Stats for 1989 FO Final (Chang-Edberg)

[Moose Malloy]

Chang d Edberg 6-1, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2

My stats:

Both players had 57 non service winners.

Edberg: 13 fh, 11 bh, 15 fhv, 14 bhv, 4 ov
Chang: 18 fh, 21 bh, 7 fhv, 3 bhv, 8 ov

winners by set:

Edberg - 7, 11, 11, 13, 15
Chang - 14, 12, 8, 15, 8

serve stats by set:

Edberg
9 of 19 (47%)
19 of 28 (68%)
19 of 28 (68%)
16 of 30 (53%)
16 of 30 (53%)

79 of 135 (59%) for the match

Chang
23 of 30 (77%)
20 of 22 (91%)
25 of 33 (76%)
36 of 47 (77%)
38 of 42 (90%)

142 of 174 (82%) for the match

Edberg had 6 aces, 4 doubles
Chang had 1 ace(it was hit on the 1st point of the match), 2 doubles

Edberg had 23 unreturned serves, one I judged a service winner
Chang had 13 unreturned serves, none I judged a service winner

Edberg had 10 passing shot winners(8 fh, 2 bh)
Chang had 29 passing shot winners(13 fh, 16 bh)

Edberg was 6 of 25 on break points(2 of 17 in the last 2 sets)
Chang was 9 of 14

Stats from NBC:

Net approaches by set(1st 3 sets only)
Edberg - 18, 30, 36
Chang - 14, 6, 6

at 4-1 in the 5th, they said Edberg had been in 148 times in the match, Chang 48. I counted the rest of the way and came up with 8 more approaches for Edberg, 1 for Chang.

The gave Chang 27 unforced errors for the match, Edberg 68.

Time of match was 3 hrs, 41 mins

Chang was ranked 19(but seeded 15) at this event.

here is what SI wrote:

Chang's arsenal is based on anticipation, reflexes, speed—nobody has been quicker to the ball since Bjorn Borg—and defensive instincts that make an opponent feel as if he is slugging away at Chang's garage door in Placentia, Calif. "He is so young, maybe a little bit lucky," said Edberg after losing 6-1, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2. "Maybe he doesn't think too much."

You couldn't be more mistaken, Stefan. Chang was always thinking, always outthinking. He mystified his elders with his head—"the head of a champion," said Jose Higueras, who coaches him on clay—and of them all, Edberg was the most mystified.

After Edberg had worked his way back into the championship match and taken control with some characteristic serve-and-volley aggression, he broke Chang's serve to start the fourth set. But the 5'8", 135-pound Chang, who came into the tournament ranked 19th in the world, was steadfast in his resolve. He stayed two yards inside the baseline to return Edberg's huge deliveries on the rise. He kept testing Edberg's fragile forehand. He picked his spots and matched volleys with the best volleyer in the game. Shockingly, he broke right back for 1-1. Chang then began fighting off break points: four in Game 3, five in Game 7, another in Game 9. With Edberg serving at 4-5, 30-all, Chang smashed a couple of forehand returns off first serves, and suddenly the match was all even.

Or was it? In the fifth set Chang matched Edberg's opening break by breaking right back in an 18-point game. Chang broke again to go ahead 3-1. By now Edberg, who had beaten Boris Becker in a five-set semifinal, looked exhausted, almost groggy.

In the next game Edberg had double break point, but he erred on both, and Chang held after four deuces to lead 4-1. A glassy-eyed Edberg was slumping at the baseline. The umpire had to tell him it was time for the changeover. Edberg had to know it was just over, period.

"I can't really explain what happened to turn it around," said Chang, who had prepared some notes for an acceptance speech in which he remembered to mention nearly everybody in the sport except Edberg. Well, at the least, an American had finally won in Paris.

 

[krosero]

The Washington Post:

Chang committed 27 unforced errors, to 68 for Edberg. He connected on 82 percent of his first serves, to 58 percent for the Swede. Chang converted seven of his 17 break points, with Edberg six of 26.

The Worcester Telegram Gazette, on the other hand, has Edberg 6-25 in break points.

Moose, your service percentage for Edberg is 11 points higher than the Post, but your number of total serves for Edberg, by set, actually add up to 135. That would bring it down 11 points.

 

[krosero]

The Post, however, got its break points wrong quite badly for Chang, giving him only one more break than Edberg. But he won 6 more games than Edberg, which means 3 more breaks, exactly what you have.

And your number of break points faced by Chang agree with the Gazette instead of the Post so it looks like they got that number wrong too.

