Federer's net stats in his Grand Slam finals

[krosero]

Official counts for net approaches.

2003 Wimbledon..........d. Philippoussis..........3 sets............20 of 29............69%
2004 Australian............d. Safin..........…….....3 sets............17 of 25............68%
2004 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick..........…....4 sets............27 of 44............61%
2004 USO..........……...d. Hewitt..........……..3 sets............31 of 35............89%
2005 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick..........……3 sets............17 of 25............68%
2005 USO.........……....d. Agassi..........……..4 sets............15 of 25............60%
2006 Australian............d. Baghdatis..........….4 sets............32 of 41............78%
2006 French..........……Lost to Nadal........….4 sets............30 of 41............73%
2006 Wimbledon..........d. Nadal..........………4 sets............21 of 33............64%
2006 USO..........……...d. Roddick........…......4 sets............26 of 38............68%
2007 Australian............d. Gonzalez..........…...3 sets............34 of 43............79%
2007 French..........……Lost to Nadal..........…4 sets............21 of 34............62%
2007 Wimbledon..........d. Nadal..........………5 sets............30 of 51............59%
2007 USO..........……...d. Djokovic..........…..3 sets............19 of 24............79%
2008 French..........……Lost to Nadal........…..3 sets............18 of 42............43%
2008 Wimbledon..........Lost to Nadal......…....5 sets............42 of 75............56%
2008 USO..........……..d. Murray........….……3 sets............31 of 44............70%
2009 Australian............Lost to Nadal.........….5 sets............43 of 60............72%
2009 French..........……d. Soderling.........…...3 sets............9 of 11............82%
2009 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick........….….5 sets............38 of 59............64%
2009 USO..........……...Lost to Del Potro........5 sets............31 of 47............66%
2010 Australian............d. Murray..........……...3 sets............31 of 43............72%
2011 French..........……Lost to Nadal........…..4 sets............30 of 41............73%
2012 Wimbledon..........d. Murray.......…….....4 sets............53 of 68............78%

 

[krosero]

Everyone's been surprised at the number of times that Federer approached in the final last week against Murray. And with good reason. The only other final in which he approached more times was the 2008 Wimbledon final against Nadal -- and that was an extraordinarily long match. So his 68 approaches in only four sets against Murray, with 78% success, is arguably his best performance at net in all his finals thus far.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Everyone's been surprised at the number of times that Federer approached in the final last week against Murray. And with good reason. The only other final in which he approached more times was the 2008 Wimbledon final against Nadal -- and that was an extraordinarily long match. So his 68 approaches in only four sets against Murray, with 78% success, is arguably his best performance at net in all his finals thus far.

I'd be interested to know Fed's and Sampras' net stats in their 2001 match on the fast grass at Wimbledon for the sake of comparison.

 

[ThePro101]

Nice post - interesting info - thank you!

 

[Bobby Jr]

Yeah. Annacone's mantra seems to have paid dividends. Federer hit some truly fantastic volleys in the final.. someone should compile them to use as an automatic thread-ending post whenever someone claims Nadal is the better volleyer.

His second serve stats were notably good for the pointy end of the tournament also. He won 72% of his second serve points against Djokovic.

 

[krosero]

I'd be interested to know Fed's and Sampras' net stats in their 2001 match on the fast grass at Wimbledon for the sake of comparison.

Officially Sampras won 47 of 89 approaches (53%), Federer 31 of 62 (50%).

But Wimbledon's official stats are a little low, because of the way they do their net stats. They did not include any points in which the receiver failed to put the serve back in play. Sampras was coming in behind all of those serves, applying pressure on the receiver to make a pass, and forcing a lot of return errors. Federer was coming in behind most of his serves as well.

The difference is huge, because Sampras served on 189 points, and he came in behind all those serves -- but he's credited with only 89 approaches. Only the points in which the receiver managed to put the serve back in play are counted, and that's automatically a bias in favor of the receiver.

That method, excluding all unreturned serves when counting net play, has produced some very low success rates even for the best net players. The best example is know is Rafter, when he beat Agassi at Wimbledon in '01 (same year as Fed-Sampras). He served 161 points, and came in on all his serves. Plus he also came in a lot in Agassi's service games, since Andre was not serve-and-volleying. Yet Wimbledon.org credited Rafter with only 100 approaches for the match, winning only 49. A 49% success rate for the best volleyer of his generation. Strange, but the reason is undoubtedly that he didn't get credited for any of his unreturned serves, despite following them into net.

This whole issue has almost no impact on Federer's net stats in his Slam finals from 2003 onward, because after 2003 he stopped SV'ing on most of his serves. He started coming in mainly behind approach shots in rallies, and there's no big disagreement about how to count those.

2003 was the last year that he did a lot of SV -- and I think his official net stats against Scud look a little low. He got credited with only 29 approaches, but he came in behind a good number of his serves (not as often as he did in '01 against Sampras, but often).

 

[krosero]

Yeah. Annacone's mantra seems to have paid dividends. Federer hit some truly fantastic volleys in the final.. someone should compile them to use as an automatic thread-ending post whenever someone claims Nadal is the better volleyer.

If McEnroe is right that Nadal volleys better than Federer, then you should expect Nadal's success rate at the net to be higher than Federer's, whenever they meet. That really should be the case in all 8 of their Slam finals listed above, because in all of them Nadal approached the net much less than Federer did. So Nadal has a huge advantage right there: coming in much less, his success rate should be higher than Federer's. If Nadal was also a better volleyer than Federer, then it's doubly true that his success rate should be higher.

But in 4 of their Slam finals (2006 French, 2008 French, 2009 AO and 2011 French), Nadal's success rate was lower than Federer's. Despite coming in much less than Federer.

I just don't see how that could happen, if Nadal was actually a better volleyer than Federer.

 

[BeHappy]

Does "net approach" cover serve and volley?

 

[krosero]

So you have the numbers, here are Nadal's official net stats in those 8 finals against Federer.

