Cumulative stats - Federer [3] vs. Cilic [7] - WIM 2017 F

Who wins

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
Here are cumulative stats from the first 6 rounds of Wimbledon. Please let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the tag list for these threads.
  • Opposition: Cilic has had the stronger opponents - average grass ELO of 21 vs. 39
  • Overall: Federer is stronger in sets (100% vs. 86%), in games won (60% vs. 58%), and in dominance ratio (1.70 vs. 1.53)
  • Serve: Federer's serve has been very slightly more effective than Cilic's; Federer dropped serve fewer time (4 vs. 10), won more service points (77% vs. 74%) and slightly better performance relative to the top 100, against their respective opponents (+10 p.p. v.s +7 p.p.)
  • This difference is driven by Federer's second serve - first serve win% are similiar (84% vs. 83%) but Federer's second serve is about 10 points better (67% vs. 58%)
  • Return: On return they have been almost identical. In games (25% vs. 24%), points (40% vs. 39%) and performance relative to the top 100 vs. respective opposition (+9 p.p. each)
  • Aggression: Federer ends the point with a winner or unforced error slightly more often (13% vs. 11% of total points), and wins slightly more frequently when he does (73% vs. 69%);
QlsWKxz.png

u0WFtkM.png


Next, the chart below benchmarks Fed in 2017 through the first 6 rounds, vs. all of his 11 runs to the final of Wimbledon. 2017 highlighted, wins in black, losses in red. This chart also emphasizes why Federer is being considered such a strong favourite.
  • 2017 is one of his best performances at Wimbledon ever. Only 2006 was better, and he faced weaker competition in that year.
  • In 2008 he put up the worst numbers of any run to the final. He didn't drop sets, but that's because he didn't play anyone in the top 25 before Nadal. He was in poorer form than any of his championship runs.
  • In 2014 was only marginally better than 2008. Again he ran into a fellow ATG, and lost a close one.
  • 2015 is the one loss where you could say he went in truly in championship form. With a decent dominance ratio, vs. decent opposition. But he ran into an ATG at the extreme height of his powers, and all he could do was to take a set.
  • If I had put Cilic 2017 in this chart, he would slot in between Federer 2005 and Federer 2015.

SaXmq7N.png



Bookies have Federer as a 78-22 favourite. I think is a tad high. This will be a titanic battle. These are the two form players of the grass season and they have put up some really impressive and well rounded stats here. Based on all the above I'd give Federer a 60-65 edge.


@Meles @Gary Duane @Chanwan @Sysyphus @Red Rick @BeatlesFan @Silence @VaporDude95 @Vrad @mightyjeditribble
@stringertom @Sentinel @73west
 
Last edited:
Here are stats for the second week only. That is, 4R, QF and SF.

They tell exactly the same story as the stats for all 6 rounds above. The only difference is these numbers show that Federer maintained the same level against a substantial stronger tier of competition than Cilic.

In the second week, Federer's opponents were on average ranked 10, compared to 20 for Cilic.

EpdjxHu.png

qrfFVVK.png
 
Last edited:
Finally, here is a comparison of Berdych and Querrey through the first 6 rounds of Wimbledon. The idea here is that both Federer and Cilic played tough matches against very similiar tall, strong, big servers. So a comparison of their opponents should say something about the level they were playing at today.

Turns out that Federer had a slightly more comfortable win (didn't drop a set, only lost serve once vs twice) against a slightly stronger opponent. Which, leaving aside issues of pedigree and age, further emphasizes why Federer should rightfully be the favourite vs. Cilic.

tvmfeTX.png
 
Last edited:
BeatlesFan said:
Falstaff, I'm curious: how do you get these stats ready and posted so quickly? It's amazing! Thank you. :)
Click to expand...

I already had my excel populated for the first 5 rounds for both Federer and Cilic. And the text of post similiar to my other threads. From there it's just a question of adding in the stats for today's match, uploading screenshots, editing the old post, and it's done.
 
falstaff78 said:
Here are stats for the second week only. That is, 4R, QF and SF.

They tell exactly the same story as the stats for all 6 rounds above. The only difference is these numbers show that Federer maintained the same level against a substantial stronger tier of competition than Cilic.
Click to expand...

or rather he raised his level in the 2nd week to maintain similar stats(slightly less)
 
What is more astounding to me more than anything is Cilic hours spent on court 8.1 vs 5.9 for Federer.

