Djoko-coach channels Djoko-fans, claims 2017 is Peak Fedr
- Thread starter Carsomyr
- Start date
N
nikdom
Guest
Impressive really, given his age and achievements.
But it's also just one metric.
I wonder what Roger's FH winner count looked like during his prime and now. Also, FH winner speed. Not even sure such stats are tracked but visually, while Roger is moving and playing more efficiently *for his body and conditions now*, his peak was definitely a decade ago.
But it's also just one metric.
I wonder what Roger's FH winner count looked like during his prime and now. Also, FH winner speed. Not even sure such stats are tracked but visually, while Roger is moving and playing more efficiently *for his body and conditions now*, his peak was definitely a decade ago.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Skipped clay, inflates avg.
He is like greg maddox (baseball pitcher) not as much mph, but placement, variety and ball toss disguise makes it work. Sampras didnt have the fastest serve either, the 140 numbers have really made a 120mph serve look weak, when its stronger
Placement and weight adds 50mph (its effect)
He is like greg maddox (baseball pitcher) not as much mph, but placement, variety and ball toss disguise makes it work. Sampras didnt have the fastest serve either, the 140 numbers have really made a 120mph serve look weak, when its stronger
Placement and weight adds 50mph (its effect)
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually those serves really were faster. The measuring technology has had an impact.
C
Chadillac
Guest
They measure closer to impact now if i recall, great point. I would prefere they do the speed when it crosses the opponents service line. Would give a truer indication of speed.
Think they were doing when it crosses the net (like we do with the $100 radar gun) when Pete played.
Fed and sampras's serve didnt lose as much speed after the bounce. More of a slide to make it seem faster
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Made a thread a few months ago about the importance of Federer's serve. All I got was FH responses 
. Its arguably IMO the most important shot in tennis history.
Ask Steve Tignor of tennis.com
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...ederer-angelique-kerber-novak-djokovic/67493/
. Its arguably IMO the most important shot in tennis history.Ask Steve Tignor of tennis.com
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...ederer-angelique-kerber-novak-djokovic/67493/
TheFifthSet
Legend
I'm surprised that a supposed analytics wiz is going this route. If we're going to refer to stats/metrics, why be so selective?
^I mean, look. Look at that. Even a goddamn mouth-breathing, guilty-pleasure-Desperate-Housewives-watching, sports-magazine-reading buffoon like myself can refute the notion that Federer is better statistically in 2017. He wasn't. By just about every conceivable measure, he wasn't. So, what gives? What pearl of wisdom has eluded me? Why is my grasp on reality so tenuous?
^I mean, look. Look at that. Even a goddamn mouth-breathing, guilty-pleasure-Desperate-Housewives-watching, sports-magazine-reading buffoon like myself can refute the notion that Federer is better statistically in 2017. He wasn't. By just about every conceivable measure, he wasn't. So, what gives? What pearl of wisdom has eluded me? Why is my grasp on reality so tenuous?
Last edited:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I think John Yandell did unsurpassed analysis on Pete's serve and found that at times it could reach 5k + RPM, even at 120 mph.
End result is clear. With such topspin the ball maintains that much more horizontal momentum after the bounce. His serve really was special.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Made a thread a few months ago about the importance of Federer's serve. All I got was FH responses
Ask Steve Tignor of tennis.com
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...ederer-angelique-kerber-novak-djokovic/67493/
Whatever ground he's gained on service game stats (and keep in mind that the tour-wide hold rate is much, MUCH higher now than its ever been, higher than it was from 2004-2007) he loses on the return.
On aggregate, it makes no sense that Federer has improved statistically. It's empirically untrue. Now, we could sit back and say that he was somehow better in 2017 than in his prime because he's holding his ground against better fields. I vehemently disagree with that too. It's a claim I find utterly laughable. But at least that's inherently unfalsifiable. The argumentum ad analyticum (I think I'm clever, but I'm really just a jackass) appeal is easily falsifiable.
Last edited:
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
This is very true. Good thing his serve stats are up to even it out
.merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
justasport
Professional
I have been saying for weeks that he was playing his best tennis in 2017 as a whole.....people mocked and laughed at me but I still say 2017 as a whole was the best I have seen Federer play
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol
TheFifthSet
Legend
Problem is, O'Shannessy (who I generally agree with, and who I am glad is providing counsel to Novak), is dead-wrong about Federer being at his statistical best in 2017. So, the analysis he offered doesn't affirm your position at all. In fact, a comprehensive statistical comparison between 2004-2006 and 2017 directly undermines your position. See here:
I mean, this is basic stuff, not theoretical physics or advanced calculus or something.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It's pure bunk. The bottom line is % of matches won, leading to big wins, and nothing is more important than stats in slams. 2017 was so far from Fed's best year re winning games, it's not even funny. He was better in both 2011 and 2015.
In terms of winning games, this year was his 3rd worst starting at 2004, almost a percent lower than his career average, and that career average includes his really poor years. I'd love to believe that Fed, at the age of 36, is playing even better, but that's just not true.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I can't stand O'Shannessy. His stats are always wrong. He makes careless, superficial conclusions without the facts.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
The inconvenient truth is that this year Fed had an answer to Nadal, but off clay of course. Yet otherwise his overall play was better in both 2011 and 2015.
But in those years he had far stiffer competition.
If you want to compare 2011 Novak to Fed and get a fair fight, you have to go back to 2004 and 2006 Fed.
TheFifthSet
Legend
You think so? I'm less familiar with his stats are more with his strategic insights, which, while not free of flaws, are often refreshingly novel and interesting compared to other mainstream stuff.
I prefer TA's blog and 538 for my tennis analytics fix. Which isn't saying much, as I feel like we're barely scratching the surface....I wish those talented baseball Sabermetricians would direct some of their attention towards tennis.
TheFifthSet
Legend
While your ulterior motives are obvious, this post happens to loosely coincide with reality (except that Federer avoided clay to be fresh for the GC season but tomato, tomahto). Good job on your incidental right-ness.
TheFifthSet
Legend
It took me a while before I realized you were talking slams-only.
Yes, good catch: his gw% was 58.9% in 2017. I believe it's around 59.4% for his career.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Spot on - poor show for tennis as things stand.
Can I ask, did you start watching tennis in 2013? That’s the only realistic reason I can think of why anyone would see 2017 as his best tennis.
Or 2006 Wimbledon final
Or 2007 AO/YEC SF
Or 2008 USO F
Or 2009 Cincinnati F
Or 2010 YEC F
Or 2011 RG SF
Or 2011 USO match vs Monaco
Or 2012 Cincinnati F
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
2011 Fed was good enough, even if the year was probably Roger's 6th or 7th strongest. If not for a single point, the whole narrative would be different.
TheFifthSet
Legend
It really is too bad. There is a lot of untapped potential here. So much so that even manifestly average minds like myself can break new ground simply by spending inordinate amounts of time thinking about this stuff. I can only imagine what a Bill James or a Tom Tango (or heck, a @Gary Duane if there was enough incentive for him to do it for a living) could do.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
The way people interpret and use stats here is so horrific that I pay very little attention. Generally there are a lack of local and global relation points for the stats used meaning that sweeping judgements are made in complete isolation and sometimes with certainty (or arrogance) due to believing in sets of stats and data which operate in a detached framework. It happens because people are using false (or what could be false or true or somewhere in between, but is undetermined due to inadequacies of the framework) equivalencies. Just my quick two cents, scathing as it probably appears.
KineticChain
Hall of Fame
waht a baffoon! peak rogr had rocket missiles for arms, and laser cannons legs if i remember correctly.
2017 meatbagerer is a farcry from his bionic past. time to look for a new job, djokocoach
2017 meatbagerer is a farcry from his bionic past. time to look for a new job, djokocoach
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I have 59.45, but I count TBs, and that raises the number a tad.It took me a while before I realized you were talking slams-only.
Yes, good catch: his gw% was 58.9% in 2017. I believe it's around 59.4% for his career.
I have 58.99 this year, same reason. His TB record has been very good. That doesn't change the number much, usually at most .1%.
The big picture is that the numbers are a bit out of line.
Here are the numbers:
Game% Match% Player Period
63.46 96.43 Fed 2006
63.38 95.65 Fed 2004
61.53 92.31 Fed 2005
61.21 96.30 Fed 2007
60.46 81.82 Fed 2015
60.13 83.33 Fed 2011
60.11 86.36 Fed 2012
60.05 86.96 Fed 2010
59.84 81.25 Fed 2003
59.45 86.21 Fed career
59.45 88.89 Fed 2008
59.12 92.86 Fed 2009
59.05 83.33 Fed 2016
58.99 94.74 Fed 2017
58.59 82.61 Fed 2014
58.48 76.47 Fed 2013
54.71 76.47 Fed 2001
53.06 60.00 Fed 2002
51.48 63.64 Fed 2000
41.46 0.00 Fed 1999
Several things are obvious. First, for Fed - like every other ATG I've looked at - numbers are highest at majors. Why? Because of the relatively easy matches at the beginning of majors. This means that when you separate majors from non-majors, non majors have a lower game%.
But this year Fed's non-major games are better:
60.19
In his really peak years it was the other way.
Then there is the obvious pattern of 2004-2007 at the top.
But look at 2015: Doesn't that at least suggest that Fed was CLOSE to his best that year, and that Djokovic was just too good that year? That seems logical to me.
I think that Fed had an amazing year, but I also think he was incredibly lucky this year, and incredibly unlucky in 2015. Not lucky in terms of winning when he did not deserve to win. Unlucky in 2011 and 2015 in facing an absolute monster, right at his peak, when he was 6 years older.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Pretty much on target.
But I would also say that the biggest problem with stats is trying to use them to prove theories or pet biases.
For instance, in the case of games won, which I've been looking at for years, it's pretty obvious that they are bottom line figures. The 60% line is a very real boundary, and when you see top players cross that line, it means they are doing something very special. The guys who get even near 60% in majors, career, are the guys who are most often in GOAT discussions.
We know that there is a direct link between % of matches won, career, and the guys who are right at the top. That's obvious. Points are linked to games, and games are linked to matches. Matches are linked to careers.
That makes looking for anomalies very interesting.
For instance, it has bothered me for years that Sampras is below Fed and Sampras in games, and that's on fast surfaces. I just found out in the last 48 hours that when you compare his record in the first four rounds of majors, then his final three rounds, suddenly he is right there, right on top. The only explanation I can come up with is that he coasted more in early rounds, and I think eventually that will show up in numbers of other highly aggressive, top servers. Intuitively I feel that the guy most like Sampras, going way back, was Gonzalez.
But you have to keep an open mind, and you have to always be ready to be wrong. The moment you fall in love with your figures, or your conclusions, it's gonna "break bad".
TheFifthSet
Legend
All very true, but I think it's less to do with the hubris of the average tennis fan and more with the intrinsically limited explanatory power of tennis metrics. The more variable-ridden a sport is, the harder it is to whittle it down to a science. So, while there is indeed a dearth of savvy stats talk in our sport, it doesn't help that tennis statisticians face more of an uphill battle than baseball stats gurus, as baseball is about as linear a sport as you can get...every position player basically faces the same pitchers, in the same ballparks as everyone else does. In hitter-friendly parks, there are enough data points to create revelatory ballpark effect models which correct for any skews (and vice-versa for pitcher-friendly parks)...every batter has to wait his turn and can't really impose his will on the game to the extent he would wish to...the seasons are so long that anomalous runs of success (read: flukes) are eventually drowned out by longer runs of mediocrity...basically everything is standardized/isolated/neat and ripe for being picked apart by analytically-inclined folks. A players value is determined by how many runs above or below par they contribute, and since the statistical models used have an almost airtight correlation with wins on the field, voila, we've kind of reached an end point here. That's not to say that stats have rendered the 'eye-test' obsolete in baseball, far from it, every sport still has that human element regardless of how deep the stats go...nor does the cumbersome nature of devising good statistical models in tennis make such an endeavour worthless but...**** it you're intelligent enough to fill in the blanks, and I'm tired a.f. from a long work week.
Last edited:
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Yes, it's exceptionally nebulous as far as sports go - but many are kidded into believing that single islands of stats paint a full picture. One first has to realise exactly what you've just stated (which some here do, the few really good contributors) but most don't. That doesn't stop people from using the stats to paint whatever point they wish to with tennis and the mischievous ones can get away with exactly that because no end point has been remotely met, therefore there's no reason an interpretation can't be right (within reason).
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
The big take-away is there is no reason to assume that the best year in results means the best level of play. I think over a career those two factors pretty much come together, but during any year or even a 12 month period just a couple points can change everything, one way or another.
Think of 2009 with Nadal not going out at RG, and Roger not finally getting a couple key points against Roddick at Wimbledon.
Take Novak out of 2011 and very likely Fed has the USO, the AO, IW and Dubai. And suddenly that becomes a great year, two majors and an extra M1000.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Bottom line: it takes honesty and intelligence to get the truth of anything, and both are far too rare in the world. It's not just a tennis stats problem...
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Pretty much on target.
But I would also say that the biggest problem with stats is trying to use them to prove theories or pet biases.
For instance, in the case of games won, which I've been looking at for years, it's pretty obvious that they are bottom line figures. The 60% line is a very real boundary, and when you see top players cross that line, it means they are doing something very special. The guys who get even near 60% in majors, career, are the guys who are most often in GOAT discussions.
We know that there is a direct link between % of matches won, career, and the guys who are right at the top. That's obvious. Points are linked to games, and games are linked to matches. Matches are linked to careers.
That makes looking for anomalies very interesting.
For instance, it has bothered me for years that Sampras is below Fed and Sampras in games, and that's on fast surfaces. I just found out in the last 48 hours that when you compare his record in the first four rounds of majors, then his final three rounds, suddenly he is right there, right on top. The only explanation I can come up with is that he coasted more in early rounds, and I think eventually that will show up in numbers of other highly aggressive, top servers. Intuitively I feel that the guy most like Sampras, going way back, was Gonzalez.
But you have to keep an open mind, and you have to always be ready to be wrong. The moment you fall in love with your figures, or your conclusions, it's gonna "break bad".
Even the scoring system in tennis presents some real hurdles and allows for huge margin of error and as such you can see a champion like Sampras with such atypical patterns not match up to more usual expectations. But even for a single player, such increases of the resolution may be revealing across years; though findings would still float in a sea of confusion until the fields are relatively judged statistically, and then one would probably need to figure out how that then matches up to routes taken to Championships and to winning. Year to year would see big swings in fortune (as you suggested earlier in this thread by comparing some of Fed's years).
You could well be right if we literally consider the “playing” part. His footwork and speed is worse than during his years of total dominance, but very much is hidden by his improved backhand, creativity, less stubborness etc.
He dominated Wimbledon just as during the mid-2000s, with declined footwork. That is a statement for his game very much at the peak.
The only problem is, his body doesn’t allow him to do that for a whole season now.
TheFifthSet
Legend
So what you're saying is, post-modernists have ruined tennis.
(yeah, I agree 100%, as circle-jerky as this may start to sound).
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Nah, 2009 is a terrible example. Federer achieved a passable minimum out of what was up for grabs, potentially. Trust your eyes, I say. If Federer in 2014 could frustrate Djokovic, then the free-flowing Fed of 2005 - 2007 would have annihilated him.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
There is no way Federer played his best tennis in 2017. If your metric suggests that, then rubbish the metric.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
So what you're saying is, post-modernists have ruined tennis.
(yeah, I agree 100%, as circle-jerky as this may start to sound).
And cultural marxism. That is also responsible for the decline of intelligent tennis culture.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
According to Uncle Toni Fed isn't very keen on statistics. Perhaps we should trust his judgement
http://www.givemesport.com/1106358-...surprising-trick-behind-roger-federer-success
http://www.givemesport.com/1106358-...surprising-trick-behind-roger-federer-success
SQA333
Hall of Fame
And *that* is Djokovic's master analyst and new ace in the hole? Wow, just wow.
If anything it gives us Fed fans great hope that his Brains Trust isn’t that intelligent.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Yes, your post and this thread plainly shows that not only did Federer not exceed his prime years in terms of match stats, he also out-performed what his 2017 stats would expect of him.
Hey, side Q: what do you make of Pete's game w-l in majors for his career? I know we've discussed this before (serve-dominant players can get away with lower %'s, Fed and Pete coast a little on the return, etc) but I still find it fascinating that Pete is only at 57% while Agassi is at 58.7%. Further emphasizes that, however useful our stats are, they have unfortunate limitations.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
Legend
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Bro. Easy. Never go full Jordan Peterson.
Free Speech is critical for open tennis stats talk.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
What a joke, on the official ATP site as well no less.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Disagree, and on that note, I would like to push for legislation which compels us to refer to Fedr as GOAT.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Let's put it to a forum poll.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
And yet, in the real world, he played him four times this year, which is twice as much as the whole of 2014-2016. There goes your avoidance scenario,I suppose. playing your main rival four times in a year is "avoiding", then playing him twice in three years is much, much worse, so what was Nadal doing in 2014-2016, then? Even "hiding to protect the H2H" doesn't feel strong enough in this case, the difference being so huge.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Tennis stats will go nowhere until someone with a lot of time figures an accurate way to model playing level based on in-match statistics and taking into account opponent and opponent level. Something like the prior-based ridge regression approach NBA stats guys take for RAPM and stuff, except in tennis there's way more variables than just +/-. Problem in tennis is that I don't think large datasets are easily accessible or scrapable, i.e. complete match reports/stats for every match.All very true, but I think it's less to do with the hubris of the average tennis fan and more with the intrinsically limited explanatory power of tennis metrics. The more variable-ridden a sport is, the harder it is to whittle it down to a science. So, while there is indeed a dearth of savvy stats talk in our sport, it doesn't help that tennis statisticians face more of an uphill battle than baseball stats gurus, as baseball is about as linear a sport as you can get...every position player basically faces the same pitchers, in the same ballparks as everyone else does. In hitter-friendly parks, there are enough data points to create revelatory ballpark effect models which correct for any skews (and vice-versa for pitcher-friendly parks)...every batter has to wait his turn and can't really impose his will on the game to the extent he would wish to...the seasons are so long that anomalous runs of success (read: flukes) are eventually drowned out by longer runs of mediocrity...basically everything is standardized/isolated/neat and ripe for being picked apart by analytically-inclined folks. A players value is determined by how many runs above or below par they contribute, and since the statistical models used have an almost airtight correlation with wins on the field, voila, we've kind of reached an end point here. That's not to say that stats have rendered the 'eye-test' obsolete in baseball, far from it, every sport still has that human element regardless of how deep the stats go...nor does the cumbersome nature of devising good statistical models in tennis make such an endeavour worthless but...**** it you're intelligent enough to fill in the blanks, and I'm tired a.f. from a long work week.
Point stats are somewhat helpful, but there's still way too much noise.
Similar threads
