Stats for 1989 USO final (Becker-Lendl)

[krosero]

Becker d. Lendl 7-6 (2), 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4)

The match lasted 3 hours 51 minutes – an hour less than each of the U.S. Open finals between Lendl and Wilander. Had it gone five sets it would have equaled them.

Becker had won their last three meetings, including five-set matches at the Masters and Wimbledon.

Since they played two tiebreaks in this match, their USO record in tiebreaks coming into the final is interesting: 18-3 for Lendl, 6-3 for Becker.

Conditions at the start of the final were 93 degrees, with humidity at 67%. One courtside thermometer read 115 degrees. The 1988 final had started at only 72 degrees with 48% humidity.

Becker was 21, Lendl 29.

This was Lendl’s 8th consecutive final here (matching Tilden’s streak), and his last. In 1990 Sampras broke the streak.

Becker had beaten Rostagno with a let-cord winner on Rostagno's match point, in the second round.

According to CBS Lendl had been broken 10 times before the final – 7 times in a five-setter with Chesnokov (a very exciting fifth set under lights).


My stats

(I'm missing one point won by Lendl).

Becker had 22 clean winners apart from service: 4 FH, 2 BH, 4 FHV, 11 BHV, 1 overhead.

Lendl had 33 clean winners apart from service: 15 FH, 10 BH, 4 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 overheads.

Becker's winners by set: 6, 2, 5, 9
Lendl's winners by set: 11, 5, 7, 10

I’ve never seen a stat like Becker’s in the first set: 6 winning backhand volleys and no other clean winners of any kind (other than aces).

I have Becker at 15 volley winners (and 1 smash) for the whole match.

Becker had 1 service return winner (off a second serve), no passing shots, and no lob winners.

Lendl had 5 service return winners, all passes. He had 16 passing shots that were not returns: 10 forehands and 6 backhands.

The match had fewer winners than the five-set final the previous year, when Wilander finished with 33 and Lendl with 81.

Becker had 10 aces and 11 doubles.
Lendl had 4 aces and 6 doubles.


STATS IN THE MEDIA

Per the W. Post and Chicago Sun-Times, Becker had 11 aces and 23 other service winners, Lendl 5 aces and 14 service winners.

Becker and Lendl each had 43 unforced errors, per the Miami Herald.

CBS has Becker's service percentage in the first three sets at 54, 40, and 53.
The network put Lendl at 58, 61, and 75.

For the whole match, Becker won 77% of his first-serve points, Lendl 63% (Philadelphia Inquirer).

Per CBS, Becker was at 39% on second serve at 4-3 in the fourth, a remarkable stat for the winner – especially considering that Lendl was at 69% only a few games before.

Each man won 134 points overall, per the Miami Herald. Each won 143, per the LA Times.

At 4-3 in the fourth set, CBS had Becker winning 45 of 83 approaches.

So Becker was not approaching quite as much as Wilander the year before. He would have needed to approach a total of 93 times to equal Wilander’s ultimate rate of approaches per game (Wilander approached 131 times per Steve Flink).

For the whole match, Becker won 55 of 104 approaches, per the Philadelphia Inquirer.

 

[krosero]

Forgot this: Becker won 5 of 12 break points, Lendl 6 of 11.

 

[krosero]

In the LA Times:

They won exactly the same number of points, 143. They both committed 43 unforced errors. Becker held 14 service games, Lendl held 15.

It's interesting, if you just look at winners and unforced errors, you can't tell why Becker won. They're tied in unforced errors and overall points won, and Lendl leads in non-service winners, 36 to 22.

Somewhere Becker made up that gap, but it wasn't in aces, because he had 11 aces and 11 doubles.

The only remaining category is forced errors. I didn't find any full stat on those, but some are there, in the form of service winners. Becker does have an edge in those, as noted above, 23 to 14.

Not a surprise, then: Becker won because he had a more powerful serve, and because he won two close sets in tiebreaks.

 

[Moose Malloy]

The match lasted 3 hours 51 minutes – an hour less than each of the U.S. Open finals between Lendl and Wilander. Had it gone five sets it would have equaled them.

