Match Stats/Report - Wheaton vs Lendl, Wimbledon third round, 1991

[Waspsting]

David Wheaton beat Ivan Lendl 6-3, 3-6, 7-6(6), 6-3 in the Wimbledon third round, 1991 on grass

The unseeded Wheaton would go onto lose to Boris Becker in the semi-final. He’d been runner-up at Queen’s Club in the lead to this event. Lendl was seeded third this was the first time he’d failed to reach the semi-finals of the event since 1985

Wheaton won 136 points, Lendl 127

Both players serve-volleyed off all serves, with the exception of 1 Lendl second serve

Serve Stats
Wheaton...
- 1st serve percentage (84/131) 64%
- 1st serve points won (64/84) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (26/47) 55%
- Aces 16 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (60/131) 46%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (82/132) 62%
- 1st serve points won (57/82) 70%
- 2nd serve points won (29/50) 58%
- Aces 14, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (55/132) 42%

Serve Patterns
Wheaton served...
- to FH 29%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 5%

Lendl served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
Wheaton made...
- 76 (27 FH, 49 BH), including 1 runaround BH & 1 return-approach
- 16 Winners (7 FH, 9 BH)
- 40 Errors, all forced...
- 40 Forced (17 FH, 23 BH)
- Return Rate (76/131) 58%

Lendl made...
- 66 (18 FH, 48 BH)
- 10 Winners (2 FH, 8 BH)
- 44 Errors, all forced...
- 44 Forced (15 FH, 29 BH)
- Return Rate (66/126) 52%

Break Points
Wheaton 4/7 (6 games)
Lendl 2/13 (8 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wheaton 43 (12 FH, 13 BH, 13 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 1 BHOH)
Lendl 42 (7 FH, 12 BH, 12 FHV, 7 BHV, 4 OH)

Wheaton had 20 from serve-volley points -
- 10 first 'volleys' (6 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 1 FH at net)
- 9 second 'volleys' (6 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BHOH, 1 BH at net)
- 1 third volley (1 FHV)

- 23 passes - 16 returns (7 FH, 9 BH) & 7 regular (3 FH, 4 BH)
- FH returns - 4 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 2 cc, 1 cc/down-the-middle, 3 dtl, 3 inside-out
- regular FHs - 3 cc
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 inside-out, 2 lobs

Lendl had 22 from serve-volley points -
- 17 first' volleys' (6 FHV, 7 BHV, 3 OH, 1 BH at net)
- 5 second volleys (4 FHV, 1 OH)

- 19 passes - 10 returns (2 FH, 8 BH) & 9 regular (4 FH, 3 BH, 2 FHV)
- FH returns - 2 cc
- BH returns - 2 cc, 3 dtl, 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 3 dtl (1 at net)
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 1 lob
- FHVs - both swinging - 1 non-net cc, 1 inside-in/cc from baseline

- regular (non-pass) FH - 1 inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wheaton 25
- 8 Unforced (1 FH, 1 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 FH at net
- 17 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 4 BH1/2V)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot (not at net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 53.8

Lendl 32
- 11 Unforced (1 FH, 5 FHV, 5 BHV)... with 1 FH pass attempt
- 21 Forced (6 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 BH runningd-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 56.4

(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
Wheaton was...
- 77/113 (68%) at net, including...
- 74/110 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 49/69 (71%) off 1st serve and...
- 25/41 (61%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching

Lendl was...
- 72/118 (61%) at net, including...
- 71/115 (62%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 42/67 (63%) off 1st serve and...
- 29/48 (60%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/3 (33%) forced back

Match Report
Point here, point there serve-volley match. Wheaton returning a little better - as in, finding winning returns more often - edging prospects his way is at most, the difference between the two players

Return rate - Wheaton 58%, Lendl 52%
Return winners (all passes) - Wheaton 16, Lendl 10
Percentage of returns made that are winners - Wheaton 21%, Lendl 15%

