Duel Match Stats/Reports - Nadal vs Murray, Wimbledon semi-finals, 2010 & 2011

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Rafael Nadal beat Andy Murray 6-4, 7-6(6), 6-4 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 2010 on grass

Nadal would go onto beat Tomas Berdych in the final to win his second and to date, last Wimbledon title. Murray was in the semis for the second year in a row. The two had previously met in the quarter-finals in 2008 with Nadal winning

Nadal won 98 points, Murray 91

Serve Stats
Nadal...
- 1st serve percentage (68/97) 70%
- 1st serve points won (53/68) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (17/29) 59%
- Aces 4
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/97) 26%

Murray...
- 1st serve percentage (55/92) 60%
- 1st serve points won (43/55) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (21/37) 57%
- Aces 15
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (34/92) 37%

Serve Pattern
Nadal served...
- to FH 57%
- to BH 39%
- to Body 4%

Murray served...
- to FH 33%
- to BH 63%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Nadal made...
- 56 (25 FH, 31 BH), including 10 runaround FHs
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (3 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 12 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (56/90) 62%

Murray made...
- 70 (39 FH, 31 BH)
- 2 Winners (2 BH)
- 21 Errors, comprising...
- 12 Unforced (8 FH, 4 BH)
- 9 Forced (5 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (70/95) 74%

Break Points
Nadal 3/4 (3 games)
Murray 1/3 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Nadal 24 (12 FH, 4 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 3 OH)
Murray 20 (8 FH, 7 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)

Nadal's FHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl (1 pass), 3 inside-out, 3 inside-in and 1 longline at net
- BHs - 3 cc (2 passes - 1 net chord clipper) and 1 dtl

- 2 OHs were on the bounce - 1 a baseline shot

Murray's FHs - 3 cc, 2 dtl, 2 inside-out and 1 drop shot
- BHs - 4 cc (2 returns), 2 dtl and 1 net chord dribbler

- 2 from serve-volley points (1 FHV, 1 BHV), both first volleys

- 1 other FHV was a swinging shot from baseline
- 1 other BHV was a swinging shot

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Nadal 35
- 22 Unforced (11 FH, 11 BH)
- 13 Forced (6 FH, 6 BH, 1 BHOH)... with 1 FH at net
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.5

Murray 47
- 25 Unforced (14 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV)
- 22 Forced (11 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.6

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Nadal was...
- 19/23 (83%) at net, with...
- 0/2 forced back/retreated

Murray was...
- 17/28 (61%) at net, including...
- 11/13 (85%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 10/12 (83%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 1/2 forced back

Match Report
Close match for a straight setter. Nadal is the bossier player and more adept at finishing points with controlled aggression. The return is also a big factor in the result - relatively adventurous from Nadal at right times and a bit sloppy from Murray

First set is decided by 1 game - mostly poor from Murray, with one spark of brilliance from Nadal
Murray has considerably the better of second set and has the first set point in the tiebreak on his serve. Nadal erases it with a bold play and brings up what turns out to be the only set point he needs with a net chord flicking BH cc passing winner
Murray is up a break and 4-2 in the third til he falls into passivity while Nadal goes into not-going-to-miss-a-ball mode while remaining bossy to take the last 4 games to seal the match

Serve & Return
Basic stats speak to closeness of match, good play from both players and Nadal with a thin advantage
- Both players with 78% first serve points, while
- Nadal has a thin 2% advantage on second serve points, with both posting healthy winning numbers (Nadal 59%, Murray 57%)
- The key difference is Nadal serving 10% higher. His serve though, isn't particularly strong as low 26% unreturned rate (Murray has 37%) and 4 aces (Murray has 15) indicates

Clearly, Murray has the stronger serve. His faltering some on return though keeps him from maximizing potential serve-return complex advantage. Note 12 return UEs, to Nadal's 7. Good lot of regulation returns missed by Murray - usually, a strength of his game. Nadal's serving is solid and decent. Not too damaging, not a big problem to return

The other point of interest is Nadal's 10 runaround FH returns. Generally, he very rarely plays the shot on fast courts. Here, his first couple attempts are risky shots against good serves that he manages to pull off. In third set, he's playing the shot regularly. Its not a good sign for server when Nadal can get his runaround FH return going and here, he does so a small number of times even in deuce court. Murray's second serve is decent in the match, with just a few change up slow ones thrown in. Credit Nadal for the returns, not discredit Murray for the serve
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Play - Baseline & Net
In play,
- winners are similar - Nadal +4
- UEs are similar - Nadal +3 (as in, he has fewer)
- The big difference is in errors forced. Nadal with sizable 22-13 lead

Nadal is the bossier, more commanding player. He's able to take charge from neutral situations more and see points to an end when in command more, doing so with both shot making and moderate attacking shots that he builds up to from the back or coming in to finish. He's a very impressive 19/21 on points finishing with him at net. The two he loses are both forced approaches

Murray's attacking play is limited. He's at his best serve-volleying of all things, doing which he wins 11/13 points. Coming to net from rallies, Murray's eclipsed by great passing from Nadal and kept to winning just 6/15 points. From the back, he's able to wade into weak returns, particularly with powerful BH cc's. The FH by contrast, is usually a mild stroke as well as the most error prone groundie on show (14 UEs). On top of its forcing quality, Murray's BH is also the most secure with 8 UEs, with Nadal's 2 shots sandwiched in between at 11 apiece

