Federer vs Gonzalez

[BigServer1]

I've heard you say this before, and I'm sure you both play all court tennis, but it's funny how everyone plays similar to Fed. Why does no-one ever say "I have the serve of Kournikova, with the backhand of Arthurs, the chokability of the WTA and the volleys of a claycourter"?

Great post. I liked the whole thing, and I agree with you and your assesment of the final, but I had to quote this part.

For what it's worth I have Federer's all court game and his court coverage, Sampras' serve and volley skills, Agassi returns, and the heart and desire to win that makes Nadal look soft. I credit all of this to my coach Bjorn99...

 

[OrangeOne]

Ok, this is interesting. I'll give you a realistic assessment of my game in these terms.

Guillermo Coria's second serve is a long way ahead of my first serve. Arthurs' weak, floating, inconsistent slice backhand would neutralize my entire backcourt game. I move like Ivo Karlovic and my shot selection is about on par with the OLD Fernando Gonzalez. I only go to the net to shake hands, so I don't even know who to compare my net game to.

I will acknowledge the possibility that Kournikova's serve is better than mine, but I can't actually bring myself to directly state it.

Now that's the spirit! .

(And on serves - people always underestimate the placement capabilities of the pros... I played a local junior girl the other day in a hit-around, she'd clearly been good in the past and was recovering from injury. Not a powerful serve, but the placement... spectacular....)

 

[OrangeOne]

For what it's worth I have Federer's all court game and his court coverage, Sampras' serve and volley skills, Agassi returns, and the heart and desire to win that makes Nadal look soft. I credit all of this to my coach Bjorn99...

I seriously still haven't stopped laughing! Priceless :mrgreen:

 

[BigServer1]

I seriously still haven't stopped laughing! Priceless :mrgreen:

Ah, thanks man. I saw the oppourtunity and I had to jump on it.

Seriously though, I make Fed look like a child. Bjorn99 is church...

 

[BreakPoint]

The other posters are right, though, that it is harder to do it against Federer in a technical sense. He simply covers the court better - not only getting to the ball but also hitting it back with depth and spin, allowing time to recover and retrieve the next one. Also, Gonzalez's slice backhand did not bother Federer the way it did other players; instead of setting him up with hittable forehands, it allowed Federer to control neutral rallies.

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I know about Federer's ability to cover the court, but Gonzo has to first hit the big shots (in, of course) before Federer can use his ability to cover the court to return the ball. What I didn't see in the match was Gonzo going for a lot of big shots and when he did, most of the time the ball went out. So there was no real need for Federer to show off his court coverage abilities. Contrast that with Gonzo's earlier matches in which he went for a lot more big shots and most of them landed in for winners. I mean for Federer to use his superior defensive skills, you first need to hit the ball in.

 

[BreakPoint]

I've heard you say this before, and I'm sure you both play all court tennis, but it's funny how everyone plays similar to Fed. Why does no-one ever say "I have the serve of Kournikova, with the backhand of Arthurs, the chokability of the WTA and the volleys of a claycourter"?

Well, I've been playing the same style of all-court tennis for longer than Federer's been alive so it's not my fault that he chose to copy my style of play. LOL

 

[MasturB]

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I know about Federer's ability to cover the court, but Gonzo has to first hit the big shots (in, of course) before Federer can use his ability to cover the court to return the ball. What I didn't see in the match was Gonzo going for a lot of big shots and when he did, most of the time the ball went out. So there was no real need for Federer to show off his court coverage abilities. Contrast that with Gonzo's earlier matches in which he went for a lot more big shots and most of them landed in for winners. I mean for Federer to use his superior defensive skills, you first need to hit the ball in.

It's no secret that Federer is probably the best player on the tour that can read body language very quickly.

I think Gonzo knew this and since it takes him that long to wind up for the big cannon he knows Fed already knows what's coming.

Surely Gonzo should've tried it more, but Federeutrality came into play.

 

[David L]

For Breakpoint

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21123720-2722,00.html

Excerpt

Larry Stefanki

"Roger is very multi-dimensional; he can serve volley, he can chip and charge, he can stay back, he can play defence," Stefanki said in an interview with The Weekend Australian.

"He has a very big forehand. His serve isn't dominating but he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners, which frees him up in a lot of areas. It is everyone else's job to become more multi-dimensional to try to compete against that.

"Roger has a lot of things to fall back on and everyone else is moving away from just trying to hit one big shot. Men's tennis fell into a rut a little bit that way and now Roger is taking it to a new level where you had better have no holes in your game.

"I see a lot of juniors here in Australia who don't work hard enough on their net game, don't work hard enough on taking the ball early and coming forward, and they become one-dimensional. One big forehand and they think it is going to be good enough. It is not.

"Roger has taken it to that level. Pete (Sampras) just said 'I'm going to hit my serve and my forehand and not care about anything else' and he could get away with it. But not any more.

"Roger has no holes. That is why he stands above everybody else.

"I think he is the best player who has ever played."

 

[BreakPoint]

For Breakpoint

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21123720-2722,00.html

Excerpt

Larry Stefanki

"Roger is very multi-dimensional; he can serve volley, he can chip and charge, he can stay back, he can play defence," Stefanki said in an interview with The Weekend Australian.

"He has a very big forehand. His serve isn't dominating but he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners, which frees him up in a lot of areas. It is everyone else's job to become more multi-dimensional to try to compete against that.

"Roger has a lot of things to fall back on and everyone else is moving away from just trying to hit one big shot. Men's tennis fell into a rut a little bit that way and now Roger is taking it to a new level where you had better have no holes in your game.

"I see a lot of juniors here in Australia who don't work hard enough on their net game, don't work hard enough on taking the ball early and coming forward, and they become one-dimensional. One big forehand and they think it is going to be good enough. It is not.

"Roger has taken it to that level. Pete (Sampras) just said 'I'm going to hit my serve and my forehand and not care about anything else' and he could get away with it. But not any more.

"Roger has no holes. That is why he stands above everybody else.

"I think he is the best player who has ever played."

I agree with everything that Stefanki said. No new news nor revelations there, and we all knew all of this even before the AO final.

But I still think Federer winning yesterday had a lot more to do with Gonzales playing poorly than with Federer playing well. This was not one of Federer's better performances but he still won due to Gonzales playing even worse than he was. Contrast this match with Federer's performances in the finals of the U.S. Open - in '04 against Hewitt, in '05 against Agassi, and in '06 against Roddick. Also his Wimbledon finals - '03 against Philippoussis, '04 and '05 against Roddick, and '06 against Nadal. And lastly, his win over Safin in the '04 AO final.