Will that make a big difference? I noticed that Federer was conserving energy in today's semi. Is that going to be the key aspect?
 
falstaff78 said:
This table has been updated. Worth a read so reposting. It really emphasises how good feds form is right now. Cilic 2017 would slot in between fed 2005 and fed 2015. Still a high level.
Click to expand...

Can you run the numbers for only QF onwards? I see that 2003 is at the very bottom, but, similarly to 2012, Federer greatly upped his level for QF+ after struggling earlier, which should be reflected...
 
falstaff78 said:
Here are cumulative stats from the first 6 rounds of Wimbledon. Please let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the tag list for these threads.
  • Opposition: Cilic has had the stronger opponents - average grass ELO of 21 vs. 39
  • Overall: Federer is stronger in sets (100% vs. 86%), in games won (60% vs. 58%), and in dominance ratio (1.70 vs. 1.53)
  • Serve: Federer's serve has been very slightly more effective than Cilic's; Federer dropped serve fewer time (4 vs. 10), won more service points (77% vs. 74%) and slightly better performance relative to the top 100, against their respective opponents (+10 p.p. v.s +7 p.p.)
  • This difference is driven by Federer's second serve - first serve win% are similiar (84% vs. 83%) but Federer's second serve is about 10 points better (67% vs. 58%)
  • Return: On return they have been almost identical. In games (25% vs. 24%), points (40% vs. 39%) and performance relative to the top 100 vs. respective opposition (+9 p.p. each)
  • Aggression: Federer ends the point with a winner or unforced error slightly more often (13% vs. 11% of total points), and wins slightly more frequently when he does (73% vs. 69%);
QlsWKxz.png

u0WFtkM.png


Next, the chart below benchmarks Fed in 2017 through the first 6 rounds, vs. all of his 11 runs to the final of Wimbledon. 2017 highlighted, wins in black, losses in red. This chart also emphasizes why Federer is being considered such a strong favourite.
  • 2017 is one of his best performances at Wimbledon ever. Only 2006 was better, and he faced weaker competition in that year.
  • In 2008 he put up the worst numbers of any run to the final. He didn't drop sets, but that's because he didn't play anyone in the top 25 before Nadal. He was in poorer form than any of his championship runs.
  • In 2014 was only marginally better than 2008. Again he ran into a fellow ATG, and lost a close one.
  • 2015 is the one loss where you could say he went in truly in championship form. With a decent dominance ratio, vs. decent opposition. But he ran into an ATG at the extreme height of his powers, and all he could do was to take a set.
  • If I had put Cilic 2017 in this chart, he would slot in between Federer 2005 and Federer 2015.

e8bzYOM.png



Bookies have Federer as a 78-22 favourite. I think is a tad high. This will be a titanic battle. These are the two form players of the grass season and they have put up some really impressive and well rounded stats here. Based on all the above I'd give Federer a 60-65 edge.


@Meles @Gary Duane @Chanwan @Sysyphus @Red Rick @BeatlesFan @Silence @VaporDude95 @Vrad @mightyjeditribble
Click to expand...
Where's the beef?:D You seemed to have left out the very critical first serve percentage for the tournament. Should be easily calculated if you have raw points numbers.:p
 
Meles said:
Where's the beef?:D You seemed to have left out the very critical first serve percentage for the tournament. Should be easily calculated if you have raw points numbers.:p
Click to expand...
The computer in today's match for Fed supposedly calculated his chances of winning by his 2nd service %.

If two players both win the same % of points on serve, I'll take the guy who wins a higher % of 2nd serves.

For the same reason that if two players both win the same % of games, I'll take the guy who wins the higher % of service games.
 
Gary Duane said:
The computer in today's match for Fed supposedly calculated his chances of winning by his 2nd service %.

If two players both win the same % of points on serve, I'll take the guy who wins a higher % of 2nd serves.

For the same reason that if two players both win the same % of games, I'll take the guy who wins the higher % of service games.
Click to expand...
Games data over shut a short period as the matches at Wimbledon is even less reliable than the other stats. Cilic won 98.1% of his service games on grass coming into Wimby, so I'll take that over the 91% at Wimby.;)

That IBM computer is out of it's mind on grass. I looked at one match and the keys were just crazy.:confused:
 
Meles said:
Games data over shut a short period as the matches at Wimbledon is even less reliable than the other stats. Cilic won 98.1% of his service games on grass coming into Wimby, so I'll take that over the 91% at Wimby.;)

That IBM computer is out of it's mind on grass. I looked at one match and the keys were just crazy.:confused:
Click to expand...
I have not tracked Cilic as I have other ATGs, but I would not ever look at stats of this kind for one tournament, even a major, without taking other years into consideration.

