Stats for 1985 AO Final(Edberg-Wilander)

[Moose Malloy]

Edberg d Wilander 64, 63, 63

Edberg was 19, Wilander 21. Edberg is the last teenager to win the Australian Open.

This was the 1st major final from 2 players from the same country, outside of the US & Australia.

Rain pushed the final to a Monday, & the stands were not full.

My stats:

Edberg had 38 non service winners: 5 fh, 8 bh, 8 fhv, 10 bhv, 6 ov
Wilander had 24: 7 fh, 5 bh, 5 fhv, 4 bhv, 3 ov

Winners by set:

Wilander - 5, 7, 12
Edberg - 9, 9, 20

Edberg had 5 aces, 2 doubles
Wilander had 10 aces, 2 doubles

Mary Carillo speculated that Wilander was going for bigger serves due to arm issues. She said that he was using a lower than usual(in the 40s) string tension this tournament.

Edberg was 44 of 74, or 59% on 1st serves
Wilander was 56 of 96 or 58%

Edberg had 23 unreturned serves, 4 of which I judged to be a service winner.
Wilander had 17, 5 of which I judged a service winner.

Edberg was 4 of 14 on break points.
Wilander was 0 of 2(he got those 2 in Edberg's last service game)

Both players had 10 passing shot winners. Each had 5 fh, 5 bh.

Edberg was down 2 sets to love & 2 match points vs Wally Masur in the Round of 16.

Prior to the final Fred Stolle mentioned comments that Lendl had about the AO after losing to Edberg in the semis. Lendl said it wasn't a major tournament, that it was on the level of the WCT finals. Lendl was also very critical of the grass(he was constantly slipping during the Edberg match)

When told of Lendl's comments, Edberg said that of course the AO wasn't on the level of the 'big 3,' but that it was still a big tournament.

 

[andreh]

I've seen this match. What was most striking to me was how boring it was. It never caught fire and it was nothing like, say Edbergs win over Courier years later in the USO91, where one could just sit an be amazed at the level of play from the winner.

Another comment from one of the commentators was that he considered Edberg to be a baseliner. Edberg was largely unknown at the time. Carillo corrected him.

 

[krosero]

Wilander had 24: 7 fh, 5 bh, 5 fhv, 4 bhv, 3 ov

12 ground strokes and 12 volleys, interesting.

Prior to the final Fred Stolle mentioned comments that Lendl had about the AO after losing to Edberg in the final.

You meant the semifinal? I think that's the round when they played.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Here are my stats on the Edberg-Lendl SF

6-7(3) 7-5 6-1 4-6 9-7

Lendl had 50 non service winners: 10 fh, 15 bh, 9 fhv, 11 bhv, 5 ov

Edberg had 64: 13 fh, 19 bh, 14 fhv, 13 bhv, 5 ov

Lendl had 19 passing shot winners(5 fh, 14 bh)

Edberg had 30(12 fh, 18 bh)

Lendl had 8 aces & 11 doubles

Edberg had 8 aces & 8 doubles

Lendl was 127 of 212 on 1st serve or 60%

Edberg was 121 of 180, or 67%

Lendl had 6 service winners, Edberg 3

Lendl was 3 of 11 on break points, Edberg 7 of 26

Edberg held serve 16 straight times at one point.

Lendl broke in the 1st game of the 5th, Edberg broke right back (Edberg was down a break in the 5th in several other big matches that he won in majors - the 88 W SF vs Mecir, the '90 W Final vs Becker, the '89 FO SF vs Becker, the '92 USO SF vs Chang)

 

[jrepac]

edberg vs. mats

this was a very fine match, as I remember it. Edberg shocked Wilander....who was favored. Mats, while good on grass at AO, never seemed 100% comfortable on it. Lendl's comments? sour grapes from a guy who could not master the lawns, anywhere, anyplace, period.. while the AO had not yet resurrected itself as a truly "major" GS, it was still a respected event and on it's way back...once it moved from Kooyong(?), it became a showcase for the other GS events to emulate (stadium, facilities, etc), even tho' they initially had trouble with the early rebound ace surface (sticking to players feet)

 

[Borgforever]

The 1985 AO was special in that it was the first major-final between two Swedes, a precursor to the "Swedish Calendar Grand Slam of 1988"

Many found it odd that Mats and Stefan were practicing together, eating breakfast together, all through the tourney -- even on the day of the final.

It even went so far that Stefan married Mats girlfriend Anette...

 

[David_86]

Even though Lendl's remarks were tactless he was pretty much right in what he said.

He also said they should cover the grass courts with concrete...which they did.

 

[Borgforever]

I don't agree with Lendl's grass-court statements AT ALL.

Mats Wilander had only great things to say about Kooyong in general and the grass-courts there in particular. Edberg too. Pernfors too. Nyström too. Simonsson too. Järryd too. All other Swedes, including me, too...

