Federer's career stats on Hard Courts.

[Gary Duane]

Unlike Federer Djokovic's career is clearly in two different periods. Before 2011 is night and day different from 2011 and on.

It's pretty clear that he was at his absolute peak returning in 2011. He was 5% higher that year than his second best year in terms of winning games on return. But it's also a good example of a player peaking at different times serving and returning, although this is a bit complicated. He was near his peak serving in 2008 and did not improve on that until 2013 and later. If his serving game had peaked in 2011, I don't think he could have lost a HC match all year.

In terms of total points he edged out 2011 by a hair but was not as clutch in winning BPs at key times. Most amazing in 2011 were the return games, return points and an all time high 1st return points. It's pretty hard not to view 2011 as his peak year.

What makes it complicated for Djokovic is that from 2012-2014 it's really hard to say how much of his lesser success was due to a fall in peak level and due to very high competition from the other guys in the Big Four. There is the loss to Nishikori, and I still don't understand how that happened, but for the most part Murray, Federer and Nadal made his life miserable. But of the post 2010 years, it's really hard to guess from stats what his most successful years were winning big events. On paper 2012 looks like his 2nd most successful year with games. None of his stats are records, but combined he had great points and great games. But 2015 comes out as his 3rd best stats year, and I'd like to look at games only during his NCYGS run.

What is striking is that before 2011 his best year re games was about 2 points lower than his career average, with only 2017 dropping lower for obvious reasons. There is a break of around 4 points between his best year before 2011 and years from 2011 on. His points jumped about 2%, which is massive. I don't think I've ever seen stats like this for any other ATG, which is why I fully believe gluten was the key to the change.

 

[Jonas78]

Btw... another really strange year for Fed is 2009. Among his worst years on HC statistically, but he picks up W and FO on other surfaces. I guess It has to do with the season being partly affected with injuries.

 

[Gary Duane]

Hmmm, i fail to see that his numbers 2015>2014.

It's not big. Look at points. The % is so close that they might as well be the same. Nothing to see there. But the games are different by what? .68%.

That's not huge, but each % point is significant. When points don't deliver the same games, we have to figure out why. It always comes down to BPs. Sometimes you can eyeball it in profiles by the different between points and BP on both serve and return. But that does not always tell the story, because part of it is just dumb luck.

But let's look at that:

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/novak-djokovic/d643/player-stats?year=2014&surfaceType=all

Eyeball service points and BPs saved. There is a 6% difference, which is about 3 times normal. Normal is 1-2 points lower for BPs saved.

There is a -5 difference on serve between service points and BPs saves. Normal is around 1-2 below, so that's a bit low.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/novak-djokovic/d643/player-stats?year=2014&surfaceType=hard

Well, this is not great either, but a bit better. -3

So no important difference, but look at career:

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/novak-djokovic/d643/player-stats?year=0&surfaceType=hard

-1 this time, which is just about average for all good players.

However, we know for sure he played big points a bit better in 2015 because of the P/G ration. In 2014 it was 2.02. In 2015 2.10. That might not look important, but it is. Then look at 2011, 2.27, which is fantastic. But this is only important when you win a lot of points. That ratio is highest in 2010, but he couldn't win many points that year so it was mostly wasted.

You are touching some of my thoughts in other posts though. Like "couldnt seal the deal in finals". So why is this? Federer has said something like that it's extremely tough to be on top for a long period. Big4 all had slumps (at least when it comes to winning slams) after good periods. Maybe there also is a correlation between age and ability to seal the deal? I dont know.

I think that if you look at ALL wins throughout careers, in general slam years tend to fall into years with a lot of wins otherwise. This won't work for guys like Wawrinka, but I don't think such players follow any norms. I don't know about you but I can't help believing that Wawrinka was unable to fully showcase his talent when he was younger because of his head. He had not learned how to put it altogether.

For the ATGs, the guys whose slam count is way up, generally you see them peak in slams roughly when they win the most matches, the most games and the most big events. This year for Fed is just weird. Not one M1000 so far and yet the AO. It's not as bad as 2013, and of course he has the major, but it has been very strange.

For guys like Cilic, the guys who win one slam only and who are not really dominant in any year otherwise, I think it's more like lightning striking, a combination of good luck and peak play that will never be fully explained.

 

[Gary Duane]

Btw... another really strange year for Fed is 2009. Among his worst years on HC statistically, but he picks up W and FO on other surfaces. I guess It has to do with the season being partly affected with injuries.

I was curious, so I ran the numbers for HC from Paris 2014 through Canada of 2016.

Games: 63.68%, even higher than HC all of 2011. So that's the answer. You have to pick the right period, and a calendar year can be very misleading. Unfortunately I can only give you that stat because I have databases of all matches and games and can filter for period and surface, but that's two points over 2014, which includes the end of the year which brings up stats for all of 2014.

This doesn't explain WHY he played so well, but the stats show how well he was playing.

