Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Pernfors, French Open final, 1986

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Mikael Pernfors 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 in the French Open final, 1986 on clay

It was Lendl’s second title at the event and he would go onto defend the title following year. He’d be runner-up at Wimbledon and champion at US Open in the other Slams of the year. This would be the unseeded Pernfors’ only Slam final and he beat 4 seeded players (Stefan Edberg, Martin Jaite, Boris Becker and Henri Leconte) en route to the final. It was his first French Open and he wouldn’t win another match there in his career

Lendl won 108 points, Pernfors 84

(Note: I’ve made educated guesses regarding serve type for a small number of points)

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (48/83) 58%
- 1st serve points won (31/48) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (17/35) 49%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/83) 18%

Pernfors...
- 1st serve percentage (56/109) 51%
- 1st serve points won (29/56) 52%
- 2nd serve points won (20/53) 38%
- Aces 4
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/109) 14%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 24%
- to BH 72%
- to Body 4%

Pernfors served...
- to FH 48%
- to BH 44%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 91 (50 FH, 41 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (5 FH, 3 BH)
- 3 Forced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (91/106) 86%

Pernfors made...
- 67 (20 FH, 47 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (2 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (67/82) 82%

Break Points
Lendl 9/19 (11 games)
Pernfors 4/11 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 26 (9 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 5 OH)
Pernfors 30 (7 FH, 11 BH, 6 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)

Lendls FHs - 3 cc, 1 cc/inside-in pass, 1 dtl at net, 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-out, 1 longline, 1 running-down-drop-shot inside-out at net
- BHs - 4 dtl (3 passes - 1 return), 2 dtl/inside-out passes (1 at net), 1 inside-out, 2 drop shots (1 at net - played from FH side)

Pernfors' FHs - 2 cc (1 at net, 1 pass), 2 dtl (1 at net), 1 inside-out, 2 inside-in
- BHs - 3 cc passes, 3 dtl (1 at net, 2 passes), 1 inside-out, 3 drop shots (1 at net), 1 net chord dribbler

- 1 FHV was a non-net, swinging dtl pass

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 38
- 21 Unforced (13 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 17 Forced (7 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 Sky Hook)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.6

Pernfors 64
- 40 Unforced (18 FH, 18 BH, 2 FHV, 2 OH)... with 1 OH on the bounce from the baseline
- 24 Forced (11 FH, 12 BH, 1 Tweener)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH can reasonably be called a BHOH (flagrantly forced, on the bounce from baseline against an at net smash)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.3

(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...
- 27/45 (60%) at net, including...
- 0/1 serve-volleying, a 1st serve
---
- 0/2 forced back

Pernfors was...
- 25/39 (64%) at net, including...
- 1/2 serve-volleying, both 1st serves
---
- 0/3 forced back/retreated

Match Report
There’s a lot going on in this routine scoreline match and Lendl is better at almost all of it. Not least of all, evenness of standard. Lendl’s has his little ups and downs too, but Pernfors has more still. At his best, Pernfors is close to even with a base standard Lendl, but he’s at that level for maybe half the time (and still trails a little). Rest of the time, Lendl’s comfortably better player

Loopy, slow, moonball-ish exchanges of the neutral type. Stepping in and hitting hard, leading to lead-react or even attacking-defending dynamics. Power based attacks and placement based. Drop shots. Net play. Lot going on

Lendl’s better at almost all of it, perhaps playing a little within himself, but Perns is decent, good even. He looks like he belongs in a French Open final. Its common for players of comparable stature to not do so in getting steam-rolled by dominant champions, and scoreline here doesn’t dispel that having happened, but no. Decent from Perns - a lot better than Miloslav Mecir, a player of higher stature, would do against Lendl at the US Open later in the year - but Lendl just happens to be better than him, QED

Heart of Lendl’s superiority is ground consistency, particularly the security Lendl’s BH
Lendl 18 ground UEs, Pers 36. Lendl’s BH has just 5