 

[pc1]

I don't agree with Lendl's grass-court statements AT ALL.

Mats Wilander had only great things to say about Kooyong in general and the grass-courts there in particular. Edberg too. Pernfors too. Nyström too. Simonsson too. Järryd too. All other Swedes, including me, too...

Lendl I would think was very upset because if I recall he was favored to defeat Edberg and go on the perhaps defeat Wilander in the final. I would think he probably thought it was a bad loss at the time. In retrospect a defeat on grass even to a young Edberg was not a bad loss especially since he defeated Wilander in straight sets in the final.

Incidentally I used to enjoy Wilander's play very much and it was such a shame that for all intents and purposes Wilander was never a major factor at the top levels of tennis after his great year of 1988. He was excellent on all surfaces.

 

[David_86]

Actually I was referring to Lendl's comments about the importance of the tournament.

But Australia does not have a climate suited to grass-courts.

 

[Borgforever]

But Australia does not have a climate suited to grass-courts.

I don't agree. I've played on both fine British grass-courts and Aussie-lawns and, while not having vast personal experience of playing on grass-courts, I am still in love with the Aussie ones, particularly that the ones I played on was a little hard-baked making it bounce up a bit more.

Besides grass-courts being IMO the most pleasing court on the eyes they are wonderfully cushioned for the body. You can go for 4-5 hours all out without feeling any kind of knee or body soreness -- which is always the result if you go all out for a longer time on a HC cement.

The smell of the lovely grass is also IMO priceless. I am going to get my own grass-court. My new goal. I've never been a green hands man but I will become one to have the unmeasurable pleasure of battling on true lawn tennis court...

 

[urban]

You should it make as Pilic, Borgforever. He borrowed or bought some sod of the Wimbledon lawns and laid it down in his garden in Munich, just the side of a tennis court.

 

[David_86]

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your opinions on grass courts Borgforever. I think there's no finer sight in tennis than watching it being played well on grass courts.

But I still think it's funny that people took offence to Lendl making that comment about covering the grass with cement and then going ahead and doing it anyway.

 

[borg's headband]

Borgforever, did you try to mail me?

 

[jrepac]

Mats

Lendl I would think was very upset because if I recall he was favored to defeat Edberg and go on the perhaps defeat Wilander in the final. I would think he probably thought it was a bad loss at the time. In retrospect a defeat on grass even to a young Edberg was not a bad loss especially since he defeated Wilander in straight sets in the final.

Incidentally I used to enjoy Wilander's play very much and it was such a shame that for all intents and purposes Wilander was never a major factor at the top levels of tennis after his great year of 1988. He was excellent on all surfaces.

Maybe my memory is failing, but wasn't Mats pretty much a top 4 player from early 80s thru '89?...he won the French and AOs at first...only later did he finally snag a USO, but had always been threatening there. He never could figure out the Big W tho'. I always enjoyed watching him; tremendously versatile guy. But, he had some very stiff competition when he played, so grand slams were not that easy to come by..

 

[krosero]

Lendl had 50 non service winners: 10 fh, 15 bh, 9 fhv, 11 bhv, 5 ov

Edberg had 64: 13 fh, 19 bh, 14 fhv, 13 bhv, 5 ov

Interesting how this worked out. Lendl has an equal number of winners from groundstrokes and net strokes (25), and so does Edberg (32).

 

[krosero]

Sports Illustrated:

In Melbourne, Lendl seemed ready to quit in his semifinal with Stefan Edberg. This time he complained of a bum knee. "I consider myself fortunate to have escaped serious injury," he said after bravely finishing the match, which he lost 9-7 in the fifth set. Oh, well. As Lendl pointed out, Kooyong "should be paved over" and the Australian Open was a "second-class" event anyway.

Thing is, all the top players were there: Lendl, Mac, Wilander, Edberg, Becker.

I remember in '85 being very keen on getting news of all the matches, and was really disappointed that it was not televised on network TV in the States (I didn't have cable). I was interested in the Dallas WCT, too, but for me the AO was bigger news.

Just some data I'm collecting - first prize for the men at the AO.

1985 - $100,000
1984 - $100,000
1983 - $77,500
1982 - $72,000
1981 - $64,000

 

[krosero]

Lendl I would think was very upset because if I recall he was favored to defeat Edberg and go on the perhaps defeat Wilander in the final. I would think he probably thought it was a bad loss at the time. In retrospect a defeat on grass even to a young Edberg was not a bad loss especially since he defeated Wilander in straight sets in the final.

That must have definitely been a factor in how Lendl looked at the loss, Edberg hadn't won any Slams yet.

However I don't know how favored he was to beat Wilander in the final, since he lost the '83 final to him in straights.

Interesting about Lendl, he lost three Slam finals in straights -- the ones he played on grass.