Nadal is keyed in on relative strength across Murray's 2 wings. He proactively initiates BH cc - Murray FH rallies, including sending down slices that way. In general, Nadal never actively looks for this rally against right handers, much preferring FH cc'ng to the right handers BH. Doesn't over do, but does go in for it far more often than is his habit. And successfully, as the UE counts indicate. His BH is harder hit than Murray's FH

Good point construction and shot choices from Nadal. Neutrally, he's more secure to a larger extent than final UE counts suggest. Rather, he has a relatively poor second set where he's very error prone. For first set and most of third, he barely misses a ball. He's able to take charge of points by moving Murray around a bit, and executes his finishing shots with excellent judgment - or come to net to usually force a passing error. FH dtl or longline in particular is damaging from the back - either ending points or surprising Murray and allowing Nadal to take control of point. Murray by contrast is driven to lashing out with FHs at times and usually misses

Neither players defence stands out. Attacks are moderate enough that there's scope for strong defence to regularly thwart them, especially for the these two players. Rarely are either able to. Nadal does so more. Murray's attacks are gentler, though he attacks less often too so Nadal has less chance to showcase defence

Match Progression
Comfortable holds bar the break in first set. The critical point in the break game is at 30-30, when Nadal returns a strong wide serve back wide to draw a weak shot, on which he pounces and finishes with FH inside-in winner. On break point, he misses a regulation FH - and Nadal serves out the set. Just 1 UE in the the set from Nadal - and that's at 40-0 when serving out the set

Murray skates through his service games in second set, winning first 13 points and losing just 2 points in 5 holds. Plenty of serve-volleying in there. Nadal by contrast, starts making errors from the back is pushed to hold. He serves 48 points in the set, to Murray's 35, but has momentum of winning last 10 service points going into tiebreak

The tiebreak is first rate one. Murray gains early mini-break with a BH cc return winner and hands it back with a poor FH UE. At 5-5, Nadal double faults to give Murray set point on his own serve

Nadal runsaround to hit FH return, comes to net and controls a drop BHV winner to a wide-ish ball from under net height to save set point. Next point, Murray's at net in good position and Nadal's BH cc pass flicks the net chord on its way through for another winner. Nadal wraps up the set on his serve with a FH cc winner

Murray starts the third with a break to love, a poor game from Nadal. He eases off some on return games as he continues to hold and starts missing regulation returns. From 2-4 down, Nadal wins the last 4 games of the match

First break for Nadal is in 10 point game that's in the balance with Murray on game point before three sloppy point from him. He's lucky to not get swamped off a poor drop shot and has a relatively simple volley to open court off of Nadal's get, but misses. Then double faults. Then makes a poor FH approach error

Second break ends the match and there are 3 more poor Murray errors in it - 2 third ball FHs and a swinging FHV - in it

Summing up, compact showing from Nadal as he controls plays with solid groundstrokes, good point construction and excellent judgement in when to go for the kill, including at net. A bit mild from Murray from the back, particularly off the FH and at times, a bit flat. He's at his most effective serve-volleying, but doesn't do it much and is out-steadied and moved around from the back. Still, very close match with Murray getting a lot more out of the serve and a small number of points, where Nadal excels and Murray falters, being critical
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Murray was leading the point count up 4-2 in the third, ergo he was slightly better than Nadal for most of the match but mental muggery prevented him from maintaining a steady level under pressure and predatordal capitalised as usual.
That was PEAK strong era two time GRASS court champion Andy Murray whom RAFA is 3-0 against.

that is how you do it in a STRONG era, PETE would be proud.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Murray was leading the point count up 4-2 in the third, ergo he was slightly better than Nadal for most of the match but mental muggery prevented him from maintaining a steady level under pressure and predatordal capitalised as usual.
And Rod beat maybe an even better Murray the year before winning the points stats, what it tells us?

(For the record, I don't believe Murray was better than Nadal, just messing around, pretty much agree with Wasp's writeup here).

Murray's first serve in the first two sets here was through the roof for him which kept things very close as may happen on grass, but ultimately when Ralph turned up the heat a bit, Murray couldn't match, and Murray missed his biggest first serve of the match (set point in the second set). Nothing out of the ordinary for any version of Murray, in fact keeping up a high serving level for two sets is somewhat noteworthy, in the 2012 final he could only do it for 1, and in the 2012 Olympics SF/F he only served very well in 1 of the 5 sets.

Ralph was pretty damn good and solid off the ground here, if Murray had served normally this may have been a proper beatdown and a great datapoint as to the difference between Nadal 2010 and 2011. Oh well, we'll leave it to more thorough people to discern that.
 
Last edited:
And Rod beat maybe an even better Murray the year before winning the points stats, what it tells us?