 

[Red Rick]

Follow up for Djokovic. I probably should start another topic, but I'll start here:

41% return games won on HC for an entire year.

I can't even...

 

[Jonas78]

41% return games won on HC for an entire year.

I can't even...

It's insane...

 

[Red Rick]

It's insane...

To be fair.

He played Murray a number of times in that year.

 

[Jonas78]

I was curious, so I ran the numbers for HC from Paris 2014 through Canada of 2016.

Games: 63.68%, even higher than HC all of 2011. So that's the answer. You have to pick the right period, and a calendar year can be very misleading. Unfortunately I can only give you that stat because I have databases of all matches and games and can filter for period and surface, but that's two points over 2014, which includes the end of the year which brings up stats for all of 2014.

This doesn't explain WHY he played so well, but the stats show how well he was playing.

...which dont explain the Nishikori-loss.

The reason Im looking into this is the reasoning from Lew & peers (i might be childish), which is something like: Federer 2015 is the same vs the field as Federer 2004-2007. This means 2015 is Peak-Fed. So this means Djokovic beating Federer in slams from USO14 until AO16 means peak-Djoker > Peak-Fed. It's a logical fallacy, because as you say, winning vs the field and getting the job done in slam SFs and finals are two different things.

For some reason i cant explain, there are slam-winning slumps after slam-winning periods: Djokovic 2011 and W2014-FO16.
Nadal 2008,2010,2013. Federer 2004-2007 and late 2008-AO10. Then slams won also drops drastically somewhere between age 30 and age 33 (usually after 32)

 

[Jonas78]

To be fair.

He played Murray a number of times in that year.

Well that definetly helps your return-stats.

 

[ABCD]

...which dont explain the Nishikori-loss.

The reason Im looking into this is the reasoning from Lew & peers (i might be childish), which is something like: Federer 2015 is the same vs the field as Federer 2004-2007. This means 2015 is Peak-Fed. So this means Djokovic beating Federer in slams from USO14 until AO16 means peak-Djoker > Peak-Fed. It's a logical fallacy, because as you say, winning vs the field and getting the job done in slam SFs and finals are two different things.

For some reason i cant explain, there are slam-winning slumps after slam-winning periods: Djokovic 2011 and W2014-FO16.
Nadal 2008,2010,2013. Federer 2004-2007 and late 2008-AO10. Then slams won drops drastically somewhere between age 30 and age 33.

Your problem is that you are not seeking the truth but elements that would confirm your dogma (2004-2007 peak). Federer peak is crystal clear as he is the one who defined it. There is no one in the whole world who is more competent to do that than him. You do have a strong evidence to support his statement (success against anyone who is not Djokovic, massive improvement of H2H against Nadal and Murray etc.), but even this is irrelevant. How can you be a fan of a player and disrespect him so much as a person is beyond me.

 

[Jonas78]

Your problem is that you are not seeking the truth but elements that would confirm your dogma (2004-2007 peak). Federer peak is crystal clear as he is the one who pinpoint it. There is no one in the whole world who is more competent to do that. You do have a strong evidence to support his statement (success against anyone who is not Djokovic, massive improvement of H2H against Nadal and Murray etc.), but even this is irrelevant. How can you be a fan of a player and disrespect him so much as a person is beyond me.

I am actually very interested In why players win slams when they do, i just think Lews conclusion is a logical fallacy. I can definetly see why Djokovic-fans love his explanation though. There is no good correlation between stats vs the field and finishing off slam SFs and finals. Why? I dont know. Maybe it's mentally draining being on top? Why did Djokovic go into three 1-slam winning years after 2011? I dont know. Why did he fell of a cliff after 2016FO? I dont know.

What i do know is that all players go into periods with few slam wins after good periods. And then slams won drops drastically somewhere between 30 and 33 (statistically big drop from 31 to 32). It really surprises me that you dont think its unfair to compare a 34y old player to a 28y old, but i guess we just have to disagree on that one. Anyway, This is the objective stats, the rest is subjective intepretations.

 

[Gary Duane]

...which dont explain the Nishikori-loss.

The figures I gave you started after USO 2014. If I run the numbers only through USO 2014 they should be lower for that period. But I'm too tired to do it again.

The reason Im looking into this is the reasoning from Lew & peers (i might be childish), which is something like: Federer 2015 is the same vs the field as Federer 2004-2007. This means 2015 is Peak-Fed.

As you know, there are several flaws in this reasoning. First of all, to get a really meaningful idea of what is normal for any of these guys you have to examine their records and stats on different levels. We could, for instance, look at games (which is the easiest thing to check) for Fed in finals, SFs, QFs and so on. And we could do this for majors, M1000s, 500s and so on. I did that somewhere but I don't remember where I kept it. When you go through the numbers you find that certain aggressive players don't look as impressive in early rounds but look very good later. Sampras comes to mind. Murray, Nadal and Djokovic all have had game plans that involve keeping the heat on at all times, all rounds. Sampras, and to a lesser extent (but more now) Fed seem to have coasted more in earlier rounds. That doesn't show up in general stats. I believe that Fed had an extra gear when he was younger, and even with the newer racket and retooled backhand that is more and more absent in long matches, especially Bo5. His final against Nadal at AO 2017 is an obvious exception.

