Stats for 1990 Wimbledon final (Edberg-Becker)

[krosero]

Edberg d. Becker 6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4

Washington Post (Arthur Ashe):

If numbers interest you, Edberg won 137 points to Becker's 123; he converted six of 11 break points to Becker's four of 11; and he committed 30 unforced errors compared to 46 for Becker.

But another Post article (by Sally Jenkins) had a boxscore with different break points and unforced errors:

Becker ...... Edberg
SERVICE:
Aces ............... 5 ........... 2
Winners ................... 7 ........... 1
Double faults .............. 7 ........... 7
First-serve pct. .......... 62 .......... 65
First-serve pts. ........56-79 ....... 64-87
Second serve pts. ...... 20-48 ....... 22-46
RETURNS:
In-play pct. ...... 68 .......... 79
Break points .............. 10 .......... 11
Break pts. conv. ........... 4 ........... 6
Conversion pct. ........... 40 .......... 55
NET PLAY:
Points ....... 65-108 ...... 85-125
Winners ................... 29 .......... 28
Forced errors ............. 11 ........... 9
Unforced errors ........... 11 ........... 6
Times passed .............. 20 .......... 24
BACKCOURT:
Fore. win. ....... 4 ........... 9
Back. winners ............. 21 .......... 11
Fore. forced err. ......... 18 ........... 7
Back. forced err. ......... 31 .......... 20
Fore. unforced err. ........ 4 ........... 4
Back. unforced err. ........ 4 ........... 4
TOTALS:
Winners ............ 66 .......... 51
Forced errors ............. 60 .......... 36
Unforced errors ........... 26 .......... 21
Points won ........... 123-260 ..... 137-260

This boxscore is so complete, there's very little we could add to it by doing our own counts, apart from finding out how many of the volley and groundstroke winners were judgment calls.

Per the Miami Herald, Edberg led in total points, 137-123.


NBC's stats:

After four sets, Edberg was serving at 65% with 42 winners, 13 unforced errors, 2 aces, 3 df's. Becker was at 60% with 51 winners, 18 unforced errors, 4 aces, 5 df's.

 

[Borgforever]

I always sound like an OCD-parrot as soon as you post your stats kros -- but I'm sorry, I like your work

 

[avmoghe]

Is this for real? Becker with 4 forehand winners compared with 21 backhand winners? :shock:

Is this an anomaly? Because from what I saw of Becker (starting early 90's) his backhand wasn't *that* much better than his forehand.

 

[krosero]

Is this for real? Becker with 4 forehand winners compared with 21 backhand winners? :shock:

Is this an anomaly? Because from what I saw of Becker (starting early 90's) his backhand wasn't *that* much better than his forehand.

Partly I think this happened because Edberg was going more to his BH, particularly on the serve. Becker ended only 26 points with a winner or an error of some kind; he ended 56 with his BH.

That still leaves a big difference, for sure. And in other matches we've done for him, he usually has more winners from the FH side. Against Agassi at the '95W, his FH was ahead of his BH, 11 winners to 6. When those two met in Davis Cup in '89, it was 26 to 9.

It has a lot to do with matchups. When Becker and Agassi met, even on grass, there were long rallies, and Becker liked to take control with his FH (often slicing his BH). And he loved pounding Agassi's second serve with FH winners. But when he played Edberg he saw a lot of high kickers to his BH, and he got a lot of winners by ripping those returns.

In the '88 W final when he lost to Edberg, Moose Malloy had Becker at 3 FH winners, 8 BH.

In the '89 Wimbledon semis against Lendl, I had him at 13 FH, 30 BH. And that match was somewhat similar to the Edberg matches: both men serve-and-volleying, and Becker's opponent serving kickers to his BH. That pattern practically invited Becker to go for the big pass.

 

[krosero]

Just to add, 21 and 4 is still such a big difference, I think one other factor is that Becker was not moving too well in this match ('90). From a stationary position he could rip BH returns, but for him to hit his FH like a weapon once the return was in play, he had to be moving well.

 

[1st seed alldayy]

man do i love edberg
i know he would win

 

[abmk]

Just rewatched this match ... have 2 games missing in this :final set the games from 2-3 to 3-4 (edberg) , ie ones where edberg serves to make it 3 all and then becker serves to make it 4-3

If anyone has a copy, could you please describe the points in these 2 games so that I can complete the stats ?

 

[Moose Malloy]

2-3 game:
2nd Serve, Edberg S&V's, draws return error from Becker(a fh)
15-0: S&V's on 1st serve, hits bhv winner
30-0: S&V's on 1st serve, hits fhv winner
40-0: S&V's on 1st serve, Becker hits bh return winner
40-15: S&V's on 1st serve, Becker makes bh forced error(not off return)

3-3 game:
Becker S&V's on 1st serve, hits bhv winner
15-0: hits service winner on 1st serve
30-0: hits service winner on 1st serve
40-0: S&V's on 1st serve, makes fhv error(I would say its forced, but its a tough call)
40-15: S&V's on 1st serve, gets fh return error from Edberg(it hits the umpire's chair on the fly, is that considered a service winner in your opinion? same question for krosero)

 

[krosero]

40-15: S&V's on 1st serve, gets fh return error from Edberg(it hits the umpire's chair on the fly, is that considered a service winner in your opinion? same question for krosero)

I wouldn't put it down as a SW, because if not for the chair it would land somewhere on Becker's side of the court, merely wide.