(For the record, I don't believe Murray was better than Nadal, pretty much agree with Wasp's writeup here).
Well Murray was objectively better overall after 29 games since he was leading the point count, even if just by 2. Too bad he lacked the clutch to take the second set where he was slightly but clearly better throughout, and imploded in the third set losing the last four games and the match. What it tells about second best grassdal level, nothing great apparently.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Well Murray was objectively better overall after 29 games since he was leading the point count, even if just by 2. Too bad he lacked the clutch to take the second set where he was slightly but clearly better throughout, and imploded in the third set losing the last four games and the match. What it tells about second best grassdal level, nothing great apparently.
The chance to take the 2nd manifested in just one missed first serve, sounds like our discussion about first set of 09. For Murray to give 07/08/10 Nadal a serious scare he needs to maintain that 2010 level serving with 2012 level groundgame/mentality and he's never shown that capability.

Points are not the end all be all, Federer led by 12 points after 4 sets of the 09 AO final, he only won the 04 QF by 6. Would you say he was the better player over 09 Nadal (if at all) by more than he was over 04 Nalbandian (while himself being a more potent player even if he didn't play his greatest match, but Nalbandian was also one of the very few (along with Safin and Agassi) that could fully keep up in a ballstriking contest with such an explosive Federer from the baseline at least on a slow court).

Like I said, this is Murray's best serving to keep it close and he still lost in straights and was thoroughly outplayed from the ground. I have a hard time extrapolating "better" in any way from that. Sure, you can say what if he had 2012's ground aggression and mentality combined with that serving, but he's literally never done that (and even then in that case, you'd probably still favor peak Nadal).

Another example, Fedovic were tied in points after 4-4 in the 5th in 2014 Wimbledon, were they really equal in overall level? I don't think so. Fraud should have routinely lost in 4 despite historically good serving in the 3rd set and that should have been that if Djokovic wasn't mentally flaky.
 
Last edited:
The chance to take the 2nd manifested in just one missed first serve, sounds like our discussion about first set of 09. For Murray to give 07/08/10 Nadal a serious scare he needs to maintain that 2010 level serving with 2012 level groundgame/mentality and he's never shown that capability.

Points are not the end all be all, Federer led by 12 points after 4 sets of the 09 AO final, he only won the 04 QF by 6. Would you say he was the better player over 09 Nadal (if at all) by more than he was over 04 Nalbandian (while himself being a more potent player even if he didn't play his greatest match, but Nalbandian was also one of the very few (along with Safin and Agassi) that could fully keep up in a ballstriking contest with such an explosive Federer from the baseline at least on a slow court).

Like I said, this is Murray's best serving to keep it close and he still lost in straights and was thoroughly outplayed from the ground. I have a hard time extrapolating "better" in any way from that. Sure, you can say what if he had 2012's ground aggression and mentality combined with that serving, but he's literally never done that (and even then in that case, you'd probably still favor peak Nadal).

Another example, Fedovic were tied in points after 4-4 in the 5th in 2014 Wimbledon, were they really equal in overall level? I don't think so. Fraud should have routinely lost in 4 despite historically good serving in the 3rd set and that should have been that if Djokovic wasn't mentally flaky.
Federer was obviously the much better player over Nadal in the first four sets of AO 09 F, too bad he faltered at nearly all clutch junctions while Nadal raised his game like clockwork. (One significant exception would be Fred saving 5 BPs early in the fourth set before going on to dominate it like he did the second.) Typical mental midgetry leading to disgusting outcomes. That Bandy played Fred much closer in the first three sets of AO 04 QF (about even in points, think fred led by one?) says something about the level comparison between these matches... peak Nalbandian > peak Nadal at AO if not for the clutch factor difference? Possibly! After all, there's an obvious argument that if Peakdasco and especially Frohder weren't renowned chokers Nadal wouldn't have beaten them, he did so more by outclutching than outplaying... didn't even outplay Fred in totality lol. Not the case for 2014 WB F since Djo led DR clearly, Fred played quite a bit more points on serve, whereas 2009 AO F had Fred leading in all basic stats prior to the collapse except sets won lol. Same as the first three sets of 2008 WB F. Can't get over such unclutch disgustitude and the resulting overration of peakdoll.
 

ibbi

Legend
One of the best straight set matches I’ve ever seen, one of my favourite Nadal performances ever with him barely making a mistake when it mattered and coming through in the clutch again and again. A tremendous forerunner to the sort of similar Murray semi final here in 2015.

Great write up, as always :)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well Murray was objectively better overall after 29 games since he was leading the point count, even if just by 2. Too bad he lacked the clutch to take the second set where he was slightly but clearly better throughout, and imploded in the third set losing the last four games and the match. What it tells about second best grassdal level, nothing great apparently.
Not all points are equal though. Don't think two points is significant enough to say he was 5h3 better player despite being two sets down.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Federer was obviously the much better player over Nadal in the first four sets of AO 09 F, too bad he faltered at nearly all clutch junctions while Nadal raised his game like clockwork. (One significant exception would be Fred saving 5 BPs early in the fourth set before going on to dominate it like he did the second.) Typical mental midgetry leading to disgusting outcomes. That Bandy played Fred much closer in the first three sets of AO 04 QF (about even in points, think fred led by one?) says something about the level comparison between these matches... peak Nalbandian > peak Nadal at AO if not for the clutch factor difference? Possibly! After all, there's an obvious argument that if Peakdasco and especially Frohder weren't renowned chokers Nadal wouldn't have beaten them, he did so more by outclutching than outplaying... didn't even outplay Fred in totality lol. Not the case for 2014 WB F since Djo led DR clearly, Fred played quite a bit more points on serve, whereas 2009 AO F had Fred leading in all basic stats prior to the collapse except sets won lol. Same as the first three sets of 2008 WB F. Can't get over such unclutch disgustitude and the resulting overration of peakdoll.
If If but Nadal has better abilities as well and is physically better as well.
 
