Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Wilander, French Open final, 1987

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Mats Wilander 7-5, 6-2, 3-6, 7-6(3) in the French Open final, 1987 on clay

Lendl was the defending champion and this was his third and final French title. Wilander would go onto win his third the year after. This was the pair's 4th match at the venue, with Lendl having won in 1984 while Wilander had triumphed in 1982 and 1985

Lendl won 126 points, Wilander 115

(Note: I'm missing 3 games - 2 served by Wilander, 1 by Lendl. Lendl won two of those games - so broke serve at least once. Its likely that was the only break. A Wilander games cuts off at deuce, which he went onto hold, so at least 2 other points

Missing games - first three of second set and. Missing points of Game 1, Set 3 - point 7 onward

All missing games have been excluded from stats unless otherwise stated)

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (60/124) 48%
- 1st serve points won (46/60) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (33/64) 52%
- Aces 7 (1 not clean), Service Winners 6
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/124) 19%

Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (68/117) 58%
- 1st serve points won (42/68) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (28/49) 57%
- Aces 3, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (26/117) 22%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 35%
- to BH 54%
- to Body 11%

Wilander served...
- to FH 58%
- to BH 33%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 88 (59 FH, 29 BH), including 4 runaround FHs & 6 return-approaches
- 5 Winners (5 FH)
- 22 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (7 FH)
- 15 Forced (7 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (88/114) 77%

Wilander made...
- 100 (49 FH, 51 BH), including 13 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 10 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (100/123) 81%

Break Points
Lendl 6/9 (8 games)…. including a deduced { 1/1 (1 game)}
Wilander 4/10 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 53 (21 FH, 8 BH, 11 FHV, 6 BHV, 7 OH)
Wilander 25 (3 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV, 9 BHV, 3 OH)

Lendl's regular FHs - 3 cc (1 return), 3 dtl (2 returns), 7 inside-out (1 return), 1 inside-in, 1 dtl/inside-out and 1 at net
- FH passes - 3 cc (1 return), 1 inside-out and 1 lob
- regular BHs - 2 dtl, 1 running-down-drop shot dtl at net and 1 inside-out/dtl
- BH passes - 4 dtl

- 3 from serve-volley points - 2 first volley FHVs and 1 second volley OH
- 1 other FHV was from a return-approach point
- 2 other FHVs were drops, 3 were swinging (2 cc, 1 inside-out) and 1 net-to-net
- 1 OH was from the baseline

Wilander's FHs - 1 cc and 2 dtl passes
- regular BH - 1 dtl
- BH passes - 1 cc, 6 dtl and 1 inside-out

- 4 from serve-volley points -
- 3 first volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 1 second volley (1 OH)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 63
- 43 Unforced (21 FH, 21 BH, 1 BHV)
- 20 Forced (7 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.9

Wilander 47
- 23 Unforced (10 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 2 OH)
- 24 Forced (7 FH, 10 BH, 5 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.1

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was...
- 41/56 (73%) at net, including...
- 6/6 (100%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
--
- 3/6 (50%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back/retreated

Wilander was...
- 35/58 (60%) at net, including...
- 15/24 (63%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
--
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back/retreated

Match Report
Excellent match and different from the pairs first two encounters at the venue. There's an element of attacker vs defender in this one - Lendl the attacker, Wilander the defender

Note both players having more winners than unforced errors in play (Lendl 53/43, Wilander 25/23)… very rare for a clay court match, where UEs tend to plentiful and winners relatively rare. Even in high quality encounters

Phase 1: Who-Blinks-First
First half of the first set is the feeling out phase and is typical of the match up. Arduously long rallies, based around BH crosscourt shots. 50 shot rallies are common. Wilander ends an 83 shot one with a BH dtl winner, but in this part of the match, most points end with an unforced error. And its usually Lendl who blinks - at 3-3 (1 break of serve each), he has 14 to Wilander's 6 (he relative frequency remains in tact throughout the match - at the end, Lendl has 43 and Wilander 23, but playing dynamics change)

