View Single Post
Old 01-14-2013, 09:12 PM   #126
abmk
G.O.A.T.
 
abmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: India
Posts: 14,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krosero View Post
1. Federer gained something by being aggressive with Murray's second serve, and the cost was a few more missed serves, because he was going for them. Agreed on that. I think you're saying that when we look at the fact that his Return In % was basically the same as what it was in the semis we should take the missed serves into account. He may have missed them, but he also gained something by attacking the second serve. I could see that. There's a good case his returning quality in the two matches was very similar.
yeah, exactly my point ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by krosero View Post
2. Not sure I understand you here. Our working assumption is that net play of any kind, not just SV, reduces the chances for UE's because only 1 player (the one rushing the net) can now make an UE; the defender will either make a winner or a forced error.

I don't think you're saying that SV net play results in more UE's than net play behind approaches (or are you?)

Keep in mind we were debating why there were more UE's scored in the final than in the semi. That's the issue I'm talking about.

Are you saying that the baseline rallies in these matches -- the points on which all 4 players stayed back throughout the point -- were different in the final, and more likely to end in UEs, because Federer and Murray were trying to get into net?

Net play does reduce the chance of UEs, but even in this there are variations, SnV reduces it drastically. In case of a point constructed from the baseline and then the net approach made, there is still quite a bit of chance for the players to commit the UE - while the point is being constructed . Therefore it isn't logical to completely exclude those net points either from the semi or the final while computing unforced errors in rallies ...
abmk is online now   Reply With Quote