Points won by each set: | 52-50, 39-33 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
17 % Chesnokov – 15 of 87
19 % Lendl – 17 of 87
The longest two-set match in Chesnokov’s [32] career & arguably his biggest hard-court win. Admittedly the 31-year-old Lendl [4] was already more than one year after his last major title, but in 1991 he still belonged to the best players in the world, and his another Grand Slam triumph could happen. The Czech was two points away to win both sets; in the opener he led 5:4* (deuce) earlier trailing 2:4 (BP), in the 2nd set he was serving at 5:4 (30/15). Perhaps Lendl mentally paid the price for his 3-hour 4-minute win over Jim Grabb in the quarterfinals. “I just had trouble opening up the court,” Lendl said. “My game plan was to create chances and I didn’t create them. I haven’t been hitting the ball as well as I would like. I wasn’t tired; I have no one to blame but myself.”
Points won by each set: | 52-50, 39-33 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
17 % Chesnokov – 15 of 87
19 % Lendl – 17 of 87
The longest two-set match in Chesnokov’s [32] career & arguably his biggest hard-court win. Admittedly the 31-year-old Lendl [4] was already more than one year after his last major title, but in 1991 he still belonged to the best players in the world, and his another Grand Slam triumph could happen. The Czech was two points away to win both sets; in the opener he led 5:4* (deuce) earlier trailing 2:4 (BP), in the 2nd set he was serving at 5:4 (30/15). Perhaps Lendl mentally paid the price for his 3-hour 4-minute win over Jim Grabb in the quarterfinals. “I just had trouble opening up the court,” Lendl said. “My game plan was to create chances and I didn’t create them. I haven’t been hitting the ball as well as I would like. I wasn’t tired; I have no one to blame but myself.”
Serve & volley: both 0