Mats Wilander beat Pat Cash 7-6(3), 6-3 in the Masters (Year End Championship) round robin, 1987 on carpet in New York, USA
The result saw Cash eliminated from the event. Wilander would go onto the final, losing to Ivan Lendl. The two would meet soon after in Australian Open final, with Wilander again winning
Wilander won 69 points, Cash 60
Cash serve-volleyed off the majority first serves
Serve Stats
Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (50/78) 64%
- 1st serve points won (33/50) 66%
- 2nd serve points won (16/28) 57%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/78) 19%
Cash...
- 1st serve percentage (28/51) 55%
- 1st serve points won (19/28) 68%
- 2nd serve points won (12/23) 52%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (12/51) 24%
Serve Patterns
Wilander served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 5%
Cash served....
- to FH 29%
- to BH 71%
Return Stats
Wilander made...
- 37 (14 FH, 23 BH), including 3 runaround FHs, 1 runaround BH & 1 return-approach
- 9 Errors, all forced...
- 9 Forced (2 FH, 7 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (37/49) 76%
Cash made...
- 62 (28 FH, 34 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 10 return-approaches
- 13 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (6 FH, 4 BH), including 2 return-approach attempts
- 3 Forced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (62/77) 81%
Break Points
Wilander 3/3
Cash 2/4 (3 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wilander 21 (6 FH, 6 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)
Cash 22 (4 FHV, 9 BHV, 9 OH)
Wilander had 12 passes (6 FH, 6 BH)
- FHs - 1 cc and 5 dtl
- BHs - 3 cc, 1 dtl, 1 longline (that Cash left) and 1 lob
Cash had 7 from serve-volley points
- 5 first volleys (5 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (2 OH)
- 4 from return-approach points (1 BHV, 3 OH)
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wilander 25
- 11 Unforced (5 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 14 Forced (5 FH, 8 BH, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot (not at net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.5
Cash 31
- 14 Unforced (8 BH, 6 FHV)... with 1 swinging FHV from the baseline
- 17 Forced (4 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH, 1 Back-to-Net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.3
(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
Wilander was...
- 22/26 (85%) at net, including...
- 4/7 (57%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back/retreated
Cash was...
- 39/63 (62%) at net, including...
- 14/21 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 12/18 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/3 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 7/11 (64%) return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back
Match Report
A fine, all court match on a slowish but low bouncing court and a close one. The centerpiece of action is the contest between Cash at net and Wilander on the pass, but its not the only show in town. There are baseline rallies and there’s Wilander at net vs Cash on the pass
In formulae -
a) Cash at net > Mats on the pass
b) Baseline rallies =
c) Wilander at net >>> Cash on the pass
… with there being a lot more of a) than c) going on, that potentially leaves result up in the air
Statistically, Cash has sizably better of the first set. Cash wins 42 points, Mats 40, while Cash serves just 32 of them. In other words
- Cash wins 51.2% of the points while serving 39% of them
He holds to love 4 times, Mats 0. He’s not taken to deuce, Mats is 4 times. They both break once
But its Mats who’s on top. There are two breaks in the set. Mats gets his in game 5 to move up 3-2 and nurses the break to serving for the set at 5-4. Where he advances to 40-0 and the fat lady humming
The tennis, very good throughout already, touches a higher standard still for rest of set with added elements of drama and tension thrown in. A flurry of net approaches sees Cash break, follow up with a love hold and then put Mats through the hoop in another high end game
Serving at 5-6, Mats finds himself down 30-40 on the back of more net rushing from Cash. A rally develops on break/set point, which turns exciting via a Cash drop shot - and all kinds of fun things happen from there - running-down-drop-shot shots at acute angles, net-to-net exchange of volleys - with Mats coming away with the point. Not out of the wood, he has to hit a perfect FH dtl pass to win the next point and holds with his sole ace of the match
The tiebreak has many exciting and up-in-the-air points too. 7-3 is an injustice to how competitive it is, but certainly an excellent one from Mats and better than Cash
