At their best, who would win?

[Warriorroger]

grass Roger Federer & Steffi Graf
Clay Rafael Nadal & Monica Seles
hardcourt Pete Sampras & Serena Williams
Indoor Roger Federer & Steffi Graf

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, You seem to be happy only when contradicting me in EVERY point.

Murray reached his peak not at the AO or Wimbledon but a bit later.

and that is based on what exactly ?

even before that he took djoker to 5 sets at the AO having BPs late in the set, but lost on only 4 sets to federer ..... how did that happen when super-duper djoker has a much higher peak than federer ?

how did murray beat nadal at HC slams twice before and not win a single set vs federer in their 2 HC slam meetings ?

how did 30+ year old federer beat djoker @ the FO taking 3 sets off him on clay, while prime nadal couldn't get one set off him in 2 matches on clay in 2011 ...

how did 30+ year old federer nearly beat djoker @ the USO when nadal got pumelled in the final and had to scramble to win a set ...

how did 31 year old federer beat djoker @ wimbledon in 4 sets in 2012 whereas rafa lost to him in 4 in 2011 wimbledon ?

how is this possible if super-duper rafa and djoker have much higher peaks than federer ?

and , I'm just having fun at your plainly dumb, and I repeat dumb thinking .... even die-hard *******s and *********s wouldn't say their nadal's/djoker's peak level is much higher than federer's .....

I just want to see how far you can push this .......

that includes thinking that the likes of kramer, laver, connors, borg , sampras , agassi etc ( from all generations of tennis players ) who speak so highly of federer's level of play are stupid enough to do so ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes, but most sets between top pros are close regardless of the surface, Nadal is 11-2 (or something like that, I'd have to check) against Fed on clay yet how many blow-out or even routine sets he had against Fed?

not really ... it isn't necessary that most of the sets b/w top pros be close ...

see USO 2011 final for example : djoker was in complete control in sets 1,2 and 4 ..

in wimbledon 2011 for example : djoker won sets 2 and 4 convincingly whereas nadal won set 3 convincingly

federer tried to go toe-to-toe with djoker from the baseline and was having trouble with djoker's shotmaking in 2008/11 ...... but he had an easier time vs safin in AO 2004 & 2005 and even agassi in AO 2005... this even though safin /agassi's groundstrokes are more powerful than djoker's ....... just tells me quite a bit of it has to do with fed's below par performances/age in those matches .....

given federer was nowhere close to his best in either of those matches and djoker was and the sets were that close , I'd expect federer to edge him out at it his best with him able to control the baseline quite a bit better than he did on those 2 occasions ....just my 2 cents .

Originally Posted by zagor

Well I shouldn't have just said court coverage, Hewitt and Ferrer are fast and fit but do not hit on the run as well as Novak, his transition from defense to offense in 2011 was amazing.

yeah, agreed ....just saying only insane defense didn't trouble federer as hewitt in particular found out ....

Originally Posted by zagor

Obviously but he's still one of the best in this era at defending against it, of course there's Nadal against whom Fed's inside out FH goes to Nadal's FH (which means he's screwed if he doesn't hit it perfectly well)

well, I don't know exactly why , but its just the impression I've got from watching their matches ...

djoker does better in CC exchanges than you'd expect given the strength of their respective FHs and less better against fed's I/O and DTL FHs while defending on his BH side ( given the strength of his BH in general ) .... while the former is atleast in part due to federer's movement to the right declining since 2008 , I'm not sure what exactly to pin-point to for the later part .....

Originally Posted by zagor

Well I disagree regarding current's AO surface atleast, can't say about rebound ace but keep in mind that Novak also beat Fed in Canada in 2007 on slow HC and that was still peak Fed, Novak's level of play in that tourney was far above anything he showed in 2009 and 2010.

yeah, only novak won both sets in TBs and fed won a set 6-2 ... fed's BO3 performances had declined by then though he was darn good in all the 4 slams in 2007 ....I wouldn't say the one at montreal is slow, but rather medium in speed ...