 

[krosero]

Edberg

79 of 135 (59%) for the match

Chang

142 of 174 (82%) for the match

With Chang serving 39 more times than Edberg, I think that this is the biggest discrepancy in all the matches for which we've counted total number of serves.

I have no way of systematically searching all our matches for it; I've just looked through our stats and I think it's probably the highest.

I'm not sure anymore, though, that a player's total serves is such a revealing stat, in itself. It's still an important principle whether someone is holding serve easier than his opponent -- announcers still mention it all the time during a match -- but we keep finding winners who have to serve more times than the loser. You probably remember, with Borg and McEnroe the winner almost always had to serve more than the loser.

With Sampras and Agassi that was not the case.

Maybe what really matters more is if someone doesn't merely serve more times, but actually has to face more break points -- and that's the case with Chang. Edberg couldn't convert them.

I noticed that the ATP has a discrepancy of 44 points between Johansson and Roddick in the 2004 USO. Johansson served 162 points, Roddick 118 -- according to the ATP -- but Johansson won the match.

I've been thinking about doing that match, just for the service stats (and the total points: the ATP has Roddick winning 24 more points overall).

 

[krosero]

For Courier-Agassi, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2 in the fourth round, the Washington Post:

Jim Courier delivered an astonishing 60 winners in thrashing Andre Agassi at his own game.

 

[pc1]

I remember watching that match and I thought that Chang was going to win a few more majors in his career but despite reaching a few finals in majors, he never won a major again. He did have an excellent career however.

 

[krosero]

Stats for Chang-Lendl

Chang d. Lendl, 4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3

Statistically what I find most interesting is the H2H. This was their first meeting. Lendl ended up winning all 5 of their best-two-of-three matches, all in straight sets. Chang won both of their best-three-of-five matches, each of them after nearly being swept in straights (1989 RG, 1991 GS Cup).

That's according to their ATP page, anyway.


Washington Post and Los Angeles Times:

Would he have won if Chang hadn't had the cramps? "That we will never know," said Lendl, who had 45 unforced errors.

ESPN gave Lendl a lot more unforced errors (83 as of 4-3 in the final set). I don't know why there's a discrepancy, and such a large one.

As of 5-2 in the fourth, Lendl had 73 unforced errors, Chang 48.

Earlier, Barry Tompkins said that Lendl was up to 63 ue's, and he broke them down as 43 FH, 20 BH. He didn't make any mention of Lendl's df's, so it's unclear whether ESPN was including df's in their UE totals.

In the 1990s on Google News, I've turned up a lot of phrases such "___ unforced errors, including ___ double-faults." I've hardly seen any such phrases in articles from the 80s. The earliest I've found so far is from July 1987, at the U.S. Clay-Court Championships, from the Chicago Tribune:

The unseeded Kuhnen, ranked only 131st in the world, made 42 unforced errors--including four double-faults on serves--to just 15 for Carlsson.

 

[380pistol]

With Chang serving 39 more times than Edberg, I think that this is the biggest discrepancy in all the matches for which we've counted total number of serves.

I have no way of systematically searching all our matches for it; I've just looked through our stats and I think it's probably the highest.

I'm not sure anymore, though, that a player's total serves is such a revealing stat, in itself. It's still an important principle whether someone is holding serve easier than his opponent -- announcers still mention it all the time during a match -- but we keep finding winners who have to serve more times than the loser. You probably remember, with Borg and McEnroe the winner almost always had to serve more than the loser.

With Sampras and Agassi that was not the case.

Maybe what really matters more is if someone doesn't merely serve more times, but actually has to face more break points -- and that's the case with Chang. Edberg couldn't convert them.

I noticed that the ATP has a discrepancy of 44 points between Johansson and Roddick in the 2004 USO. Johansson served 162 points, Roddick 118 -- according to the ATP -- but Johansson won the match.

I've been thinking about doing that match, just for the service stats (and the total points: the ATP has Roddick winning 24 more points overall).

As far as the Johansson/Roddick match it wouldn't really surprise me that Johansson had more points on his serve, and that Roddick won more poins overall. Many recall Johansson blasting aces (but Roddick out aced him if I remember correctly) and drilling forehands, but Andy had numerous break chances that he never converted. I don't think he converted one until the 3rd set. I don't how big the discrepancies would be, but Rodick winning more points overall, and more points played on Jahoansson;s serve wouldnt surprise me.

 

[krosero]

As far as the Johansson/Roddick match it wouldn't really surprise me that Johansson had more points on his serve, and that Roddick won more poins overall. Many recall Johansson blasting aces (but Roddick out aced him if I remember correctly) and drilling forehands, but Andy had numerous break chances that he never converted. I don't think he converted one until the 3rd set. I don't how big the discrepancies would be, but Rodick winning more points overall, and more points played on Jahoansson;s serve wouldnt surprise me.

