Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Edberg, Wimbledon semi-final, 1987

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Stefan Edberg 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(8), 6-4 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1987 on grass

Lendl would go onto lose the final to Pat Cash. Edberg had won the Australian Open on grass earlier in the year and would win Wimbledon the following year. Lendl had won French Open earlier in the year and would go onto win US Open later

Lendl won 137 points, Edberg 132

Both players serve-volleyed off all serves, with the exception of 2 Lendl second serves

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (81/124) 65%
- 1st serve points won (69/81) 85%
- 2nd serve points won (20/43) 47%
- Aces 8 (1 not clean), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (51/124) 41%

Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (112/145) 77%
- 1st serve points won (76/112) 68%
- 2nd serve points won (21/33) 64%
- Aces 6
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (54/145) 37%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 5%

Edberg served...
- to FH 27%
- to BH 64%
- to Body 9%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 89 (24 FH, 65 BH)
- 15 Winners (3 FH, 12 BH)
- 48 Errors, all forced...
- 48 Forced (12 FH, 36 BH)
- Return Rate (89/143) 62%

Edberg made...
- 71 (18 FH, 53 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 10 Winners (1 FH, 9 BH)
- 42 Errors, all forced...
- 42 Forced (13 FH, 29 BH)
- Return Rate (71/122) 58%

Break Points
Lendl 3/13 (7 games)
Edberg 2/3 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 46 (8 FH, 16 BH, 9 FHV, 9 BHV, 4 OH)
Edberg 43 (3 FH, 12 BH, 11 FHV, 15 BHV, 2 OH)

Lendl had 22 from serve-volley points -
- 17 first volleys (8 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 OH)... 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 3 second volleys (2 FHV, 1 OH)
- 1 third volley (1 OH)
- 1 re-approach volley (1 FHV)

- 24 passes - 15 returns (3 FH, 12 BH) & 9 regular (6 FH, 3 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 4 cc, 3 dtl, 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 lob, 1 net chord dribbler
- regular FHs - 1 dtl, 3 inside-out (1 at net), 1 inside-out/dtl, 1 lob
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out/longline

Edberg had 27 from serve-volley points -
- 21 first volleys (8 FHV, 12 BHV, 1 OH)... 1 BHV was a net chord trickler & the OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 5 second volleys (3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 1 third volley (1 OH)

- 15 passes - 10 returns (1 FH, 9 BH) & 5 regular (2 FH, 3 BH)
- FH return - 1 cc
- BH returns - 3 cc, 4 dtl (1 opponent left), 1 inside-out (that opponent left), 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc at net, 1 dtl
- regular BHs - 3 dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 33
- 9 Unforced (1 BH, 4 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 BH pass
- 24 Forced (5 FH, 12 BH, 2 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH at net & 1 running-down-drop-shot at net BH
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54.4

Edberg 38
- 13 Unforced (1 BH, 8 FHV, 4 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- 25 Forced (5 FH, 10 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 2 BH1/2V, 1 Over-Shoulder)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 FH can reasonably be called a Back-to-Net shot
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 58.5

(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
Lendl was...
- 82/116 (71%) at net, including...
- 79/111 (71%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 60/72 (83%) off 1st serve and...
- 19/39 (49%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 forced back

Edberg was...
- 95/143 (66%) at net, including...
- 91/137 (66%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 70/106 (66%) off 1st serve and...
- 21/31 (68%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
Virtual full serve-volley match and Lendl’s superior returning (particularly BH, where both players serve bulk) and FH passing (minority for both players) makes him better player. All other things (serve shot and volleys) are roughly equal. The volleying is better than the passing for both players and there’s considerable room for improvement in both players’ BH passing. Volleys > Passes makes for largely server dominated match

Break points - Lendl 3/13 (7 games), Edberg 2/3 (3 games)
Sum up Lendl being better player. Also suggested is that typical of the surface and full serve-volley matches, “being better player” doesn’t necessarily equate to winning match. Rather, it means holds a little more easily, in context of both players holding comfily. Wouldn’t be unusual for figures like that to end in multiple tiebreaks - and there’s no telling who’ll come up ahead in those, even with the wind blowing the way it is

