Mats Wilander beat Ivan Lendl 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4 in the US Open final, 1988 on hard court
The win gave Wilander his only US Open title, third Slam title of the year and moved him to number one in the ranking. Lendl had won the event the previous 3 years and was playing in his 7th straight final. Wilander's last win over Lendl had come in '85 French Open final, and he had lost the pair's next 6 matches coming into this final
Wilander won 166 points, Lendl 161
Wilander serve-volleyed regularly, about a third of the time off first serves
Serve Stats
Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (156/181) 86%
- 1st serve points won (94/156) 60%
- 2nd serve points won (16/25) 64%
- Aces 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/181) 14%
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (62/146) 42%
- 1st serve points won (46/62) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (44/84) 52%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/146) 16%
Serve Patterns
Wilander served...
- to FH 46%
- to BH 39%
- to Body 15%
Lendl served....
- to FH 31%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 13%
Return Stats
Wilander made...
- 120 (49 FH, 71 BH), including 10 runaround FHs & 10 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (4 BH)
- 10 Forced (5 FH, 5 BH)
- Return Rate (120/144) 83%
Lendl made...
- 156 (85 FH, 71 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 7 Winners (4 FH, 3 BH)
- 23 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (7 FH, 1 BH)
- 15 Forced (1 FH, 14 BH)
- Return Rate (156/181) 86%
Break Points
Wilander 6/10 (8 games)
Lendl 5/18 (12 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wilander 33 (7 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 5 BHV, 9 OH)
Lendl 81 (23 FH, 30 BH, 12 FHV, 3 BHV, 13 OH)
Wilander had 9 from serve-volley points
- 4 first volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 2 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 1 third volley (1 FHV)
- 2 fourth volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 FHV from a return-approach point
- regular FH - 1 at net
- FH passes - 1 cc and 5 dtl (1 at net)
- BHs - 3 inside-out (1 turnaround pass and 2 returns) and 1 lob
Lendl had 37 passes (10 FH, 27 BH)
- FHs - 4 cc (1 return), 1 dtl return, 4 inside-in and 1 lob
- BHs - 7 cc (1 return), 16 dtl (1 return, 1 net chord pop over... without which Wilander seemed to have ball covered), 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-in return and 2 lobs
- regular FHs - 5 cc, 3 dtl (1 return), 4 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 dtl and 1 running-down-drop volley at net dtl
- 1 FHV was a swinging shot
- 1 OH was not a smash, 1 was on the bounce at net, 1 was from the baseline (on bounce) and 1 was from a return-approach point
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wilander 56
- 32 Unforced (14 FH, 12 BH, 4 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 24 Forced (8 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.6
Lendl 106
- 65 Unforced (31 FH, 20 BH, 7 FHV, 2 BHV, 5 OH)… with 1 baseline OH
- 41 Forced (18 FH, 20 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.2
(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...
- 78/132 (59%) at net, including...
- 37/59 (63%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 35/57 (61%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/2 off 2nd serve
---
- 5/10 (50%) return-approaching
- 4/10 (40%) forced back/retreated
Lendl was...
- 49/74 (66%) at net, including...
- 3/3 (100%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 3/4 (75%) forced back/retreated
Match Report
There are many different ways to look at this match. To my eye, Wilander strikes a smart balance of being steady from the back and attacking the front of the court and plays the important points both well and boldly. He plays about as well as he can. By contrast, Lendl is below his well below his norm in baseline consistency and on the serve and slightly less so on the return and possibly on the pass - but is still the overall better player. He does not play the important points well though - that proves to be the difference
A common measure of who was the better player in a match is break point numbers. Wilander has 10 in 8 games, Lendl 18 in 12 - substantial advantage to Lendl. But Wilander breaks 6 times, once more than Lendl - an even more clear indicator of Wilander playing the important points well (both saving break points against himself and converting his own)
This is unusual; Usually, its the bigger serving players and/or more aggressive one that's able to be more successful in these areas. That Lendl has the bigger serve is clear - Wilander's is just a rolled in shot lacking power or placement most of the time - but that's confounded by Wilander serving at 86% to Lendl's 42% (both figures being extreme in opposite directions). Who the more aggressive player is less obvious, despite Lendl leading winners by a whopping 81-33. Even taking winners + errors forced Lendl comes out on top 105-74. The gap grows still further when serves are taken into account (Lendl adds 25 points, Wilander 16)
What's going on here? Clutch play. Wilander tends to be aggressive on important points - serve-volleying, rallying to net or even return-approaching. In rallies, he tends to come in early even. And plays his best tennis at these key moments. Lendl's almost the opposite. He can rarely find a first serve when it counts most, and makes some terrible errors, especially in the forecourt at such times. Its execution more than passivity that lets him down - he tends to try to take charge of big points, just like Wilander - but muffs attacking plays repeatedly
