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

[smoledman]

I hate the current way the UFE stat is counted up in matches. As far as I'm concerned the level of pressure at the ATP level is already so high that every error is forced.

[Benhur]

About a year ago I had an idea that turned out to be similar to the AM, and opened a thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=412175
analyzing Nadal’s last 7 slam finals up to that point. Then I was reminded by Moose Malloy that a similar concept already existed and was called the Aggressive Margin. I later learned that the inventor of the concept is a statistician named Bill Jacobson.

But I still think it is more useful to break down the AM number into its two components the way I did in that thread, mainly because it allows you to see much better why a match was won.

To illustrate, take these two Berdych-Nadal matches that I looked at in that thread (the phrase “points forcibly won” means “points won by anything other than UEs from the opponent”).

Nadal-Berdych, AO 2012
Points forcibly won as percentage of total points played
Nadal 33%
Berdych 38%
Total 72% (rounded)

UEs made as percentage of total points played
Nadal 10%
Berdych 18%
Total 28%

Balance: Nadal 23, Berdych 20 [+3]

Now, this is what you may expect from such a matchup. Berdych with a higher ratio of “forcibly won” points, but Nadal overcoming the difference with a comparatively larger difference in the UE ratio.

Then consider the following match between the same pair of players.

Nadal-Berdych, Wimbledon 2010
Points forcibly won as percentage of total points played
Nadal 44%
Berdych 33%
Total 77%

UEs made as percentage of total points played
Nadal 12%
Berdych 10%
Total 22%

Balance: Nadal 32, Berdych 23 [+9]

This is interesting in the sense it runs counter to what one might expect from such a matchup. Nadal’s higher AM in this match comes entierly from the aspect of the game where you’d expect Berdych to do a bit better, and Nadal actually has a slightly higher rate of UEs than Berdych – certainly not what one would expect.

In general, it appears that the player with the higher ratio of forcibly won points most often wins, but not always.

I suppose the final AM balance is almost always a very reliable predictor of who won the match. Exceptions must be extremely rare, though they may occur by differences in the outcome of a few "key points". When they occur, you could justifiably say that the better player lost.

In addition to helping us see why a match was won, breaking the AM number down into its two components also allows a quick assessment of the relative quality between two matches (provided it’s the same surface) by showing the total UE ratio in the match. In the above case of course it doesn’t really do that because we are dealing with two different surfaces and you’d always expect a higher UE ratio on slower courts.

But the main point is that if one presents the information condensed in one pair of numbers 32-23, it doesn’t immediately allow you to see where the difference actually came from.

I also think that the winner’s level of play may not always be reliably derived from his AM alone, because, by itsef, this number doesn't tell you the opponent’s level of play. What I mean is, if the opponent is for example feeding you lots of easy balls, you’ll end up with a high AM, but not necessarily from a higher level of play than in another match with a lower AM but a better opponent who makes things more difficult for you.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Benhur

Then consider the following match between the same pair of players.

Nadal-Berdych, Wimbledon 2010
Points forcibly won as percentage of total points played
Nadal 44%
Berdych 33%
Total 77%

UEs made as percentage of total points played
Nadal 12%
Berdych 10%
Total 22%

Balance: Nadal 32, Berdych 23 [+9]

This is interesting in the sense it runs counter to what one might expect from such a matchup. Nadal’s higher AM in this match comes entierly from the aspect of the game where you’d expect Berdych to do a bit better, and Nadal actually has a slightly higher rate of UEs than Berdych – certainly not what one would expect.

That match is a bit unusual because Nadal had more UE's than his opponent, which is almost always not true. Nadal ended up with an inferior winner/error differential (+8 compared to Berdych's +10), which is also unusual; when Nadal wins his matches he typically has a better winner/error differential than his opponent.

It could just be a quirk of the stats, or something of greater significance, I'm not sure.

They also met at Wimbledon in '07. Nadal had fewer UE's than Berdych in that one (20 vs 30). But just as in the 2010 match, he won more points than Berdych with forcing plays (winners + shots that force errors). In the '07 match as a whole, 41% of the points were ended by Nadal's forcing plays, only 32% by Berdych's.

So maybe there's something unusual about the way these two players match up.

Originally Posted by Benhur

In general, it appears that the player with the higher ratio of forcibly won points most often wins, but not always.

I doubt that this is true. In all of Agassi's wins over Sampras for which I have the AM's calculated, Agassi won fewer points with forcing plays than Sampras did. Agassi had the higher AM, of course, because his UE's were lower than Sampras'. But the forcing plays more often came from Sampras, because that was his style.