Despite the typical, long, who-blinks-first dynamic at the start, both players are hitting their shots better than in previous years and with more variety. The foundation is still BH cc but there are frequent change-ups. One or the other hits at a smaller angle to the FH, FH crosscourts for a while, one or the other switches to FH inside-out to the others BH cc, odd BH longline switch ups and so on. Some slicing thrown in - particularly from Lendl, who both drive-slices as well as plays the normal slice - and relatively few moonballs

Watching the passive action and comparing it to the pairs exchanges in their '82 and '84 matches, it does seem that both players have improved with time. Comparatively, '82 was essentially moonbally with very few change ups and '84 was not as firm of shots or as varied

One change from those years though is that its quite clear who the more consistent player is: Wilander. He's just that much more secure in his shots

Phase 2: Lendl attacks, Wilander stays the same
Perhaps sensing this game wasn't going his way, Lendl switches to a more attacking method. He starts to look to dictate more with his FH and starts coming to net, where he volleys very well all match. Plus, his first serve percentage, which had been very low, picks up, allowing him to use the first delivery as a weapon

There are still occasional long rallies, but nothing like the first phase - or as often. Before the rally can go on too long, Lendl will attack. He breaks to go up 4-3 with serve volleys and net play but Wilander breaks back despite more attacking play. Lendl gains the decisive break by blasting a pair of return winners off second serves and taking the net to force passing errors

Lendl dominates the second set with his new strategy. Its not going well for Wilander, who initiates the last shift in the action

Phase 3: Lendl stays the same, Wilander attacks more
For the last two sets, Wilander plays more aggressively. He doesn't have Lendl's weapons though, and his capacity to expand is constrained compared to the champion's.

He send down harder and wider placed first serves. and starts approaching more himself. Finally, he starts serve-volleying quite regularly. He too becomes a bit more error prone, but just a bit - and retains the advantage in that area that he's enjoyed all match despite the more attacking game

Still, Lendl doesn't falter. He doesn't come in as much because Wilander's at net, but continues to bang down power serves and strong FHs. And some great passing shots. Wilander takes 3rd set with a late break in a game where he has 2 BHV winners and finishes with a great BH dtl passing winner after Lendl's approach had put him completely on defence

Play continues along these lines in the 4th. Players trade early breaks and match moves on with relatively comfortable holds thereafter. Wilander is serving bigger than he has at any point and serve-volleying all the time off first serves towards the end, and usually drawing return errors with the play

It takes him to the tiebreak, but there, Lendl is just too strong. Wilander had won 14/15 first serve points in the set - 9 of them serve-volleying and 2 with aces/service winners - but Lendl builds on winning opening point by taking both Wilander's first pair of service points. Wilander serve-volleys on both - the first he volleys to Lendl's BH (he was usually going BHV inside-out to open court, but would have been a difficult shot against this strong return) and its put away dtl for a winner, the second is a FH cc return pass. Lendl keeps his nose ahead for the rest of the set to take the match

 

[Waspsting]

Serve & Return
Big, strong serving from Lendl. Note the 7 aces and 6 service winners. Only serves at 48%, but makes the most of his first serves. With court play skills being roughly equal - Lendl with the edge, in fact - using the big first serve to win a few cheap points is enough to be decisive, in light of Wilander not having such a weapon. 77% first serve points on clay speaks to the impact of Lendl's first serve. The second serve is fairly ordinary, but note just the one double fault.

The consistency of Wilander's returning is incredible. Virtually anything that's not out-and-out unreturnable comes back. Note just the 10 return errors. When he misses a straightforward first serve return he didn't have to move to, it comes as a huge surprise. One small drawback to his returning though is the complete lack of ability to attack the second serve

With Lendl so dominant on first serves, strategically it would wise to target the second. While Wilander is impressive in getting the second serve back in play - he only misses 1, the penultimate one of the match after which he holds his hands on hips as though not believing it - not even a glimmer of trying to attack the second serve, and Lendl is allowed to roll it in pressure free. This is fine if the returner has an advantage in court skill, but where the matter is equal (or in this case, Wilander trailing slightly), it would be better to be more proactive in returning second serves