BTW, Federer's 1st serve percentage was only 58%, not 70%, in the AO final yesterday, and most of that was raised up in the last two sets as it was much lower than that in the 1st set.

 

[FitzRoy]

But I still think Federer winning yesterday had a lot more to do with Gonzales playing poorly than with Federer playing well.

I would definitely agree with this statement in regard to the first set of the match. Gonzalez definitely should have closed it out when serving for it at 40-15, and then who knows what might have happened.

But the level of play picked up in sets 2 and 3, IMO. Federer's did for sure, and Gonzalez made a few less unforced errors. I think, though, that a large part of Gonzalez's decrease in play as compared to previous rounds had to do with trying to deal with Federer's defensive capabilities - Gonzo seemed to me like he was trying to be too precise when he did go for the big forehand, but also too cautious in deciding when to go for it. For once, I think, Gonzalez may have actually been thinking too much. It could be argued that that's all in Gonzalez's head and therefore it was a matter of his level of play rather than Fed's, but on the other hand Gonzo's level of play was where it was precisely because of who he was playing against.

 

[BreakPoint]

But the level of play picked up in sets 2 and 3, IMO. Federer's did for sure, and Gonzalez made a few less unforced errors. I think, though, that a large part of Gonzalez's decrease in play as compared to previous rounds had to do with trying to deal with Federer's defensive capabilities - Gonzo seemed to me like he was trying to be too precise when he did go for the big forehand, but also too cautious in deciding when to go for it. For once, I think, Gonzalez may have actually been thinking too much. It could be argued that that's all in Gonzalez's head and therefore it was a matter of his level of play rather than Fed's, but on the other hand Gonzo's level of play was where it was precisely because of who he was playing against.

I generally agree with this. However, I don't think this would explain why every time Federer came to the net, Gonzo tried to hit the ball through Federer (meaning right to him) rather than hitting all of those nice angled, dipping passing shots past the net man, as he was doing so well versus Haas, Nadal, and Blake.

It's as if he decided early on that the way he played to get to the final was not going to work against Federer so he tried to change his game too much. In that process, he somehow ended up reverting back to what he is most familar and comfortable with and that's playing the gung-ho, error-prone style that he used to play pre-Stefanki. It seems to me that Stefanki and Gonzo himself thought about this match way too much and ended up psyching himself out even before the match started. I think Stefanki should have told him to just play exactly the way he did over the past few matches and don't try and change anything. I think he would have been better off and done better. It would appear to me that there's a limit to how much Gonzo can think out there and making him overthink things could backfire and result in a disaster.

 

[David L]

I agree with everything that Stefanki said. No new news nor revelations there, and we all knew all of this even before the AO final.

But I still think Federer winning yesterday had a lot more to do with Gonzales playing poorly than with Federer playing well. This was not one of Federer's better performances but he still won due to Gonzales playing even worse than he was. Contrast this match with Federer's performances in the finals of the U.S. Open - in '04 against Hewitt, in '05 against Agassi, and in '06 against Roddick. Also his Wimbledon finals - '03 against Philippoussis, '04 and '05 against Roddick, and '06 against Nadal. And lastly, his win over Safin in the '04 AO final.

BTW, Federer's 1st serve percentage was only 58%, not 70%, in the AO final yesterday, and most of that was raised up in the last two sets as it was much lower than that in the 1st set.

Federer has a better hard court game than Blake, Nadal and Haas. He combines consistency, penetration, spin, angles, control, etc more successfully than all of them. Even on the tv screen you can see Federer's ball flies in a totally different manner to the others. Blake hits hard and flat with little arc, Nadal with a bit more spin, larger arc and less pace, Haas' ball lacks the pace, spin and arc of Federer's ball. This is all quite visible from tv alone. Federer generally elects not to kill the ball every time, he plays the percentages and within himself, but still hits a more penetrating, high bouncing combination than the others. He simply has the ability to control points and out manoeuvre opponents more effectively than anyone else on tour.

Gonzalez played well against Haas, but when watching that match I was imagining what Federer would be doing with the nothing balls Gonzalez was feeding him, knowing he could be playing him in the final. I was struck by the lack of penetration and pace Haas was able to achieve off them in comparison. Quite frankly his ball looked slow, nor was he able to create the angles and achieve the level of control Federer was. Federer has superior technical abilities and hits harder, with more spin, better angles and more control, plus he moves much better and reads the game better. This does not mean Haas is chopped liver. It just means he does not have the game to do what Federer consistently does. Haas is a solid, good professional, but he lacks that special mercurial quality that elevates the genius above the exceptionally talented. Gonzalez only made 3 unforced errors against Haas, because Haas could not take him out of his comfort zone. For Gonzalez to push Federer, he has to leave his comfort zone, because his natural game is not good enough, hence more errors. In the final, Federer played a loose first set, but in the 2nd and 3rd he was a wall, everything just came back. This is another area of his game that does not get mentioned as often, his incredible consistency. Haas is not as consistent, so gives his opponents less opportunity to make mistakes.

Federer is a smart player. He plays different games in different circumstances. He can blow you off the court, as he did to Hewitt in USO 04 and Blake in Masters 06. He can play conservative if his game is not on, trying to reduce errors, as he did against Davydenko and Haas in AO 06. He can come forward more or stay back. Draw people in or keep them at bay. He does'nt feel the need to always pull the trigger and dominate with power like Sampras. Sometimes he is content to just out manoeuvre or out think you. Essentially, he can play to order, he is more concerned about the win than the manner. Any one match does not reveal the full extent of his arsenal or capabilities, but in total we can see what he is capable of and no one else out there can consistently match this.

 

[Shabazza]

Great post David. Agree 100%.

 

[ohplease]

BP, I agree with you to an extent. I think Gonzo's level of play was not quite as high in the final, probably due to the occasion and due to mental difficulty in facing Federer. But I disagree when you say that Gonzalez played terribly - I think he played fairly well, all things considered. But he was not at the level of brilliance that he exhibited against Blake, Nadal, or Haas.

The other posters are right, though, that it is harder to do it against Federer in a technical sense. He simply covers the court better - not only getting to the ball but also hitting it back with depth and spin, allowing time to recover and retrieve the next one. Also, Gonzalez's slice backhand did not bother Federer the way it did other players; instead of setting him up with hittable forehands, it allowed Federer to control neutral rallies.