Lendl wins 50.9% of points, serving 46.1% of them. That’d be the ‘way the wind is blowing’

Match is ‘full’ serve-volley (Lendl stays back off 2 second serves. He takes net quickly in one and Edberg takes net on the other before long - and the net player wins both points). The two play similarly of style (beyond basic style of serve-volleying) and in that context, there’s one slightly surprising stat to come out

First serve in - Lendl 65%, Edberg 77%
First serve won - Lendl 85%, Edberg 68%
Second serve won - Lendl 47%, Edberg 64%

The vast success rate gap between Lendl’s two serves vs the small negligible one in Edberg’s

As high in counts suggest, both players serving at most, solidly (as opposed to first serve being overwhelming stand-alone weapon) or in other words, both players trusting to their volleys to keep them holding

Edberg first serve is slightly less damaging (emphasis on slightly), and he throws in more slower paced ones. Would be difficult to accurately blind call whether any given serve is a first or second for him. In other words, gap between strength of his two serves is very small for him to have virtually same number of points across serve types is normal

Lendl’s yield is odd though. Compared to Edberg’s serve, slightly stronger first, about same strength second. Hence, would expect him to have bigger gap across two serves, but not 34% bigger

Most obvious interpretation of basic stats is -
- Lendl very strong first serve and riding off it
- Edberg better volleyer and riding off it
This isn’t true.

Lendl with slightly stronger first serve, seconds about equal
And two players volley about equally well.
This is more accurate picture. And the gap in points won across serve types for Lendl is just one of those odd things. He’s either over-performed on firsts serves or under on seconds (or conversely Edberg’s under-performed on first return or over on second). I’d say Edberg underperformed on first return

Volley-pass contests springing out of all 4 serves are similar. Things coming out the way they have for Lendl is just weird

Whatever the matter, the two play similarly (beyond basic similarity of full serve-volleying)
- solid serving (not overwhelming). Who’s better is up in the air
- solid returning. Lendl’s a little better - both more damaging and consistent
- pretty good volleying. About same of quality, though given players in question, different things take the eye for each player (more on that later)
- so-so passing. Scope for both players to do better. Lendl’s FH is the best and gives him little advantage, but both players target BH pass - and neither are too good there

2 little advantages for Lendl in returning and passing add up to a significant one. And a win

Serve & Return
Just solid serving from both players, Lendl a little heftier first serve, toned down to a second that’s good to serve-volley behind. Edberg’s two serves are difficult to tell apart. They all look like either a good second serve or a not good first. And he mixes up first serves, occasionally sending down slow ones. He sends down more of these than occasional bigger ones

First serve in - Lendl 65%, Edbberg 77%
Reflects the contained nature of serving, especially for Edberg. He has some remarkable runs of landing those first serves. He’s 28/32 in first set or 88%. Has further runs of making 13 in a row and 15 in a row (he gets broken in the latter run)

First serve ace rate - Lendl 10%, Edberg 6%
Low rates and even then, it exaggerates how strong Lendl serves
3/8 Lendl aces come in last two service games, when he’s serving for match (he’s broken the first time). Call it beefed up burst of serving, with finish line a nose away. Sans that little burst, his rate is 7%, about same as Edberg

Edberg serves his first ace in game 2, set 2. His 6th service game and with his 31st first serve (amusingly, he follows it up with a much slower first serve that Lendl intentionally lob-returns for winner)
Lendl serves his in game 5, set 3. His 12th service game and with his 41st first serve
Its just not a serve shot as flagrant stand alone weapon match. Solid serving, and both players looking looking to their volleys to hold

Similar strenght serves, and two serve similarly of direction too. Serving pattern -
- to FH - Lendl 30%, Edberg 27%
- to BH - Lendl 66%, Edberg 64%
- to Body - Lendl 5%, Edberg 9%

Mistake (or lack of ability) by Edberg to serve so little to body.
In first set, he serves there 6 times (5 firsts, 1 second) or 22%. The only point he doesn’t win is a net chord dribbling winner
Rest of match, serves there just 7 times (4 firsts, 3 seconds) or 6%. Again wins all but 1, but that’s sparse rate

