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, particularly with the first half of the 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, particularly with the first half of the 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.