Clear cut in numbers, and no back-cutting into it from stock returning quality. Both return normally against good serving beyond the clean winners, both getting winning and potentially winning returns wide and especially low at about same rate (Wheaton slightly more)

Both volley about equally well, Wheaton a little more secure, Lendl a little more decisive on routine volleys. Neither are able to make the difficult, shoelace volley regularly. Wheaton maybe giving Lendl a few more to make

Wheaton a little more secure on the volley, Wheaton returning more regularly and more damagingly and Lendl missing more tough volleys because differences in returning leads to him facing more. Looks like Wheaton slightly better in all way

Even then, break points - Wheaton 4/7 (6 games), Lendl 2/13 (8 games)
The games is the important part. Lendl having more break points is just a function of him not being able to resist being broken when in trouble

Break points by set -
Set 1 - Wheaton 1/2 (2 games), Lendl 0/3 (2 games)
Set 2 - Lendl 1/3 (1 game), Wheaton 0, but getting to deuce in 2 games (Lendl doesn’t reach deuce other than the break game)
Set 3 - Wheaton 1/3 (2 games). Lendl 1/4 (3 games)… with Lendl having the first set point in the tiebreak
Set 4 - Wheaton 2/2, Lendl 0/3 (2 games)

Point here, point there. Wheaton does tend to find his winning returns in the games he breaks. He doesn’t serve or volley abnormally well to thwart Lendl’s chances and Lendl doesn’t falter unduly at such times either. Just the percentages lining up with reality to tune of Lendl being thwarted at last hurdle of breaking

Match is all but 100% serve-volley affair (Lendl stays back off 1 second serve, in which Wheaton delay reuturn-approaches to take point). In that light -

First serve in - Wheaton 64%, Lendl 62%
First serve won - Wheaton 76%, Lendl 70%
Second serve won - Wheaton 55%, Lendl 58%

Everything close, in line with PH, PT match. As heartily as both serve, the in-counts are excellent

Virtual equality in finding the unreturnable serve. Wheaton has 15 first serve aces, Lendl 14 and a service winner, both coming to 18% of first serves (Wheaton has sole second serve ace). Lendl flagrantly forces errors with the serve a little more

Neither are exceptionally quick in moving for returns. Wheaton occasionally, is a touch slow, which helps in Lendl drawing more hard forced return errors. In a strange way, this makes his choice, perfectly smacked return winners more alarming and dangerous, not less. He likes to biff returns

Lendl is masterful in his return shot choices. In other matches, he doesn’t always appear to be in tune with what return to use against what serve as though having premeditated how to return. Here, he slaps when its best to slap, chips when its best to chip, block-guides when its best to block-guide. Cycles through the lot. Would be good to low-chip a few more as Wheaton struggles with lower volleys, but not much scope to do it with any control and its not a flaw in Lendl’s choices that he isn’t able to. Wheaton’s hefty serve is good enough to limit such chances

On the ‘volley’ -
- Winners - Wheaton 20, Lendl 22 (Lendl has a couple, non-net swinging volley passes too)
- UEs - Wheaton 8, Lendl 10
- FEs - Wheaton 9, Lendl 10

Again, everything very close

 

[Waspsting]

Lendl again, completely masterful in his choices, seemingly without doubt about exactly what he wants to do with every volley. 17/22 of his serve-volleying winners are first ‘volleys’ and 6/10 volley UEs are winner attempts. That looks aggressive and the excellent judgement behind the volleys hasn’t come out. When faced with volley that wouldn’t be easy to putaway, he volleys firmly without looking for winner. 10/20 of Wheaton’s winners are first ‘volleys by contrast. He volleys normally - far from closely, but without the exceptional sense of calibrated purpose Lendl shows for every volley. 3/8 of his UEs are winner attempts. He’s more a 2 part volleyer then first volley killer, but most accurately, a balanced one. Lendl punches volleys more thoroughly