Another common indicator of quality of play is second serve points won. Wilander leads considerably 64%-52%, though Lendl has 3.5 times more such points. Wilander winning 64% second serve points to 60% first serve points is one of the best indicators of how well he played
Court seems on the slow side and commentators keep talking about wind being strong. Its not as strong as the '87 final. there you could see some slices beings blown sideways as they went through the air. Nothing like that here, though there are at least two indicators of windiness; first is Lendl's serving at 42% - his high ball toss is particularly susceptible to disruption by wind. second is OHs. Lendl makes a hash of a number of smashes and Mats is more conservative in hitting them then anything I've seen
As you'd expect over such a long match, nature of action varies at different times. The typical Lendl-Wilander match tends to feature
- Lendl's first serve winning a lot of cheap points
- large amounts of who-blinks-first baseline rallies, based around BH cc'ng
- Lendl occasionally attacking with big FHs from the back
- both players to varying degrees approaching net to finish points
- quality of volleying and passing varies match to match
In this match -
- Lendl doesn't get may cheap points because of low percentage (42%), court speed and typical uber-consistent returning from Mats (83% return rate)
- relatively little passive rallying. Rather, Lendl looks to take charge of points from the back more than usual and is more error prone - both in attacking shots but also neutral ones (51 baseline UEs, to Mats' 26)
- Lendl approaches after overpowering Mats and/or drawing short ball. Mats serve-volleys a lot, return-approaches a bit and manufactures approaches from neutral positions surprisingly often and well
- Mats volleys very well in terms of covering the net and putting difficult wide and/or low volleys back in play (just 3 forecourt FEs). He misses very little that's easy. he's average as far as killing points with the volley goes though (22 forecourt winners, to Lendl's 28 coming in about half as much), and leaves Lendl second chances on the pass. Lendl passes within himself, short of the all out blasting he sometimes goes in for. Lots of winners, also misses a lot of makeable passes. Semi-strong passes are well dealt with by Mats
- Lendl doesn't volley well. His approach shots are strong enough that Mats can't do much on the pass (just 8 winners) or even make Lendl play difficult volleys (just 3 forecourt FEs - and he wasn't making a bunch of difficult volleys, just wasn't faced with them). Its left for Lendl to mess up at net (13 UEs - including 4 OHs. Mats has 6 coming in twice as much)
The win gave Wilander his only US Open title, third Slam title of the year and moved him to number one in the ranking. Lendl had won the event the previous 3 years and was playing in his 7th straight final. Wilander's last win over Lendl had come in '85 French Open final, and he had lost the pair's next 6 matches coming into this final
Wilander won 166 points, Lendl 161
Wilander serve-volleyed regularly, about a third of the time off first serves
Serve Stats
Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (156/181) 86%
- 1st serve points won (94/156) 60%
- 2nd serve points won (16/25) 64%
- Aces 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/181) 14%
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (62/146) 42%
- 1st serve points won (46/62) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (44/84) 52%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/146) 16%
Serve Patterns
Wilander served...
- to FH 46%
- to BH 39%
- to Body 15%
Lendl served....
- to FH 31%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 13%
Return Stats
Wilander made...
- 120 (49 FH, 71 BH), including 10 runaround FHs & 10 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (4 BH)
- 10 Forced (5 FH, 5 BH)
- Return Rate (120/144) 83%
Lendl made...
- 156 (85 FH, 71 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 7 Winners (4 FH, 3 BH)
- 23 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (7 FH, 1 BH)
- 15 Forced (1 FH, 14 BH)
- Return Rate (156/181) 86%
Break Points
Wilander 6/10 (8 games)
Lendl 5/18 (12 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Wilander 33 (7 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 5 BHV, 9 OH)
Lendl 81 (23 FH, 30 BH, 12 FHV, 3 BHV, 13 OH)
Wilander had 9 from serve-volley points
- 4 first volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 2 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 1 third volley (1 FHV)
- 2 fourth volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 FHV from a return-approach point
- regular FH - 1 at net
- FH passes - 1 cc and 5 dtl (1 at net)
- BHs - 3 inside-out (1 turnaround pass and 2 returns) and 1 lob
Lendl had 37 passes (10 FH, 27 BH)
- FHs - 4 cc (1 return), 1 dtl return, 4 inside-in and 1 lob
- BHs - 7 cc (1 return), 16 dtl (1 return, 1 net chord pop over... without which Wilander seemed to have ball covered), 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-in return and 2 lobs
- regular FHs - 5 cc, 3 dtl (1 return), 4 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 2 dtl and 1 running-down-drop volley at net dtl
- 1 FHV was a swinging shot
- 1 OH was not a smash, 1 was on the bounce at net, 1 was from the baseline (on bounce) and 1 was from a return-approach point
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Wilander 56
- 32 Unforced (14 FH, 12 BH, 4 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 24 Forced (8 FH, 13 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.6
Lendl 106
- 65 Unforced (31 FH, 20 BH, 7 FHV, 2 BHV, 5 OH)… with 1 baseline OH
- 41 Forced (18 FH, 20 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.2
(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...