I think it's flawed logic to compare the peak of someone well over age 30 to the peak of someone 6 years younger.

So this means Djokovic beating Federer in slams from USO14 until AO16 means peak-Djoker > Peak-Fed. It's a logical fallacy, because as you say, winning vs the field and getting the job done in slam SFs and finals are two different things.

I don't think it's fair because it involves a time warp, and things keep changing. Basically putting peak DJokovic from very recent times against Fed from almost 10 years ago is probably unfair to both players. I figure they are the two best of this era on HC. If I had to make a choice, I'd probably give Novak a slight edge on HC but Fed an edge on grass. On clay it really doesn't matter, since Nadal is such a giant on that surface.

For some reason i cant explain, there are slam-winning slumps after slam-winning periods: Djokovic 2011 and W2014-FO16.
Nadal 2008,2010,2013. Federer 2004-2007 and late 2008-AO10. Then slams won also drops drastically somewhere between age 30 and age 33 (usually after 32)

First of all, that drop in winning slams used to happen earlier for most players, and it may return more to that in the future. The peak for ATGs used to be between 24 and 25 years old. That remains true for Fed, and Novak's peak 2011 was at about the same age. But his career has been strange because of the whole gluten thing, and his serve has been a weird subject because it was really good all the way back in 2008 and did not regain that strength until after 2011. That's a bit odd.

 

[Gary Duane]

41% return games won on HC for an entire year.

I can't even...

Me too.

It's like Nadal on clay in 2008. It also seems to show that in general players still peak on return earlier, but in this era the compensate as they get older by cleaning up more and more through the serve and winning quick aggressive points. If you check stats carefully you see that for some players 1st return holds up really well, but the 2nd return falls. This is the worst year for Fed on 2nd return since he was very young, long before his peak years. To me that's the elephant in the room. Aging players have more and more problems extending rallies. Sp they not only work on ending points really quickly on serve, they become more and more aggressive about ending defensive points. This was probably always true, but in the past we did not have so many stats to look at.

 

[Red Rick]

Me too.

It's like Nadal on clay in 2008. It also seems to show that in general players still peak on return earlier, but in this era the compensate as they get older by cleaning up more and more through the serve and winning quick aggressive points. If you check stats carefully you see that for some players 1st return holds up really well, but the 2nd return falls. This is the worst year for Fed on 2nd return since he was very young, long before his peak years. To me that's the elephant in the room. Aging players have more and more problems extending rallies. Sp they not only work on ending points really quickly on serve, they become more and more aggressive about ending defensive points. This was probably always true, but in the past we did not have so many stats to look at.

Yeah, pretty much. I gotta say though, 2nd serve return was always by far the weakest game of Federer. He's always chipped it, and got away with it against players who couldn't punish him for it when he was at his peak. But it's really starting to break him up. He's still great on first serve return, and especially at making them, but his return points tank massively when he plays a player who both serves well and then holds the upper hand in the rally instead of giving it away. Big hitters aren't the problem if they can't hold on to the rally advantage. That's why Coric and Djokovic had such good serve performances vs Fed lately. It's why Roddick always had trouble holding serve vs Fed.

Returning vs Fed works much like the opposite. Just making the return isn't worth much. You're much better off making 40% of returns well than giving 70% sitters.

Federer would be atrocious at breaking himself.

 

[Jonas78]

The figures I gave you started after USO 2014. If I run the numbers only through USO 2014 they should be lower for that period. But I'm too tired to do it again.

As you know, there are several flaws in this reasoning. First of all, to get a really meaningful idea of what is normal for any of these guys you have to examine their records and stats on different levels. We could, for instance, look at games (which is the easiest thing to check) for Fed in finals, SFs, QFs and so on. And we could do this for majors, M1000s, 500s and so on. I did that somewhere but I don't remember where I kept it. When you go through the numbers you find that certain aggressive players don't look as impressive in early rounds but look very good later. Sampras comes to mind. Murray, Nadal and Djokovic all have had game plans that involve keeping the heat on at all times, all rounds. Sampras, and to a lesser extent (but more now) Fed seem to have coasted more in earlier rounds. That doesn't show up in general stats. I believe that Fed had an extra gear when he was younger, and even with the newer racket and retooled backhand that is more and more absent in long matches, especially Bo5. His final against Nadal at AO 2017 is an obvious exception.

I think it's flawed logic to compare the peak of someone well over age 30 to the peak of someone 6 years younger.