[Feather]

Originally Posted by abmk

and that is based on what exactly ?

even before that he took djoker to 5 sets at the AO having BPs late in the set, but lost on only 4 sets to federer ..... how did that happen when super-duper djoker has a much higher peak than federer ?

how did murray beat nadal at HC slams twice before and not win a single set vs federer in their 2 HC slam meetings ?

how did 30+ year old federer beat djoker @ the FO taking 3 sets off him on clay, while prime nadal couldn't get one set off him in 2 matches on clay in 2011 ...

how did 30+ year old federer nearly beat djoker @ the USO when nadal got pumelled in the final and had to scramble to win a set ...

how did 31 year old federer beat djoker @ wimbledon in 4 sets in 2012 whereas rafa lost to him in 4 in 2011 wimbledon ?

how is this possible if super-duper rafa and djoker have much higher peaks than federer ?

and , I'm just having fun at your plainly dumb, and I repeat dumb thinking .... even die-hard *******s and *********s wouldn't say their nadal's/djoker's peak level is much higher than federer's .....

I just want to see how far you can push this .......

that includes thinking that the likes of kramer, laver, connors, borg , sampras , agassi etc ( from all generations of tennis players ) who speak so highly of federer's level of play are stupid enough to do so ....

The reason he said Murray reached peak after Wimbledon is to discredit Federer's win at Wimbledon 2012. Federer beat a baby Murray

Some of the arguments here are comedy gold. Pete Sampras has a losing head to head against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin because he was declining. Roger won only two slams out of his last twelve is a knock on Federer as Roger Federer is a machine and he is in his peak. Coincidentally Pete also won only two of his last twelve slams

Seriously people who say or imply that Roger Federer is still in his peak have either haven't seen him play during his peak or are here to push their own agenda

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

When he beat Verdasco at the 2009 AO, in a match praised for its quality, he made 52 winners and 25 unforced errors compared to Verdasco's 95 winners and 76 unforced errors. Verdasco's a perfect example of someone whose game is much more based on hitting winners, when compared to Nadal. Verdasco had almost twice as many winners as Nadal. But his differential is not larger than Rafa's. Nadal had a winner/error differential of +27, Verdasco +19.

that winner to UE ratio in that match is an interesting one ...... that along with the below mentioned stats back up my impression that while plexi was still decent pace in 2008-09 .... its slowed down quite a bit in 2010,11 and 12

in the AO 2009 finals, federer was +7 and nadal was +9 ( federer was +7 inspite of a series of unforced errors from 2 all in the final set )

contrast this to the 2010 AO final where federer inspite of playing by some distance better was only +4 vs murray

in the AO 2011 semi-final, where djoker played arguably his finest match , he was -5 or -6 ( I can't get the exact stat now , this is just from my memory )

in the AO 2011 final , where djoker played very well , he was -7 vs murray , who was nowhere near playing good tennis ...

and of course in AO 2012 finals, both djoker and nadal were well into the negative (-12 for djoker and -27 for nadal )

Originally Posted by krosero

Federer has higher Aggressive Margins than either Nadal or Djokovic -- and I will post those, I have several dozen spanning their careers -- but I just wanted to say in passing that the highest Aggressive Margin I've ever calculated belongs to John McEnroe in the 1984 Wimbledon final: 52.8%.

not surprised at that ... what are federer's, sampras', nadal's and agassi's highest in the matches you have the stats of ?

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by abmk

that winner to UE ratio in that match is an interesting one ...... that along with the below mentioned stats back up my impression that while plexi was still decent pace in 2008-09 .... its slowed down quite a bit in 2010,11 and 12

in the AO 2009 finals, federer was +7 and nadal was +9 ( federer was +7 inspite of a series of unforced errors from 2 all in the final set )

contrast this to the 2010 AO final where federer inspite of playing by some distance better was only +4 vs murray

in the AO 2011 semi-final, where djoker played arguably his finest match , he was -5 or -6 ( I can't get the exact stat now , this is just from my memory )

in the AO 2011 final , where djoker played very well , he was -7 vs murray , who was nowhere near playing good tennis ...

and of course in AO 2012 finals, both djoker and nadal were well into the negative (-12 for djoker and -27 for nadal )




not surprised at that ... what are federer's, sampras', nadal's and agassi's highest in the matches you have the stats of ?

