Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Lendl, Australian Open final, 1983

[Waspsting]

Mats Wilander beat Ivan Lendl 6-1, 6-4, 6-4 in the Australian Open final, 1983 on grass

It was the first of Wilander's 3 Australian Open titles and saw Lendl's record in Slam finals go to 0-4. Wilander would defend the title the following year and Lendl would win his first Slam at next opportunity at French Open, beating Wilander in the semis on route

Wilander won 98 points, Lendl 76

Wilander serve-volleyed off all but 1 first serve

Serve Stats
Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (43/82) 52%
- 1st serve points won (35/43) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (22/39) 56%
- Aces 8 (2 second serves)
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/82) 30%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (37/92) 40%
- 1st serve points won (25/37) 68%
- 2nd serve points won (26/55) 47%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 6
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (21/92) 23%

Serve Patterns
Wilander served...
- to FH 46%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 6%

Lendl served....
- to FH 26%
- to BH 67%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Wilander made...
- 65 (15 FH, 50 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 3 return-approaches
- 5 Winners (1 FH, 4 BH)
- 9 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 BH)
- 7 Forced (3 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (65/86) 76%

Lendl made...
- 56 (22 FH, 34 BH), including 4 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 9 Unforced (6 FH, 3 BH)
- 8 Forced (2 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (56/81) 69%

Break Points
Wilander 5/10 (6 games)
Lendl 1/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wilander 32 (4 FH, 12 BH, 9 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)
Lendl 24 (8 FH, 5 BH, 8 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Wilander had 13 from serve-volley points -
- 7 first volleys (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)…. 1 BHV was a net chord pop over
- 5 second volleys (4 FHV, 1 BHOH)
- 1 third volley (1 FHV)

- 1 other BHV was from a return-approach point

- FH passes- 1 cc and 2 dtl
- regular FH - 1 inside-out return
- BH passes - 1 cc, 3 dtl (2 returns), 3 inside-out (2 returns), 1 longline and 2 lobs
- regular BHs - 1 dtl and 1 inside-out

Lendl had 6 from serve-volley points -
- 4 first volleys (3 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (2 FHV)

- FHs - 1 cc pass, 4 inside-out (2 passes), 1 inside-in return, 1 longline pass and 1 drop shot
- BHs - 2 cc (1 pass, 1 slice), 2 dtl (1 pass) and 1 inside-out pass

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wilander 30
- 16 Unforced (4 FH, 10 BH, 1 BHV, 1 OH)… the OH was on the bounce well behind service line and not a net point and 1 BH was at net
- 14 Forced (2 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 3 BHV)… including 1 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8

Lendl 35
- 16 Unforced (7 FH, 5 BH, 3 FHV, 1 BHV)… including 1 BH at net
- 19 Forced (9 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Wilander was...
- 41/58 (71%) at net, including...
- 28/36 (78%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
--
- 3/3 (100%) return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Lendl was...
- 19/44 (43%) at net, including...
- 11/26 (42%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 6/14 (43%) off 1st serve and..
- 5/12 (42%) off 2nd serve
--
- 2/4 (50%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
Very well played match by Wilander, leaving Lendl about as frustrated as a tennis player can be. Part of Lendl's woes is caused by his own poor play, particularly the serving, but he doesn't seem to have planned the match out thoroughly and is thrown for a loop when things go off script. And how efficiently well Wilander plays

Wilander serve-volleys off all but 1 first serve (on which he comes in off third ball) and stays back on all seconds. It wouldn't have mattered what extent Lendl had serve-volleyed had he done so because he can scarcely make a first serve. He finishes the match with a low 40%... and that's with the figure going up towards the end. After his first two service games in the third set, Lendl had made 22/65 first serves at 34%. And he still has 9 aces and 3 service winners. What he planned on doing other than winning points with big serves isn't clear

Lendl does actually serve volley 4/11 time of first serves in first two sets, which isn't a small amount. He comes in off a few second serves too, though that's probably because he made so few first serves. With a decent percentage of first serves, even not coming in too often, I think Lendl would likely have made the match competitive

As it is, by the end he's mentally gone - expressing his frustration after every point, sometimes with resigned humour, more often sourly. He seems to almost be tanking - barely moving to defend, half-heartedly trying to make returns, rather casual-to-lazy on volleys. His is the body language of a man that might get fined for lack of effort but as the set is competitive, that would be too strong a reaction. Suffice to say, he's not a happy bunny with his own play. Or Wilander's