I never did my own count on that match because I found the USrg stats at webarchive: http://web.archive.org/web/20040913010108/www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1504ms.html. The stats are identical to what the ATP has, so I would think the numbers are good.

 

[380pistol]

I never did my own count on that match because I found the USrg stats at webarchive: http://web.archive.org/web/20040913010108/www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1504ms.html. The stats are identical to what the ATP has, so I would think the numbers are good.

Have you ever questioned why the ATP site doesn't have winners/unforced errors with their stat counts?? Anyway thanks for that (the Roddick/Johansson stats). Would you be able to find anything on Federer's Aus Open F (vs Baghdatis and Gonzalez)??

 

[krosero]

^^^At webarchive's home page you can pull up past years of the AO's website.

Have you ever questioned why the ATP site doesn't have winners/unforced errors with their stat counts??

That's a good question.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Here are stats I took on the Edberg-Becker semi(missing the 2nd game of the 3rd set, an Edberg service game in which he held)

Edberg d Becker 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 6-2

Edberg
110-151 (73%)
72-110 (65% 1st pts won)
19-41 (46% 2nd serve pts won)
3 aces, 5 df's
drew 30 return errors(7 on 2nd serve)

Becker
96-172 (56%)
63-96 (66% 1st serve pts won)
34-76 (48% 2nd serve pts won)
10 aces, 3 df's
drew 23 return errors(5 on 2nd serve)

Edberg was 8-22 on break points(Becker made 1st serves on 11 of them)
Becker was 6-17(Edberg made 1st serves on 10 of them)

The 3rd set was the only set without multiple breaks

Non service winners
Edberg: 59 - 4 fh, 14 bh, 19 fhv, 13 bhv, 9 ov
Becker: 46 - 11 fh, 13 bh, 10 fhv, 8 bhv, 4 ov

Winners by set
Edberg - 13, 13, 10, 11, 12
Becker - 6, 12, 9, 11, 8

net pts
Becker 43-70(61%)
Edberg 95-147(65%)

some stats from Espn
unforced errors by set
Edberg - 5, 11, 13, 16
Becker - 7, 9, 10, 5

Becker broke for a 1-0 lead in the 5th and had a 40-15 lead for 2-0. He made 3 straight unforced errors at that point and was eventually broken after two deuces. Made only 2 first serves out of 10 points.

This match was very different from any of their Wimbledon matches & a lot more fun to watch, many more returns were put in play than in those matches(Edberg didn't miss a return in the 2nd set, Becker didn't miss a return in the 5th)

Here were stats espn had on the players through their 1st five matches
Edberg
10 aces
70%
64% 1st serve pts won
61% 2nd serve pts won
held serve in 61 of 73 games

Becker
41 aces
55%
76% 1st serve pts won
63% 2nd serve pts won
held serve in 71 of 82 games

 

[Moose Malloy]

here's an article I came across

Seventeen-year-old Michael Chang of Placentia, Calif., turned in another display of gutsy tennis here today, winning a 4-hour-5-minute match with Andrei Chesnokov of the Soviet Union, 6-1, 5-7, 7-6, 7-5, to become the youngest male player to reach the final of the French Open or any other Grand Slam tournament.

In the second semifinal, Stefan Edberg of Sweden beat Boris Becker of West Germany, 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 6-2, in a match that lasted almost as long as the first. The 15th-seeded Chang, who upset top-seeded Ivan Lendl in the fourth round, will play the 3d-seeded Edberg on Sunday for the championship, worth about $300,000.

In contrast to Chang and Chesnokov, who wore each other down with ground strokes, Becker, who was seeded second, and Edberg traded points quickly in a flashy contest of volleys and passing shots. They got through their five sets in 3:55.

''A lot of people didn't think I could play well on clay, but I always knew I could play well on it,'' said the 23-year-old Edberg, who won at Wimbledon last year but had never gone beyond the quarterfinals here.

Edberg said he thought he was going to win in the third set, when he came back from 4-5 and 15-40 to stay in the set. But Becker broke serve to win the set at 7-5 on a perfect backhand crosscourt passing shot.

''It was a really tough match,'' Edberg said. ''In the fifth set, I lost my serve immediately and felt very tired, but then I broke back and started playing well again.''

Serving at 4-5, Chang survived three set points in a game that went to deuce seven times. Chesnokov lost the first two on errors, but Chang saved the third with a smash.

In the tie breaker, with Chang serving at 5 points to 4, Chesnokov lost a chance to even the score when one of his blistering backhand shots went wide by a hair.