Well I can tell you, about the UE to winners ratio (and you probably already know this) that it is because those matches that are in the negatives are a byproduct of two great defenders as well as what you mentioned that the court is slow. In a match between two great defenders you will see more UE than winners, hence the negative ratio.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Well I can tell you, about the UE to winners ratio (and you probably already know this) that it is because those matches that are in the negatives are a byproduct of two great defenders as well as what you mentioned that the court is slow. In a match between two great defenders you will see more UE than winners, hence the negative ratio.

again, both fed and nadal were defending very well in the AO 2009 final, but ended up with a clear positive differential ....

djoker was playing his very best tennis against federer in the 2011 semi ,where federer was moving and defending much worse than he did in the 2009 final, yet djoker ends up in the negative !?

verdasco was in contrast +19 vs nadal in the AO 2009 semi and we all know how insanely well nadal defended in that one .......

federer playing by some distance better vs murray in the AO 2010 final in comparison to the 2009 final (this with nadal playing by some distance better than murray and fed's flurry of UEs towards the end of the 2009 match ), yet ends up with a worse winner/UE differential in the 2010 final ?

doesn't add up if the speed of the courts stayed the same, does it ?

[Tennis Dunce]

Men: David Nalbandian
Women: David Nalbandian dressed in drag Tom Hanks style
junior: David Nalbandian's kid

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Match stats are interesting, but somehow tricky to use. I think you use them wisely, by taking into account the quality of the data and by controlling the context of the matches. I couldn't find what I was looking for on the link you provided (very good to know by the way), but I research in the future. Could be interesting to do some stats during the AO, where I would be able to add precise qualitative analysis to the numbers analysis.

You put it very succinctly there: "controlling the context of the matches." That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Match stats can become very confusing when the variables change, which is why I like to group together matches like Fed/Djoker 5 years in a row at USO, or Fed/Nadal 3 years in a row at Wimbledon.

If there's something you can't find don't hesitate to ask, I may have it.

And I'd look forward to any analysis you do at AO.

Originally Posted by abmk

that winner to UE ratio in that match is an interesting one ...... that along with the below mentioned stats back up my impression that while plexi was still decent pace in 2008-09 .... its slowed down quite a bit in 2010,11 and 12

in the AO 2009 finals, federer was +7 and nadal was +9 ( federer was +7 inspite of a series of unforced errors from 2 all in the final set )

contrast this to the 2010 AO final where federer inspite of playing by some distance better was only +4 vs murray

in the AO 2011 semi-final, where djoker played arguably his finest match , he was -5 or -6 ( I can't get the exact stat now , this is just from my memory )

in the AO 2011 final , where djoker played very well , he was -7 vs murray , who was nowhere near playing good tennis ...

and of course in AO 2012 finals, both djoker and nadal were well into the negative (-12 for djoker and -27 for nadal )

That contrast between the '09 and '10 finals does stand out. Federer faced far better opposition from Rafa than he got from Andy. As you mentioned, Nadal's defense in that '09 match was insane. Yet Federer managed a higher winner/error ratio when facing Nadal. Against Murray's inferior performance Fed didn't have such a high ratio.

So you could be right about the surface slowing down.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that long matches produce larger differentials (both negative and positive). That's because long matches result in large numbers of winners and errors. Nadal and Federer played five sets and hit many more winners than Murray and Federer did in their 3 sets. So when you subtract the errors from the winners in a long match, the differentials end up higher.

Fed, for example, had 71 winners and 64 ue in the '09 match. If that match had been half as long, he'd have 35 winners and 32 errors: differential of +3, rather than +7.

Check out Federer's gargantuan numbers in the '09 Wimbledon final and you'll see an even better example of what marathon length can do to differentials.

Same with negative differentials. That AO final last year was one of the longest of all time, so Djokovic and Nadal falling to -12 and -27 is a bit deceptive. In a match of half that length those numbers might be -6 and -13.

I think your point still stands, but it's something to keep in mind....

Originally Posted by abmk

not surprised at that ... what are federer's, sampras', nadal's and agassi's highest in the matches you have the stats of ?

I'll put those figures in a separate thread. Quick summary: highest I have for Federer is 50.0%; for Sampras, 40.0%; for Djokovic, 39.1%; for Nadal, 34.7%; for Agassi, 34.1%.

I think we could find significantly higher ones for Sampras, but I can't find official Unforced Errors for some of his best performances (ie, 1995 and '99 Wimbledon finals).

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

That contrast between the '09 and '10 finals does stand out. Federer faced far better opposition from Rafa than he got from Andy. As you mentioned, Nadal's defense in that '09 match was insane. Yet Federer managed a higher winner/error ratio when facing Nadal. Against Murray's inferior performance Fed didn't have such a high ratio.