In years to come, he’d habitually serve 20-30% to Lendl’s body and those serves would cause Lendl all sorts of tangled trouble. They cause him just as much here - he’s cramped, rushed, doesn’t get out of the way into position well, misses the return or pops up weak high return

 

[Waspsting]

22% is enough to be a deliberate choice, and he sees how effective it is in first set
So why lay off it for rest of match?
By design, Edberg’s serves don’t seem to be intentionally cramping but rather, just not wide and comfily reached. Its not good serving

Lendl’s is just a little better, a little more powerful. He doesn’t get serves troublingly wide either
Both players with just 2 double faults. Lendl from 43 second serves, Edberg 33

Gist of serve shot - Lendl little more potent, Edberg higher in count - things about equal
Lendl returns a little better, to give him serve-return complex advantage

Return rate - Lendl 62%, Edbeg 58%
Return winners - Lendl 15, Edberg 10 (1 of Lendl’s is a net chord dribbler, but 2 of Edberg’s are balls Lendl’s leave)
Return winners/returns made - Lendl 17%, Edberg 14% (Lendl 16%, Edberg 11% adjusted for above noted flukes and misjudgments)

Last named stat usually wouldn’t necessarily say much but here it does, because outside the winners, return quality is about same. Lendl -
- finding the winner more often
- returning at slightly greater rate
- all other returning things roughly equal
- amounts to Lendl returning better, QED

On FH return -
- Lendl 24 made, 3 winners, 12 errors
- Edberg 18 made, 1 winner, 13 errors

On BH return -
-Lendl 65 made, 12 winners, 36 errors
- Edberg 53 made, 9 winners, 29 errors

Pretty similar ratios on BH, with Lendl edging it. On FH, Lendl very good, Edberg worse than off any other return in match. His FH is quite feeble (certainly more so than Lendl’s) and doesn’t look likely to get strong returns away (let alone not doing so). Just what its reputation is. It’s a misplaced reputation (his FH is generally actually a strong shot, it just looks awkward), and Lendl not buying into, maintaining standard, about 2/3rds to BH serving

Both players returning has room from improvement. Given quality of serves, a top grade returning display could potentially devastate and a good one, give server a lot of trouble.
Neither players returning does that, and both hold pretty comfily for most part.

Lot of above net, routine or easy volleys first up presented. Readily verifiable by very heavy first volley yield of winners. 17/21 of Lendl’s and 21/27 of Edberg’s serve-volley winners are first volleys. By serves that wouldn’t come as surprise to see decked hard and low to feet. The stock returning is above average, at best

Lendl returns very differently than he would in the final. In final against Pat Cash, he’d look to slam returns down the middle with great power, flaying at the ball
Here, he mixes up short swings and guides/blocks. The latter both wide or/and low. Very different and much better here, which isn’t necessarily saying much because he’d be awful in the final

Edberg returns similarly, fewer guide/blocks, more top spin. He doesn’t yet have the pre-return shuffle he’d come to employ and his movement for the return isn’t as good without it
Lendl wins 83% of first serve-volleys, but just 49% of seconds
His live (meaning, sans double faults) unreturned rates across two serves are 52% and 22% respectively
Put it down to Edberg not returning first serves well. As mentioned earlier, gap between Lendl’s serves isn’t huge, nor are first serves huge (if they were, his in count and ace rate wouldn’t be what they are). Lot of 3-quarter paced serves coverable by a step or in swing zone, and Edberg missing a lot + just modearate force on the shot

Mode return leaves routine volleys, better ones get in lowish. More often lowish (knee level) than right to the feet, at average pace. By both players

Gist - on serve, Lendl slightly stronger first serve, Edberg with higher in count, and mixing in more weak first serves - with both having good in counts. About equal on serve shot
On return, Lendl returning a little more regularly and little more damagingly to be superior on combo of serve-return
Statisitical gist - Lendl taking 4% freebie advantage, and 3% return-winner rate advantage slighlty under-values how much better he returns - so Lendl with better on first two shots

Volley & Pass
There are 2 non-serve-volley points all match, both from Lendl
He approaches of third ball once, and Edberg approaches quickly of the other. Both times, net player wins the points
Sole return-approach of match is by Edberg and is essentially token, with the low, 1/2volley error forcing return very likely good to win point without the move