But its not a straight, who-blinks-first baseline encounter so its not just a case of Lendl keeping ball in play better. With all various things going on, -

Lendl’s got 26 winners, 21 UEs, while forcing 24 errors. Top drawer figures, probably a little flattering too him (emphasis on little, he plays very well)
Perns with 30 winners, 40 UEs (playing a very stable, if not wall, opponent), forcing 17 errors. Good figures too

Lendl winning just 49% second serve points is indicator of Perns playing well

Serve & Return
Lendl serves within himself. Generally, he’s apt to go full blast in with first serves against opponents who don’t attack his second serves. Its like his free-hit - make it, win the point & miss it, get into a rally where he’s the best baseliner around

Not here. Healthy 58% first serves in (it tends to be around 50% or under when full blasting), and just the 1 ace (Pern has 4). Its well balanced. Pern’s shot tolerance on the return isn’t great and Lendl’s heftier or/and slightly wider serves tend to draw errors or has him struggling to make weak returns. These would be toned down Lendl ‘big’ serves that somebody like Wilander would return without issue. Here, they’re Lendl’s bigger serves and most of the time, sends down what looks like a good second serve for his first. Very big difference from full blast, looking for aces and service winners every first serve

Lendl returns calmly too. Perns doesn’t have a big serve and one might expect Lendl to look for blasted FH returns. Instead he just puts returns in play without looking to take charge. He tends to stand over to cover BH returns and Perns is willing to flat second serve to FH that Lendl has to run to reach. 86% return rate while just getting rally going and opponent not looking to attack third ball is laying foundation for baseline rally. Just the 3 runaround FH returns

Perns with average serve. He’s got 4 aces, at least a couple of which Lendl makes no move to return and probably could put in play (let alone get a racquet on) were he committed to do so. Points late in games, with Lendl up breaks, stuff like that. The 4 aces isn’t a good indicator of strength of Perns’ serve is the point

Returns steadily to tune of 82% return rate. Struggles enough against Lendl’s checked strong first serves to suggest he’d have a hard time against full blast stuff. But he does win 51% second return points (doesn’t have much to do with powerful returning), so there would be risk for Lendl in going that route

Return errors breakdown
- UEs - Lendl 8, Perns 6
- FEs - Lendl 3, Perns 8

Lendl’s yield is normal for clay against average server. Perns’ is a little FE heavy, in line with struggling with testing (as opposed to very powerful) serves

Perns serving majority 48% to Lendl’s FH, with 44% to body. Not a move many would duplicate, but its worked
Lendl with 7 FH return errors to 4 BHs. And he doesn’t smack FH returns with troublesome power to cut back into consistency difference across the two wings

Just 3 double faults for Perns looks good. All of them come at bad times and finalize breaks in the first set. No pressure on it with Lendl not attacking with the returns. Call it a choke and probably down to nerves. Lendl has just 1 double

Gist - normal enough low unreturned rates (Lendl 18%, Perns 14%) for clay and returns that just get a rally going. Slight advantage Lendl on serve-return complex

Play - Baseline & Net
Action varies across the match. Early on, both players fall back and play loopy groundstrokes. You’d think it was against the rules to move forward and hit the ball on up to watch them. Both wings, slightly more BH cc’ng than FH play. Both occasionally back off to hit a few loopy FH inside-outs to others BH

In time, they get around stepping in occasionally and hitting harder, flatter. Its Perns initially who does so more. Also uses drop shots some. Emphasis on “occasionally”. They don’t shift from looping balls falling back to smacking balls moving up. Staple remains loopy-ish and unthreatening and as rally goes on, someone flattens out a shot or two and keeps it at it for the rally

Perns has a slightly odd BH. Minimal backswing and a little stiff. Looks more suited to faster surfaces but those qualities help in disguising drop shots. Which is needed because they’re not very good drop shots. Neither are Lendl’s but neither player is too good at running them down either