2006 French: 10 of 16 = 63%
2006 Wimbledon: 12 of 18 = 67%
2007 French: 7 of 11 = 64%
2007 Wimbledon: 18 of 26 = 69%
2008 French: 2 of 6 = 33%
2008 Wimbledon: 22 of 31 = 71%
2009 Australian: 15 of 26 = 58%
2011 French: 10 of 18 = 56%

 

[MTF07]

If McEnroe is right that Nadal volleys better than Federer, then you should expect Nadal's success rate at the net to be higher than Federer's, whenever they meet. That really should be the case in all 8 of their Slam finals listed above, because in all of them Nadal approached the net much less than Federer did. So Nadal has a huge advantage right there: coming in much less, his success rate should be higher than Federer's. If Nadal was also a better volleyer than Federer, then it's doubly true that his success rate should be higher.

But in 4 of their Slam finals (2006 French, 2008 French, 2009 AO and 2011 French), Nadal's success rate was lower than Federer's. Despite coming in much less than Federer.

I just don't see how that could happen, if Nadal was actually a better volleyer than Federer.

McEnroe is beyond absurd in that assessment, as well as the recent statement of Djokovic being a better volleyer than Fed.

Federer won Wimbledon in 2003 behind his serve and volley play. Let's see Nadal win a grand slam doing that.

 

[Bobby Jr]

If McEnroe is right that Nadal volleys better than Federer, then you should expect Nadal's success rate at the net to be higher than Federer's, whenever they meet. That really should be the case in all 8 of their Slam finals listed above, because in all of them Nadal approached the net much less than Federer did. So Nadal has a huge advantage right there: coming in much less, his success rate should be higher than Federer's. If Nadal was also a better volleyer than Federer, then it's doubly true that his success rate should be higher.

But in 4 of their Slam finals (2006 French, 2008 French, 2009 AO and 2011 French), Nadal's success rate was lower than Federer's. Despite coming in much less than Federer.

I just don't see how that could happen, if Nadal was actually a better volleyer than Federer.

Yeah, when you look only a the percentages people often omit to consider that one player (Nadal) has so few incidences of coming to the net that the numbers are basically statistically irrelevant.

Success percentage at the net isn't the only measure - you could also look at percentage of volleys which resulted in immediately ending the point, or those which were 2nd or 3rd volleys... I'd venture a guess that Nadal's volleying stats are great for the first volley but terrible for successive volleys he has to hit.

As you mentioned also - because he basically only comes in for sitters his success rate should be much higher because the degree of difficulty is so much lower.

 

[15_ounce]

Wow, amazing stats. Thanks for that. Federer isn't afraid to finish points at the net at big stages of grand slams. His immaculate serves is a a big asset for him and makes him feeling more confident to come to the net. Sometimes he even comes in after a second serve! And, he can deliver explosive groundstrokes when he needs to as well as extreme angled groundstrokes (thanks to his wrist) to push the opponent away from the court--make him easier to come in.

 

[krosero]

Federer won Wimbledon in 2003 behind his serve and volley play. Let's see Nadal win a grand slam doing that.

You’re right, he did a lot of SV during that Wimbledon. Unfortunately the official net stats don’t seem to reflect all of his SV points. He got credited with only 29 net approaches, and that includes a lot of his SV points, but probably only the ones where the receiver put the serve back in play (as I was saying to Limpinhitter above). His other SV points, where the receiver failed to put the serve back in play, do not appear to be included. That’s often the case with Wimbledon’s net stats, and the contrast with other Slams can be like night and day.

Quick example: When Rafter won the ’98 USO final, he served 86 points, and got credited with 82 approaches. When he beat Agassi at Wimbledon in ’01, he served 161 points and came in behind all his serves, but was credited with only 100 approaches. Huge difference between the two methods. At the USO Rafter appears to have gotten credit for inducing return errors with his SV play, while at Wimbledon he appears to have gotten credit for SV only when Agassi put the serve back in play.

Anyway I go into this just to say that Federer’s official net stats in the 2003 Wimbledon final look a little low, and would probably be somewhat higher if they had been counted at the USO, for example. Slice Serve Ace counted 22 Federer serves that Philippoussis got his racquet on but could not put back in play. Presumably on a lot of those points Federer was coming in behind his serve and could be credited with additional “net approaches” or “net points”.

 

[smoledman]

Anyone asserting Nadal or Djokovic have better volleys than Roger is certifiable.

 

[BTURNER]

2006 French.Lost to Nadal..4 sets.......30 of 41............73%
2007 French.Lost to Nadal..4 sets.......21 of 34............62%
2008 French.Lost to Nadal..3 sets......18 of 42............43%
2011 French.Lost to Nadal..4 sets.....30 of 41............73%

So what went so very wrong with 2008. Same venue, opponent and round. Its by far his lowest of any major final. Was he picking bad times to approach, the wrong wing, or too risky/ tame a volley? He fit the same number of approaches in 3 sets as he did 4 the other times suggesting impatience or desperation to avoid rallies..
2006 Wimbledon...d. Nadal..…4 sets.....21 of 33............64%
2007 Wimbledon...d. Nadal.....5 sets....30 of 51............59%
2008 Wimbledon..Lost to Nadal..5 sets..42 of 75...........56%
2009 Australian....Lost to Nadal..5 sets..43 of 60............72%

the last result is interesting as well. He did better at Australia than any Wimbledon

 

[abmk]

In 2008 RG final, he came in aimlessly/without much thought on many shots,hoping to end points sooner, but with nadal at his very best, got passed repeatedly as expected .......

 

[krosero]

2006 French.Lost to Nadal..4 sets.......30 of 41............73%
2007 French.Lost to Nadal..4 sets.......21 of 34............62%
2008 French.Lost to Nadal..3 sets......18 of 42............43%
2011 French.Lost to Nadal..4 sets.....30 of 41............73%

So what went so very wrong with 2008. Same venue, opponent and round. Its by far his lowest of any major final. Was he picking bad times to approach, the wrong wing, or too risky/ tame a volley? He fit the same number of approaches in 3 sets as he did 4 the other times suggesting impatience or desperation to avoid rallies..

That's exactly right, he fit 42 approaches into 3 very short sets (just 22 games). That could be his highest rate in all the finals.

I don't recall the specifics, but I thought his approaches had a touch of desperation on them. I remember with many of them you knew as soon as he made the approach that it wasn't going to work.

Let's not forget, though, that Nadal was below 50% success at net in that final too: he won only 2 of 6 approaches.

2006 Wimbledon...d. Nadal..…4 sets.....21 of 33............64%
2007 Wimbledon...d. Nadal.....5 sets....30 of 51............59%
2008 Wimbledon..Lost to Nadal..5 sets..42 of 75...........56%
2009 Australian....Lost to Nadal..5 sets..43 of 60............72%

the last result is interesting as well. He did better at Australia than any Wimbledon

Again, I'd have to see these matches again to say anything specific about what he was doing (or what Nadal was doing). You'd expect net rushes to work best on grass, theoretically ... but maybe that's not true.

One thing's for sure, Federer's success at the net in the AO final was not only high (72%), it was much higher than Nadal's (58%). And that was true again in their AO semifinal earlier this year: Federer won 35 of 57 approaches (61%), while Nadal was way down at 5 of 15 (33%).

At Wimbledon it was the reverse: in all three finals, Nadal's success rate was higher than Federer's (which is not surprising considering that Nadal came in much less than his opponent).

 

[krosero]

I'd be interested to know Fed's and Sampras' net stats in their 2001 match on the fast grass at Wimbledon for the sake of comparison.

Officially Sampras won 47 of 89 approaches (53%), Federer 31 of 62 (50%).

But Wimbledon's official stats are a little low, because of the way they do their net stats. They did not include any points in which the receiver failed to put the serve back in play. Sampras was coming in behind all of those serves, applying pressure on the receiver to make a pass, and forcing a lot of return errors. Federer was coming in behind most of his serves as well.

The difference is huge, because Sampras served on 189 points, and he came in behind all those serves -- but he's credited with only 89 approaches. Only the points in which the receiver managed to put the serve back in play are counted, and that's automatically a bias in favor of the receiver.

That method, excluding all unreturned serves when counting net play, has produced some very low success rates even for the best net players. The best example is know is Rafter, when he beat Agassi at Wimbledon in '01 (same year as Fed-Sampras). He served 161 points, and came in on all his serves. Plus he also came in a lot in Agassi's service games, since Andre was not serve-and-volleying. Yet Wimbledon.org credited Rafter with only 100 approaches for the match, winning only 49. A 49% success rate for the best volleyer of his generation. Strange, but the reason is undoubtedly that he didn't get credited for any of his unreturned serves, despite following them into net.

Limpin, I have more net stats for that Federer-Sampras match in '01. As you can see above, Wimbledon officially had the two men combining for 151 net approaches of all kinds, including SV. This past weekend at the Olympics, Ted Robinson said that Fed and Sampras combined for 264 serve-and-volley points in that match.

That right there shows how Wimbledon's official stats reflect a narrow definition definition of what constitutes a net approach. Someone else -- perhaps NBC's statistician -- counted over 100 more net points than Wimbledon.org did.

Undoubtedly those must be SV points on unreturned serves. So those points would raise Federer's and Sampras' success rates at net well above what their official rates were.

Incidentally Ted added that the very next year, in the Hewitt-Nalbandian final, there were no SV points. Zero.

That doesn't mean there were no net points in that match, because he's just talking about SV. Wimbledon.org has Hewitt winning 16 of 24 net approaches (67%) and Nalbandian 12 of 17 (71%).

 

[timnz]

2002

Limpin, I have more net stats for that Federer-Sampras match in '01. As you can see above, Wimbledon officially had the two men combining for 151 net approaches of all kinds, including SV. This past weekend at the Olympics, Ted Robinson said that Fed and Sampras combined for 264 serve-and-volley points in that match.

That right there shows how Wimbledon's official stats reflect a narrow definition definition of what constitutes a net approach. Someone else -- perhaps NBC's statistician -- counted over 100 more net points than Wimbledon.org did.

Undoubtedly those must be SV points on unreturned serves. So those points would raise Federer's and Sampras' success rates at net well above what their official rates were.

Incidentally Ted added that the very next year, in the Hewitt-Nalbandian final, there were no SV points. Zero.

That doesn't mean there were no net points in that match, because he's just talking about SV. Wimbledon.org has Hewitt winning 16 of 24 net approaches (67%) and Nalbandian 12 of 17 (71%).

Ah, 2002 - the first year they slowed down the courts. You'd think that someone at Wimbledon would have noticed the complete and utter disappearance of serve and volley in the final. I know that is not either men's primary style - but they are both capable of it, and both have sound volleys. The fact that they never did it once - says heaps. And then Wimbledon's reaction to it? Let's slow it down much more! (Evidence: Difference between 2003 and late 2000's service angle and ball speed off the ground analysis of same speed from the racket of Federer. 2003 already had lots of slow down - by late 2000's it had slowed down much more!).

Question: Is there a secret desire by the Wimbledon committe to be the slowest Grand Slam tournament? The evidence points to this.....what I can't figure out is why.

 

[Mustard]

2002 Wimbledon was the most bizarre Wimbledon I think I've ever seen, and I don't think Wimbledon has ever been slower than what it was that year. Look at the early round upsets. Federer loses to Ancic, Agassi loses to Srichaphan, Sampras loses to Bastl, Safin loses to O. Rochus. Malisse beat serve and volleyers like Rusedski and Krajicek. Henman, despite getting to the semi finals, struggled throughout the tournament and said it was the slowest court he had played on all year. We had Nalbandian in the final, despite the fact that he hadn't played on centre court since he was a junior. It was truly odd.

