US Open · R32 · Hard · 31 Aug 1996
Paul Haarhuis v Stefan Edberg
81–104 in points · Stefan Edberg won
Why it went the way it did
Stefan Edberg won 7.2 more points than Paul Haarhuis relative to what the serve alone predicted. Paul Haarhuis's biggest leaks: return execution −3.5, backhand execution −2.8, touch shot selection −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 | Paul Haarhuis | Stefan Edberg | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | −0.1 | −1.3 | −0.9 | −2.3 | +0.4 | +2.4 | −2.1 | +0.7 |
| Serve 2nd | ±0.0 | −0.4 | +1.5 | +1.1 | ±0.0 | +0.3 | +0.8 | +1.1 |
| Return | +0.4 | +1.1 | −3.5 | −2.1 | +0.4 | ±0.0 | +2.4 | +2.8 |
| Forehand | −0.2 | +0.9 | +1.1 | +1.8 | +0.1 | +1.7 | −0.6 | +1.1 |
| Backhand | −0.2 | −0.1 | −2.8 | −3.1 | −0.2 | +0.7 | −3.1 | −2.6 |
| Slice | ±0.0 | −0.9 | −0.3 | −1.2 | +0.8 | −1.7 | +0.1 | −0.8 |
| Net | +0.2 | −0.2 | +0.3 | +0.4 | +2.6 | −0.1 | −2.8 | −0.3 |
| Touch | +0.4 | −2.1 | +1.4 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | −0.1 | −0.3 | −0.4 |
| All shots | +0.5 | −2.8 | −3.1 | −5.5 | +4.3 | +3.0 | −5.6 | +1.7 |
Set by set
| Set | Paul Haarhuis | Stefan Edberg | Net, Paul | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ±0.0 | +1.2 | −1.2 | |
| 2 | −3.8 | −3.0 | −0.8 | |
| 3 | −1.6 | +3.6 | −5.2 |
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.
Paul Haarhuis serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 39% 89% | 4% 0% | 57% 62% |
| 2 | 50% 76% | 19% 38% | 31% 69% |
| 3 | 50% 56% | 11% 0% | 39% 29% |
Set to set −0.85 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets −0.40 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Stefan Edberg serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 62% 78% | 7% 50% | 31% 67% |
| 2 | 51% 68% | 5% 100% | 43% 69% |
| 3 | 64% 69% | 4% 0% | 32% 75% |
Set to set +0.10 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +0.18 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.
Paul Haarhuis
9.0 points left on the table across 266 shots 3.37 per 100 shots
- Serve +1: mid-depth return to your backhand side hit BH through the middle ×6; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.44 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, T, deuce court, server rushing the net hit BH through the middle ×8; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.39 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, ad court, server rushing the net hit BH through the middle ×5; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.39 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, deuce court, server rushing the net hit FH through the middle ×4; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.30 pts
Stefan Edberg
7.7 points left on the table across 271 shots 2.86 per 100 shots
- Serve +1: short return to your middle, you at net hit FH volley through the middle ×2; FH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.50 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, ad court hit BH slice down the line ×2; BH slice crosscourt rates higher · 0.34 pts
- Return of a 2nd serve, wide, ad court hit BH slice through the middle + approach ×2; BH slice down the line + approach rates higher · 0.31 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side, you at net hit BH volley through the middle ×1; BH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.26 pts