abmk
Bionic Poster
don't recall any other match where nadal had more winners than djokovic.
maybe MC 2012 ? not sure .
Peak level of play (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic & Co.)
- Thread starter krosero
- Start date
don't recall any other match where nadal had more winners than djokovic.
maybe MC 2012 ? not sure .
abmk
Bionic Poster
truth is both of kodes's RG wins came in depleted fields. federer is a clearly superior CCer to kodes. federer would've swept RG in 70,71,72 and maybe 73 too . nastase in RG 73 would be the only major threat
yeah, djokovic has done nothing relevant on clay, except to win 3 times in straights vs the greatest CCer ever in master series events, push him to 9-7 in the 5th at RG.
he has 8 titles on clay already, that is the total amount of titles that Kodes won in his entire career
kiki
Banned
Kodes won Wimbledon on fast grass, Djokovic on green clay
You cannot prove Federer would have won the FO before.There were better cc players then as a global.
abmk
Bionic Poster
kodes won the worst wimbledon of the open era . Due to boycott ,13 of the 16 seeds missing, 81 players missing overall , his toughest opponent was roger taylor . LOL .
djokovic beat defending champion nadal and tsonga to win his wimbledon. No contest whatsoever . djokovic's wimbledon title was far far better.
not in those RGs, there weren't. Split fields , players missing out etc . No one in 70,71,72 RG would realistically have stopped prime federer ....
kiki
Banned
Borg,Connors and Nastase in the 73 field.and Vijay Amritraj ( as opposed to Tsonga and half injuried Nadal)
abmk
Bionic Poster
borg in his first wimbledon ever, nowhere close to his peak, connors yet to hit his peak, nastase bombing out.
half-injured nadal ? how the hell did you come up with that ? nadal was perfectly fit and fine. djokovic just plain beat him.
Anyways , I'm done with this topic on this thread.
kiki
Banned
where are them?
Good guess (that one went 6-3, 6-1 to Nadal).
Nadal - 16 winners, 10 ue
Djokovic - 11 winners, 25 ue
I put the AM's here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7507759&postcount=297
I've found the UE's for the 2006 Masters Cup semi between Federer and Nadal here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BjxWP8ImIWc#t=7456s
AM's posted here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7127050#post7127050
In the 2006 match: Federer had 29 winners, 32 unforced errors. Nadal had 13 winners, 28 unforced errors.
Both men had negative winner/error differentials, so that court was somewhat slow.
AM's posted here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7127050#post7127050
In the 2006 match: Federer had 29 winners, 32 unforced errors. Nadal had 13 winners, 28 unforced errors.
Both men had negative winner/error differentials, so that court was somewhat slow.
Coriadropshot
Banned
The courts weren't slow at all, it just wasn't a very well-played match by either man.
abmk
Bionic Poster
The court was medium-fast, not that fast.
It was a well-played match, a very under-rated one in the context of their rivarly IMO.
I think the movement/defense of both was at their respective bests, that somewhat explains the low W/UE ratio and AMs.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Coriadropshot
Banned
Federer made all those errors because Nadal killed his backhand, as usual. It's a myth that Federer's backhand is good against Nadal indoors. He hits a few more winners against Nadal indoors because Nadal's knees are shot at the end of each season and he can't defend even half as well.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, nadalagassi, you atleast had some semblance of sanity before. Now, even that's gone ...
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
AM for 2008 W Final(Venus d Serena 75, 64)
Venus 37%(won 82 pts, made 13 ue's)
Serena 32%(won 75 pts, made 11 ue's)
AMs on Halle semifinals
Federer d Haas
Federer 25%
Haas 18%
Youzhny d Gasquet
Youzhny 39%
Gasquet 21%
Venus 37%(won 82 pts, made 13 ue's)
Serena 32%(won 75 pts, made 11 ue's)
AMs on Halle semifinals
Federer d Haas
Federer 25%
Haas 18%
Youzhny d Gasquet
Youzhny 39%
Gasquet 21%
2009 W final
Serena - 33.1%
Venus - 18.6%
2003 W final
Serena - 22.9%
Venus - 19.8%
2002 W final
Serena - 9.0%
Venus -(-9.8%)
2008 USO QF
Serena - 14.1%
Venus - 12.6%
2002 USO final
Serena - 13.5%
Venus - (-0.8 )
2003 AO final
Serena - 4.9%
Venus - 1.8%
2002 RG final
Serena - (-22.2%)
Venus -(-32.2%)
On Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ba1Ay1PVhO4#t=6023s.not surprised
Where did you get the stats from though ?