So you could be right about the surface slowing down.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that long matches produce larger differentials (both negative and positive). That's because long matches result in large numbers of winners and errors. Nadal and Federer played five sets and hit many more winners than Murray and Federer did in their 3 sets. So when you subtract the errors from the winners in a long match, the differentials end up higher.

Fed, for example, had 71 winners and 64 ue in the '09 match. If that match had been half as long, he'd have 35 winners and 32 errors: differential of +3, rather than +7.

Check out Federer's gargantuan numbers in the '09 Wimbledon final and you'll see an even better example of what marathon length can do to differentials.

Same with negative differentials. That AO final last year was one of the longest of all time, so Djokovic and Nadal falling to -12 and -27 is a bit deceptive. In a match of half that length those numbers might be -6 and -13.

I think your point still stands, but it's something to keep in mind....

fair enough, but that's applicable assuming the quality of the match stays more or less the same throughout ...

in the case of the AO final in 2009, we do know that from 2 all in the final set, federer's level dipped rapidly amidst a flurry of UEs, before that he might have been something like +15 .... just a guess ...

do you have the UE stats for the federer-djokovic AO 2008 SF ?

I'm pretty sure djoker would be well into the positive there unlike in the AO 2011 SF where he was in the negative ....

would be also very interested to have the winner/UE stats for nadal/tsonga SF ... to calculate the aggressive margin of tsonga

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=204257

Originally Posted by krosero

I'll put those figures in a separate thread. Quick summary: highest I have for Federer is 50.0%; for Sampras, 40.0%; for Djokovic, 39.1%; for Nadal, 34.7%; for Agassi, 34.1%.

I think we could find significantly higher ones for Sampras, but I can't find official Unforced Errors for some of his best performances (ie, 1995 and '99 Wimbledon finals).

cool, thanks .... Please do ... even I'll put the aggressive ratio for some of the match stats I have .....

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Yes, Federer has done better against these two players but, as told, fact remains that Federer did better against Nadal and Djokovic as long as these two were prior to their peak. I think we can see this at the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals.

That's true; Nadal and Djokovic did better against Federer when they moved into their peak. It's also a fact, however, that they started doing better against Federer when Roger's numbers against the whole field started dropping. Note how Federer's win/loss records took a significant drop from '06 to '07; and how Federer had strange losses starting in early '08 to men he had previously owned (Mardy Fish at Indian Wells, Roddick in Miami).

Federer got off to a terrible start in '08, before even meeting Nadal. In fact he closed out '07 winning his last two matches with Nadal; but then in '08 he failed to win any tournament between the AO and the beginning of the claycourt season, when he started meeting Nadal. The last time he had entered the claycourt season without a title under his belt was 2002.

In a post upthread I also showed that the drops in Federer's win/loss records from '06 onward could only be partly attributed to extra losses he was taking to Nadal and Djokovic. In some cases the drop could not be attributed to that at all. He had more losses in '07 than in '06, but that was not due at all to Nadal, because in '07 he actually cut down on his losses to Rafa.

One thing I'd like ask you concerns win/loss records (and this question is for PC1, too, since he has done a lot of work with yearly win/loss records). We know when young players like Nadal and Djokovic reach their peak, because we are guided by their win/loss records. Those records improve as the players mature, until a peak year when the player has his best win/loss record: that is presumed to be his peak; or near his peak.

So if win/loss records guide us in telling us when Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks, shouldn't win/loss records guide us in telling us when Federer started declining?

About Roddick and Hewitt: if you are right that Nadal and Djokovic have higher playing levels than Federer, then they should have gone through old Roddick and old Hewitt like a knife through butter. They should have dispatched those men at least as easily as Federer did. But the opposite is true: they did not have the same dominating scores over Hewitt and Roddick that Federer did over the peak versions of those men.

What I'm curious about -- I don't want to have a heated debate about it, just curious what you think -- is what you attribute all that to? Why do you think it went that way with Hewitt and Roddick, if Nadal and Djokovic really are better players than Federer?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

fair enough, but that's applicable assuming the quality of the match stays more or less the same throughout ...

in the case of the AO final in 2009, we do know that from 2 all in the final set, federer's level dipped rapidly amidst a flurry of UEs, before that he might have been something like +15 .... just a guess ...

do you have the UE stats for the federer-djokovic AO 2008 SF ?

I'm pretty sure djoker would be well into the positive there unlike in the AO 2011 SF where he was in the negative ....

would be also very interested to have the winner/UE stats for nadal/tsonga SF ... to calculate the aggressive margin of tsonga

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=204257

In the fifth set of the '09 final, Federer had 14ue, Nadal 2. Don't know what the numbers would have been from 2-all to the end.

