Points won by each set: | 31-21, 41-31, 27-15 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
40 % Edberg – 23 of 62
7 % Krishnan – 8 of 104
Krishnan [42], based on his archaic game-style, could be associated with wooded rackets and the early 70s, but he somehow enjoyed quite successful career in the entire 80s. His quarterfinal (third and last at Slams) against Edberg [2] it was a clash of different worlds; the five years younger Swede looked like a powerful player, even though his forehand was rather archaic too, given the standards of the late 80s/early 90s. It could have been one of many major quarterfinals not worth mentioning in any context, if a marathon game hadn’t been occurred. At 2:0 in the 2nd set Edberg broke after 16 deuces (!) on his 10th break point chance. Krishnan had a few game points, on the last two Edberg responded with overheads. The entire game lasted exactly 24 minutes, in terms of deuces; it’s the longest game played in Grand Slam matches that I know.
Points won by each set: | 31-21, 41-31, 27-15 |
Points won directly behind the serve:
40 % Edberg – 23 of 62
7 % Krishnan – 8 of 104
Krishnan [42], based on his archaic game-style, could be associated with wooded rackets and the early 70s, but he somehow enjoyed quite successful career in the entire 80s. His quarterfinal (third and last at Slams) against Edberg [2] it was a clash of different worlds; the five years younger Swede looked like a powerful player, even though his forehand was rather archaic too, given the standards of the late 80s/early 90s. It could have been one of many major quarterfinals not worth mentioning in any context, if a marathon game hadn’t been occurred. At 2:0 in the 2nd set Edberg broke after 16 deuces (!) on his 10th break point chance. Krishnan had a few game points, on the last two Edberg responded with overheads. The entire game lasted exactly 24 minutes, in terms of deuces; it’s the longest game played in Grand Slam matches that I know.