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
AM's for some matches today
Stakhovsky 40.8%
Federer 40.5%
Brown 40%
Hewitt 35%
Stakhovsky 40.8%
Federer 40.5%
Brown 40%
Hewitt 35%
The highest AM posted by Federer in a loss, according to AMs recorded in this thread. I didn't think he played that well.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
He hit 57 winners and made 13 unforced errors, a 4.3 to 1 ratio. Those are numbers better than many matches he's won easily.
Federer even had better return stats for the match - it's just Stakhovsky did his in clusters which is what matters more (i.e. pushing a few return games longer is better than winning 2 points in every service game but never breaking).
Where he seemed to come undone mostly was forced backhand passing shot errors - 12 versus 6. Their backhand rally forced errors were similar at 9 and 7 - not overly high for either player.
rosewallGOAT
Banned
Just peak level play, not overall greatness, I would say:
Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Nadal
3. Nadal
4. Kuerten
5. Rosewall
6. Cochet
7. Borg
Grass:
1. Sampras
2. Gonzales
3. Laver
4. Mcenroe
5. Becker
Slow hard courts:
1. Djokovic
2. Safin
3. Agassi
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
Fast hard courts:
1. McEnroe
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. Connors
5. Nadal (based on his 2010 U.S Open level)
Carpet/Indoor:
1. Gonzales
2. Sampras/Becker (tied)
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Nadal
3. Nadal
4. Kuerten
5. Rosewall
6. Cochet
7. Borg
Grass:
1. Sampras
2. Gonzales
3. Laver
4. Mcenroe
5. Becker
Slow hard courts:
1. Djokovic
2. Safin
3. Agassi
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
Fast hard courts:
1. McEnroe
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. Connors
5. Nadal (based on his 2010 U.S Open level)
Carpet/Indoor:
1. Gonzales
2. Sampras/Becker (tied)
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
rosewallGOAT, I cannot agree that Kuerten and Cochet are stronger on clay than Borg, also that Kuerten is stronger than Rosewall. Are you aware that Borg in his peak hardly lost games on clay? And are you aware that Rosewall had winning streaks of 16:1 in 1958 and 14:1 in 1964 against strongest claycourt opposition?
rosewallGOAT
Banned
Again those are not my all time greatest rankings, but just peak level play and nothing else. Borg is the 2nd or 3rd greatest and overall best clay courter ever clearly behind Nadal, but roughly alongside Rosewall. However I believe in just peak level play and nothing else Kuerten on his best day would hit through anyone on clay, except maybe Nadal, and even him he possibly could. Cochet at his best was an amazing artist and genius on clay, but he was not as consistent in geneneral in his play from tournament to tournament as his chief rival Rene LaCoste.
Borg and Nadal both faced extremely weak clay fields, and weaker than almost all other clay greats, especialy Borg. This accounts for alot of their extreme dominance.
Likewise McEnroe isnt top 5 all time on any surface probably, but in peak play he is up there on anything but clay. Safin isnt top 30 all time on any surface, but on peak play alone I think he would be one of the best on some surfaces, especialy slow hard courts. My lists were strictly peak level play, not all time rankings of any sort (although some of my choices correspond closely to those too, and some do not).
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
AM's for some 3rd round matches
Djokovic 52%
Chardy 24%
Tomic 32%
Gasquet 36%
4R
Li Na 49%
Vinci 22%
Serena 26%
Lisicki 25%
Djokovic 52%
Chardy 24%
Tomic 32%
Gasquet 36%
4R
Li Na 49%
Vinci 22%
Serena 26%
Lisicki 25%
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
AM's for the QF matches of the remaining players
Flipkens 34%
Bartoli 33%
Lisicki 21%
Radwanska 27%
Flipkens 34%
Bartoli 33%
Lisicki 21%
Radwanska 27%
abmk
Bionic Poster
has to be ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
When there is a lot of net play and on a faster surface, the AMs are usually high. because the chances for a UE are drastically cut down.