2008 SF: Fed 38w, 32 ue. Djok 50w, 32 ue.
(These are all official stats from tournament websites; I did take my own stats on that match, and on others, but in order to control the context I'm sticking to the figures of the official statisticians.)

Novak's Aggressive Margin was 24.3%, Federer's 14.0%.

In the other semi Tsonga had 49w, 27ue. Nadal 13w, 12ue.

Tsonga's Aggressive Margin was 34.3%, Nadal's 12.3%.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

In the fifth set of the '09 final, Federer had 14ue, Nadal 2. Don't know what the numbers would have been from 2-all to the end.

I was able to access the stats using archive.org ( was having trouble accessing many of the entries in the AO site from archive.org till now )

in the final set, federer had 6 winners to 14 UEs

which makes it 65 winners to 50 UEs in 4 sets, a +15 .....

from sets 1 to 3, federer had 50 winners to 40 UEs (+10)

this is out of a total of 243 points from sets one to 3

in the AO 2010 final vs murray, he had 46 winners to 42 UEs

this is out of a total of 216 points ...

just showing that in this particular comparison, the length of the respective matches wasn't that big a factor , if at all !

Originally Posted by krosero

2008 SF: Fed 38w, 32 ue. Djok 50w, 32 ue.
(These are all official stats from tournament websites; I did take my own stats on that match, and on others, but in order to control the context I'm sticking to the figures of the official statisticians.)

Novak's Aggressive Margin was 24.3%, Federer's 14.0%.

In the other semi Tsonga had 49w, 27ue. Nadal 13w, 12ue.

Tsonga's Aggressive Margin was 34.3%, Nadal's 12.3%.

thanks .... from what you wrote in that thread, there are only minor discrepancies ..... so essentially both federer and djoker were clearly in the positive, djoker much more so .... in stark contrast to the AO 2011 SF ......

you have the aggressive margins wrong here !!

for instance,

tsonga won 89 points out of 146, out of which 12 were UEs from nadal, therefore aggressive margin = (89-12)/146 = 77/146=52.73%

surely one of the highest !?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

I was able to access the stats using archive.org ( was having trouble accessing many of the entries in the AO site from archive.org till now )

in the final set, federer had 6 winners to 14 UEs

which makes it 65 winners to 50 UEs in 4 sets, a +15 .....

from sets 1 to 3, federer had 50 winners to 40 UEs (+10)

this is out of a total of 243 points from sets one to 3

in the AO 2010 final vs murray, he had 46 winners to 42 UEs

this is out of a total of 216 points ...

just showing that in this particular comparison, the length of the respective matches wasn't that big a factor , if at all !

I see your argument, but I would be wary of cutting off any single part of a match in order to imagine what it would be like if it were shorter. You're leaving out the last part of the match, in which Federer had his worst patch ... and leaving in the parts where he hit the most winners. That supports your argument better -- and you may in fact be right in attributing those winners to surface changes -- but it's a less convincing argument, because you're using the parts of the match with the most winners.

Of course we all break down match statistics by set, for various purposes, and that's fine. But for measuring court speed I think it's best to think of a match as a whole, with a beginning, middle and conclusion. Every match, before it concludes, has highs and lows from each player. You're taking the 2010 match as a whole, with all its highs and lows, but comparing only against the highs of the 2009 match.

As a matter of method, why take out the fifth set? Why not leave out the opening set? Or take the middle three sets? Or take the last three sets?

None of those procedures are more valid than the others. They would produce different numbers, of course, which is why I think it's best just to use percentages. If you want to imagine a long match as one half of its actual length (50%), then just cut the winners and errors in half.

Now, the two Federer/Djokovic semis, in '08 and '11 -- that's a much more convincing argument, because you're not leaving out any part of the matches. And the matches are of equal length.

And definitely there's a dramatic difference in the winner/error differentials. I'd say, as long as some other factor is not at play (like different statisticians counting UE's differently), it does look like something is going on there with court speed.

Originally Posted by abmk

thanks .... from what you wrote in that thread, there are only minor discrepancies ..... so essentially both federer and djoker were clearly in the positive, djoker much more so .... in stark contrast to the AO 2011 SF ......

Yes, the winners in the official stats are generally a little higher than mine, because I only count clean winners.

