Federer's net stats in his Grand Slam finals

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

I'm beginning to feel a little insulted. What's the silent treatment for Krosero?

He answered your question in posts #6 and #14.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I'd be interested to know Fed's and Sampras' net stats in their 2001 match on the fast grass at Wimbledon for the sake of comparison.

Originally Posted by krosero

Officially Sampras won 47 of 89 approaches (53%), Federer 31 of 62 (50%).

But Wimbledon's official stats are a little low, because of the way they do their net stats. They did not include any points in which the receiver failed to put the serve back in play. Sampras was coming in behind all of those serves, applying pressure on the receiver to make a pass, and forcing a lot of return errors. Federer was coming in behind most of his serves as well.

The difference is huge, because Sampras served on 189 points, and he came in behind all those serves -- but he's credited with only 89 approaches. Only the points in which the receiver managed to put the serve back in play are counted, and that's automatically a bias in favor of the receiver.

That method, excluding all unreturned serves when counting net play, has produced some very low success rates even for the best net players. The best example is know is Rafter, when he beat Agassi at Wimbledon in '01 (same year as Fed-Sampras). He served 161 points, and came in on all his serves. Plus he also came in a lot in Agassi's service games, since Andre was not serve-and-volleying. Yet Wimbledon.org credited Rafter with only 100 approaches for the match, winning only 49. A 49% success rate for the best volleyer of his generation. Strange, but the reason is undoubtedly that he didn't get credited for any of his unreturned serves, despite following them into net.

Limpin, I have more net stats for that Federer-Sampras match in '01. As you can see above, Wimbledon officially had the two men combining for 151 net approaches of all kinds, including SV. This past weekend at the Olympics, Ted Robinson said that Fed and Sampras combined for 264 serve-and-volley points in that match.

That right there shows how Wimbledon's official stats reflect a narrow definition definition of what constitutes a net approach. Someone else -- perhaps NBC's statistician -- counted over 100 more net points than Wimbledon.org did.

Undoubtedly those must be SV points on unreturned serves. So those points would raise Federer's and Sampras' success rates at net well above what their official rates were.

Incidentally Ted added that the very next year, in the Hewitt-Nalbandian final, there were no SV points. Zero.

That doesn't mean there were no net points in that match, because he's just talking about SV. Wimbledon.org has Hewitt winning 16 of 24 net approaches (67%) and Nalbandian 12 of 17 (71%).

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

Limpin, I have more net stats for that Federer-Sampras match in '01. As you can see above, Wimbledon officially had the two men combining for 151 net approaches of all kinds, including SV. This past weekend at the Olympics, Ted Robinson said that Fed and Sampras combined for 264 serve-and-volley points in that match.

That right there shows how Wimbledon's official stats reflect a narrow definition definition of what constitutes a net approach. Someone else -- perhaps NBC's statistician -- counted over 100 more net points than Wimbledon.org did.

Undoubtedly those must be SV points on unreturned serves. So those points would raise Federer's and Sampras' success rates at net well above what their official rates were.

Incidentally Ted added that the very next year, in the Hewitt-Nalbandian final, there were no SV points. Zero.

That doesn't mean there were no net points in that match, because he's just talking about SV. Wimbledon.org has Hewitt winning 16 of 24 net approaches (67%) and Nalbandian 12 of 17 (71%).

Ah, 2002 - the first year they slowed down the courts. You'd think that someone at Wimbledon would have noticed the complete and utter disappearance of serve and volley in the final. I know that is not either men's primary style - but they are both capable of it, and both have sound volleys. The fact that they never did it once - says heaps. And then Wimbledon's reaction to it? Let's slow it down much more! (Evidence: Difference between 2003 and late 2000's service angle and ball speed off the ground analysis of same speed from the racket of Federer. 2003 already had lots of slow down - by late 2000's it had slowed down much more!).

Question: Is there a secret desire by the Wimbledon committe to be the slowest Grand Slam tournament? The evidence points to this.....what I can't figure out is why.

[Mustard]

2002 Wimbledon was the most bizarre Wimbledon I think I've ever seen, and I don't think Wimbledon has ever been slower than what it was that year. Look at the early round upsets. Federer loses to Ancic, Agassi loses to Srichaphan, Sampras loses to Bastl, Safin loses to O. Rochus. Malisse beat serve and volleyers like Rusedski and Krajicek. Henman, despite getting to the semi finals, struggled throughout the tournament and said it was the slowest court he had played on all year. We had Nalbandian in the final, despite the fact that he hadn't played on centre court since he was a junior. It was truly odd.

Hewitt finally delivered at Wimbledon, though