The highest compliment Lendl pays Wilander comes early in the second set, during which period he was still normal of mindset. Wilander had volleyed with assurance in racing through the opening set 6-1, but not faced too many difficult ones. First service point of second set though, Lendl gets a strong return back. Wilander makes a low-ish volley with authority and depth. Lendl bangs another powerful pass, this time wide of Wilander. Wilander stretches and hits it for a winner

"He's not supposed to volley like this", Lendl complains to the Universe

Later, when Lendl's gone a bit bananas, his judgement isn't so clear. He plonks what should have been a putaway volley back down the middle of court and Wilander swipes away a good passing winner. Lendl reacts with humour, indicating he gives up and Wilander is playing too well. Wilander was playing fabulously, but the fault for that point was mostly Lendl

For all Lendl's expressiveness, his play doesn't lack professional effort 'til after he goes down a break in the third set. Separating his eye capturing moaning from the action, its easy to see the quality of Wilander's play. Note the superb 32 winners to 16 UEs in play from the Swede. He serves well too and returns even better, admittedly against fairly ordinary serving from Lendl

 

[Waspsting]

In first set, Wilander wins 11/12 first serve points, all but once serve-volleying. Lendl hasn't quite got the measure of returning against the serve-volleying and while getting most balls in play, leaves Mats with not-difficult volleys. Mats puts these away adroitly. Most other points are baseline affairs

The two settle into who-blinks-first BH cc duels - very unusual for grass, very usual for the pair on all surfaces. Lendl slices a lot - both regularly and slightly driven - probably in a bid to keep the ball low. Doesn't bother Wilander, who mostly plays his BH with top spin but also slices back with equal certainty.

Generally, Wilander tends to get the better of these exchanges - and they tend to be very long. Here on grass, they're relatively short (though long for a grass match) and Lendl gets the better of them for a change. Note the BH UEs - Wilander 10, Lendl 5 (including 1 BH at net for both players). Its fairly easy to escape the rally - a slice approach is there for the taking. In last game of the match, Lendl escapes a long, slicey BH exchange by slicing and approaching and putting away a FHV

Lendl errs in not looking to attack with the FH. While both are steady of the wing, Lendl's obviously packs a huge punch that Wilander's does not. Even on clay, the Czech is able to selectively overwhelm Mats with big FHs. On this grass court with Wilander relatively passive from the back (Note the low UEFI 43.8. Lendl's is 50), baseline initiatives were there to be taken by Lendl. He doesn't make much effort to do so, even though he's mostly successful when he does (admittedly, it is the FH that lets him down on key points, but he plays these in a non-measured, rattled way which is the bigger factor)

A large chunk of Mats' 14 FEs would have been forced by Lendl's baseline-to-baseline FHs. By contrast, most of Lendl's 19 were passing shots. Lendl has 3 baseline-to-baseline FH winners, Wilander 0 but Mats has fewer UEs 4-7

On slow surfaces, it isn't worth changing BH-BH rallies to FH inside-out to BH cc ones. Here though, its would have been well worth the effort and one imagines Lendl could overpower the defensive Wilander BH with big FHs. He does once or twice, but doesn't stick to it. It would have been difficult for Mats to even escape such a barrage (unlike BH cc's)

Poor strategy from Lendl. He probably didn't count on missing so many first serves, but it isn't clear what he planned on doing even had he not. Serve-volley occasionally, initiate passive slicey BH rallies and count on passing Wilander or Wilander not volley well?

None work. When he does serve-volley, he's terrible at it. 42% s/v points won - 43% off first serves. His volleying is atrocious, probably the worst I've seen from him. He misses absolute sitters that were easier to make than not make and usually can't place volleys well

I'd think he'd have foreseen the likelihood of Wilander winning the BH duels (although that's not what happens). Or did he count on low slices being too much for Mats? If so, he underestimated his opponent. And there are many better ways to approach winning points on grass

Count on passing Wilander and Wilander not volleying well?... straight out underestimation of Mats. Though that seems to have been common wisdom (Mats mentions post match how no one thought he would have won on grass). Doesn't say much for common wisdom. I've yet to see Mats volley poorly, even as early as 1982 in marathon Davis Cup match with McEnroe