 

[Moose Malloy]

^how would you count this point, forced or unforced?

3-3 game:
40-0: S&V's on 1st serve, makes fhv error(I would say its forced, but its a tough call)

 

[krosero]

^how would you count this point, forced or unforced?

I could see that going either way. I might call it unforced, because while Edberg got the return low, it didn't have great force or angle. Becker's volley was still makeable.

Becker tried an offpace serve and got an offpace return at his feet, so maybe it was the change of pace that drew him into an error.

But I might judge it differently if I watched a full set of points to get a feel for what was going on.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I was just wondering if you had a set of rules for ue's. Like if all missed low volleys should be always be considered forced errors because they are more complicated than high volleys for the most part. Not to say missed high volleys should all be ue's, esp if the player at the baseline gets a good crack at a pass, but it does seem like I'm more likely to call a missed high one a ue than a missed low one.

Maybe we can pick a set or few games of a match on youtube & compare. And let everyone give their opinion - maybe title the thread, forced or unforced? where is abmk?

 

[krosero]

I was just wondering if you had a set of rules for ue's. Like if all missed low volleys should be always be considered forced errors because they are more complicated than high volleys for the most part. Not to say missed high volleys should all be ue's, esp if the player at the baseline gets a good crack at a pass, but it does seem like I'm more likely to call a missed high one a ue than a missed low one.

Maybe we can pick a set or few games of a match on youtube & compare. And let everyone give their opinion - maybe title the thread, forced or unforced? where is abmk?

I don't have anything written out.

That's not a bad idea, did you have any clip in mind?

Would like to hear ABMK's input.

 

[pc1]

I don't have anything written out.

That's not a bad idea, did you have any clip in mind?

Would like to hear ABMK's input.

Still hard to check unforced errors if you judge by low volleys or high volleys in my opinion. Let's say you hit a hard topspin crosscourt pass that the net man had to really move quickly to get to it and he hits it out. It may be possible to hit a winner but it may have been very tough. Perhaps you can't call a shot like that an unforced error by the net man.

You normally assume a low volley is tough but let's say the low volley has very little pace and topspin and the opponent is well out of court. The low volley may be easy.

It's a good idea but is it feasible? It may still be better for an objective observer to judge unforced errors based on their judgment.

Still it would give more information to the person studying the statistics for tennis. Maybe we'll find out that 90% of all high volleys are hit for winners and only 55% of all low volleys are hit for winners for example.

You can see the percentage of errors on low and high volleys also.

I think it's a great suggestion by Moose.

 

[Moose Malloy]

That's not a bad idea, did you have any clip in mind?

maybe a clip from the '82 Wimbledon Final(since its all on youtube)

Still hard to check unforced errors if you judge by low volleys or high volleys in my opinion. Let's say you hit a hard topspin crosscourt pass that the net man had to really move quickly to get to it and he hits it out. It may be possible to hit a winner but it may have been very tough. Perhaps you can't call a shot like that an unforced error by the net man.

You normally assume a low volley is tough but let's say the low volley has very little pace and topspin and the opponent is well out of court. The low volley may be easy.

It's a good idea but is it feasible? It may still be better for an objective observer to judge unforced errors based on their judgment.

Well I didnt say I automatically called all missed high volleys ue's & all missed low volleys forced, just that I seemed to judge more of the high ones critically.

I sometimes watch a point several times & still have trouble deciding whether it was forced or unforced. Another tough one is if the player at net has to lunge for a volley & misses, is it forced? Maybe it was makeable, but I still have trouble calling that unforced.

 

[krosero]

I sometimes watch a point several times & still have trouble deciding whether it was forced or unforced. Another tough one is if the player at net has to lunge for a volley & misses, is it forced? Maybe it was makeable, but I still have trouble calling that unforced.

I rewatch points a lot when I'm getting UE's. I did it with the point you asked about.

For sure, if the player has to lunge, I wouldn't call it unforced. But Becker didn't have to move to Edberg's shot; it came right to him. The only problem is that it was somewhat low, and somewhat offpace. Becker sometimes has problems with his low FHV, I guess because of his grip.

Any clip of your choice is fine with me. I'd rather not choose it myself because I'd like the clip to be about whatever stat issues others want to talk about.

Any Wimbledon match featuring SV will have that issue about low/high volleys.

 

[abmk]

2-3 game:
2nd Serve, Edberg S&V's, draws return error from Becker(a fh)
15-0: S&V's on 1st serve, hits bhv winner
30-0: S&V's on 1st serve, hits fhv winner
40-0: S&V's on 1st serve, Becker hits bh return winner
40-15: S&V's on 1st serve, Becker makes bh forced error(not off return)

3-3 game:
Becker S&V's on 1st serve, hits bhv winner
15-0: hits service winner on 1st serve
30-0: hits service winner on 1st serve
40-0: S&V's on 1st serve, makes fhv error(I would say its forced, but its a tough call)
40-15: S&V's on 1st serve, gets fh return error from Edberg(it hits the umpire's chair on the fly, is that considered a service winner in your opinion? same question for krosero)

thanks for those. I am out of town right now , will put these in the stats book at home in another 4 days when I come back home and put up the stats for the whole match.

As far as your question is concerned, I agree with krosero, I would call it a forced error off the return , it isn't that edberg got a faint touch, is it ?