Cumulative stats for US Open semi-finalists

[falstaff78]

See below cumulative stats for the four US Open 2015 semi-finalists. Best player in each category is green. A tip of the cap to JM1980 for the original idea.

I have a separate thread about how the 4 semi-finalists have fared on fast hard courts since USO 2014.

1) Overall dominance.
Federer has been the most dominant overall. And he has played against the highest ranked opponents, and the opponents with the best hard court records over the past 12 months.

2) Fatigue
Fed has spent the least time on court, run the fewest km and played the fewest points. Note how Djokovic makes his opponents run like crazy per point. No wonder no one can stay with him!

3) Aggression
Federer has the most overall winners minus unforced Errors. Cilic gets the most free points on serve. A surprising result is that Djokovic approaches the net most frequently (16% of all points) and has won the most net points!

4) Serve and return
Federer has been the most dominant on serve. Surprisingly he is also as strong as Djokovic on return. He has been very clutch while saving BPs (82% BP saved vs. 75% service points won) Wawrinka has been very clutch on converting BPs (50% converted, compared to 38% return points won.)

Please share constructive feedback about how this report can be improved. If it is turns out well I will try and do this for each major.

Cheers,
F

(In the table below I refer to W minus U/E as "net winners." This doesn't mean winners at the net - sorry for confusion!).

(P.S. I know stats don't tell the whole story, and they are like bikinis yada yada yada. But we're all better off having stats than not having them.)

 

[abmk]

equal on % of return points with djoko -- so much for ServeBotterer

 

[Sysyphus]

Awesome job!

Fed looking very impressive by the stats (though I think he did at Wimby too).

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Djokovic coming in on a higher percentage of points than Federer — so much for Baselinovic!

 

[falstaff78]

Awesome job!

Fed looking very impressive by the stats (though I think he did at Wimby too).

Thanks!

Yes he did. We have JM1980's thread on that. The difference here is that he has done it against significantly tougher opposition than Djokovic. Whereas at Wimbledon Djokovic's opposition was tougher!

 

[Chanwan]

@falstaff78 - I just logged on to ask whether anybody had stats like this and intended to tag you in it.
In other words, you read my mind and made it happen before I even knew I was missing it. Cheers!!

 

[falstaff78]

@falstaff78 - I just logged on to ask whether anybody had stats like this and intended to tag you in it.
In other words, you read my mind and made it happen before I even knew I was missing it. Cheers!!

All that means is that we think alike!

 

[ABCD]

Thanks!

Yes he did. We have JM1980's thread on that. The difference here is that he has done it against significantly tougher opposition than Djokovic. Whereas at Wimbledon Djokovic's opposition was tougher!

Great job. Federer performance against very tough competition was impressive. I wouldn't argue with him that he plays better than ever.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Federer return is really on since Wimbledon. He had 33% return games in Wimbledon too. His sum of Serve + Return is above his peak.

 

[piece]

Bit of Simpson's paradox going on in the % of return points won. Federer wins a higher percentage of both first and second serve return points than does Djokovic, yet wins a lower percentage of overall return points.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Novak's such a grinder.

 

[zagor]

Federer return is really on since Wimbledon. He had 33% return games in Wimbledon too. His sum of Serve + Return is above his peak.

Shame the same can't be said about his movement, stamina, FH and recovery from matches. He should have switched to a bigger stick and hired Edberg ages ago when he still had a big game (2011) instead of one based on tactics and precision which requires near flawless execution to work over a BO5 against top players in today's slower conditions.

 

[falstaff78]

Bit of Simpson's paradox going on in the % of return points won. Federer wins a higher percentage of both first and second serve return points than does Djokovic, yet wins a lower percentage of overall return points.

That's exactly right! It's because Djokovic's opponents have a much lower first serve percentage than Federer's (53% vs 62%)

 

[Chanwan]

All that means is that we think alike!

but that you have the tools to carry out my thoughts. All this is gathered from tennisabstract, correct?

Bit of Simpson's paradox going on in the % of return points won. Federer wins a higher percentage of both first and second serve return points than does Djokovic, yet wins a lower percentage of overall return points.

Guess Djoko's opponents have had a lower first serve percentage than Fed's. (edit: falstaff obviously beat me to it)

Shame the same can't be said about his movement, stamina, FH and recovery from matches. He should have switched to a bigger stick and hired Edberg ages ago when he still had a big game (2011) instead of one based on tactics and precision which requires near flawless execution to work over a BO5 against top players in today's slower conditions.

Yeah - you can't help but wonder what a racquet + Edberg change would have done for his game in 2010, 2011 or even 2008.
Anyway, am glad to see him playing this well.

Based on the stats, he should win this thing.
Based on past performance vs. Djoko in best of five at this stage in their respective careers, we know what's coming...

 

[ABCD]

That's exactly right! It's because Djokovic's opponents have a much lower first serve percentage than Federer's (53% vs 62%)

How do you explain that Djokovic had most net approaches? Would you expect something like this?

 

[Sysyphus]

Great job. Federer performance against very tough competition was impressive. I wouldn't argue with him that he plays better than ever.

Lol, sneaky.

 

[Gazelle]

Unfortunately for us Fed fans these stats mean little. At Wimby Feds stats were also superior to Djoks prior to the final, but then the worst happened.

It will all come down to whether Fed can control his nerves this time in the final.

 

[falstaff78]

How do you explain that Djokovic had most net approaches? Would you expect something like this?

there are two questions here. one is why djokovic is making such a higher number of approaches. and second, is why federer is making a relatively low number of approaches.

I have found the answer to the second question. Federer played 244 points against Isner, in which he only came to the net 9% of the time. For the remaining 575 points he came to the net 18% of the time. This is higher than Djokovic's rate, even if you remove Djokovic's lowest net rushing match.

As to why Djokovic is rushing the net so much, that is anyone's guess.

 

[ABCD]

Unfortunately for us Fed fans these stats mean little. At Wimby Feds stats were also superior to Djoks prior to the final, but then the worst happened.

It will all come down to whether Fed can control his nerves this time in the final.

I don't think that Federer has any problems with nerves. He is a great fighter and always gives his best.

 

[zagor]

Unfortunately for us Fed fans these stats mean little. At Wimby Feds stats were also superior to Djoks prior to the final, but then the worst happened.

Right, us Fed "fans".

It will all come down to whether Fed can control his nerves this time in the final.

Fed is not a first time slam finalist that will have jitters nor he is mentally weak as posters/accounts like you claim. Having to control the match and keep it going past the certain point is to be put under tremendous amount of pressure of playing near flawless tennis for 3 sets, stamina is closely tied to the mental part of the game and it's in that regard that the odds are stacked against Fed (as a consequence of his age/mileage).

It will not come down to Fed's nerves, it will come down to having a good serving day that he can use as a base to pressure the opponent.

 

[falstaff78]

but that you have the tools to carry out my thoughts. All this is gathered from tennisabstract, correct?

most of the stats are from the us open website. the opponent's records on hard court vs. players ranked 20-100 are from tennis abstract!

 

[Chanwan]

most of the stats are from the us open website. the opponent's records on hard court vs. players ranked 20-100 are from tennis abstract!

but the US Open don't make cumulative stats, do they? So you've gathered them from every match?
Cheers

 

[falstaff78]

but the US Open don't make cumulative stats, do they? So you've gathered them from every match?
Cheers

yeah I don't really know how to code, so I spent the afternoon making an excel like a neanderthal, to gather data from each of the 20 matches from the us open website. also got some data from tennis abstract and generated this report.

at least it's done now. so should be relatively straightforward to refresh for subsequent majors!

 

[Down_the_line]

Great work falstaff78. This is awesome!

I especially like Point #1. It's encouraging that Federer has been the most dominant whilst facing the best competition.

 

[smoledman]

Stats mean nothing come the final. Djokovic will find a way to smother Fed as usual.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

wow, Fed is head and shoulders above the rest.

Stats showing Novak's defensive mindset (which I hate)

 

[smoledman]

NFL - defense wins championships. Same thing applies to tennis.

 

[Sysyphus]

wow, Fed is head and shoulders above the rest.

Stats showing Novak's defensive mindset (which I hate)

Attacking the net a lot though. That's very nice to see.

I do expect him to enter a more defensive lockdown mode against Cilic and potentially Wawrinka tho'.

NFL - defense wins championships. Same thing applies to tennis.

Dat explains why Feder and Sampran top the slam statistic.

Although this time you will probably be right, yes.

 

[ABCD]

As to why Djokovic is rushing the net so much, that is anyone's guess.[/QUO[/QUOTE]

wow, Fed is head and shoulders above the rest.

Stats showing Novak's defensive mindset (which I hate)

Actually it doesn't. Novak is top in net approaches.

 

[Emiliano55]

So according to that stats, Federer has been the best so far, followed by Djokovic, then Cilic and Wawrinka last.

Interesting stats. Anyway, semi finals and finals are a complete different world.

 

[falstaff78]

Based on the stats, he should win this thing.
Based on past performance vs. Djoko in best of five at this stage in their respective careers, we know what's coming...

So according to that stats, Federer has been the best so far, followed by Djokovic, then Cilic and Wawrinka last.

Interesting stats. Anyway, semi finals and finals are a complete different world.

After his glory years federer has been just as godly in early rounds of majors. Sadly, the decline in his performance has occurred in later rounds. I posted stats on this about a year ago.

The point is, as both of you have correctly stated, that semis and finals are a different ballgame.

Unfortunately I can't help being optimistic. It's not often Fed ends up with the best stats versus the strongest early round opposition. I guess I'll either learn my lesson for the umpteenth time this weekend, or be gloriously rewarded.

Let's see what happens.

 

[Chanwan]

After his glory years federer has been just as godly in early rounds of majors. Sadly, the decline in his performance has occurred in later rounds. I posted stats on this about a year ago.

The point is, as both of you have correctly stated, that semis and finals are a different ballgame.

Unfortunately I can't help being optimistic. It's not often Fed ends up with the best stats versus the strongest early round opposition. I guess I'll either learn my lesson for the umpteenth time this weekend, or be gloroisly rewarded.

Let's see what happens.

I'm fairly optimistic too. But expect to be disappointed...
if that makes sense?

 

[falstaff78]

I'm fairly optimistic too. But expect to be disappointed...
if that makes sense?

Yeah it's make perfect sense!

 

[ABCD]

Yeah it's make perfect sense!

One interpretation could be that Federer is very effective against players much weaker than him; in relative terms more effective than Djokovic and others.

 

[falstaff78]

One interpretation could be that Federer is very effective against players much weaker than him; in relative terms more effective than Djokovic and others.

Yes. This is very much the case. Federer is without parallel at dealing with guys he's supposed to deal with (18/19 straight finals, 23 straight semis, 36 straight quarters etc). This has been the case without interruption since 2004.

In later rounds he used to be automatic from 2004-2007. Since then he has, on a relative basis, regressed sharply.

 

[ABCD]

Yes. This is very much the case. Federer is without parallel at dealing with guys he's supposed to deal with (18/19 straight finals, 23 straight semis, 36 straight quarters etc). This has been the case without interruption since 2004.

In later rounds he used to be automatic from 2004-2007. Since then he has, on a relative basis, regressed sharply.

Or it could be reflection of the opposition becoming tougher in final rounds after 2007.

 

[Chanwan]

Or it could be reflection of the opposition becoming tougher in final rounds after 2007.

from FO 2005 to AO 2010, Fed made 18 out of 19 finals, winning 12-13. Since then it's been 4 out of 22, winning 1. Are you saying the opposition is the main reason for that?

 

[falstaff78]

Or it could be reflection of the opposition becoming tougher in final rounds after 2007.

No. It couldn't. Because if you exclude Djokovic, Nadal and Murray, Federer's win percentages still decline in later rounds, but not in earlier rounds.

His win percentages against top twenty players excluding Nadal, Djokovic and Murray also decline.

I've made plenty of posts on this. The search function is your friend.

 

[Chanwan]

No. It couldn't. Because if you exclude Djokovic, Nadal and Murray, Federer's win percentages still decline in later rounds, but not in earlier rounds.

His win percentages against top twenty players excluding Nadal, Djokovic and Murray also decline.

I've made plenty of posts on this. The search function is your friend.

only if ABCD wants knowledge and not to stick his head in the sand with his weak era opinion at all costs

 

[ABCD]

No. It couldn't. Because if you exclude Djokovic, Nadal and Murray, Federer's win percentages still decline in later rounds, but not in earlier rounds.

His win percentages against top twenty players excluding Nadal, Djokovic and Murray also decline.

I've made plenty of posts on this. The search function is your friend.

Top 20 excluding Dj, N and M 2012-2015 can still be significantly different from top 20 minus top 2-4 in 2004-2007. You can look Federer results against players that are ranked below 40 or 50; results against these are players could revel his decline. Although I feel that it is disrespectful towards Federer to claim that he is not able to assess his own game. He said that he is now better than ever and Djokovic agrees with him. I don't know what Nadal would say, but he didn't play Federer for a while. Murray would also probably agree with Federer as these days he is really troubled by him.

 

[Chanwan]

Top 20 excluding Dj, N and M 2012-2015 can still be significantly different from top 20 minus top 2-4 in 2004-2007. You can look Federer results against players that are ranked below 40 or 50; results against these are players could revel his decline. Although I feel that it is disrespectful towards Federer to claim that he is not able to assess his own game. He said that he is now better than ever and Djokovic agrees with him. I don't know what Nadal would say, but he didn't play Federer for a while. Murray would also probably agree with Federer as these days he is really troubled by him.

iirc, you trolled your way out of this one the last time, but I'm still eager to hear your answer to this pertinent question:

from FO 2005 to AO 2010, Fed made 18 out of 19 finals, winning 12-13. Since then it's been 4 out of 22, winning 1. Are you saying the opposition is the main reason for that?

 

[falstaff78]

Top 20 excluding Dj, N and M 2012-2015 can still be significantly different from top 20 minus top 2-4 in 2004-2007. You can look Federer results against players that are ranked below 40 or 50; results against these are players could revel his decline. Although I feel that it is disrespectful towards Federer to claim that he is not able to assess his own game. He said that he is now better than ever and Djokovic agrees with him. I don't know what Nadal would say, but he didn't play Federer for a while. Murray would also probably agree with Federer as these days he is really troubled by him.

Yawn. Are you still here?

 

[Feather]

Shame the same can't be said about his movement, stamina, FH and recovery from matches. He should have switched to a bigger stick and hired Edberg ages ago when he still had a big game (2011) instead of one based on tactics and precision which requires near flawless execution to work over a BO5 against top players in today's slower conditions.

I agree hundred percent dear Zagor!

I mean how many finals he made since the start of 2014 with his limited arsenal.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

of course stats dont tell the whole story but here they show that Federer should not have much trouble in defeating Wawrinka (who is the worst of the 4 if we believe stats are relevant)

 

[D.Nalby12]

"Talented All Courter Novak Djokovic"

It's just matter of time Federer will confirm this.

Chico will be pleased.

 

[ABCD]

iirc, you trolled your way out of this one the last time, but I'm still eager to hear your answer to this pertinent question:

I have responded to this immediately after you asked. Go through my posts, it is somewhere. I am not saying anything; Federer does. If you disagree that he is now better than never you disagree with him not me.

 

[chjtennis]

It is really crazy to think that Federer has spent just 1hr 39mins per match on average so far. The last 2 matches (or 1) will truly test him. I hope he serves well and cruises past Stan like he did against Murray at Wimbledon. I hope for fresh Federer v fresh Djokovic for the final.

 

[chjtennis]

Shame the same can't be said about his movement, stamina, FH and recovery from matches. He should have switched to a bigger stick and hired Edberg ages ago when he still had a big game (2011) instead of one based on tactics and precision which requires near flawless execution to work over a BO5 against top players in today's slower conditions.

Absolutely agree. I've said many times he should've made the switch to a bigger racket years ago, thinking of all those misses which could've converted into wins. Still, he is the most successful men's tennis player ever and that is some achievement.

 

[Gary Duane]

1993: Sampras HC: 91/28 121 USO
1995: Agassi HC: 88/36 124 AO
1996:Chang HC: 83/38 121 no HC slam ***
1999: Agassi HC: 90/36 126 USO
2003: Agassi HC: 86/36 122 AO
2004: Federer HC 92/29 121 AO and USO
Hewitt HC: 87/33 120 no HC slam ***
2005: Federer HC 91/30 121 USO
2006: Federer HC 91/32 123 AO and USO
2007: Federer HC 91/29 120 AO and USO
2011: Djokovic: HC: 85/41 126 USO and AO
2012: Djokovic HC 89/37 126 AO
2013: Djokovic HC: 89/34 123 AO
2014: Djokovic HC: 89/34 123 no HC slam ***
2015 Federer: HC: 94/31 125 ?
Djokovic: HC: 88/33 121 AO and ?

Stats start from 1991, so this is the 24th year. In 14 of the last 24 years someone won 60% or more of all games on HC in a season. There have only been a three years when a player won more than 120 (0%) and did not win a HC slam. Chang in 1996, Hewitt in 2004, and Novak in 2014.

If Fed does not win the USO, he will be the 4th, and no one over the last 24 years will go without a HC slam with a game winning record as high as 125 (62.5). That stat is from before the USO, so he has actually increased that winning percentage.

I still have to give Novak the edge, if it does come to a Fedovic final, but this is definitely Fed's best chance in several years.

 

[chjtennis]

1993: Sampras HC: 91/28 121 USO
1995: Agassi HC: 88/36 124 AO
1996:Chang HC: 83/38 121 no HC slam ***
1999: Agassi HC: 90/36 126 USO
2003: Agassi HC: 86/36 122 AO
2004: Federer HC 92/29 121 AO and USO
Hewitt HC: 87/33 120 no HC slam ***
2005: Federer HC 91/30 121 USO
2006: Federer HC 91/32 123 AO and USO
2007: Federer HC 91/29 120 AO and USO
2011: Djokovic: HC: 85/41 126 USO and AO
2012: Djokovic HC 89/37 126 AO
2013: Djokovic HC: 89/34 123 AO
2014: Djokovic HC: 89/34 123 no HC slam ***
2015 Federer: HC: 94/31 125 ?
Djokovic: HC: 88/33 121 AO and ?

Stats start from 1991, so this is the 24th year. In 14 of the last 24 years someone won 60% or more of all games on HC in a season. There have only been a three years when a player won more than 120 (0%) and did not win a HC slam. Chang in 1996, Hewitt in 2004, and Novak in 2014.

If Fed does not win the USO, he will be the 4th, and no one over the last 24 years will go without a HC slam with a game winning record as high as 125 (62.5). That stat is from before the USO, so he has actually increased that winning percentage.

I still have to give Novak the edge, if it does come to a Fedovic final, but this is definitely Fed's best chance in several years.

Great stats from a stats guru at TTW!

I also believe this should be a very good chance for Fed to win his 18th. If he wins the SF in under 2 hours, he will have a very good shot. Even against Djokovic, I see that 50/50. I really hope he makes quick work of SF.