Wilander's strategy is more straight forward -
- serve-volley off first serve
- rally from baseline and see what comes up as far as approach chances go

The serve-volleying part is very successful as he wins 71% such points. And as 6 first serve aces suggest, the serve is reasonably strong to come in behind. Just 52% first serves in is another indicator that he was serving hard (its not unusual for him to be up in 70-80% range rolling the ball in)

Lendl tries returning second serves the way he would on clay - standing so as to ensure a strong FH return. Courts too quick for it. The 2 second serve aces Mats sends down are the type Lendl can usually run down on clay. And Lendl misses attempted aggressive returns - many of them winner attempts - note the 9 return UEs. Again, underestimating of Mats by Lendl here

His volleying is efficient rather than brilliant, like most of the rest of his game.

- on baseline points, he holds steady, but not as much he'd like, making as many UEs as Lendl. But is the quicker of the two to seize net. To good effect. Mats rallies his way to net 19 times (Lendl's 14)

Lendl switches tacks in third set. serve-volleys virtually all the time and when he doesn't, 'delay' serve-volleys. He's already rattled to the point of being choppy of play at the start of the set, which gets significantly worse after going down a break in the 3rd game though. Mats returns consistently and with authority... and the 'delayed' serve-volleys frequently leave Lendl in no-man's land dealing with awkward balls that he isn't up to making

Match Progression
Wilander breaks to go up 3-1 in the first set. 1 passing winner apiece and the break comes with Lendl losing his way a bit. He make a hash of an attempted approach shot and serve-volleys second serve on break point. Mats steps in and whacks a FH dtl pass winner. Mats breaks a second time with 2 return pass winners - 1 against first serve, 1 second - but again, its Lendl that falters with attacking FH UE on break point.

In an earlier game, Lendl had hit one of the best shots of the match, a step in BH cc slice winner that clung to the ground

Lendl goes up a break in second set in a game Mats misses 5/6 first serves but comes to net 3 times from rallying. 2 good passing winners from Lendl (FH inside-out and BH cc) do for 2 of them. The last is on break point and Mats at net exchanges 4-5 shots with Lendl commandingly hitting passes from the back until Mats is forced into error

Mats breaks back at once, starting with a BH dtl winner and coming to net to go up 0-30. Next 4 points are ace, double fault, ace, double fault. Commentators quip, "well, he's really mixing it up"

Mats moves ahead with his second break, where he wins 2 key points with return-approaches down the middle. The tactic seems to catch Lendl off guard, though with all the second serves he's having to make, it was always on the cards and he can't find the inside-out angles to pass. After a couple of Lendl UEs, Mats wraps with a perfect BH lob winner off a first serve-volley point. This shot does more to break Lendl's spirit than any other in the match

Difficult hold to serve out the set lasting 10 points. The key point is Lendl missing a very, very easy FHV, which would have given him 15-40. Lendl his some strong returns (including his sole winner) and passes in this game and even wins a point chip-charge returning, but Mats has enough to come through - hitting 2 first volley winners and forcing a return error on the last 3 points. Coming on top of the previous game, this one near sends Lendl over the edge

Lendl appears extremely rattled in third set, but wisely comes to net more - serve-volleying and otherwise. And despite carrying on, plays decently on his service games

The key point to him getting broken is his hitting a FH at net serve-volleying straight back down the middle, where Wilander hits an excellent BH inside-out pass winner. Great shot from Mats, but it was poor shot from Lendl to give him the chance in first place. Lendl misses a makeable BHV (not surprising. He was missing easy ones) and double faults on break point

He plays wildly for rest of matchis but is able to resist being broken to lose the match in a 16 point game filled with big serves, strong returns, half-assed 'delayed' serve-volleying, easy volley misses - and even has break point as a nervy Mats serves out the match. On that break point, he goes for a winner off second serve return and misses - and Mats wraps up the match with 2 net points to follow

Summing up, clean and efficient from Wilander - serving well and wisely, volleying nicely, returning strongly and passing even more strongly - all with a cool head. Lendl serves very poorly, doesn't seem to know what he's trying to do, volleys about as badly as he serves - mostly in a rattled, out-to-lunch kind of way

Stats for the pairs '84 French Open semi - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...wilander-french-open-semi-finals-1984.656465/

 

[KG1965]

Mats Wilander beat Ivan Lendl 6-1, 6-4, 6-4 in the Australian Open final, 1983 on grass

Serves Stats: Wilander despite 1st serve 52% percentage, making 8 aces (2 second serves) + 17 errors of Ivan’s return, has better numbers than Lendl.
Which is a bit like saying that the numbers of Rosewall (or Connors) serve are better than that of Tanner (or McEnroe)....

