Points won by each set: | 41-37, 49-47 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
37 % Dimitrov – 34 of 90
52 % Isner – 44 of 84
The weakest field in Masters 1K events of the 10s, and a great opportunity for them both to win the first title of this level, because they wouldn’t face a Big 4 member in the final (Kyrgios d. Ferrer in the second semifinal a few hours later). Isner [19] had his lone game with a break point chance as he led 40/15 at 3:2 in the opener – Dimitrov [11] survived 13- and 6-stroke rallies. The only break point for the Bulgarian meant a match point for him – in the 10th game of the 2nd set – Isner fought it off with a huge serve. In the first tie-break (7/4) decided only one mini-break, Dimitrov got it with a backhand passing-shot. In the 2nd tie-break (12/10) he saved three set points, all on serve: 5:6 (defensive lob was too long), 7:8 (forced FH error) and 9:10 (backhand passing-shot from a difficult position).
Points won by each set: | 41-37, 49-47 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
37 % Dimitrov – 34 of 90
52 % Isner – 44 of 84
The weakest field in Masters 1K events of the 10s, and a great opportunity for them both to win the first title of this level, because they wouldn’t face a Big 4 member in the final (Kyrgios d. Ferrer in the second semifinal a few hours later). Isner [19] had his lone game with a break point chance as he led 40/15 at 3:2 in the opener – Dimitrov [11] survived 13- and 6-stroke rallies. The only break point for the Bulgarian meant a match point for him – in the 10th game of the 2nd set – Isner fought it off with a huge serve. In the first tie-break (7/4) decided only one mini-break, Dimitrov got it with a backhand passing-shot. In the 2nd tie-break (12/10) he saved three set points, all on serve: 5:6 (defensive lob was too long), 7:8 (forced FH error) and 9:10 (backhand passing-shot from a difficult position).
Serve & volley: Dimitrov 0, Isner 2/7