Tauson vs Lamens: Oeiras Final Analysis (WTA 125)

A match of big runs, remarkable saves and (im)possible comebacks.

Clara Tauson (WTA #87) and Suzan Lamens (WTA #164) met with a WTA 125 title and an unbeaten fortnight in Oeiras on the line.

After featuring in the Billie Jean King Cup Group I Qualifiers played the week before in the same venue, both players entered the final riding 8-match win-streaks and showing superb form.

In Portugal, Tauson included Maria Sakkari among her victims (6-4 6-4 win) while Lamens scored a win over Jelena Ostapenko (7-6(7) 6-4). Tauson was yet to drop a set while Lamens had lost just one set, the opener in the semifinal against Kristina Mladenovic, and responded to it by inflicting a double-bagel in the following sets.

The Oeiras final looked promising and it delivered top-notch entertainment! A thrilling match that was apparently destined to a lacklustre conclusion, due to Tauson’s physical issues, but transformed into a near 3-hour battle rich in drama, twists and turns, big runs, remarkable saves and (im)possible comebacks.

Each point is considered only once. Therefore, aces are not included in winner totals and double faults are not included in unforced error totals.

Our analysis will break the match in 3 parts:

1. Lamens builds a 6-4 5-0 lead

2. Tauson wins 11 of 12 games and reaches a 4-1 lead in the decider

3. Lamens wins the last 5 games of the match

Remarkably, the plot changed so much that even the first 2 parts can be divided in subparts.

1. Lamens builds a 6-4 5-0 lead

The match began with Tauson hitting 7 winners and 2 aces in the opening 4 games to grab a 3-1 advantage. Then came the first big run of the match, as Lamens won 10 of the following 11 games.

1.1 Lamens claimed the first set by efficiently dealing with and countering Tauson’s power. She did such a good job that she ended the set with 1 more winner (12 vs 11), despite Tauson’s torrid start. These numbers are indicative of Lamens’s quality of play, but it was her consistency that created the difference in the set: Lamens made 9 less unforced errors (5 vs 14).

1.2 Tauson had been showing signs of physical discomfort and she took a medical time-out after the opening game of the second set. To no avail, it seemed. She was struggling in set 2 while unforced errors were piling up (11 in the first 5 games of set 2). By continuing her solid play (6 winners to 2 unforced errors), Lamens reached a 6-4 5-0 lead and got within 1 game of her biggest career title.

Stats up until 4-6 0-5 (= part 1). Left panel shows part 1 totals. Middle panel shows set 1 stats. Right panel shows stats of the first 5 games of set 2.

Overall takeways from part 1:

• Lamens almost doubled-up on short points. That was the most striking stat. Lamens took advantage of Tauson’s 11 missed returns and she also hit 3 more first-strike winners (10 vs 7, aces included).

• Lamens commanded from the back of the court, winning 60% of baseline points.

• Tauson attacked the net 18 times but her win-rate was low (44%).

• Tauson wasn’t better when attempting a drop shot (45% success).

• Lamens’s forehand was on fire (13 winners to 4 UFEs).

• Tauson was struggling from the backhand side, but her forehand was just a few clicks better.

Intended direction of winners and unforced errors on groundstrokes (returns and volleys/overheads are not included). Down-the-line is considered broadly and includes more central shots that land on the same court half.

2. Tauson wins 11 of 12 games and reaches a 4-1 lead in the decider

On the brink of defeat, Tauson remained invested and she was rewarded for it. Suddenly, in a spectacular turn-around, her shots were landing inside the lines and she found success in everything she tried: serves, groundstrokes, net attacks or dropshots.

It was a magical run that started with 5 must-win games, reached 8 in a row and extended to 11 of 12, flipping the match on its head. It left Tauson with a 4-1 double-break lead in the decider.