Even Wilander's winners (32) are clearly better than those of Lendl.

Either the czechoslovak guy was not well physically, or of head.

 

[Waspsting]

Serves Stats: Wilander despite 1st serve 52% percentage, making 8 aces (2 second serves) + 17 errors of Ivan’s return, has better numbers than Lendl.
Which is a bit like saying that the numbers of Rosewall (or Connors) serve are better than that of Tanner (or McEnroe)....

Bunch of factors here -
- Lendl's very low first serve percentage
- Wilander serve-volleying all the time
- Lendl pseudo-tanking some returns

Was Wilander's serve that weak? I just did the '85 Aus final, and it looks a powerful shot there. Not hugely so, but not Rosewall or Connors level either. 2nd serve is a gimme though

Even Wilander's winners (32) are clearly better than those of Lendl.

Either the czechoslovak guy was not well physically, or of head.

He was definitely not right in the head. The despair he expresses after almost every point is like something you might see in a sit-com

I've seen him go to pieces at French Open '82 (probably influenced or even triggered by physical exhaustion) and to a lesser extent '92 Cincinnati versus Agassi

But this was a whole other level of losing it. Some credit to Mats - I think his play was beyond what Lendl though he was capable of - but really shoddy attitude shown by Lendl here
----

I've got an older question to re-open with you

Do you remember we had a long discussion, working out the rankings for 1983?

Well, can you explain this?
This Australian Open was the last of the year for both Lendl and McEnroe. Only the Masters to come - and that gave no ranking points

Lendl was number 1 going into this tournament, according to commentary and confirmed by ATP site, Mac number 2
Lendl was runner-up, Mac semi-finalist. Neither had played year before
On ATP site, it says Lendl was number 1 at Masters too

How did McEnroe finish the year ranked number 1???? Did McEnroe finish the year officially ranked number 1???

John McEnroe | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of John McEnroe including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

John McEnroe | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of John McEnroe including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

Ivan Lendl | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of Ivan Lendl including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

Ivan Lendl | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of Ivan Lendl including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

the only possible thing I can think of - and this is really stretching - is Lendl would have dropped points from Hartford WCT that he played in December '82... but that doesn't explain his being listed number 1 at Masters

ATP site might be in error, but commentary from this event is reliable source. Lendl was ranked number 1 at start of Australian Open. How could that change to the end of the year?

 

[jrepac]

I just recall being amazed how well Mats was playing. Ivan was starting to look like a big head case...remember, he had just come off of the USO final meltdown against Connors. Still, I expected him to beat Mats. Quite the opposite. But, sadly, Mats never really displayed that level of play at Wimbledon. And, he had also beaten Mac in the semis, no small feat!

 

[KG1965]

Bunch of factors here -
- Lendl's very low first serve percentage
- Wilander serve-volleying all the time
- Lendl pseudo-tanking some returns

Was Wilander's serve that weak? I just did the '85 Aus final, and it looks a powerful shot there. Not hugely so, but not Rosewall or Connors level either. 2nd serve is a gimme though



He was definitely not right in the head. The despair he expresses after almost every point is like something you might see in a sit-com

I've seen him go to pieces at French Open '82 (probably influenced or even triggered by physical exhaustion) and to a lesser extent '92 Cincinnati versus Agassi

But this was a whole other level of losing it. Some credit to Mats - I think his play was beyond what Lendl though he was capable of - but really shoddy attitude shown by Lendl here
----

I've got an older question to re-open with you

Do you remember we had a long discussion, working out the rankings for 1983?

Well, can you explain this?
This Australian Open was the last of the year for both Lendl and McEnroe. Only the Masters to come - and that gave no ranking points

Lendl was number 1 going into this tournament, according to commentary and confirmed by ATP site, Mac number 2
Lendl was runner-up, Mac semi-finalist. Neither had played year before
On ATP site, it says Lendl was number 1 at Masters too

How did McEnroe finish the year ranked number 1???? Did McEnroe finish the year officially ranked number 1???