for example I think sampras' highest AM in a loss would be the krajicek loss in wimbledon 96. Both SnVing on both serves. ( don't have the UE stats for this match though )
abmk
Bionic Poster
should be djokovic, will see .....
abmk
Bionic Poster
AMs of djokovic & murray at this year's Wimbledon
djokovic :
vs delpo : 28.5%
vs berdych : 34%
vs haas : 35.2%
vs chardy : 52.4%
vs reynolds : 42.8%
vs mayer : 39.5%
murray :
vs janowicz : 30.86%
vs verdasco : 27.9%
vs youzhny : 37.81%
vs robredo : 34.4%
vs lu : 36.31%
vs becker : 37%
djokovic :
vs delpo : 28.5%
vs berdych : 34%
vs haas : 35.2%
vs chardy : 52.4%
vs reynolds : 42.8%
vs mayer : 39.5%
murray :
vs janowicz : 30.86%
vs verdasco : 27.9%
vs youzhny : 37.81%
vs robredo : 34.4%
vs lu : 36.31%
vs becker : 37%
Today's final.
Murray -- 25.2%
Djokovic -- 16.7%
Compare that to last year at the Olympics when Murray was 34.2% and Novak 27.6%. Murray won 7-5, 7-5.
Today's match was played in extreme heat that would have dried the court and made it play fast.
This I found astounding: Murray’s second serve averaged just 80 mph (in last year’s final against Federer it was 88 mph), a real puffball that Djokovic did not do enough with.
Murray -- 25.2%
Djokovic -- 16.7%
Compare that to last year at the Olympics when Murray was 34.2% and Novak 27.6%. Murray won 7-5, 7-5.
Today's match was played in extreme heat that would have dried the court and made it play fast.
This I found astounding: Murray’s second serve averaged just 80 mph (in last year’s final against Federer it was 88 mph), a real puffball that Djokovic did not do enough with.
Last edited:
Here's a recent article by Tom Perrotta and Carl Bialik talking about how the official numbers for UE's at Wimbledon look too low.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324436104578581731099023170.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324436104578581731099023170.html
It's Very Hard to Make a Mistake at Wimbledon
Welcome to Wimbledon, where the lawns are lush (at least near the net) and the tennis is a little too perfect.
You see, at Wimbledon, players don't appear to make many mistakes. In the last four years, including the first four rounds this year, about 24% of the points played in singles at Wimbledon ended with an unforced error. According to the tournament, this occurs when a player is "not judged to be under physical pressure as a result of the placement, power or spin of the opponent's stroke." Ultimately, though, "It's a judgment call," said Keith Sohl, a consultant for IBM, which trains match scorers and oversees the tournament's stats.
The scorers at Wimbledon have a reputation for being generous. Take Novak Djokovic's third-round contest against Jeremy Chardy. Djokovic was assigned just three unforced errors, and none until he double-faulted late in the third set. Tim Henman, commenting on the match for the BBC, was skeptical of Djokovic's perfection. "I'm not having it," he said early in the third set.
Nor should he. In the fourth game of the match, Djokovic hit a backhand into the net and threw back his head, clearly annoyed that he had missed. It wasn't scored an unforced error. Djokovic didn't even have to move to hit the shot, though the ball did bounce high, which is something scorers could have deemed a quirky grass-court bounce. "The surface can force errors that wouldn't be errors on a hard court," Sohl said. In all, we found 11 unforced errors, eight more than the scorers.
In Agnieszka Radwanska's 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-2 victory over Li Na on Tuesday, the scorers gave Radwanska 18 unforced errors; we counted 23. Then there was Roger Federer's last shot in his second-round defeat, a routine backhand miss, which wasn't deemed an unforced error. For the seven-time champion, perhaps it was a parting gift.
Overall, Federer was marked down for just one unforced error in the fourth and final set of his loss to Sergiy Stakhovsky, though the Journal counted six.
Where the Journal and the officials deviated, it was almost entirely in one direction. Eight times official scorekeepers spotted an unforced error when the Journal didn't, compared to 67 shots that went the other way.
There were no common threads to explain why some shots looked like unforced errors to the Journal but not to the official scorekeepers. About half were forehands, half backhands. Just a few were volleys and a handful of others were service returns. They came early and late in sets. If there was a common thread, it was that players were treated kindly if they were going for a tough shot—even if they didn't have to.