Also, Gonzalez couldn't do anything with Federer's second serve. Federer was hitting some good second serves, I grant that, but I think Gonzo could have done much better in that particular facet. I've seen guys like Blake be aggressive and punish Fed's second serve, and I've also seen Gonzalez do that to a lot of players. He was much too tentative in returning it, and thus Fed felt very little pressure in his own service games.

This match was much closer than it appeared. The rest of the tour needs to figure out why.

First of all - the James Blake/Andy Roddick/Andre Agassi approach to beating Federer has been shown, time and again, to simply not work very well. Federer has built his game to work very well with the predominant style of play on tour today. He's built his game to be very, very robust - and barring exceptionally good days from top-10 or top-20 level talents (Henman, Gasquet, Berdych, Safin, etc.) - odds are, your typical tennis isn't going to beat his typical tennis.

Trying to rush Federer with pace, either on serve or off the ground, is playing into his hands.

Similarly, plain old grinding rope-a-dope tennis in the mold of Chang/Hewitt won't cut it either. There's not enough threat there to worry Federer.

If you look at the data, Federer's closest matches in Oz were against Youzhny, Robredo, and Gonzo. We already know about his past problems with Nadal and Nalbandian. We can quibble about what we saw in this match, but what I saw was a guy who's so good that he's unaccustomed to two things:

1) extended points beyond his typical shot tolerance
2) close sets

We got some very un-Federer like errors in that first set, born of the fact that Gonzo wasn't going away, and from the length of rally. I wouldn't call baiting Fed with slice backhands a GOOD way to earn your points - but he did make a surprisingly large number of errors in otherwise neutral rallies. The problem is, do you have a) enough stick and enough fitness/mobility to keep things neutral? and b) enough of a weapon to make Federer think about staying away from it?

Even at the pro level, singles is about man-to-man - who makes whom more uncomfortable? Who's forcing the other guy to step up and play out of his comfort zone? Right now, Federer's combination of talent, training, and belief makes him a guy without a worry in the world. Yes, he's lethal, but he's also the beneficiary of lots of donations from guys fighting both themselves and Fed's reputation, as are all #1's.

Right now, there aren't enough guys out there whose games match up with Fed's in such a way to make it apparent to all of us in the peanut gallery that he's uncomfortable. That's not a lack of talent from the rest of the tour - that's a result of the dynamics in this particular moment in tennis history.

All that said, this final was pretty good as Federer matches go. Gonzo only lost serve twice to the man with the best percentages returning serve, if not the best looking return of serve. I'm personally disappointed that Gonzo shrank from the moment a bit in the first set tiebraker, but that's not too surprising. Here's hoping he's able to extend this particular success.

 

[TennezSport]

3 Breaks

All that said, this final was pretty good as Federer matches go. Gonzo only lost serve twice to the man with the best percentages returning serve, if not the best looking return of serve. I'm personally disappointed that Gonzo shrank from the moment a bit in the first set tiebraker, but that's not too surprising. Here's hoping he's able to extend this particular success.

OhPlease,

I completely agree.

However, everyone is forgetting that it was 3 breaks not 2. Dick Emberg made the same mistake. Gonzo was serving for the 1st set, up a break at 40/15 and was broken back. Then made it to the TB. Then Gonzo was broken once in the 2nd and 3rd sets.

TennezSport

 

[AngeloDS]

The level of play picked up; as you saw in the match. As it got darker, the wind died down allowing both players to play a little more at ease. Also, Federer became relaxed.

Fernando Gonzales was playing very well for the conditions. A lot of his shots should have been winners or forced Federer to create errors, but Federer was there with the reply. And the reply came back just as fast and as heavy.

He does get 70% or above of his serves in. You're just counting the first serves BreakPoint. He only double faulted once.

 

[BreakPoint]

He does get 70% or above of his serves in. You're just counting the first serves BreakPoint. He only double faulted once.

Of course I'm only counting his first serves. I thought you've been following tennis long enough to know that when people talk about serving percentages they are talking about first serve percentages. If you were only getting 70% of your second serves in then you would never become a pro, let alone even a college level player. Now, that I think about it, even 3.5 players get more than 70% of their second serves in.

 

[FitzRoy]

This has become an interesting thread; you guys are all making some interesting points. I agree that the Gonzalez and Robredo (I didn't watch the Youzhny match so I can't comment on this) were closer than most matches against Federer, in a sort of unusual way. I commented on this in regard to Robredo a few days ago. Basically the rallies were a lot longer than we typically see from people playing against Fed, and this seemed to bother Roger in some way. I think we saw Gonzalez do something similar.

These two played with a lot of patience in the rallies against Fed (as it was part of the game plan), which is the opposite of what most players have done in the last two years or so. If the reason it was somewhat effective is because Fed simply isn't used to it, then would that really be a long-term strategy that could continue, or will he just adjust to that as well (as he seemed to during the course of the Gonzalez match)?

 

[capriatifanatic]

Oh, really? I guess you haven't seen Blake absolutely crush returns of serve at almost 100mph?

And Federer's first serve is harder than Blake's? Look at their 1st round matches. Blake's average first serve speed was 191 km/h, whereas, Federer's was only 180 km/h. And I've seen Blake crush his backhand harder than Federer because he hits it flatter. Federer uses more spin on his backhand which slows the ball down.

And if Haas is a "wannabee" because he's never made it to a slam final at 27, then what does that make Blake, who's also 27 and never even made it to a slam semi?

I didn't really see a whole lot that Federer was doing that Blake, Nadal, and Haas weren't doing. It's just that Gonzo played almost flawless tennis against them, and pitiful tennis against Federer. Gonzo played more like the way he did in the 1st round last year, in which he lost to a qualifier. It didn't matter that Gonzo was playing against Federer, he would have lost to just about anyone in the Top 100 in the final at the level that he was playing.

If you watched Federer play, which it is quite apparent you dont, you would realize he starts of feeling his way into an event and lifts all levels of his game as an event goes. This includes serving speeds. A player like Blake gives his all from the start, he isnt great enough to have the luxury of feeling he can coast through early rounds like Federer, and fades as he goes later in a grand slam. The fact that you have to go to a first round to compare serving speeds to manipulate your point is pretty desperate. In his last 2 matches Federer's average first serve speeds were 189 kph(in very windy conditions)and 193 kph in normal conditions. Blake's last 2 matches he had a 189 kph and a 191 kph for his average first serve speed. So no Blake does not hit a faster serve except in the first couple rounds when he is giving his all and Federer is feeling his way into the event. Federer hits alot more wide serves then Blake which takes away from the radar, he hits the slice and kickers out wide alot even on the first serve, Blake hits almost all his serves down the middle otherwise Federer would be well ahead. Federer's placement and deceptiveness on the serve is far superior to Blake.

