Points won by each set: | 31-20, 38-35, 26-7 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
29 % Edberg – 24 of 81
14 % Lendl – 11 of 76
The most one-sided of their 11 “best of five” matches. In the 2nd set Lendl [3] came back from a break down twice, from 5-all Edberg quite easily won the last eight games. Two forces overlapped: Edberg [1] was playing the best tennis of his life in the years 1990-91 while the 31-year-old Lendl, a few moths before, reached his limits with the Australian Open final, and afterwards he was never a real threat at majors. “I couldn’t get it going, and when I did, I couldn’t keep the momentum,” said Lendl, the No. 2 seed. “I felt from the fourth game of the first set anything I touched went wrong and everything he did was right.”
Edberg’s route to his 29th title:
2 Kelly Evernden 6-2, 7-6(2)
3 Jimmy Connors 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-1
Q Michael Stich 7-6(5), 6-3
S Michael Chang 7-5, 6-2
W Ivan Lendl 6-1, 7-5, 6-0
Points won by each set: | 31-20, 38-35, 26-7 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
29 % Edberg – 24 of 81
14 % Lendl – 11 of 76
The most one-sided of their 11 “best of five” matches. In the 2nd set Lendl [3] came back from a break down twice, from 5-all Edberg quite easily won the last eight games. Two forces overlapped: Edberg [1] was playing the best tennis of his life in the years 1990-91 while the 31-year-old Lendl, a few moths before, reached his limits with the Australian Open final, and afterwards he was never a real threat at majors. “I couldn’t get it going, and when I did, I couldn’t keep the momentum,” said Lendl, the No. 2 seed. “I felt from the fourth game of the first set anything I touched went wrong and everything he did was right.”
Edberg’s route to his 29th title:
2 Kelly Evernden 6-2, 7-6(2)
3 Jimmy Connors 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-1
Q Michael Stich 7-6(5), 6-3
S Michael Chang 7-5, 6-2
W Ivan Lendl 6-1, 7-5, 6-0