Hewitt finally delivered at Wimbledon, though

 

[abmk]

Federer's stats in grand slam semis :

Wimbledon

2003 Wimbledon - d Roddick - 3 sets - 29 of 39 (74%) .... % of points at the net - 39 of 183 (21%) (should be higher than this if we count approaches with unreturned serves)
2004 Wimbledon - d Grosjean - 3 sets - 28 of 37 (76%) .... % of points at the net - 37 of 197 (19%)
2005 Wimbledon - d Hewitt - 3 sets - 14 of 22 (64%) .... % of points at the net - 22 of 196 (11%)
2006 Wimbledon - d Bjorkman - 3 sets - 13 of 19 (68%) .... % of points at the net - 19 of 123 (15%)
2007 Wimbledon - d Gasquet - 3 sets - 13 of 23 (57%) .... % of points at the net - 23 of 179 (13%)
2008 Wimbledon - d Safin - 3 sets - 04 of 11 (36%) .... % of points at the net - 11 of 183 (6%)
2009 Wimbledon - d Haas - 3 sets - 38 of 43 (88%) .... % of points at the net - 43 of 193 (23%)
2012 Wimbledon - d Djokovic - 4 sets - 13 of 25 (52%) .... % of points at the net - 25 of 216 (12%)

AO :

2004 AO - d Ferrero - 3 sets - 16 of 21 (76%) .... % of points at the net - 21 of 154 (14%)
2005 AO - Lost to Safin - 5 sets - 52 of 68 (76%) .... % of points at the net - 68 of 395 (17%)
2006 AO - d Kiefer - 4 sets - 19 of 24 (79%) .... % of points at the net - 24 of 228 (11%)
2007 AO - d Roddick - 3 sets - 10 of 11 (91%) .... % of points at the net - 11 of 128 (9%) (roddick was 9 of 31(29%) at the net)
2008 AO - Lost to Djokovic - 3 sets - 22 of 31 (71%) .... % of points at the net - 31 of 222 (14%)
2009 AO - d Roddick - 3 sets - 17 of 27 (63%) .... % of points at the net - 27 of 190 (14%)
2010 AO - d Tsonga - 3 sets - 22 of 30 (73%) .... % of points at the net - 30 of 139 (22%)
2011 AO - Lost to Djokovic - 3 sets - 17 of 26 (65%) .... % of points at the net - 26 of 230 (11%)
2012 AO - Lost to Nadal - 4 sets - 35 of 57 (61%) .... % of points at the net - 57 of 276 (21%)
2013 AO - Lost to Murray - 5 sets - 29 of 44 (66%) .... % of points at the net - 44 of 328 (13%)

USO :

2004 USO - d Henman - 3 sets - 11 of 20 (55%) .... % of points at the net - 20 of 158 (13%)
2005 USO - d Hewitt - 4 sets - 34 of 49 (69%) .... % of points at the net - 49 of 290 (17%)
2006 USO - d Davydenko - 3 sets - 13 of 20 (65%) .... % of points at the net - 20 of 166 (12%)
2007 USO - d Davydenko - 3 sets - 20 of 30 (67%) .... % of points at the net - 30 of 210 (14%)
2008 USO - d Djokovic - 4 sets - 18 of 30 (60%) .... % of points at the net - 30 of 249 (12%)
2009 USO - d Djokovic - 3 sets - 29 of 36 (81%) .... % of points at the net - 36 of 224 (16%)
2010 USO - Lost to Djokovic - 5 sets - 40 of 55 (73%) .... % of points at the net - 55 of 311 (18%)
2011 USO - Lost to Djokovic - 5 sets - 18 of 27 (67%) .... % of points at the net - 27 of 304 (9%)

RG :

2005 RG - Lost to Nadal - 4 sets - 36 of 59 (61%) .... % of points at the net - 59 of 239 (25%)
2006 RG - d Nalbandian - 3 sets - 14 of 19 (74%) .... % of points at the net - 19 of 146 (13%)
2007 RG - d Davydenko - 3 sets - 14 of 26 (54%) .... % of points at the net - 26 of 278 (9%)
2008 RG - d Monfils - 4 sets - 49 of 64 (77%) .... % of points at the net - 64 of 286 (24%)
2009 RG - d Del potro - 5 sets - 24 of 33 (73%) .... % of points at the net - 33 of 310 (11%)
2011 RG - d Djokovic - 4 sets - 15 of 19 (79%) .... % of points at the net - 19 of 309 (6%)
2012 RG - Lost to Djokovic - 3 sets - 12 of 16 (75%) .... % of points at the net - 16 of 177 (9%)

 

[andreh]

Krosero, got some stats for Mac and Edberg for reference? It would be cool to see the difference.

 

[abmk]

Formatting the final stats from krosero slam wise , also including the % of net points per total points

Wimbledon:

2003 Wimbledon..........d. Philippoussis..........3 sets............20 of 29............69% :::: 29 of 195............15% (should be higher than this if we count approaches with unreturned serves)
2004 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick..........…....4 sets............27 of 44............61% :::: 44 of 287............15%
2005 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick..........……3 sets............17 of 25............68% :::: 25 of 175............14%
2006 Wimbledon..........d. Nadal..........………4 sets............21 of 33............64% :::: 33 of 246............13%
2007 Wimbledon..........d. Nadal..........………5 sets............30 of 51............59% :::: 51 of 323............16%
2008 Wimbledon..........Lost to Nadal......…....5 sets............42 of 75............56%. :::: 75 of 413............18%
2009 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick........….….5 sets............38 of 59............64% :::: 59 of 436............14%
2012 Wimbledon..........d. Murray.......…….....4 sets............53 of 68............78% :::: 68 of 288............24%

AO :

2004 Australian............d. Safin..........…….....3 sets............17 of 25............68% :::: 25 of 206............12%
2006 Australian............d. Baghdatis..........….4 sets............32 of 41............78% :::: 41 of 258............16%
2007 Australian............d. Gonzalez..........…...3 sets............34 of 43............79% :::: 43 of 213............20%
2009 Australian............Lost to Nadal.........….5 sets............43 of 60............72% :::: 60 of 347............17%
2010 Australian............d. Murray..........……...3 sets............31 of 43............72% :::: 43 of 216............20%

USO :