Not all points are equal though. Don't think two points is significant enough to say he was 5h3 better player despite being two sets down.
When a player leads both the point total and RPW (DR>1), he is the better player. Since tennis scoring is structures so points are not all equal and pressure points are particularly important, it's possible, and common even, to lose despite being even or slightly better overall but come short in the clutch. Even possible to lose while being a lot better, as Roddick can attest.
 
When you take away things from a player you come up with all kind of conclusions about a player......
Clutch factor isn't like a tennis stroke though. This specifically refers to the ability to win bigger points - more precisely speaking, success at winning points with higher volatility compared to average point-winning success. Nadal's peak base level off clay is being overrated again it seems, people ignoring the strength of his clutch factor and how it was crucial in Nadal obtaining all those Fedovic slem wins except USO '10.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
And Rod beat maybe an even better Murray the year before winning the points stats, what it tells us?

(For the record, I don't believe Murray was better than Nadal, just messing around, pretty much agree with Wasp's writeup here).

Murray's first serve in the first two sets here was through the roof for him which kept things very close as may happen on grass, but ultimately when Ralph turned up the heat a bit, Murray couldn't match, and Murray missed his biggest first serve of the match (set point in the second set). Nothing out of the ordinary for any version of Murray, in fact keeping up a high serving level for two sets is somewhat noteworthy, in the 2012 final he could only do it for 1, and in the 2012 Olympics SF/F he only served very well in 1 of the 5 sets.

Ralph was pretty damn good and solid off the ground here, if Murray had served normally this may have been a proper beatdown and a great datapoint as to the difference between Nadal 2010 and 2011. Oh well, we'll leave it to more thorough people to discern that.
Nadal beat Murray by 7 points across 3 sets Rod beat Murray by 3 points across 4 sets. Not sure what you're implying here but I'm guessing it doesn't make sense given those facts.
 
Nadal beat Murray by 7 points across 3 sets Rod beat Murray by 3 points across 4 sets. Not sure what you're implying here but I'm guessing it doesn't make sense given those facts.
Nadal stats inflated by mugray mugging the last four games. Didn't mug as much against Roddick although it's easier not to mug against him of course.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Clutch factor isn't like a tennis stroke though. This specifically refers to the ability to win bigger points - more precisely speaking, success at winning points with higher volatility compared to average point-winning success. Nadal's peak base level off clay is being overrated again it seems, people ignoring the strength of his clutch factor and how it was crucial in Nadal obtaining all those Fedovic slem wins except USO '10.
If you are only looking at strokes go watch some ballet or croquet, you are on the wrong sub.

this is a tennis sub
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
more like you're a dullard who lacks the intellectual, aesthetical and emotional framework to appreciate the game properly. Go circlejerk your fellow blight buddies. Talk to the wall now.
Separating mental and clutch game from tennis is something a dullard like yourself would do,

Go jerk off to Fed hitting practice “aesthetic” backhands, because he certainly couldn’t hit one in a match.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
When a player leads both the point total and RPW (DR>1), he is the better player. Since tennis scoring is structures so points are not all equal and pressure points are particularly important, it's possible, and common even, to lose despite being even or slightly better overall but come short in the clutch. Even possible to lose while being a lot better, as Roddick can attest.
Think this is an oversimplification. Looking at the stats Nadal was the better player in set one, Murray in set two - Murray's margin being larger in set two doesn't make him the better player when he lost both of those sets IMO. Nadal didn't face a BP in set 1 and won more points on serve and return it looks like. It seems like Murray was way more dominant on serve in set 2 but couldn't convert his BP's and Nadal nabbed the TB. Probably fair to say Murray was the better player in set 2 despite losing it but looking across the first two sets I don't see it. In cases where there's a big point differential sure but two points? Nah, Nadal winning the big points across both sets and being the better player in set one makes him the better player.
 
Think this is an oversimplification. Looking at the stats Nadal was the better player in set one, Murray in set two - Murray's margin being larger in set two doesn't make him the better player when he lost both of those sets IMO. Nadal didn't face a BP in set 1 and won more points on serve and return it looks like. It seems like Murray was way more dominant on serve in set 2 but couldn't convert his BP's and Nadal nabbed the TB. Probably fair to say Murray was the better player in set 2 despite losing it but looking across the first two sets I don't see it. In cases where there's a big point differential sure but two points? Nah, Nadal winning the big points across both sets and being the better player in set one makes him the better player.
As for 4-2 in the third, Murray had been the better player for 1.5 sets out of 2.5 despite managing to lose the second, so there. Good job wrapping the match up quickly from then on ha.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Clutch factor isn't like a tennis stroke though. This specifically refers to the ability to win bigger points - more precisely speaking, success at winning points with higher volatility compared to average point-winning success. Nadal's peak base level off clay is being overrated again it seems, people ignoring the strength of his clutch factor and how it was crucial in Nadal obtaining all those Fedovic slem wins except USO '10.
Fine but still clutch is still heavily reliant on other Nadal strengths over Nalbandian.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
When a player leads both the point total and RPW (DR>1), he is the better player. Since tennis scoring is structures so points are not all equal and pressure points are particularly important, it's possible, and common even, to lose despite being even or slightly better overall but come short in the clutch. Even possible to lose while being a lot better, as Roddick can attest.
04 USO is probably the best example I can think of the better player losing.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
2010 SF > 2011 SF. The latter was really poor from Murray after the first set.

