Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Edberg, US Open semi-final, 1987

[Waspsting]

Mats Wilander beat Stefan Edberg 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 in the US Open semi-final, 1987 on hard court

Wilander would go onto lose the final to Ivan Lendl. Edberg had won Cincinnati and been runner-up in Canada leading up to the event. Edberg was ranked and seeded second and had beaten third ranked/seeded Wilander in their last 2 matches on hard courts in straight sets, both within the last year

Wilander won 139 points, Edberg 129

Wilander serve-volleyed more often than not off first serves, Edberg serve-volleyed almost all of the time off both serves

Serve Stats
Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (92/134) 69%
- 1st serve points won (63/92) 68%
- 2nd serve points won (22/42) 52%
- Aces 3, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/134) 19%

Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (88/134) 66%
- 1st serve points won (57/88) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (23/46) 50%
- Aces 2, Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/134) 18%

Serve Patterns
Wilander served...
- to FH 48%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 3%

Edberg served....
- to FH 35%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Wilander made...
- 105 (34 FH, 71 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach
- 6 Winners (1 FH, 5 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 19 Errors, all forced...
- 19 Forced (8 FH, 11 BH), including 2 runaround BHs
- Return Rate (105/129) 81%

Edberg made...
- 107 (63 FH, 44 BH), including 7 runaround FHs & 18 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 FH), including 1 runaround FH
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (3 FH, 4 BH), including 2 return-approach attempts
- 13 Forced (4 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (107/132) 81%

Break Points
Wilander 5/15 (6 games)
Edberg 3/11 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wilander 35 (13 FH, 12 BH, 3 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 OH)
Edberg 63 (7 FH, 6 BH, 13 FHV, 21 BHV, 16 OH)

Wilander had 24 passes - 6 returns (1 FH, 5 BH) & 18 regular (11 FH, 7 BH) -
- FH return - 1 runaround dtl
- BH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 2 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 3 cc, 3 dtl (1 at net), 1 inside-in and 4 lobs
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 4 dtl (1 net chord pop over, 1 one-handed), 1 inside-out/dtl and 1 lob

- 9 from serve-volley points -
- 5 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 FH at net)
- 3 second volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 1 fourth volley (1 BHV)

Edberg had 33 from serve-volley points -
- 14 first volleys (3 FHV, 8 BHV, 3 OH)... 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV
- 18 second 'volleys' (5 FHV, 5 BHV, 8 OH)... 2 OHs were on the bounce (1 from the baseline)
- 1 re-approach volley (1 FHV)

- 3 from return-approach points (1 BHV, 2 OH)

- 1 other OH was on the bounce from the baseline and 1 was possibly not clean

- FH passes - 4 cc (1 at net), 1 dtl and 1 inside-in return
- BH passes - 5 dtl and 1 inside-out/dtl

- regular FH return - 1 runaround cc

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wilander 40
- 5 Unforced (2 FH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 35 Forced (15 FH, 14 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)... with 2 BH running-down-drop-shot (1 at net, 1 not)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48

Edberg 74
- 37 Unforced (8 FH, 9 BH, 3 FHV, 9 BHV, 3 OH)
- 37 Forced (15 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 BHOH, 1 Sky Hook)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 51.4

(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
Wilander was...
- 41/67 (61%) at net, including...
- 34/52 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 32/49 (65%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/3 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 2/2 forced back

Edberg was...
- 101/166 (61%) at net, including...
- 66/108 (61%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 47/74 (64%) off 1st serve and...
- 19/34 (56%) off 2nd serve
---
- 11/18 (61%) return-approaching
- 2/3 (67%) forced back

Match Report
Formula for match -

A) Edberg constantly seeking net. How varies a bit, but regularity doesn’t

B) Wilander with one of the trickiest displays of return/passing there can be, with the lob playing a crucial role. The trickiness of it results in frequent 5-7 shot rallies with Edberg at net, Wilander on the pass. Not something you see every day

C) Wilander taking to serve-volleying plenty himself to keep Edberg from net. A fine contest in its own right, and providing a contrast to the other way around

And the result? Wilander executes a little better than Edberg does, with a bit of choking from the latter nudging outcome the way it goes. The court is slowish with healthy bounce, the kind where return-passer would like his chances. Liking ones chances and getting better of Stefan Edberg at net are two different things