2004 USO..........……...d. Hewitt..........……..3 sets............31 of 35............89%. :::: 35 of 164............21%
2005 USO.........……....d. Agassi..........……..4 sets............15 of 25............60% :::: 25 of 238............11%
2006 USO..........……...d. Roddick........…......4 sets............26 of 38............68% :::: 38 of 225............17%
2007 USO..........……...d. Djokovic..........…..3 sets............19 of 24............79% :::: 24 of 222............11%
2008 USO..........……..d. Murray........….……3 sets............31 of 44............70% :::: 44 of 162............27%
2009 USO..........……...Lost to Del Potro........5 sets............31 of 47............66% :::: 47 of 352.............13%

RG :

2006 French..........……Lost to Nadal........….4 sets............30 of 41............73% :::: 41 of 230............18%
2007 French..........……Lost to Nadal..........…4 sets............21 of 34............62% :::: 34 of 255............13%
2008 French..........……Lost to Nadal........…..3 sets............18 of 42............43% :::: 42 of 144............29%
2009 French..........……d. Soderling.........…...3 sets............9 of 11............82% :::: 11 of 170............6%
2011 French..........……Lost to Nadal........…..4 sets............30 of 41............73% :::: 41 of 273............15%

 

[krosero]

Formatting the final stats from krosero slam wise , also including the % of net points per total points

So then these are the three Slam finals in which Federer was the most aggressive in coming to net (though not necessarily the most successful).

2012 Wimbledon..........d. Murray.......…….....4 sets............53 of 68............78% :::: 68 of 288............24%

2008 USO..........……..d. Murray........….……3 sets............31 of 44............70% :::: 44 of 162............27%

2008 French..........……Lost to Nadal........…..3 sets............18 of 42............43% :::: 42 of 144............29%

(There were only 144 points in the French final not 154.)

I have the % of points at net also for the Fed-Nadal and Fed-Djok rivalries, I'll post those later.

 

[krosero]

Federer's stats in grand slam semis :
2008 Wimbledon - d Safin - 3 sets - 04 of 11 (36%) .... % of points at the net - 11 of 183 (6%)

Thanks for getting these numbers. This one against Safin stands out; it's the only time he went under 50% success.

Granted it was only 11 approaches so the sample size might simply be too small to tell anything, though it makes me wonder what his success rate was throughout that tournament. His success in the final was not that high.

One possibility is that he had a few unreturned serves against Safin that were not counted in the net points.

He had no problem in the match as a whole, just his net numbers look low.

Safin on the other hand was 16 of 20 at net = 80%

 

[krosero]

Krosero, got some stats for Mac and Edberg for reference? It would be cool to see the difference.

We have only a few, let me look. I don't think, though, that with net-rushers like Edberg or McEnroe you're going to see percentages of points won at net as high as Federer's, simply because those men came in so much more. If you're trying to get into net on every point in the match, and you had success rates of 60%, 70%, 80%, you'd be winning every match in straight sets and no one could ever push you to 5.

Generally speaking the less you approach, the more you will be dealing with relatively easy putaways. If you approach more, you're going to have harder shots to deal with.

McEnroe officially had 52% success at net in his five-setter against Connors at the '84 USO. He was credited with winning 72 of 138 net points.

Edberg had a marathon USO semi with Chang in '92, and he won 144 of 254, or 57%.

 

[hoodjem]

We have only a few, let me look. I don't think, though, that with net-rushers like Edberg or McEnroe you're going to see percentages of points won at net as high as Federer's, simply because those men came in so much more. If you're trying to get into net on every point in the match, and you had success rates of 60%, 70%, 80%, you'd be winning every match in straight sets and no one could ever push you to 5.

Generally speaking the less you approach, the more you will be dealing with relatively easy putaways. If you approach more, you're going to have harder shots to deal with.

McEnroe officially had 52% success at net in his five-setter against Connors at the '84 USO. He was credited with winning 72 of 138 net points.

Edberg had a marathon USO semi with Chang in '92, and he won 144 of 254, or 57%.

I think it would be worth simply comparing the quantity of net points: Mac vs. Edberg vs. Federer.

 

[Benhur]

We have only a few, let me look. I don't think, though, that with net-rushers like Edberg or McEnroe you're going to see percentages of points won at net as high as Federer's, simply because those men came in so much more. If you're trying to get into net on every point in the match, and you had success rates of 60%, 70%, 80%, you'd be winning every match in straight sets and no one could ever push you to 5.

Absolutely. There is a site that keeps track of the cumulative percentage of points, games, sets etc won by each player. I don't seem to be able to find it, but I believe winning 70% of points would give you well above 80% of games and almost certainly 100% of matches in straight sets. Net stats by themselves are a bit meaningless if they don't include frequency information (percentage of total points that a player goes to the net). That's the only way of knowing how selective the player is in venturing to the net.

 

[krosero]

I think it would be worth simply comparing the quantity of net points: Mac vs. Edberg vs. Federer.

Definitely, it's quite a contrast.

Federer, in his most aggressive GS finals, approached on about a quarter of all points played.

Against Connors in the '84 RG semis, McEnroe was at net on 50 of 175 points, or 29%. He won 35 of the 50 (70%).

Against Connors in the '84 USO semis, McEnroe was at net on 138 of 317 points, or 44%. He won 72 of the 138 (52%).

Against Chang in the '92 USO semis, Edberg was at net on 254 of 404 points, or 63%. He won 144 of the 254 (57%).

Against Chang in the '89 RG final, Edberg was at net on 156 of 309 points, or 50%.

Against Becker in the '89 RG semis, Edberg was at net on 147 of 323 points, or 46%. He won 95 of the 147 (65%).

In the same match Becker was at net on only 70 of the 323 points, or 22%. He won 43 of the 70 (61%).

 

[Moose Malloy]

Federer, in his most aggressive GS finals, approached on about a quarter of all points played

Wilander probably came in more than that in some of his GS finals.

Krosero, got some stats for Mac and Edberg for reference?

haven't taken net stats in many of their matches.
I'm generally more interested in that stat for guys like Borg, Wilander, Connors etc(who came in a lot more than their reputations)

have 1 for Pat Cash -
vs Lendl at '84 USO I had him 95 of 150 at net(63%)
there were 325 points in the match, so Cash was at net 46% of all points played

I think I have that stat for Edberg vs Krickstein '88 USO(but my copy was missing some points), he came in around 250 times

I read that he came in 207 times vs Todd Martin at the '94 AO(a 4 set loss) and won 60% of those points

 

[krosero]

Wilander probably came in more than that in some of his GS finals.

Yes, he came in on exactly 40% of all the points played in the '88 USO final (with 58% success).

Lendl actually came in on approximately 25% of all points played in that match.

In their USO final the previous year, Lendl and Wilander each came in on about 25% of all points played.

(In both matches, by coincidence, Lendl came in 77 times.)

You had Lendl and Wilander each coming in 62 times in their RG final in '87: so each man was at net on 24% of all points played.

Tony Roche clearly had an influence on Lendl's net game. In '87 Lendl was coming in on one-quarter of all points both at RG and the USO. In his first 3 USO finals, all of which he lost, all without Roche, he barely came in at all.

CBS had late-match figures for him in all three of those finals: just 15 approaches in '82 (lost to Connors), only 14 the next year (lost again to Connors); and 23 approaches in '84 against McEnroe.

Everyone talks about how Wilander became more of a net-rusher over the years, which is true; but Lendl did as well, to an impressive degree.

You gave Lendl a success rate of 73% at net in that RG final of '87. And he had 71% success in the USO final that year.

 

[krosero]

Connors came in 63 times in the '82 USO final, which is 26% of all points played.

In the '83 final he came in only about half as much, going by the late-match figures from CBS.

Connors' success rate in the '82 match was 67%.

 

[abmk]

So then these are the three Slam finals in which Federer was the most aggressive in coming to net (though not necessarily the most successful).

2012 Wimbledon..........d. Murray.......…….....4 sets............53 of 68............78% :::: 68 of 288............24%

2008 USO..........……..d. Murray........….……3 sets............31 of 44............70% :::: 44 of 162............27%

2008 French..........……Lost to Nadal........…..3 sets............18 of 42............43% :::: 42 of 144............29%

(There were only 144 points in the French final not 154.)

I have the % of points at net also for the Fed-Nadal and Fed-Djok rivalries, I'll post those later.

yeah, it was 144 points in the RG 2008 final, not 154 ( my mistake ) . corrected.

would like to see the actual net numbers (including SnV points with unreturned serves ) for the wimbledon 2003 semi and final - those should be the highest among all.

 

[kiki]

The last time Federer played S&V for half a game some if not most of his loyals were in snippers or in their mom,s uterus

 

[andreh]

Thanks for all the stats, krosero. Really interesting stuff

 

[hoodjem]

Wilander probably came in more than that in some of his GS finals.

Yes, he came in on exactly 40% of all the points played in the '88 USO final (with 58% success).

Really? Amazing!

And no one think of Mats as a "net-rusher" or much of a volleyer.

 

[andreh]

You guys are definetly right about the 80s and 90s players coming more than one remembers. It was just much of a natural part of the game back then. A lot of players who were known as typical baseliners (i.e., Lendl, Wilander Conners, as mentioned above) would be all court players in todays game.

I have a match with Edberg v. Lendl (Masters Semi 1990) where Lendl comes in on practicallly every serve. A non-grass match (indoor hard, believe, not even carpet but I could be wrong about that).

 

[slice serve ace]

yeah, it was 144 points in the RG 2008 final, not 154 ( my mistake ) . corrected.

would like to see the actual net numbers (including SnV points with unreturned serves ) for the wimbledon 2003 semi and final - those should be the highest among all.

federer used S&V on 48 of 53 1st serves = 91 %, stayed back only 5 times
on 2nd serves he used S&V 6 times of 40 = 15 %, mostly stayed back
in total he served and volleyed on 54 of his 93 service points = 58 %



so, like i said, you add to that 54 points all approaches when he didn't S&V and that is the total number...note - scud served and volleyed every point so probably pointless to search for fed's net points in his service games

 

[WCT]

Krosero, is that 254 by Edberg the highest amount of net approaches you've come across in your stats? Whew, that is a lot of approaches. I've got some Connors net stats for those here interested. Let me point out, however, that I don't include s/v points where the return isn't put in play. I keep that as a separate stat WHEN I kept it. It's evolved as I started keeping them. Same with total points played. This being the case, I don't have % of points at net in many cases. Here are some that I do, though.

1974 US Open Rosewall. 52 of 124 42%
1975 Australian Newcome 101 of 275 37%
1976 US Open Borg 86 of 280 31%
1978 US Open Borg 33 of 183 18%
1977 Wimbledon Borg 96 of 286 34%
1979 Wimbledon Borg 57 of 167 34%. I didn't keep track of s/v free points here but Connors only s/v 14 times so it couldn't have been more than a couple.
1978 Wimbledon 49 of 182 27%. Same as above with the s/v free points. connors s/v only 11 times this match and only only had 8 unreturned serves the entire match. How many s/v free points could he have had.
1982 wimibledon mcenroe. 79 of 340 23%.
1981 Wimbledon Borg 59 of 280 21%
1981 Wimbledon Stockton 40 of 177 23%
1982 Wimbledon Alexander 94 of 255 37%
1982 Wimbledon Edmondson 36 of 151 24%
1983 US Open Scanlon 26 of 181 14%
These are some partials. don't have the entire match

1981 French Clerc 26 of 226 12%.
1983 French Mcnamee. Only 52 points but connors came in 18 of them. 35%
1983 French Gildemeister. 22 of 87 25%.

