Stats for Agassi-Ivanisevic (1992 W final)

[krosero]

The ATP has Agassi winning 3 Slam finals in which he won fewer points overall than his opponent:

- Ivanisevic 1992 Wimbledon
- Sampras 1995 Australian Open
- Medvedev 1999 French Open

I can confirm that the ATP stats for the first two are wrong. I've done stats for both, and in each case Agassi won more points than his opponent. The ATP stats are correct in a few categories such as break points, but the other stats are so far off that they may belong to other matches.

I'm not going to take my own stats for the Medvedev match, because in that case the ATP figures do make sense. I have no problem believing that Medvedev won more points in the match than Agassi did, which I'll explain.

The correct stats for Agassi-Ivanisevic are in this boxscore, which I found in USA Today, the St. Petersburg Times (Florida), the Gazette (Montreal), and the St. Louis Dispatch.

I got the same numbers myself, with one exception. Ivanisevic has 1 more placement winner (non-service winner) in the boxscore than in my count, and I think it was given to him on a judgment call when he smacked a forehand return down the line that Agassi only grazed with the edge of his racquet.



My own stats:

Agassi won 163 points overall, Ivanisevic 159.


SERVICE

Agassi won 111 of 156 points on serve (or 71%).
Ivanisevic won 114 of 166 points on serve (or 69%).


Agassi’s first-serve percentage by set:

33/51 (65%)
20/30 (67%)
18/26 (69%)
6/15 (40%)
13/34 (38%)

90/156 (58% total for the match)

In the last two sets Agassi’s serve underwent a meltdown; he made 19 of 49 serves, just 39%. So it was only in the fourth set that Goran finally broke him – twice. But Andre managed to hold serve throughout the fifth set, though his percentage never came back up.


Ivanisevic’s first-serve percentage by set:

33/51 (65%)
17/36 (47%)
18/32 (56%)
10/20 (50%)
18/27 (67%)

96/166 (58% total for the match)


Agassi got his first serve into play on 2 of 5 break points (or 40%), Ivanisevic on 10 of 16 (or 63%).


The break points tell the story: Ivanisevic had the harder time holding serve.


Agassi won 14 straight points on serve to close the third set, and had 1 more to open the fourth. It was the longest service streak that either player had.


Agassi had 9 aces and 1 double-fault. He had 31 other serves that Ivanisevic could not return (21 were 1st serves); I judged 2 of these as service winners.

Ivanisevic had 37 aces (4 on 2nd serve) and 7 double-faults. He had 44 other serves that Agassi could not return (27 were 1st serves); I judged 11 of these as service winners.

NBC put Goran at 38 aces, including one judgment call on a ball barely contacted by Agassi.


WINNERS

Agassi had 49 clean winners apart from service: 12 FH, 26 BH, 3 FHV, 4 BHV, and 4 overheads.

Ivanisevic had 38 clean winners apart from service: 10 FH, 5 BH, 7 FHV, 13 BHV, and 3 overheads.

Agassi had 9 service return winners, all passes. (Six were off Goran’s second serve, and all backhands). In addition he had 11 FH and 15 BH passes. Altogether he passed Goran 35 times.

Ivanisevic had 5 service return winners, four of them passes. In addition he had four passing shots, two from each wing. Altogether he passed Agassi 8 times.


ERRORS

I didn't do a full count of the errors. But if I subtract the aces and winners from the total points won, then:

Agassi made 84 errors (forced and unforced). Of those I counted 44 return errors and 1 double-fault. So in the exchanges consisting of at least a successful return (rallies), he made 39 errors.

Ivanisevic made 105 errors (forced and unforced). Of those I counted 31 return errors and 7 double-faults. So in the exchanges consisting of at least a successful return (rallies), he made 67 errors.


Some NBC stats:

Through the semis, Ivanisevic had served at 64% with 169 aces and 7 breaks against him. He’d won 86% of points on first serve. Only 45% of his serves had “come back across the net” (Enberg).

Agassi had served 26 aces in his previous rounds.

At 4-2 in the second, Agassi was serving at 66% with 33 winners, 12 unforced errors and 4 aces. I had him at the same number of winners and aces (though I had also given Andre two service winners by then).

At 4-2 in the second, Ivanisevic was serving at 62% with 39 winners, 27 unforced errors and 16 aces. I had him at 34 total winners, including 15 aces; NBC had given him 16 aces with a judgment call, so if that serve is not counted, I was behind NBC’s total by 4 winners. And in fact by then I had given Ivanisevic 4 service winners.

At 4-all in the fifth, Agassi had 22 unforced errors, Goran 57.

In the middle of the fifth, Enberg said that Agassi was winning 68% of his approaches.

After four sets, Agassi had won 130 points, Ivanisevic 131. That lines up with my own count.

 

[krosero]

ATP boxscore

So this is the incorrect boxscore at the ATP site.

The incorrect figures are the service percentages, total points won/played, and percentage of points won on first and second serve. Actually Agassi's winning percentage on first serves is correct, but that can only be a coincidence, because the numbers behind it are wrong; by my count he only got 90 first serves into the box.

I’ve never seen a 16-point margin in favor of the loser. All the numbers in the box add up mathematically, but there are a few things that give away these numbers as implausible.

If Goran served 208 points and Andre 166, then you would expect that it was Goran who had trouble holding and therefore in building a point margin.

And the ATP (correctly) has Goran facing 16 break points while Andre faced only 5. If Goran faced so many more break points, why is he winning nearly the same percentage of points on serve as his opponent?

The Agassi-Sampras boxscore at the ATP has roughly the same problems.

The stats for Agassi-Medvedev, however, look okay. Medvedev got an easy two-set lead and ended up winning more games than Agassi at the end of the match, 23 to 21. So there's nothing implausible about the ATP stats, in which Andrei won 152 points overall, and Andre 145.

 

[krosero]

And here's a boxscore from the Globe and Mail for 99 RG. The total points won are off from the ATP numbers by only 1 point:

Agassi Medvedev
Total points won 144 / 152
Aces 2 / 23
Winners incl. srv 46 / 65
Double faults 6 / 8
1st serve pct 62 / 63
Pct. 1st serve pts 69 / 74
Pct. 2nd serve pts 46 / 41
Break pt. conv 4-13 / 5-12
Unforced errors 56 / 65
Net points 22-33 / 17-30
Time of match 2:51

 

[Murray_Maniac]

Nice stats. It surprises me that official statsticians mess up, especially on granslam finals, lol. Btw, this had been the last grandslam final that had occured when I was born.

 

[krosero]

Nice stats. It surprises me that official statsticians mess up, especially on granslam finals, lol. Btw, this had been the last grandslam final that had occured when I was born.

I was working as a summer camp counselor and, as happened every summer, I was working on the day of the Wimbledon final. I heard about it and was not pleased; I really wasn't an Agassi fan. But later in the summer I saw the match and it did a lot to turn my opinion of him. Not only the well-fought victory, but the whole improbability of coming through on grass.

And there's something about that match. I'd forgotten how much fun it is, the contrasting styles and the pace of play. It's like what Moose said about Edberg-Mecir, the match was so much fun it was downright easy to take the stats.

 

[Murray_Maniac]

I was working as a summer camp counselor and, as happened every summer, I was working on the day of the Wimbledon final. I heard about it and was not pleased; I really wasn't an Agassi fan. But later in the summer I saw the match and it did a lot to turn my opinion of him. Not only the well-fought victory, but the whole improbability of coming through on grass.

And there's something about that match. I'd forgotten how much fun it is, the contrasting styles and the pace of play. It's like what Moose said about Edberg-Mecir, the match was so much fun it was downright easy to take the stats.

Cool. I tryed to watch it all when it played on ttc, but I could only bear to watch the first set. I dont know why, but it looked wierd. Some points were pure s&v, & other points were pure baseline. So, some points were really slow, & some really fast. I didnt know which mode of watching tennis to be at (to watch s&v or baseline style). But Ive got to say, they were both really talented. The only time that I remember that I saw Agassi while he was still on tour was his last match on the tour. However, I didnt begin loving and learning about tennis until the 2006 tmc. Ive got 1 little question, in your opinion, whos the greatest server: Sampras or Ivanisevic?

 

[krosero]

Ive got 1 little question, in your opinion, whos the greatest server: Sampras or Ivanisevic?

I can honestly say I've never given it any thought. At least, not two thoughts in a row. I'd need to see more of Ivanisevic, and even catch more Sampras matches. From what I've already seen I like Sampras as a server, not just for a technically great serve (which Goran also had), but as a great server, meaning someone who can bring it out in the clutch and not double-fault at crucial moments (which Goran did).

 

[krosero]

Cool. I tryed to watch it all when it played on ttc, but I could only bear to watch the first set. I dont know why, but it looked wierd.

I think when I hear young tennis fans talk about tennis from previous generations, I assume that they merely dislike it. But you use the word "weird," so you're saying it looked strange to you. those are words I use when I don't understand something.

That is much preferable to the attitude other young fans take, where they jump right to judgment and say that the tennis stinks, or that they could do better than that, etc. At least you use a word which shows some awareness that you don't yet/really understand it.

but let me ask you, why is it hard to watch. Why is hard to watch more than one set? Does it look boring? Or is there something else about it?

 

[Murray_Maniac]

I think when I hear young tennis fans talk about tennis from previous generations, I assume that they merely dislike it. But you use the word "weird," so you're saying it looked strange to you. those are words I use when I don't understand something.

That is much preferable to the attitude other young fans take, where they jump right to judgment and say that the tennis stinks, or that they could do better than that, etc. At least you use a word which shows some awareness that you don't yet/really understand it.

but let me ask you, why is it hard to watch. Why is hard to watch more than one set? Does it look boring? Or is there something else about it?

No, no, no! I love old S&v tennis, especially Borg/Connors/Mcenroe. I watch them all the time. Its just the Becker/Edberg/Sampras generation that is wierd. I either watch old S&V tennis, w/ slow baseline action, or faster baseline tennis w/ limited net play. But stuff such as Sampras is different because they do hardcore fast baseline & hardcore fast S&V. I only like to watch one particular style. Not really both. For example, they may start off hardcore s&v only for the first set, then switch to baseline for the rest of the sets; or alternate every point. Both at the same time makes me "dizzy". Ya get what I mean now?

 

[krosero]

No, no, no! I love old S&v tennis, especially Borg/Connors/Mcenroe. I watch them all the time. Its just the Becker/Edberg/Sampras generation that is wierd. I either watch old S&V tennis, w/ slow baseline action, or faster baseline tennis w/ limited net play. But stuff such as Sampras is different because they do hardcore fast baseline & hardcore fast S&V. I only like to watch one particular style. Not really both. For example, they may start off hardcore s&v only for the first set, then switch to baseline for the rest of the sets; or alternate every point. Both at the same time makes me "dizzy". Ya get what I mean now?

Okay, so you're talking about styles and it's not a generation issue with you. Did not expect anyone below 20 to enjoy Borg/Connors/McEnroe.

Must admit I don't know what you mean by "dizzy." You mean you dislike it when the ball is traveling so quickly between a net player and a powerful baseline player who can hit it back extremely hard and fast? By "faster baseline tennis" I think you mean the pace of the ground strokes but I'm not sure.

I do get that you like the power baselining tennis of today "with limited net play" as you say, or the old S/V tennis (at least as it existed in the 70s and early 80s), more than the generation that came in between. Just curious why that is.

Boris Becker was the first guy I saw when I became a fan of tennis (at age 15, by the way), and I loved that he had massive ground strokes and a great S/V game too.

 

[Murray_Maniac]

Okay, so you're talking about styles and it's not a generation issue with you. Did not expect anyone below 20 to enjoy Borg/Connors/McEnroe..

I just appreciate high quality tennis and interesting styles.

Must admit I don't know what you mean by "dizzy." You mean you dislike it when the ball is traveling so quickly between a net player and a powerful baseline player who can hit it back extremely hard and fast? By "faster baseline tennis" I think you mean the pace of the ground strokes but I'm not sure..

Yea, where the match can be controlled by either the S&v'er or the baseliner. Particulary, I like to know what style is dominant in the match. I have two sides of me: a side of me that appreciates baseline tennis, and a side of me that likes baseline tennis. B4 I watch a match, I switch to one of them. So, its so hard to watch it when theres really good baselining & s&v in a match. A match w/ mostly groundie winners is one thing, & a match w/ mostly volley winners is another.