Blake tries for big returns off big first serves and doesnt get them in play, then sometimes chips and does nothing with second serves on big points, he is not nearly as smart or skilled a returner as Federer. Federer gets almost all his returns back, blocking many of them deep with spin, and then drives them with great force when he sees the need. Federer goes for his backhand at the right times, Blake at the wrong times, just like the return, if you see the times they hit through on that side more of Federer's reach a certain extreme of penetration on that side then Blake's.

To say Federer was doing nothing better or differently then what Blake, Nadal, or Haas were doing shows your ignorance of the game of tennis. As for Blake being a wannabee contender if I say Haas is, yeah Blake could also be called that, only 2 slam quarters in his career. However unlike Haas, Blake is a late bloomer who is now a top player for the first time since only a year ago, it isnt as fair to make a judgement on him yet as Haas who has been a second tier top player for many years who has proven he doesnt have the stuff to go to the end of a grand slam event, and the few times he made it to a semi his draw fell apart around him. His big wins in grand slam events are few to none, his win over Davydenko here is probably his second biggest win ever in a grand slam event, after his win over a comebacking out of shape Agassi in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 98.

You just made a bunch of bold predictions and you ended up wrong so now you are trying to cover your as% with excuses. Just admit you were wrong and move on rather then making yourself look dumb by making excuses for being wrong. Gonzalez played some great tennis to beat Hewitt in a great match, beat Blake in comfortable straight sets, absolutely crush Nadal-the worlds #2 ranked player, and then crush Haas- a good second tier top player in the semis. Applaud him for a great tournament rather then making up excuses of how he supposably could have crushed a dominant #1 who he is now 0-10 against in the final. All that happens is you take away from the great tournament Gonzalez had by coming across as a sore loser who cant accept the reality he was just beaten by a better player in the final.

Lastly, as I have said before, anybody could tell from the swirling winds that neither player were going to be at their best in the final. Federer wasnt at his best either, and the conditions impacted the quality of play from both players as anybody with thinking rationaly would have expected it to after just watching a couple games.

 

[AngeloDS]

Of course I'm only counting his first serves. I thought you've been following tennis long enough to know that when people talk about serving percentages they are talking about first serve percentages. If you were only getting 70% of your second serves in then you would never become a pro, let alone even a college level player. Now, that I think about it, even 3.5 players get more than 70% of their second serves in.

When you talk about serve percentage. You're talking about it as a whole; when you talk about first serve percentage. Obviously, you're talking about first serves. People explicitly say first percentage when they talk about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/memories/1995/95ten10.htm

"Sampras's first-serve percentage dropped to 21 percent." People and even editors explicitly say this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/us_open/2245263.stm I don't see them saying just "serve percentage" but rather, "first serve percentage." Even during the match, we hear it explicitly said was "First serve percentage."

Sampras being a classic example. Had a relatively low first serve percentage, but high serve percentage. However, he had high percentages in overall when you talk with other people about Sampras.

You go on about 70% second serves; who said that? You make up stuff and ramble about stuff you really have no clue about. They had upper 95-99% in their second serves. Federer only double faulting once and Gonzales double faulting three times. Take 99% second serves and his ~50% first serves and you get a total serving in the range of 70%. Put two and two together; if you thought the article was talking about first serves then you're delusional and/or had poor interpretation/logic skills.

You act like you've played tennis for so long. You have yet to show your racquet gear (post pictures), you haven't to proved a single thing. You were even banned.

You're the last person to have a good opinion about anything. It shows as well, "There were unforced errors galore." Yeah, sure... Keep talking like you know what you're talking about.

"Gonzo just stood still!" Yeah, sure... Like he wasn't slicing his forehands (squash shotting) and covering a lot of court and trying to play every point.

 

[TennezSport]

Stats

Of course I'm only counting his first serves. I thought you've been following tennis long enough to know that when people talk about serving percentages they are talking about first serve percentages. If you were only getting 70% of your second serves in then you would never become a pro, let alone even a college level player. Now, that I think about it, even 3.5 players get more than 70% of their second serves in.

Let's go back to the stats. Fed served at 48% in the first set and won close to 80% of the first serves. He then improved his percentage in the second and third sets serving 69% first serves.

In the match totals he won 78% of his first serves and 77% of his second serves. If you follow stats you will know that 77% of second serves is a fantastic percentage.

Laver has always said that you are only as good as your second serve and this stat was awesome. Gonzo never had the chance to attack because he was always on defense.

TennezSport

 

[BreakPoint]

He does get 70% or above of his serves in. You're just counting the first serves BreakPoint. He only double faulted once.

When you talk about serve percentage. You're talking about it as a whole; when you talk about first serve percentage. Obviously, you're talking about first serves. People explicitly say first percentage when they talk about it.

That's because NOBODY, but NOBDOY discusses second serve percentages at the pro level. If they had to, they wouldn't be a pro. When people say "serve percentage" they are talking ONLY about the first serves, NOT serving as a whole. When was the last time you heard anyone on TV discussing second serve percentages? As a pro, it is expected that you get close to 100% of your second serves in or else you'd have double-digit numbers of double faults - which is quite rare at the pro level. Gee, I guess you really don't understand tennis after all. :-(

 

[BreakPoint]

Let's go back to the stats. Fed served at 48% in the first set and won close to 80% of the first serves. He then improved his percentage in the second and third sets serving 69% first serves.

In the match totals he won 78% of his first serves and 77% of his second serves. If you follow stats you will know that 77% of second serves is a fantastic percentage.

Laver has always said that you are only as good as your second serve and this stat was awesome. Gonzo never had the chance to attack because he was always on defense.

TennezSport

Yes, but that stat means that he won 77% of the points in which he had to hit a second serve, NOT that he only got 77% of his second serves in (which would mean that he double-faulted 23% of the time that he served), as AngeloDS implied.

 

[BreakPoint]

"He has a very big forehand. His serve isn't dominating but he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners, which frees him up in a lot of areas. It is everyone else's job to become more multi-dimensional to try to compete against that.

Take 99% second serves and his ~50% first serves and you get a total serving in the range of 70%. Put two and two together; if you thought the article was talking about first serves then you're delusional and/or had poor interpretation/logic skills.

Is anyone else here laughing their heads off like I am?