Here are some non grand slam matches.
1977 Pepsi Borg. 72 of 187 39%. Again, no s/v free points kept but there couldn't have been more than a couple.
1978 Pepsi Borg partial match. 35 of 109 32%
1981 masters Borg. 42 of 221 19%
1983 queens mcenroe. 34 of 91 37%
1981 wembley mcenroe. 47 of 256 18%
1983 tokyo borg 27 of 141 19%
1982 chicago mcenroe partial. 31 of 191 16%.
1983 boca raton borg partial. 20 of 99 20%
1983 korea borg. 33 of 148 22%.

Again, I'd have a lot more but i wasn't keeping track of total points for a lot of matches. Also, I don't count a missed approach as a net point. I don't count an approach shot that is a clean winner as a net point. I keep track of them, but as a separate stat.

I know moose or krosero kept stats on a few others like the 75 and 77 US finals. Connors had a very high % in 75. 73 times in, don't remember the points. 170ish maybe?

I was surprised by Federer's stats. I thought I remembered more 50-60 net approach matches against Nadal then the stats bear out.

 

[krosero]

Krosero, is that 254 by Edberg the highest amount of net approaches you've come across in your stats?

I think so.

For Krickstein-Edberg at '88 USO I found this:

Edberg came to net 243 times compared to 42 by the American, but committed 41 unforced errors while Krickstein made only 16. The Swede repeatedly missed his approach shots. The 3-hour, 52-minute battle was played in cool, swirling winds on the huge stadium court.​

I know moose or krosero kept stats on a few others like the 75 and 77 US finals. Connors had a very high % in 75. 73 times in, don't remember the points. 170ish maybe?

170 exactly.

Thanks for these Connors stats, I have to study them some more

 

[krosero]

These are all the net stats I have for Federer-Nadal matches.

2005 French SF
Federer at net on 25% of all points, won 36 of 59 (61%)
Nadal at net on 8% of all points, won 12 of 20 (60%)
(239 points in the match)

2006 Rome final
Federer at net on 24% of all points, won 64 of 84 (76%)
Nadal at net on 8% of all points, won 18 of 30 (60%)
(353 points in the match)

2006 French final
Federer at net on 18% of all points, won 30 of 41 (73%)
Nadal at net on 7% of all points, won 10 of 16 (63%)
(230 points in the match)

2006 Wimbledon final
Federer at net on 13% of all points, won 21 of 33 (64%)
Nadal at net on 7% of all points, won 12 of 18 (67%)
(246 points in the match)

2006 Masters Cup SF
Federer at net on 15% of all points, won 17 of 21 (81%)
(140 points in the match)

2007 French final
Federer at net on 13% of all points, won 21 of 34 (62%)
Nadal at net on 4% of all points, won 7 of 11 (64%)
(255 points in the match)

2007 Wimbledon final
Federer at net on 16% of all points, won 30 of 51 (59%)
Nadal at net on 8% of all points, won 18 of 26 (69%)
(323 points in the match)

2007 Masters Cup SF
Federer at net on 20% of all points, won 10 of 17 (59%)
Nadal at net on 8% of all points, won 4 of 7 (57%)
(87 points in the match)

2008 French final
Federer at net on 29% of all points, won 18 of 42 (43%)
Nadal at net on 4% of all points, won 2 of 6 (33%)
(144 points in the match)

2008 Wimbledon final
Federer at net on 18% of all points, won 42 of 75 (56%)
Nadal at net on 8% of all points, won 22 of 31 (71%)
(413 points in the match)

2009 Australian final
Federer at net on 17% of all points, won 43 of 60 (72%)
Nadal at net on 7% of all points, won 15 of 26 (58%)
(347 points in the match)

2009 Madrid final
Federer at net on 15% of all points, won 10 of 18 (56%)
Nadal at net on 2% of all points, won 1 of 2 (50%)
(121 points in the match)

2010 Madrid final
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 10 of 20 (50%)
Nadal at net on 7% of all points, won 5 of 11 (45%)
(169 points in the match)

2010 Masters Cup final
Federer at net on 15% of all points, won 13 of 19 (68%)
Nadal at net on 5% of all points, won 5 of 6 (83%)
(130 points in the match)

2011 Miami SF
Federer at net on 15% of all points, won 7 of 15 (47%)
Nadal at net on 3% of all points, won 1 of 3 (33%)
(103 points in the match)

2011 Madrid SF
Federer at net on 17% of all points, won 22 of 34 (65%)
Nadal at net on 5% of all points, won 5 of 11 (45%)
(204 points in the match)

2011 French final
Federer at net on 15% of all points, won 30 of 41 (73%)
Nadal at net on 7% of all points, won 10 of 18 (56%)
(273 points in the match)

2011 Masters Cup RR
Federer at net on 10% of all points, won 4 of 8 (50%)
Nadal at net on 2% of all points, won 1 of 2 (50%)
(81 points in the match)

2012 Australian SF
Federer at net on 21% of all points, won 35 of 57 (61%)
Nadal at net on 5% of all points, won 5 of 15 (33%)
(276 points in the match)

2012 Indian Wells SF
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 12 of 13 (92%)
Nadal at net on 4% of all points, won 3 of 4 (75%)
(112 points in the match)

2013 Rome final
Federer at net on 20% of all points, won 9 of 19 (47%)
Nadal at net on 5% of all points, won 4 of 5 (80%)
(95 points in the match)

TOTALS
Federer at net on 18% of all points, won 484 of 761 (64%)
Nadal at net on 6% of all points, won 160 of 268 (60%)
(a total of 4341 points played in these matches)


***************************************************************************************

EDITED TO ADD:

2013 Cincinnati QF
Federer at net on 13% of all points, won 17 of 25 (68%)
Nadal at net on 3% of all points, won 5 of 5 (100%)
(196 points in the match)

2013 YEC SF :
Federer at net : 5/11 (45.45%) ..............at the net on 9.56% of points
Nadal at net : 4/4 (100%) .............at the net on 3.48% of points
(115 points in the match)

2014 AO SF :
Federer at net : 23/42 (54.76%)..............at the net on 21.99% of points
Nadal at net : 3/10 (30%)...........at the net on 5.23% of points
(191 points in the match)