I have AM's calculated for most of the Nadal/Federer matches, and it's the same thing there. Federer makes more forcing plays than Nadal almost every time: the two exceptions I have are the 2008 RG final and the recent QF at Indian Wells.

In the Indian Wells match it is very close. By a very small margin (34% vs 32%), more points in the match ended with Nadal's forcing plays than with Federer's.

In the RG match it's 40% vs 31%.

But these were absolute blowouts for Nadal. Only when he beats his opponent comprehensively does Nadal end up with the higher number of forcing plays.

Originally Posted by Benhur

I suppose the final AM balance is almost always a very reliable predictor of who won the match. Exceptions must be extremely rare, though they may occur by differences in the outcome of a few "key points". When they occur, you could justifiably say that the better player lost.

Yes the AM almost always indicates correctly who won the match, since the higher AM always goes to the player who won more total points. The few exceptions would be those cases where the loser of the match wins more points than his opponent (cases where the better player lost as you say).

Just a general point: I agree that breaking up the AM as you have does tell you more about what happened in the match.

[krosero]

Serena beat Radwanska yesterday in Miami with 40 winners in only 15 games played (6-0, 6-3). But as impressive as her performance was, she also had 21 unforced errors, so her AM was not one of her highest (40 winners against 21 UE is excellent but not one of the alltime best, which would be those performances with UE's in the single digits).

2013 Miami SF
S. Williams - 27.1% AM
Radwanska - 4.2%

2012 Wimb final
S. Williams - 27.4%
Radwanska - 16.8%

[krosero]

Serena d. Daja Bedanova at the 2002 USO (R16), 6-1, 6-1 with only 5 Ue. That's a candidate for a very high AM, though I can't calculate it without the total points won.

The AP:

She finished with eight aces....

All told, Williams nearly had a winner per minute. She hit 35 winners total -- including 16 forehands and eight backhands -- and had just five unforced errors.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Benhur
In general, it appears that the player with the higher ratio of forcibly won points most often wins, but not always.

Originally Posted by krosero
I doubt that this is true. In all of Agassi's wins over Sampras for which I have the AM's calculated, Agassi won fewer points with forcing plays than Sampras did. Agassi had the higher AM, of course, because his UE's were lower than Sampras'. But the forcing plays more often came from Sampras, because that was his style.

I have AM's calculated for most of the Nadal/Federer matches, and it's the same thing there. Federer makes more forcing plays than Nadal almost every time: the two exceptions I have are the 2008 RG final and the recent QF at Indian Wells.

In the Indian Wells match it is very close. By a very small margin (34% vs 32%), more points in the match ended with Nadal's forcing plays than with Federer's.

In the RG match it's 40% vs 31%.

But these were absolute blowouts for Nadal. Only when he beats his opponent comprehensively does Nadal end up with the higher number of forcing plays.

You are probably right. But remember I was just making that assessment based on a very small sample of 7 matches, where 71% of them were won by the more aggressive player. It may well be that the actual ratio in a large sample could be close to 50-50.

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by Benhur

About a year ago I had an idea that turned out to be similar to the AM, and opened a thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=412175
analyzing Nadal’s last 7 slam finals up to that point. Then I was reminded by Moose Malloy that a similar concept already existed and was called the Aggressive Margin. I later learned that the inventor of the concept is a statistician named Bill Jacobson.

But I still think it is more useful to break down the AM number into its two components the way I did in that thread, mainly because it allows you to see much better why a match was won.

To illustrate, take these two Berdych-Nadal matches that I looked at in that thread (the phrase “points forcibly won” means “points won by anything other than UEs from the opponent”).

Nadal-Berdych, AO 2012
Points forcibly won as percentage of total points played
Nadal 33%
Berdych 38%
Total 72% (rounded)

UEs made as percentage of total points played
Nadal 10%
Berdych 18%
Total 28%

Balance: Nadal 23, Berdych 20 [+3]

Now, this is what you may expect from such a matchup. Berdych with a higher ratio of “forcibly won” points, but Nadal overcoming the difference with a comparatively larger difference in the UE ratio.

Then consider the following match between the same pair of players.

Nadal-Berdych, Wimbledon 2010
Points forcibly won as percentage of total points played
Nadal 44%
Berdych 33%
Total 77%

UEs made as percentage of total points played
Nadal 12%
Berdych 10%
Total 22%

Balance: Nadal 32, Berdych 23 [+9]

This is interesting in the sense it runs counter to what one might expect from such a matchup. Nadal’s higher AM in this match comes entierly from the aspect of the game where you’d expect Berdych to do a bit better, and Nadal actually has a slightly higher rate of UEs than Berdych – certainly not what one would expect.