I don't think it's fair because it involves a time warp, and things keep changing. Basically putting peak DJokovic from very recent times against Fed from almost 10 years ago is probably unfair to both players. I figure they are the two best of this era on HC. If I had to make a choice, I'd probably give Novak a slight edge on HC but Fed an edge on grass. On clay it really doesn't matter, since Nadal is such a giant on that surface.

First of all, that drop in winning slams used to happen earlier for most players, and it may return more to that in the future. The peak for ATGs used to be between 24 and 25 years old. That remains true for Fed, and Novak's peak 2011 was at about the same age. But his career has been strange because of the whole gluten thing, and his serve has been a weird subject because it was really good all the way back in 2008 and did not regain that strength until after 2011. That's a bit odd.

I think Falstaff posted something regarding different gears. If i remember correctly it shows Feds return stats are relatively much closer to Djokovic/Murray etc on HC vs top10 than vs the field. In other words; in earlier rounds and non-slams, he slowed down when he could, especially in the return games. Why shouldnt he? If he was up a break he knew he could just serve it out vs most of the field. I can understand that the return-reliant players like Djokovic, Murray and Nadal needed another approach.

 

[NatF]

@Hitman, @NatF , @falstaff78, @-NN- , @krosero
First of all, I want to thank @Meles for again helping me with a DropBox link. DropBox gives a code for pictures that this site rejects (I have no idea why), and I needed alternate code.

A word about this: I'm getting lazy, so I just took a screen shot of my database with unnecessary columns hidden, but at the top it says "trash". That's my go-to name for any non-permanent version of a database file because I will not be keeping it.

What it shows:

TG is total games for each year, HC, Federer, in %. TG TA is there in case the ATP and Tennis Abstract do not agree. Ignore TA because it is less up to date.

TP is total points.

These two columns are the most important.

Green is for peak. Both games and points were peak in 2006, with 2005 so close that there really is no difference. But then 2015 is third, and that's important. There was a cumulative build through 2014 leading to a second peak on HC, and those are the only three years Fed approached 56% of points for the year.

However, Fed built back up points and games by developing a strong service game, and I believe the newer racket was central to that. The "improved" BH may or may not have been as important. It is clear that his return game was roughly Djokovic and Murray level in 2006, nearly 32% of games for the year. In 2015 he got close, but even with the new racket he could not raise the return game to that highest level. I think it is quite possible that peak Fed would have been an even better returner had he started his career with the bigger racket, and this tends to highlight how changes in the game are extending careers and re-energizing the games of players over 30.

P/G is a ratio showing effectiveness of all points. The higher the ratio, the better. This account for only 55.13% of points in 2004 generating 61.31% of games. It was nowhere near his best year for winning points, but obviously he was converting BPs at important times, and that's what the ratio shows or suggests.

Note that peaks in individual stats happen in different years, which is why I say that putting too much importance on any individual stat is "stat cherry-picking". Nothing is important that does not generate overall points, and even overall points become less effective if a player is less clutch than usual.

Note that 2017 and 2018 are very close overall. There is not a clear decline this year compared to last year, and a strong finish for Fed could make this year equal to last in terms of stats.

The year of the actual highest ratio of points to games is 2000, but this is computed by subtracting 50 from both figures and then doing a ratio. However, when points are low, not much over 50%, this figure becomes largely meaningless.

My one take-away from all this: 2015 could have been one of Fed's best years on HC, but that year Djokovic sucked all the air out of the HC season, and much the same is true in 2011. I don't think it is fair to conclude from this that Djokovic is clearly the superior HC player because Fed did not have the same kind of stamina and recovery. For instance, he served 505 games that year on HC, 2015. He served 738 in 2006, so at his peak Fed's powers of recuperation were extraordinary. At that time he seemed never to get tired. So the most I can imagine at this point is that these two players have been amazingly similar in their comparative dominance at their absolute peaks.

Thanks for putting this together and tagging me Gary.

I suppose my issue with these stats is that not all points and games are equal. In 2015 I think Federer was ruthlessly efficient against a tour that was IMO already pretty stagnant and his stats reflect that. Perhaps some of that is more impetus from Federer himself, knowing he had to close matches quickly because, as you said, his recovery isn't what it was in his 20's.

Another example of me trusting my gut more than the stats is 2017 vs 2018 There's no doubt to me that 2017 was a much better year from Federer, he ran out of steam a little bit in Canada and at the YEC but otherwise his game was much more imposing against superior opposition for the most part. He had his share of tough matches but for the most part I remember his opponents making them tough rather than the horror show we've seen with Federer this year.

I guess my question is how do we judge peak or level of play? In general effectiveness against the field, Federer in 2015 was right up but when you look at his matches with Djokovic an elite baseline player his limitations became quite apparent. Evidently Federer had a very high consistent level of play in 2015, but he couldn't sustain it and put it together in the biggest matches outside of his pet events.

 

[Jonas78]

Thanks for putting this together and tagging me Gary.

I suppose my issue with these stats is that not all points and games are equal. In 2015 I think Federer was ruthlessly efficient against a tour that was IMO already pretty stagnant and his stats reflect that. Perhaps some of that is more impetus from Federer himself, knowing he had to close matches quickly because, as you said, his recovery isn't what it was in his 20's.

Another example of me trusting my gut more than the stats is 2017 vs 2018 There's no doubt to me that 2017 was a much better year from Federer, he ran out of steam a little bit in Canada and at the YEC but otherwise his game was much more imposing against superior opposition for the most part. He had his share of tough matches but for the most part I remember his opponents making them tough rather than the horror show we've seen with Federer this year.

I guess my question is how do we judge peak or level of play? In general effectiveness against the field, Federer in 2015 was right up but when you look at his matches with Djokovic an elite baseline player his limitations became quite apparent. Evidently Federer had a very high consistent level of play in 2015, but he couldn't sustain it and put it together in the biggest matches outside of his pet events.

As other have pointed out, 2015 is also a different, and maybe weird year when It comes to HC.

His stats are good, but probably pumped up by the 250s and 500s, and the really fast surfaces:
Brisbane, Dubai, Basel, Cincy

His Masters wasnt all that:
Final at IW and the usual Cincy-win. Then It was R32 loss in Shanghai and R16 loss in Paris.

At the Majors it was R3 vs Seppi at AO and USO final vs Djoko.

In 3/5 Masters/Majors there are losses to lower ranked players in early rounds.

Looking at the slower surfaces, for example clay, clearly exposes the decline:

Year. 1return%won 2return%win
2005 39% 53%
2006 37% 55%
2015 32% 50%
Its a huge drop, which of course will affect his game in a big way, especially outside grass and really fast HC, and especially vs good returners/baseliners.

 

[Gary Duane]

Thanks for putting this together and tagging me Gary.

I suppose my issue with these stats is that not all points and games are equal. In 2015 I think Federer was ruthlessly efficient against a tour that was IMO already pretty stagnant and his stats reflect that. Perhaps some of that is more impetus from Federer himself, knowing he had to close matches quickly because, as you said, his recovery isn't what it was in his 20's.

Another example of me trusting my gut more than the stats is 2017 vs 2018 There's no doubt to me that 2017 was a much better year from Federer, he ran out of steam a little bit in Canada and at the YEC but otherwise his game was much more imposing against superior opposition for the most part. He had his share of tough matches but for the most part I remember his opponents making them tough rather than the horror show we've seen with Federer this year.

I guess my question is how do we judge peak or level of play? In general effectiveness against the field, Federer in 2015 was right up but when you look at his matches with Djokovic an elite baseline player his limitations became quite apparent. Evidently Federer had a very high consistent level of play in 2015, but he couldn't sustain it and put it together in the biggest matches outside of his pet events.

Nat, before I answer more thoughtfully, complete disclosure: You are one of the few people here who knows that no matter how fair I try to be, Fed's matches are the ones I never miss, so you will understand this. At the moment he is playing Fogninni, and I can' comment on the match because it is in progress. Instead I will tell you that it is near the end of the 2nd set, Fed hit three terrible shots in a row and ended up 15/40. He served his way out of it, but this is the kind of thing that makes us both scratch our heads, right? I stepped away muttering: "Oh no, here it goes AGAIN."

For me it's been like that all year. It's like he's the old Fed for a few points, then all of a sudden he does the old "walk-about thing" that they used to talk about with Goolagong.

So I don't know what to make of 2017.

 

[Gary Duane]

As other have pointed out, 2015 is also a different, and maybe weird year when It comes to HC.

His stats are good, but probably pumped up by the 250s and 500s, and the really fast surfaces:
Brisbane, Dubai, Basel, Cincy

Believe it or not stats do not generally get pumped up by 250s and 500s. I know this is counter-intuitive, and believe me when I say that I was surprised. But the reason is that although games are higher in final rounds (competition is less severe), there are no easy early round like majors to boost games. This means that all levels of competition turn out to be closer than you would expect because the easy early rounds and the hard later ones sort of cancel each other out.

And that means when you see this:

AO, 62%, Basil 58%, that really means his level at Basil was hugely weaker. And for a guy like Fed, that shows big problems. For instance, his career record at Basil is 59%, at the AO 60%. You see how close it is? And also 60% at the USO. Top players actually earn more games at slams because of the easy early rounds. That means - believe it or not - that when great players are winning smaller tournies but not majors, there game % goes down a bit.

That's why looking at game% is so accurate, but of course even a high average on HC does not guarantee two HC major wins in a year. However, the guys with the highest career average will generally have the most majors.

 

[TheGreatOne1997]

I give Fed big time credit for his HC career since 2003. Grass? Not so much. The mid 2000s-2010's is far and away the WORST grass field that has ever existed.

 

[Jonas78]

Believe it or not stats do not generally get pumped up by 250s and 500s. I know this is counter-intuitive, and believe me when I say that I was surprised. But the reason is that although games are higher in final rounds (competition is less severe), there are no easy early round like majors to boost games. This means that all levels of competition turn out to be closer than you would expect because the easy early rounds and the hard later ones sort of cancel each other out.

And that means when you see this:

AO, 62%, Basil 58%, that really means his level at Basil was hugely weaker. And for a guy like Fed, that shows big problems. For instance, his career record at Basil is 59%, at the AO 60%. You see how close it is? And also 60% at the USO. Top players actually earn more games at slams because of the easy early rounds. That means - believe it or not - that when great players are winning smaller tournies but not majors, there game % goes down a bit.

That's why looking at game% is so accurate, but of course even a high average on HC does not guarantee two HC major wins in a year. However, the guys with the highest career average will generally have the most majors.

Well then 2015 was something special, just checked. Games won at ATP250 is 64.4%. ATP500 is 64.5%. Cincy was 62.5%. So at least this year his stats was pumped up by these tournaments.

2015-Fed is quite overrated imo. Looking at slower surfaces like clay really exposes it. Return games won on clay is 25.2%. In 2005 it was 35.2!! Or slower HC like IW which is 65% games won in 2005 and 59.5% in 2015. His return stats on HC 2015 is really pumped up from the ATP250s and ATP500s. Return games won are 37% at 250s and 36.1% at 500s.

If not for the USO ride, Fed HC 2015 wouldnt be much to speak of. He was very lucky with the draw, facing the perfect QF and SF opponents which he leads something like 30-0 on HC H2H.

 

[Gary Duane]

Well then 2015 was something special, just checked. Games won at ATP250 is 64.4%. ATP500 is 64.5%. Cincy was 62.5%. So at least this year his stats was pumped up by these tournaments.

No doubt. SOMETHING was pushing them up!

I know he was incredible at Cincy. We all watched that in amazement, hoping it was a sign for the rest of the year. I forget what the figures are for career majors, M250s, M500s, M1000s. I just remember being surprised.

2015-Fed is quite overrated imo. Looking at slower surfaces like clay really exposes it. Return games won on clay is 25.2%. In 2005 it was 35.2!! Or slower HC like IW which is 65% games won in 2005 and 59.5% in 2015. His return stats on HC 2015 is really pumped up from the ATP250s and ATP500s. Return games won are 37% at 250s and 36.1% at 500s.

Career at RG: 57%. Of course getting beaten there so many times by Nadal didn't help, but games are supposed to go up on clay. So how about the rest?

Bingo, 57% also. But just a shade under 59% on HC. Normally this is higher on clay because players win by higher margins on clay. So it's logical he would decline first on his weakest surface.

 

[Jonas78]

No doubt. SOMETHING was pushing them up!

I know he was incredible at Cincy. We all watched that in amazement, hoping it was a sign for the rest of the year. I forget what the figures are for career majors, M250s, M500s, M1000s. I just remember being surprised.

Career at RG: 57%. Of course getting beaten there so many times by Nadal didn't help, but games are supposed to go up on clay. So how about the rest?

Bingo, 57% also. But just a shade under 59% on HC. Normally this is higher on clay because players win by higher margins on clay. So it's logical he would decline first on his weakest surface.

I might be wrong, but i think its in the return stats you clearly see his decline, on all surfaces. Just for fun i ran his stats vs top20 on hard. From 2007 to 2008 he dropped from 31.5% to 20.5%!! It's an insane drop! And you can't blame it on Djokodal either, because his only loss was to Djokovic at AO. It's really no way to defend that such a drop has to do with the field getting stronger from one year to another. His return stats vs top20 on hard never reached 2004-2007 levels again. Even in 2017, with Murray and Djokovic gone, and wins at AO, IW, Miami, Shanghai, his return stats vs top 20 on hard was just 23.1%

The fact that his win% vs the field has been strong his whole career is a very bad way to define peaks and slumps. Vs the field he was always coasting on his serve, which has always been strong.

So i dont know if it's correct to say his decline was on clay first. The decline on return happened on all surfaces, but on clay he couldnt compensate by serving great in the same way.

 

[Gary Duane]

I might be wrong, but i think its in the return stats you clearly see his decline, on all surfaces. Just for fun i ran his stats vs top20 on hard. From 2007 to 2008 he dropped from 31.5% to 20.5%!! It's an insane drop!

Are you saying he dropped from winning 31.5% of return games to 20.5% against the top 20 on HC? That just doesn't sound right. Where did you get those figures from?

So i dont know if it's correct to say his decline was on clay first. The decline on return happened on all surfaces, but on clay he couldnt compensate by serving great in the same way.

Absolutely this checks with stats. His return on clay was very high in 2003 and 2005, and I think he was very unlucky to have run into Nadal at that time. I have to wonder if his interest in winning on clay started to change because of Nadal. Return stats for 2003 are totally wrong, so his game% for that year looks suspicious. But 35.2 for 2005 is solid, and by 2014 that fell to 24.19. Fed peaked early on clay and his stats fell like a stone over time on that surface.

According to what I have his HC decline started in 2007 and then accelerated in 2008. His service game and return game did not quite peak at the same time, but at 91.83% in 2004 he hit an early peak on service games. By 2009 that dropped slightly below his career average, then climbed up again. That's why you see peaks in 2004, 2015 and 2012.

In return games this fell below his career average in these years:

2014
2017
2018
2012
2009
2008
2002
2013
2001
1999
2000

 

[Jonas78]

Are you saying he dropped from winning 31.5% of return games to 20.5% against the top 20 on HC? That just doesn't sound right. Where did you get those figures from?

Absolutely this checks with stats. His return on clay was very high in 2003 and 2005, and I think he was very unlucky to have run into Nadal at that time. I have to wonder if his interest in winning on clay started to change because of Nadal. Return stats for 2003 are totally wrong, so his game% for that year looks suspicious. But 35.2 for 2005 is solid, and by 2014 that fell to 24.19. Fed peaked early on clay and his stats fell like a stone over time on that surface.

According to what I have his HC decline started in 2007 and then accelerated in 2008. His service game and return game did not quite peak at the same time, but at 91.83% in 2004 he hit an early peak on service games. By 2009 that dropped slightly below his career average, then climbed up again. That's why you see peaks in 2004, 2015 and 2012.

In return games this fell below his career average in these years:

2014
2017
2018
2012
2009
2008
2002
2013
2001
1999
2000

Yes I was pretty surprised myself.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=3819&tab=events

Just change from 2007 to 2008.

Sorry, seems you have to pick hard, year etc yourself...

 

[Gary Duane]

Yes I was pretty surprised mysel
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=3819&tab=events

Just change from 2007 to 2008.

Sorry, seems you have to pick hard, year etc yourself...

OK. I see what happened. In 2007 he had two losses to top 20 players, but in 2008 he lost to 5 people and twice to Murray. We can explain the 2 losses to Murray and 1 to Djokovic, but he also lost to Simon, Blake and Roddick. The loss to Blake was in the Olympics. But I think we already know that his game fell off a cliff in 2008.

But in 2015 he won almost 62% of his games against top 20 players if you leave out Djokovic. He beat Murray, Nishi, Anderson, Nadal, then Raonic twice, Wawrinka twice and Berdy twice. And ALL of those wins except Anderson were top 10. I'd say that's a very strong year. When you factor in his three matches with Djokovic, that falls to 57%.

I can't give you return games, but let's say he was winning 90% of his service games, or maybe 91%. That's 31-32% of return games that year against top 20 not including Djokovic. We can debate whether or not peak Fed could have beaten peak Djokovic, but I really don't see any sign that Fed was not playing well that year. Seems to me in every way Djokovic was the elephant in the room in 2015.

 

[ghostofMecir]

How do you know how good I think Federer is?

Probably get a good idea from the thousands of your posts that take subtle/overt shots at him.

 

[Red Rick]

Probably get a good idea from the thousands of your posts that take subtle/overt shots at him.

Obviously cause I dislike a player I am completely unable to have an relatively unbiased opinion that's based on facts or observation

Better yet

You can disregard someone's opinion entirely before they've even stated it just because they don't like a player?

Then what do you do when somebody's dislike is based on facts?

 

[Jonas78]

OK. I see what happened. In 2007 he had two losses to top 20 players, but in 2008 he lost to 5 people and twice to Murray. We can explain the 2 losses to Murray and 1 to Djokovic, but he also lost to Simon, Blake and Roddick. The loss to Blake was in the Olympics. But I think we already know that his game fell off a cliff in 2008.

But in 2015 he won almost 62% of his games against top 20 players if you leave out Djokovic. He beat Murray, Nishi, Anderson, Nadal, then Raonic twice, Wawrinka twice and Berdy twice. And ALL of those wins except Anderson were top 10. I'd say that's a very strong year. When you factor in his three matches with Djokovic, that falls to 57%.

I can't give you return games, but let's say he was winning 90% of his service games, or maybe 91%. That's 31-32% of return games that year against top 20 not including Djokovic. We can debate whether or not peak Fed could have beaten peak Djokovic, but I really don't see any sign that Fed was not playing well that year. Seems to me in every way Djokovic was the elephant in the room in 2015.

Yeah well except for Seppi

I guess you can look at it from different angles. Statistically, all tournaments on HC, his stats are good, no doubt. But then there was very early losses in 3/5 Masters/Majors; Seppi R3 AO, R2 to Ramos Vinolas at Shanghai, then R3 to Isner in Paris. As discussed earlier, HC-stats was pumped jo by 250s, 500s and Cincy in 2015.

As for the peak-Djokovic vs peak-Federer discussion, i guess people will always argue. Most of the matches were tight, so imo its advantage to the man at 28 and not 34. Mental factors were probably also important for a lot of the Djokovic-Federer matches, and it seems like the player In his mid to late twenties had the advantage (Fed pre 2011, Djokovic post 2011).

 

[ABCD]

Yeah well except for Seppi

I guess you can look at it from different angles. Statistically, all tournaments on HC, his stats are good, no doubt. But then there was very early losses in 3/5 Masters/Majors; Seppi R3 AO, R2 to Ramos Vinolas at Shanghai, then R3 to Isner in Paris. As discussed earlier, HC-stats was pumped jo by 250s, 500s and Cincy in 2015.

As for the peak-Djokovic vs peak-Federer discussion, i guess people will always argue. Most of the matches were tight, so imo its advantage to the man at 28 and not 34. Mental factors were probably also important for a lot of the Djokovic-Federer matches, and it seems like the player In his mid to late twenties had the advantage (Fed pre 2011, Djokovic post 2011).

Do you realise that Djokovic pre-2011 is not Djokovic?

 

[Jonas78]

Do you realise that Djokovic pre-2011 is not Djokovic?

Well then most Fed-fans will argue post 2010AO-Fed wasnt prime-Fed...

 

[ABCD]

Well then most Fed-fans will argue post 2010AO-Fed wasnt prime-Fed...

We are not talking about prime, but about unrecognized disease that required therapeutic intervention. Regarding Federer, he has defined which one was his best version and it is not pre-2010. I never discuss gluten issue, but in the case of pre-2010 Djokovic this is the elephant in the room and it is nice to be objective enough to mention it. I consider you to be more objective Federer fan than the others.

 

[Jonas78]

We are not talking about prime, but about unrecognized disease that required therapeutic intervention. Regarding Federer, he has defined which one was his best version and it is not pre-2010. I never discuss gluten issue, but in the case of pre-2010 Djokovic this is the elephant in the room and it is nice to be objective enough to mention it. I consider you to be more objective Federer fan than the others.

Well i guess Fed did better vs the field from 2011 and on then Djokovic did pre 2011. I dont question the gluten-issues. But Federer 2015 wasnt peak-Fed, no matter what you have read or heard.

You must remember, Roger doesnt like to take the glory away from others by blaming injuries or not being at his best. W vs Raonic and USO vs Millman comes to mind. He wouldnt say after losing to Djokovic at W15 and USO15 that he wasnt at his best.

 

[ABCD]

But Federer 2015 wasnt peak-Fed, no matter what you have read or heard.

I have following 2 questions for you:

1) How can you question Federer self-assessment?
2) How do you explain massive improvement of H2H against Nadal and Murray in post-2015 period?

 

[Jonas78]

I have following 2 questions for you:

1) How can you question Federer self-assessment?
2) How do you explain massive improvement of H2H against Nadal and Murray in post-2015 period?

1) i just told you. He doesnt like taking away others glory by blaming injuries or not being at his best. Its a good thing, dont use It against him. He has never retired from a match, you think he has never been injured?
2) I have stated my views on 2015 in several other posts in this thread. His stats on HC was quite good but pumped up by 3 250/500s. Apart from that he lost R3 to Seppi at AO, R2 to Ramos-Vinolas in Shanghai and R3 to Isner in Paris. Not exactly the results of a peak-Fed. He had the usual Cincy-win and did good at IW/USO. He was really lucky with the USO draw, facing Gasquet/Stan in QF/SF which he has never lost to on HC. Dont get me wrong, Fed was good 2015, but using the 0-4 from W14 to AO16 to "prove" peak-Djoker > peak-Federer?? Thats something only an Ultronian can do

 

[ghostofMecir]

Obviously cause I dislike a player I am completely unable to have an relatively unbiased opinion that's based on facts or observation

Better yet

You can disregard someone's opinion entirely before they've even stated it just because they don't like a player?

Then what do you do when somebody's dislike is based on facts?

Which “facts”? Most of your little jabs aren’t made via a usage of “facts,” but rather purely ad hominem masked in levity.

Some people might be able to be objective in the face of the bias/prejudice such like you feel against Federer, but that someone isn’t you.

 

[Red Rick]

Which “facts”? Most of your little jabs aren’t made via a usage of “facts,” but rather purely ad hominem masked in levity.

Some people might be able to be objective in the face of the bias/prejudice such like you feel against Federer, but that someone isn’t you.

Yeah, cause the ATP stats I so frequently used are pure ad hominems.

And I make jabs at every thing and every one, most of all myself, so if you think I solely have an axe to grind with Freddy just cause I also joke about him then you need to get yer Fed out of yer arse.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Yeah, cause the ATP stats I so frequently used are pure ad hominems.

And I make jabs at every thing and every one, most of all myself, so if you think I solely have an axe to grind with Freddy just cause I also joke about him then you need to get yer Fed out of yer arse.

From the Nishi/Fed match thread:

That let was example #98223424562346 of Fed never stops lucking out

From the Djokovic/Fed match thread:

Federer always looks great when opponents play bad.

Nice “stats.”