''I didn't play badly,'' said the 23-year-old Chesnokov, who was unseeded here but upset fourth-seeded Mats Wilander in the quarterfinals. ''But I'm unhappy that I couldn't hit winners on set point.''

In the fourth set, Chang fought back from deficits of 3-1 and 4-2 until Chesnokov was serving to stay in the match at 4-5. Chang had a match point at 30-40, but lost it on a long forehand. Chesnokov gave him another chance with a long ball of his own, but then survived on a winning volley to make it 5-5. Two games later, Chang finally put the match away after Chesnokov saved one more match point.

''I was pretty relaxed,'' Chang said. ''I waited for my shots. But it was a tough match. Each point was really hard. So much back and forth. So many break points and ad points.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/10/sports/chang-to-meet-edberg-in-final-of-french-open.html

 

[andreh]

This match was very different from any of their Wimbledon matches & a lot more fun to watch, many more returns were put in play than in those matches(Edberg didn't miss a return in the 2nd set, Becker didn't miss a return in the 5th)

Agreed. It's very a entertaining match with a good mix of defensive and offensive tennis.

 

[krosero]

Here are stats I took on the Edberg-Becker semi(missing the 2nd game of the 3rd set, an Edberg service game in which he held)

Edberg d Becker 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 6-2

Edberg
110-151 (73%)
72-110 (65% 1st pts won)
19-41 (46% 2nd serve pts won)
3 aces, 5 df's
drew 30 return errors(7 on 2nd serve)

Becker
96-172 (56%)
63-96 (66% 1st serve pts won)
34-76 (48% 2nd serve pts won)
10 aces, 3 df's
drew 23 return errors(5 on 2nd serve)

Edberg was 8-22 on break points(Becker made 1st serves on 11 of them)
Becker was 6-17(Edberg made 1st serves on 10 of them)

The 3rd set was the only set without multiple breaks

Non service winners
Edberg: 59 - 4 fh, 14 bh, 19 fhv, 13 bhv, 9 ov
Becker: 46 - 11 fh, 13 bh, 10 fhv, 8 bhv, 4 ov

Winners by set
Edberg - 13, 13, 10, 11, 12
Becker - 6, 12, 9, 11, 8

net pts
Becker 43-70(61%)
Edberg 95-147(65%)

some stats from Espn
unforced errors by set
Edberg - 5, 11, 13, 16
Becker - 7, 9, 10, 5

Becker broke for a 1-0 lead in the 5th and had a 40-15 lead for 2-0. He made 3 straight unforced errors at that point and was eventually broken after two deuces. Made only 2 first serves out of 10 points.

This match was very different from any of their Wimbledon matches & a lot more fun to watch, many more returns were put in play than in those matches(Edberg didn't miss a return in the 2nd set, Becker didn't miss a return in the 5th)

Here were stats espn had on the players through their 1st five matches
Edberg
10 aces
70%
64% 1st serve pts won
61% 2nd serve pts won
held serve in 61 of 73 games

Becker
41 aces
55%
76% 1st serve pts won
63% 2nd serve pts won
held serve in 71 of 82 games

Edberg went to net a lot more than Becker.

To put it another way, Edberg was relying less on groundstrokes than Becker was, which was probably a good idea since Stefan had little ability to do damage with his forehand in a straight-up baseline rally.

Becker, by a 24-22 margin, had more winners from groundstrokes than from volleys and overheads. Edberg had only 18 groundstroke winners and 41 volleys/overheads.

Through four sets Edberg was given 45 unforced errors, Becker 31. That’s a little unexpected because Becker is regarded as the bigger risk-taker (the lower percentage player). But Edberg was the one taking more risks, each time he rushed the net.

Edberg was the more aggressive player: he had more winners and more UE's than his opponent.

 

[krosero]

A boxscore for the Chang-Edberg final, printed in the Sun Sentinel:

Summary of No. 15 Michael Chang`s 6-1, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2 victory over No. 3 Stefan Edberg in the men`s final Sunday:
Chang Edberg
First Serve 82 58
Double Faults 2 4
Aces 1 6
Points 163 146
Deuces 28 7
Services Lost 6 7
Love Games 4 2
Points on Service 103 74
Break Points 17 26​

Amazing how Chang fought through 28 deuces.

 

[krosero]

That boxscore repeats the error in the Washington Post, crediting Chang with only 7 service breaks.

 

[CyBorg]

Chang was a player with an incredible fighting spirit.

I think that Edberg's quote about Chang not thinking too much is apt, and is in no way an insult. Rather Edberg just understands the feeling.