So all the rest is serve-volley
Volleying quality is about same and is solid, good
Passing quality is average. Wouldn’t call ‘below average’ unfair either. Standout positve is Lendl’s FH, which sees minority action, but it does give Lendl edge in volley-pass contest

On the ‘volley’ -
- Winners - Lendl 22 (9 FHV, 9 BHV, 4 OH), Edberg 29 (11 FHV, 16 BHV, 2 OH)
- UEs - Lendl 8 (4 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 BH1/2V), Edberg 12 (8 FHV, 4 BHV)
- FEs - Lendl 8 (2 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 FH at net), Edberg 9 (4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 2 BH1/2V)

In context of net points of Lendl 116, Edberg 143 (serve-volleying, Lendl 111, Edberg 137)

Both players put away volleys efficiently. Easy stuff mostly, and measure of it is simply how often they miss

Lendl’s probably a little better. 4/9 of his UEs are winner attempts, compared to 11/13 of Edberg’s. Neither player strains for winners, the balls they putaway are there to be putaway, and Edberg missing more. Lendl though a little less aggressive on net high volley, but he’s solid, Edberg isn’t killer and different isn’t significant

Some strange, mistimed volley UEs by Edberg, aided by being half a step off in positioning himself. Comfily above net, a little wide, average pace… 2-4 times, he just completely waywardly mistimes the volley out

Below easy or putaway volley is the stuff just below net. Neither player looks to hit these for winner, but either put them in corner or just wide
Lendl with 5 attacking UEs, Edberg with just 2. Edberg more regular in making those

Lendl being marked with rare BH1/2V UE is product bad shot choice. Waiting on ball and playing a BH at net is easy for the ball, but he moves in and shot is unnecessary

Now we come to the tricky to difficult volleys. Low and to feet or troublingly wide, occasionally versus vs powerful pass

Few points -
- Lendl is good at the lowish volley. Not necessarily better than Edberg, but in light of different expectations (assuming Lendl would be worse), his showing is more noteworthy. He’s not worse than Edberg - and get the lowish volley over and slightly wide, and not sitting up. Edberg performs similarly an with similar consistency, but one expects that from him

- 3 half-volley FEs for Edberg and he faces half a dozen more. Its very rare for Edberg, to face so many half-volleys to begin with
His serve isn’t fast, Lendl returns from normal position and not with undue power.
Only reason Edberg would face so many half-volleys is because he’s not as quick to net as his norm. He’s not slow by any means, but apparently, not as quick as usual.
And he makes them. Average authority or below, but he makes them. Not bad for dealing with half-volleys

- Edberg with just 1 more FE than Lendl, while at net 27 more times and facing stronger returns speaks Edberg being better at the tough stuff, though subjectively (that is, holding players to their own standards), one might say Lendl’s done better

Quality of volleys is similar too, even against the low and lowish stuff. Would expect some weak volleys and good look passes, but both players minimize that.

 

[Waspsting]

Pass in play by shot -
- Lendl FH 6 winners, 4 FEs
- Edberg FH 2 winners, 5 FEs
- Edberg BH 3 winners, 10 FEs
- Lendl BH 3 winners, 12 FEs, 1 UE

Not only do both players make tricky and more volleys with fair authority, they get them to others BH. Combined point ending shots of FH are 17, on BH 29

Lendl’s FH by far most successful and the best shot out there. Edberg’s not bad. Both players have 1 winner at net
Its the BH passing figures that get to less than great play. They aren’t good look passes because both players tricky volley well, but from good tricky volleys do leave fair looks at least

Just as percentage, those aren’t good BH passing ratios for fair looks, especially Lendl. Calling it average would be a little generous

Gist - volleying about equal, with points of interest in each players showings with respect to their reputations and general standing
Lendl edging the passing for his FH being strong, but FHs are very much minority. Neither player passing well of the BH, if anything, Edberg a little better

Statisitcal gist - net points won - Lendl 71%, Edberg 66%
In match where all points are net points. That’s a pretty good summary