In general, it appears that the player with the higher ratio of forcibly won points most often wins, but not always.

I suppose the final AM balance is almost always a very reliable predictor of who won the match. Exceptions must be extremely rare, though they may occur by differences in the outcome of a few "key points". When they occur, you could justifiably say that the better player lost.

In addition to helping us see why a match was won, breaking the AM number down into its two components also allows a quick assessment of the relative quality between two matches (provided it’s the same surface) by showing the total UE ratio in the match. In the above case of course it doesn’t really do that because we are dealing with two different surfaces and you’d always expect a higher UE ratio on slower courts.

But the main point is that if one presents the information condensed in one pair of numbers 32-23, it doesn’t immediately allow you to see where the difference actually came from.

I also think that the winner’s level of play may not always be reliably derived from his AM alone, because, by itsef, this number doesn't tell you the opponent’s level of play. What I mean is, if the opponent is for example feeding you lots of easy balls, you’ll end up with a high AM, but not necessarily from a higher level of play than in another match with a lower AM but a better opponent who makes things more difficult for you.

I like this very much!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Benhur

You are probably right. But remember I was just making that assessment based on a very small sample of 7 matches, where 71% of them were won by the more aggressive player. It may well be that the actual ratio in a large sample could be close to 50-50.

Well actually I sorted my data tonight and it turns out most of my matches were won by the more aggressive player, ie, the one who made the greater number of forcing plays (winners + shots that force errors). That is the same thing you found. However, I also found out that most of my matches were won by the player who made fewer unforced errors.

The reason that's possible is that it's very common for both things to occur: the winner will make fewer unforced errors AND he will make the greater number of forcing plays.

I've got a total of 419 men's matches with AM's calculated.

77% of the matches were won by the player who made more forcing plays.

70% of the matches were won by the player who made fewer UE's.

In almost half of the matches (48%), the winner did both things: he made more forcing plays and he made fewer UE's.

From this data it looks as if you're slightly more likely to win a tennis match if you're an aggressive player making forcing shots, rather than a conservative player who makes few UE's.

However I think my data set is probably skewed toward matches with high numbers of winners, ie, aggressive play. That's because the data set began with a project by Moose and myself in which we were counting the number of winners made in a match (rarely counting the UE's); and we were deliberately looking for matches with high-winner counts. Those were the matches that caught our eye, so to speak.

Also, I did a ton of Becker matches at the start of the project just because I'm a fan of his. Moose is a fan of McEnroe and he did a lot of his matches. We both have done a lot of Lendl matches. All of these guys, needless to say, were aggressive players.

Over time we've systematically gone through matches just because they were GS finals or other important matches, so that would offset, to some degree, any bias toward matches with high-winner counts. But I think it's likely that in our database, "aggressive" style matches still outnumber the ones with "conservative" styles.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by krosero

Well actually I sorted my data tonight and it turns out most of my matches were won by the more aggressive player, ie, the one who made the greater number of forcing plays (winners + shots that force errors). That is the same thing you found. However, I also found out that most of my matches were won by the player who made fewer unforced errors.

The reason that's possible is that it's very common for both things to occur: the winner will make fewer unforced errors AND he will make the greater number of forcing plays.

I've got a total of 419 men's matches with AM's calculated.

77% of the matches were won by the player who made more forcing plays.

70% of the matches were won by the player who made fewer UE's.

In almost half of the matches (48%), the winner did both things: he made more forcing plays and he made fewer UE's.

From this data it looks as if you're slightly more likely to win a tennis match if you're an aggressive player making forcing shots, rather than a conservative player who makes few UE's.

However I think my data set is probably skewed toward matches with high numbers of winners, ie, aggressive play. That's because the data set began with a project by Moose and myself in which we were counting the number of winners made in a match (rarely counting the UE's); and we were deliberately looking for matches with high-winner counts. Those were the matches that caught our eye, so to speak.

Also, I did a ton of Becker matches at the start of the project just because I'm a fan of his. Moose is a fan of McEnroe and he did a lot of his matches. We both have done a lot of Lendl matches. All of these guys, needless to say, were aggressive players.

Over time we've systematically gone through matches just because they were GS finals or other important matches, so that would offset, to some degree, any bias toward matches with high-winner counts. But I think it's likely that in our database, "aggressive" style matches still outnumber the ones with "conservative" styles.