This isn't limited to this match. I've yet to see Wilander do anything to anyones second serve other than just get it into play. He's about as good as can be at doing so, but I've yet to see him show any ability to actually attack the serve of a baseliner

Initially, Wilander just uses his serve to get points started, but after falling behind in play, starts serving more strongly. His percentage is unaffected, suggesting he's capable of serving bigger but doesn't have use for it when staying back. This does fit in with his game, both in this match and generally. He rarely takes charge from the baseline - at most, he's commanding and that's rare. Most often, its just neutral putting the ball in play, perhaps not easy to attack but certainly not attacking

Wilander's second serve is weak, a buffet ball. And Lendl is hungry. Lendl is determined to return with the FH and stands 1/2 way between center service line and side line in deuce court and well over into the doubles alley in ad court to make sure he returns with FH. Plus he stands almost 1/2 way to service line for some returns. And there's nothing Wilander can do about it. He goes for an ace down the middle once and double faults and draws just 1 error wide... otherwise, Lendl comfortably runs over to make FHs to wide serves. And when he serves a normal line, Lendl looks to pound the return

The results are a mixed bag. Lendl hits 4 decisive winners and is just a step or two away from taking the net, which he does a for him high 6 times. But he also misses a large number of returns going for too much - note the 7 UEs, all FHs. And Wilander comes away winning 57% second serve points - 5% higher than Lendl managed.

One curiosity is Wilander's serving pattern. He serves 58% to the Lendl FH. Not sure why anyone would do that, especially with a serve like his. Lendl obviously prefers returning with FH and while his BH is just as consistent, the FH is more powerful. Not a good move and can't imagine what the thinking behind it was. In '84, he served there 24% of the time and in '82, 19%. This choice probably has a hand in playing dynamics being more lively, which is not something that favoured Mats

Play - Baseline and Net
As noted earlier, Wilander is significantly the more consistent of shot. This is true when both players are playing highly passively and when Lendl in particular is being more attacking. The stats are validating general impressions of both players being equally secure of both sides - Lendl has 21 UEs of both wings, Wilander has 10 of both wings.

My feeling of play was Lendl was significantly the more attacking player from the back, and this has come out reasonably well in the stats. Lendl leads the UEFI 47.9 to 46.1, although he has just the 1 volley error to Wilander's 3 (should be noted Wilander's 2 OH UEs were both marked 'attacking', not 'winner attempt'.... relatively safe smashing from Mats here)

Lendl had 10 winner attempt errors to Mats' 1

Lendl also typically goes for more on routine shots, the sharper cc angles and the less loopy ball

As with their other matches, Lendl FH is the danger shot from the back. Look at the 21 winners - and only 6 of those are passes. FH inside-out both stand out for forcefulness. Wilander's shots by contrast are generally just steady... and I don't see any indication that that is the case because he's holding back on the shots. Just doesn't have the ability or power to be more damaging probably

Lendl also utilizes his big FHs to come in behind. The approach is half the battle for him, but its a wise precaution on clay and against a passer like Wilander. He does superbly at net, winning 73% points up there including all his serve-volleys and knocks away 23 volley/OH winners. When he makes a FHV drop winner to a pass that was low, powerful and stretched him to reach, its on a not too important point, but he celebrates like it was a set point... one gathers that volleying well pleased Lendl, as it wasn't his natural forte. Borg responded similarly to a similar situation in an exho in 1982.

Wilander has less fun at net, winning 60% and coming in off rallies 33 times to Lendl's 44. As noted earlier, he doesn't take to coming in until half the match is done by which time Lendl had been looking to come in regularly a set and half

In this, Wilander again shows a certain reluctance to attack, though its understandable. For one thing, Lendl is generally the heavier hitter from the back, so coming in is harder for Mats. Two, he doesn't have the powerful approach shots to come in behind that Lendl does. And finally, Lendl passes very strongly. Note the 7 volleying FEs for Mats (Lendl has just 2). Ultimately, he feels safest coming in behind his cranked up serve. He gets more out of the play than I'd have expected - its not a weak serve and Mats is good on the volley, but I'd have expected Lendl's returning to be more damaging on the slow surface against it