The younger you are, the less you think and the more you just react, and this sometimes helps in a big way.

Tennis is very instinctive. Self-doubt is not an asset during game play.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Amazing how Chang fought through 28 deuces.

It does sound amazing, but I haven't kept track of that stat to put it into perspective. I wonder what is the average amount of deuces/deuce games in a match is.

 

[BringBackWood]

@Moose Malloy

What broadcast do you have of the Edberg Becker match? I have the french broadcast & at break point in the 5th it comically switches to some kind of intro montage!

 

[IowaGuy]

Chang d Edberg 6-1, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2

My stats:

Both players had 57 non service winners....................The gave Chang 27 unforced errors for the match, Edberg 68.:

Looking at winners vs. unforced errors:

Edberg 57/68
Chang 57/27

It's amazing the match was as close as it was, given the vast discrepancy in winners to UE...

 

[clout]

Wow I cant believe Chang hit that many winners, as I always viewed him as more of a defensive player. If this dude was like 3-4 inches taller he probably would've won a lot more since his serve would've been stronger and the rest of his game seemed pretty good too.

 

[clout]

I also believe that Edberg at the '89 French was probably the closest anyone has come to winning the career slam, between 1969 and 1999.

 

[krosero]

Full Chang-Lendl stats

 

[hothanded]

Edberg's powerful groundstrokes and devastating volleys should have been too much for little Chang. But Edberg choked.

 

[BringBackWood]

Looking at winners vs. unforced errors:

Edberg 57/68
Chang 57/27

It's amazing the match was as close as it was, given the vast discrepancy in winners to UE...

Edberg hit an awful lot of UE's in the 5th set, which had a few long games in it. He was visibly exhausted by this point.

Edberg's powerful groundstrokes and devastating volleys should have been too much for little Chang. But Edberg choked.

I think he got caught in neutral baseline rallies too frequently. He was clearly wary of chang's passing ability, so I would have advised him to use his topspin BH more often & agressively. His FH was working pretty well most of the match, but the FH approach was often on the cautious side. Edberg had such trust in his volleys

 

[krosero]

The boxscore for Chang-Lendl is a bit disappointing, without winners or errors. But I put the numbers in Excel and set up a little template to calculate further stats from it.

The most interesting stat in the boxscore was the total points won. Chang and Lendl were tied right up until Lendl's second serve on match point dribbled over the net for a double-fault.

So, we know the following from the boxscore:

Points won
Chang - 161 in total, 94 on serve, therefore 67 receiving
Lendl - 160 in total, 90 on serve, therefore 70 receiving

Therefore
Chang served 94 + 70 = 164 points
Lendl served 90 + 67 = 157 points

And since the boxscore gives the 1st serve percentages, we can calculate --

Chang played 131 points on 1st serve, 33 on second
Lendl played 82 points on 1st serve, 75 on second

What we can't know is the breakdown into success on 1st and 2nd serve points.

But since I have these numbers in Excel, I can punch in some numbers as a guess.

If Chang won 49% of points on his second serve, his success on 1st-serve points would be 59%.

If Lendl won 44% of points on his second serve, his success on 1st-serve points would be 70%.

The latter numbers are a guess but they are ballpark-correct. Usually the winner of a tennis match will have a success rate on his second serve hovering around 50%. Moose has both Becker and Edberg in the high 40s, in their semi.

 

[tennistiger]

Becker never should have lost this Match. Both had the Final in mind and played not their best tennis by far. But looking at how Becker normaly dominate Edberg, also on Clay (DC 88), and later this year, W, Bercy, DC it was his golden Chance. Chang was never a problem for him. Edberg was down and tired in the beginning 5th he said later. Becker was overconfident after the break with easy forehand errors at 40/15. A 2:0 would have decided the match. So he let Edberg come in again...

 

[BringBackWood]

Becker never should have lost this Match. Both had the Final in mind and played not their best tennis by far. But looking at how Becker normaly dominate Edberg, also on Clay (DC 88), and later this year, W, Bercy, DC it was his golden Chance. Chang was never a problem for him. Edberg was down and tired in the beginning 5th he said later. Becker was overconfident after the break with easy forehand errors at 40/15. A 2:0 would have decided the match. So he let Edberg come in again...

Yeah I admit I was a little disappointed in the quality of the semi as well. I thought the final was better played. For all of the criticism of Edberg, Chang played an excellent match.

 

[tennistiger]

But Chang also should have lost before against Chesnokov and most to Agenor who was leading in all 4 Sets! Agenor played inspired tennis at RG 89 with great serves, backhand and forehand winners, fantastic net play- a shame that he lost. Was also his golden opportunity!