So from what you are saying it looks like something like this:

419
48% = 201 where winner did both things
52% = 218 where winner did only one

419
77% = 323 where winner had more forced plays
70% = 293 where winner had fewer UEs

323 – 201 = 122 where winner had only more forced plays
293 – 201 = 92 where winner had only fewer UEs

(adds up to 214 instead of 218, I suppose due to rounding along the way)

So, in matches where the winner did only one of those two things, the break up is 57%-43% in favor of the player with more forcing plays.

If you suspect there may be a slight bias toward aggressive style in the selection of the whole set of 419 matches, this could suggest that on a large randomly selected sample it may turn out to be closer to 50-50. It could, but I am not sure this should necessarily be the case.

In the sample of 7 matches I examined, the winner did both things in only 1 of them. Another match had equal percentage of UEs on both sides. Of the remaining 5 matches, where the winner did only one of those two things, 3 of them were won by the more aggressive player, 2 were won by the player with fewer UEs. That's a 60%-40% break up, similar to your percentages.

Very interesting stuff.

[corners]

Originally Posted by krosero

Well actually I sorted my data tonight and it turns out most of my matches were won by the more aggressive player, ie, the one who made the greater number of forcing plays (winners + shots that force errors). That is the same thing you found. However, I also found out that most of my matches were won by the player who made fewer unforced errors.

The reason that's possible is that it's very common for both things to occur: the winner will make fewer unforced errors AND he will make the greater number of forcing plays.

I think Jack Kramer would have smiled with self-satisfaction reading this.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Benhur

So from what you are saying it looks like something like this:

419
48% = 201 where winner did both things
52% = 218 where winner did only one

419
77% = 323 where winner had more forced plays
70% = 293 where winner had fewer UEs

323 – 201 = 122 where winner had only more forced plays
293 – 201 = 92 where winner had only fewer UEs

(adds up to 214 instead of 218, I suppose due to rounding along the way)

So, in matches where the winner did only one of those two things, the break up is 57%-43% in favor of the player with more forcing plays.

If you suspect there may be a slight bias toward aggressive style in the selection of the whole set of 419 matches, this could suggest that on a large randomly selected sample it may turn out to be closer to 50-50. It could, but I am not sure this should necessarily be the case.

In the sample of 7 matches I examined, the winner did both things in only 1 of them. Another match had equal percentage of UEs on both sides. Of the remaining 5 matches, where the winner did only one of those two things, 3 of them were won by the more aggressive player, 2 were won by the player with fewer UEs. That's a 60%-40% break up, similar to your percentages.

Very interesting stuff.

Basically yes, there are some issues with rounding, and I'll give you more exact numbers in another post (I've done some fine-tuning as I found some AM's based on incomplete matches).

But yes your numbers and breakdown are basically correct.

One thing I have to caution about, however, is that the 77%-70% is a truer comparison of the styles used in these matches, rather than the 57%-43%, because the latter only takes a snapshot of the "top" of the cone, so to speak, where the difference between the two styles looks more pronounced.

Nevertheless it's interesting to break down everything the way you did and see just how many matches were won exclusively in one way (making fewer UE's) and how many were won exclusively the other way (making greater number of forcing plays).

I've done some further sorting of the data and I think with relative ease I can get a list of the matches that were won ONLY with fewer UE's, and another list of the matches won ONLY with more forcing plays.

Looking at my list chronologically, there is no real bias in either column through most of the matches from 1969 through the Sampras era. However as I scroll down into the current era I am already seeing large blocks of Federer matches in the column of matches won exclusively through forcing plays. So that may be where the bias is: because I've done so many Federer matches.

You can see it in my opening post of this thread: my list of Federer matches is the longest one.

I'll get you more exact info on this.

For now let me add: just like you, I don't see why the two styles (aggressive and conservative) necessarily have to even out as equally effective methods of winning matches. Theoretically it's possible that the aggressive style is in fact more effective; and theoretically the conservative style may be more effective.

This is all really interesting, your breakdown of the AM's into UE's and Forcing Plays has opened up a whole other way of looking at this.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by corners

I think Jack Kramer would have smiled with self-satisfaction reading this.

I'm missing the reference, what did Kramer say about this?

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by krosero

Basically yes, there are some issues with rounding, and I'll give you more exact numbers in another post (I've done some fine-tuning as I found some AM's based on incomplete matches).

But yes your numbers and breakdown are basically correct.