Mats' approaches though are an exercise in sneakiness. He advances little by little per shot, always sure to keep balls he advances a little bit on deep to Lendl's FHs while just slightly wide to BH is good enough. And suddenly, he's at net like... often, its not one approach shot but a combination of 2 or 3 that see him advance to the front. Sneaky as can be

Mats doesn't get much chance to show his passing. Lendl's approach shots tend to be strong enough that he's already well on the defensive when its time to hit a first pass

Defensively in baseline situations, both players are outstanding, Wilander more so, possibly due to having greater chances to showcase it. Wilander rarely hits a groundstroke that would force an error (though Lendl moves to and comfortably gets back the few he does), but Lendl gives Wilander many a tough ball. Most come back

The overwhelming bulk of Lendl's 20 FEs would have been passing shots. Wilander 24 are more evenly spread between baseline-to-baseline shots and passes, with passes making up the majority

A rare show of frustration from Wilander as Lendl serves out second set. Up 0-30 on the back of 2 Lendl UEs, Wilander misses a routine FH... and he throws his racquet to the grown in anger. An indication of how he felt about giving away cheap points

Summing up, Wilander is very solid off the ground but lacking inclination and/or ability to attack from there. Probably both, one feeding of the other. Lendl is also very consistent (just not as much as Wilander) but has the extra attacking ability off his FH - which he parleys into attacking the net also. To attack net - the only type of attack he seems to be capable of launching - Wilander needs to beef up his serve or use careful guile. All that and Lendl's powerful serve gives him a decisive advantage

Stats for their '82 fourth round - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...s-lendl-french-open-fourth-round-1982.652192/
Stats for their '84 semi-final - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...wilander-french-open-semi-finals-1984.656465/

 

[jrepac]

I recall watching this expecting Mats to win, but it did not quite work out that way. Was hopeful for a 5th set, but he fell a little short there too.

 

[BringBackWood]

Bit harsh but agree. Where matches have been statted already (and Moose is certainly thorough), why not supplement their thread with your observations?

 

[Waspsting]

I recall watching this expecting Mats to win, but it did not quite work out that way. Was hopeful for a 5th set, but he fell a little short there too.

Wilander seems to have been the form player coming into the event, with wins in Monte Carlo and Rome. Lendl won Hamburg - good clay court stuff to smother Mecir in the final

Seeing Wilander had clear advantage in consistency of the ground, I can see him being favoured going into the match

Would be curious to see how Lendl played in prior rounds. My take on him is he plays as low risk as he can while retaining an advantage and would probably look to passively outlast anybody he could rather than turn to big FHs, net play etc. And that's most people

Probably wouldn't work against Wilander though... good move from Lendl, turning it on like he did

 

[NonP]

Bit harsh but agree. Where matches have been statted already (and Moose is certainly thorough), why not supplement their thread with your observations?

You and I aren't the only ones who feel the same way. I know, because I've been told as much in private.

They hold their tongue because they figure having more stats is worth a little chaos in site logistics and what they consider a harmless ego boost, and I did too (again except for that one time), but this went beyond being a mere annoyance. Paying lip service to a previous contributor while all but ignoring his work may not violate the letter of the site policies, but it's not consistent with the spirit which is why I responded in kind. Since the latter seems to take a back seat to the former I'll leave it at that.

 

[Waspsting]

I don't like soap opera stuff - and hopefully this'll be the end of it

You and I aren't the only ones who feel the same way. I know, because I've been told as much in private.

They hold their tongue because they figure having more stats is worth a little chaos in site logistics and what they consider a harmless ego boost, and I did too (again except for that one time), but this went beyond being a mere annoyance. Paying lip service to a previous contributor while all but ignoring his work may not violate the letter of the site policies, but it's not consistent with the spirit which is why I responded in kind. Since the latter seems to take a back seat to the former I'll leave it at that.