But then again, that is to be expected. 2011 Murray was a more consistent Ferrer, losing to his superiors rather easily each time.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Federer was obviously the much better player over Nadal in the first four sets of AO 09 F, too bad he faltered at nearly all clutch junctions while Nadal raised his game like clockwork. (One significant exception would be Fred saving 5 BPs early in the fourth set before going on to dominate it like he did the second.) Typical mental midgetry leading to disgusting outcomes. That Bandy played Fred much closer in the first three sets of AO 04 QF (about even in points, think fred led by one?) says something about the level comparison between these matches... peak Nalbandian > peak Nadal at AO if not for the clutch factor difference? Possibly! After all, there's an obvious argument that if Peakdasco and especially Frohder weren't renowned chokers Nadal wouldn't have beaten them, he did so more by outclutching than outplaying... didn't even outplay Fred in totality lol. Not the case for 2014 WB F since Djo led DR clearly, Fred played quite a bit more points on serve, whereas 2009 AO F had Fred leading in all basic stats prior to the collapse except sets won lol. Same as the first three sets of 2008 WB F. Can't get over such unclutch disgustitude and the resulting overration of peakdoll.
Points stats should be looked at with context. In both 04 QF and 09 F the loser only won their sets after facing large deficits (2 sets down in 04, set and break down in and 2-1 and almost a break down in 09). Also Nalbandian was convincingly beaten in the fourth the minute he actually won a set(same as 06 Wimby F) suggesting that Fed had higher gears to go to when he needed. Of course those two matches are different as Nalbandian played a fully focused Federer close to even for 3 sets whereas Nadal got bagelled in the first, which totally relaxed Federer in the middle two sets.

Yes they had chances to win other sets but they didn't because they couldn't pull out close opportunities. Yes, maybe it was a lack of clutch in those close moments but the fact that they were even moments to begin with doesn't really square with any kind of clear superiority. Sure, if 09 Federer had served better and played more decisively he may have been superior and he may have won the match, but ultimately he didn't. In general, being superior in a match then losing should imply some kind of clear lead was blown. In the 09 AO F the only time Federer had a lead was when he broke for 4-2 in the first, but he then immediately got broken back so there goes that. The closest Nalbandian had to a lead in 04 was 5-5 15-40 in the first but then Federer slammed down 4 straight aces lol.

Nalbandian obviously isn't better than peak Nadal at AO. Yes, he's a spectacular enough ballstriker and returner to do a lot of damage against imbalanced players such as Fedal, but there's a long way from that to actually being favored to win a match, and Nalbandian's own serve means he can never really cruise to any sets which spells doom for him over 5 sets due to his lack of physical ability compared to Nadal. 04 AO Nalbandian vs 12 AO Nadal I think could be very interesting but ultimately will come down to the same factors, but Nalbo may have periods of more clear baseline dominance given 12 Nadal's propensity for the short ball leading him to be bullied more in that tournament which we saw in the last 3 rounds. Any other version of AOdal Nalbandian should beat, as there is a threshold.
 
Last edited:

CHillTennis

Rookie
Fantastic analysis, Waspsting!

Would you have any interest in reviewing the 2010 and '11 US Open finals between Djokovic and Nadal?

Both matches were to four sets and were split between the two players.

I seem to remember that Nadal was serving harder in 2010 and was hitting the ball deeper off of the ground.

From a stats perspective though, I would love to see a comparison between the two matches.

It might also offer some insight as to how Djokovic was able to dominate Nadal during this time period.

Keep up the great work, man! :)
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Clutch factor isn't like a tennis stroke though. This specifically refers to the ability to win bigger points - more precisely speaking, success at winning points with higher volatility compared to average point-winning success. Nadal's peak base level off clay is being overrated again it seems, people ignoring the strength of his clutch factor and how it was crucial in Nadal obtaining all those Fedovic slem wins except USO '10.
Tennis effort and intensity varies by point and by situation. It's impossible to maintain peak effort for 300 straight points or something. Yes, there is such a thing as clutch where players produce outlier performance in big moments, but I actually question how much of it is real. Much of it is probably attributable to consistently raising your effort and intensity in the biggest moments, which means you had that level in the first place (i.e. superiority). I think clutch vs unclutch is related to mentality and courage which may stop players from attaining a level they have the capacity to produce in those big moments. Sometimes it stops players from the very first ball, sometimes it stops them in the bigger points. But besides that, much of it is basically who can do the most damage when they are completely locked in and moving at full intensity, which you may not get an accurate accounting of for most of the match (for the truly great ones you usually do though which is what makes them so great, and it's in these matches that true clutch can be exhibited).
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Fantastic analysis, Waspsting!

