Peak level of play (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic & Co.)

[krosero]

I've never been able to get UE for Kuerten-Federer at RG but I've found them, and a few other stats, at http://tennis.matchstat.com/index.ph...n&Id_Player2=1

2004 RG
Kuerten - 24.7%
Federer - 18.3%

It was a well played match, though there's something funny about the winner/error differentials. Federer's (+8 ) is higher than Kuerten's (+4): so if Kuerten did not get ahead by winners and UE's alone, he must have gotten a large margin over Federer in the category of forced errors.

[krosero]

Some others for Kuerten.

1997 RG final
Kuerten - 12.3%
Bruguera - (-1.5) (negative)

2000 RG final
Kuerten - 0.0%
Norman - (-0.6%) (negative)

2001 RG final
Kuerten - 5.7%
Corretja - (-5.7) (negative)

I wonder if the clay at RG was slower in those years than it was in 2004 or in recent years?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

that's mathematically impossible given nadal won 95 points and djoker won 79 points in that match .... (ATP site ) !

I typed out the wrong year. I meant the 2012 MC final which Nadal won 6-3, 6-1.

Another good catch, ABMK. Keep letting me know if something looks off -- I have all these AM's but I've never had the chance to really proof them.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by corners

Great stuff.

Crazy, Monfils is all over the place.

Last year when they met Federer had 24.0%, Tomic 5.9%. So an improvement this year for Tomic but not enough.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

I typed out the wrong year. I meant the 2012 MC final which Nadal won 6-3, 6-1.

Another good catch, ABMK. Keep letting me know if something looks off -- I have all these AM's but I've never had the chance to really proof them.

yeah, that's what I thought ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

I've never been able to get UE for Kuerten-Federer at RG but I've found them, and a few other stats, at http://tennis.matchstat.com/index.ph...n&Id_Player2=1

2004 RG
Kuerten - 24.7%
Federer - 18.3%

It was a well played match, though there's something funny about the winner/error differentials. Federer's (+8 ) is higher than Kuerten's (+4): so if Kuerten did not get ahead by winners and UE's alone, he must have gotten a large margin over Federer in the category of forced errors.

heh, thanks for that mentioning about that site. I'd seen that site, but I hadn't noticed that the graph icon was a hyperlink to the match stats.

I am not that surprised at federer's W-UE being better . Its happened on other occasions as far as fed is concerned ,

ex : in the RG 2010 QF,

fed was +13 and soderling was +7

in the wimbledon 2008 final,

fed was +37 and nadal was +33

[krosero]

Two night session matches late in Agassi's career, both five-setters.

2005 USO
Agassi - 18.6%
Blake - 16.7%

2006 USO
Agassi - 14.6%
Baghdatis - 10.9%

Nothing too surprising here. Agassi's number is lower in '06 as you would expect.

But the winner/error differentials are strange: in each match Agassi's was much poorer than the differential of the loser.

2006 W/E diff
Agassi (–13)
Baghdatis (–3)

2005 W/E diff
Agassi (–1)
Blake +14

[abmk]

From tennis.matchstat.com, I got the stat for one match I was searching for for quite some time :

federer ancic wimbledon 2006 QF:

federer : 35 winners, 17 UEs, 92 points won
ancic : 24 winners, 13 UEs, 75 points won

federer's AM ~ 37.1%
ancic's AM ~ 27%

This was a brilliant, highly under-rated match ... the scoreline of 6-4,6-4,6-4 does no justice to how well Ancic played . Federer was just too good and had all the answers ...

[abmk]

Another match from the same tourney ,

federer-berdych wimbledon 2006 4R :

federer : 47 W, 15 UEs, 93 points won
berdych : 19 W, 20 UEs, 64 points won

federer's AM ~ 37%
berdych's AM ~ 18.5%

[krosero]

Thanks for those, I was wondering about those very matches.

[krosero]

2006 Wimbledon
Nadal - 41.2%
Agassi - 28.9%

This is the highest AM we have for Nadal apart from the '08 Wimb QF over Murray. And Agassi's AM is pretty good, considering it's '06.

I knew Nadal played better grasscourt tennis in '06 than he is often given credit for, though I was not expecting to find an AM over 40%.

[corners]

Originally Posted by krosero

2006 Wimbledon
Nadal - 41.2%
Agassi - 28.9%

This is the highest AM we have for Nadal apart from the '08 Wimb QF over Murray. And Agassi's AM is pretty good, considering it's '06.

I knew Nadal played better grasscourt tennis in '06 than he is often given credit for, though I was not expecting to find an AM over 40%.

Yeah, that's pretty surprising.

[piece]

Originally Posted by krosero

2006 Wimbledon
Nadal - 41.2%
Agassi - 28.9%

This is the highest AM we have for Nadal apart from the '08 Wimb QF over Murray. And Agassi's AM is pretty good, considering it's '06.

