Ivan Lendl beat Stefan Edberg 4-6, 7-6(3), 5-2 retired in the Australian Open final, 1990 on hard court
Lendl was the world number 1, defending champion and this would turn out to be his last Slam title. Edberg would win his second Wimbledon later in the year and finish the year ranked number 1
Lendl won 104 points, Edberg 95
Edberg serve-volleyed of most first serves (for first sets, always) and majority of seconds (for first two sets, overwhelming majority)
Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (48/90) 53%
- 1st serve points won (33/48) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (20/42) 48%
- Aces 5
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (16/90) 18%
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (75/109) 69%
- 1st serve points won (42/75) 56%
- 2nd serve points won (16/34) 47%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 9
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (21/109) 19%
Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 6%
Edberg served...
- to FH 17%
- to BH 68%
- to Body 15%
Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 79 (14 FH, 65 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 13 BH)
- Return Rate (79/100) 79%
Edberg made...
- 69 (35 FH, 34 BH), including 2 runaround FHs, 1 runaround BH, 5 return-approaches & 1 drop-return (possibly unintentional)
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH)
- 5 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (69/85) 81%
Break Points
Lendl 5/17 (8 games)
Edberg 4/10 (5 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 33 (16 FH, 11 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
Edberg 22 (2 FH, 2 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 5 OH)
Lendl's regular FHs - 2 cc (1 at net), 1 dtl, 1 inside-out/dtl and 1 inside-in
- FH passes - 5 cc (1 return, 2 at - 1 running-down-drop-shot), 1 cc/inside-in, 1 dtl, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs (all passes) - 6 cc (1 return) and 5 dtl (1 return)
- 1 FHV was played net-to-net
Edberg had 11 from serve-volley points
- 5 first volleys (2 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 6 second 'volleys' (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 2 OH)
- 1 from a return-approach point - an OH on the bounce
- FHs - 1 dtl and 1 dtl/inside-out pass
- BHs - 1 cc pass and 1 inside-out
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 47
- 20 Unforced (5 FH, 14 BH, 1 BHV)
- 27 Forced (10 FH, 17 BH)… with 1 FH running-down-drop-return at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44
Edberg 46
- 29 Unforced (8 FH, 12 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
- 17 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.2
(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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)
Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was...
- 13/18 (72%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back
Edberg was...
- 61/103 (59%) at net, including...
- 43/73 (59%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 33/59 (56%) off 1st serve and...
- 10/14 (71%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/5 (80%) return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back
Match Report
This was shaping to be a great match - indeed, action for most of two sets is high quality - but is cut short by an injury to Edberg. He injures a stomach muscle - he first receives treatment after game 5 in the second and the trainer says the injury occurred in the second game of the match. Edberg does lightly tend to his side during the game
Of competitive action, both players returning (especially Lendl), Lendl's passing and Edberg's baseline play stand out on a slow court. Edberg serve-volleys all but 100% of the time til the third set, when the injury is clearly bothering him severely and he stays back almost always
Lendl's service games
Note Lendl with just 18% unreturned rate. Sans the injury influenced 3rd set (when all aspects of Edberg's game, including the return are well down), the figure is an even lower 9/75 or 12%. That's a clay court number. He doesn't serve particularly strongly and the court is slow, but plenty of credit to Edberg for sure returning
He might have under-done attacking returning though. Just the 5 return-approaches - and he wins 4 of those points. One of them is also a drop-return... which looks like its intentional
Once the return is made, the two settle into baseline rallies and action is again, clay-like. One might expect Lendl to comfortably out-last Edberg, but that's not what happens. Edberg holds at least even from the baseline
Lendl does take mild initiative as far as hitting with power goes, and sometimes, wide placement. By contrast, a good chunk of Edberg's groundies are intentionally gently hit; He's not overpowered or outgunned... he's just chosen to work the point this way. Edberg mixes up his shots, ranging from firm to gentle with slices thrown in. Most of the firm shots are BHs. Off the FH, he's generally more passive, which might be related to injury (according to trainer, Edberg's particularly in pain on the FH)
Its not a bad strategy. As long as he can withstand Lendl's shots, it invites Ivan to go for more and more and possibly make errors
I wouldn't have expected Edberg to be able to keep ball in play long enough for it to come to that... but it potentially does; rallies are long and Lendl's as likely as not to be the one to yield the error. Final baseline UE count is Lendl 19, Edberg 20. Sans last set, its Lendl 13, Edberg 13. Consistency of groundstrokes is Lendl's forte and a relative Edberg weakness... I'd say Edberg steps up rather than Lendl falls below for the evenness of play. Credit Edberg
Lendl doesn't do all he can either though. He tends to hit heavy and deep... its clear he's the more powerful player, he makes Edberg do more of the running, but stops short of hammering balls with determination to finish points. Not a bad place to stop - on this court and with Edberg's consistency and movement, trying to overwhelm him from the back would be risky
Other option open to Ivan would be to come to net to finish points. This would likely have been more successfully - he volleys surely all match and wins 72% net points, but only comes in 18 times. Edberg isn't in much hurry to get to net either. He makes the odd dash to net and comes in when he outmanuvers Lendl, which he doesn't do often and isn't looking to
Both men move excellently on the baseline. Edberg's whizzing around (for most of 2 sets anyway), Lendl's near as quick
In a nutshell, baseline action is patient, duel winged outlasting type play, similar to clay court. Lendl hits heavier, Edberg is content to put ball back in play... and the two players are both solid, and about equal of consistency. Given the match-up, this is a relative win for Edberg
Lendl was the world number 1, defending champion and this would turn out to be his last Slam title. Edberg would win his second Wimbledon later in the year and finish the year ranked number 1
Lendl won 104 points, Edberg 95
Edberg serve-volleyed of most first serves (for first sets, always) and majority of seconds (for first two sets, overwhelming majority)
Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (48/90) 53%
- 1st serve points won (33/48) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (20/42) 48%
- Aces 5
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (16/90) 18%
Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (75/109) 69%
- 1st serve points won (42/75) 56%
- 2nd serve points won (16/34) 47%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 9
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (21/109) 19%
Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 6%
Edberg served...