Neither manage well against difficult, shoelace volleys and credit to the returns for that

6/9 Wheaton FEs are half-volleys. He makes more than he misses (though he has a winner, a relatively simple one) on the half-volley. He’s also tested a bit on wide volleys from Lendl’s pushed-blocked returns. His movements are decent but not exceptional and he makes it look like hard work. To be clear, it isn’t easy work, but Wheaton’s handling of it makes it a look a little harder than it is, but most importantly, he doesn’t falter or miss these

8/10 Lendl FEs are BHVs. Bullet hard returns right to his feet, and may as well be half-volleys. Would say he did well to make any of them, not that he hasn’t done well not to. No one could make more than they miss of them

Return-pass winners - Wheaton 16, Lendl 10
Regular pass winners - Wheaton 7, Lendl 9 (including 2 swinging, non-net volleys)
Passing errors - Wheaton 8, Lendl 12 (1 of Lendl’s is a UE)

Wheaton doing better on the return, as mentioned earlier. Particularly in deuce court. He’s got 4 FH cc and 3 BH inside-out winners (among others) from that side. Point of signalling out those 2 returns being that there’s no safe place to serve to him there. Wonderful, hooked wide FH cc, and the BH inside-out is always a good trick to have up one’s sleeve

Both doing very well passing, per the regular passing winners to FEs. Not good-look passes either

Gist of all this is things are very even. Ergo, the point-here, point-there nature of how outcome is determined

Couple further, very zoned in points. Couple of crucial points where Lendl goes his favourite BH dtl on good look pass and Wheaton anticipates it to putaway FHV winners. Generally, Lendl always prefers BH line to cross on the pass. They’re well hit shots, though not too wide and wouldn’t hold it against Wheaton for missing the reaction volley.

Wheaton’s BH is strangely awkward shot, including on the return. He almost looks like a 1-hander, whose played a 2-handed shot and certainly like a life-long 2-hander. As with the movement, the less than comfy look of the shot makes it more rather than less dangerous. The best, low percentage passing winners of the match come from Wheaton’s BH, including lobs

Match Progression
Good serving from both in first set (and all match, actually), Lendl looking for low chip returns, both players missing the odd routine volley. Lendl looks a few pounds above his honed norm, his thighs and hip area standing out

Break points for set - Wheaton 1/2 (2 games), Lendl 0/3 (2 games)

The break is low percentage magic from Wheaton and gives him 2-0 lead, finishing with 3 passing winners. FH cc from mid court to start, but the next is a 1 in 20, full running BH cc and the last a lovely BH lob to a deep, ball about ankle height

Couple of volley UEs get Lendl break-back point next game, but Wheaton comes through lsat 3 points where Lendl puts all the returns in play. Draws FH passing errors on last 2 points. Low percentage ones, but there are players who’d strain to avoid Lendl’s FH in the situation

Wheaton’s down 2 break points at 4-2, brought up by a double fault and Lendl dispatching 2 cc passing winners after drawing low ‘volley’ with returns. Wheaton has to make another low volley on first break point and is upto cutting off a BHOH winner on second volley and strong serves get him to safety. He finishes the game with a lovely, angled drop FHV winner

Lendl’s down a break point game after. His second serve on the point presents good look for Wheaton but he misses the return. His first serve point after that is potentially whackable too, but also draws return error

Wheaton serves out to love, with a calm, not difficut FH1/2V first ‘volley’ winner he has time on in the game. On set point, he delivers match’s only second serve ace

No change in high quality in the second set. Lendl breaks the only break for 3-1 lead in an 18 point game with lots of half-volleys for Wheaton to make (he misses 3). Uniquely rare incident in the game where Chair overrules a Lendl passing winner to out after Wheaton’s protest. Lendl makes the point that overrule shouldn’t come after a protest but instantly, but doesn’t seem to have a problem with the call itself and doesn’t make too big a deal of it