John McEnroe | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of John McEnroe including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

John McEnroe | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of John McEnroe including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

Ivan Lendl | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of Ivan Lendl including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

Ivan Lendl | Player Activity | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official tennis match records of Ivan Lendl including results, opponents, match stats. Filter by year and tournament.

www.atptour.com

the only possible thing I can think of - and this is really stretching - is Lendl would have dropped points from Hartford WCT that he played in December '82... but that doesn't explain his being listed number 1 at Masters

ATP site might be in error, but commentary from this event is reliable source. Lendl was ranked number 1 at start of Australian Open. How could that change to the end of the year?

Your question is really interesting.
First I looked at the newspapers of the time but I found only the ranking without points in 2 spanish newspapers.
Then it occurred to me that there was a super ranking on another specialist tennis site.
I cound the data we need and tried to interpret them.
This happened.

Before Melbourne
- Lendl was first with 1741 on 14 tournaments = 124.36
- Mac 1429 on 12 = 119.08 (in reality it would be 129.91 but the ranking divides as a minimum by 12 tournaments)

In Melbourne McEnroe earns 130 points, Lendl 203.
Then Lendl rises to 1944, divided 15 = 129.60
McEnroe rises to 1559 but was not divided by 13 but always by 12. Result: 129.92
Unbelievable but true.
I hope I was clear.

 

[Waspsting]

Before Melbourne
- Lendl was first with 1741 on 14 tournaments = 124.36
- Mac 1429 on 12 = 119.08 (in reality it would be 129.91 but the ranking divides as a minimum by 12 tournaments)

In Melbourne McEnroe earns 130 points, Lendl 203.
Then Lendl rises to 1944, divided 15 = 129.60

Unbelievable but true.
I hope I was clear.

Thanks - very clear

So Mac only played 11 ranked tournaments prior to Australian Open, but his points were derived from 12 (that is, 1 tournament with score 0)

With Aus, that 0 got dropped and replaced by what he earned for semi showing

But Lendl already had 12+ tournaments so his showing just got added on to whatever he had, without anything being dropped

Interesting implication for this match then

With a win, Lendl would have finished year end number 1

Don't know if he knew this or how important it was to the players.... I imagine if he did and it was, he would have shown more mettle in instead of crankily rolling over

 

[KG1965]

Thanks - very clear

So Mac only played 11 ranked tournaments prior to Australian Open, but his points were derived from 12 (that is, 1 tournament with score 0)

With Aus, that 0 got dropped and replaced by what he earned for semi showing

But Lendl already had 12+ tournaments so his showing just got added on to whatever he had, without anything being dropped

Interesting implication for this match then

With a win, Lendl would have finished year end number 1

Don't know if he knew this or how important it was to the players.... I imagine if he did and it was, he would have shown more mettle in instead of crankily rolling over

Exact.

Very interesting implication: Lendl would have finished the year-end number 1.
He didn't know.
Surely experts and newspapers didn't know this.

 

[Waspsting]

Very interesting implication: Lendl would have finished the year-end number 1.
He didn't know.
Surely experts and newspapers didn't know this.

I think your right

No mention of it at all on commentary. With the average-based system, it'd be complicated to know exactly what you needed to finish where ahead of a tournament, especially with bonus points

Don't think being #1 on computer was as important then as it is now. In the '83 Masters final, commentators talk about their being a debate as to who was number one... and they don't seem to be referencing the computer much. More the kind of informal opinions that dominated such talk pre-computer

There, commentators quote Lendl as having opined that McEnroe was number 1. And before 1989 Masters, when Lendl was well ahead as top of the computer, he said if Becker won the Masters, Becker would be number 1

Double delight for Mats Wilander though. Its quite a feat - taking out the two guys locked in battle for number 1 back-to-back on a surface unfavourable to his game - in last tournament of year and a Slam event

 

[KG1965]

I think your right

No mention of it at all on commentary. With the average-based system, it'd be complicated to know exactly what you needed to finish where ahead of a tournament, especially with bonus points

Don't think being #1 on computer was as important then as it is now. In the '83 Masters final, commentators talk about their being a debate as to who was number one... and they don't seem to be referencing the computer much. More the kind of informal opinions that dominated such talk pre-computer