One thing I have to caution about, however, is that the 77%-70% is a truer comparison of the styles used in these matches, rather than the 57%-43%, because the latter only takes a snapshot of the "top" of the cone, so to speak, where the difference between the two styles looks more pronounced.

Nevertheless it's interesting to break down everything the way you did and see just how many matches were won exclusively in one way (making fewer UE's) and how many were won exclusively the other way (making greater number of forcing plays).

I've done some further sorting of the data and I think with relative ease I can get a list of the matches that were won ONLY with fewer UE's, and another list of the matches won ONLY with more forcing plays.

Looking at my list chronologically, there is no real bias in either column through most of the matches from 1969 through the Sampras era. However as I scroll down into the current era I am already seeing large blocks of Federer matches in the column of matches won exclusively through forcing plays. So that may be where the bias is: because I've done so many Federer matches.

You can see it in my opening post of this thread: my list of Federer matches is the longest one.

I'll get you more exact info on this.

For now let me add: just like you, I don't see why the two styles (aggressive and conservative) necessarily have to even out as equally effective methods of winning matches. Theoretically it's possible that the aggressive style is in fact more effective; and theoretically the conservative style may be more effective.

This is all really interesting, your breakdown of the AM's into UE's and Forcing Plays has opened up a whole other way of looking at this.

I think surface selection must also play a big role in this. Notice that of the 7 Nadal finals I examined on that other thread, only 2 of them show UEs as the exclusive deciding factor, and these happen to be the only 2 matches that were played on clay in that group of finals.

I suspect if one were to take a large sample of randomly selected matches and classify them by surface, the gaps we are seeing in favor of forced plays (77-70 overall, or 57-43 in matches won exclusively by one of the two methods) should grow larger in clearly faster surfaces, smaller in slower ones, and could very well be reversed on clay in favor of the UE element.

If that proved to be true (so far it’s only speculation on my part) and if such numbers were known for all the matches played in each tournament year by year, it could be another proxy indicator of surface speeds in different tournaments relative to one another.

Maybe in the future, if the ATP keeps sorting and entering match statistics into their databases, and if they dedicate enough funding to a good statistics department, these kinds of analysis could be easily performed by automated means. So far the only way to do these things is by patient examination of data by hand. One can only dream of what could be done if all these numbers were known and easily obtainable.

[NatF]

Is there a place to get the winners/unforced errors stats for past matches? I know you guys count them up alot yourselves. Or better yet, full stats including 1st serve percentage etc...

I'm curious about what Djokovic's best US Open performances were in the semi's and finals. Obviously the AM's up but I'd like to know the specifics.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by NatF

Is there a place to get the winners/unforced errors stats for past matches? I know you guys count them up alot yourselves. Or better yet, full stats including 1st serve percentage etc...

I'm curious about what Djokovic's best US Open performances were in the semi's and finals. Obviously the AM's up but I'd like to know the specifics.

For the USO:

http://2012.usopen.org/en_US/scores/...l?promo=subnav

You can change the number to 2011 on the link to get that year's stats. They don't seem to keep anything older than two years, which is a pity. Or maybe they keep it somewhere else.

[Moose Malloy]

But I don't have AM's for any of Sampras' Wimbledon finals. Not one.

I can't get reliable UE counts for any of them. In the 1993 final I'm missing UE counts for both Sampras and Courier. In all of the rest of Pete's finals I have his UE count but no UE count for his opponents, without which I can't calculate AM's.

That's a shame.

here are some other matches of his I calculated(ue's from tv stats or press)

2002 Toronto
Sampras 33%
Haas 32%

2002 USO
Sampras 25%
Portas 8%

came across ue's on these matches, but don't have total points won by either player(assume atp stats are wrong) so can't calculate AM's

1997 USO
Sampras - 66 ue's
Korda - 45 ue's

1995 French Open
Sampras - 99 ue's
Schaller - 41 ue's

1993 USO
Sampras - 23 ue's
Pioline - 45 ue's

1995 AO
Sampras - 45 ue's
Larsson - 50 ue's

1993 French Open
Sampras - 60 ue's
Bruguera - 24 ue's

1998 USO
Sampras - 57 ue's
Goldstein - 19 ue's

2000 USO
Sampras - 19 ue's
Krajicek - 16 ue's

1998 Masters SF
Sampras - 50 ue's
Corretja - 19 ue's

1997 AO
Sampras - 22 ue's
Moya - 18 ue's

[krosero]

This is what I've got now (not yet incorporating any new matches from Moose's post above).