 

[Waspsting]

Flatter, harder shots are test to recipients shot tolerance and movement. Lendl manages quite well, Perns struggles more. Lendl’s FH is the most powerful shot and causes the most flutters. He doesn’t persist or overdo it. You could say he eases into clinically playing with power. If Perns’ struggles against this kind of moderately attacking or pressuring play tempts Lendl to unleash, he resists the temptation. Perns’ most testing shot is FH inside-in, which he uses to attack, while FH inside-out is just a neutral, rally shot. Surprise BH drop shot is his occasional BH weapon. Lendl rarely knocks a BH dtl attackingly and largely sticks to loopy cc, happy to fall back to play it

Neither player moves well. Lendl in particular is not tested much, but his relative slowness comes through when running down drop shots. Perns is tested more and against more force and is also unimpressive. Action is slow enough that footspeed isn’t too important and Lendl remains in good position for his shots almost always, but the’s not quick when forced to chase down average drop shots

Both players take to approaching net (drop shot related and otherwise). Lendl does so considerably, though it varies across different stages of match. Neither player is convincing in their volleying and leave decent passing chances other than when coming in off genuinely overpowering shots. Lendl being more powerful player is able to come in so commandingly more often but neither player manufactures approaches from neutral positions, so approach shots are generally strong. Good thing it is, because neither can penetrate the clay with their volleys

Perns has a little purple patch of nailing first rate passing winners, but it’s a brief, 2-3 game period. He uses drop shots more often too so more of Lendl’s approaches are forced
And at different times, Perns’ consistency falls off and he gets outlasted for errors. Outlasted, not beat-down. Rallies tend to be on long side

How does it look in numbers?

Winners - Lendl 26, Perns 30
Errors Forced - Lendl 24, Perns 17
UEs - Lendl 21, Perns 40

Neutral UEs - Lendl 9, Perns 21, and ground UEs (all, not just neutral) read -
- Lendl BH 5
- Lendl FH 13
- both Perns shots 18

That’s a good start for Lendl, with his BH rock of match. He isn’t aggressive with it and loops ball high over net cc, but its done what its supposed to and stayed steady. Rarely, rips a dtl shot, but very much the exception. Perns’ BH is apt to get blinky now and then and give up errors readily by contrast. Made to look worse because it’s slightly awkward looking shot, especially next to Lendl’s flowing one

Lendl’s FH has off phases, including what looks like a choke serving for first set and misses a few bigger, power shots. He doesn’t miss much at lower intensity as low neutral UEs indicate
Certain element of Perns lashing out in light of Lendl being so solid, which comes through in more aggressive error types

Ground to ground winners -
- FHs - Lendl 6, Pern 4
- BHs - both 3

… with winner attempt UEs Lendl 4, Perns 10. With virtually same net UEs (Lendl 3, Perns 4)
Winners about the same, but Lendl barely missing any from the back when he going for them. Perns missing about as often as not. Not that either player goes for big baseline winners often, but Lendl doing better

Net points - Lendl 27/45 or 60%, Perns 25/39 or 64%
Errors forced - Lendl 24, Perns 17
Attacking UEs - Lendl 8, Perns 9

Virtually equal net points won, but with Perns having more net winners 15 to 11 (including groundies at net, excluding sole non-net volley), that means Lendl’s forced more passing errors. Both come in off good approaches, but Lendl more so. His success at net is about overpowering baseline play, not great volleying.

Perns coming in nearly as much, coming in off less strong approaches but winning higher rate of points there is interesting. Discrepancy in approaches also related to Lendl coming in to deal with drop shots a little more, so the gap in voluntary approaches is even smaller than nominal 6. Without getting anywhere close to net-hungry, Perns has done well to actively take chances to come in. Good idea since he’s outplayed from back. When he garners small hitting advantage, he tends to come in. More so than Lendl, though Lendl’s also sound in this area and has extra option of seeing the point through from the back - either with beat-down power (with Perns’ shot tolerance and defence not great and not upto handling Lendl’s heat from the back) or simply outlasting Perns. He also passes better - which is down to a small purple patch

Passing winners - Lendl 6 (1 return), Perns 7… with Perns’ being tougher, less probable shots, but that’s limited to short window in which Perns’ takes 2-0 lead in second set

Perns throws up a good few lobs, often pressured if not forced to due to how strong a position Lendl comes in off. Takes Lendl multiple OHs to finish points, but he tends not to falter. 5 smash winners to just 3 volleys, 1 Sky Hook FE, no UEs. Good job by Perns to give Lendl room to mess up and Lendl sticking to smashsing even when they come back

 

[Waspsting]

Finally, like many clay matches, there’s matter of long term grinding down. Lendl achieves this and without wilting or showing lack of heart, Perns’ stomach for long rallies shrinks as match goes on. Perns reacts more than leads. When he leads or gets on attack, it seems to take a concentrated effort. Lendl by contrast ups his hitting to bossy and bullying organically. Its more effective than Perns and he can both sustain it better and has greater tolerance against when on the receiving end. This is not a match of great defence or gets by either player, but Lendl can handle flat, powerful hits better

And Lendl never gets carried away by bullying Perns and is content to play neutral rallies (of varyng degrees of loopy - the average loopiness of shot goes down as match goes on), safe in his consistency advantage

Perns plays well, but there’s almost nothing he does better than Lendl. Passing is the exception

Match Progression
Two players ease into the match with long, loopy rallies. Its Perns that’s a little more adventurous, using a few drop shots early on and occasionally flattening out groundstroke

He BH drop shots a winner second game of match and holds the game with an ace

Next 3 games are all holds and all have break point(s) in them
Few drop shots by Perns wins him 2 impressive points in game 2 (bad drop shot but comes away with reflex BHV net-to-net winner and swinging away a non-net drive FHV dtl passing winner after another drop shot force Lendl in). He gives up FH UE on break point before Lendl holds

Lendl’s got 2 break points next game, but missed returns keep getting further
And Perns’ got a break point game after that, with Pern attacking net to get to that stage, but good serves from Lendl seeing him hom

4 of next 5 games are breaks. Pern spectacularly saves a point where he fends back a smash before Lendl goes onto miss a too fine FHV to make it 30-15, but Pern misses an easy FHV himself after and double faults to go down 2-3. Lendl breaks to love next go around with 3 winners (FH cc/inside-in pass, BH dtl/inside-out pass and a smash - the third one it takes him to finish the point) and serves for the set at 5-2

Chokes it with a bunch of third ball FH UEs, most of them big shots and is broken

No matter as Lendl breaks again to end set 6-3 in a long 14 point game, where he starts taking charge of rallies more. Nice, wide BH cc to come in behind and putaway FHV brings up a third break/set point on which Perns again double faults

If it seems Lendl’s gotten grip on his opponent, match takes an unexpected turn early in second set. Perns hits a purple patch to break for 2-0 lead. He’s got 4 passing winners in first three games (Lendl holds a deuce game for 1-2). Gains the break when Lendl coughs up couple UEs (1 of each side) after Pern knocks away a BH dtl passing winner against a third ball approach and outmanuvers Lendl to take net and hit an OH winner

The BH cc passing winner he hits in game 3 is best of the lot and from hopeless position, but Lendl holds. Its first of 9 games he wins in a row

First break is long 10 point game with Perns at net 5 times (including a serve-volley), but making some poor, edgily attacking UEs. He continues with bad shot choices as Lendl holds to love to consolidate

Tide of play shifts to Lendl getting sumptuously comfy and bossing action about. Perns’ is left groaning and struggling as loopier balls are pounded hard and his shot choices remain poor. Lendl’s not slow to come to net after pounding Perns down and he’s not faced with anymore unlikely great passes. Last 4 games of set don’t take long, with Perns winning 4 points in them

