Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Sampras, Philadelphia final, 1991

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Pete Sampras 5-7, 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 in the Philadelphia final, 1991 on carpet

It was Lendl’s second and last title at the event. Sampras was 19 years old and the defending champion

Lendl won 147 points, Sampras 137

Sampras serve-volleyed of all first serves

(Note: I’m missing data for following points
Set 2, Game 5, Point 1 - a Sampras first serve ace, serve direction unknown
Set 2, Game 9, Point 5 - a Sampras first serve ace, serve direction unknown
Set 3, Game 5, Point 1 - a Sampras second serve drawing return error, serve direction and return error type unknown
Set 3, Game 5, Point 2 - tracked via audio, first serve point assumed to be a serve-volley point and an unknown Lendl fourth ball passing error
Set 5, Game 2, Point 1 - a Sampras service point that he won, completely missing
Set 5, Game 4, Point 1 - tracked via audio, Sampras first serve point, assumed to be a serve-volley point, return made, that sounds like a second volley winner, but ending unrecorded)

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (71/140) 51%
- 1st serve points won (60/71) 85%
- 2nd serve points won (39/69) 57%
- Aces 23 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 8
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (47/140) 34%

Sampras...
- 1st serve percentage (78/143) 55%
- 1st serve points won (63/78) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (32/65) 49%
- ?? serve points won (1/1)
- Aces 14, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (58/143) 41%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 24%
- to BH 71%
- to Body 5%

Sampras served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 55%
- to Body 11%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 84 (27 FH, 55 BH, 2 ??), including 3 return-approaches
- 8 Winners (5 FH, 3 BH)
- 43 Errors, comprising...
- 11 Unforced (4 FH, 7 BH)
- 31 Forced (12 FH, 18 BH, 1 Behind-back)
- 1 ?? (against a second serve)
- Return Rate (84/142) 59%

Sampras made...
- 85 (30 FH, 55 BH), including 7 runaround FHs & 9 return-approaches
- 24 Errors, comprising...
- 13 Unforced (4 FH, 9 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 11 Forced (3 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (85/132) 64%

Break Points
Lendl 4/9 (6 games)
Sampras 3/6 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 29 (15 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH)
Sampras 27 (10 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 7 BHV, 4 OH, 1 ??)

Lendl had 14 passes (11 FH, 3 BH) -
- FHs - 1 cc/down-the-middle return (that Sampras left), 7 dtl (2 returns, 1 not clean), 1 inside-in return, 1 inside-in/longline return, 1 lob
- BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out return

- regular FHs - 1 dtl, 1 longline at net, 1 drop shot
- regular BHs - 4 dtl (1 return), 1 inside-out return

- 1 from a return-approach points (1 BHV), played net-to-net

Sampras had from 10 serve-volley points -
- 3 first volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 7 second volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 3 OH, 1 ??)... 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV

- 1 from a return-approach point (1 BHV)

- FHs -3 cc (1 pass)
- BHs - 2 cc passes, 3 dtl (2 passes)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 43
- 19 Unforced (9 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 FH pass attempt
- 24 Forced (5 FH, 17 BH, 1 Back-to-Net, 1 ??)... the 1 ?? is a pass attempt, either a FH or a BH
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50

Sampras 70
- 44 Unforced (12 FH, 23 BH, 4 FHV, 5 BHV)
- 26 Forced (10 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 BH1/2V)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.0

(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 are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was 15/25 (60%) at net, with...
- 2/3 (67%) return-approaching
- 2/2 forced back

Sampras was...
- 74/111 (67%) at net, including...
- 52/71 (73%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 48/63 (76%) off 1st serve and...
- 4/8 (50%) off 2nd serve
---
- 5/9 (56%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
Clash of styles, with Lendl staying on baseline as much as possible, Sampras serve-volleying off first serves and otherwise seeking net considerably,. Lendl’s baseline advantage is greater than his natural handicap return-passing, primarily due to superiority in BH consistency and Sampras’ reactions on the volley and shot tolerance on the return isn’t quite upto handling what its up against. Lendl’s standard of play is also very stable, while Sampras’ dips slightly, rarely and not for long. The court is on slow side for 90s carpet, which would make it quick for a hard court

23 BH UEs for Sampras. Lendl has 19 total of which 17 are groundshots (9 FH, 8 BH). Sampras’ non-BH UEs total 21 (12 FHs so close to Lendl’s yield, 9 volleys)