Would you have any interest in reviewing the 2010 and '11 US Open finals between Djokovic and Nadal?

Both matches were to four sets and were split between the two players.

I seem to remember that Nadal was serving harder in 2010 and was hitting the ball deeper off of the ground.

From a stats perspective though, I would love to see a comparison between the two matches.

It might also offer some insight as to how Djokovic was able to dominate Nadal during this time period.

Keep up the great work, man! :)
He did both finals.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Tennis effort and intensity varies by point and by situation. It's impossible to maintain peak effort for 300 straight points or something. Yes, there is such a thing as clutch where players produce outlier performance in big moments, but I actually question how much of it is real. Much of it is probably attributable to consistently raising your effort and intensity in the biggest moments, which means you had that level in the first place (i.e. superiority). I think clutch vs unclutch is related to mentality and courage which may stop players from attaining a level they have the capacity to produce in those big moments. Sometimes it stops players from the very first ball, sometimes it stops them in the bigger points. But besides that, much of it is basically who can do the most damage when they are completely locked in and moving at full intensity, which you may not get an accurate accounting of for most of the match (for the truly great ones you usually do though which is what makes them so great, and it's in these matches that true clutch can be exhibited).
I disagree. Fred’s aestatic ballet backhand gives him extra brownie points. Who cares about mental fortitude and production in the big moments.

The octopus is right.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Points stats should be looked at with context. In both 04 QF and 09 F the loser only won their sets after facing large deficits (2 sets down in 04, set and break down in and 2-1 and almost a break down in 09). Also Nalbandian was convincingly beaten in the fourth the minute he actually won a set(same as 06 Wimby F) suggesting that Fed had higher gears to go to when he needed. Of course those two matches are different as Nalbandian played a fully focused Federer close to even for 3 sets whereas Nadal got bagelled in the first, which totally relaxed Federer in the middle two sets.

Yes they had chances to win other sets but they didn't because they couldn't pull out close opportunities. Yes, maybe it was a lack of clutch in those close moments but the fact that they were even moments to begin with doesn't really square with any kind of clear superiority. Sure, if 09 Federer had served better and played more decisively he may have been superior and he may have won the match, but ultimately he didn't. In general, being superior in a match then losing should imply some kind of clear lead was blown. In the 09 AO F the only time Federer had a lead was when he broke for 4-2 in the first, but he then immediately got broken back so there goes that. The closest Nalbandian had to a lead in 04 was 5-5 15-40 in the first but then Federer slammed down 4 straight aces lol.

Nalbandian obviously isn't better than peak Nadal at AO. Yes, he's a spectacular enough ballstriker and returner to do a lot of damage against imbalanced players such as Fedal, but there's a long way from that to actually being favored to win a match, and Nalbandian's own serve means he can never really cruise to any sets which spells doom for him over 5 sets due to his lack of physical ability compared to Nadal. 04 AO Nalbandian vs 12 AO Nadal I think could be very interesting but ultimately will come down to the same factors, but Nalbo may have periods of more clear baseline dominance given 12 Nadal's propensity for the short ball leading him to be bullied more in that tournament which we saw in the last 3 rounds. Any other version of AOdal Nalbandian should beat, as there is a threshold.
I would be curious to see your oppenent ratings on my other threads off topic :cool:
 
Last edited:

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I disagree. Fred’s aestatic ballet backhand gives him extra brownie points. Who cares about mental fortitude and production in the big moments.

The octopus is right.
Having pretty strokes is an important factor for me as well, don't get me wrong.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Having pretty strokes is an important factor for me as well, don't get me wrong.
Fair. If we are solely looking at pretty strokes I don’t think anyone holds a candle to Fed, I’ll be honest.

Although for two handers I’ll take Murray’s backhand.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Fair. If we are solely looking at pretty strokes I don’t think anyone holds a candle to Fed, I’ll be honest.

Although for two handers I’ll take Murray’s backhand.
prettiest 2H is Nalbandian for me (he does pretty much most of the things Federer does on his FH to make it look pretty) and most awe inspiring is Safin.
 
S

Stannis Baratheon

Guest
Fantastic analysis, Waspsting!

Would you have any interest in reviewing the 2010 and '11 US Open finals between Djokovic and Nadal?

Both matches were to four sets and were split between the two players.

I seem to remember that Nadal was serving harder in 2010 and was hitting the ball deeper off of the ground.

From a stats perspective though, I would love to see a comparison between the two matches.

It might also offer some insight as to how Djokovic was able to dominate Nadal during this time period.

Keep up the great work, man! :)
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Points stats should be looked at with context. In both 04 QF and 09 F the loser only won their sets after facing large deficits (2 sets down in 04, set and break down in and 2-1 and almost a break down in 09). Also Nalbandian was convincingly beaten in the fourth the minute he actually won a set(same as 06 Wimby F) suggesting that Fed had higher gears to go to when he needed. Of course those two matches are different as Nalbandian played a fully focused Federer close to even for 3 sets whereas Nadal got bagelled in the first, which totally relaxed Federer in the middle two sets.