If you still cant see what I mean just picture this: For a meal, someone hands you either a fork or a spoon to eat with. So, when you eat, you either use a fork to stab the food; or you scoop the food up with the spoon. But what do you do if one day they hand you a spork? You find that stabbing & scooping are equally efficent, & cant choose which action to perform. You stab, then scoop, then stab, then scoop,.. and deep inside, you wish that you had been given a spoon or a fork because its easier and more fluent to do just 1 action.

I do get that you like the power baselining tennis of today "with limited net play" as you say, or the old S/V tennis (at least as it existed in the 70s and early 80s), more than the generation that came in between. Just curious why that is..

I just explained in the reply above. Its too complicated for me to like them both in the same match.

Boris Becker was the first guy I saw when I became a fan of tennis (at age 15, by the way), and I loved that he had massive ground strokes and a great S/V game too.

Cool. Federer got me into the game when they played the 06 tmc. But I dont like him anymore because I cant stand that I missed the first 9 grand slams that he won and he's almost done now. I like Murray because of his beautiful all-around game & flamboyant personality.(I can bear today's all-around game because you can tell that baselining is more dominant).

 

[krosero]

I'm understanding better now. I really encourage you to catch the rest of Agassi-Ivanisevic sometime, just because i can hardly think of a more entertaining match from that time period. Not just for the tennis; it obviously got more dramatic and intense after the first set.

 

[Murray_Maniac]

Hey, since this thread already turned into a chat thread, I have a good idea. I think that there should be another topic, such as general pro discussion and former pro, titled tennis match stats, or something like it. I find it irritating, especially in general pro, that you work so hard on stats & worthless threads in comparisson replace them very quick. Plus, its better organizing, and would provide easier access to get to these threads. Im giving you this sugestion because I know that you like doing stats more and if you find this a good idea, you can email tw, unlike me.

 

[krosero]

For Agassi quarterfinal

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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

"I was returning extremely well," said Agassi, who hit 64 winners.

LA Times:

Agassi finished with 21 winners on service returns. Even Becker was impressed. "You cannot play better tennis than he did on grass," Becker said.

 

[krosero]

Agassi semifinal

Agassi d. McEnroe, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3

Washington Post:

McEnroe lost 19 points on errors at the net while Agassi drilled 18 passing shots for winners.

Associated Press:

McEnroe’s serve let him down against Agassi at crucial moments. He double faulted twice on break points in the first set, and double faulted at deuce in the first game of the second set as Agassi broke...

Agassi was credited with 18 passing shots and six service return winners. He converted all seven break points.

 

[krosero]

Additional stats for the final

Agassi won 69 of 90 points on 1st serve (77%) and 42 of 66 on 2nd (64%).

Ivanisevic won 79 of 96 on 1st (82%) and 35 of 70 on 2nd (50%). At one stretch he won 22 straight 1st-serve points, including all 10 that he played in the fourth set.


In rallies of 2 or more good shots:

Agassi 65% on first serve (39/60) and 58% on second (32/55).
Ivanisevic 53% on first serve (19/36) and 33% on second (14/42).

 

[slice serve ace]

this match i still haven't watched. i remember the excitement and the optimism here in croatia at the time, after goran beat the biggest names in tennis previous rounds, serving each time 30+ aces. but my tv broke down so i couldn't watch the final

so, 40 unreturned serves for agassi, 26%
81 for goran, 49%
pretty much expected
76 total winners for goran, 58 for agassi
26 backhand winners for agassi:shock:

 

[krosero]

76 total winners for goran, 58 for agassi

Yes and including all the service winners I gave Goran, he'd move up to 86.

 

[Datacipher]

For example, they may start off hardcore s&v only for the first set, then switch to baseline for the rest of the sets; or alternate every point. Both at the same time makes me "dizzy". Ya get what I mean now?