Statistically, it’s a beauty, with so many things coming out even between the two that ready comparison is easy

Both players serve 134 points
Unreturneds - Mats 25, Edberg 24
Aces/Service Winners - Mats 3/2, Edberg 2/3
Double Faults - Mats 2, Edberg 5

Virtually the same, double faults being biggest difference, leaving things to be decided by court action

Winners - Mats 35, Edberg 63 (or Edberg +28)
UEs - Mats 5, Edberg 37 (or Mats +32)
FEs - Mats 35, Edberg 37

Extreme differences, with Edberg exceptionally high of winners, Mats exceptionally low of UEs, the FEs near equal. The last point being as it is is a relative win for Mats, assuming one would expect the player with extremely high winners to also dominate forcing errors (which isn’t necessarily a sound assumption)

Bunch of negligible edges for Mats, totalling up to something with some volume. The extreme differences in winners and UEs showcasing contrast of styles, the extreme positive highs and lows on these showcasing the quality of both players

Edberg’s Net Thirst & Mats’ Serve-Volleying
Edberg’s at net 166 times or 62% of all points. Sans aces, service winners and doubles, that rises to 66% of all points

Obviously, virtually no effective net points when Mats serve-volleys, so subtracting those, 83% of all points

Not much commentary needed; Edberg’s at net all the time. Serve-volleys all the time to start. Ends up staying back off 7 second serves and 9 firsts. Off the firsts in particular, he comes in off the third ball instead, so virtual serve-volleys anyway. When not serve-volleying behind seconds, usually he indulges in back court rally, rarely coming in

In percentage form, he serve-volleys 89% of time behind first serves and 83% behind seconds

The come-in-off-third ball ploy behind first serves is a very good one for Edberg and one he occasionally employs in general and could do a lot more to better effect. He’s got a good enough serve to draw non-aggressive return and of course, is highly practiced in approach shots off either wing. Furthermore, he has greater freedom to for a very big first serve when he isn’t coming in, stripped of concerns about where that’ll leave him when the return comes back

Early on in return games, he makes returns comfortably and then rallies from the back with an eye to coming in. And usually does

Mats holds his own on ensuing pass-volley contest, but hitting passes all the time on both return and serve games isn’t likely to end well for him. Likely to under cut Edberg, Mats turns to serve-volleying regularly off first serves himself

He ends up doing so 56% off first serves. Beyond a certain, early point in third set, he’s doing so virtually always - even more than Edberg. Stays back a bit after losing a few point to good returns, that’s it

Rallying his way to net costs Edberg as Mats, even by his lofty standards, is in full-on wall mode, so the back court errors come from Edberg

Ground UEs - Mats 2, Edberg 17

0 BH UEs from Mats. He mostly slices the BH when rallying and literally never misses. Edberg isn’t loose to faulty degree and errors don’t come quickly from him, but Mats’ number speaks for itself

Later on, Edberg turns to return-approaching as an alternative. No significant difference in success rate, but it forces the issue at once. A good move since he apparently has nothing to gain and plenty to lose rallying with Mats

Rallying to net, Edberg wins 24/40 or 60%
Return-approaching, its 11/18 or 61%

Couple return errors trying is roughly the same as approach attempt errors

Right at the very end, Mats even 2nd serve-volleys a touch to cut away at Edberg’s chip-charging

Total serve-volleying, Edberg wins 66/108 or 61% (distributed as you’d expect across the 2 serves)

So however he gets there, Edberg winning about 60% net points, which coming in as much as he does, puts him in good position to take the match

Good move from Mats to up his serve-volleying to keep frequency of approaching down. He’s winning almost all the baseline rallies, to an extent even he couldn’t have counted on (all credit to the walling), but can’t keep Edberg back with his hitting and once Edberg hits net, winning 40% of points (while having small lot of freebies, for Edberg’s very consistent on the return) is liable to get Mats broken

Strategically, almost perfect from both players and justified by results

Edberg playing to his strength by serve-volleying all the time. Dialing it down a touch in line with how its going
Mats playing to his strength by rallying from the back. Changing it up in line with Edberg’s counter move of taking net

That leaves the volley-pass contests. The Edberg at net vs Mats on the pass is a beauty

 