- 78/132 (59%) at net, including...
- 37/59 (63%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 35/57 (61%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/2 off 2nd serve
---
- 5/10 (50%) return-approaching
- 4/10 (40%) forced back/retreated
Lendl was...
- 49/74 (66%) at net, including...
- 3/3 (100%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 3/4 (75%) forced back/retreated
Match Report
There are many different ways to look at this match. To my eye, Wilander strikes a smart balance of being steady from the back and attacking the front of the court and plays the important points both well and boldly. He plays about as well as he can. By contrast, Lendl is below his well below his norm in baseline consistency and on the serve and slightly less so on the return and possibly on the pass - but is still the overall better player. He does not play the important points well though - that proves to be the difference
A common measure of who was the better player in a match is break point numbers. Wilander has 10 in 8 games, Lendl 18 in 12 - substantial advantage to Lendl. But Wilander breaks 6 times, once more than Lendl - an even more clear indicator of Wilander playing the important points well (both saving break points against himself and converting his own)
This is unusual; Usually, its the bigger serving players and/or more aggressive one that's able to be more successful in these areas. That Lendl has the bigger serve is clear - Wilander's is just a rolled in shot lacking power or placement most of the time - but that's confounded by Wilander serving at 86% to Lendl's 42% (both figures being extreme in opposite directions). Who the more aggressive player is less obvious, despite Lendl leading winners by a whopping 81-33. Even taking winners + errors forced Lendl comes out on top 105-74. The gap grows still further when serves are taken into account (Lendl adds 25 points, Wilander 16)
What's going on here? Clutch play. Wilander tends to be aggressive on important points - serve-volleying, rallying to net or even return-approaching. In rallies, he tends to come in early even. And plays his best tennis at these key moments. Lendl's almost the opposite. He can rarely find a first serve when it counts most, and makes some terrible errors, especially in the forecourt at such times. Its execution more than passivity that lets him down - he tends to try to take charge of big points, just like Wilander - but muffs attacking plays repeatedly
Another common indicator of quality of play is second serve points won. Wilander leads considerably 64%-52%, though Lendl has 3.5 times more such points. Wilander winning 64% second serve points to 60% first serve points is one of the best indicators of how well he played
Court seems on the slow side and commentators keep talking about wind being strong. Its not as strong as the '87 final. there you could see some slices beings blown sideways as they went through the air. Nothing like that here, though there are at least two indicators of windiness; first is Lendl's serving at 42% - his high ball toss is particularly susceptible to disruption by wind. second is OHs. Lendl makes a hash of a number of smashes and Mats is more conservative in hitting them then anything I've seen
As you'd expect over such a long match, nature of action varies at different times. The typical Lendl-Wilander match tends to feature
- Lendl's first serve winning a lot of cheap points
- large amounts of who-blinks-first baseline rallies, based around BH cc'ng
- Lendl occasionally attacking with big FHs from the back
- both players to varying degrees approaching net to finish points
- quality of volleying and passing varies match to match
In this match -
- Lendl doesn't get may cheap points because of low percentage (42%), court speed and typical uber-consistent returning from Mats (83% return rate)
- relatively little passive rallying. Rather, Lendl looks to take charge of points from the back more than usual and is more error prone - both in attacking shots but also neutral ones (51 baseline UEs, to Mats' 26)
- Lendl approaches after overpowering Mats and/or drawing short ball. Mats serve-volleys a lot, return-approaches a bit and manufactures approaches from neutral positions surprisingly often and well
- Mats volleys very well in terms of covering the net and putting difficult wide and/or low volleys back in play (just 3 forecourt FEs). He misses very little that's easy. he's average as far as killing points with the volley goes though (22 forecourt winners, to Lendl's 28 coming in about half as much), and leaves Lendl second chances on the pass. Lendl passes within himself, short of the all out blasting he sometimes goes in for. Lots of winners, also misses a lot of makeable passes. Semi-strong passes are well dealt with by Mats
- Lendl doesn't volley well. His approach shots are strong enough that Mats can't do much on the pass (just 8 winners) or even make Lendl play difficult volleys (just 3 forecourt FEs - and he wasn't making a bunch of difficult volleys, just wasn't faced with them). Its left for Lendl to mess up at net (13 UEs - including 4 OHs. Mats has 6 coming in twice as much)
Last edited: