Thomas Muster beat Richard Krajicek 6-2, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 in the Rome final, 1996 on clay
Muster was the defending champion and this was his third and last title at the event. This was Krajicke’s first Masters final and only one on clay. He would go onto win Wimbledon later in the year
Muster won 111 points, Krajicek 102
Krajicek serve-volleyed off all first serves and half the time off seconds
(Note: I’m missing partial data for 1 point
Set 4, Game 9, Point 2 - a Muster first serve that drew return error - direction of serve and return type and error type unknown)
Serve Stats
Muster...
- 1st serve percentage (87/106) 82%
- 1st serve points won (60/87) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (11/19) 58%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (28/106) 26%
Krajicek...
- 1st serve percentage (64/107) 60%
- 1st serve points won (52/64) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (15/43) 35%
- Aces 9 (1 possibly not clean)
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (27/107) 25%
Serve Patterns
Muster served...
- to FH 14%
- to BH 81%
- to Body 5%
Krajicek served...
- to FH 27%
- to BH 67%
- to Body 6%
Return Stats
Muster made...
- 73 (29 FH, 44 BH), including 7 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 18 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 17 Forced (9 FH, 8 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- Return Rate (73/100) 73%
Krajicek made...
- 78 (17 FH, 61 BH), including 4 runaround FHs & 7 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 BH)
- 26 Errors, comprising...
- 22 Unforced (3 FH, 19 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 3 return-approach attempts
- 3 Forced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 1 ?? (against a first serve)
- Return Rate (78/106) 74%
Break Points
Muster 5/13 (6 games)
Krajicek 2/9 (5 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Muster 19 (7 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV, 1 OH)
Krajicek 49 (3 FH, 6 BH, 12 FHV, 10 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 17 OH)
Muster had 14 passes (7 FH, 7 BH)
- FHs - 3 cc, 1 cc/inside-in, 1 dtl at net, 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-out (possibly not clean)
- BHs - 3 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out return, 1 running-down-drop-shot lob at net
- regular BH - 1 cc
- 1 FHV was a swinging shot
Krajicek had 28 from serve-volley points
- 19 first 'volleys' (6 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 5 OH, 1 FH at net)... 1 FHV was swinging longline & 1 OH can reasonbly be called a FHV
- 8 second volleys (4 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)
- 1 fourth 'volley' (1 OH)... on the bounce from no-man's land, a forced back point
- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 2 other OHs were on teh bounce
- FHs - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out
- BHs - 3 cc (1 pass), 1 cc/drop shot slice, 1 inside-out return, 1 inside-in return
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Muster 26
- 8 Unforced (5 FH, 3 BH)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 13 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8
Krajicek 57
- 39 Unforced (13 FH, 17 BH, 5 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 18 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH, 5 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50
(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
Muster was 9/10 (90%) at net
Krajicek was...
- 77/111 (69%) at net, including...
- 52/73 (71%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 43/55 (78%) off 1st serve and...
- 9/18 (50%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/7 (57%) return-approaching
- 1/2 forced back
Match Report
Interesting match and a good one of thoroughly contrasting styles. Krajicek serve-volleys and otherwise seeks net. Muster, when he’s not forced to counter pass, sticks to his hard hitting, grinding baseline game. Both players are successful at what they do to lead play and its Krajicek’s poor returning that gives Muster the decisive advantage
Muster wins 9 more points overall, which is small, given he’s won a full 6 games more (points served are virtually equal - Kraj serving 1 more). Not as significant as it might sound. As is the way when facing someone like Kraj, there’s the odd, pseudo throwaway return game from Muster. Then again, same can be said for Kraj, but that’s not “… the way when facing someone like Muster”
Unreturned serves - Muster 26%, Kraj 25% (with Kraj serve-volleying of all first serves and half the seconds)
This is criminally unacceptable from Kraj’s point of view. He has his massive serve, and the pressure of serve-volleying to enhance it. Muster’s serve is a point starter by contrast, with scarcely a damaging serve to be seen
22/25 Kraj return errors have been marked UEs (with 1 other unknown) and Muster has an ace and a service winner apiece. Just routine, in-swing zone serves at average pace. Only troubling ones are the surprise ones to FH (Muster serves 81% to BH) and 2/3 FEs are FHs
Otherwise, clockwork predictable deliveries to BH - average power, average width. Even the slightly wider ones are readily coverable… and Kraj returns 74% of them. Put Muster up against his own serve, and that figure would likely be close to 90%
Nor does Kraj return with heat. Chip-charges are the height of it, and those aren’t risky or hard to do, particularly with his height letting him get above the ball. 3 return errors on the chip-charge, but rest are just missing routine strength return shots. Less than that if anything as he’s block-chipping most back
Muster doesn’t have much scope to make return UEs since Kraj serve-volleys so much, and misses 1/18 returns where Kraj stays back (the last return he faces in the match, down 40-15 and set to serve for the match)
That’s the big difference between the players, or at least, the area where Kraj has large scope to do better. Giving up 25% freebies to Kraj is a good job by Muster, giving up 26% to Muster is a poor one from Kraj
Kraj also double faults 7 times or 16% of second serves, Muster 0
More broadly, this kind of casual returning misses is a drawback to many fast court players, used to as they are of a kind mentality on grass and indoors along the lines of “… other guy will hold most of the time anyway, what does a few return errors matter?” Might be true against a strong server on a fast court, it isn’t true on clay against an average server - and these are just unnecessary throwaway points
Muster completed the Monte Carlo-Rome double in both ‘95 and ‘96. His unreturned rates in the finals -
‘95 Monte 27% vs Boris Becker
‘95 Rome 15% vs Sergi Bruguera
‘96 Monte 12% vs Albert Costa
‘96 Rome 26% here
Allowing Muster to stay even (in fact, shading ahead) on freebies leaves Kraj the charming prospect of having to outplay him in rallies to come out ahead.
Winners - Muster 19, Kraj 49
Errors forced - both 18
UEs - Muster 8, Kraj 39
Total points - Muster 76, Kraj 75
… cut down those freebies for Muster by half, and with play going as it does, Kraj probably wins
Muster was the defending champion and this was his third and last title at the event. This was Krajicke’s first Masters final and only one on clay. He would go onto win Wimbledon later in the year
Muster won 111 points, Krajicek 102
Krajicek serve-volleyed off all first serves and half the time off seconds
(Note: I’m missing partial data for 1 point
Set 4, Game 9, Point 2 - a Muster first serve that drew return error - direction of serve and return type and error type unknown)
Serve Stats
Muster...
- 1st serve percentage (87/106) 82%
- 1st serve points won (60/87) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (11/19) 58%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (28/106) 26%
Krajicek...
- 1st serve percentage (64/107) 60%
- 1st serve points won (52/64) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (15/43) 35%
- Aces 9 (1 possibly not clean)
- Double Faults 7
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (27/107) 25%
Serve Patterns
Muster served...
- to FH 14%
- to BH 81%
- to Body 5%
Krajicek served...
- to FH 27%
- to BH 67%
- to Body 6%
Return Stats
Muster made...
- 73 (29 FH, 44 BH), including 7 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 18 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 17 Forced (9 FH, 8 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- Return Rate (73/100) 73%
Krajicek made...
- 78 (17 FH, 61 BH), including 4 runaround FHs & 7 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 BH)
- 26 Errors, comprising...