417 men's matches

324 matches (78%) in which the winner made more forcing plays
291 matches (70%) in which the winner made fewer UE's

200 matches (48%) in which the winner did both things (made more forcing plays, fewer UE's)

91 matches (22%) were won ONLY by making fewer UE's
124 matches (30%) were won ONLY by making more forcing plays

(There were 2 additional matches in a unique category: the winner made more UE's than the loser AND made fewer forcing plays: Safin-Federer at 2005 AO, and Isner-Mahut)

These are the matches in which the winner ONLY made fewer UE's and did not have an edge in forcing plays:

1979 RG final Borg d. Pecci
1983 W SF Lewis d. Curren
1988 AO final Wilander d. Cash
1988 USO final Wilander d. Lendl
1991 USO QF Courier d. Sampras
1992 W final Agassi d. Ivanisevic
1993 RG final Bruguera d. Courier
1993 USO final Sampras d. Pioline
1994 USO final Agassi d. Stich
1995 AO final Agassi d. Sampras
1996 AO SF Chang d. Agassi
1997 USO R16 Korda d. Sampras
1999 Masters RR Agassi d. Sampras
1999 Miami QF Krajicek d. Sampras
1999 RG final Agassi d. Medvedev
1999 USO final Agassi d. Martin
2000 AO final Agassi d. Kafelnikov
2000 AO SF Agassi d. Sampras
2000 Masters RR Hewitt d. Sampras
2000 RG final Kuerten d. Norman
2000 W QF Agassi d. Philippoussis
2001 IW final Agassi d. Sampras
2001 USO final Hewitt d. Sampras
2003 AO QF Roddick d. El Aynaoui
2003 USO R16 Nalbandian d. Federer
2003 W R16 Federer d. F. Lopez
2004 RG R128 Santoro d. Clement
2005 AO R32 Agassi d. Dent
2005 AO R16 Agassi d. Johansson
2005 AO SF Hewitt d. Roddick
2005 Madrid final Nadal d. Ljubicic
2005 RG final Nadal d. Puerta
2005 RG R32 Nadal d. Gasquet
2005 RG SF Nadal d. Federer
2006 MC final Nadal d. Federer
2006 RG final Nadal d. Federer
2006 Rome final Nadal d. Federer
2006 USO R64 Agassi d. Baghdatis
2006 W R64 Nadal d. Kendrick
2007 AO R16 Nadal d. Murray
2007 Madrid final Nalbandian d. Federer
2007 MC final Nadal d. Federer
2007 RG final Nadal d. Federer
2007 RG R32 Nadal d. Montanes
2007 RG SF Federer d. Davydenko
2007 Rome SF Nadal d. Davydenko
2007 USO R32 Federer d. Isner
2007 W R32 Nadal d. Soderling
2008 AO R32 Nadal d. Simon
2008 Hamburg final Nadal d. Federer
2008 MC final Nadal d. Federer
2008 Miami QF Nadal d. Blake
2008 W final Nadal d. Federer
2008 W R64 Nadal d. Gulbis
2009 AO final Nadal d. Federer
2009 AO SF Nadal d. Verdasco
2009 RG SF Federer d. Del Potro
2009 USO QF Nadal d. Gonzalez
2009 W QF Roddick d. Hewitt
2009 W R16 Federer d. Soderling
2010 Madrid final Nadal d. Federer
2010 RG final Nadal d. Soderling
2010 USO SF Djokovic d. Federer
2010 W QF Nadal d. Soderling
2010 W R32 Nadal d. Petzschner
2010 W R64 Federer d. Bozoljac
2011 AO SF Djokovic d. Federer
2011 Miami SF Nadal d. Federer
2011 RG final Nadal d. Federer
2011 RG QF Nadal d. Soderling
2011 RG R128 Nadal d. Isner
2011 USO QF Murray d. Isner
2011 USO SF Djokovic d. Federer
2011 USO SF Nadal d. Murray
2011 W R16 Nadal d. Del Potro
2011 W R32 Nadal d. Muller
2011 W SF Nadal d. Murray
2012 AO QF Nadal d. Berdych
2012 AO R32 Federer d. Karlovic
2012 AO R64 Nadal d. Haas
2012 AO SF Nadal d. Federer
2012 RG final Nadal d. Djokovic
2012 RG quarter Djokovic d. Tsonga
2012 RG SF Djokovic d. Federer
2012 Rome final Nadal d. Djokovic
2012 Shanghai final Djokovic d. Murray
2012 TMC final Djokovic d. Federer
2012 USO final Murray d. Djokovic
2012 USO QF Berdych d. Federer
2013 AO QF Federer d. Tsonga
2013 IW SF Del Potro d. Djokovic