Yes they had chances to win other sets but they didn't because they couldn't pull out close opportunities. Yes, maybe it was a lack of clutch in those close moments but the fact that they were even moments to begin with doesn't really square with any kind of clear superiority. Sure, if 09 Federer had served better and played more decisively he may have been superior and he may have won the match, but ultimately he didn't. In general, being superior in a match then losing should imply some kind of clear lead was blown. In the 09 AO F the only time Federer had a lead was when he broke for 4-2 in the first, but he then immediately got broken back so there goes that. The closest Nalbandian had to a lead in 04 was 5-5 15-40 in the first but then Federer slammed down 4 straight aces lol.

Nalbandian obviously isn't better than peak Nadal at AO. Yes, he's a spectacular enough ballstriker and returner to do a lot of damage against imbalanced players such as Fedal, but there's a long way from that to actually being favored to win a match, and Nalbandian's own serve means he can never really cruise to any sets which spells doom for him over 5 sets due to his lack of physical ability compared to Nadal. 04 AO Nalbandian vs 12 AO Nadal I think could be very interesting but ultimately will come down to the same factors, but Nalbo may have periods of more clear baseline dominance given 12 Nadal's propensity for the short ball leading him to be bullied more in that tournament which we saw in the last 3 rounds. Any other version of AOdal Nalbandian should beat, as there is a threshold.
Peak Nalbandian vs young Nadal was kind of a mismatch IMO in that Nadal's shortcomings played right into Dave's strengths.

I'll never forget that IW 2009 match in which Nalby was absolutely destroying Rafa until he choked big time (classic Dave moment).

This was the same Rafa that had just won AO and crushed everyone else in that same tournament.

I'd love an analysis of that match because it really didn't seem close until Nadal was down MP - then, after one of his finest escapism perfomances, he ended up bageling Dave, and never lost to him again after that. It was a dramatic turning point.
 
Last edited:

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
...reviewing the 2010 and '11 US Open finals between Djokovic and Nadal?
....It might also offer some insight as to how Djokovic was able to dominate Nadal during this time period.
Here's the other 6 matches in Djoko's 7 match winning streak from then

Indian Wells and Miami - (1) Duel Match Stats/Reports - Djokovic vs Nadal, Indian Wells & Miami finals, 2011 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Madrid and Rome - (1) Duel Match Stats/Reports - Djokovic vs Nadal, Madrid & Rome finals, 2011 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Wimbledon - (1) Match Stats/Report - Djokovic vs Nadal, Wimbledon final, 2011 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Australian Open '12 - (1) Match Stats/Report - Djokovic vs Nadal, Australian Open final 2012 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
In 2011, Nadal beat Murray 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4 in the semi-final

Nadal would go onto lose to Novak Djokovic in the final. Murray would reach his first final at the event the following year and win the title the year after

Nadal won 118 points, Murray 98

Serve Stats
Nadal...
- 1st serve percentage (70/103) 68%
- 1st serve points won (57/70) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (19/33) 58%
- Aces 6
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (20/103) 19%

Murray...
- 1st serve percentage (66/113) 58%
- 1st serve points won (48/66) 73%
- 2nd serve points won (23/47) 49%
- Aces 15, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (35/113) 31%

Serve Pattern
Nadal served...
- to FH 44%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 7%

Murray served...
- to FH 31%
- to BH 64%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Nadal made...
- 73 (17 FH, 56 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 16 Forced (8 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (73/108) 68%

Murray made...
- 82 (42 FH, 40 BH), including 5 runaround FHs
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (2 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 10 Forced (2 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (82/102) 80%

Break Points
Nadal 5/8 (6 games)
Murray 1/4 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Nadal 30 (17 FH, 4 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
Murray 26 (12 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 6 BHV)

Nadal's FHs - 6 cc (2 passes, 1 at net), 4 dtl (2 passes), 4 inside-out, 1 longline at net, 1 drop shot and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc at net
- BHs -2 cc (1 pass) and 2 dtl (1 return pass)

- 1 from a serve-volley point - a first volley BHV
- 1 OH was on the bounce

Murray's FHs - 1 cc, 5 dtl (2 passes), 4 inside-out (1 return), 1 drop shot at net and 1 net chord dribbler
- BHs - 2 cc (1 return), 2 dtl (1 pass), 1 inside-in pass at net and net chord dribbler return

- 1 from a serve-volley point a first volley BHV

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Nadal 36
- 19 Unforced (7 FH, 12 BH)
- 17 Forced (7 FH, 10 BH)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.9

Murray 63
- 49 Unforced (34 FH, 12 BH, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
- 14 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 BHV, 1 Back-to-Net BH)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.6

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Nadal was...
- 21/26 (81%) at net, including...
- 4/5 (80%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 retreated

Murray was...
- 17/31 (54%) at net, including...
- 3/9 (33%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 0/2 forced back/retreated

Match Report
A bit more than half this match is high of quality - a hard hitting, attacking baseline slugfest - with honours about even. The rest is Murray playing horrendously, particularly off the FH and trampling himself

34 FH unforced errors from Andy Murray. Putting that in perspective...
- he has 35 unreturned serves, Nadal 20
- Nadal has 30 winners, Murray 26
- Nadal with 19 UEs and 17 FEs. Murray with 14 FEs and 15 non-FH UEs