Second set isn’t bad either, but its setted by bad games. There are 3 breaks. Cash gets his in another swashbuckling game with 5 winners and 2 FEs (and an aggressive return UE) making up the 8 points. Both men are at net 4 times in it
Unfortunately for him, that break is sandwiched between 2 terrible games where he’s broken, with double faults and easy volleying UEs
Mats has much the better of the second set. More so than Cash did the first. He maybe plays slightly better than he did in the first, though in same ball park. Cash lapses by contrast into poor territory with the 2 bad games. He serve-volleys less in the set but continues coming to net
So Cash with better of first set, Mats with more the better of the second. Altogether, things remain close
Mats wins 53.4% of the points, while serving 60.5% of them. That’s a bit deceptive in that Cash is broken in short games (once to love, twice to 15), but Cash does have 5 love holds to Mats’ 1 (the last game of the match)
Break points - Mats 3/3, Cash 2/4 (3 games)
Interesting & Extreme Stats
There are a few of these here
- Cash with 0 ground winners. Might be the only time I’ve seen this. Pat Rafter technically had one in ‘97 Grand Slam Cup final (it was a 1/2volley winner at net)
It fits though. There are no baseline-to-baseline winners in the match, which isn’t unusual in the period. And Mats loses just 4 points at net - 2 to volleying UEs and the other 2 would be his forced back/retreated points
- Cash with 0 FH UEs. There’s a fair amount of baseline rallies, so this is surprising. Particularly for one of his reputation of having a better BH than FH
The two players are about equal in their ground consistency, but Mats’ is evenly distributed. Ground UEs -
- Cash BH 8
- Mats FH 5
- Mats BH 4
Its surprising however you look at it. Just a touch less so in light of majority of rallies being BH cc based. That might be, but it hasn’t stopped Mats from having 5 FH UEs
- Cash's volleying distribution
FHV - 4 winners (none of them from serve-volleying), 6 UEs
BHV - 9 winners (5 from serve-volleying), 0 UEs
Not sure what Cash’s reputation is as far as which volley is better. @Cashman ?
Mats seems to prefer going to BHV, but Cash seems to prefer making them too. Mats directs his returns and passes that way and Cash, if anything, slightly moves over to make BHV when he could as readily done FHV (its very minor, he doesn’t seem to mind either way)
Cash's UEs read a strange (8 BH, 6 FHV) ... no FHs, no BHVs
The result saw Cash eliminated from the event. Wilander would go onto the final, losing to Ivan Lendl. The two would meet soon after in Australian Open final, with Wilander again winning
Wilander won 69 points, Cash 60
Cash serve-volleyed off the majority first serves
Serve Stats
Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (50/78) 64%
- 1st serve points won (33/50) 66%
- 2nd serve points won (16/28) 57%
- Aces 1, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/78) 19%
Cash...
- 1st serve percentage (28/51) 55%
- 1st serve points won (19/28) 68%
- 2nd serve points won (12/23) 52%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (12/51) 24%
Serve Patterns
Wilander served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 5%
Cash served....
- to FH 29%
- to BH 71%
Return Stats
Wilander made...
- 37 (14 FH, 23 BH), including 3 runaround FHs, 1 runaround BH & 1 return-approach
- 9 Errors, all forced...
- 9 Forced (2 FH, 7 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (37/49) 76%
Cash made...
- 62 (28 FH, 34 BH), including 2 runaround FHs & 10 return-approaches
- 13 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (6 FH, 4 BH), including 2 return-approach attempts
- 3 Forced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (62/77) 81%
Break Points
Wilander 3/3
Cash 2/4 (3 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wilander 21 (6 FH, 6 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)
Cash 22 (4 FHV, 9 BHV, 9 OH)
Wilander had 12 passes (6 FH, 6 BH)
- FHs - 1 cc and 5 dtl
- BHs - 3 cc, 1 dtl, 1 longline (that Cash left) and 1 lob
Cash had 7 from serve-volley points
- 5 first volleys (5 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (2 OH)
- 4 from return-approach points (1 BHV, 3 OH)
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wilander 25
- 11 Unforced (5 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 14 Forced (5 FH, 8 BH, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot (not at net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.5
Cash 31
- 14 Unforced (8 BH, 6 FHV)... with 1 swinging FHV from the baseline
- 17 Forced (4 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH, 1 Back-to-Net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.3
(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
Wilander was...
- 22/26 (85%) at net, including...
- 4/7 (57%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back/retreated
Cash was...