Lendl carries on in same vein to open up 3-0 lead in third set and has break point for 4-0. It’s a special point from Perns that thwarts as he fends back OHs and forces Lendl back to baseline twice before turning rally upside down with a FH dtl, and ultimately, coming away with a BH drop shot at net winner. He gets on the board with a net chord dribbling winner

Again, it’s chokey FH stuff from Lendl that gets Perns back in the set. Couple of third ball FH UEs from Lendl, after hitting a FHV winner with Lendl drop shotting him to net. Excellent break point though - a long rally, Lendl coming in off overpowering approach but Perns with another fantatic BH cc passing winner

From back in the set, Perns takes the lead by breaking again for 4-3. He’s at net 4 times in the 6 point game (twice drop shotted in) and wins 3 of them, while also punishing a not-good Lendl volley

Doesn’t win another game. Lendl’s stronger, more commanding baseliner for those last 3 games on top of which, UE free. Perns on top of being pushed back (if not bullied) also gets a loose in giving up routine errors randomly, which ironically, highlights how that hadn’t been the case for almost entire match

Lendl seals the match with a break to 30. The crowd get on Lendl’s back for much of the last set, beyond merely supporting the under-dog and wanting to see a longer match. Chair Umpire also adamantly refuses to check a close call at Lendl’s request, which looks like it had been out

Summing up, good match and a controlled and well-played one from Lendl. He’s efficient, if conservative in his serving and returning, content to start rallies from even positions. He’s much more secure from the baseline - especially with rock of a BH - and while able to bully and overpower Pernfors, doesn’t overdo it or look likely to. He’s a little slow in coping with drop shots, with his movement otherwise not unduly tested

A decent showing from Pernfors too, but his opponent is just better than him at almost everything - more powerful, more consistent, stronger serve, surer return, better shot-tolerance. Pernfors’ is also a bit patchy, if not up and down in how well he plays and a little slow around court

Given scorelines and difference in the two players’ records, this match sounds like it could be a thrashing or a humiliation of a beating. Though Lendl’s comfortably better, it isn’t that at least and Mikael Pernfors doesn’t disgrace himself

 

[jrepac]

I don't recall if I watched this final...maybe just part of it...this was a real breakthrough for Pernfors. But never to be achieved again, which I was a little surprised by. I thought he'd be a contender. He was a real pitbull. But instead, he became well known for some mega-tussles with some GOATs (Connors, Wilander, Mac). I think he lacked that extra gear (or notch) that he could dial up against these guys; he was already maxed out to stay even, but if they raised their games, he was going to fall behind (eventually). There was no way he was going to beat Lendl Prime at the baseline...just way to consistent and able to dominate the action. Regardless, I really like Pernfors and kept track of him...was nice to see him pop up on the Seniors Tour as well for a bit. One of the forgotten Swedes (he seemed rather American to me).

 

[Waspsting]

I don't recall if I watched this final...maybe just part of it...this was a real breakthrough for Pernfors. But never to be achieved again, which I was a little surprised by. I thought he'd be a contender. He was a real pitbull. But instead, he became well known for some mega-tussles with some GOATs (Connors, Wilander, Mac). I think he lacked that extra gear (or notch) that he could dial up against these guys; he was already maxed out to stay even, but if they raised their games, he was going to fall behind (eventually). There was no way he was going to beat Lendl Prime at the baseline...just way to consistent and able to dominate the action. Regardless, I really like Pernfors and kept track of him...was nice to see him pop up on the Seniors Tour as well for a bit. One of the forgotten Swedes (he seemed rather American to me).