There, commentators quote Lendl as having opined that McEnroe was number 1. And before 1989 Masters, when Lendl was well ahead as top of the computer, he said if Becker won the Masters, Becker would be number 1

Double delight for Mats Wilander though. Its quite a feat - taking out the two guys locked in battle for number 1 back-to-back on a surface unfavourable to his game - in last tournament of year and a Slam event

From my memories of those years, ATP Ranking was very useful for determining whether a player could be number 4 or 15 or 31 but to establish the number 1 had some problems that at the time no one was able to define (now it is quite clear what the defects are of that system), so 3 cases could happen:
1) the number 1 ATP was clearly higher than the number 2, and in this case the ranking was taken as the definitive test;
2) the number 1 at the end of the year was not clear, so it could happen that it was the Masters GP (only since 1977 - Madison Square Garden) to declare the definitive number ... even if it did not distribute points .... of the series "have you seen? The number one ATP won the Masters GP".
3) the number 1 ATP was not accepted by the experts, and they decided to designate their best player, bypassing the computer.

Before 1977 the Masters GP was never considered potentially decisive, but it was since 1977, although in the first two editions it was only .. potentially decisive.

In the years 1979,80,83,84,85,86,87 the number one also won the Masters and there was no problem.
In those years the Masters hid the problems of the ranking.
Especially in 1983 there are 4 players nearby and McEnroe and Lendl are almost obliged to win the MSG to legitimize the crown of best players. And John wins.

In 1977 ... we wrote on several occasions.
In 1978 (although the issue in this case is not simple) and in 1982 the experts decreed a different player respect to ATP Ranking (previous points 3).

In 1981 Mac did not win the Masters GP but was clearly the best player.

Ultimately the experts tended to monopolize the choice, leaving only the test position they had at their convenience to the computer.
The problem for the experts came out when they had to say or write that that player was number one.
Because they could not say it or write it because the number one was that of the computer.
It's hard to beat the math.

I'll give you an example: at the beginning of 1979, 95% of experts said and wrote that Borg was the best player 1978 but could not say or write that Bjorn was number one, because he would have said or written something that was not true. And the math retaliated.

 

[jrepac]

1983 was an odd year....4 different winners of GS...I seem to recall Wilander being the favorite of some. you pretty much had Mac, Connors and Lendl switching off most of the season.

 

[KG1965]

Especially in 1983 there are 4 players nearby and McEnroe and Lendl are almost obliged to win the MSG to legitimize the crown of best players. And John wins.

But what if John didn't win the Masters GP?

 

[NicoMK]

As it is, by the end he's mentally gone - expressing his frustration after every point, sometimes with resigned humour, more often sourly. He seems to almost be tanking - barely moving to defend, half-heartedly trying to make returns, rather casual-to-lazy on volleys. His is the body language of a man that might get fined for lack of effort but as the set is competitive, that would be too strong a reaction. Suffice to say, he's not a happy bunny with his own play. Or Wilander's

The highest compliment Lendl pays Wilander comes early in the second set, during which period he was still normal of mindset. Wilander had volleyed with assurance in racing through the opening set 6-1, but not faced too many difficult ones. First service point of second set though, Lendl gets a strong return back. Wilander makes a low-ish volley with authority and depth. Lendl bangs another powerful pass, this time wide of Wilander. Wilander stretches and hits it for a winner

"He's not supposed to volley like this", Lendl explains to the Universe

Later, when Lendl's gone a bit bananas, his judgement isn't so clear. He plonks what should have been a putaway volley back down the middle of court and Wilander swipes away a good passing winner. Lendl reacts with humour, indicating he gives up and Wilander is playing too well. Wilander was playing fabulously, but the fault for that point was mostly Lendl

For all Lendl's expressiveness, his play doesn't lack professional effort 'til after he goes down a break in the third set.

Nice overview of what happened that day. True that Ivan didn't seem to care at the end and that Mats played a great final.

I've always been amazed to see how he was able to adapt his game to the surface and to his opponent, even during his early career.

As for Ivan, even years later, it's almost painful to see how he refused the fight during that final against Mats. Then he turned into a true champion a few months later with his win over Johnny Mac at the 1984 French Open, another match that I will never forget.