- to FH 17%
- to BH 68%
- to Body 15%
Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 79 (14 FH, 65 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 13 BH)
- Return Rate (79/100) 79%
Edberg made...
- 69 (35 FH, 34 BH), including 2 runaround FHs, 1 runaround BH, 5 return-approaches & 1 drop-return (possibly unintentional)
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH)
- 5 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (69/85) 81%
Break Points
Lendl 5/17 (8 games)
Edberg 4/10 (5 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 33 (16 FH, 11 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
Edberg 22 (2 FH, 2 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 5 OH)
Lendl's regular FHs - 2 cc (1 at net), 1 dtl, 1 inside-out/dtl and 1 inside-in
- FH passes - 5 cc (1 return, 2 at - 1 running-down-drop-shot), 1 cc/inside-in, 1 dtl, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs (all passes) - 6 cc (1 return) and 5 dtl (1 return)
- 1 FHV was played net-to-net
Edberg had 11 from serve-volley points
- 5 first volleys (2 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 6 second 'volleys' (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 2 OH)
- 1 from a return-approach point - an OH on the bounce
- FHs - 1 dtl and 1 dtl/inside-out pass
- BHs - 1 cc pass and 1 inside-out
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 47
- 20 Unforced (5 FH, 14 BH, 1 BHV)
- 27 Forced (10 FH, 17 BH)… with 1 FH running-down-drop-return at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44
Edberg 46
- 29 Unforced (8 FH, 12 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
- 17 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.2
(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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)
Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was...
- 13/18 (72%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back
Edberg was...
- 61/103 (59%) at net, including...
- 43/73 (59%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 33/59 (56%) off 1st serve and...
- 10/14 (71%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/5 (80%) return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back
Match Report
This was shaping to be a great match - indeed, action for most of two sets is high quality - but is cut short by an injury to Edberg. He injures a stomach muscle - he first receives treatment after game 5 in the second and the trainer says the injury occurred in the second game of the match. Edberg does lightly tend to his side during the game
Of competitive action, both players returning (especially Lendl), Lendl's passing and Edberg's baseline play stand out on a slow court. Edberg serve-volleys all but 100% of the time til the third set, when the injury is clearly bothering him severely and he stays back almost always
Lendl's service games
Note Lendl with just 18% unreturned rate. Sans the injury influenced 3rd set (when all aspects of Edberg's game, including the return are well down), the figure is an even lower 9/75 or 12%. That's a clay court number. He doesn't serve particularly strongly and the court is slow, but plenty of credit to Edberg for sure returning
He might have under-done attacking returning though. Just the 5 return-approaches - and he wins 4 of those points. One of them is also a drop-return... which looks like its intentional
Once the return is made, the two settle into baseline rallies and action is again, clay-like. One might expect Lendl to comfortably out-last Edberg, but that's not what happens. Edberg holds at least even from the baseline
Lendl does take mild initiative as far as hitting with power goes, and sometimes, wide placement. By contrast, a good chunk of Edberg's groundies are intentionally gently hit; He's not overpowered or outgunned... he's just chosen to work the point this way. Edberg mixes up his shots, ranging from firm to gentle with slices thrown in. Most of the firm shots are BHs. Off the FH, he's generally more passive, which might be related to injury (according to trainer, Edberg's particularly in pain on the FH)
Its not a bad strategy. As long as he can withstand Lendl's shots, it invites Ivan to go for more and more and possibly make errors
I wouldn't have expected Edberg to be able to keep ball in play long enough for it to come to that... but it potentially does; rallies are long and Lendl's as likely as not to be the one to yield the error. Final baseline UE count is Lendl 19, Edberg 20. Sans last set, its Lendl 13, Edberg 13. Consistency of groundstrokes is Lendl's forte and a relative Edberg weakness... I'd say Edberg steps up rather than Lendl falls below for the evenness of play. Credit Edberg
Lendl doesn't do all he can either though. He tends to hit heavy and deep... its clear he's the more powerful player, he makes Edberg do more of the running, but stops short of hammering balls with determination to finish points. Not a bad place to stop - on this court and with Edberg's consistency and movement, trying to overwhelm him from the back would be risky
Other option open to Ivan would be to come to net to finish points. This would likely have been more successfully - he volleys surely all match and wins 72% net points, but only comes in 18 times. Edberg isn't in much hurry to get to net either. He makes the odd dash to net and comes in when he outmanuvers Lendl, which he doesn't do often and isn't looking to
Both men move excellently on the baseline. Edberg's whizzing around (for most of 2 sets anyway), Lendl's near as quick
In a nutshell, baseline action is patient, duel winged outlasting type play, similar to clay court. Lendl hits heavier, Edberg is content to put ball back in play... and the two players are both solid, and about equal of consistency. Given the match-up, this is a relative win for Edberg
Last edited:
