Points won by each set: | 33-25, 30-22, 27-26 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
29 % Edberg – 23 of 77
15 % Svensson – 13 of 86
Fifth of their ten meetings, all went to Edberg [3]. He apparently knew how to use the simplest means to be efficient against his compatriot & peer (something established between them already at the times when they were playing in young age Swedish categories?). In the 3rd set Svensson [41] won four games at love, but at 2-all he was broken which was decisive for the most competitive set. Edberg faced break points serving to win the opener, and to open the 3rd set. Two years later they play almost the same match at the US Open.
# Comparison of their two major matches with almost the same scoreline: Aussie Open ’90 (fourth round): Edberg d. Svensson 6-2, 6-2, 6-4… 1 hour 44 minutes… Total points: 90-73… Breaks: 5-0 US Open ’92 (third round): Edberg d. Svensson 6-4, 6-2, 6-2… 1 hour 35 minutes… Total points: 90-65… Breaks: 6-1
Points won by each set: | 33-25, 30-22, 27-26 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
29 % Edberg – 23 of 77
15 % Svensson – 13 of 86
Fifth of their ten meetings, all went to Edberg [3]. He apparently knew how to use the simplest means to be efficient against his compatriot & peer (something established between them already at the times when they were playing in young age Swedish categories?). In the 3rd set Svensson [41] won four games at love, but at 2-all he was broken which was decisive for the most competitive set. Edberg faced break points serving to win the opener, and to open the 3rd set. Two years later they play almost the same match at the US Open.
# Comparison of their two major matches with almost the same scoreline:
Aussie Open ’90 (fourth round): Edberg d. Svensson 6-2, 6-2, 6-4… 1 hour 44 minutes… Total points: 90-73… Breaks: 5-0
US Open ’92 (third round): Edberg d. Svensson 6-4, 6-2, 6-2… 1 hour 35 minutes… Total points: 90-65… Breaks: 6-1