- 22 Unforced (3 FH, 19 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 3 return-approach attempts
- 3 Forced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 1 ?? (against a first serve)
- Return Rate (78/106) 74%
Break Points
Muster 5/13 (6 games)
Krajicek 2/9 (5 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Muster 19 (7 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV, 1 OH)
Krajicek 49 (3 FH, 6 BH, 12 FHV, 10 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 17 OH)
Muster had 14 passes (7 FH, 7 BH)
- FHs - 3 cc, 1 cc/inside-in, 1 dtl at net, 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-out (possibly not clean)
- BHs - 3 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out return, 1 running-down-drop-shot lob at net
- regular BH - 1 cc
- 1 FHV was a swinging shot
Krajicek had 28 from serve-volley points
- 19 first 'volleys' (6 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 5 OH, 1 FH at net)... 1 FHV was swinging longline & 1 OH can reasonbly be called a FHV
- 8 second volleys (4 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)
- 1 fourth 'volley' (1 OH)... on the bounce from no-man's land, a forced back point
- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 2 other OHs were on teh bounce
- FHs - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out
- BHs - 3 cc (1 pass), 1 cc/drop shot slice, 1 inside-out return, 1 inside-in return
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Muster 26
- 8 Unforced (5 FH, 3 BH)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 13 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8
Krajicek 57
- 39 Unforced (13 FH, 17 BH, 5 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 18 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH, 5 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50
(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
Muster was 9/10 (90%) at net
Krajicek was...
- 77/111 (69%) at net, including...
- 52/73 (71%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 43/55 (78%) off 1st serve and...
- 9/18 (50%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/7 (57%) return-approaching
- 1/2 forced back
Match Report
Interesting match and a good one of thoroughly contrasting styles. Krajicek serve-volleys and otherwise seeks net. Muster, when he’s not forced to counter pass, sticks to his hard hitting, grinding baseline game. Both players are successful at what they do to lead play and its Krajicek’s poor returning that gives Muster the decisive advantage
Muster wins 9 more points overall, which is small, given he’s won a full 6 games more (points served are virtually equal - Kraj serving 1 more). Not as significant as it might sound. As is the way when facing someone like Kraj, there’s the odd, pseudo throwaway return game from Muster. Then again, same can be said for Kraj, but that’s not “… the way when facing someone like Muster”
Unreturned serves - Muster 26%, Kraj 25% (with Kraj serve-volleying of all first serves and half the seconds)
This is criminally unacceptable from Kraj’s point of view. He has his massive serve, and the pressure of serve-volleying to enhance it. Muster’s serve is a point starter by contrast, with scarcely a damaging serve to be seen
22/25 Kraj return errors have been marked UEs (with 1 other unknown) and Muster has an ace and a service winner apiece. Just routine, in-swing zone serves at average pace. Only troubling ones are the surprise ones to FH (Muster serves 81% to BH) and 2/3 FEs are FHs
Otherwise, clockwork predictable deliveries to BH - average power, average width. Even the slightly wider ones are readily coverable… and Kraj returns 74% of them. Put Muster up against his own serve, and that figure would likely be close to 90%
Nor does Kraj return with heat. Chip-charges are the height of it, and those aren’t risky or hard to do, particularly with his height letting him get above the ball. 3 return errors on the chip-charge, but rest are just missing routine strength return shots. Less than that if anything as he’s block-chipping most back
Muster doesn’t have much scope to make return UEs since Kraj serve-volleys so much, and misses 1/18 returns where Kraj stays back (the last return he faces in the match, down 40-15 and set to serve for the match)
That’s the big difference between the players, or at least, the area where Kraj has large scope to do better. Giving up 25% freebies to Kraj is a good job by Muster, giving up 26% to Muster is a poor one from Kraj
Kraj also double faults 7 times or 16% of second serves, Muster 0
More broadly, this kind of casual returning misses is a drawback to many fast court players, used to as they are of a kind mentality on grass and indoors along the lines of “… other guy will hold most of the time anyway, what does a few return errors matter?” Might be true against a strong server on a fast court, it isn’t true on clay against an average server - and these are just unnecessary throwaway points
Muster completed the Monte Carlo-Rome double in both ‘95 and ‘96. His unreturned rates in the finals -
‘95 Monte 27% vs Boris Becker
‘95 Rome 15% vs Sergi Bruguera
‘96 Monte 12% vs Albert Costa
‘96 Rome 26% here
Allowing Muster to stay even (in fact, shading ahead) on freebies leaves Kraj the charming prospect of having to outplay him in rallies to come out ahead.
Winners - Muster 19, Kraj 49
Errors forced - both 18
UEs - Muster 8, Kraj 39
Total points - Muster 76, Kraj 75
… cut down those freebies for Muster by half, and with play going as it does, Kraj probably wins