Sad, really. Could someone else here please try and help poor AngeloDS? He really needs it and I'm tired of trying.

 

[BreakPoint]

If you watched Federer play, which it is quite apparent you dont, you would realize he starts of feeling his way into an event and lifts all levels of his game as an event goes. This includes serving speeds. A player like Blake gives his all from the start, he isnt great enough to have the luxury of feeling he can coast through early rounds like Federer, and fades as he goes later in a grand slam. The fact that you have to go to a first round to compare serving speeds to manipulate your point is pretty desperate. In his last 2 matches Federer's average first serve speeds were 189 kph(in very windy conditions)and 193 kph in normal conditions. Blake's last 2 matches he had a 189 kph and a 191 kph for his average first serve speed. So no Blake does not hit a faster serve except in the first couple rounds when he is giving his all and Federer is feeling his way into the event. Federer hits alot more wide serves then Blake which takes away from the radar, he hits the slice and kickers out wide alot even on the first serve, Blake hits almost all his serves down the middle otherwise Federer would be well ahead. Federer's placement and deceptiveness on the serve is far superior to Blake.

Blake tries for big returns off big first serves and doesnt get them in play, then sometimes chips and does nothing with second serves on big points, he is not nearly as smart or skilled a returner as Federer. Federer gets almost all his returns back, blocking many of them deep with spin, and then drives them with great force when he sees the need. Federer goes for his backhand at the right times, Blake at the wrong times, just like the return, if you see the times they hit through on that side more of Federer's reach a certain extreme of penetration on that side then Blake's.

To say Federer was doing nothing better or differently then what Blake, Nadal, or Haas were doing shows your ignorance of the game of tennis. As for Blake being a wannabee contender if I say Haas is, yeah Blake could also be called that, only 2 slam quarters in his career. However unlike Haas, Blake is a late bloomer who is now a top player for the first time since only a year ago, it isnt as fair to make a judgement on him yet as Haas who has been a second tier top player for many years who has proven he doesnt have the stuff to go to the end of a grand slam event, and the few times he made it to a semi his draw fell apart around him. His big wins in grand slam events are few to none, his win over Davydenko here is probably his second biggest win ever in a grand slam event, after his win over a comebacking out of shape Agassi in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 98.

You just made a bunch of bold predictions and you ended up wrong so now you are trying to cover your as% with excuses. Just admit you were wrong and move on rather then making yourself look dumb by making excuses for being wrong. Gonzalez played some great tennis to beat Hewitt in a great match, beat Blake in comfortable straight sets, absolutely crush Nadal-the worlds #2 ranked player, and then crush Haas- a good second tier top player in the semis. Applaud him for a great tournament rather then making up excuses of how he supposably could have crushed a dominant #1 who he is now 0-10 against in the final. All that happens is you take away from the great tournament Gonzalez had by coming across as a sore loser who cant accept the reality he was just beaten by a better player in the final.

Lastly, as I have said before, anybody could tell from the swirling winds that neither player were going to be at their best in the final. Federer wasnt at his best either, and the conditions impacted the quality of play from both players as anybody with thinking rationaly would have expected it to after just watching a couple games.

Why would Federer "serve slower" at the beginning of an event? So that he could lose in the first round? Did I say that Blake was a better player than Federer? Everything you've pointed out says that Federer is a better player than Blake, which I totally agree with. All I said was that Blake generally hits the ball harder than Federer because he hits the ball flatter, as opposed to Federer who tends to use more spin. That's it. I'm just talking about raw ball speed, which doesn't make anyone better or worse than anyone else.

 

[AngeloDS]

Put two and two together BreakPoint. When the author of the article said 70%; you seriously thought he was talking about first percentages?

It did not occur to you that he's talking about serving as a whole? Did you honestly, logically and seriously thought he was talking about first serve percentage?

The stats are there to look at, ESPN announcers and even Australian announcers said explicitly during the whole match Federer's first serve percentage.

It's like talking about winners; "Federer hit 45 winners." That's accounting for forehand and backhand winners. However, during the match they tell you how much comes off of each side. Ambiguity says as a whole rather than specifics. There is a specific example of it; go look on the AO Stats. Heck, I'll even post it here: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day18/1701ms.html.

This is why commentators specifically say, "First serve percentage." Never, ever during the whole commentating of the AO Final did I hear just, "Federer is hitting 50% of his serve in." They specifically stated, "First serves." Be my guest and show me at any time during the match when they say, "Federer is hitting __ of his serves in." Compared to the numerous times where they say, "Federer is hitting __ of his first serves in."

Again, you are the last person to really have a good opinion on this due to lack of credability. You were banned, your logic & even arguments show your lack of knowledge and just talking out of your butt, you have yet to show any of the racquets you claim to own and much more.

 

[BreakPoint]

Put two and two together BreakPoint. When the author of the article said 70%; you seriously thought he was talking about first percentages?

It did not occur to you that he's talking about serving as a whole? Did you honestly, logically and seriously thought he was talking about first serve percentage?

Yes, OF COURSE!!!

Somebody, PLEASE help poor AngeloDS!!!!!!

 

[BreakPoint]

You just made a bunch of bold predictions and you ended up wrong so now you are trying to cover your as% with excuses. Just admit you were wrong and move on rather then making yourself look dumb by making excuses for being wrong.

What predictions? Show me where I ever predicted that Gonzales was going to win?

One thing I did say is that IF Gonzales played at the EXACT SAME LEVEL as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, that Federer will have his hands full. Well, Gonzo DID NOT play at the same exact level but MUCH, MUCH worse in the final. And still it was a pretty close match if one was judging by the scoreline - 7-6, 6-4, 6-4. Now, can you imagine what would have happened if Gonzo had played 10 times better in the final like he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake?

 

[AngeloDS]

Why is everyone arguing against you and has extremely good points (with facts, numbers and excellent logic) to talk about; think about it BreakPoint. Honestly, sit down and think about your own behavior on these boards and what you post. You might end up getting banned again.

He played his game and did everything he could to stay in points and win. The conditions and Federer stopped him really from doing what he has done. If you watched the match, many shots of Gonzales should have been winners or forced errors off the opponent. However, this was not the case.

When you say, "Errors galore." "Gonzalez was just standing still!" And crap like that, it's really a disrespect to the players who play. Gonzalez was playing very hard and trying his best; to say he wasn't is really irritating. A huge lack of respect for the game and for the player.

Again, you've stated many things that were wrong. Face it, you are wrong. Be a man, move on and stop denying that you weren't wrong and that you were right.

