borg?

McEnroe and Gerulaitis both thought the irregularity of the surface helped Borg's 'bad' volleys (flubs) because the ball would die on the surface instead of pop up

Not sure if they were joking, Mac doesn't seem too funny a guy back then and he'd appreciate the art of good volleying

From what little I've seen, it's true... he hits so many 'stop' volleys that he's either a volleying genius or they're actually flubs that ended up stopping.

And his volleys do pop up on carpet and hard court (he doesn't come in much)

What do you think?

Perhaps Borg's netgame is underestimated, for example Bjorn was very quick to get to the net.

Hadn't considered that. Can see how this would compensate for his maybe shortcomings in technique

To watch him 'stab' medium height balls on the volley, my first thought was how on earth would he low volley or half-volley?:confused:

I'm sure he made 1 or 2 during that 41 match run at Wimby:)
 

KG1965

Legend
But that would apply to everyone's net game on grass, not just Borg?

McEnroe and Gerulaitis both thought the irregularity of the surface helped Borg's 'bad' volleys (flubs) because the ball would die on the surface instead of pop up

Not sure if they were joking, Mac doesn't seem too funny a guy back then and he'd appreciate the art of good volleying

From what little I've seen, it's true... he hits so many 'stop' volleys that he's either a volleying genius or they're actually flubs that ended up stopping.

And his volleys do pop up on carpet and hard court (he doesn't come in much)

What do you think?



Hadn't considered that. Can see how this would compensate for his maybe shortcomings in technique

To watch him 'stab' medium height balls on the volley, my first thought was how on earth would he low volley or half-volley?:confused:

I'm sure he made 1 or 2 during that 41 match run at Wimby:)
I was not able to translate all the content, but I confirm that its great swiftness to the net-game added to the irregularity of those fields (not like the erb of now) has in my opinion favored.

The surface was obviously the same for his opponents but he was better suited.

Even when there is wind, sun, heat or cold it is the same for everyone. But some adapt others not.
 
Last edited:

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
@Waspsting
Lendl always had good numbers serve and volleying on grass, even as far back as 83(one of his best grasscourt matches was vs Tanner in the QF. And he was pretty darn good vs Mac in the SF, was only broken twice while coming in on every serve)
The media was always sort of biased against him(his treatment of them didn't help) and his volleying was never going to look like Macs so the label stuck. Still it is amusing to see all the posters here who only started following tennis in 2005 say Lendl was a bad volleyer when I'm almost positive they've never seen him play. Just shows how powerful some labels are(another funny one is brad Gilbert's lack of 'talent,' since he sold a ton of books to hack tennis players based on that myth, Posters here act like it is a fact. But it's not)

Going back to this match, the unreturned serve rates are surprisingly low for an indoor match. Compare their rates in the 86 W final. Becker at 39.8% and Lendl at 37%. Here you have them at 28% and 21%.
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
UPI report:

“I’m very interested in winning Wimbledon,” Lendl said Sunday...Winning the U.S. Open meant a lot to me last year and I would definitely love to win Wimbledon and the Australian Open.

“Since Rod Laver won it in ’69, when he won all four (Grand Slam events), nobody has won all four even during their career. Winning it in one year is the ultimate goal a tennis player can dream about and winning it throughout a career is very close to it.”​

So that’s an early reference to the career Slam, albeit not by that exact term.

New York Times:

Lendl won because he converted a remarkable 77 per cent of his first serves and has the kind of all-court game that enabled him to choose a deliberate baseline strategy this time, changing the pace of his shots and not being tempted to engage Becker in a macho exchange of crackling forehands down the line.​

Look at that, "all-court game" -- much the same point that Wasp made about lendl in the other thread, on the '86 YEC final. And so many think of him as a pure baseliner.

Boxscore in the Orlando Sentinel:

28756051507_e0a7efed8e_b.jpg


Little trivia: the calendar year 1986 contained this rivalry’s only victories in 3 straight sets: two by Lendl at the Garden and one by Becker at Wimbledon.
 
Top