Match Progression
Tight first set. Lendl deftly guides returns wide or low to good effect. His net high volleying isn’t great, but he makes the lowish ones nicely. Edberg’s body serves meanwhile tie Lendl up and his volleying is better
Break points for set read Lendl 0/5 (2 games), Edberg 1/1

3 points into match, and 3 break points appear - Lendl with winning FH cc return, BH dtl pass winner after drawing lowish first volley and BH inside-in return pass winner, all against first serves. Edberg wins next 5 points, 3 with unreturned serves. Lendl has even look at BH pass on second break point but misses

Edberg breaks for 4-2. 2 shoelace returns win him points and Lendl with 2 UEs (slightly wide FHV and BH1/2V he unnecssarily rushes into play against a looping return)

Edberg has 2 save 2 break points to conolidate. Lucky, net chord dribbling return winner from Lendl, and Edbergin missing very easy FHV raises break point, that Edberg erases with a jumping BHV winner. He saves another break point with an unreturned body serve. Edberg wins 3/4 points from body serves in the game, with the excepting being the net chord dribbling winner

Lendl stays back on 2 serves the game after, which turns out to be the only stay-back points of the match
And Edberg serves out to love. He makes two tough volleys to take the second point and finishes with a good, unreturned second serve to body

Lendl has better of second set, losing 5 points in 5 service games. Edberg loses 8 for 4 holds (including saving a break point), before losing serve in 10 point game to end set

Challenging returning by Lendl against in swing, medium paced serves. Edberg shelves the body serves that had been useful earlier (still wins 3/3 where he uses it). Lendl’s even better on lowish volley then he’d been in first set - and he’d been good then

Edberg delivers first ace of the match in game 2, a booming effort not too wide, but so much faster that it shoots by Lendl. Also brings home how contained his general serving is
Next point, he sends down a slow first serve. Its good enough thinking to follow up so, but it doesn’t work. Lendl halts his movement, has time to wait for ball, and casually lob-returns it for winner. Not something you see everyday. Serve is so slow that it isn’t actually difficult shot, but identifying and adjusting to it is a feat

Edberg’s last 3 service games last 8, 8 (1 break point) and 10 points (broken)

It’s a good game from Lendl to score the break. He’s got 3 BH return-pass winners in last 5 points (block dtl and identical cc’s), all against first serves, also forces error with FH dtl return and snags another by lobbing Edberg back to net. Just the 1 UE in game for Edberg, but it is a simple one and on game point

Third set is most server dominated one of match. No breaks, no break points
Lendl serves 30 points for his 6 holds, Edberg 35
Edberg serving the only extended game, which lasts 12 points

Tiebreak. 7/9 first serves from both players and Lendl beefing up his serve for it
Easy BHV miss gives Lendl 2-1 lead
Lendl leaves a mishit return that lands in for winner to get back on serve 4-5

Odd incident to modern eyes. Edberg makes a net chord running volley winner - and celebrates with a closed fist gesture. Apparently, modern norms of apologizing/acknowledging fortune in such situations weren’t yet in fashion. Still, its rare to for someone to actually celebrate (as opposed to just quietly get on with game) such a thing even in this period

All 4 set points are on return, with Edberg having his shots first
First 3 are all erased by unreturend first serves - Lendl with 2 strong serves, Edberg throwing in body serve

There are tense moments and let offs in between. Lendl misses sitter BH pass from near service line at 7-7. Edberg has a good look at FH pass at 8-8
Lendl finishes with a powerful, low return that draws a pretty good volley that he dismisses FH dtl for winner

Fourth set is one where returner has most chances and break points read Lendl 2/5 (3 games), Edberg 1/2 (2 games), so 5/10 break point games of match and 3/5 breaks coming in set
Its due to returning quality rising, not serve dropping. This kind of counter-play had always been possible, but earlier, neither could deliver it
Its not too competitive though. Lendl breaks to start to 15 - a stretched out, poked BH inside-out return winner and forcing two makeably difficult volley errors

2 trade tough holds in moving from 2-0 to 3-1
Edberg saving 2 break points in 10 point hold, Lendl 1 in 14 pointer. Good games, with no volley UEs in them and just 1 double fault