I'm going to address this just once

First, its none of your business where I post, what I post or what I read. and I owe you no explanations. End of story

Second, if you don't like what I post.... don't read? Simple enough solution?
----

Look man... I don't know you from Adam

You popped up on one of my threads earlier in the year (something Sampras related, I think) and my first thought was that the user name sounded familiar. I had to think to remember from where. It was from a discussion about Nadal and Sampras a couple years ago. I remembered you showed reasonable understanding of the game and … an inability to read fully (or comprehend) what you were replying to

(at least one of those qualities seems to still be in place)

More recently, you've started popping up to offer me unsought for, fatherly advice

Why?

Its weird and a bit creepy. Your wanting to play wise old guru does not mean I want to play young apprentice

I'd like to talk about tennis. And as the thread title indicates, in this thread - the match in question and things related to it and things tennis related that might come out of it

I do not want to talk soap opera. Feel free to start a thread "Waspsting is an a%%hole, let me count the reasons why..." and go nuts, but if you don't mind, could you keep the drama off my threads?

Try writing something a fraction as off-topic as what you have here on one of those old match stats thread started by others - and see what reaction you get (in case you missed it - assuming you've read this far - there's a shadow of a hint of a possible line of reasoning that might have shaped my decision to post fresh threads for previously done matches. On top of harmlessly boosting my ego, of course)
---

Summing up -
- nothing you seem to have issue with is any of your business
- if you don't like what's on the threads don't read them
- if you have nothing on topic to say, don't say anything
- if you choose to present yourself as an authority figure, don't be terribly surprised if others don't buy into it
- the topic you've raised... take it elsewhere

Other things you may wish to consider -
- even dropping hints at what you might or might not have discussed with person or persons unknown privately in public is tacky
- you might consider reading thoroughly before replying (in general)

 

[krosero]

I'm only going to say again here that I'd prefer to see match threads consolidated -- for reasons which I gave in the other thread -- but I will always leave that up to the creator(s) of the threads to decide. Beyond that I'm not going to say any more or get further involved, except to state that I've talked for years about tennis stats with all of you who are arguing here and I intend to continue doing so, here or there or wherever.

I'll have another post tonight in the big Match Stats thread concerning my collection of boxscores.

 

[NonP]

Wow, I come back after a hard day's work to be greeted by this masterpiece of projection. Don't have time to give it even John Oliver treatment but I'll try:

I don't like soap opera stuff - and hopefully this'll be the end of it



I'm going to address this just once

First, its none of your business where I post, what I post or what I read. and I owe you no explanations. End of story

Second, if you don't like what I post.... don't read? Simple enough solution?
----

Look man... I don't know you from Adam

You popped up on one of my threads earlier in the year (something Sampras related, I think) and my first thought was that the user name sounded familiar. I had to think to remember from where. It was from a discussion about Nadal and Sampras a couple years ago. I remembered you showed reasonable understanding of the game and … an inability to read fully (or comprehend) what you were replying to

(at least one of those qualities seems to still be in place)

More recently, you've started popping up to offer me unsought for, fatherly advice

Why?

Its weird and a bit creepy. Your wanting to play wise old guru does not mean I want to play young apprentice

I'd like to talk about tennis. And as the thread title indicates, in this thread - the match in question and things related to it and things tennis related that might come out of it

I do not want to talk soap opera. Feel free to start a thread "Waspsting is an a%%hole, let me count the reasons why..." and go nuts, but if you don't mind, could you keep the drama off my threads?

Try writing something a fraction as off-topic as what you have here on one of those old match stats thread started by others - and see what reaction you get (in case you missed it - assuming you've read this far - there's a shadow of a hint of a possible line of reasoning that might have shaped my decision to post fresh threads for previously done matches. On top of harmlessly boosting my ego, of course)
---

Summing up -
- nothing you seem to have issue with is any of your business
- if you don't like what's on the threads don't read them
- if you have nothing on topic to say, don't say anything
- if you choose to present yourself as an authority figure, don't be terribly surprised if others don't buy into it
- the topic you've raised... take it elsewhere

Other things you may wish to consider -
- even dropping hints at what you might or might not have discussed with person or persons unknown privately in public is tacky
- you might consider reading thoroughly before replying (in general)

First off, if you really dislike "soap opera" half as much as you claim you may wanna avoid writing a reply this long-winded that says next to nothing.