These are the matches in which the winner ONLY had an edge in forcing plays and did not make fewer UE's:

1978 Masters final McEnroe d. Ashe
1983 USO final Connors d. Lendl
1987 USO final Lendl d. Wilander
1989 TMC final Edberg d. Becker
1989 USO final Becker d. Lendl
1989 USO, R64 Sampras d. Wilander
1990 USO final Sampras d. Agassi
1991 USO R16 Connors d. Krickstein
1992 USO SF Edberg d. Chang
1992 W QF Sampras d. Stich
1994 USO R16 Yzaga d. Sampras
1995 Davis Cup Sampras d. Chesnokov
1995 USO final Sampras d. Agassi
1996 AO, R32 Philippoussis d. Sampras
1996 USO final Sampras d. Chang
1996 USO QF Sampras d. Corretja
1997 AO final Sampras d. Moya
1997 RG final Kuerten d. Bruguera
2000 USO QF Sampras d. Krajicek
2000 USO R64 Clement d. Agassi
2000 USO SF Sampras d. Hewitt
2000 W final Sampras d. Rafter
2001 AO R128 Sampras d. Kucera
2001 USO QF Sampras d. Agassi
2001 W final Ivanisevic d. Rafter
2001 W SF Rafter d. Agassi
2002 USO final Sampras d. Agassi
2002 USO SF Agassi d. Hewitt
2003 USO SF Roddick d. Nalbandian
2003 W R16 Philippoussis d. Agassi
2003 W R64 Roddick d. Rusedski
2003 W SF Federer d. Roddick
2004 AO QF Federer d. Nalbandian
2004 AO R16 Federer d. Hewitt
2004 AO R32 Hewitt d. Nadal
2004 AO SF Federer d. Ferrero
2004 AO SF Safin d. Agassi
2004 RG final Gaudio d. Coria
2004 RG R64 Safin d. Mantilla
2004 USO final Federer d. Hewitt
2004 USO QF Federer d. Agassi
2004 USO QF Johansson d. Roddick
2004 USO R32 Federer d. Santoro
2004 W QF Federer d. Hewitt
2004 W SF Federer d. Grosjean
2005 AO final Safin d. Hewitt
2005 AO QF Federer d. Agassi
2005 AO R16 Hewitt d. Nadal
2005 AO, R128 Federer d. Santoro
2005 RG R16 Federer d. Moya
2005 USO final Federer d. Agassi
2005 USO QF Agassi d. Blake
2005 USO SF Federer d. Hewitt
2005 USO, R64 Federer d. Santoro
2005 W R16 Federer d. Ferrero
2005 W R32 Roddick d. Andreev
2006 AO final Federer d. Baghdatis
2006 AO QF Federer d. Davydenko
2006 Miami final Federer d. Nadal
2006 TMC SF Federer d. Nadal
2006 W R128 Federer d. Gasquet
2006 W final Federer d. Nadal
2006 W QF Federer d. Ancic
2006 W QF Nadal d. Nieminen
2006 W SF Federer d. Hewitt
2007 Macau Sampras d. Federer
2007 RG R64 Nadal d. Cipolla
2007 TMC SF Federer d. Nadal
2007 W final Federer d. Nadal
2007 W QF Federer d. Ferrero
2007 W QF Gasquet d. Roddick
2007 W R16 Djokovic d. Hewitt
2007 W SF Federer d. Gasquet
2008 AO SF Djokovic d. Federer
2008 AO SF Tsonga d. Nadal
2008 AO, R128 Federer d. Santoro
2008 AO, R32 Federer d. Tipsarevic
2008 AO, R32 Kohlschreiber d. Roddick
2008 USO final Federer d. Murray
2008 USO SF Murray d. Nadal
2008 W QF Murray d. Gasquet
2008 W R16 Federer d. Hewitt
2009 AO R64 Nadal d. Karanusic
2009 Madrid final Federer d. Nadal
2009 Madrid SF Nadal d. Djokovic
2009 RG final Federer d. Soderling
2009 RG R16 Federer d. Haas
2009 RG R16 Soderling d. Nadal
2009 USO R32 Federer d. Hewitt
2009 USO SF Del Potro d. Nadal
2009 USO SF Federer d. Djokovic
2009 W final Federer d. Roddick
2009 W R32 Federer d. Kohlschreiber
2009 W SF Roddick d. Murray
2010 AO final Federer d. Murray
2010 AO R16 Federer d. Hewitt
2010 RG QF Soderling d. Federer
2010 TMC final Federer d. Nadal
2010 W final Nadal d. Berdych
2010 W QF Berdych d. Federer
2010 W R128 Federer d. Falla
2010 W R16 Djokovic d. Hewitt
2011 Davis Cup Federer d. Hewitt
2011 Miami final Djokovic d. Nadal
2011 RG SF Federer d. Djokovic
2011 Rome final Djokovic d. Nadal
2011 TMC RR Federer d. Nadal
2011 USO final Djokovic d. Nadal
2011 W QF Tsonga d. Federer
2011 W R128 Federer d. Kukushkin
2011 W R16 Federer d. Youzhny
2011 W R32 Federer d. Nalbandian
2011 W R64 Federer d. A. Mannarino
2012 Davis Cup Isner d. Federer
2012 IW semifinal Federer d. Nadal
2012 Olympics Djokovic d. Hewitt
2012 Olympics SF Federer d. Del Potro
2012 Olympics SF Murray d. Djokovic
2012 RG QF Federer d. Del Potro
2012 W quarterfinal, Murray d. Ferrer
2012 W final Federer d. Murray
2012 W R64 Rosol d. Nadal
2013 AO final Djokovic d. Murray
2013 AO R64 Federer d. Davydenko