I don't remember him at all from the '90s. He's the first Swede I've seen whose movement has struck me as problematic

Its cute how in this run to the final, he beat all the players who had or would have Slam wins over Lendl around this tournament

Do you remember what the talk was like heading into this match?
In retrospect, it seems like a never-in-doubt result, but in light of consideration of not-distant history of Lendl's reputation for blowing big matches/choking and Pernfors' hot run had people people edgy about what might happen?

Even after upsetting McEnroe for the US Open title, Lendl was still just 2-6 in Slam finals
The only match he lost in '85 post US Open was at Australian Open to a teenaged Edberg (which I imagine wouldn't have been taken as normal/understandable as it is in retrospect), so only loss just happened to be at the sole Slam

And here he is in another final. Against another not well known youngster, whose taken down reigning Slam champions Edberg and Becker (2 of the very few players who'd had some success against Lendl since US Open) and Leconte (who'd beaten Lendl last Wimby)

 

[big ted]

i remember the pernfors run, NBC was playing up on the whole georgia bulldog thing, and how he wasnt the typical swede..
he didnt have a chance in that final and he was just happy (and lucky) to get there... i didnt expect alot from pernfors afterwards
since by that time, champions were coming out of tennis academies not NCAA tennis

 

[Hard Court]

I remember this French Open well. ESPN used to broadcast 5 hours a day during the week. Pernfors had quite an unexpected run. He really had almost no chance against Lendl that day. One stat that was a little surprising was how often Lendl went to the net. 45x in 27 games on clay is a lot for Lendl who usually did not go in much outside of grass.

 

[Waspsting]

he didnt have a chance in that final and he was just happy (and lucky)

ernfors had quite an unexpected run. He really had almost no chance against Lendl that day

Thanks, I was curious about this
I see good few retrospective takes of 'never-in-doubt' finals that I clearly remember were anything but at the actual time of happening
No one was betting their life savings on Sampras going into most of his Wimby finals for example

...little surprising was how often Lendl went to the net. 45x in 27 games on clay is a lot for Lendl who usually did not go in much outside of grass.

a little

counter-intuitively, he did so more on clay than hard courts. Probably more confident in his ability to beat errors out of opponent on hard court than clay

In Rome final leading into this match, he surprisingly serve-volleyed quite a lot against Emilio Sanchez (and did so almost perfectly)

Another curiousity was in '84 French Open, when he serve-volleyed fair bit against Mats Wilander in the semi, but hardly at all against John McEnroe in the final
Would think Wilander would be a scarier guy to serve-volley to than Mac, particularly since serve-volleying just to keep Mac from taking net was standard Lendl practice around then

 

[Moose Malloy]

Pernfors slow? Speed was considered one of his strengths, interesting take. His win over Becker was fun, a ton of variety, great dropshots. Faced no break points in last 2 sets. But hardcourt was probably his best surface(he never again made a SF on clay after 86 RG), I remember him winning '93 Montreal Masters well, it was such a shock(beat Korda, Courier Martin - at age 30. 30 was ancient back then). He and Wilander played in the latest finishing major match at the time at '93 USO(around 2:30 am, can't believe how many have blown by that record since)

here are some good threads on him

Any Mikael Pernfors fans

A largely forgotten Swede, but I loved how he played. Very tricky and quick. Very fun to watch. Two time NCAA singles Champ, french open Finalist, and won the Canadian Masters Series tourney late in his career (7 titles overall). Also, blew a 6-1, 6-1, 4-1 lead to Connors at Wimbledon.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Some stats for 1986 Davis Cup final (Cash-Pernfors)

This is one of the best grass-court matches I've seen: a true contrast of styles, a great comeback, and the underdog playing in the zone. Score: Cash d. Pernfors 2-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (46 games) The match was played at Kooyong Stadium, a month before the Australian Open was held there...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[jrepac]

i remember the pernfors run, NBC was playing up on the whole georgia bulldog thing, and how he wasnt the typical swede..
he didnt have a chance in that final and he was just happy (and lucky) to get there... i didnt expect alot from pernfors afterwards
since by that time, champions were coming out of tennis academies not NCAA tennis

Yup...that's what I recalled. He was your atypical Swede. I don't think anyone felt he'd threaten Lendl. But he had nothing to. lose. He had wheels...he was quick around the court.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Do you remember what the talk was like heading into this match?

