Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to rom94becker_ivanisevic

  1. Voo de Mar says:
    Points won by each set: | 27-18, 42-38 |
    Points won directly behind the serve:
    35 % Becker – 23 of 64
    26 % Ivanisevic – 16 of 61

    Points won by each set: | 28-19, 43-44 |
    Points won directly behind the serve:
    21 % Edberg – 15 of 70
    32 % Stich – 21 of 64

    Comparison of two ‘Mercedes Super 9’ semifinals consisted of four Wimbledon champions (in 1994, Ivanisevic was seven years before doing it) and concluded with almost identical scorelines: the difference in tie-breaks, 7/5 in Rome & 8/6 in Cincinnati. On grass and on carpet, they all were applying serve-and-volley tactics, but on other surfaces they were varying their game-styles. On clay in Rome, Becker [13] was using S&V as the main strategy, but he obtained many points directly behind the serve, so in the end he had just 5/10 in S&V actions (Ivanisevic 1/1); on hardcourt in Cincy it was a classical S&V duel, but there were some points when they both stayed on the baseline, Stich was more eager to do that. The progress of those semifinals was different. [6] Ivanisevic’s serve was abysmal in the first 40 minutes of his match; he trailed 2-6, *0:3 (15/30) when got a point thanks to an overhead and found his normal serve rhythm. He led 4:2 in the tie-break, at 5-all netted his forehand in quite long rally… Stich [5] had many opportunities to win the 2nd set; first he had a break point at 3:1*, then he led 4:2 (40/0) when Edberg’s mishit FH-volley landed on the baseline. In the tie-break the German led 5:1 & *6:4 before losing the last four points (double fault on match point).

Leave a Reply