Points won by each set: [ 41-36, 34-27, 37-35 ]
Points won directly behind the serve:
28 % Becker – 31 of 107
14 % Krickstein – 15 of 103
Shortly after the US Open ’89, Krickstein had a 3-0 record vs Edberg, but 0-4 vs Becker, not even winning a set against the (West) German. The explanation of it is quite simple: Edberg, as a constant serve-and-volley player, suited to Krickstein’s game-style based on great passing-shots off both wings. With Becker [2] it was a different story because the German was a pure serve-and-volley player only on grass & indoors. On hard- and clay-courts he could apply different tactics depending on the opponents. On that day against Krickstein [16], Becker was wisely mixing up the baseline game with unexpected attacks to the net, moreover he could always count on getting more cheap service points than Edberg. The long three-setter (2 hours 48 minutes) Becker controlled throughout from a break down in the opener (2:3).
Points won by each set: [ 41-36, 34-27, 37-35 ]
Points won directly behind the serve:
28 % Becker – 31 of 107
14 % Krickstein – 15 of 103
Shortly after the US Open ’89, Krickstein had a 3-0 record vs Edberg, but 0-4 vs Becker, not even winning a set against the (West) German. The explanation of it is quite simple: Edberg, as a constant serve-and-volley player, suited to Krickstein’s game-style based on great passing-shots off both wings. With Becker [2] it was a different story because the German was a pure serve-and-volley player only on grass & indoors. On hard- and clay-courts he could apply different tactics depending on the opponents. On that day against Krickstein [16], Becker was wisely mixing up the baseline game with unexpected attacks to the net, moreover he could always count on getting more cheap service points than Edberg. The long three-setter (2 hours 48 minutes) Becker controlled throughout from a break down in the opener (2:3).