You've stated, "It's club level etc." That's incredibly disrespectful and wrong.

Someone replyed:

Fed finished +26 and played Club level tennis.......did I read that right?

You replied

That's only because, IMO, Gonzales had zero defense and just stood there

Gonzales running down every shot, slicing his forehand and trying his best to stay in the points.

 

[OrangeOne]

Why would Federer "serve slower" at the beginning of an event? So that he could lose in the first round?

I pointed this fact out earlier (that he indeed did, at least), and you skipped over it. There's the quote / line, often attributed to Sampras, stating 'You can't win a slam in the first week but you can definitely lose it'. Refers to either losing a match, or playing yourself into the ground.

Fed's Average first serve speeds, by round, at the AO

(1)180 - (2)180 - (3)191 - (4)191 - (Q)188 - (S)193 - (F)189.

Now, statistically, we have a significant difference between the first two rounds, and the last 5. Average of 180 for the first two, average around 190.x in the last 5.

Thinking about Fed's ability level - I think it's more than safe to say that this was deliberate - it's a 5% difference*. If he's able to roll his first two rounds comfortably, why extend that extra effort in those rounds?

*It's actually a much bigger 'difference' when looked at in regard to the range of serve speeds actually hit. Let's say, for Fed, that range is maybe, at the extremes of 1st serves - say 130 to 220.... so suddenly it's more than a 10% difference in likely speed - huge!

 

[BreakPoint]

Why is everyone arguing against you and has extremely good points (with facts, numbers and excellent logic) to talk about; think about it BreakPoint.

You mean as in "Federer had a 70% overall serve percentage"? Meaning that he double-faulted 30% of the time that he served? Ha ha ha ha LOL

FYI, "overall serve percentage" doesn't make any sense at all since the only times you hit a second serve is when you have already missed your first serve.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Why would Federer "serve slower" at the beginning of an event? So that he could lose in the first round?

Omigod, can you even freaking read! I already said Federer tends to work his way into events, he does not give his all in early rounds, he does not have to give his all in early rounds, he is more then great enough to just ease into an event with casual play at first. It is others like Blake who have to give their all even in early rounds to be safe of advancing, Federer is so great he doesnt need to, and he can work his way into events if he wants, and that is what he likes to do. Read again, Federer DOES NOT HAVE TO give his all in early rounds to win, Federer likes to WORK HIS WAY INTO events, Blake does not have that comfort since he is not Federer. Comparing stats in the first round between those two is ridiculous.

Secondly it doesnt matter what you try to say, Federer was averaging equal or slightly more then Blake in average KPH on the first serve by the time Blake lost in the 4th round, and in the final rounds of the event for each. I proved that already. Federer was serving at a much higher average KPH in his last 4 rounds then he was in the first round, and atleast as high an average KPH on the first serve as Blake by that point. Blake was serving only the same average KPH by the 4th round as he was in the 1st round which proves my point. You only used the first round example because it suited your argument, you are so full of bullsh#t it isnt even funny.

I am done with you, you are getting schooled by enough posters already and I have wasted enough time trying to explain some of the basics of how wrong you are.

 

[AngeloDS]

You mean as in "Federer had a 70% overall serve percentage"? Meaning that he double-faulted 30% of the time that he served? Ha ha ha ha LOL

FYI, "overall serve percentage" doesn't make any sense at all since the only times you hit a second serve is when you have already missed your first serve.

Are you that intent on trying to prove your point that you have to make extremely ridiculous cases?

His first serves went in ~50% of the time; he double faulted once -> That is close to a ~99%.

(~99 + ~50)/2 = ~70.

Again, read what the author wrote in the article. Ask yourself, "Does he mean first serve percentage?" Put two and two together. If you thought he was talking about first serve percentage (which wasn't stated). Then you can't put two and two together, or even logically think about things. You're trying to prove that a square block goes into a round hole.

Please, stop trying to prove you are right by manipulation and being ridiculous. Again, look at what you type and what you say and your behavior on the board. You were banned afterall.

 

[BreakPoint]

Secondly it doesnt matter what you try to say, Federer was averaging equal or slightly more then Blake in average KPH on the first serve by the time Blake lost in the 4th round, and in the final rounds of the event for each. I proved that already. Federer was serving at a much higher average KPH in his last 4 rounds then he was in the first round, and atleast as high an average KPH on the first serve as Blake by that point. Blake was serving only the same average KPH by the 4th round as he was in the 1st round which proves my point. You only used the first round example because it suited your argument, you are so full of bullsh#t it isnt even funny.

I used the 1st round because only in the first match is everyone on an equal footing. Depending on how tough or tiring their first round matches are, it may affect their performance in the later rounds, but in the first round they are both fresh and should be serving freely.

BTW, most people serve harder when there's less pressure and when they know that they'll likely win so that they don't have to worry about just "going for it" on their first serves because they care less that the ball goes out. It's when the match is close and they they know they may lose do they slow their serves down to make sure they go in. That's why when the pressure's on, a lot of people "choke" on their serves. They don't feel free to just go for a huge serve.

 

[BreakPoint]

Are you that intent on trying to prove your point that you have to make extremely ridiculous cases?

His first serves went in ~50% of the time; he double faulted once -> That is close to a ~99%.

(~99 + ~50)/2 = ~70.

Again, read what the author wrote in the article. Ask yourself, "Does he mean first serve percentage?" Put two and two together. If you thought he was talking about first serve percentage (which wasn't stated). Then you can't put two and two together, or even logically think about things. You're trying to prove that a square block goes into a round hole.

Please, stop trying to prove you are right by manipulation and being ridiculous. Again, look at what you type and what you say and your behavior on the board. You were banned afterall.

Show me ONE CASE when ANYBODY has EVER combined a player's first serve percentage with their second serve percentage to come up with an "overall serve percentage".

They don't do it because the stat would be meaningless. First of all, the only time you need to hit a second serve is if you already missed your first serve, so the two numbers are not combinable because they aren't the same thing. Second, even if you did combine them, a 70% "overall" percentage, for example, could mean a 60% first serve percentage and an 80% second serve percentage OR an 80% first serve percentage and a 60% second serve percentage. So what does the 70% "overall" serve percentage tell you about how he played? NOTHING!! Did he serve great or did he double-fault almost half the time that he had to hit a second serve? We don't know from that meaningless "overall" serve percentage stat.

 

[BigServer1]

Show me ONE CASE when ANYBODY has EVER combined a player's first serve percentage with their second serve percentage to come up with an "overall serve percentage".

They don't do it because the stat would be meaningless. First of all, the only time you need to hit a second serve is if you already missed your first serve, so the two numbers are not combinable because they aren't the same thing. Second, even if you did combine them, a 70% "overall" percentage, for example, could mean a 60% first serve percentage and an 80% second serve percentage OR an 80% first serve percentage and a 60% second serve percentage. So what does the 70% "overall" serve percentage tell you about how he played? NOTHING!! Did he serve great or did he double-fault almost half the time that he had to hit a second serve? We don't know from that meaningless "overall" serve percentage stat.

Man, you're really beating a dead horse on this one. We all know (including you) what AngeloDS meant when talking about serve percentages, and we all know that you're ribbing him on this a little too much. If you thought the match was low quality, then fine. That wasn't the match I saw, but I know better than to argue with you and get caught up in a week long yak-fest that ends up in someone getting banned. If you want to flame me, go ahead, but I think it's time for this thread (and the incessant arguing) to die...

 

[BreakPoint]

We all know (including you) what AngeloDS meant when talking about serve percentages, ..

We do? And what is that?

I think AngeloDS thinks that when anyone refers to a pro's "serve percentage" that they mean an "overall serve percentage" which combines their first serve percentage with their second serve percentage. Is that what you think, too?

What does this mean to you when Stefanki is referring to Roger's "serve percentage"?

"Roger is very multi-dimensional; he can serve volley, he can chip and charge, he can stay back, he can play defence," Stefanki said in an interview with The Weekend Australian.

"He has a very big forehand. His serve isn't dominating but he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners, which frees him up in a lot of areas. It is everyone else's job to become more multi-dimensional to try to compete against that."

 

[lambielspins]

Omigod I cant believe BreakPoint is still grasping for the smallest draws to support his lame arguments. Your fingers must hurt from pinching on those tinier and tinier straws, why dont you give your fingers a rest and let the straw done. Gonzalez isnt in Fed's league, Gonzalez was kicking everyone rear end at this event, until he met the master and got brought down to earth. He ends the tournament with a well deserved shiny runner up plate, a place in history as a slam finalist, and alot of increased respect from tennis fans who have always enjoyed his "big" game.

Fed ends the tournament another notch closer to being the greatest player of all time, if he isnt already in some peoples eyes, after schooling everybody including your precious Gonzo in the final.

Arguing back and forth about the alegbra of a serving percentage that does not support your point on something, ROTFL! I have seen it all now.

 

[BreakPoint]

If you watched Federer play, which it is quite apparent you dont, you would realize he starts of feeling his way into an event and lifts all levels of his game as an event goes. This includes serving speeds.

Go back to last year's Wimbledon (2006).

Federer's average first serve speed was consistently 120mph or 121mph from the 1st round all the way through to the quarters. Then in the semis, it dropped of to 119mph, and in the final, against his toughest competitor, Nadal, and the guy he wants to beat most in the world, his speed dropped even further to 116mph.

http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/cmatch/ms/atpf324.html

So how do these stats fit in with your theory that Federer likes to serve slower in the earlier rounds because he doesn't need to "give his all", and then pick up his serve speed in the later rounds as the competition gets tougher?

 

[BreakPoint]

Arguing back and forth about the alegbra of a serving percentage that does not support your point on something, ROTFL! I have seen it all now.

Have you even read my posts? Who's arguing about algebra? Not me. I'm stating what the definition of "serve percentage" is. So simple. But obviously there are some on this board that can't seem to mentally grasp even a very simple concept.

 

[BigServer1]

We do? And what is that?

I think AngeloDS thinks that when anyone refers to a pro's "serve percentage" that they mean an "overall serve percentage" which combines their first serve percentage with their second serve percentage. Is that what you think, too?

What does this mean to you when Stefanki is referring to Roger's "serve percentage"?

"Roger is very multi-dimensional; he can serve volley, he can chip and charge, he can stay back, he can play defence," Stefanki said in an interview with The Weekend Australian.

"He has a very big forehand. His serve isn't dominating but he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners, which frees him up in a lot of areas. It is everyone else's job to become more multi-dimensional to try to compete against that."

Okay, let me explain. My interpretation was that he was talking about percentage of points won off of second serves, not that Federer got 70% of his second serves in. Was it well explained and worded? No. But I was able to infer that he was indeed talking about points won as opposed to 2nd serves put in play. I see serve percentage as first serves put in play. I think we all think of it that way. If Angelo's posts were confusing, why not just ask him to clarify, rather than drag this on and on...

 

[BreakPoint]

Fed ends the tournament another notch closer to being the greatest player of all time, if he isnt already in some peoples eyes, after schooling everybody including your precious Gonzo in the final.

"My precious Gonzo"? Where did I ever say that I was a bigger Gonzo fan than a Federer fan? Show me.

I'm a much bigger Federer fan than I am a Gonzo fan. If you had read my posts you would already know that as I've spelled that out clearly. But I'm also intellectually honest in that I call them as I see them. I'm not one of these Federer-fanboys that thinks Fed can't do anything wrong and that anyone he plays against is chopped liver. But I guess some people here are just too self-deluded to see that. :-(

 

[BreakPoint]

Okay, let me explain. My interpretation was that he was talking about percentage of points won off of second serves, not that Federer got 70% of his second serves in. Was it well explained and worded? No. But I was able to infer that he was indeed talking about points won as opposed to 2nd serves put in play. I see serve percentage as first serves put in play. I think we all think of it that way. If Angelo's posts were confusing, why not just ask him to clarify, rather than drag this on and on...

It's actually not confusing. Stefanki is obviously talking about Federer's first serve percentage when he says that he gets "70 percent in and hits the corners". He is not talking about second serves nor is he talking about points won on serve.

Angelo thinks that Stefanki was talking about Federer's overall serve percentage, meaning that he got a combined 70% of his first and second serves in. Have you ever heard of an "overall" or "combined" serve percentage stat or even just a "second serve percentage" stat? It would be meaningless. Does 70% combined mean that he doubled-faulted 30% of the time that he served becasue on average only 70% of his serves went in?

Look at this stat: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day18/1701ms.html

The first line is "1st serve %". Do you see a "2nd serve %"? No, because at the pro level it's usually near 100% and they just state the number of double faults instead. Thus, there is no such thing as an "overall serve percentage".

Do you understand now why I'm a bit annoyed at Angelo for inecessantly accusing me of being wrong about this and that I don't know what I'm talking about?

 

[BigServer1]

It's actually not confusing.