In retrospect, it seems like a never-in-doubt result, but in light of consideration of not-distant history of Lendl's reputation for blowing big matches/choking and Pernfors' hot run had people people edgy about what might happen?

Nothing too conclusive, but here's the New York Times' coverage of the semis, and Sports Illustrated's coverage of the tournament immediately after it was over.

PERNFORS STUNS LECONTE TO GAIN FINAL (Published 1986)

www.nytimes.com

The Ivan, Chris And Mikael Show

Like everything else in Paris this spring, tennis took a backseat, first to the World Cup and then to the weather. Until Sunday it was the wettest, dreariest,

vault.si.com

(I thought the NYT's snarky "Kriek was defeated in a mere 76 minutes by the top-seeded Ivan Lendl, 6-2 6-1 6-0, in a match that was not as close as the score." was particularly good.)

 

[jrepac]

Nothing too conclusive, but here's the New York Times' coverage of the semis, and Sports Illustrated's coverage of the tournament immediately after it was over.

PERNFORS STUNS LECONTE TO GAIN FINAL (Published 1986)

www.nytimes.com

The Ivan, Chris And Mikael Show

Like everything else in Paris this spring, tennis took a backseat, first to the World Cup and then to the weather. Until Sunday it was the wettest, dreariest,

vault.si.com

(I thought the NYT's snarky "Kriek was defeated in a mere 76 minutes by the top-seeded Ivan Lendl, 6-2 6-1 6-0, in a match that was not as close as the score." was particularly good.)

oh gee, I forgot about Kriek. He had done quite well to get there, but he was weaponless against Lendl. It was embarrassing.

 

[WCT]

I once talked to Pernfors on a sports talk show in which he guested. Only for a minute or two. Jim Lampley. He had him as a guest a couple times. This is 87-88 ish.

 

[jrepac]

I once talked to Pernfors on a sports talk show in which he guested. Only for a minute or two. Jim Lampley. He had him as a guest a couple times. This is 87-88 ish.

what was he like in person?

 

[WCT]

what was he like in person?

Seemed nice enough, but more outgoing than your typical Swede. My discussion with him was about Connors and Mecir and how relatively flat they hit the ball, IMO. I wanted him to comment on my opiniom and compare them. He agreed about that, but thought that Mecir played a lot more angles. I was only on with him for maybe 2 minutes tops.

 

[jrepac]

Seemed nice enough, but more outgoing than your typical Swede. My discussion with him was about Connors and Mecir and how relatively flat they hit the ball, IMO. I wanted him to comment on my opiniom and compare them. He agreed about that, but thought that Mecir played a lot more angles. I was only on with him for maybe 2 minutes tops.

Nice! Mecir did play some wicked angles. He was a freaking magician. Love watching him. Mecir vs. Connors, the few times they played, was usually pretty fascinating.

 

[Gizo]

The Lendl of 1986 was considerably fitter than the Lendl of 1984. He talked about how as his fitness improved, his mental strength also improved.

He had to play more proactively to win RG in 1984 compared to in 1986 (and in 1987) which IMO made him more enjoyable to watch. In 1986-1987 with his significantly enhanced fitness, he essentially won his titles there playing as a defensive grinder, though after long, seemingly endless rallies he could suddenly amp things up with his forehand.

Regardless, it was still an impressively dominant title run for Lendl, only conceding 54 games in 7 matches and 1 set, when he lost a 1st set tiebreak against Gómez in their QF.

So in 1986, Gómez was both the only player to win a set off Lendl at RG, and also the only player to push him to 5-5 in a set or even force a break point against him during his incredibly dominant Masters title run at the end of the year, which seems even more insanely impressive to me whenever I think about it.