It's difficult to directly compare the majors for how they score errors, because not all of them score winners and errors for every professional singles match. To approximate the differences, we looked at the men's and women's singles semifinals and finals for the last four competed major tournaments, since all of those matches do have scorekeepers. We calculated, for each major, the number of points that ended in errors which required judgment calls: those not won by winners or lost by double faults. Then we calculated the percentage of those that were scored as unforced errors.
The results were definitive: Wimbledon's scorekeepers are the most generous. Just 30% of non-double-fault errors at the Wimbledon semis and finals last year counted as unforced, compared to 47% for the equivalent matches at last year's U.S. Open, 51% at this year's French Open and 55% at this year's Australian Open.
There are legitimate reasons why more errors are forced on the grass at Wimbledon. The courts are the quickest of any Grand Slam, robbing players of time. More points are played at the net, which forces opponents to go for low-percentage shots. And four of the six semifinal and final matches at Wimbledon last year included Serena Williams and Roger Federer, two players whose aggressive styles force the action, and lots of errors. There is also evidence that other majors, at times, give players the benefit of the doubt, such as with an oft-repeated stat about Fernando Gonzalez's semifinal defeat of Tommy Haas at the 2007 Australian Open: that Gonzalez hit 42 winners and three unforced errors. Those three unforced errors were "a little bit of a myth," according to a recent revisit of that match.
But those factors probably can't explain all of the discrepancies. The Journal's scorekeeping suggests another factor is relatively generous scoring at Wimbledon.
Welcome to Wimbledon, where the lawns are lush (at least near the net) and the tennis is a little too perfect.
You see, at Wimbledon, players don't appear to make many mistakes. In the last four years, including the first four rounds this year, about 24% of the points played in singles at Wimbledon ended with an unforced error. According to the tournament, this occurs when a player is "not judged to be under physical pressure as a result of the placement, power or spin of the opponent's stroke." Ultimately, though, "It's a judgment call," said Keith Sohl, a consultant for IBM, which trains match scorers and oversees the tournament's stats.
The scorers at Wimbledon have a reputation for being generous. Take Novak Djokovic's third-round contest against Jeremy Chardy. Djokovic was assigned just three unforced errors, and none until he double-faulted late in the third set. Tim Henman, commenting on the match for the BBC, was skeptical of Djokovic's perfection. "I'm not having it," he said early in the third set.
Nor should he. In the fourth game of the match, Djokovic hit a backhand into the net and threw back his head, clearly annoyed that he had missed. It wasn't scored an unforced error. Djokovic didn't even have to move to hit the shot, though the ball did bounce high, which is something scorers could have deemed a quirky grass-court bounce. "The surface can force errors that wouldn't be errors on a hard court," Sohl said. In all, we found 11 unforced errors, eight more than the scorers.
In Agnieszka Radwanska's 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-2 victory over Li Na on Tuesday, the scorers gave Radwanska 18 unforced errors; we counted 23. Then there was Roger Federer's last shot in his second-round defeat, a routine backhand miss, which wasn't deemed an unforced error. For the seven-time champion, perhaps it was a parting gift.
Overall, Federer was marked down for just one unforced error in the fourth and final set of his loss to Sergiy Stakhovsky, though the Journal counted six.
Where the Journal and the officials deviated, it was almost entirely in one direction. Eight times official scorekeepers spotted an unforced error when the Journal didn't, compared to 67 shots that went the other way.
There were no common threads to explain why some shots looked like unforced errors to the Journal but not to the official scorekeepers. About half were forehands, half backhands. Just a few were volleys and a handful of others were service returns. They came early and late in sets. If there was a common thread, it was that players were treated kindly if they were going for a tough shot—even if they didn't have to.
It's difficult to directly compare the majors for how they score errors, because not all of them score winners and errors for every professional singles match. To approximate the differences, we looked at the men's and women's singles semifinals and finals for the last four competed major tournaments, since all of those matches do have scorekeepers. We calculated, for each major, the number of points that ended in errors which required judgment calls: those not won by winners or lost by double faults. Then we calculated the percentage of those that were scored as unforced errors.
The results were definitive: Wimbledon's scorekeepers are the most generous. Just 30% of non-double-fault errors at the Wimbledon semis and finals last year counted as unforced, compared to 47% for the equivalent matches at last year's U.S. Open, 51% at this year's French Open and 55% at this year's Australian Open.