They played a 5 hour match at the '92 USO. Mac was doing guest commentary & said the umpire wasn't enforcing the time rules.

It's interesting, if you just look at winners and unforced errors, you can't tell why Becker won. They're tied in unforced errors and overall points won, and Lendl leads in non-service winners, 36 to 22.

I wonder how often Lendl led Becker in non service winners in their matches(since he did in the '91 AO final as well, & possibly in the '86 W final, judging by mid match stats) Guess it was just about the big points when these 2 played, for the most part.

 

[big ted]

thats true big points.. u can win a match and still be behind in all stats, total points won, etc... i.e. by winning - 7-6, 0-6, 7-6

 

[krosero]

Each man won 134 points overall.

This stat of mine in the original post actually came from the Miami Herald, and it's different from the LA Times article I quoted later, in which each man won 143 points (possible typo?).

Each player won 134 points in their 3-hour 52-minute dual [sic].

 

[krosero]

I wonder how often Lendl led Becker in non service winners in their matches(since he did in the '91 AO final as well, & possibly in the '86 W final, judging by mid match stats) Guess it was just about the big points when these 2 played, for the most part.

ESPN had them running very close in the 1988 Masters final.

2nd set:
Becker 17 winners, 5 aces, 16 ue
Lendl 16 winners, 3 aces, 10 ue

3rd set:
Becker 6 winners, 2 aces, 17 ue, 2 doubles
Lendl 6 winners, 1 ace, 8 ue, 1 double

So Becker was keeping pace in the winners, was slightly ahead in aces, but was falling behind in errors.

At 3-1 in the third, he had a total of 40 ue, Lendl just 28.

So again Becker had a deficit, and again he made it up, because for the match he won 164 pts. to Lendl's 162.

I think he made it up in aces, service winners, and other unreturned serves. In the USO final there's that stat in which he's ahead in service winners. At the Masters he started to pull away in aces, 12 vs. Lendl's 5, as of 3-love in the fourth.

And service was a big difference in the 86 W final.

So I don't disagree that Becker won these matches by winning the big points, but often what he did on a big point was lay down an unreturnable serve.

 

[Tshooter]

"Becker had beaten Rostagno with a let-cord winner on Rostagno's match point, in the second round. "

Yup, that will forever be Rostagno's tennis footnote.

 

[krosero]

Boxscore in USA Today

Match statistics

The box score of No. 2 Boris Becker's 7-6 (7-2), 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 (7-4) victory against No. 1 Ivan Lendl in the U.S. Open championship final match.

Becker Lendl
First serve pct. 55 63
Aces 11 5
Service winners 23 14
Double faults 11 5
Placement winners 27 40
Unforced errors 43 43
Service games held 14 15
Service games broken 6 5
Total points 134 134
Approaches to net 104 17
Points won at net 55 13
Time of match ... 3:51

 

[krosero]

thats true big points.. u can win a match and still be behind in all stats, total points won, etc... i.e. by winning - 7-6, 0-6, 7-6

Funny that the New York Times had a recent article explaining this, with Becker-Lendl as an example:

August 31, 2008
Keeping Score
In Tennis, the Numbers Sometimes Don’t Add Up
By JON GIBBS
However accurate sports statistics may be generally, and in tennis specifically, they often tell less than the entire story. In many cases, they are misleading.

If you were told that in a particular match, Player A won more points and more games and had a higher first-serve percentage, fewer unforced errors and a higher winning percentage at the net, you would deduce that Player A was the winner. But leaping to that conclusion would be a mistake.

In tennis, it is not the events that constitute a match, but the timing of those events. In team sports like baseball, basketball and football, and even in boxing, the competitor who scores first or last may have little bearing on the outcome. In tennis, the player who scores last is always the winner.

In a five-set match, it is possible for a player to prevail by 7-6 (5), 0-6, 0-6, 7-6 (5), 6-4. In the first, fourth and fifth sets, that player wins every service game at 30, but the loser takes each service game at love. In the other two sets, the loser allows no points on serve, and breaks at love three times in each of those sets. The final tally shows that the victor has won 86 points in the entire match, to the opponent’s 158.

At the United States Open, the only major championship in which tie breakers are played in the fifth set, a player could win the final without achieving a service break. In the previous example, assume the fifth set was won, 7-6 (5). The champion would have won, not only failing to break the opponent’s serve, but also having been broken six times in the match. At the other Grand Slam events, with a 6-4 score in the final set, the champion would have broken once to the adversary’s six breaks.

That leads to another possibly misleading statistic: service-break opportunities. If a player, winner or loser, converts 3 of 10 break-point opportunities and if those opportunities occur in only three games, something much more significant has happened.

A more informative statistic would be breaks achieved as a percentage of breakable games. The ability to set into context situations in which the receiver has a break chance, even if it takes two or three tries to convert a break, becomes the key, not how many chances it took. As the tennis writer and historian Steve Flink put it: “The idea that a player converts only 3 of 15 break points is not enough information. If all those chances occur in three games, he gets the job done.”

An important statistic in a singles match is the percentage of second serves won. A great number of second serve points won can offset a lower first-serve percentage, but that is rarely stated.

One statistic that consistently shows one player’s advantage over another is how well the player converts second serve points. A third to a quarter of the time, players do not put the first serve in play, so a good second serve can make all the difference.

To win consistently, players must make sure that their aces and service winners outnumber their double faults by a large margin, and that placement winners offset unforced errors by a large margin. To understand their relevance, these numbers must be seen in relation to one another.

In the final of the 1989 Open, Ivan Lendl had a higher first-serve percentage than Boris Becker (63 to 55), broke Becker’s serve more often (6-5), had a better winning percentage at the net (76 to 53) and even fared better on his second serve points (59 to 39). They were even on total points won (143), unforced errors (43) and the number of games won (21). Lendl even had more placement winners, 40-27. But Becker won, 7-6 (2), 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4), in 3 hours 51 minutes.

There are times when the numbers do tell the story, even in a tough match like this year’s five-set Wimbledon final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Nadal, the champion, won 33 games to Federer’s 32. Nadal also won more points (209-204), achieved more breaks of serve (4-1) and had a higher first-serve percentage, fewer unforced errors and a better winning percentage at the net. Federer bettered Nadal only in aces (25-5) and outright winners (64-54).

Although spectators may be amused by service speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour, even recreational players know the importance of serve placement. A medium-speed serve, placed into the body of the receiver, can be many times more effective than a faster serve down the middle, which an opponent can return with a normal forehand or backhand ground stroke.

The numbers for Becker-Lendl are the same as in the boxscore, except the total points won, which agree instead with the LA Times.

The "outright winners" listed for Federer-Nadal are new to me because last summer the media was reporting 60 for Nadal and 89 for Federer, e.g., the Erie Times:

Winners (including service) 60 89

Officially Nadal had 6 aces, Federer 25, so taking those out leaves Nadal trailing in winners by 54-64, lining up with the "outright winners" in the Times article.

That article may not have been working with 60 total winners for Nadal because it drops his official aces from 6 to 5 (as if the official stats had been corrected in the days after the match).

 

[heathcliff]

funny, before that final both players had had the same grand slam run that year.
both had won one (lendl: aus-open; becker: wimbledon)
both had made one semis (lendl: wimbledon, becker: french open)
both had been dismissen in the 4th rd (lendl: french open; becker aus-open)
and finally both had reach this us-open-final...
so the true no 1 and 2 met here

 

[krosero]

Additional stats

Points won on serve:

Becker 77% on 1st serve (61/79) and 39% on 2nd (25/64).
Lendl 63% on 1st serve (50/79) and 59% on 2nd (27/46).

In rallies of 2 or more good shots:

Becker 51% on first serve (19/37) and 38% on second (17/45).
Lendl 51% on first serve (30/59) and 63% on second (22/35).

Lendl did better when his second serve was successfully returned, compared to when his first serve was returned.

 

[pmerk34]

Becker d. Lendl 7-6 (2), 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4)

The match lasted 3 hours 51 minutes – an hour less than each of the U.S. Open finals between Lendl and Wilander. Had it gone five sets it would have equaled them.

Becker had won their last three meetings, including five-set matches at the Masters and Wimbledon.