[Waspsting]

Mats’ Tricky Passing
In general, Mats Wilander is a slippery passer. He doesn’t look for point-ending passes, he looks for a pass that will yield a volley that gives him a better shot at point-ending pass

A little wide, a little low, a little more powerful… a pass the volleyer likely can make, but not putaway (and he’s more likely to make the error against something like that than a regulation pass)

Here, its dialled up beyond 2-shot passing to multi-shots. Lots of ‘long’ rallies with Edberg at net, Mats on pass. Its unusual to see 5-7 shot rallies in such a situation so often

Credit Edberg making the tricky first volley (or second or third) well enough that Mats doesn’t feel like he has the shot for the winner he’s looking for. Note Mats not being put off his process by rally getting extended. If he doesn’t have the look he wants, he goes to the tricky well again

Its not a flawless contest. Edberg’s a bit off on the volley (as in, not at his best, which isn’t reasonable expectation). He at least is capable of putting away Mats’ tricky passes (putting away here meaning volleying with enough authority to force a weak pass as well as hit a winner). Isn’t able to much here. Also misses fair few regulation volleys

Most importantly, he chokes. Several crucial points where Edberg misses the routine volley or smash or even the tricky volley that he’d been making regularly at other times. As chokes, less of a blackmark than most because Mats is a complete pest with the make-opponent-hit-another-ball stuff (he’s about the only player who does this while passing) and gives him another ball that isn’t readily dis-patchable most of the time, but still a blackmark. Edberg’s crucial misses are usually routine volleys or OHs, not ‘tricky’ ones

Edberg on the volley - 50 winners, 15 UEs, 18 FEs

By product of Mats’ tricky passing ways is the errors he draws tend to be ambivalent, skirting lines between ‘forced’ and ‘unforced’. That holds here

Good lot of ‘tough’ UEs and ‘easy’ FEs among Edberg’s yield. He’s no wall in the forecourt and does miss some regulations but not to blackmark degree and somewhat due to Mats being a a pest (from Mats’ point of view, in a good way)

In this match, bulk of trickiness of Mats’ returns and passes are in them being wide, with less being low. Not flagrantly wide or low where its obviously a tough volley, just enough to be tricky

Special sauce in all this is that it extends to the lob. Edberg’s got 16 OH winners, 3 UEs, 2 FEs (2 BHOHs and a Sky Hook). He’s given a real work-out back-pedalling and hitting OHs that he can’t end the point with, Mats scrambling about to put up another lob and so on

Mats on the pass - 24 winners (18 regular, 6 returns) and 29 errors

Great numbers. Allied to Edberg’s volleying ones and the ‘long’ rallies… a fantastic contest, almost 1 of a kind

Almost perfectly even distribution in Mats’ passing winners and errors. By wing, 12 winners for both, 15 FEs for FH, 14 for BH

FH is doing better as 6 of the BH winners are returns (just 1 FH). 1 BH is a running, 1 handed shot that’s indistinguishable of form from the ones Edberg makes

1 player giving another a workout in baseline rallies is common. Here, Mats gives Edberg a workout at net. 1 player wearing down another in baseline rallies is even more common. You could say Mats wears down Edberg at net here too (slightly exaggerated, theatrical assessment, but as close to true as possible)

A dangerous proposition, but he pulls it off. Between all the quick little steps and mini-movements it takes to volley properly and the amount Edberg has to do, his feet are likely in pain at the end of this match

The flip side of the contest is more mundane. Mats volleys solidly, Edberg returns firmly around net high. Mats makes most, misses a few, Edberg has reasonable looks on the pass on which he makes a few, misses more

There’s still some trickiness to it. Mats volleys line far more than is normal. To the point of overdoing it a bit. All well and good to wrong foot opponent with line volley, but he does it even when cross court is open and even a guided volley in that direction would do the job. Not great punching of volleys by Mats, but no plonking them either

On the ‘volley’, Mats with 11 winners, 3 UEs, 6 FEs
On the pass, Edberg with 12 winners, 18 errors

Not a bad contest. Common place next to the one going going on at other end

Beautifully, both players end up winning 61% net points. With Edberg being there about 3 times more (166 to 67 to be exact), one would expect him to have won the match