Second, I never gave you any "advice," but rather made a suggestion, think twice before this - once to caution against generalizing about a player after you'd posted this howler about Curren's delivery being "not difficult to read," the other time against, yes, duplicating threads on matches that already had their own. And I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've commented on your gazillion threads this whole year, largely because I don't have time to read them all. In fact I'm pretty sure I'm on the low end of the engagement-with-Waspsting scale, and yet you frame my limited engagement as "popping up to offer" unsolicited "fatherly advice" and then proceed to dish out unsolicited (and irrelevant) advice of your own, probably more in that single post of yours than I did throughout the year (again). You sure you don't like soap opera?

Third, you don't practice what you preach. My beef with you this time was not about your proclivity for creating your own threads but rather about your, shall we say, tacky hat tip to a previous one which you clear didn't read carefully or you wouldn't be wondering about the number of breaks in this match, for one thing. That was the gist of my criticism but you chose to ignore it altogether. I wonder why?

Fourth, this isn't "your" thread. Last I checked TTW remained a public forum and in fact its site rules don't even include the ubiquitous "Avoid off-topic talk" directive (except as spamming). I've had "my" threads overtaken by plenty of off-topic chatter in the past and I honestly can't recall a single time I tried to claim ownership of the chatroom, nor would I want to as I generally can't stand one-trick ponies and prefer to read about different things. Since you don't seem to care much about the spirit of this forum's policies I'll post however I like as long as I don't violate the letter, thanks.

Oh and did you really think the lazy you-don't-read-well zinger would work now or ever?

Look, believe it or not I still consider you one of the better posters here and would probably keep reading some of your soliloquies from time to time. I just don't think you fully understand that this forum like all other public spaces has certain mores and that going against them is bound to tick some people off. I did find your habit of creating threads of your own for previously covered matches annoying, but tolerable. Your perfunctory acknowledgement of previous threads and contributors without a fair level of familiarity, however, does bother me quite a bit more than that and in fact strikes me as a sign of disrespect, if not contempt. Up to you whether to take this "unsought for, fatherly advice" to heart.

I'm only going to say again here that I'd prefer to see match threads consolidated -- for reasons which I gave in the other thread -- but I will always leave that up to the creator(s) of the threads to decide. Beyond that I'm not going to say any more or get further involved, except to state that I've talked for years about tennis stats with all of you who are arguing here and I intend to continue doing so, here or there or wherever.

I'll have another post tonight in the big Match Stats thread concerning my collection of boxscores.

You know you and moi have been discussing the "I" that concerns a certain "T" by email, right? That's an i, not an s.

 

[Mareel]

@Waspsting if they do force you to supplement someone else's thread, will you at least make a thread to post all the links to your match reports?

No offence to @krosero and others, but Waspsting's match reports are of much higher quality than most and also very consistent. Personally, I don't want to have to scroll through an entire thread on a match just to see if they are one of the contributors.

 

[Waspsting]

@Waspsting if they do force you to supplement someone else's thread, will you at least make a thread to post all the links to your match reports?

No offence to @krosero and others, but Waspsting's match reports are of much higher quality than most and also very consistent. Personally, I don't want to have to scroll through an entire thread on a match just to see if they are one of the contributors.

hopefully it wont' come to that

you can find my stuff here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?members/waspsting.750874/ and krosero keeps everyones stuff updated here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-statistics-1959-present.552865/

appreciate you speaking up

 

[NicoMK]

you can find my stuff here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?members/waspsting.750874/ and krosero keeps everyones stuff updated here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-statistics-1959-present.552865/

Hey, could you do the 1988 USO one day? That'd be cool. King Krosero did the match statistics, that was cool stuff too.

That USO 88 final is maybe the match that I've watched the most. There was a time when I knew it almost point by point, crazy when I think of it .

Beware, make no mistakes !