Since they played two tiebreaks in this match, their USO record in tiebreaks coming into the final is interesting: 18-3 for Lendl, 6-3 for Becker.

Conditions at the start of the final were 93 degrees, with humidity at 67%. One courtside thermometer read 115 degrees. The 1988 final had started at only 72 degrees with 48% humidity.

Becker was 21, Lendl 29.

This was Lendl’s 8th consecutive final here (matching Tilden’s streak), and his last. In 1990 Sampras broke the streak.

Becker had beaten Rostagno with a let-cord winner on Rostagno's match point, in the second round.

According to CBS Lendl had been broken 10 times before the final – 7 times in a five-setter with Chesnokov (a very exciting fifth set under lights).


My stats

(I'm missing one point won by Lendl).

Becker had 22 clean winners apart from service: 4 FH, 2 BH, 4 FHV, 11 BHV, 1 overhead.

Lendl had 33 clean winners apart from service: 15 FH, 10 BH, 4 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 overheads.

Becker's winners by set: 6, 2, 5, 9
Lendl's winners by set: 11, 5, 7, 10

I’ve never seen a stat like Becker’s in the first set: 6 winning backhand volleys and no other clean winners of any kind (other than aces).

I have Becker at 15 volley winners (and 1 smash) for the whole match.

Becker had 1 service return winner (off a second serve), no passing shots, and no lob winners.

Lendl had 5 service return winners, all passes. He had 16 passing shots that were not returns: 10 forehands and 6 backhands.

The match had fewer winners than the five-set final the previous year, when Wilander finished with 33 and Lendl with 81.

Becker had 10 aces and 11 doubles.
Lendl had 4 aces and 6 doubles.


STATS IN THE MEDIA

Per the W. Post and Chicago Sun-Times, Becker had 11 aces and 23 other service winners, Lendl 5 aces and 14 service winners.

Becker and Lendl each had 43 unforced errors, per the Miami Herald.

CBS has Becker's service percentage in the first three sets at 54, 40, and 53.
The network put Lendl at 58, 61, and 75.

For the whole match, Becker won 77% of his first-serve points, Lendl 63% (Philadelphia Inquirer).

Per CBS, Becker was at 39% on second serve at 4-3 in the fourth, a remarkable stat for the winner – especially considering that Lendl was at 69% only a few games before.

Each man won 134 points overall, per the Miami Herald. Each won 143, per the LA Times.

At 4-3 in the fourth set, CBS had Becker winning 45 of 83 approaches.

So Becker was not approaching quite as much as Wilander the year before. He would have needed to approach a total of 93 times to equal Wilander’s ultimate rate of approaches per game (Wilander approached 131 times per Steve Flink).

For the whole match, Becker won 55 of 104 approaches, per the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Saw it on TV in 1989. Wasn't a great match by any stretch. Both played poorly. Becker won because his power bothered Ivan. IF it is ever on Tennis Rewind I probabaly wouldn't watch it.

 

[krosero]

I'd agree that neither one played at his peak potential. And statistically, they had more errors than winners.

Including service winners, I'd put Becker at a total of 37 winners, Lendl at 38. And each man was credited with 43 unforced errors.

Their '92 meeting has better numbers -- especially in Lendl's case.

Per the NY Times, Lendl had 68 winners and 38 unforced errors. Becker had 65 winners and 65 unforced errors.

So Lendl's winner/error differential was superb. Becker’s differential was zero, better than what he had in '89 but still so far below Lendl's that you wonder how Becker pushed the match to five sets. Becker must have won many points in the category of forced errors (the same thing we said upthread about the '89 match).

In '92, after 3 sets, USA had Lendl at 38 winners and 23 ue. Becker had a slightly positive differential (43w, 40 ue), and he was up two sets to one.

 

[pc1]

I'd agree that neither one played at his peak potential. And statistically, they had more errors than winners.

Including service winners, I'd put Becker at a total of 37 winners, Lendl at 38. And each man was credited with 43 unforced errors.

Their '92 meeting has better numbers -- especially in Lendl's case.