That’s biggest factor in Lendl’s baseline advantage. He wins 57% of his second serve points (despite high 8 double faults, sans which, figure rises to 64%) and 51% second return points (with only a solitary double fault helping that yield)

Both players dominate first serve points (Lendl wins 85%, Pete 81%)

Some huge serving from Lendl. Probably unwisely so, though it works out for him. He’s got massive 23 aces. Pete has 14 to compare. According to commentary, Lendl had 14 aces in the tournament coming into this final

It comes with heavy price. Lendl’s match long 51% in-count is potentially problematic. And its only pulled up that high in last set, where he serves at 66%. After 4 sets, his in count is just 46%

He’s able to get away with it because he dominates baseline rallies and by extension, his second serve points. Pete’s net thirst and choices in how to satisfy that thirst varies across match, but disinclination to return-approach is probably a bad move

Pete’s 5/9 return-approaching. Not chip-charges, but hard hit, early taken returns. Not a bad second serve from Lendl, but certainly not return-approachable proof. 9 such returns, winning 5 points mostly early in the match and then putting away the play, while Lendl wins 57% second serve points. Not a good move

Pete isn’t dependent on the return to take net; while outplayed in rallies, he shows ability to manufacture approaches regularly too. He rallies to net 31 times, winning 17 (Lendl’s 13/22 rallying to net). Considerable lot of that would be on his second serve points (he serve-volleys off all firsts, so no scope to rally to net on those). 17/31 isn’t great figure. Neither taking not, nor dealing with Lendl’s power passes is a simply task. His power hit return approaches are stronger way to get forward, particularly with Lendl predictably serving to BH, where he sends down 71% of all serves

Gist of action is -
- Lendl gaining a lot of freebies with his serve, especially aces. Pete not good at handling sheer power of the shot. It’s a powerful serve, but slight blemish in Pete’s inability to return the ones that aren’t too wide

- Pete scoring with his first serve-volleying. Placement of serve isn’t too good, as (relatively) low ace count hints at. He also struggles some against Lendl’s heftily struck, but not wide passes and returns. Call it ‘could do better’ or a blemish, its not a point in Pete’s favour

- Lendl winning bulk of baseline rallies. He’s hard hitting and consistent. Pete’s FH is powerful, BH less so (same as Lendl), but is outdone off both wings

- thus, onus on Pete to take net to redress balance of points won and lost. To his credit, he gets it and looks to do so and isn’t even bad at it. Would probably do better to have gone about it off the return - with Lendl’s low in count and predictable directions helping

Lendl winning 51.8% of points, serving 49.3% of them
Not certain matching winning figure

Break points Lendl 4/9 (6 games), Pete 3/6 (4 games)
The 2 game advantage is significant in close, server dominated match

Good lot of unusual stuff going on

Early on, Pete concedes an ace that had been called out. Lendl, of course, doesn’t return favour when shoe’s on other foot. Pete learns and adjusts and late in match when a clearly in Lendl ace is called out, with Pete heading over to other side just as call is made, he simply follows the call

Sight of Lendl return-approaching against serve-volleying Pete and putting way net-to-net BHV winner. I don’t recall ever seeing Lendl play a return point that way. He chip-charges a couple other times, which is rare, but not unique. The first mentioned play is like something Stefan Edberg or Pat Cash might quickly pull out on grass

A behind-the-back return FE from Lendl. Not something you see every day. He’s not far from getting the return in play either (admittedly, would be complete fluke if he did)

First serve points & Sampras volley vs Lendl pass
First serve in - Lendl 51%, Pete 55%
First serve won - Lendl 85%, Pete 81%

Fat serving from Lendl, Pete mixing them up and serve-volleying 100% of the time. Lendl’s typical first serve is bigger than Pete’s but Pete’s biggest ones are bigger than Lendl’s (confirmed by data presented)

Aces - Lendl 23 (1 second serve), Pete 14 (+1 service winner)
First serve ace rate - Lendl 31%, Pete 18%

Only small amount of Lendl’s aces are due to Pete tanking returns. Lendl tanks just as few, about 2-4 for each player

Is 31% first serve ace rate worth 52% in count for Lendl? It works, but probably not optimal. Pete misses first returns not too far away from him that he can get racquet on without much trouble regularly. Ideal for Lendl would be to have higher in count with same power, but not as close to lines - raising in count but serve still good enough to win point (though probably not go for an ace). In years to come, Pete himself would strike a very good balance along these lines