Routine holds for Wheaton thereafter, but 2/3 Lendl serve games go to deuce. Is faced with difficult volleys in the games, and 3 return-pass winners, but gets through them without facing break point

A break apiece in the third set. Wheaton goes first to take 3-1 lead (having saved a break point previous game) and Lendl breaks back to 15 for 4-5
Both break games feature great passes from the returner. Wheaton’s got 4 passing winners and forces 2 more net errors in 12 point game. Again, finishes brilliantly. Down A-40, lob forces a fully stretched out OH error, smacks a BH inside-out return-pass winner and on his second break point, runs around to play BH return and strikes another BH lob winner

Lendl thwarts would-be serve-out would 3 passing winners (blocked BH inside-out return, a desperate chip BH lob and FH cc return), with Wheaton also double faulting

Both players have break points last 2 regular games. Lendl has 2 at 5-5. On second one, has good look at BH dtl return winner shot against second serve, without moving his feet much and just misses. Next game, Lendl misses couple easy volleys to fall behind break point before coming through to push set into tiebreak. Plenty of good tennis from both players beyond the crucial moments - Wheaton faces fewer half-volleys than before, and strikes number of BH inside-out return pass winners

Tiebreak. Lendl missing shoelace BHV put Wheaton up 2-0 at start. He ends up leveling at 4-4, with Wheaton missing hard-hit, but routine height BHV

On serve, Lendl reaches 6-5 and set point. Gets another routine height but powerful return off and Wheaton’s upto making it firmly. He’s got a good look pass point after, drills it BH dtl and Wheaton plucks away the reaction second volley FHV for winner to raise his first set point
BH cc return pass winner against second serve seals the set for Wheaton. He’s served 43 points in the set to Lendl’s 53 and had better of it, on top of leading it most of the time

2 break cushion makes fourth set look quite comfy, but that ones competitive too
Break points for set read Wheaton 2/2, Lendl 0/3 (2 games)

Lendl reels off 3 passing winners in a row (BH dtl return, FH dtl at net and BH cc return) to reach 15-40 in game 4. Forces a first half-volley on second break point and has a good look BH pass that he again drills down the line, and again, Wheaton picks it off for FHV winner before going on to hold

Couple of volley UEs (high BHV and regulation under-net FHV) contribute to Lendl getting broken next game. Wheaton also improbably lobbing him back to win a point and knocking away FH cc return-pass winner

Double fault and pair of volley UEs raise break point for Lendl again at 3-4, which Wheaton deals with confidently, again ending game with second volley FHV winner against good look pass
Wheaton breaks to 15 to wrap up with 3 passing winners (rare FH inside-in return, FH cc against a not great Lendl volley and a FH cc return). He’s been very on point with FH cc return in the set

Summing up, good match with little in it between 2 power serving, good volleying players
Wheaton able to come up with some unlikely passing winners occasionally and more often than opponent, able to find return-passing winners. His BH looks awkward and he’s not elite mover for return, but also strikes the best, lowest percentage passing winners of the match, with the inside-out return standing out. He volleys safely with good punch, more looking for 2 volleys to finish than 1 and misses more shoelace volleys than he makes

Lendl is masterful on both return and volley, seemingly certain of what the best shot is for every ball - whether its choice between spanking, blocking or chipping returns or volleying for a straight winner or volleying to draw a weaker pass. He misses a few more volleys and is also not upto handling power returns to feet

Point here, point there settles the result

On strength of this and his semi-final loss to Boris Becker, David Wheaton would have made a worthy Wimbledon winner this year. The incongruence of how awkward his BH looks and its ability to come up with amazing passes is a beautiful trap. And balance of strong first serve + healthy first serve percentage is a very good one

Stats for Wheaton’s semi-final with Boris Becker - Match Stats/Report - Becker vs Wheaton, Wimbledon semi-final, 1991 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Stats for the final between Michael Stich and Becker - Match Stats/Report - Stich vs Becker, Wimbledon final, 1991 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)