Lendl holds deuce game for 4-2. Makes half-volleys first up to draw BH passing errors on first two points of the game, so it could easily have gone differently
Then breaks again. 40-15 up, Edberg makes FHV UE, Lendl strikes consecutive cc return winners (1 of each wing) and Edberg adds a high putaway FHV in the game

Only really poor service game of match is Lendl’s would e serve-out. 2/6 first serves in, 3 volley UEs, Edberg delivering BH cc return winner to end it and snag a break back

Weird, mishit FHV UE by Edberg following game. He’s a little slow in moving for the ball. Its not his only one in match, but he holds

No mistakes from Lendl second go around and he delivers all first serves, 4/5 go unreturned (2 aces) to close out

Summing up, decent and competitive serve-volley match with two players similar in their style.
- Controlled serving (Lendl little more powerful, Edberg higher in count)
- Measured returning (Lendl with short swings and block-guiding, Edberg similar with more top spin, less block-guiding)
- Sound, solid volleying (both are good at handling trickily low-ish to low returns)
- Passing is below average in its hit rate, especially BH, which players volley bulk to

Lendl’s slightly better for returning a little better (both consistency and doing damage) and for his FH being the best passing shot on show
For grass, it amounts to more than small advantage

Other points of interest include Lend being very good on the lowish, bent-knee height volley (misses little, makes them with enough force to leave below good look passes) and Edberg not so good at moving for and making returns against hefty but not too wide serves

Stats for the final between Pat Cash and Lendl - Match Stats/Report - Cash vs Lendl, Wimbledon final, 1987 | Talk Tennis

 

[yama]

Perfect timing
I was just watching this match a moment ago

It’s ironic that Lendl, who lost badly in the final due to poor returns, was returning the ball so well in the semifinals

 

[BringBackWood]

After my first watch of this, I thought it was high quality, but second time around (after a healthy gap) reveals a fair but mundane match, with plenty of fluffed returns from Stefan and more than usual fluffed volleys. Compared to their 90 match, it is definitely more a downgrade from Stefan than an Ivan upgrade.
Whatever the relative merits of Stefan's pre vs post 89 serve (which included more body serves as a by-product), I think we can say that against Lendl at least, the latter was more effective. Both the work on the ball causing Ivan trouble, and allowing Stefan to get into net quicker.
Interesting you mention the 'return shuffle'. Do you know roughly when Edberg incorporated this?
Amusing comment by Lendl to the umpire 'where did they pick you up?'

 

[jrepac]

I don't think I saw this...now I want to...honestly, I assumed Stefan was off his game. Really expected him to win rather easily.

 

[Hard Court]

One stat that surprised me was the lack of service winners. Lendl had just one, and Edberg had zero?

Kind of seemed like Lendl volleyed a little better than usual and Edberg was worse than usual.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

One stat that surprised me was the lack of service winners. Lendl had just one, and Edberg had zero?

Kind of seemed like Lendl volleyed a little better than usual and Edberg was worse than usual.

As I remember it, Lendl returned reaaly well with his backhand slice which often landed at the feet of Edberg. But i was just 15 back then. Rooted for Edberg, of course.

 

[NedStark]

Perfect timing
I was just watching this match a moment ago

It’s ironic that Lendl, who lost badly in the final due to poor returns, was returning the ball so well in the semifinals

Yeah, his returns in the final was horrible. No wonder some like Cash managed to get 40+% unreturnable rate.

 

[Waspsting]

It’s ironic that Lendl, who lost badly in the final due to poor returns, was returning the ball so well in the semifinals

What struck me as strange is the different style in which is returns in the final
Day to day variation in quality is easy to understand (even for reputed robot like Lendl)
But in final, he's just looking to blast return down the center. Purpose seems to be to just hit through Cash - not get return low, not beat him wide
But in this semi, much of his returning is deft, blocking or guiding returns low and wide. Which is easier to control than slamming the ball

Failing so badly at slamming the ball in final, why not turn to some of this stuff instead? Its not because Cash's serve is too strong
Weird final from Lendl

Interesting you mention the 'return shuffle'. Do you know roughly when Edberg incorporated this?