 

[Waspsting]

More to the point, unreturned serves Lendl 34%, Sampras 41%

Pete’s first serve placement isn’t good. Its not that he’s staying away from lines (hence, not too many aces), but he’s scarcely getting them wide either. Slight exaggeration to say serving into Lendl’s swing zone, but just slight. In that light, 55% in count isn’t good from him either. He of course, serve-volleys behind all first serves

Not wide placed + 100% serve-volleying means Lendl can smack returns. Negligible chipping and only blocking on the stretch when forced to by Lendl. He looks to smack first returns, and way Pete serves, does

Pete thus tested on ‘regulation +’ first volleys (balls at good height but above average power). There’s room for improvement in his handling of such volleys. Situations like this, if the volleyer is upto handling the extra pace, it actually helps them put volleys away

Pete isn’t fully upto handling the extra pace

Serve-volley, Pete has just 3 first volley winners, and 6 second ‘volleys’ (3 of which are OHs). Quite a low yield for 73 serve-volley points, even accounting for hefty unreturned rate and the first volley figure is distinctly low

Point is, Pete’s typical first volley isn’t low volley that its impractical to putaway. Its around net high, and something a better volleyer could putaway

In all, he’s got 16 volley winners, 9 UEs, 11 FEs. The UEs are on the hard side for being marked UE due to extra pace, but still UEs. His serve isn’t so big that he can’t get into good net position for first volley and he doesn’t face too many half-volleys or shoelace volleys. To be clear, despite relatively few winners, Pete’s volleys are good. Punches them well, places them well, draws hard forced passing errors and Lendl has to make very good, low percentage passing winners. The area that has room for a bump is handling pace and that’s more credit to Lendl’s power than shortcoming in Pete’s volleying

Same, room-for-improvement showings on the first return. Slightly wide power serves tend to draw errors out of him. Not easy to return, but do-able. He’s not good enough to. In their ‘90 US Open match, he’d taken to almost block-mooning first returns in play, smartly picking up on Lendl not prepared to putaway the weak rejoinder at once. He doesn’t do that here. Turns to it just a little right at the end

Lendl’s not passive when return comes back. If its soft, he pounds it with FHs. Occasionally goes for BH dtl winner to ball that’s not begging for such treatment (which is not matter of course with him, relative to his general habits). If easy approach is on, he takes net quickly and finishes there

And some neutral baseline rallies developing, where Lendl’s consistency advantage on BH is biggest factor. While it han’t come out clearly in stats, he’s also more powerful off the FH and more in charge of FH action than other way around. Some combo of Lendl outlasting and outmuscling Pete in baseline rallies (more on that later)

Lendl with 6 return-pass winners and further 9 ground passes in play (7 FH, 2 BH)
He has 5 FH FEs, 17 BH ones (also, a FH pass UE), virtually all of them passes

7 FH passing winners for 5 FEs is fantastic
2 BH passing winners for 17 FEs is poor

Pete smart enough to target BH. Many of the BH FEs are hopeless looks, but still, just 2 winners for that many errors is on percentage basis alone, not good

On FH, lendl superb because those aren’t easy looks. Extension of the routine height first volley starting point is Pete volleys with authority (as opposed to shoelace volley that leaves good look pass). Lendl off balance or on run when he nails those FH pass winners, and still hitting more winners than making errors

Second serve points & Baseline Action
Second serve points won - Lendl 57%, Pete 49%
Second serve double fault rate - Lendl 12%, Pete 2%
Second serve points won, sans double faults - Lendl 64%, Pete 50%
… and Pete serve-volleying 13% of the time, winning 50% (same rate as staying back)

First, there’s quality of second serves themselves
Then, the style and quality of returns against them
Finally, court action flowing out of all that

Decent second serving from both players. Lendl’s 8 double faults are not justified, and Pete’s done well to double just once. If returner commits to attacking with the return, its do-able

Lendl sometimes does. He’s got a couple of return winners with Pete on baseline. Occasionally goes dtl looking for winner. By and large, sticks to safely slicing return down the middle of court just to get a rally started. 11 UEs is ok in this light - with a few aggressive misses thrown in. Neutral and safe returning is fine for him as he’s better baseliner

Pete probably falters in not attacking more. Particularly early on, he’s effective with step-in, hard hit BH inside-in (Lendl almost always serves to his BH), sometimes following it to net. He’s 5/9 return approaching, with just 1 error trying. Good yield when your losing 64% of such points