Usually I'll go right to player stats, but for this:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/marin-cilic/c977/player-stats

and all other profiles I now get:

No Player Stats
We do not have any stats for this player.

Way to go, ATP!!!

But for a general idea:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/service-games-won/all/grass/all/

Cilic is at 88%, Fed at 92%.

That immediately tells me what I already know: Cilic's current numbers are inflated and not to be trusted.

A glance here:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won/all/grass/all/

Reminds me that Cilic, in general, is a servebot, or was until this year. Has he suddenly become a great returner on grass, at 18%, when the lowest this page goes to is 17%?

Which doesn't mean, btw, that he can't or won't win on Sunday. It says, rather, that if both players are playing well, Fed wins, but that if Fed goes stone cold on BPs, #19 is not going to happen.
 
One the one hand I am liking Federer's return now. On the other, Cilic's serve can be so good it makes that less relevant. Yesterday in the match thread I predicted heartbreak in 5. I still feel it will go that way.
 
Gary Duane said:
I have not tracked Cilic as I have other ATGs, but I would not ever look at stats of this kind for one tournament, even a major, without taking other years into consideration.

Usually I'll go right to player stats, but for this:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/marin-cilic/c977/player-stats

and all other profiles I now get:

No Player Stats
We do not have any stats for this player.

Way to go, ATP!!!

But for a general idea:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/service-games-won/all/grass/all/

Cilic is at 88%, Fed at 92%.

That immediately tells me what I already know: Cilic's current numbers are inflated and not to be trusted.

A glance here:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won/all/grass/all/

Reminds me that Cilic, in general, is a servebot, or was until this year. Has he suddenly become a great returner on grass, at 18%, when the lowest this page goes to is 17%?

Which doesn't mean, btw, that he can't or won't win on Sunday. It says, rather, that if both players are playing well, Fed wins, but that if Fed goes stone cold on BPs, #19 is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

How was Cilic a "servebot"? The guy was known as one of the worst serving big guys along with Del Potro
 
falstaff78 said:
Here are cumulative stats from the first 6 rounds of Wimbledon. Please let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the tag list for these threads.
  • Opposition: Cilic has had the stronger opponents - average grass ELO of 21 vs. 39
  • Overall: Federer is stronger in sets (100% vs. 86%), in games won (60% vs. 58%), and in dominance ratio (1.70 vs. 1.53)
  • Serve: Federer's serve has been very slightly more effective than Cilic's; Federer dropped serve fewer time (4 vs. 10), won more service points (77% vs. 74%) and slightly better performance relative to the top 100, against their respective opponents (+10 p.p. v.s +7 p.p.)
  • This difference is driven by Federer's second serve - first serve win% are similiar (84% vs. 83%) but Federer's second serve is about 10 points better (67% vs. 58%)
  • Return: On return they have been almost identical. In games (25% vs. 24%), points (40% vs. 39%) and performance relative to the top 100 vs. respective opposition (+9 p.p. each)
  • Aggression: Federer ends the point with a winner or unforced error slightly more often (13% vs. 11% of total points), and wins slightly more frequently when he does (73% vs. 69%);
QlsWKxz.png

u0WFtkM.png


Next, the chart below benchmarks Fed in 2017 through the first 6 rounds, vs. all of his 11 runs to the final of Wimbledon. 2017 highlighted, wins in black, losses in red. This chart also emphasizes why Federer is being considered such a strong favourite.
  • 2017 is one of his best performances at Wimbledon ever. Only 2006 was better, and he faced weaker competition in that year.
  • In 2008 he put up the worst numbers of any run to the final. He didn't drop sets, but that's because he didn't play anyone in the top 25 before Nadal. He was in poorer form than any of his championship runs.
  • In 2014 was only marginally better than 2008. Again he ran into a fellow ATG, and lost a close one.
  • 2015 is the one loss where you could say he went in truly in championship form. With a decent dominance ratio, vs. decent opposition. But he ran into an ATG at the extreme height of his powers, and all he could do was to take a set.
  • If I had put Cilic 2017 in this chart, he would slot in between Federer 2005 and Federer 2015.

e8bzYOM.png



Bookies have Federer as a 78-22 favourite. I think is a tad high. This will be a titanic battle. These are the two form players of the grass season and they have put up some really impressive and well rounded stats here. Based on all the above I'd give Federer a 60-65 edge.


@Meles @Gary Duane @Chanwan @Sysyphus @Red Rick @BeatlesFan @Silence @VaporDude95 @Vrad @mightyjeditribble
Click to expand...
I'm a dawg, dawg...I'd like a tag!
 