There are legitimate reasons why more errors are forced on the grass at Wimbledon. The courts are the quickest of any Grand Slam, robbing players of time. More points are played at the net, which forces opponents to go for low-percentage shots. And four of the six semifinal and final matches at Wimbledon last year included Serena Williams and Roger Federer, two players whose aggressive styles force the action, and lots of errors. There is also evidence that other majors, at times, give players the benefit of the doubt, such as with an oft-repeated stat about Fernando Gonzalez's semifinal defeat of Tommy Haas at the 2007 Australian Open: that Gonzalez hit 42 winners and three unforced errors. Those three unforced errors were "a little bit of a myth," according to a recent revisit of that match.
But those factors probably can't explain all of the discrepancies. The Journal's scorekeeping suggests another factor is relatively generous scoring at Wimbledon.
This is not the first time that Wimbledon's UE's have been judged to be generous (Brad Gilbert mentioned it once in an article about stats, I think), and each time it's mentioned as something systematic. In other words it seems that Wimbledon's scorers score generously in all their matches (as Bialik's numbers suggest).
You found the Fed-Djoker Ue's to be generous, but not the Fed-Murray numbers; those lined up more or less with your count.
So was there a systemic problem last year, or just a problem with random matches?
And if it's just random matches, why would that be the case if the same team(s), all trained under the same method, are doing the stats?
A lot of questions here.
I wish I knew more about how these stats are done.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, fed-murray stats were only slightly off, whereas fed-djoker stats were significantly off.
I'm not sure what exactly is the cause of the discrepancy.
1. Maybe the number of errors that were slightly tricky to ascertain as forced or unforced were more in the fed-djoker match in comparision to the fed-murray match ?
2. With different scorers, even with same training , you might see some slight discrepancies. Adding 1 on top of this may make a more significant difference overall
I'm not a 100% sure about the equally generous part. ( even if they intend to be, the type of match played and the no of errors which they could be generous with can vary )
Just having watched some of these matches , I could make out that :
1. stats for fed-nadal in wimbledon 07 , 08 finals, fed-murray 12 final etc were not significantly different from what I could observe
2. stats for fed-roddick wimbledon 09 final , fed-djoker 12 SF, fed-berdych wim 10 QF etc seemed more off and generous.
again, this is just from my observation overall.
Aggressive Margins in USO finals:
2013 - Nadal 22%, Djokovic 13%
2010 - Nadal 23%, Djokovic 16%
2011 - Djokovic 22%, Nadal 13%
The two players essentially flip-flopped in '11 and '13. Even in the scoreline there was a resemblance; both years the winner ran away with the match 6-1 in the fourth.
2010, slightly, remains the best-played match per the AM's.
2013 - Nadal 22%, Djokovic 13%
2010 - Nadal 23%, Djokovic 16%
2011 - Djokovic 22%, Nadal 13%
The two players essentially flip-flopped in '11 and '13. Even in the scoreline there was a resemblance; both years the winner ran away with the match 6-1 in the fourth.
2010, slightly, remains the best-played match per the AM's.
The official figures for "return winners" and "return unforced errors" probably refer to all winners and UE's made on receiving points, if the boxscore is like the ones that IBM used for this year's USO.
I counted up the winners that Serena made on receiving points in the final, and I have an exact match with the "return winners" reported in the boxscore: 12 winners, all clean winners. By set: 6, 5, 1 (also an exact match with the boxscore).
Same thing for Azarenka: I counted 5 winners by her when she was receiving (in the tiebreak or in Serena's service games), same number reported in the boxscore. By set: 3, 2, 0, just as in the boxscore. All were clean winners except for a FH that Serena's racquet tipped off to the side.
Only 4 of Serena's "return winners" were made on the actual service return (2 FH, 2 BH). Azarenka had just 1 winner on the service return (a BH).
IBM's boxscore: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day20/2701ms.html
I ran the same test for Robredo-Federer and again it worked out. I was missing some games in set 1, so I only did the last two sets.
Federer, per the IBM stats, made 6 "return winners" in the second set and another 7 in the third. I got the same thing, if I count one FH that Robredo's racquet tipped off to the side.