There is a bias here toward the aggressive style because I've done more matches for Federer than for Nadal.

In the first list there are 30 Federer matches, of which Roger won 22. There are 40 Nadal matches, of which Rafa won ALL 40.

In the second list there are 61 Federer matches, of which Roger won 55. There are 24 Nadal matches, of which Rafa won only 5.

If you take all the categories -- including the largest one, in which the winner did BOTH things (fewer UE's, more forcing plays) -- then we've got Federer's name appearing 169 times (winning 133), while Nadal's name appears only 121 times (winning 96).

To make this fair you'd have to take out 48 Federer matches. From there it's a little rough trying to estimate how many of those matches would fall into the various categories. But from the numbers we do have, I'll break the 48 Federer matches down like this:

- 22 in which Federer (or if Roger lost the match, his opponent) did BOTH things

- 9 in which Federer (or if Roger lost the match, his opponent) ONLY made fewer UE's

- 17 in which Federer (or if Roger lost the match, his opponent) ONLY made more forcing plays

So the overall numbers would be reduced to this:

369 men's matches

302 matches (82%) in which the winner made more forcing plays
279 matches (76%) in which the winner made fewer UE's

178 matches (48%) in which the winner did both things

82 matches (22%) were won ONLY by making fewer UE's
107 matches (29%) were won ONLY by making more forcing plays

Now the gap between the two styles has closed, but only slightly. There is still a sizeable edge for the aggressive style: meaning that matches in this database, by a significant though not an overwhelming margin, were won more often through making aggressive plays rather than through keeping your UE's down.

[Benhur]

Delete post

[Benhur]

I've just realized I made a mistake in counting the clay matches. The above figures are wrong and I will correct them.

[Benhur]

[Reposting this with corrected numbers]

Thanks Krosero, I made various kinds of sorting by surfaces in your whole set of 215 matches that were won exclusively by either one or the other method. In that set of 215 matches, hardcourts are 55% (119), grass is 25% (54) and clay 20% (42). Because of this, HC are more predominant in both categories, except when you look at them exclusively by surface, in which case HC is in between clay and grass.

Where winner had fewer UE’s only:
91 matches
18% on grass [16 of 91]
31% on clay [28 of 91]
52% on hard [47 of 91]

Where winner had more forced plays only:
124 matches
11% on clay [14 of 124]
31% on grass [38 of 124]
58% on hard [72 of 124]

Where winner had EITHER fewer UEs only OR more forced plays only.
6.5% had more forced plays only and were on clay [14 of 215]
7.5 % had fewer UEs only and were on grass [16 of 215]
13% had fewer UEs only and were on clay [28 of 215]
18% had more forced plays only and were on grass [38 of 215]
22% had fewer UEs only and were on hard [47 of 215]
33% had more forced plays only and were on hard [72 of 215]

By surface – Fewer UEs only
30% of the grass matches were won by fewer UEs only [16 of 54]
39% of hard court matches were won by fewer UEs only [47 of 119]
67% of the clay matches were won by fewer UEs only [28 of 42]

By surface – More forced plays only
33% of clay matches were won by more forced plays only [14 of 42]
61% of hardcourt matches were won bymore forced plays only [72 of 119]
70% of grass matches were won by more forced plays only [38 of 54]