The first set is always big but it will be really important here. If it's a long set, like a tie break or a 7-5 kind of set with several breaks, I feel Federer losing such a set will be difficult for him to come back and win in 4 or 5, facing 3 big hitters in 5 days is bound to have an effect down the stretch.
If Cilic loses such a set I can't see him being too disheartened but he will obviously take more chances and attempt to blow Fed off the court whether that leads to more winners or unforced errors who knows. Both guys are bound to be nervous in one way or another.
 
World Beater said:
@falstaff78
have you seen this before?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/

what are your thoughts on this modified ELO.
Click to expand...

Hey.

Two quick disclaimers first:

1. No single stat alone can capture greatness. Each individual stat offers one lens, and true greatness should manifest itself across a lot of different lenses.

2. Elo is fantastic, but it's not a standardized stat. Like say, "return points won" which can only be calculated one way. Different analysts calculate it with different assumptions. For example here are this week's tennis abstract ELO ratings, and here you can find another set of ELO ratings.

With these disclaimers out of the way, I will say that i LOVE this analysis. In general, someone like Connors achieved a lot of his greatness, just by showing up for a long time. Someone like Borg achieved his greatness by being incandescently brilliant for a (relatively) short period. Someone like Federer did both. And someone like Nadal has done both, but inconsistently. This chart, referenced in the article, and shared below, captures that sentiment perfectly.

The article mentions that this modified ELO metric is motivated by the baseball metric of WAR. Two quick criticism: First, In fact, what Carl (a very good friend of mine from college) failed to mention, is that it is analogous to a series of 4 baseball metrics, called WAR, WAA, WAE and WAM. Second, the article mentioned that Federer is on top no matter what value of replacement player they use, but that second best depends on the choice of replacement player. Again, the writers failed to show the implications of each of those choices, and how they relate to the careers of the players in the chart. Which I will attempt to do so below, using the baseball analogy.

1. WAR (wins above replacement): a measure of how good a player was, over the course of his career, above the replacement major league player. for replacement player, think 500th best baseball player. this metric basically gives you points for showing up and having a long career. Jimmy Connors, Fabrice Santoro, Feliciano Lopez, Roger Federer etc. would all kill it, on the tennis equivalent of WAR.

2. WAA (wins above average): a measure of how good a player is, over the course of his career, above the average major league player. for average player, think the 250th best baseball player. this metric does NOT give you credit for just showing up. if you are just showing up, and being worse than the average player, your overall rating will suffer.

Here is an article which uses a great baseball player, Pete Rose, as an example to illustrate the difference between WAR and WAA. It shows that Rose's WAA was much lower than his WAR, because for a long time he just played, but wasn't better than the average player in baseball. So his WAR kept going up and his WAA kept going down.

In the tennis analogy, all the guys with an excellent WAR would also have an excellent WAA. Because tennis is an individual sport, you have to be better than the average pro to have a really long career.

3. WAE (wins above excellence): to take the analogy futher, this metric is a measure of how good a player is, over the course of his career, above the average all star player. for average all star, think the 25th best player in baseball. (the big difference from the first two being, WAE only counts the positive seasons. But ignores the negatives.

The tennis equivalent of this stat is no longer about longevity. But it's about sustained excellence. So the Federers, Nadals and Lendls of the world would start to do better than the Connors.

4. WAM (wins above MVP): and to take the analogy to its logical conclusion, this metric is a measure of how good a player is, over the course of his career, above the average MVP. That is, the top 2 players in baseball in a given year. It also only counts positives. And as you can imagine, only very few players are greater than zero on this metric.

For further reading on WAE and WAM, google Adam Darowski. He's the guy who came up with them.

The tennis equivalent here would be something like, the amount of time you were better than the average number 2 player. So basically to the left of the chart, referenced on twitter and shared below.

So the obvious analogy to this series of metrics is the ranking value chosen as the replacement player. In the chart they share, they use different values of median player as the replacement. If you see this site by Adam Darowski, he puts all these metrics together into a sort of virtual hall of fame for baseball. So this adjusted ELO is fantastic because it's the first step towards doing the same for tennis.

@Meles @Sysyphus @Gary Duane @Chanwan

COwJPIXUsAAAmr_.jpg
 
Last edited:
I made a pact with myself to not pay attention to any serious stats until Wimbledon is over so now it's time to share the love.
 
thanks for the context. Makes sense.