Mats’ thorough wall showing from the back - the 2-17 UE advantage he enjoys - back cuts that expectation enough to put things up in the air

Not much in the result. Chokey misses by Edberg might be the the deciding factor - 3-5 points worth of them

2 Game Microcosm
Funnily, everything about the match can be condensed into 2 epic games

In the first, Mats breaks Edberg in a 28 point game. It’s the only break of the third set

Mats has 10 break points, Edberg 2 game points, so its Mats who’s leading the dance
Edberg serve-volleys off all points. Tricky volleys, finishing volleys, those ‘long’ rallies discussed above… everythings on show

And the choking. Edberg misses a particularly easy OH in middle of game and the final break point is brought up by missing a regulation FHV. The latter miss one can ascribe to percentages (sooner or later, your bound to miss), the former is a bad one. And again, the softening of discredit for the choking. Lot of work to do for Edberg on these points

In the second, Mats holds a 26 point game in the fourth set to maintain his 1 break advantage.
He has 6 game points, Edberg 5 break points so again, Mats is leading slightly

And the slight choke. Edberg misses the easiest of OHs on one of his break points. And on what turns out be last point of the game, misses another OH, this one not as easy, but still a UE. Point before that is a BHV UE from Edberg

Action is a bit different. Having just endured a deuce hold facing some difficult volleys, it’s the only game of second part of match where Mats isn’t serve-volleying much. 5 times to be exact, while Edberg return-approaches 10 times and is otherwise at net 5 times

Again with the tricky volleys, finishing volleys, those ‘long’ rallies - the works. And the final adjustment, where Mats second serve-volleys twice to keep Edberg’s chip-charge returning at bay

These two games taken together sum up the match - both the action and the result

 

[Waspsting]

Match Progression
In first set, Edberg serve-volleys 100% of the time, is met by just-wide-enough to be irksome returns and passes often. In Mats’ service games, Edberg returns readily and the two get into baseline rallies. Mats slices BHs, and almost literally, misses nothing, but Edberg comes to net regularly

Later in set, Mats takes to serve-volleying a fair bit too

Mats is always in command. He breaks from 40-0 down to start the match, landing 3 passing winners (2 BH returns - dtl and inside-in and a FH dtl) to get to deuce, before Edberg double faults and on break point, misses a high but wide, makeable FHV that’s been marked an FE

Tough consolidation hold of 12 points for Mats, with Edberg crowding net. Mats eventually serve-volleys to undercut it for 2-0. Then breaks again. 2 easy volley misses from Edberg and 2 tricky misses do the job. And then tough consolidation, an 8 point hold, again coping with a net rushing Edberg

Edberg snags a break back, but its too late and Mats eases through to the set, serve-volleying off all first serves in the last game, which features a 4th volley, BHV winner from him

In second set, Edberg eases back on approaching in return games and Mats starts serve-volleying a bit more, independent of each other. Mats lobs more than he had and the contest between that and Edberg’s OH is a good one. Edberg’s volleying improves and he swishes away a few not obviously there to be so treated impeccably

Just the one break, which Edberg grabs with net play. Wins 3 points by drawing passing errors (2 return-approaches) to move to 15-40 and makes a running BH dtl pass winner against serve-volleying Mats to seal it. It’s the only return game he gets into, while Mats gets into a couple. Edberg saves a break point in one of them with a strong serve and later, serves out a deuce game where he’s forced into a number of volleying errors

Just the 1 break in the third too, and it’s the epic 28 pointer that leaves Mats up 2-0. Edberg’s given a workout of wide, lunge volleys and back-pedalling OHs that he can’t putaway - sometimes coming away with the point, sometimes not

Hell of a game, the important part of which is Mats wins it. Thereafter, Mats serve-volleys off all first serves, while Edberg stays back off a few where he comes in off hard hit third ball groundies. On the still few second serves Edberg stays back off, he rallies normally from the back

Mats consolidates his break with a 10 point hold, saving a break point with a serve-volley that draws return error. Not easy games after that, but no break points as Mats closes out for 2-1 sets lead

4th set carries on in same vein, with Mats rarely staying back off first serves. He breaks early with 2 perfect BH passing winners (lob and dtl - the latter hit from outside court) bring up break point, on which Edberg double faults. The choking thing