Robredo, per the boxscore, made just 1 "return winner" in the second set and none in the final set. I counted 1 BH pass by him in the second set that Federer's racquet barely tipped.
None of the "return winners" in the last two sets were actual service returns.
IBM boxscore: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day14/1407ms.html
Last edited:
Sorry about this late reply but I was just recording additional AM's today. The %s you got, though, were the points won forcing. The AM's were 47.1% for Federer and 13.8% for Starace.
Still that is much higher than you would expect for Federer on clay. I think maybe this has something to do with the shortness of the match. They played only 87 points, just 5.8 points per game which is pretty low. Maybe even an older player in full decline, as Federer was this year, can put together an AM he never had in his prime, if it's just a brief shoot-out. If he's not forced to run very much, and endurance never becomes a factor, well the player may be older but in such a match his speed and endurance are not being tested so his age is essentially a non-factor.
Another thing that may be going on here is that Federer may have had such a high AM on clay in his prime but we simply don't know about it because we don't have his AM's for his early-round, blowout wins over minor players like Starace; we generally focus only on famous matches and the later rounds of Slams, in which naturally his AM's would be lower.
But in general I do feel that older players are often underrated. In a best two-of-three they can be especially tough, even against a player many years younger. They're more than capable of pulling off upsets, given the right conditions -- like a best of three format, or an early round so that the player is not taxed from previous rounds, etc.
Jimmy Connors wrote something like that in his book. He said that when he was close to retirement, age 39 or so, his strokes were better than ever, more precise, more consistent; and his headwork (ie, oncourt tactics) was better than ever because of his experience. He said that the only thing inferior about his game, at that stage, was his legs; he was not as fast anymore; and his legs would run out sooner than they used to, under the exertion of a long match.
Last edited:
For the Wawrinka-Nadal final, I've broken down the AM's by set in order to see the effects of Nadal's injury and MTO early in the second set.
Set 1
Wawrinka: 27.45%
Nadal: 13.7%
Set 2
Wawrinka: 24.00%
Nadal: –4.0%
Set 3
Wawrinka: -1.75%
Nadal: 7.0%
Set 4
Wawrinka: 21.7%
Nadal: -4.4%
Whole match:
Wawrinka: 17.2%
Nadal: 3.4%
The first set was obviously the highest quality and the stats bear that out. In fact Nadal's AM in that set is almost as high as it was overall in his semifinal over Federer.
That is also borne out by the speed of Nadal's serve. His average speeds in the final (first serve, second serve), in kmh:
Set 1 – 180, 149
Set 2 – 150, 127
Set 3 – 158, 131
Set 4 – 166, 136
In the semis he served 175 on first serve and 152 on second.
Arguably Nadal's level of play in the first set of the final was better than in the whole match against Fed. The AM's are similar, but Nadal produced that first-set AM while facing a higher level of play than anything Federer had thrown at him.
In other words, Nadal produced around a 15% AM in both instances: but it's harder to produce 15% against Wawrinka's 27% than to produce it against Federer's 6%.
To put it in simpler terms, it's easier to hit 15 winners and zero errors against a beginner than to do the same against an advanced player.
Set 1
Wawrinka: 27.45%
Nadal: 13.7%
Set 2
Wawrinka: 24.00%
Nadal: –4.0%
Set 3
Wawrinka: -1.75%
Nadal: 7.0%
Set 4
Wawrinka: 21.7%
Nadal: -4.4%
Whole match:
Wawrinka: 17.2%
Nadal: 3.4%
The first set was obviously the highest quality and the stats bear that out. In fact Nadal's AM in that set is almost as high as it was overall in his semifinal over Federer.
That is also borne out by the speed of Nadal's serve. His average speeds in the final (first serve, second serve), in kmh:
Set 1 – 180, 149
Set 2 – 150, 127
Set 3 – 158, 131
Set 4 – 166, 136
In the semis he served 175 on first serve and 152 on second.
Arguably Nadal's level of play in the first set of the final was better than in the whole match against Fed. The AM's are similar, but Nadal produced that first-set AM while facing a higher level of play than anything Federer had thrown at him.
In other words, Nadal produced around a 15% AM in both instances: but it's harder to produce 15% against Wawrinka's 27% than to produce it against Federer's 6%.
To put it in simpler terms, it's easier to hit 15 winners and zero errors against a beginner than to do the same against an advanced player.