Regarding Pernfors, his Davis Cup final battle vs. Cash in Kooyong (which secured the title for Australia) was IMO the best match that I saw from the 1986 season, and also one of my favourite ever Davis Cup matches.

 

[adil1972]

Is it true that fed was 27-1 in grandslam matches in both 2006 - 07

Edit
27-1 in 2006

2006 Roger Federer tennis season - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

26-1 in 2007 due to 4Round walkover in wimbledon

2007 Roger Federer tennis season - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[WCT]

Nice! Mecir did play some wicked angles. He was a freaking magician. Love watching him. Mecir vs. Connors, the few times they played, was usually pretty fascinating.

Mecir was a unique player. I remember recording the Connors match in Key Biscayne.

 

[Waspsting]

Nothing too conclusive, but here's the New York Times' coverage of the semis, and Sports Illustrated's coverage of the tournament immediately after it was over.

Many thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for

(I thought the NYT's snarky "Kriek was defeated in a mere 76 minutes by the top-seeded Ivan Lendl, 6-2 6-1 6-0, in a match that was not as close as the score." was particularly good.)

76 minutes, take away 10-15 for changeovers, so about an hour for 3 sets on clay
Sounds justified. If I saw that lenght a video for that scoreline, I'd think it must be missing at least one set

Snark aside, the other article mentions this was the first time in 7 years Kriek had played on red clay. Making the semis at French Open in that light is impressive

It also says he clearly tanked the match and a comment from Kriek about thinking about giving up after the first point of the match is suggestive - about his attitude, but also how formidable Lendl was regarded (or maybe it just says something about Kriek's sense of humour)

Seemed nice enough, but more outgoing than your typical Swede. My discussion with him was about Connors and Mecir and how relatively flat they hit the ball, IMO. I wanted him to comment on my opiniom and compare them. He agreed about that, but thought that Mecir played a lot more angles. I was only on with him for maybe 2 minutes tops.

Mecir did play some wicked angles. He was a freaking magician

Mecir-Connors sounds like a fun match-up
Mecir with his wide hitting and Connors not one to shy away from an open court contest (unlike Lendl, who'd just keep the court closed and let Mecir bleed himself out)


Similarities with Mecir and Rios, Davydenko and Nalbandian in how they're always hitting wide and looking to open the court, have corner to corner running rallies
Can swish away even the top players occasionally, but there's a reason these guys never won a Slam and the more orthdox, less exciting Lendl, Wilander, Djokovic etc. have so many

 

[Olli Jokinen]

The Lendl of 1986 was considerably fitter than the Lendl of 1984. He talked about how as his fitness improved, his mental strength also improved.

He had to play more proactively to win RG in 1984 compared to in 1986 (and in 1987) which IMO made him more enjoyable to watch. In 1986-1987 with his significantly enhanced fitness, he essentially won his titles there playing as a defensive grinder, though after long, seemingly endless rallies he could suddenly amp things up with his forehand.

Regardless, it was still an impressively dominant title run for Lendl, only conceding 54 games in 7 matches and 1 set, when he lost a 1st set tiebreak against Gómez in their QF.

So in 1986, Gómez was both the only player to win a set off Lendl at RG, and also the only player to push him to 5-5 in a set or even force a break point against him during his incredibly dominant Masters title run at the end of the year, which seems even more insanely impressive to me whenever I think about it.

Regarding Pernfors, his Davis Cup final battle vs. Cash in Kooyong (which secured the title for Australia) was IMO the best match that I saw from the 1986 season, and also one of my favourite ever Davis Cup matches.

I saw that one too in the middle of the night in Sweden (was visiting my grandma). I was pretty gutted because I was rooting for the Swedes. Pat Cash really did some damage, won against Edberg too and won the doubles with John Fitzgerald against Edberg/Järryd.