In fact, he largely puts away the step-in and hard hitting returning too and often safely puts return back in play. Invitation to baseline rally accepted

Then they rally
Ground-to-ground UEs -
- both Lendl FH and BH 8
- Pete FH 12
- Pete BH 23

Neutral UEs - Lendl 6, Pete 21

Doesn’t need much amplification. Lendl rock solid of the BH, leading to Pete missing. More credit to Lendl’s consistency than discredit to Pete’s looseness. Pete’s not bad, Lendl just happens to be much better at keeping ball in play. Common feature of Lendl’s game (for that matter, most elite baseliners) is high consistency of BH

Fair amount of forward thrust slicing (call it a checked drive slice) from Lendl. Not many chips though, which he generally likes to throw in. Along with stock top spin shots. Pete mostly driving or top-spinning his BHs

FH hitting is harder, with Lendl usually more powerful hitter and able to take charge of rallies in time

 

[Waspsting]

Ground-to-ground winners
- Lendl 5 (2 FH, 3 BH), Pete 3 (2 FH, 1 BH)
(Lendl also has 2 returns)

All the BHs are dtl shots. Lendl taking it on in good balanced way. With his consistency advantage, obviously no need to. He doesn’t overdo it and makes more than he misses. Pete might have done better to go for more such shots off BH. Unlike FH, Lendl’s power isn’t a hindrance to shot-making on the BH, and given extent to which he’s squeezed out, what would he have to lose? Not that his form on BH promises much success were he to indulge low percentage going for winners

Negligible errors forced by a Pete in baseline rallies. He does get a few good wide FHs off and he’s powerful enough to potentially draw weak balls with it, but Lendl handling whatever comes his way. Lendl forces a few errors, with meaty FH cc’s being best winning shot

Leaving rallying to net - Lendl 13/22 or 59%, Pete 17/31 or 55%

Lendl not coming in much and not looking to. Good lot of commanding approaches and in that light, 59% isn’t great

Lendl with 5 volley winners (excluding a net-to-net one against a first serve-volleying Pete), 2 UEs and Pete with 7 passing winners. Pete’s passing winners are excellent, on par with Lendl’s own, from not good look chances. Sign that his groundies are strong, despite being outplayed by Lendl in baseline rallies

Pete is smart to mix in manufacturing approaches and its worth noting because its rare. Generally, when playing from baseline, Pete sticks to it. Unlike say Edberg or McEnroe who tend to have a an eye for coming in. Unable to out-hit or outmanuver, he very much has to manufacture approaches (as opposed to come in from commanding position) and is met by good power passing

Dynamics of Pete volley vs Lendl pass are as covered earlier. 55% points won in light of kinds of approaches Pete makes isn’t bad

Match Progression
Good, tough set to open things up. Sampras serve-volleys off all first serves and a bit off seconds. He serves around Lendl’s body quite a bit. Lendl guns down first serves and gets just 14/36 first serves in play, but few of them come back. He’s comes to net to finish when serve has set up commanding position and is quite aggressive with his shot-choices

In baseline rallies, Pete’s BH isn’t well hit and Lendl’s FH cc’s are more powerful than Pete’s, which also pack a punch. Pete has some trouble handling power of Lendl’s returns on the volley

Break points for the set - Pete 1/1, Lendl 0/2 (2 games), amidst straight-forward holds

Beyond blue moon rare point where Lendl block BH returns a powerful first serve not far from his body in deuce court and rushes to net to meet the serve-volleying Pete. He comes away with a net-to-net BHV winner

All holds and no deuce games to 4-4, when both returners find counter-play

Brilliant passes of different types get Lendl first break point of match at 4-4. Running FH dtl winner is pick of them, but he also blasts a return that yorks Pete and chips another that forces BH1/2V error. Pete comes through to hold for 5-4. Ground errors from Lendl sees next game go 10 points (no break points), and Pete saves a break point game after to reach 6-5

Ground errors sees game 12 reach 30-30, and Pete brings up break/set point with a return-approach. Repeats the play following point and his awkward volley leaves Lendl an easy enough FH pass that its been marked a UE ends the set

Another return-approach gets Pete to 15-30, from where Lendl double faults twice to fall behind 1-3 in second set, and Pete consolidates to make it 4-1 when things turn around

Lendl eases up on cannoning every first serve a little and Pete gets loose off the ground with some third ball ground UEs and some missed approach shots. Also misses a couple of not-easy (as opposed to hard) reaction volleys. Lendl wins 5 games in a row and 21/29 points at a stretch to take the set

Gets on on the road to breaking back with a superb, almost half-volleyed FH lob winner, before pair of ground third ball UEs and a second volley one put things back on serve. Great passes get him the second break - ending with a brilliant, full running FH dtl pass winner, despite Pete making a strong half-volley to start the rally. Pete helps by ducking under a return that lands in for a winner earlier in the game

Not an easy serve-out for Lendl. Winning a net-to-net duel takes Pete to deuce but he misses a not-easy BHV return-approaching, before Lendl wraps up with an ace

Third set is weak from Pete, who gets deflated as it goes on. Leaves serve for aces, doesn’t move well for returns, sometimes lax in his movements in baseline rallies. Before all that is a spectacular point in first game that involves jump smash, lob volley from baseline, difficult back-pedalling BHOH, Lendl replacing Pete at net, and Pete coming away with a BH cc passing winner

Break comes in middle of set. Pete double faults for only time in match and the final, blasted FH inside-in/longline return pass winner that ends the game isn’t far from him but he doesn’t try to play a shot to it
Some gumption from Pete on the serve-out as he manufactures approaches, but Lendl remains on point with his passes and holds to 15

Pete shifts gears to regularly coming to net early on his second serve points in game 4. It’s a good move, and he looks to approach more in general regardless of whose serving. Serves more aces too

Lendl with an odd behind-back return against a first serve. Gets a healthy racquet on ball, which (unintentionally) lobs up and lands about 2 feet out

After holding to love with 3 aces, Pete breaks for 4-2. A not well placed volley by Lendl gets putaway FH dtl for a pass winner to seal the break. An easy FHV miss by Lendl at 30-30 next game lets Pete off the hook, who goes on to hold with an ace, before serving out to 15 next go around with a couple more aces
6/14 of Pete’s aces are in the set, as well as his sole service winner

Worthy finale to the match in the last set, with some thrilling points, Pete continuing to manufacture approaches and Lendl having his highest in-count by far in the match

Lendl has to save 3 break points in 12 point game to hold the opening game against a net hungry Pete, Some great shots from both players in the game. Lendl finally holds it by winning the only 1 of 5 Pete net points in the game with a FH dtl pass winner

Lendl grabs the break for 3-1. Blasted FH dtl return-pass winner is his major contribution, Pete misses a putaway easy FHV that’s almost an OH and on second break point, Pete misses a slightly under net, regulation BHV
Pete responds with a brilliant, full running BH dtl pass winner to start next game, but it turns out to be just 1 of 2 return points he can win for rest of match. In due time, Lendl serves out to love, finishing with 3 aces in a row

Summing up, heavyweight match. Lendl with some very powerful serving, hard hit return-passing and steady, commanding baseline play. Sampras with about same calibre serve but at higher in count and serve-volleying off all first serves. Volleys well, but struggles against pace of Lendl’s passes some. No slouch from the baseline, but Lendl’s better still (more powerful of the FH, much steadier of the BH). Smart to look for net from rallies, but faced with same lot of Lendl power passes. Also troubled considerably by raw power of Lendl’s first serve

Good showings from both players, with Lendl that much better and deserving victor

Stats for the Sampras’ semi-final with John McEnroe - Match Stats/Report - Sampras vs McEnroe, Philadelphia semi-final, 1991 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[dryeagle]

Grew up in Philly area and enjoyed this tournament at Spectrum in 80s and early 90s. Pete was loyal to this tournament as they gave him WC early in his career, he showed a lot of gratitude and played here annually late into his career.

Never forget the side by side courts in the early rounds. This was a really good field in 91 with Pete, Lendl and Mac going deep in draw.

 

[WCT]

Is 23 your highest Lendl ace total? Another stat that caught my eye was neither player getting 30 winners in 5 sets on an indoor court.

I also remember the side by side courts in the early rounds.

 

[Waspsting]

Is 23 your highest Lendl ace total?

I think so

He's typically 10-15 in 5 set matchs on fast courts
He's one of those servers who draws errors with brute pace, without going too wide, so tends not to serve too many aces. Courier is another, Boris sometimes serves in this way too

 

[Pheasant]

These two guys played some great matches in the early 1990s until Lendl was completely washed up by 1994; the year he retired.