Not sure
He's definately doing it by 1990, so sometime between then and here
It definately improved his movement on the second shot. With the shuffle, Edberg's one of the best returners of big serves I've seen
Its more about grace, ease, movement than power so probably goes under the radar a bit

One stat that surprised me was the lack of service winners. Lendl had just one, and Edberg had zero?

'Service Winners' is a very subjective stat and my way it absolutely minimize them

Roughly, "serve was knocked off to side or behind or straight into ground, no chance in hell of making return and all of that because of strength of serve (not returner making meal of the shot)" is my standard for service winners

So you'll see low serice winners in all my stats. 6-7 max and those would be the like of a strong Goran showing against a try-every-return receiver

That said, there's relatively few "hard forced return errors" in this match. Neither player is serving too wide, returner has second shot covered... if they miss the return, wouldn't attribute it to serve being unreturnably good. Even with looser standard, wouldn't expect too many service winners for this one

 

[Mustard]

I can only think that Lendl was very nervous in the final, and that Cash's peak playing level of returns, volleys, half-volleys and lobs for so long in the final just made Lendl's nervousness worse. The irony is that Lendl's poor returns in the final made Cash's serving stats look absolutely incredible, even though Cash's serving on the day was probably "just" good rather than excellent. In the first set, Cash had a period of winning 12 consecutive service points (first game to seventh game). From the last point of the first set until the second game of the third set, Cash won 20 consecutive points on serve. Cash then finished the match by winning 15 consecutive points on serve. It was ridiculous how good those streaks were for Cash, yet Lendl's poor returning was a huge reason.

 

[jrepac]

I can only think that Lendl was very nervous in the final, and that Cash's peak playing level of returns, volleys, half-volleys and lobs for so long in the final just made Lendl's nervousness worse. The irony is that Lendl's poor returns in the final made Cash's serving stats look absolutely incredible, even though Cash's serving on the day was probably "just" good rather than excellent. In the first set, Cash had a period of winning 12 consecutive service points (first game to seventh game). From the last point of the first set until the second game of the third set, Cash won 20 consecutive points on serve. Cash then finished the match by winning 15 consecutive points on serve. It was ridiculous how good those streaks were for Cash, yet Lendl's poor returning was a huge reason.

Cash played very well....very little got past him at net. I felt he was at the same level as the SF, probably a little better overall. I just don't recall ever seeing him play that well again. Was watching his Queens SF vs. Connors, which was just posted on YT. Where he lost in straights mainly due to superb returns from Jimmy. Nothing there would lead me to believe he'd win Wimby a couple of weeks later. Nothing.

 

[Drob]

Odd incident to modern eyes. Edberg makes a net chord running volley winner - and celebrates with a closed fist gesture. Apparently, modern norms of apologizing/acknowledging fortune in such situations weren’t yet in fashion. Still, its rare to for someone to actually celebrate (as opposed to just quietly get on with game) such a thing even in this period

This false apology off the net cord is pretty much a 21st Century thing. In previous eras, in a friendly match one might make a subtle gesture of commiseration, but in a big match it was very rare. The way the ball bounces. I have read that Vines with his powerful, flat forehand actually tried to come as close as possible to clipping the net and did not mind so much if he did . . . and that was considered okay. I think we may see a bit of this in Connors also.

There was a player in my youth who was our top player on High School Varsity and he seemed to live off the net cord. I swear that was how he beat me. And that was okay, impressive even.

The current etiquette is insincere and stupid, but even being that, the gestures are exaggerated - to the point that certain players have taken umbrage on court when they thought the "apology" was not clear enough. Absurd.

 

[Waspsting]

This false apology off the net cord is pretty much a 21st Century thing. In previous eras, in a friendly match one might make a subtle gesture of commiseration, but in a big match it was very rare.

