Points won by each set: | 34-27, 31-18 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
43 % Edberg – 24 of 55
23 % Lendl – 13 of 55
Just like a year before Edberg [1] and Lendl [3] met in the Masters semifinal, the Swede triumphed again. As opposed to their ’89 meeting, Edberg was a favorite in 1990, nevertheless it was quite surprising how he dismantled the Czechoslovak, leading 2:0 and 4:0 in respective sets. Lendl couldn’t read Edberg’s serve, he didn’t want to be involved in baseline rallies either because he was tired after a tough match against Becker (6-1, 6-7, 4-6) a night before, while the six years younger Edberg enjoyed a day off. With two successive semifinal defeats at Masters, and quarterfinal loss at the US Open ’90, so two events Lendl emphatically dominated in the 80s, it was obvious he wouldn’t be a serious contender to the biggest titles in the future… he played his last Grand Slam final at the Aussie Open ’91 though.
Points won by each set: | 34-27, 31-18 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
43 % Edberg – 24 of 55
23 % Lendl – 13 of 55
Just like a year before Edberg [1] and Lendl [3] met in the Masters semifinal, the Swede triumphed again. As opposed to their ’89 meeting, Edberg was a favorite in 1990, nevertheless it was quite surprising how he dismantled the Czechoslovak, leading 2:0 and 4:0 in respective sets. Lendl couldn’t read Edberg’s serve, he didn’t want to be involved in baseline rallies either because he was tired after a tough match against Becker (6-1, 6-7, 4-6) a night before, while the six years younger Edberg enjoyed a day off. With two successive semifinal defeats at Masters, and quarterfinal loss at the US Open ’90, so two events Lendl emphatically dominated in the 80s, it was obvious he wouldn’t be a serious contender to the biggest titles in the future… he played his last Grand Slam final at the Aussie Open ’91 though.