Roland Garros · F · Clay · 8 Jun 1986
Mikael Pernfors v Ivan Lendl
78–100 in points · Ivan Lendl won
Why it went the way it did
Ivan Lendl won 14.6 more points than Mikael Pernfors relative to what the serve alone predicted. Mikael Pernfors's biggest leaks: slice shot selection −4.4, forehand direction choices −2.2, return execution −2.1.
Each shot moves its hitter's chance of winning the point. Those moves are split into direction choice, shot selection and execution, and summed here. Read both columns together: one player's gain is the other's loss.
| Shot | Mikael Pernfors | Ivan Lendl | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | −0.5 | −0.7 | −0.9 | −2.1 | ±0.0 | −0.6 | −0.7 | −1.4 |
| Serve 2nd | +0.1 | −0.3 | +0.3 | +0.2 | +0.1 | −0.2 | +0.5 | +0.4 |
| Return | ±0.0 | −0.8 | −2.1 | −2.9 | +0.5 | +0.3 | +1.1 | +1.9 |
| Forehand | −2.2 | +2.8 | +1.2 | +1.8 | −1.6 | +5.2 | +1.8 | +5.3 |
| Backhand | −1.3 | +1.7 | +1.6 | +2.0 | −0.3 | +0.4 | +5.7 | +5.9 |
| Slice | −0.1 | −4.4 | +1.6 | −2.9 | −0.2 | −2.8 | +1.5 | −1.4 |
| Net | +0.3 | +0.3 | −0.3 | +0.3 | −0.7 | +1.2 | −2.9 | −2.4 |
| Touch | −0.4 | −2.0 | −0.7 | −3.1 | −0.1 | −0.9 | −0.3 | −1.2 |
| Other | ±0.0 | −0.5 | −0.2 | −0.8 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 |
| All shots | −4.1 | −4.0 | +0.6 | −7.6 | −2.3 | +2.6 | +6.7 | +7.1 |
Set by set
| Set | Mikael Pernfors | Ivan Lendl | Net, Mikael | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −3.6 | +2.2 | −5.8 | |
| 2 | −1.3 | +5.1 | −6.4 | |
| 3 | −2.6 | −0.2 | −2.4 |
Adaptation
First-serve direction mix set by set, with the share of points each direction won. The scores measure whether the server moved toward the directions that had been winning earlier in this match, set to set and every two to three service games, in points per 100 first serves. Read them as a habit, not a gain: across the tour, a direction's edge in early sets barely predicts the later ones. Whether the returner responded can't be told apart from noise within one match.
Mikael Pernfors serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 46% 45% | 29% 29% | 25% 17% |
| 2 | 59% 50% | 30% 38% | 11% 0% |
| 3 | 38% 53% | 26% 60% | 36% 36% |
Set to set −3.23 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets −1.58 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Ivan Lendl serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 67% 57% | 19% 50% | 14% 67% |
| 2 | 52% 50% | 9% 50% | 39% 89% |
| 3 | 60% 50% | 10% 100% | 30% 44% |
Set to set +0.36 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +0.99 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Counterfactual: the best direction every time
If each shot had gone in the direction that is usually worth most for that stroke and position, this is how many more points each player would expect to win. It's an upper bound: the best direction isn't always on, and the chart can't see the ball's pace or position.
Mikael Pernfors
16.6 points left on the table across 573 shots 2.90 per 100 shots
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×14; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.77 pts
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side hit BH through the middle ×15; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.63 pts
- Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×6; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.52 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×10; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.51 pts
Ivan Lendl
16.8 points left on the table across 566 shots 2.98 per 100 shots
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×15; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.82 pts
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your middle hit FH through the middle ×12; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.64 pts
- Return of a 2nd serve, wide, deuce court hit FH through the middle ×7; FH inside-in rates higher · 0.56 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side hit BH through the middle ×14; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.54 pts