I knew Nadal played better grasscourt tennis in '06 than he is often given credit for, though I was not expecting to find an AM over 40%.

Funny, when abmk initially asked what match it might be that Nadal had an AM over 40 for, I wondered whether it would be a match from 2006 Wimbledon. I remember, for instance, that Nadal hit over 20 winners to 3 unforced errors (or thereabouts) in one of the sets he won against Federer in the final.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by piece

I remember, for instance, that Nadal hit over 20 winners to 3 unforced errors (or thereabouts) in one of the sets he won against Federer in the final.

That's right, in the third set he had exactly 20w and 3ue.

[krosero]

2006 Wimb SF
Nadal - 35.0%
Baghdatis - 24.7%

Again this is very high; on grass I have only two AM's higher for Nadal, both in '08, against Youzhny and Murray.

I don't think this is an accident or a quirk of the stats. Unforced errors, of course, will always be subjective, but Nadal also has objective stats that are off the charts at this Wimbledon.

I'm referring to his streak of 80 consecutive service holds, broken in the final. The record is 118 straight by Sampras. Since Pete's time there have been only a few streaks at Wimbledon better than Nadal's: Federer had 105 straight holds stretching across the 2003-04 Wimbledons; Karlovic got 80 straight in '09; and Isner and Mahut each got 85 straight in their match.

Nadal, with his serve, is the unlikeliest candidate to post such a streak. But these AM's show that he was playing at a very high level -- maybe playing "out of his mind," or zoning.

His stats so far support the argument that he reached his grasscourt peak in '08 and that in '06 he was already closer to that peak than is generally assumed. In the '06 final which he lost in 4 sets, he produced an AM of only 22.4%, but that was partly due to how nervous he was at the start, when he got bageled.

[corners]

Originally Posted by krosero

2006 Wimb SF
Nadal - 35.0%
Baghdatis - 24.7%

Again this is very high; on grass I have only two AM's higher for Nadal, both in '08, against Youzhny and Murray.

I don't think this is an accident or a quirk of the stats. Unforced errors, of course, will always be subjective, but Nadal also has objective stats that are off the charts at this Wimbledon.

I'm referring to his streak of 80 consecutive service holds, broken in the final. The record is 118 straight by Sampras. Since Pete's time there have been only a few streaks at Wimbledon better than Nadal's: Federer had 105 straight holds stretching across the 2003-04 Wimbledons; Karlovic got 80 straight in '09; and Isner and Mahut each got 85 straight in their match.

Nadal, with his serve, is the unlikeliest candidate to post such a streak. But these AM's show that he was playing at a very high level -- maybe playing "out of his mind," or zoning.

His stats so far support the argument that he reached his grasscourt peak in '08 and that in '06 he was already closer to that peak than is generally assumed. In the '06 final which he lost in 4 sets, he produced an AM of only 22.4%, but that was partly due to how nervous he was at the start, when he got bageled.

If I remember right that first set featured lots of Federer sliced returns that landed right at the service mark, which really seemed to throw off Nadal, like he didn't know what to do with that ball. TV cut to Roche several times and I remember thinking, "Clever old fox, you." That was probably the last time Fed received dividends for hitting slices in large doses to Nadal.

[corners]

[abmk]

Originally Posted by corners

If I remember right that first set featured lots of Federer sliced returns that landed right at the service mark, which really seemed to throw off Nadal, like he didn't know what to do with that ball. TV cut to Roche several times and I remember thinking, "Clever old fox, you." That was probably the last time Fed received dividends for hitting slices in large doses to Nadal.

that was a feature of that whole match, not just the first set ..

nadal committed quite a few errors of his FH wing because of that ... his BH however was on fire and he hit loads of winners with it ..

[corners]

Originally Posted by abmk

that was a feature of that whole match, not just the first set ..

nadal committed quite a few errors of his FH wing because of that ... his BH however was on fire and he hit loads of winners with it ..

Thanks. I'll have to go back and watch that one. Haven't seen it in over six years

Do you think it was immediately after that match that Toni and Rafa resolved to attack the slice mercilessly? Nowadays, Rafa seems utterly committed to attacking the slice with the forehand whenever he sees it, and with the spin he can produce he can rip the short slice up over the net and into a corner like no one else. He's nearly eliminated that shot from Roger's arsenal when they play, further torturing Fed's backhand side. I also remember reading a piece by Steve Tignor in which he relates walking by a practice court at Indian Wells and seeing Rafa ripping backhands off short slices too (this was maybe 3-4 years ago). The domination of your backhand is now complete, no?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by corners

What's fun about this is when the finalists emerge, we can see if the one with the higher AM's wins.

I have not heard of the AM method being used that way (to predict the winner of a tournament). And if we do it by adding up the percentages and getting an average for each player, I'm not certain how exact that can be. But let's see what we get.