Yup, it's gotten easier to pull up old sites and stats from web archive. There are many stats I couldn't pull up a couple of years that I found just recently.

Originally Posted by abmk

you have the aggressive margins wrong here !!

for instance,

tsonga won 89 points out of 146, out of which 12 were UEs from nadal, therefore aggressive margin = (89-12)/146 = 77/146=52.73%

surely one of the highest !?

You're forgetting the last step of calculating an Aggressive Margin. A player's unforced errors have to be subtracted from his aggressive points.

It's laid out here: http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medi...1_original.PDF

That number you have for Tsonga (52.739%), is a correct tally of how many points he won by hitting winners and forcing errors. Of all the points played in the match, he won more than half with aggressive plays. That is genuinely astounding and it shows how aggressive he can be.

But his aggressive margin is how aggressive he was, minus the errors that he made. That's the measure: how aggressive can you be while still keeping your errors down.

He made 27 unforced errors; or to put it another way, he made errors on 18.49% of all the points played. So his Aggressive Margin is 52.74% - 18.49% = 34.25%.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

I see your argument, but I would be wary of cutting off any single part of a match in order to imagine what it would be like if it were shorter. You're leaving out the last part of the match, in which Federer had his worst patch ... and leaving in the parts where he hit the most winners. That supports your argument better -- and you may in fact be right in attributing those winners to surface changes -- but it's a less convincing argument, because you're using the parts of the match with the most winners.

Of course we all break down match statistics by set, for various purposes, and that's fine. But for measuring court speed I think it's best to think of a match as a whole, with a beginning, middle and conclusion. Every match, before it concludes, has highs and lows from each player. You're taking the 2010 match as a whole, with all its highs and lows, but comparing only against the highs of the 2009 match.

As a matter of method, why take out the fifth set? Why not leave out the opening set? Or take the middle three sets? Or take the last three sets?

None of those procedures are more valid than the others. They would produce different numbers, of course, which is why I think it's best just to use percentages. If you want to imagine a long match as one half of its actual length (50%), then just cut the winners and errors in half.

I see what you are saying about cutting of sets and it is valid of course. But we do know in this specific case about federer's flurry of UEs in the 5th set ...... the 5th set was nothing like the first 4 sets which were of high quality ......

Till 4 sets, when he was playing well , he had 65 winners to 50 UEs

in 3 sets, when he was playing even better vs murray, he had only 46 winners to 42 UEs

just doesn't add up .....


I'm not saying these stats along are proof enough of what I was trying to say, just an indication that the length of the respective matches , I don't think has a bearing on this particular comparison at the very least ...

fair enough, even leaving that aside ......

I think the federer/murray and federer/nadal matches are just as convincing a case, if not more, in comparison to the 2 federer-novak semis, given we do know that nadal played quite a bit better than murray did and that federer did play better in the AO 2010 final (in particular serving ) .....

it doesn't just add up if the factors affecting the speed of the surface hadn't changed ...

Originally Posted by krosero

Now, the two Federer/Djokovic semis, in '08 and '11 -- that's a much more convincing argument, because you're not leaving out any part of the matches. And the matches are of equal length.

And definitely there's a dramatic difference in the winner/error differentials. I'd say, as long as some other factor is not at play (like different statisticians counting UE's differently), it does look like something is going on there with court speed.

Yes, the winners in the official stats are generally a little higher than mine, because I only count clean winners.

Yup, it's gotten easier to pull up old sites and stats from web archive. There are many stats I couldn't pull up a couple of years that I found just recently.

yeah, I think the stats @ the AO are fine, not off by significant margins in any case ....

just my impression from having watched those matches ...

do you have your count of UEs from fed-novak in the 2008 semi ?

Originally Posted by krosero

You're forgetting the last step of calculating an Aggressive Margin. A player's unforced errors have to be subtracted from his aggressive points.

It's laid out here: http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medi...1_original.PDF

That number you have for Tsonga (52.739%), is a correct tally of how many points he won by hitting winners and forcing errors. Of all the points played in the match, he won more than half with aggressive plays. That is genuinely astounding and it shows how aggressive he can be.

But his aggressive margin is how aggressive he was, minus the errors that he made. That's the measure: how aggressive can you be while still keeping your errors down.