Per the NY Times, Lendl had 68 winners and 38 unforced errors. Becker had 65 winners and 65 unforced errors.

So Lendl's winner/error differential was superb. Becker’s differential was zero, better than what he had in '89 but still so far below Lendl's that you wonder how Becker pushed the match to five sets. Becker must have won many points in the category of forced errors (the same thing we said upthread about the '89 match).

In '92, after 3 sets, USA had Lendl at 38 winners and 23 ue. Becker had a slightly positive differential (43w, 40 ue), and he was up two sets to one.

It's almost unreal how well Becker played Lendl in majors and yet Lendl beat Becker overall slightly more than Becker beat him.

I would guess that Becker made up for the lesser winner/error differential by playing the pressure points better and winning the close games? Would you say that was true?

 

[Datacipher]

It's almost unreal how well Becker played Lendl in majors and yet Lendl beat Becker overall slightly more than Becker beat him.

I would guess that Becker made up for the lesser winner/error differential by playing the pressure points better and winning the close games? Would you say that was true?

Whether or not the stats reflect it, I think besides Becker's mental strength, Lendl showed some weakness there. To me, it was a reminder of earlier days when Lendl was perhaps a bit shaky mentally (though it's a bit overblown I think...he faced some fierce players early on). Lendl truly knew he was genuinely threatened by Becker (that Becker knew he could beat him,t hat Becker deep down thought he was the favorite, and that Becker could dictate who won and who lost) ....something he didn't have to face during his salad days of total domination.....in that sense, it is a bit like Federer and Nadal.


PS. Nice that Kros noted the Chesnokov match....that was the first match where I truly realized how tough the stone-faced Chezzy could be.

 

[krosero]

It's almost unreal how well Becker played Lendl in majors and yet Lendl beat Becker overall slightly more than Becker beat him.

I would guess that Becker made up for the lesser winner/error differential by playing the pressure points better and winning the close games? Would you say that was true?

I'd say from '88 onwards it seemed to be true. In this '92 match Becker lost the second set decisively and was unable to break Lendl in the last two sets -- but he won two tiebreak sets (just like in '89). That was one way that Becker hung in, by winning tiebreaks. And playing well in tiebreaks is often thought of as "clutch."

(Federer hung in his Wimbledon finals in a similar way. He won both tiebreaks in '07, both in '08, both in '09. The only tiebreak he's lost in a Wimbledon final was in '06, to Nadal).

But there still must be something going on in the forced error category, because Becker's winner/UE differential was 30 points behind Lendl's. I doubt Lendl actually won 30 points more than Becker. And a 30-point gap can't be explained just by talking about the few key points in a match (esp. because Lendl won at least his share of those: he obviously won the most important points in three out of the five sets). That's why I talk about a pattern there seems to be in their matches, where Becker seems to have an edge in the "invisible" category of forced errors. He did often force errors with his serve, no doubt.

 

[Borg Number One]

Thanks for the great thread, as always. Also, thanks for all the great videos. On this match in particular, I can't get over the dives at net on a hard court! Becker on this day just had too much for Lendl, who didn't look to be playing badly. You even see Lendl being demonstrative after a passing shot during the match, yet as has been rightly pointed out, Becker played the big points better on this day and won the '89 US Open title.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQBKLoKpIp8 (Becker vs. Rostagno)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f4zvDgOfvY (Becker vs. Lendl)

 

[Borg Number One]

 

[krosero]

Becker served on 143 points, and 50 serves did not come back: 35.0%
Lendl served on 125 points, and 25 serves did not come back: 20.0%

 

[krosero]

Becker made 11 straight first serves late in the fourth set, running through the first point of the tiebreak. It was the longest streak in the match.

Becker made 7 of 11 first serves in the tiebreaks (64%). By tiebreak:

4 of 5 (no mini-breaks on first or second)
3 of 6

Lendl made 6 of 9 first serves in the tiebreaks (67%). By tiebreak:

2 of 4
4 of 5

Becker made his first serve on 6 of 11 break points (55%). He was broken three times on first serve, three times on second.

Lendl made his first serve on 6 of 12 break points (missing on his first four). He was broken twice on second serve and then three times (consecutively) on first serve.