Sure, but if it makes you dizzy, imagine how it feel for the opponents of these guys! That'll help you appreciate it ;-)

 

[krosero]

Andre Agassi                                        Goran Ivanisevic

163/322      Total points won                       159/322
156/90/66    Services (total/first/second)          166/96/70
69/90        Points won after 1st service           79/96
42/66        Points won after 2nd serve             35/70
52/166       Points won on return                   45/156
78/166       Returned services                      115/156
29/49        Wing of service returns (fh/bh)        45/70
50           Winners                                38
40           Service winners                        81
23           Unforced errors                        52                
1            Double faults                          7
3/16         Break points                           2/5
7            Service games without lost point       7
110          Rallies 1-4 (241)                      131 
41           Rallies 5-8 (61)                       20
5            Rallies 9-12 (13)                      8 
7            Rallies 13+ (7)                        /
                                               
Average number of shots in points in match : 3,64
Average number of shots in points in match on Agassi's serve     : 4,93
Average number of shots in points in match on Ivanisevic's serve : 2,43

Fascinating rally counts.

I did a comparison with your rally counts for Ashe-Connors.

- 73% of the points in Ashe/Connors were 1-4 strokes long. In this match it’s 75%.

- 25% of the points in Ashe/Connors were 5-8 strokes long. In this match it’s 19%.

- 2% of the points in Ashe/Connors were 9-12 strokes long. In this match it’s 4%.

- Only 1 point in Ashe/Connors went to 13 strokes or more. In this match 7 rallies did so.

So even though Agassi is said to be the first champion to win Wimbledon by staying back, the finals in '75 and '92 are equally dominated by short rallies. Three-quarters of all the points, in both matches, were only 1-4 strokes long.

And if you count rallies of 5-8 strokes, Ashe/Connors actually had more of those than Agassi/Ivanisevic did.

Agassi/Ivanisevic did have the very longest rallies (9 strokes or more), but there weren't many of those.

I do think it's true that Agassi stayed back more than any previous champion. So if the rallies in the Agassi match were no shorter, on average, than they were in '75, it must be because of all the aces and service winners that Goran laid down.

In Ashe/Connors, 26% of all the points played were unreturned serves (including aces). In Agassi/Ivanisevic it’s 38%.

And most of that difference is attributable to Goran. In the '75 final, 12% of all the points played were Connors' unreturned serves. And in the '92 final, 12% were Agassi's. But Ashe's unreturned serves made up only 14% of all points played in '75; Goran's unreturned serves made up 25% of all points played in '92.

 

[Nadal_Power]

Nice work

Yeah, 17 years makes big diggerence, in racquet's for the start. This was probably the greatest tournament ever for the server, magic 200 aces barier was broken in the final by Goran. I'm not sure people are fully aware how tough was for Agassi to win this title. He was on pressure basicly in every ''longer'' rally, and he won almost twice more points than Goran when raly went beyond 4th stroke

Do we have thread about 2001. epic final, I have stats for that one too, soon will start making analyse of 1998. final, so Goran again

 

[krosero]

He was on pressure basicly in every ''longer'' rally, and he won almost twice more points than Goran when raly went beyond 4th stroke

Yes Agassi won twice as many of the long rallies, and remarkably won every single rally that went beyond 13 strokes.

Do we have thread about 2001. epic final, I have stats for that one too, soon will start making analyse of 1998. final, so Goran again

You've probably seen my '98 final thread: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=194571.

We don't have any thread on the '01 final. As I mentioned I'd love to see more stats and analysis on that one.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Came across an intersting article with the oddsmakers favorites the day before 1992 Wimbledon started:

Edberg 5-2
Becker, Stich, Courier 5-1

Top Men Have Center Stage on Opening Day at Wimbledon

Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Michael Stich and Jim Courier--deemed the most likely to succeed--kick off Wimbledon today as the oddsmakers' choices to win the 106th edition of the world's most famous tennis tournament.

www.latimes.com

The odds show how much parity there was back then(esp compared to today) and how unexpected the Agassi Goran final was.

 

[travlerajm]

Yes Agassi won twice as many of the long rallies, and remarkably won every single rally that went beyond 13 strokes.

It’s probably true of many matches when one player can rally a lot longer without missing than the other.

The longer the rally goes, the greater the probability that the better baseline player will win the point.

This effect tends to amplify the advantage of the better player in slower conditions that favor longer rallies.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

If the ATP can´t get this match right, about what can they be trusted?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

It’s probably true of many matches when one player can rally a lot longer without missing than the other.

The longer the rally goes, the greater the probability that the better baseline player will win the point.

This effect tends to amplify the advantage of the better player in slower conditions that favor longer rallies.

Or it simply shows who can play tennis a lot better...