- 39/63 (62%) at net, including...
- 14/21 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 12/18 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/3 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 7/11 (64%) return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back
Match Report
A fine, all court match on a slowish but low bouncing court and a close one. The centerpiece of action is the contest between Cash at net and Wilander on the pass, but its not the only show in town. There are baseline rallies and there’s Wilander at net vs Cash on the pass
In formulae -
a) Cash at net > Mats on the pass
b) Baseline rallies =
c) Wilander at net >>> Cash on the pass
… with there being a lot more of a) than c) going on, that potentially leaves result up in the air
Statistically, Cash has sizably better of the first set. Cash wins 42 points, Mats 40, while Cash serves just 32 of them. In other words
- Cash wins 51.2% of the points while serving 39% of them
He holds to love 4 times, Mats 0. He’s not taken to deuce, Mats is 4 times. They both break once
But its Mats who’s on top. There are two breaks in the set. Mats gets his in game 5 to move up 3-2 and nurses the break to serving for the set at 5-4. Where he advances to 40-0 and the fat lady humming
The tennis, very good throughout already, touches a higher standard still for rest of set with added elements of drama and tension thrown in. A flurry of net approaches sees Cash break, follow up with a love hold and then put Mats through the hoop in another high end game
Serving at 5-6, Mats finds himself down 30-40 on the back of more net rushing from Cash. A rally develops on break/set point, which turns exciting via a Cash drop shot - and all kinds of fun things happen from there - running-down-drop-shot shots at acute angles, net-to-net exchange of volleys - with Mats coming away with the point. Not out of the wood, he has to hit a perfect FH dtl pass to win the next point and holds with his sole ace of the match
The tiebreak has many exciting and up-in-the-air points too. 7-3 is an injustice to how competitive it is, but certainly an excellent one from Mats and better than Cash
Second set isn’t bad either, but its setted by bad games. There are 3 breaks. Cash gets his in another swashbuckling game with 5 winners and 2 FEs (and an aggressive return UE) making up the 8 points. Both men are at net 4 times in it
Unfortunately for him, that break is sandwiched between 2 terrible games where he’s broken, with double faults and easy volleying UEs
Mats has much the better of the second set. More so than Cash did the first. He maybe plays slightly better than he did in the first, though in same ball park. Cash lapses by contrast into poor territory with the 2 bad games. He serve-volleys less in the set but continues coming to net
So Cash with better of first set, Mats with more the better of the second. Altogether, things remain close
Mats wins 53.4% of the points, while serving 60.5% of them. That’s a bit deceptive in that Cash is broken in short games (once to love, twice to 15), but Cash does have 5 love holds to Mats’ 1 (the last game of the match)
Break points - Mats 3/3, Cash 2/4 (3 games)
Interesting & Extreme Stats
There are a few of these here
- Cash with 0 ground winners. Might be the only time I’ve seen this. Pat Rafter technically had one in ‘97 Grand Slam Cup final (it was a 1/2volley winner at net)
It fits though. There are no baseline-to-baseline winners in the match, which isn’t unusual in the period. And Mats loses just 4 points at net - 2 to volleying UEs and the other 2 would be his forced back/retreated points
- Cash with 0 FH UEs. There’s a fair amount of baseline rallies, so this is surprising. Particularly for one of his reputation of having a better BH than FH
The two players are about equal in their ground consistency, but Mats’ is evenly distributed. Ground UEs -
- Cash BH 8
- Mats FH 5
- Mats BH 4
Its surprising however you look at it. Just a touch less so in light of majority of rallies being BH cc based. That might be, but it hasn’t stopped Mats from having 5 FH UEs
- Cash's volleying distribution
FHV - 4 winners (none of them from serve-volleying), 6 UEs
BHV - 9 winners (5 from serve-volleying), 0 UEs
Not sure what Cash’s reputation is as far as which volley is better. @Cashman ?
Mats seems to prefer going to BHV, but Cash seems to prefer making them too. Mats directs his returns and passes that way and Cash, if anything, slightly moves over to make BHV when he could as readily done FHV (its very minor, he doesn’t seem to mind either way)
Cash's UEs read a strange (8 BH, 6 FHV) ... no FHs, no BHVs
Last edited: