Djokovic: "Roger is playing the best tennis of his career now"

[Deleted member 307496]

When Federer is on he is unstoppable at times still, but he is not as good as he was when he was in his prime.

He would certainly be 1st in the world if he was 25 years old right now.

 

[veroniquem]

Obviously Nadal is nowhere close to where he was. And obviously Fed is nowhere close to his peak. I'm not ready to assume Novak is, in spite of his Masters wins, until he gets a 2nd and a 3rd slam.

In terms of stats, Novak is at his career best only in service stats (89%) , not in return stats (obviously 35 is excellent but he had 37 and even an astounding 41 in previous seasons). Fed is the only one of the big 4 who currently has his best stats in both serve and return on hard.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah but how good were Hewitt's return stats? That's his real strength.

Very good.

2001:

Agassi: HC: 86/32 118
Hewitt: HC: 84/34 118

I haven't checked everyone that year, but I'm pretty sure those were the best, and the split the AO and USO.

2002:

Hewitt: Grass: 87/35 122

By the way, it does not seem logical to me in that in some years when a couple players seem to winning everything that this does not at least point to everyone else not playing as competitively.

I think the best I've ever seen on grass is this, from 2004:

Fed: Grass 95/35 130

That said, it's so hard with grass because they don't play that many matches on this surface.

 

[veroniquem]

When Federer is on he is unstoppable at times still, but he is not as good as he was when he was in his prime.

He would certainly be 1st in the world if he was 25 years old right now.

He's not as good in best of 5 but he's really been impressive in best of 3 between Shanghai and IW.

 

[Bobby Jr]

He is playing great tennis hence #2, but not better than 10 years ago. And not at the slams where he used to play his best stuff. Sure Roger can play excellent in best of 3 on a HC still, but in best of 5 he's noticeably worse.

Last year he was in one major final, 2 semis and 4th round. Those are his best of 5 results for 2014.

His best of three results weren't much, if at all, better really.

 

[veroniquem]

Last year he was in one major final, 2 semis and 4th round. Those are his best of 5 results for 2014.

His best of three results weren't much, if at all, better really.

Are you talking about Fed

Best of 3 results last year: final in IW, final in M-C, final in Canada, final in Cincy, final in Shanghai, final in WTF

Oh you're right, not very different than 1 final + 2 semis in best of 5

:roll:

 

[Backspin1183]

Federer's serve and net game improved. But Roger IMO would gladly trade his slice, volley, serve for his movement, stamina and ground strokes of old.

 

[Carsomyr]

I do not fancy ANYTHING (especially when it comes to Fed) but I checked the stats and that's what I found. Go to "match facts" on the ATP site and look for yourself.

Thanks for informing us on how to look up the stats.

You don't have to take my word for it. Nobody can do anything about stats. They are what they are, period.

They are also stats a quarter of the way into the season. You know, with 75% of the season left to play, on grass, on faster outdoor hardcourts, on indoor - you know, where breaking is more difficult.

Saying that Fed is playing at his career best doesn't mean he should beat Djoko as Djoko's best is better than Fed's best (in return by quite some margin) but it could explain how Fed is still ranked so high.

:lol:

And what objective measure are you citing for this?

 

[Sentinel]

Sounds like Nole trying to justify his domination over the cruddy men's field currently. I don't care for Fed at all but you have to be complete IDIOT to think Fed is playing the "best tennis of his career" now

As though we needed reminding !!!

Otherwise, +1.

After beating Nadal at RG, I hope he says Nadal is playing the best tennis of his life. For kicks. LOL.

 

[90's Clay]

As though we needed reminding !!!

Otherwise, +1.

After beating Nadal at RG, I hope he says Nadal is playing the best tennis of his life. For kicks. LOL.

If Nadal even makes it that far this year. Im not entirely convinced to be honest.

His clay run may have ended last year.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

No, I am not kidding. Right now, on hard, Fed is at 92% service games won and 33% return games won and BOTH are his career best. Not only that but Fed had never had those career high at the same time before.
So whatever other issues he's struggling with, his stats are the best of his career absolutely literally.

See my earlier post.

Moreover, the figure is actually 91% service games won, not 92%, and again, those are only through April-- not a full season, like the ones you are comparing them to-- meaning that they are not a representative cross-section of Federer's performance, but a small and substantially-unrepresentative portion of the season. This is not just nitpicking; it is highly important. For instance, I strongly suspect that Federer's service games won percentage will decline over the course of the clay-court season, as it likely did during past clay-court seasons. Likewise, I expect that top players' service-and-return-games-won percentages often take a hit at the tail end of the season when they have to play a series of extremely tough matches against other elite players at the year-end championship. You would only have a valid claim that Federer's service-and-return-games-won statistics are the "best of his career" if you could show that he has a higher service games or return games won percentage through Monte Carlo than he ever has in a past season.

In an apples-to-apples comparison-- tiebreaks won through Monte Carlo-- I showed in my previous post that Federer has been nowhere near his best with respect to at least one important statistic, which has, in fact, been a very significant determinant in his season thus far (two lost tiebreaks to Seppi and one to Monfils sealing two damaging upset losses). In point of fact, even if we assume that Federer's service-and-return-games-won percentages in 2006 were the same through Monte Carlo as they have been this year, his overall performance including tiebreaks (the most important type of game) would still be significantly better-- consider: A 1% difference in service or return games won through a 20-match span (in which around 200 of each should be played) translates to roughly two games of each kind. That four-game swing in a 20-match run would be liable to amount to around two sets won that would otherwise have been lost or have gone to tiebreaks. On the other hand, a reversal in tiebreak outcome from a 20% winning average to an 87% winning average, even for a player who played relatively few tiebreaks, would still have an enormous macroscopic impact on that player's overall results, because every reversed tiebreak swings the outcome of a set.

 

[veroniquem]

And what objective measure are you citing for this?

Well, I added Djoko is the best returner we've ever had on hard, which is true. I mean Fed could only dream of a 41% return games won on hard. + Novak has the highest winning % on hard court in open era.

 

[veroniquem]

Moreover, the figure is actually 91% service games won, not 92%.

No, it's 91% on all surfaces. For hard court it is 92%. I gave the stats for hard court in 2015.

 

[veroniquem]

You would only have a valid claim that Federer's service-and-return-games-won statistics are the "best of his career" if you could show that he has a higher service games or return games won percentage through Monte Carlo than he ever has in a past season.

.

Once again, my stats were for hard court, so M-C is completely irrelevant.

 

[veroniquem]

1% difference in service or return games won through a 20-match span (in which around 200 of each should be played) translates to roughly two games of each kind. .

Whatever. On average, his return games stat is around 25%, so 33% is a hell of a peak, way more than 1% difference and can only compare to the type of stat he got during his best year 2006.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Once again, my stats were for hard court, so M-C is completely irrelevant.

Vero, can you please post Federer's stats for 2010-13 years?

 

[veroniquem]

Vero, can you please post Federer's stats for 2010-13 years?

Sure. What do you want? Service games, return games, 1st serve, 2nd serve? All surfaces combined? Hard? Clay? Grass?

 

[D.Nalby12]

Sure. What do you want? Service games, return games, 1st serve, 2nd serve? All surfaces combined? Hard? Clay? Grass?

Overall S. games + R. games stats for full season.

 

[veroniquem]

Service games % (all surfaces)
2010: 89
2011: 90
2012: 91
2013: 87
2014: 91

Return games % (all surfaces):
2010: 27
2011: 28
2012: 26
2013: 26
2014: 26

 

[D.Nalby12]

Are you talking about Fed

Best of 3 results last year: final in IW, final in M-C, final in Canada, final in Cincy, final in Shanghai, final in WTF

Oh you're right, not very different than 1 final + 2 semis in best of 5

:roll:

Although stats you've posted earlier are measure of Federer's performance relative to field but it's still relevant to some extend judging efficiency of his game.

Resurgence of Federer under Edberg has gone unnoticed by most of the analysts just because he lost Wimbledon Final.

 

[veroniquem]

Although stats you've posted earlier are measure of Federer's performance relative to field but it's still relevant to some extend judging efficiency of his game.

Resurgence of Federer under Edberg has gone unnoticed by most of the analysts just because he lost Wimbledon Final.

I guess that is unfair because making a W final at 32 and pushing it to 5, not vs a rookie finalist but vs #1 player is quite an achievement even if he didn't get the win in the end. I think 7 tier 1 finals in a season at 32/33 is unheard of.
At that age, Agassi was making 3 tier 1 top and Agassi is reputed for his longevity. Connors made 2 at 32. (Lendl also 2 and he lost both)
Fed is setting new milestones for consistency at the top at 33+

ETA: I suspect the difference in the return stat is due to the new racquet though (rather than Edberg)

 

[Pagoo]

Federer's serve and net game improved. But Roger IMO would gladly trade his slice, volley, serve for his movement, stamina and ground strokes of old.

Yep.Without a doubt. If this is Federer's best tennis, I shudder to think what his worst tennis would look like.

 

[Gary Duane]

See my earlier post.

Moreover, the figure is actually 91% service games won, not 92%, and again, those are only through April-- not a full season, like the ones you are comparing them to-- meaning that they are not a representative cross-section of Federer's performance, but a small and substantially-unrepresentative portion of the season.

I get 92% on HCs, 91% on "all surfaces", which is not really helpful since that is from very little on clay. Better to look at 84% on clay and see where that goes to.

This is not just nitpicking; it is highly important. For instance, I strongly suspect that Federer's service games won percentage will decline over the course of the clay-court season, as it likely did during past clay-court seasons.

Well, of course it will decline if you are looking at an average on all surfaces. Then it will go up in the grass season. Then it will settle somewhere after W. That's why it is not so good to look at averages on all surfaces. But Fed is at 84% of service games for a career, so I actually anticipate that his serving stats will go up on clay.

Likewise, I expect that top players' service-and-return-games-won percentages often take a hit at the tail end of the season when they have to play a series of extremely tough matches against other elite players at the year-end championship. You would only have a valid claim that Federer's service-and-return-games-won statistics are the "best of his career" if you could show that he has a higher service games or return games won percentage through Monte Carlo than he ever has in a past season.

Exactly. Because we can't compare this part of the season to stats for other seasons, same time frame. Those stats are not available, at least to us.

In an apples-to-apples comparison-- tiebreaks won through Monte Carlo-- I showed in my previous post that Federer has been nowhere near his best with respect to at least one important statistic, which has, in fact, been a very significant determinant in his season thus far (two lost tiebreaks to Seppi and one to Monfils sealing two damaging upset losses). In point of fact, even if we assume that Federer's service-and-return-games-won percentages in 2006 were the same through Monte Carlo as they have been this year, his overall performance including tiebreaks (the most important type of game) would still be significantly better-- consider: A 1% difference in service or return games won through a 20-match span (in which around 200 of each should be played) translates to roughly two games of each kind. That four-game swing in a 20-match run would be liable to amount to around two sets won that would otherwise have been lost or have gone to tiebreaks. On the other hand, a reversal in tiebreak outcome from a 20% winning average to an 87% winning average, even for a player who played relatively few tiebreaks, would still have an enormous macroscopic impact on that player's overall results, because every reversed tiebreak swings the outcome of a set.

That's a very good point. By the way, do you know if mini-breaks are counted along with BPs of regular games?

That would change things.

Let's say you have to players in a Isner like score where you have 7/6, 6/7, 7/6, and both players are not broken.

Both players will save 100% of break points against them and will have 0% of possible conversions of BP. That's a wash.

But if min-breaks are counted the winner will have 2, the other guy will have 1. Those SHOULD be counted somehow, but I don't know if they are.

I don't think Fed will stay long at winning only 25% of TBs though.

 

[Gary Duane]

I guess that is unfair because making a W final at 32 and pushing it to 5, not vs a rookie finalist but vs #1 player is quite an achievement even if he didn't get the win in the end. I think 7 tier 1 finals in a season at 32/33 is unheard of.
At that age, Agassi was making 3 tier 1 top and Agassi is reputed for his longevity. Connors made 2 at 32. (Lendl also 2 and he lost both)
Fed is setting new milestones for consistency at the top at 33+

ETA: I suspect the difference in the return stat is due to the new racquet though (rather than Edberg)

If you are judging return games and service games, the importance is the total.

If you have a couple guys winning 60% of more of all their games - in a season - the question is always why are the rest of the players winning a smaller % of their games. One is related to the other, and that should be true in any era.

So I find it illogical to think that newer rackets and strings are increasing both, but just for a very small number of people.

A better question would be: Why isn't there more pressure from more top players? And I think that has yet to be answered.

 

[smoledman]

Is anyone really expecting Federer to play as good as he did 10 years ago? You silly people!

 

[Gary Duane]

Is anyone really expecting Federer to play as good as he did 10 years ago? You silly people!

Not me. But some of us are amazed at how well he is still playing and are wondering if will ever again see a #1 who does not rule from the baseline.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

I get 92% on HCs, 91% on "all surfaces", which is not really helpful since that is from very little on clay. Better to look at 84% on clay and see where that goes to.
Well, of course it will decline if you are looking at an average on all surfaces. Then it will go up in the grass season. Then it will settle somewhere after W. That's why it is not so good to look at averages on all surfaces. But Fed is at 84% of service games for a career, so I actually anticipate that his serving stats will go up on clay.

...His overall career service statistics on clay will probably improve with this season (as they have been ever since his first few seasons on tour, which drag down his net totals), but I suspect he will hold substantially less than 91% through the clay court season, meaning that his season-to-date services games won percentage will be less. He has a career average of 89% service games won on hard courts compared with 84% on clay; his 91% overall-service-games-won average through 2015 Monte Carlo consists in 19 hard court matches and one clay court match, which is a figure disproportionately slanted toward the one of the two main tour surfaces on which Federer holds serve more often. As I said, Veroniquem has not made a sound comparison. Consider:

If a player who, on average, holds 90% of his service games on non-clay courts and 85% on clay plays 20 matches, one of them on clay (as Federer did through Monte Carlo 2015), he will be projected to hold 89.75% of his total service games. On the other hand, if he plays 20 matches, six of them on clay (more proportionally representative of an actual ATP tennis season), the projection slips to 88.5% of his total service games won.

Exactly. Because we can't compare this part of the season to stats for other seasons, same time frame. Those stats are not available, at least to us.

Well, we can, because we do have access to his statistics from each match, but we would have to go through his record and add up the respective totals one match at a time, which would take a while. I will admit that I find this spurious "Federer's-statistics-are-the-best-of-his-career" argument irksome enough that I'm tempted to set aside the time to do it.

That's a very good point. By the way, do you know if mini-breaks are counted along with BPs of regular games?

That would change things.

Let's say you have to players in a Isner like score where you have 7/6, 6/7, 7/6, and both players are not broken.

Both players will save 100% of break points against them and will have 0% of possible conversions of BP. That's a wash.

But if min-breaks are counted the winner will have 2, the other guy will have 1. Those SHOULD be counted somehow, but I don't know if they are.

Mini-breaks do not count as breaks/break points; that would warp statistics tremendously. Breaks and break points come only in service games. You can verify this by noting that matches like the hypothetical three-tiebreak match you've mentioned list no breaks or break points for either player in their statistical breakdowns.

I don't think Fed will stay long at winning only 25% of TBs though.

Yes, I'm sure his tiebreak average will improve as the season progresses (and it stands at 20%, not 25%). However, the point nevertheless stands that his tiebreak record thus far this year is a real and significant contrast to what he delivered at his peak; where a 1% difference in average service or return games won through a limited sample of matches is a fairly negligible difference which is not particularly likely to swing the outcomes of matches, a dominant winning record in tiebreaks compared with an abysmal losing one is an actual significant performance gulf, as tiebreaks are much more important than individual service or return games and the gap in performance (which may not even exist in the case of the service/return games, pending statistics on Federer's performance through Monte Carlo in past seasons) is much larger.

 

[Gary Duane]

This first:

Mini-breaks do not count as breaks/break points; that would warp statistics tremendously. Breaks and break points come only in service games. You can verify this by noting that matches like the hypothetical three-tiebreak match you've mentioned list no breaks or break points for either player in their statistical breakdowns.

That's what I thought.

I've gotten used to looking at % of BPs saved and % of BPs converted. I've noticed that the very best players are something like this:

65/45
70/40
75/35

It's not as reliable as % of service game/% of return games, but it tallies pretty well for years and very well over careers. It's utterly unreliable for single matches.

There is also a pretty predictable ratio of number of possible conversions to possible number of BPs saved. It stays at pretty much the same ratio for top players, with perhaps 15% wiggle room. For average players it drops down to pretty even (which is logical).

This ballpark figure of around 110 for totally BP % of saves and conversions is pretty telling. It goes above that on best surfaces for #1 players (measuring by year), so it's a pretty good indication of how pressure points are played.

TBs are terribly important. Generally a high percentage of wins goes with top players, so I am frankly a bit shocked at how badly Fed has done so far this year.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I guess that is unfair because making a W final at 32 and pushing it to 5, not vs a rookie finalist but vs #1 player is quite an achievement even if he didn't get the win in the end. I think 7 tier 1 finals in a season at 32/33 is unheard of.
At that age, Agassi was making 3 tier 1 top and Agassi is reputed for his longevity. Connors made 2 at 32. (Lendl also 2 and he lost both)
Fed is setting new milestones for consistency at the top at 33+

2014 was his most consistent season since 2007 with #2 Finish, total 5 titles from 11 Finals, 86%+ overall winning record and 17-5 record against Top 10 players. Yes, he couldn't win GS title but he was more consistent than supposed relatively physical prime years 2010-13. Better explanation of his failure to win GS title or Seppi kind of loss these days could be his age and fatigue factor rather than drop in level of play due to physical decline. He still can play brilliant Tennis somehow compensation slowed movement and lack of explosiveness in ground game with bigger racket and Edberg strategies to some extend as we saw in Shanghai, Dubai but we haven't seen him doing same in Bo5 format. I still don't want draw conclusion that he just too aged to win 7 BO5 matches though. I reserve the judgement till this September.

ETA: I suspect the difference in the return stat is due to the new racquet though (rather than Edberg)

No doubt Racket is playing big role in recent resurgence. At some point in 2013 Federer realised no longer he can continue to hang in with array of good players from younger generation pushing him with old school PS 90. He decided to switch, it took 7-8 months of rigorous work involving testing various combinations of string tensions/patterns even racket heads to make it suitable for his game. I think he tested 18-21 prototypes before finalising it. That was very smart but very late decision in my opinion and I hope GS train hasn't missed yet.

I agree with you about racket part since it seems bigger head helped him reestablishing old efficient shot making patterns that used to implement in his very peak years and struggled to implement it in his fall years 2010-13. His return stats weren't better last season though. (26%) This season so far there is sharp rise in it but it will drop as season goes. Still I don't see it dropping below 29%, I think it will settle around 29-31% which will be very close to his previous best. This sharp rise has something to do with the fact he's getting more and more comfortable with racket finding range on groundstrokes with every tournament he's playing. Shanghai was the first tournament, his forehand made comeback with RF 97. After that it has maintained progressive trend so far. See if you gets his return record from Shanghai to MC, I think we can we can separate two periods with drastic change in return stats.

From my point of view his quality of return hasn't improved under Edberg but combination of new racket, newly added net approach strategy and his work to resurrect own efficient all court game paying dividends. Under Annacone his game was fully distorted and lost it's efficiency factor. He was more or less UE machine on average day. These days even on worst day in business he don't make 40 UEs in two sets like used to do on regular basis. We saw sharp rise in his consistency level last year with most Finals, better record against top opposition since 2007 and this year his return stats has improved which is direct indication of come back comeback of efficiency factor in his game followed by rise in level of reliability and effectiveness ground game in my opinion.

I think at the end of the season, we can argument that in 2014-15 despite of physical decline he played better Tennis than 2010-11 achievements wise and on the basis of average level of play.

 

[Gary Duane]

...His overall career service statistics on clay will probably improve with this season (as they have been ever since his first few seasons on tour, which drag down his net totals), but I suspect he will hold substantially less than 91% through the clay court season, meaning that his season-to-date services games won percentage will be less.

In general all around players serve best on grass, worst on clay, and HCs are in the middle. There are outliers like Nadal who are obvious clay court specialists who are able to win a higher percentage of service games on clay. Nadal is at 85% for career on both clay and HCs, but with a whopping difference of 29% and 43% on returning.

Ferrer is an example of a very balanced player, career:
:::::: Clay: 76/36 112
:::::: HC: 78/30 108
:::::: Grass: 84/26 110

That's only a 2% difference from best to worst surface.

It's very easy to see how returns go up as serves go down.

Fed
:::::: Grass: 92/25 117
:::::: HC: 89/27 116
:::::: Clay: 84/28 112

That's only a 2.5% difference between grass and clay, and so it shows his balance. But one glance shows his best surface.

Edberg was very similar:
:::::: Grass: 85/28 113
:::::: HC: 83/31 114
:::::: Clay: 79/32 111

Note that this difference remains. The so called "as slow as clay" grass obviously is not.

He has a career average of 89% service games won on hard courts compared with 84% on clay; his 91% overall-service-games-won average through 2015 Monte Carlo consists in 19 hard court matches and one clay court match, which is a figure disproportionately slanted toward the one of the two main tour surfaces on which Federer holds serve more often. As I said, Veroniquem is not making a sound comparison.

You have to compare surface to surface. We can say that he is way above average this year on HC, but in order for that to be valid he also has to have the best record in titles. That's a bit hard because he has done well against Novak - obviously currently the best player in the world now on HCs - but he has been beaten by people he should not be losing to. So we have to say "to be continued", after W. If his stats stay where they are on HCs through the end of the year, no one will be more shocked than me. It does not make sense that Fed, at the age of 33, can win such a higher % of his return games. I believe it is as you said: as the year progresses, and he has to play more and more tight matches against the very best, that inflated % is going to drop. It will for Novak too.

Well, we can, because we do have access to his statistics from each match, but we would have to go through his record and add up the respective totals one match at a time, which would take a while. I will admit that I find this spurious "Federer's-statistics-are-the-best-of-his-career" argument irksome enough that I'm tempted to set aside the time to do it.

I'd be curious to see your results. I'm very careful about drawing conclusions from stats. Stats have to line up with winning, or they are just interesting numbers that do not predict.

I do feel comfortable saying that Fed and Novak may be #1 and #2 on HCs for the year on the basis of what I've seen so far. But the USO? I would not bet on either. Too many weird things happened last year, and both players are a year older.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Once again, my stats were for hard court, so M-C is completely irrelevant.

I stand corrected on that point (I believe you hadn't mentioned this in the particular post I quoted), but the point remains that you are citing statistics for a small fraction of one season compared with statistics for the entirety of other seasons. I amend my previous bolded statement thusly: you would only have a valid point if you could show that Federer's service/return games won through Miami 2015 were higher than his service/return games won through Miami in a given peak season.

In fact, I've just undertaken to go quickly through the MatchFacts add up Federer's hard court return statistics through Miami 2006, and it appears to me that he won 101 of 279 return games, or 36.2%, on hard courts through the same stage of that season as he has this season thus far. This being the case, I hope you will retract the claim that Federer's return statistics this season are the best of his career.

 

[NatF]

:lol: Yet you discount this EXACT possibility for the Safin (played well)/Seppi (played poorly) troll you posted that I replied to in kind and used it as some sort of carry all indicator of level of play for an entire season and then choose to ignore the season long numbers Vero posted.

Clearly I am posting fanboy drivel :lol: (which was what exactly btw? I don't recall even mentioning my favorite player in any of my posts).

And the fact is Fed DID peak at Wimbledon last year.

Or does citing the Fed that lost the Wimbledon final last year having a +46 W/UE ratio on the "slower more friendly to receivers" Wimbledon compared to a +31 on a "faster more attacking" 07 Wimbledon coupled with facing a tournament record 9 break points and dropping serve once heading into the finals, also reek of fanboy drivel?

Simply put there is just a cognitive dissonance with Federer fans and accepting he played his best but still lost to a better player. Its always some BS excuse (surface bias, match-up issue, sick, back injury, declined, "had the match in his hand and got unlucky"). The most hilarious part is where it comes to "Agassi at 34/35 was playing near peak when challenging Fed, but Fed at 29-33 was decrepit/declined shell of an individual that would lose 0, 0, 0 to his 25-27 year old self" despite all the stats showing otherwise. :lol:

Level in slams is far indicative of how well a guy like Federer is playing. He doesn't major in minors. As you know I was just 'trolling' your need to respond and with that image to boot is just an example of you leaping to defend Novak despite what he's saying being clearly BS - hence fanboy drivel.

I didn't say Seppi played poorly did I? Seppi played well, Federer played poorly. That's the first of your strawman attempts. As for Vero's numbers those from 2015 are not season long so you can park that at the door right now. His stats on return in 2014 were noticeably lower than his best years. I don't really care how they look for the first 4 months of this year when he's played only 20 matches and crashed out of the only slam and one of the masters. Results in the biggest tournaments surely matter more than winning lots of games in smaller ones?

Agassi had better winer/ue stats in the 2005 final than the 1995 final, was he playing peak tennis? As said before you can't determine absolute level from winners and ue's only. Federer couldn't dictate with his forehand and was bullied from the baseline. He served as well as he ever had and vollyed well.

BTW that's another strawman, I haven't claimed that 04-07 Federer would beat his older self 0,0,0.

You think Wimbledon was faster in 07 than 2014? Any evidence other than Novak winning :lol:

 

[Tony48]

OMG @ this thread.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Service games % (all surfaces)
2010: 89
2011: 90
2012: 91
2013: 87
2014: 91

Return games % (all surfaces):
2010: 27
2011: 28
2012: 26
2013: 26
2014: 26

Hey thanks Vero. Where you gets this stuff?

So far trend in his service game won shows, it keeps swinging in between 87%-92%. Even in his worst year 2013, it was 87% which is very good.

I think Federer's serve never declined drastically but it has shown patterns. He lost kick that he used to have in his prime on the serve around 2010 but he maintained it very effective in general. In WTF 2013, as I clearly remember he started to get some kick on serve even though he was using PS 90. I assume that was influence of Edberg who was known for his kick serves too and this partnership initiated before I they actually announced. Dubai 2014 SF against Djokovic he served more like he used to do like 2007 which really surprised me. That was something I didn't expect so early tbh. I believe Federer has done some nice work on placement of the serve recently with Edberg. Dubai 2015 Final serving masterclass didn't come in single night.

However his return stats suddenly dropped from 32% to 25% in 2008 in a year he struggled with form and mono infection. It never recovered after that sticking around 26% for last 5-6 years. This is the reason, I believe his absolute peak ended in 2007. (practically in AO 2007) After that ground game became unreliable, explosiveness on forehand has permanently gone, backhand became more vulnerable, dancing footwork disappeared. After that in 2010 Annacone disaster arrived who made key changes in his game turning him as baseliner with loopy, unreliable shots changing mechanics of both strokes and curbing all natural variety in his game. He was more like lottery ticket who used cash in once six months miraculously remembering his own playing style for a tournament. I can remember very few tournament in which he played Tennis according to his standards in couple years.

Since 2012 or more like USO 2011, he has played well or with his own efficient playing style in majority of tournaments. He put great work in 2012 resurrecting his game to some extend as possible. He had great season but injury troubled 2013 cut short all of his momentum. In 2014 he came with bigger racket, new coach leaving behind his stubbornness and rest we all know. I personally see his work under Edberg as continuation of resurgence he had in 2012. Let's see how far he goes dealing with physical decline.

 

[NatF]

Continuing the Wimbledon 07 vs 14 discussion, there would be clearly less errors in a serve dominated match where both got lots of free points than one which had more rallies. Now I'm not discounting the importance of the serve. However there is more to a match than just winners and UEs.

 

[Gary Duane]

I stand corrected on that point (I believe you hadn't mentioned this in the particular post I quoted), but the point remains that you are citing statistics for a small fraction of one season compared with statistics for the entirety of other seasons. I amend my previous bolded statement thusly: you would only have a valid point if you could show that Federer's service/return games won through Miami 2015 were higher than his service/return games won through Miami in a given peak season.

In fact, I've just undertaken to go quickly through the MatchFacts add up Federer's hard court return statistics through Miami 2006, and it appears to me that he won 101 of 279 return games, or 36.2%, on hard courts through the same stage of that season as he has this season thus far. This being the case, I hope you will retract the claim that Federer's return statistics this season are the best of his career.

I'm so glad that you did this. I don't think that Vero was trying to distort facts. Fed has been very good this year. But according to your math he is down 1.5% this year from where he was in one of his best years. In fact, he was at 32% on returns for the year, which is a stat he is very unlikely to equal this year.

 

[Gary Duane]

Service games % (all surfaces)
2010: 89
2011: 90
2012: 91
2013: 87
2014: 91

Return games % (all surfaces):
2010: 27
2011: 28
2012: 26
2013: 26
2014: 26

All surface stats are much less useful than stats by surface.

Nadal last year: 85/35 120
Djokovic last year: 88/33 121
Federer last year: 91/26 116

Nadal looks pretty good, right?

But Nadal's stats are totally skewed by clay: 83/44 127.

Very, I'm a little annoyed because I posted very careful statistics last year, over and over again, and I was largely ignored.

You are cherry-picking statistics, with no purpose.

What you have written today makes Fed look like he is having a record year (he is not), and like we should take the stats you are posting and conclude from this that Novak is a better player.

It's just not right. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Noelan]

:lol:at United Federerations at this thread.I thought that you can not be worse ,was bloody wrong.
@Tabash stated at page 3, when this interwiew was taken and context from which it was generated - before IW final match, and that is rewrriten from french media recently.
Would you be more furious and offended if he said..."I don't know, hes playing mediocre tennis, got lucky with the draws, hasn't had to play with Nadal in year, which is one of the reasons that hes at No2, and I'm going to trash him in tomorow "..

 

[Gary Duane]

Continuing the Wimbledon 07 vs 14 discussion, there would be clearly less errors in a serve dominated match where both got lots of free points than one which had more rallies. Now I'm not discounting the importance of the serve. However there is more to a match than just winners and UEs.

NatF, I think that the ratio of UFE to winners is not a bad metric, regardless of serve dominance. But using either, alone, is very misleading.

One thing I remain confused about is how aces and unreturnable serves are scored, also DFs. Someone told me recently that an ace is added to the winner column. I don't know if that is true.

The thing that bothers me about UFEs is that it is subjective. If you have a 30 stroke rally and someone finally hits a shot into the net, it just doesn't seem the same to me as when it is on the 3rd shot!

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

I'm so glad that you did this. I don't think that Vero was trying to distort facts. Fed has been very good this year. But according to your math he is down 1.5% this year from where he was in one of his best years. In fact, he was at 32% on returns for the year, which is a stat he is very unlikely to equal this year.

Well, 36% is a 3% advantage over 33%. Federer's return performance on hard courts up through Miami this year is not only not the best of his career, but it is a substantial margin under what it was through the same point in 2006. And indeed, I highly doubt Federer will match the 32% year-end return games won statistic; more likely, he will have peaks and valleys over the course of this season and his numbers will level out, with unusually high early-season figures like return games won dipping while unusually low figures like tiebreaks won improve. At any rate, Federer has performed well this season, but clearly not the best of his career by any stretch, and especially not in the big events, where he has flopped early in two of three showings.

As you say, I don't think Veroniquem has been deliberately misleading people, but she was taking a spurious statistical approach and making an objectively false claim (that Federer's statistics are the best of his career-- this being clearly false in an apples-to-apples comparison even of the same statistical categories).

 

[Pagoo]

:lol:at United Federerations at this thread.I thought that you can not be worse ,was bloody wrong.
@Tabash stated at page 3, when this interwiew was taken and context from which it was generated - before IW final match, and that is rewrriten from french media recently.
Would you be more furious and offended if he said..."I don't know, hes playing mediocre tennis, got lucky with the draws, hasn't had to play with Nadal in year, which is one of the reasons that hes at No2, and I'm going to trash him in tomorow "..

Have several seats. Some people are having intelligent conversations...if you have nothing intelligent to add, just stay quiet and you might learn something!

Not every discussion by Federer fans is a slight on Djokovic. It's weird. Your man is supposed to be the " dominant" number one, but some of you are so insecure.

So you think Federer is number 2 because Nadal has been playing bad? Well we can also agree that Djokovic is number one because of the FEDAL decline, no?

We saw what happened the last time Nadal was in form in 2013? He took the number one ranking. So be thankful. Your boy would still be number 3, where he was for a looooooong time.

 

[gregor.b]

The stats are legit. Check for yourself.

Must be the 'newest' weak era.

 

[Noelan]

You prove it all with your post . Thank you for showing .

 

[TheFifthSet]

But he also exists. Making up fantasy-land is not relevant to Fed's actual tennis performance in the real world, "doofus".

Thank you for not addressing the most pertinent parts of my posts :lol:

But I get it, reality is a pilgarlic after all.

Lol, noticed that too.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Djokovic in 2015:

% service games won: 89
% return games won: 36

Federer in 2015

% service games won: 92
% return games won: 33

Well that settles it, looks like Federer has been playing at a level similar to Djokovic this year. It all makes sense to me now.

 

[NatF]

NatF, I think that the ratio of UFE to winners is not a bad metric, regardless of serve dominance. But using either, alone, is very misleading.

One thing I remain confused about is how aces and unreturnable serves are scored, also DFs. Someone told me recently that an ace is added to the winner column. I don't know if that is true.

The thing that bothers me about UFEs is that it is subjective. If you have a 30 stroke rally and someone finally hits a shot into the net, it just doesn't seem the same to me as when it is on the 3rd shot!

I think Winner to UE ratios are a sign of a quality match e.g. good stats in each area are likely to point to a high quality of play. Though they ignore forced errors which are equally as important as winners IMO.

Where it falls short is definitively saying this match is higher quality than the other match. If the stats are good on each side then it becomes important to look other factors e.g. surface, players and match up. Murray and Djokovic at the AO in 2012 had a huge number of UE's compared to winners, yet many will conclude that match was one of their highest quality encounters. The only time I would generally flatout compare winners to UE stats either within the same tournament against the same player - for example Roddick and Djokovic vs Federer at the USO 2007. Roddick had better stats on the same court against the same opponent. Or between the same two players on the same court in a similar timeframe e.g. Wimbledon 2006 vs 2007 vs 2008.

I think aces and service winners are all included in the winners count, DF in the UE's.

Stats won't include things such as who defends better or the pressure Nadal's forehand exerts on Federer's backhand for example. They won't tell you that Djokovic returns better than Roddick etc...

 

[ledwix]

Djokovic in 2015:

% service games won: 89
% return games won: 36

Federer in 2015

% service games won: 92
% return games won: 33

Well that settles it, looks like Federer has been playing at a level similar to Djokovic this year. It all makes sense to me now.

Think about strength of schedule though. Djokovic has gone deep in more big tournaments, hence faced more top players.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Think about strength of schedule though. Djokovic has gone deep in more big tournaments, hence faced more top players.

Nah, screw context. Their levels are eerily similar, just look at their serve and return stats. Tells you all you need to know.

Federer = Djokovic, in 2015. Yup.

 

[NatF]

Nah, screw context. Their levels are eerily similar, just look at their serve and return stats. Tells you all you need to know.

Federer = Djokovic, in 2015. Yup.

Context is an ugly word on this forum.

 

[SpinToWin]

Some guys in this thread:

Djokovic with this comment

Anybody who thinks this Roger is playing anything remotely like his best in his career is a…