He made 27 unforced errors; or to put it another way, he made errors on 18.49% of all the points played. So his Aggressive Margin is 52.74% - 18.49% = 34.25%.

yeah, that's right .... my bad ... I missed the UEs, part of it ... you are right ....

total forcing points won out of the total points of course is only a good measure of how agressive the player was , doesn't take into consideration the UEs made ....

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

I see what you are saying about cutting of sets and it is valid of course. But we do know in this specific case about federer's flurry of UEs in the 5th set ...... the 5th set was nothing like the first 4 sets which were of high quality ......

Till 4 sets, when he was playing well , he had 65 winners to 50 UEs

in 3 sets, when he was playing even better vs murray, he had only 46 winners to 42 UEs

just doesn't add up .....


I'm not saying these stats along are proof enough of what I was trying to say, just an indication that the length of the respective matches , I don't think has a bearing on this particular comparison at the very least ...

fair enough, even leaving that aside ......

I think the federer/murray and federer/nadal matches are just as convincing a case, if not more, in comparison to the 2 federer-novak semis, given we do know that nadal played quite a bit better than murray did and that federer did play better in the AO 2010 final (in particular serving ) .....

it doesn't just add up if the factors affecting the speed of the surface hadn't changed ...

No, I just don't find the 2009-10 comparison to be as persuasive as the Fed/Djoker semifinal pairings in 2008 and 2011. Not only is the dropoff in winners larger in the 2008/2011 comparison: but comparisons that do not cut off any part of the matches in question are always more persuasive; and comparisons that use just two players are always more persuasive. A three-player comparison (Nadal/Federer/Murray) just complicates the picture.

It's getting really abstract now what we're talking about, but the main reason I balk at cutting out the fifth set of the Nadal-Federer match is that what happened in that set may well be connected to the surface speed. For example, Federer's level of play collapsed in the fifth set; on a faster surface that might not have happened. It could be that on the slow Plexicushion surface he found it difficult, for four sets, to hit winners (difficult to play his game); and that this was a factor in his collapse in the fifth. In other words he may have exceeded his level for four sets. On a faster surface Federer might have found it less draining, for the first four sets, to hit winners; and in the fifth, when he wanted to hit a winner, he would have found it easier to pull one off, if the surface was more to his advantage.

You see what I'm getting at, about why it's suspect to leave out any part of a match? Just because the part you're leaving out is uncharacteristic of the player in question does not render that set meaningless. It may be uncharacteristic, but it still happened; and one of its causes may have been tied in to the surface.

In the 2010 final you can do the same thing. You could say that Murray's level in the first two sets was not his best, so you're not going to count those sets; you'll just go with the third set, which went to a tiebreak. Why not, after all?

Well I think that's equally problematic. And Murray's highs and lows might be connected to the surface, too. I'm not saying this was the case with Murray in particular, but maybe a player gets off to a bad start in the first two sets -- cannot play his best until the third set -- partly because the surface speed is not to his liking. Maybe on a faster, or slower, surface his performance would have looked different.

Anyway this is very abstract now; we're just talking about method. I don't think we disagree on any essential aspects of the matches we're talking about; and we agree that the Fed/Djok semis are a strong case.

Originally Posted by abmk

do you have your count of UEs from fed-novak in the 2008 semi ?

I didn't count UEs in that match.

Do you have the official UE counts for the 2006 Fed-nadal SF at the Masters Cup? I have the official stats for all their other YEC meetings.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

No, I just don't find the 2009-10 comparison to be as persuasive as the Fed/Djoker semifinal pairings in 2008 and 2011. Not only is the dropoff in winners larger in the 2008/2011 comparison: but comparisons that do not cut off any part of the matches in question are always more persuasive; and comparisons that use just two players are always more persuasive. A three-player comparison (Nadal/Federer/Murray) just complicates the picture.

It's getting really abstract now what we're talking about, but the main reason I balk at cutting out the fifth set of the Nadal-Federer match is that what happened in that set may well be connected to the surface speed. For example, Federer's level of play collapsed in the fifth set; on a faster surface that might not have happened. It could be that on the slow Plexicushion surface he found it difficult, for four sets, to hit winners (difficult to play his game); and that this was a factor in his collapse in the fifth. In other words he may have exceeded his level for four sets. On a faster surface Federer might have found it less draining, for the first four sets, to hit winners; and in the fifth, when he wanted to hit a winner, he would have found it easier to pull one off, if the surface was more to his advantage.