This metric appears to be very harsh on sampras...looks like lendl makes out quite well...



falstaff78 said:
Hey.

Two quick disclaimers first:

1. No single stat alone can capture greatness. Each individual stat offers one lens, and true greatness should manifest itself across a lot of different lenses.

2. Elo is fantastic, but it's not a standardized stat. Like say, "return points won" which can only be calculated one way. Different analysts calculate it with different assumptions. For example here are this week's tennis abstract ELO ratings, and here you can find another set of ELO ratings.

With these disclaimers out of the way, I will say that i LOVE this analysis. In general, someone like Connors achieved a lot of his greatness, just by showing up for a long time. Someone like Borg achieved his greatness by being incandescently brilliant for a (relatively) short period. Someone like Federer did both. And someone like Nadal has done both, but inconsistently. This chart, referenced in the article, and shared below, captures that sentiment perfectly.

The article mentions that this modified ELO metric is motivated by the baseball metric of WAR. Two quick criticism: First, In fact, what Carl (a very good friend of mine from college) failed to mention, is that it is analogous to a series of 4 baseball metrics, called WAR, WAA, WAE and WAM. Second, the article mentioned that Federer is on top no matter what value of replacement player they use, but that second best depends on the choice of replacement player. Again, the writers failed to show the implications of each of those choices, and how they relate to the careers of the players in the chart. Which I will attempt to do so below, using the baseball analogy.

1. WAR (wins above replacement): a measure of how good a player was, over the course of his career, above the replacement major league player. for replacement player, think 500th best baseball player. this metric basically gives you points for showing up and having a long career. Jimmy Connors, Fabrice Santoro, Feliciano Lopez, Roger Federer etc. would all kill it, on the tennis equivalent of WAR.

2. WAA (wins above average): a measure of how good a player is, over the course of his career, above the average major league player. for average player, think the 250th best baseball player. this metric does NOT give you credit for just showing up. if you are just showing up, and being worse than the average player, your overall rating will suffer.

Here is an article which uses a great baseball player, Pete Rose, as an example to illustrate the difference between WAR and WAA. It shows that Rose's WAA was much lower than his WAR, because for a long time he just played, but wasn't better than the average player in baseball. So his WAR kept going up and his WAA kept going down.

In the tennis analogy, all the guys with an excellent WAR would also have an excellent WAA. Because tennis is an individual sport, you have to be better than the average pro to have a really long career.

3. WAE (wins above excellence): to take the analogy futher, this metric is a measure of how good a player is, over the course of his career, above the average all star player. for average all star, think the 25th best player in baseball. (the big difference from the first two being, WAE only counts the positive seasons. But ignores the negatives.

The tennis equivalent of this stat is no longer about longevity. But it's about sustained excellence. So the Federers, Nadals and Lendls of the world would start to do better than the Connors.

4. WAM (wins above MVP): and to take the analogy to its logical conclusion, this metric is a measure of how good a player is, over the course of his career, above the average MVP. That is, the top 2 players in baseball in a given year. It also only counts positives. And as you can imagine, only very few players are greater than zero on this metric.

For further reading on WAE and WAM, google Adam Darowski. He's the guy who came up with them.

The tennis equivalent here would be something like, the amount of time you were better than the average number 2 player. So basically to the left of the chart, referenced on twitter and shared below.

So the obvious analogy to this series of metrics is the ranking value chosen as the replacement player. In the chart they share, they use different values of median player as the replacement. If you see this site by Adam Darowski, he puts all these metrics together into a sort of virtual hall of fame for baseball. So this adjusted ELO is fantastic because it's the first step towards doing the same for tennis.

@Meles @Sysyphus @Gary Duane @Chanwan

COwJPIXUsAAAmr_.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

falstaff78
Cumulative stats - Cilic [7] vs. Querrey [24] - WIM 2017 SF
Replies
19
Views
1K
Feather
Feather
falstaff78
  • Poll Poll
Cumulative stats - Federer [3] vs. Berdych [11] - WIM 2017 SF
2
Replies
75
Views
5K
kalyan4fedever
kalyan4fedever
falstaff78
Cumulative stats - Federer [2] vs. Berdych [19] - AO 2017 QF
Replies
17
Views
1K
Pouet156
P
falstaff78
Cumulative stats - Federer [2] vs. Cilic [6] - AO 2018 F
Replies
25
Views
2K
Jaitock1991
Jaitock1991
falstaff78
Cumulative stats - Federer [3] vs. Raonic [6] - WIM 2017 QF
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
donquijote
donquijote
Back
Top