Murray's plan is good and could be a direct, sensible adjustment to previous years match where his FH had been a bit feeble and Nadal was able to either break it down or take exploit its softness to boss points. Here, he looks to hit hard off that side and go dtl attackingly regularly. When it works, action is about even with command of play up for grabs, Murray a bit more attacking. When it doesn't... 34 UEs

There's a very clear turning point too. First set is hard fought and up in the air. Nadal serves strong but in swing zone and gets next to no freebies. Nadal engages in FH shotmaking and BH cc's to test Murray's FH like previous year. Murray send down a bunch of aces and his FH is attacking. Nadal's a bit loose on regulation BHs too. Comfy holds til the end. Murray has his toughest hold in 10 point game to go up 6-5, Nadal is broken to lose the set

Play continues same way til 4th game. Serving at 1-2, 15-30, Nadal's pushed out of position and Murray has a sitter of FH to putaway. He misses. Upto that point, Murray's FH has 7 winners, 8 UEs and has been the start shot in neutral rallies (Nadal's FH has been a point finisher and not overly involved in neutral-ish rallies)

Fast forward to Nadal up 1-0 in fourth set with a break 13 and a half games later. Murray's FH has 10 winners, 27 UEs.

First he makes 3 FH UEs in a row to lose the 4th game where it all starts. Next game, he's broken with 3 more and even worse, an OH miss on break point. Next break has 2 more, and he throws in 2 particularly bad BH ones to seal the deal

Third set starts with another break - 3 FH UEs and a double fault from Murray. Just 1 in the next break + an easy BHV miss

Starts fourth set getting broken too, with 3 more. Pulls himself together to play tough for rest of match. Nadal by this time is serving stronger and has tightened up his BH and maintains a small advantage regardless. No more breaks - 3 tough holds, 2 of them Murray's - and Nadal's home

Serve & Return
Using previous year as frame of reference, Nadal's serve is more powerful. Still not well placed, with most delivered in swing zone, especially early on. As match wears on, he serves a bit wider and is more effective

Better returning from Murray than serving from Nadal and 80% return rate is as good as you can hope for on grass. Returns firmly, moves to take FHs to body-ish serves. In general, Murray isn't bothered much by pace as long as he can reach it comfortably.

Murray's serve is about the same. Almost exact same pattern, very similar rate of sending down aces and forcing errors. Unreturned rate a bit lower due to Nadal being a bit more consistent on return

More consistent returning from Nadal. and very little runaround FHs. He doesn't need to - just getting ball back does for Murray. He return BH inside-out occasionally in last set - generally, not something he does often - but only when Murray's FH is playing well

Play - Baseline & Net
Play centers around Murray's FH - and both players seem to want it that way. Early on, Nadal again looks to initiate BH cc rallies. If anything, he looks like he's avoiding playing FH cc

Loose BH from Nadal early on, and he misses a number of regulation shots. He has 7 UEs off that side in first set, which means he has just 5 more for rest of match. He hits solidly and well... the neutral hitting contest with Murray's FH is about even (consistency is another matter). Slices some too and these stay very low. Much better slicing than previous year. Bounce of court is if anything, a bit higher than previous year

He uses FH in shot making fashion, not neutral rallying or even controllingly or to move Murray around much. And fantastic success with it - 17 winners to 14 total errors. Winners come out of near regulation positions. Not overly ambitious shot making, but well judged

Like previous year, tremendous passing shots from Nadal. Murray wins just 54% net points and majority of those are due to very strong approach shots. Just a reasonable look at a pass is all Nadal needs to zing ball by Murray at net

He's a step slower from previous year. And still fast. Not called on to do much running, but manages when needed. Its amazing how he can get slower every year... and still be fast by a normal standard

Murray's adjusted his game plan in accordance with previous year. He starts match serve-volleying regularly, which had been his most effective weapon previous year. Only desists when its clearly not working - wins just 3/9 serve-volleying. Similar story with net approaches

Murray's come to fire with FH. He hits hard and looks to end points with dtl and inside-out shots. crosscourt, he's a match for Nadal's BH. Its a good change of approach... execution obviously is very, very poor. He misses all and every kind of shot there is - neutral, attacking, winner attempt... cc, dtl, inside-out... against firm shots, against slices, stationary position, slightly on move, from baseline, form well up in court - you name it, he makes errors of it

FH isn't unduly broken down in cc rallies. Bulk of errors are attacking shots, mostly longline. Note high-ish 48.6 UEFI. BH again looks good and there's bit more going down the line with it but he just doesn't use it much

There's negligible Nadal FH - Murray BH rallies. Both look to use FH attackingly and in variety of directions
---
Summing up, solid showing from Nadal. He's beefed up his serve, is typically solid on return against a big serve and but for a choppy start on the BH, solid off the ground with some lethal FHs thrown in. More than that though, story of match is Murray having a horrendous FH day. Not bad thinking - by looking to dictate with FH, he avoids gruelling rallies which would likely favour Nadal and the dangers of engaging in rallying BH cc with Nadal's FH are obvious - but execution is very poor

Stats for final between Nadal and Novak Djokovic - Match Stats/Report - Djokovic vs Nadal, Wimbledon final, 2011 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
 
Last edited:
Top