The incident here made me curious as to when it started. Its not something I've paid much attention to

Few incidents that stick out

- '87 Davis Cup relegation, McEnroe effusively celebrates a net chord dribbling winner against Boris Becker. Celebration would have been eye catchingly much for any point
He's up to his eyeballs in gamesmanship in that match
I got the distinct impression that he was doing it to try to needle Becker, with hopes of mental lapse
A precursor to modern situation of player getting upset that opponent hasn't acknowledged/apologized for lucky winner and have lapses

- in '89 Wimby, Lendl terslely acknoweldged lightly striking Becker in net-to-net situation. Which coming from him, who loved knocking net players to the ground with square on hits, caught my eye. It seems sincere and spontatenous reaction and I believe reason behind it was Lendl not pointedly looking to hit Boris (the way he was when smacking others) but just put ball away

- the most sincere expression of regret I've seen is from Michael Stich in Grand Slam Cup 1992 against Edberg
He hits a complete fluke of a winner and just stands his ground, looking downright embarressed by it. And waits in embarressed pose, before looking up and apologizing to Edberg for it

The current etiquette is insincere and stupid, but even being that, the gestures are exaggerated - to the point that certain players have taken umbrage on court when they thought the "apology" was not clear enough. Absurd.

I don't mind the etiquette, but fully agree with teh exaggerated nature of it and ridiculousness of the players being offended at not sincere enough 'apology'
Its mostly the women who do this, isn't it?

Recent incident I found highly amusing (for a number of reasons)

Winner of match (an American) had apparently celebrated lucky winners (let alone apologize for them) and was effusive in celebrations in general. And got up European opponents nose with it
The loser clearly had some stern words when the two met at net at end of match
And of course, on-court interviewer asked the winner what was said

She replied with gusto (paraphrased), "Oh, she said I had no class and no education. And things would be different when we meet outside America. But I disagree. I beat her in Canada and in New York"

Said win in New York being an event called "the US Open"
I'd say that's the winner proving the loser's point. And with such loud, bold, righteous confidence

Winner was person of colour, which further stoked up the incident. Apparently, describing person of colour as having no education is a particularly sensitive issue in America (regardless of whether its true or not. Maybe even 'especially' if its true)

I can only think that Lendl was very nervous in the final, and that Cash's peak playing level of returns, volleys, half-volleys and lobs for so long in the final just made Lendl's nervousness worse.

Your guess is as good as mine

Lendl generally comes into a match with a plan - slam ball or chip/block it, serve big or contained, go cc on the pass or dtl etc.

I take it slamming the return was the way he planned to go at Cash.
While against Edberg, he came in prepared to chip-block-guide

Executing badly aside, I find that an odd appraoch to take against Cash, leaving aside never adjusting away from it
(admittedly, I don't know Cash's game anywhere near as well as I know Edberg's and am largely going on his reputation as an elite volleyer)

Not that quality of volleyer is sole determinant of such decisions
Lendl always slammed returns at McEnroe, never looked to guide-block-chipped them

 

[Angrybirdstar]

And of course, on-court interviewer asked the winner what was said

She replied with gusto (paraphrased), "Oh, she said I had no class and no education. And things would be different when we meet outside America. But I disagree. I beat her in Canada and in New York"

Said win in New York being an event called "the US Open"
I'd say that's the winner proving the loser's point. And with such loud, bold, righteous confidence

didn't see anything relevant mentioned in on-court interview, and in post-match seemed like that's not quite what happened

Q. I do have to ask you straight away about what happened at the handshake there. Perhaps you can talk us through that. Also, have you had any history with Jelena? I know you've played each other in singles and multiple times in doubles. Perhaps you could just talk us through it.

TAYLOR TOWNSEND: Like you said, we've played many times before. I played her in Toronto last year in singles. We've played probably before that. Most recently in the semifinals of Wimbledon in doubles.

No, there's never been any history. I don't know how she feels about me, but there's no beef on my side. She told me I have no education, no class, and to see what happens if we play each other outside of the U.S. I said, I'm excited, bring it.

 

[Waspsting]

At 1:05

Quoting exactly ... "
... she told me I have no class, I have no education and to see what happens when we get outside the US. So, I'm looking forward to it. I mean, I beat her in Canada outside the US, I beat her in New York, outside the US so lets see what else she has to say"

Compare to "She told me I have no education, no class, and to see what happens if we play each other outside of the U.S. I said, I'm excited, bring it."

 

[Angrybirdstar]

oops i made a research fail, sorry. somehow mixed up post-match interviews (was looking at vs Andreeva rather than vs Ostapenko)

I mean, I beat her in Canada outside the US, I beat her in New York, outside the US

lol impressive slip