You see what I'm getting at, about why it's suspect to leave out any part of a match? Just because the part you're leaving out is uncharacteristic of the player in question does not render that set meaningless. It may be uncharacteristic, but it still happened; and one of its causes may have been tied in to the surface.

In the 2010 final you can do the same thing. You could say that Murray's level in the first two sets was not his best, so you're not going to count those sets; you'll just go with the third set, which went to a tiebreak. Why not, after all?

Well I think that's equally problematic. And Murray's highs and lows might be connected to the surface, too. I'm not saying this was the case with Murray in particular, but maybe a player gets off to a bad start in the first two sets -- cannot play his best until the third set -- partly because the surface speed is not to his liking. Maybe on a faster, or slower, surface his performance would have looked different.

Anyway this is very abstract now; we're just talking about method. I don't think we disagree on any essential aspects of the matches we're talking about; and we agree that the Fed/Djok semis are a strong case.

fair enough ...

Originally Posted by krosero

I didn't count UEs in that match.

Do you have the official UE counts for the 2006 Fed-nadal SF at the Masters Cup? I have the official stats for all their other YEC meetings.

no, I don't. Will post if I do get it.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

actually, no, he was playing darn well in 2009 RG as well ..... he reached the YEC finals in 2009 ... had an injury that kept him out for most of 2010 ..... after comeback in 2011 is still consistently making the QFs of slams and obviously he's back in the top 8



given, he was a RG champion >> yeah, that is a good win ! but then you didn't even know moya was a RG champion , did you ?????? yet you keep talking about the likes of franulovic ! LOL !

I watched Moya beat Corretja in the 98 final.Corretja choked.Moya was pretty good, anyway.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

abmk,

I think Kiki's putting us on with some of this with Kodes. I agree with your arguments about Kodes. I think I actually mentioned some of that in my posts. Honestly to mention Vines with Kodes is downright silly. Vines has been called the greatest ever and the reasons aren't bad. Vines (and please don't attack me Federer fans) is a better comparison with Federer than Kodes because so many have called him the GOAT. No one calls Kodes the GOAT. Vines has been argued to be the best athlete in the history of tennis with the best forehand and serve. Vines has also been the top player in the world for many years. Incidentally fyi Vines has the second best winning percentage I believe in majors outside of Bjorn Borg. I'm including Pro Majors in this. Kodes doesn't have that type of resume.

But still I am amused by Kiki's devotion to Kodes. I will say this about Kodes, his best was higher than many top players I've seen. I think his best was higher than Vilas on fast surfaces for example. I've seen Kodes play out of his mind against John Newcombe. Newcombe had to raise the level of his game to defeat Kodes in that US Open final and I can tell you from watching Newcombe that tournament that Newcombe was playing awesome tennis. I don't remember what the predictions were but I'm fairly certain most people didn't give Kodes much of a chance to even make it that close.

This is a honest post on Kodes.I never said he was a megatalent but he certainly has one of the best ration talent/major wins and he was a very complete all round player, with no big weapon ( still his backhand return was just a notch belwo Connors or Rosewall, but an excellent shot).He was extremely fit and had the heart of a true lion.ABMK´s ignorance putting guys like Roddick and even ¡ Henman¡ who had just one fifteenth part of Kodes champion menthality is just amazing but he´s clearly never seen tennis before current era.

As for Newcombe, he was extraordinary at increasing his level when he needed that.few posters talk about him but he was a true true champion.I´ll say more, he is the only guy in the 70´s that i´d bet my money on him if he had to play Bjorn Borg at the Wimbledon final.a Borg-newcombe Wimbledon final would have certainly been the best grass court match of the decade.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

sure he was, just that IMO, players like hewitt, safin, stich, roddick, murray etc are just clearly better players than him .......

its not like I am comparing kodes to mediocre players and calling him worse than them , is it ?

even players like mecir, rios, nalbandian, tsonga etc are darn good players and highly talented, but they didn't win majors - they faced full fields throughout their careers ....

kodes is nowhere strong enough to be a 3-major champ in full fields .....

the fields in which he won majors were depleted/weak ones with many strong players missing ..... this is a FACT .....kiki refuses to acknowledge this while BSing about "weak era" for federer .... gimme a break !!!!

and kiki even compares him to Vines, #1 player for several years in the 30s !! Again, are you like kidding me ??????

and again and again, just keeps on exposing his ignorance - see the part regarding henman/taylor .....

ABMK has found the right equation for champion heart and balls:
Murray,Roddick and Henman x 15= Kodes