I was not at all confused by Larry's point. I was talking about Angelo's posts being confusing and poorly worded (sorry, Angelo).

Stefanki is obviously talking about Federer's first serve percentage when he says that he gets "70 percent in and hits the corners". He is not talking about second serves nor is he talking about points won on serve.

I'll ignore the fact that you're intending this in a demeaning way and respond by saying again: I see serve % as first serves put in play, but I saw Angelo's post (attmepting to) refer to points won on serve.

Angelo thinks that Stefanki was talking about Federer's overall serve percentage, meaning that he got a combined 70% of his first and second serves in. Have you ever heard of an "overall" or "combined" serve percentage stat or even just a "second serve percentage" stat? It would be meaningless. Does 70% combined mean that he doubled-faulted 30% of the time that he served becasue on average only 70% of his serves went in?

Again, I understand how serve percentage works, as I alluded to in my previous post. Again, I was more coming at this from my perception of Angelo's point than from my own point of view.

Look at this stat: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day18/1701ms.html

The first line is "1st serve %". Do you see a "2nd serve %"? No, because at the pro level it's usually near 100% and they just state the number of double faults instead. Thus, there is no such thing as an "overall serve percentage".

K, for the third time this post, I understand how serve % works. I guess I was trying to defend a poster who was taking some pretty harsh words, and I was trying in some way to convey (my interpretation of) his point.

Do you understand now why I'm a bit annoyed at Angelo for inecessantly accusing me of being wrong about this and that I don't know what I'm talking about?

I understand why you're upset, you have every right to be upset if you feel unfairly accused. No argument from me here.

 

[AngeloDS]

Okay, BreakPoint. Please use logic and reasoning.

How would you get 70% from the article? It's obviously not from his first serve percentage as it is 50%. It's also obviously not from his second serve percentage which is ~99%. However, you do get it by getting an overall serve percentage. Put two and two together and get an average.

That's how most statistics; especially serving is purveyed as. As an average in percentile form.

Again, sit down and try to understand this stuff. Ambiguity implies the whole; when they say, "Federer hit 45 winners." Does that mean he hit 45 forehand winners? No. It's looking at it as a whole.

Don't try to pull the, "I'm not a Gonzo Fan." Choose a side and stick with it. Be a man. You're such a habitual liar and manipulator. After all, you did get banned.


Again BreakPoint, stop acting ignorant and trying to manipulate things into your favor. You will get banned surely if you keep up with your shenanigans.

Does 70% combined mean that he doubled-faulted 30% of the time that he served becasue on average only 70% of his serves went in?

Are you that illogical and can't mend simple ideas together? Must you fight, and try to prove you are right by manipulating. You will surely be banned with such shenanigans.

70% is an average; meaning first serves he could have 50% (Which Federer normally hovers around in most of his games. Look at his stats in many games. He's around 50-60% for his firsts and hardly double faults so that's in the upper 90%).

It doesn't mean he double faulted 30% of the time. Please, please, stop acting ridiculous.

*If* Federer had 40% of his first serves in and 100% of his second serves. 100% + 40% = 140%. Take an average by dividing by 2. That's 70%. However, this is not the case. Federer usually hovers around 50 to upper 60 percent in his first serves. ALWAYS.

A coach does his job by looking at the player, his previous stats and much more. If he was referring to first serves; he would have had said first serves. But he didn't. This ambiguity means it is the whole. Which makes a lot more sense than just the 70% first serves. Which is completely unlikely when you look at Federer's math statistics.

The coach, again, looks at a lot of stats. That's his job after all. If you think or believe he was talking about 70% first serves. Your opinion is just fluff as I've said in the beginning.


It's a simple; "Does this make sense?" Does Federer making 70% of his first serves in make sense. No. Does 70% of his second serves going in make sense? No. Does 70% of his overall serves make sense? Yes. Please, think about what you say and your behavior. You were banned after all.

 

[BigServer1]

Okay, BreakPoint. Please use logic and reasoning.

How would you get 70% from the article? It's obviously not from his first serve percentage as it is 50%. It's also obviously not from his second serve percentage which is ~99%. However, you do get it by getting an overall serve percentage. Put two and two together and get an average.

Again, sit down and try to understand this stuff. Ambiguity implies the whole; when they say, "Federer hit 45 winners." Does that mean he hit 45 forehand winners? No. It's looking at it as a whole.

Okay, I wont lie here. The average serve % thing is indeed confusing as hell, and rather useless considering that serve % does indeed only pertain to 1st serves.

 

[AngeloDS]

Go back to last year's Wimbledon (2006).

Federer's average first serve speed was consistently 120mph or 121mph from the 1st round all the way through to the quarters. Then in the semis, it dropped of to 119mph, and in the final, against his toughest competitor, Nadal, and the guy he wants to beat most in the world, his speed dropped even further to 116mph.

http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/cmatch/ms/atpf324.html

So how do these stats fit in with your theory that Federer likes to serve slower in the earlier rounds because he doesn't need to "give his all", and then pick up his serve speed in the later rounds as the competition gets tougher?

You forget to look at how many first serves he's had to hit.

In the first round he hit 70 first serves. In the final he hit 119 first serves. You can't look at it that way simply because of the differences. Again, you talk/post before you think.

Statistically, having more usually decreases your average.

 

[BreakPoint]

I'll ignore the fact that you're intending this in a demeaning way and respond by saying again: I see serve % as first serves put in play, but I saw Angelo's post (attmepting to) refer to points won on serve.

No, none of Angelo's posts had anything to do with points won on serve. They only had to do with the percentage of serves that went in. He believes that when someone refers to "serve percentage" that they mean a combined percentage of first PLUS second serves. I tried to correct him many times by telling him that "serve percentage" means the same as "first serve percentage" since no one discusses "second serve percentage" at the pro level and a "combined serve percentage" is meaningless. But he doesn't want to listen so I was giving up on him when he began insulting me.

I hope you're clear on the gist of this misunderstanding now.

 

[BreakPoint]

Statistically, having more usually decreases your average.

Really? May I ask what your grade was in 5th grade math?

 

[BreakPoint]

You forget to look at how many first serves he's had to hit.

In the first round he hit 70 first serves. In the final he hit 119 first serves. You can't look at it that way simply because of the differences. Again, you talk/post before you think.

Statistically, having more usually decreases your average.

BTW, he hit 93 first serves in his 3rd round match and only 59 first serves in the semis, yet his average first serve speed was faster in the 3rd round than in the semis. So how does your "theory" explain that?