Federer vs Gonzalez

  • Thread starter Thread starter nikdom
  • Start date Start date

Federer vs Gonzalez - who wins the AO?

  • Total voters
    177
AngeloDS said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stefanki was not referring to any ONE match. He was referring to generally throughout Federer's career. And it was just a rough estimate and he rounded it off to a simple "70%". He's being inteviewed by a newspaper reporter, do you expect him to say that "Federer gets 68.329% of his first serves in"? Does it really matter to the casual, non-tennis fanatic reader of the newspaper?

And my getting banned has only to do with one other poster on this board and not with anything nor anyone else. Get your facts straight!
 
Here are the stats for Federer from the Australian Open.

I am not a statistician but seems to me that AngeloDS is right.

2s79r3a.jpg
 
Mick said:
Here are the stats for Federer from the Australian Open.

I am not a statistician but seems to me that AngeloDS is right.
Click to expand...
Wait, why do you think Angelo's right? Where do you see "% 2nd serves in" or a "% combined serves in"? :confused:

If you're referring to Fed's average 1st serve %, Stefanki was making a rough estimate of what Fed's average 1st Serve % has been throughout his career and NOT in any ONE match nor tournament.

It was an off the cuff comment form Stefanki. He said that Federer has a big forehand and gets 70% of his serves in. Of course he doesn't mean that Federer only has a big forehand and a 70% serve percentage in any ONE match nor at any ONE tournament, right?
 
BreakPoint said:
Wait, why do you think Angelo's right? Where do you see "% 2nd serves in" or a "% combined serves in"? :confused:
Click to expand...

The stats say in the Final match, Federer hit 50 first serves in and the percentage of first serves in was 57 %

From this we can determine the total number of first serves that Federer has served:

50 first serves in / 57% = 88 first serves.

Federer served 38 second serves (88 first serves - 50 first serves in) and double faulted one of them

Federer's service percentage therefore was:

(50 first serves in + 37 second serves in ) / (88 first serves + 38 second serves)

87 serves in / 126 serves = 69%
 
Last edited:
Mick said:
The stats say in the Final match, Federer hit 50 first serves in and the percentage of first serves in was 57 %

From this we can determine the total number of first serves that Federer has served:

50 first serves in / 57% = 88 first serves.

Federer served 38 second serves (88 first serves - 50 first serves in) and double faulted one of them

Federer's service percentage therefore was:

(50 first serves in + 37 second serves in ) / (88 first serves + 38 second serves)

87 serves in / 126 serves = 69%
Click to expand...
Since pros rarely doube-fault, the second serve percentage is always going to be near 100%. So the more you miss your first serve the more opportunity you will have to hit a second serve which will most likely land in, which is why they don't even bother to keep a stat for 2nd serve % in.

That "overall" figure is just a coincidence. I'm positive that Stefanki was not saying that Federer hits a combined 70% of his first and second serves in because it's a meaningless stat which is why it's never kept nor quoted.
 
BreakPoint said:
Since pros rarely doube-fault, the second serve percentage is always going to be near 100%. So the more you miss your first serve the more opportunity you will have to hit a second serve which will most likely land in, which is why they don't even bother to keep a stat for 2nd serve % in.

That "overall" figure is just a coincidence. I'm positive that Stefanki was not saying that Federer hits a combined 70% of his first and second serves in because it's a meaningless stat which is why it's never kept nor quoted.
Click to expand...

It's not a coincidence BP because that's how the numbers work out.

88 first serves x 57% first serves in = 50 first serves in

88 first serves - 50 first serves in = 38 second serves

38 second serves - 1 double fault = 37 second serves in

You have to divide the total number of serves in from the total number of serve attempts to get the serving percentage

(50 1st serves in + 37 2nd serves in) / (88 first serves + 38 2nd serves)
= 87 serves in / 126 serves = 69%

You cannot average the first and second serve percentages to get the serving percentage.

average ( 50/88 , 37/38 ) = 77% <= WRONG

as serving percentage is the ratio of the number of serves in and the total number of serve attempts.
 
Last edited:
Mick said:
It's not a coincidence BP because that's how the numbers work out.

88 first serves x 57% first serves in = 50 first serves in

88 first serves - 50 first serves in = 38 second serves

38 second serves - 1 double fault = 37 second serves in

You have to divide the total number of serves in from the total number of serve attempts to get the serving percentage

(50 1st serves in + 37 2nd serves in) / (88 first serves + 38 2nd serves)
= 87 serves in / 126 serves = 69%

You cannot average the first and second serve percentages to get the serving percentage.

average ( 50/88 , 37/38 ) = 77% <= WRONG

as serving percentage is the ratio of the number of serves in and the total number of serve attempts.
Click to expand...
Yes, the numbers just happen to work out because it's just a coincidence. I can guarantee that Stefanki was referring to Federer's first serve percentage when he said "serve percentage" and NOT a combined serve percentage. No one ever mentions a second serve percentage because at the pro level, it is always near 100%, thus, it's a constant. And you always eliminate constants from equations, not add them in. Thus, it would make no sense at all to combine first serves with second serves to come up with a combined serve percentage.

It's a meaningless stat because if you said someone had a "70% combined serve percentage", what does that really tell you? Is that good or bad? Did he get most of his first serves in but doubled-faulted every time he had to hit a second serve? Or did he only get around half of his first serves in but never double-faulted on any of his second serves? You can't tell from that stat which is why that stat is not kept, is never mentioned by anyone, and thus, does not exist. Look around, see if you can find stats on "second serve percentage in" or a "combined or overall serve percentage in" for the pros.

Again, Stefanki was talking in generalities and not any specific match or tournament. In the same breathe he also said that Federer has a "big forehand". Now does Federer only have a big forehand when he plays Gonzales in a final or only at the AO or does Federer have a big forehand in general?
 
I'm with BP on this one. I've never heard of anyone giving a number for percentage of total serves in. It's typically given for the percentage of first serve in. They also throw up stats for percentage of first service points won, or percentage of second serve point won.
 
Hal said:
I'm with BP on this one. I've never heard of anyone giving a number for percentage of total serves in. It's typically given for the percentage of first serve in. They also throw up stats for percentage of first service points won, or percentage of second serve point won.
Click to expand...

Hi Hal, if that is the case then Federer's first serve percentage in for the final match was 57%

It's listed in the row 13 of the stats from AustralianOpen.com that I have attached in post #902.
 
Mick said:
Hi Hal, if that is the case then Federer's first serve percentage in for the final match was 57%

It's listed in the row 13 of the stats from AustralianOpen.com that I have attached in post #902.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see that. I'm not arguing the stat that you posted. I'm saying that Stefanki was referring to first serve percentage. Stefanki's 70% number was obviously high for the Aus Open, as it looks like he was closer to ~60% for the entire tournament. Stefanki didn't give a time frame for this percentage so he could have been referring to Federer's career percentage. I do know that no one talks about total/overall service percentage. And since he said "he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners", I'll assume that he didn't mean percent of service point won.
 
Hal said:
Yeah, I can see that. I'm not arguing the stat that you posted. I'm saying that Stefanki was referring to first serve percentage. Stefanki's 70% number was obviously high for the Aus Open, as it looks like he was closer to ~60% for the entire tournament. Stefanki didn't give a time frame for this percentage so he could have been referring to Federer's career percentage. I do know that no one talks about total/overall service percentage. And since he said "he gets 70 per cent in and hits the corners", I'll assume that he didn't mean percent of service point won.
Click to expand...

I see . It appears that Stefanki's stat does not match the stat from Australianopen.com :)
 
Mick said:
I see . It appears that Stefanki's stat does not match the stat from Australianopen.com :)
Click to expand...
That's what I've been trying to explain to Angelo for the past dozen or so posts. Stefanki was not talking about the AO or any one match in particular but about Federer's strengths in general, as in - "he has a big forehand and gets 70% of his (first) serves in, even though it's not a huge serve, it's consistent and he hits the corners". Paraprashing there, of course.
 
Mick said:
Hi Hal, if that is the case then Federer's first serve percentage in for the final match was 57%

It's listed in the row 13 of the stats from AustralianOpen.com that I have attached in post #902.
Click to expand...

BTW, this was the link to the orginal article as posted by David L in post #858 which started this whole debate in the first place:

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

Note the DATE of the article: January 27, 2007. That was the DAY BEFORE the final. So obviously Stefanki was interviewed the day or days before the final and could not have been using any stats from the final against Gonzales.
 
BreakPoint said:
That's what I've been trying to explain to Angelo for the past dozen or so posts. Stefanki was not talking about the AO or any one match in particular but about Federer's strengths in general, as in - "he has a big forehand and gets 70% of his (first) serves in, even though it's not a huge serve, it's consistent and he hits the corners". Paraprashing there, of course.
Click to expand...

You and Hal convinced me. The problem AngeloDS and I had was we believed the percentage Stefanki had given apply to the results from the 2007 Australian Open tournament. Obviously it did not.
 
Last edited:
BreakPoint said:
That's what I've been trying to explain to Angelo for the past dozen or so posts. Stefanki was not talking about the AO or any one match in particular but about Federer's strengths in general
Click to expand...
You're the hugest liar in the world. You were stating that the article is first of all wrong.You've never stated or said that. Rather, you beated around the bush and mostly said the article was wrong etc.

If you're going to lie to save yourself/manipulate things in such a way; don't be so obvious about it.

Federer serves around 50-upper 60% for his first serves in many matches. He has the occasional ones where he has a high serve percentage. But overall, Federer hits in the 70% when you average out his first and second serves.
 
Last edited:
AngeloDS said:
You're the hugest liar in the world. You were stating that the article is first of all wrong.You've never stated or said that. Rather, you beated around the bush and mostly said the article was wrong etc.

If you're going to lie to save yourself/manipulate things in such a way; don't be so obvious about it.

Federer serves around 50-upper 60% for his first serves in many matches. He has the occasional ones where he has a high serve percentage. But overall, Federer hits in the 70% when you average out his first and second serves.
Click to expand...
Show me where I said the article was wrong. Go back to all my posts. In most of them, I keep telling you that Stefanki was referring to FIRST serves ONLY and NOT a combined first and second serves. I kept telling you that whenever someone says "serve percentage" it MEANS first serve percentage only and NOT a combined percentage as there's no such thing! Do you really want me to go back and point out to you all the numerous times that I said that to you and all the times that you responded that I was wrong? Don't you think that you've already been owned enough in this thread?
 
BreakPoint said:
Show me where I said the article was wrong. Go back to all my posts. In most of them, I keep telling you that Stefanki was referring to FIRST serves ONLY and NOT a combined first and second serves. I kept telling you that whenever someone says "serve percentage" it MEANS first serve percentage only and NOT a combined percentage as there's no such thing! Do you really want me to go back and point out to you all the numerous times that I said that to you and all the times that you responded that I was wrong? Don't you think that you've already been owned enough in this thread?
Click to expand...
BP I really wouldn't waste time with this guy. It's clear that he's not worth the battle. It's obvious that he's wrong on this point but he's dug himself such a hole that it'd be tough for him to admit that he's wrong. He'll stick with his "overall service percentage" argument until the end.
 
Okay Mr. "There were errors galore!" Mr. "This was a club level match." Way to say Federer and Gonzalez are at the club level. Mr. "Gonzalez would have beaten Federer in straight sets." Mr. "Gonzalez was just standing around and had no defense." So, I guess he didn't run after every ball and didn't try to stay in points.

You really have no respect for the game or the people who play it. Again, you were banned. Look at what you post/say and your behavior on these boards.

Let me re-iterate a few things you've said:

BreakPoint said:
Unforced errors galore form both!!!
Click to expand...
BreakPoint said:
I think had Gonzo played at the same exact level and quality of match as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he would have beaten Federer in straight sets.
Click to expand...
BreakPoint said:
Gonzales had zero defense and just stood there
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BreakPoint said:
Yeah, I read the stats. Gonzo had 28 UE versus only 3 in the Haas match. 28/3 is almost 13 times more! 13 times more qualifies as "galore" to me. And I don't really care what the stats say anyway. I care about the match that I saw. If the stats told the whole story, nobody would ever watch a live match and would just read the stats the next day instead.

I think had Gonzo played at the same exact level and quality of match as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he would have beaten Federer in straight sets. Unfortunately, Gonzo played at least 10 times worse. So even though Federer played very poorly by his standads, he still won in straight sets.

Pretty sad final IMHO. :sad:
Click to expand...

Roddick only made 2 unforced errors in the quarters against Fish, and they were double faults. He made 18 against Federer in the semis. That's like, 9 times the number of errors. Had he brought his quarter-final level to the semis, I am convinced he would have beaten Federer in straights. What say you?
 
David L said:
Roddick only made 2 unforced errors in the quarters against Fish, and they were double faults. He made 18 against Federer in the semis. That's like, 9 times the number of errors. Had he brought his quarter-final level to the semis, I am convinced he would have beaten Federer in straights. What say you?
Click to expand...

Fed's latest shirt, Just Bring It! Bet they will not.
 
David L said:
Roddick only made 2 unforced errors in the quarters against Fish, and they were double faults. He made 18 against Federer in the semis. That's like, 9 times the number of errors. Had he brought his quarter-final level to the semis, I am convinced he would have beaten Federer in straights. What say you?
Click to expand...

Fish != Federer

Federer has more weapons & put more pressure on Roddick forcing to Roddick to go for more.
 
What's missing???

I tnink the point that most are missing here is that you can bring the playing level that got you great success in a previous match, but will Fed allow you to use it. Fed robs time from players and all of a sudden the game you played in earlier rounds is tougher to deliver. Fed meanwhile with his superior eye-hand coordination and speed, is still in his comfort zone.

Roddick was playing well in the first set, but as soon as Fed got his range, Roddick was getting passed at will, not even making it to the sevice line at times.

Gonzo was hitting bullets in the first set but Fed kept running them down, forcing Gonzo to hit another and eventually this caused more UEs from Gonzo.

It's like taking the best Formula 1 racing cars and pitting it up against a Rocket Sled. As good as the F1 cars perform it's not going to match the RS.

TennezSport :cool:
 
David L said:
Roddick only made 2 unforced errors in the quarters against Fish, and they were double faults. He made 18 against Federer in the semis. That's like, 9 times the number of errors. Had he brought his quarter-final level to the semis, I am convinced he would have beaten Federer in straights. What say you?
Click to expand...
Roddick's match against Fish was not a real match. Fish tanked. Roddick knew going in. When you have no pressure on you whatsoever, you tend not to make many unforced errors.
 
Hal said:
BP I really wouldn't waste time with this guy. It's clear that he's not worth the battle. It's obvious that he's wrong on this point but he's dug himself such a hole that it'd be tough for him to admit that he's wrong. He'll stick with his "overall service percentage" argument until the end.
Click to expand...
You're exactly right, Hal. This guy's been a thorn on my side for way too long. He's not worth my bandwidth. If he were only willing to learn, he'd be a much more knowledgeable individual.

Thanks for the support and for those words. :-D
 
BreakPoint said:
Roddick's match against Fish was not a real match. Fish tanked. Roddick knew going in. When you have no pressure on you whatsoever, you tend not to make many unforced errors.
Click to expand...

For once I agree with you on something. The Fish-Roddick was such an obvious tank job, it was a disgrace. Roddick was certainly playing well enough to beat Fish, probably in straight sets, I dont know why on earth Fish was willing to just throw the match, Roddick certainly was not going to need it. Maybe he wanted Roddick to be as fresh as possable for the semis, but playing a true tennis match, and trying to make it as competitive as possable is really what Roddick needed going into the semis, and more work only keeps you feeling into it. Playing what amounts to a hit and giggle sesssion, then going out to play the great Federer in your next match is a dumb idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rhino
Roddick vs. Gonzalez round robin match
2 3
Replies
127
Views
10K
lambielspins
lambielspins
N
TMC- roddic vs Federer
Replies
17
Views
2K
dubsplayer
dubsplayer
Down_the_line
Nadal vs. Gonzalez
Replies
4
Views
1K
oscar_2424
oscar_2424
F
Gonzales Vs. Ljubicic Rogers Cup Spoiler...
Replies
11
Views
1K
FEDEXP
FEDEXP
Punisha
Hewitt vs Gonzalez (SPOILER)
Replies
21
Views
2K
Feña14
Feña14
Back
Top