Edberg gives Mats a torrid time to consolidate hitting a number of powerful, low-ish returns against the serve-volleyer. Its enough to make Mats finally stay back off the last 2 point, on which he hits winners with FH lob and OH to hold

Next go around for Mats is the second epic game or 26 points. He rarely serve-volleys and is confronted by a constantly chip-charging Edberg. Most important point is Edberg completely mishitting a putaway OH on his fourth break point. He only has one more, though the game goes on and on after that. Mats finally second serve-volleys to counter-act the chip-charging, but its Edberg floundering in forecourt that finally decides the game

Finally, Edberg breaks the next game, the chip-charges winning him 2 points and on break point, making the FH dtl pass after a lively rally. He holds his arms up in triumph after coming so close but failing in 2 earlier games

Its Mats who holds his arms aloft 2 games later for the last time. He breaks right back with strong passes and serves out to 15. 1 last choke in the final game. At 30-15, Edberg misses a swatted FHV putaway and its 40-15 instead of 30-30. Mats second serve-volleys on the last point to prevent anymore chip-charging hazards to put things to bed

Summing up, fascinating match and a close one. Wilander’s rock like backcourt game is above even his own very high standard flirting with perfection; he misses nothing and has 2 ground UEs all match (Edberg has 17 and doesn’t play badly from the back)

But Edberg’s not about outrallying his opponent from the back. He comes to net and that’s where the real fun is

With Edberg at net and Wilander on the baseline, the latter dishes out an assortment of just wide enough and less often, low enough or just hard hit enough passes, along with teasingly un-dispatchable lobs to work over the former. Lots of relatively long rallies between the two in this situation - Edberg eventually winning the bulk, but never does a player at net need to work so hard for it

Some great finishing volleying from Edberg, with a few misses thrown in and some great passes by Wilander, amidst the tricky stuff. Wilander’s lobs vs Edberg’s OHs is a particularly fine contest

Wilander gives his game active teeth (and curtails Edberg’s) by serve-volleying plenty himself. That net vs passer battle is more mundane - solid returning from Edberg, solid volleying from Wilander and Wilander getting better of it to about the same extent Edberg does when he’s at net

All that leaves things about even. Few easy or routine misses at net by Edberg at crucial junctures push the result Wilander’s way

Stats for the final between Wilander and Ivan Lendl - Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Wilander, US Open final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Stats for the other semi between Lendl and Jimmy Connors - Duel Match Stats/Reports - Lendl vs Connors, US Open semi-finals, 1985 & 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Stats for the quarter-final between Lendl and John McEnroe - Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs McEnroe, US Open quarter-final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[BringBackWood]

Really enjoyed this one. The volleyer vs pass battle was highly entertaining for the reasons you mention. Edberg was full of praise for Mats after this match.

 

[NicoMK]

Yep it was a great match from Mats from a tactical point of view, but once again you've said it all @Waspsting so what else to say?

Maybe can we talk about the fact that both players went on to a mini-strike just before the match, which beginning was delayed by 20 minutes, as far as I recall? Think both players were unhappy with the 11 AM early schedule of the match, which they thought was a bit unfair for a USO semifinal -- and I agree.

Some may say that it is old tennis but it doesn't seem to be old for me. I remember it as if it were yesterday. Haven't seen it for a while though, so maybe I'll watch it again on YT. Thanks!

Edit : found an article about it. Actually they protested because the semi-final was moved at 10 am, which is indeed a bit early for such a match.

Wilander, Lendl Advance to Final; Swedes Protest Time Change

The day known as Super Saturday in tennis circles started off with a mild protest from a most unlikely source at the U.S.

www.latimes.com

 

[Drob]

I was thinking about time-change thing. It was funny. It is funny. It also underscores how much the television coverage/ tournament schedules have changed. Now, everything is night, night, night. Good article. Typical of Dillman's coverage, which was always fun - she'd find some way to make a joke.

 

[Moose Malloy]

The match was moved up to 10 am because of bad weather forecast. Which was a good idea cause it started pouring that night and all day on Sunday. If both matches went five, they wouldnt have finished semis until Monday. The final was played on Monday.
Also Edberg played a 5 set doubles final the day before so that was a big reason they were upset by 10 am start. This was yet another reason top players stopped playing doubles. And why they eliminated best of 5 doubles.