2015 Basel final
Federer at net on 19% of all points, won 23 of 34 (68%)
Nadal at net on 6% of all points, won 6 of 10 (60%)
(180 points in the match)

2017 AO F :
Federer at net : 29/40(72.5%)..............at the net on 13.84% of points
Nadal at net : 10/12(83.33% )..............at the net on 4.15% of points
(289 points in the match)

2017 IW 4R:
Federer at net : 4/7 (57.14%)..............at the net on 7.07% of points
Nadal at net : 1/1 (100%)..............at the net on 1.01% of points
(99 points in the match)

2017 Miami final
Federer at net on 13% of all points, won 12 of 17 (71%)
Nadal at net on 6% of all points, won 6 of 8 (75%)
(127 points in the match)

2017 Shanghai F :
Federer at net : 7/10(70%)..............at the net on 9.52% of points
Nadal at net : 3/5(60%)..............at the net on 4.76% of points
(105 points in the match)

NEW TOTAL:

Federer at net on 17% of all points, has won 604 of 947 (64%)
Nadal at net on 6% of all points, has won 198 of 323 (61%)
(a total of 5643 points played in these matches)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Nadal_rivalry#Singles

 

[krosero]

And for Federer-Djokovic matches

2007 AO, R16
Federer at net on 17% of all points, won 19 of 30 (63%)
Djokovic at net on 14% of all points, won 14 of 26 (54%)
(181 points in the match)

2007 USO final
Federer at net on 11% of all points, won 19 of 24 (79%)
Djokovic at net on 13% of all points, won 17 of 29 (59%)
(222 points in the match)

2008 AO semi
Federer at net on 14% of all points, won 22 of 31 (71%)
Djokovic at net on 11% of all points, won 19 of 24 (79%)
(222 points in the match)

2008 USO semi
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 18 of 30 (60%)
Djokovic at net on 16% of all points, won 24 of 39 (62%)
(249 points in the match)

2009 Cincinnati final
Federer at net on 9% of all points, won 7 of 12 (58%)
Djokovic at net on 13% of all points, won 12 of 19 (63%)
(141 points in the match)

2009 USO semi
Federer at net on 16% of all points, won 29 of 36 (81%)
Djokovic at net on 9% of all points, won 9 of 20 (45%)
(224 points in the match)

2010 USO semi
Federer at net on 18% of all points, won 40 of 55 (73%)
Djokovic at net on 9% of all points, won 21 of 29 (72%)
(311 points in the match)

2011 AO semi
Federer at net on 11% of all points, won 17 of 26 (65%)
Djokovic at net on 11% of all points, won 16 of 26 (62%)
(230 points in the match)

2011 RG semi
Federer at net on 6% of all points, won 15 of 19 (79%)
Djokovic at net on 8% of all points, won 12 of 24 (50%)
(309 points in the match)

2011 USO semi
Federer at net on 9% of all points, won 18 of 27 (67%)
Djokovic at net on 5% of all points, won 11 of 15 (73%)
(304 points in the match)

2012 Rome semi
Federer at net on 7% of all points, won 8 of 9 (89%)
Djokovic at net on 3% of all points, won 2 of 4 (50%)
(131 points in the match)

2012 RG semi
Federer at net on 9% of all points, won 9 of 16 (56%)
Djokovic at net on 9% of all points, won 12 of 16 (75%)
(177 points in the match)

2012 Wimbledon semi
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 13 of 25 (52%)
Djokovic at net on 10% of all points, won 14 of 22 (64%)
(216 points in the match)

2012 Cincinnati final
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 11 of 14 (79%)
Djokovic at net on 4% of all points, won 0 of 5 (0%)
(117 points in the match)

2012 WTF final
Federer at net on 9% of all points, won 13 of 18 (72%)
Djokovic at net on 5% of all points, won 3 of 9 (33%)
(191 points in the match)

TOTALS
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 258 of 372 (69%)
Djokovic at net on 10% of all points, won 186 of 307 (61%)
(a total of 3225 points played in these matches)


EDITED TO ADD THESE:

2009 Miami semi:
Federer: 12/20 (60%) ....at the net on 13.07% of the points
Djokovic: 12/16 (75%) ....at the net on 10.46% of the points
Total # of points: 153

2010 YEC semi:
Federer: 11/14 (78.57%) ....at the net on 12.5% of the points
Djokovic: 9/14 (64.29%) ....at the net on 12.5% of the points
Total # of points: 112

2011 Indian Wells semi:
Federer: 14/21 (66.67%) ....at the net on 12.35% of the points
Djokovic: 6/12 (50%) ....at the net on 7.06% of the points
Total # of points: 170

2013 Paris Indoor semi:
Federer at net on 16% of all points, won 17 of 29 (59%)
Djokovic at net on 9% of all points, won 6 of 16 (38%)
(181 points in the match)

2013 YEC round-robin:
Federer at net on 12% of all points, won 16 of 25 (64%)
Djokovic at net on 10% of all points, won 12 of 20 (60%)
(204 points in the match)

2014 Dubai semi:
Federer: 11/17 (64.71%) ....at the net on 10.43% of the points
Djokovic: 8/17 (47.06%) ....at the net on 10.43% of the points
Total # of points: 163

2014 Monte Carlo semi:
Federer: 13/14 (92.86%) ....at the net on 12.07% of the points
Djokovic: 3/7 (42.86%) ....at the net on 6.03% of the points
Total # of points: 116

2014 Wimbledon final:
Federer: 44/67 (65.67%) ....at the net on 18.3% of the points
Djokovic: 26/35 (74.28%) ....at the net on 9.56% of the points
Total # of points: 366

2014 Shanghai semi:
Federer: 20/35 (57.14%) ....at the net on 23.49% of the points
Djokovic: 11/15 (73.33%) ....at the net on 10.07% of the points
Total # of points: 149

2015 Dubai final:
Federer: 9/21 (42.86%) ....at the net on 14.89% of the points
Djokovic: 3/6 (50%) ....at the net on 4.26% of the points
Total # of points: 141

2015 Rome final:
Federer: 13/20 (65%) ....at the net on 17.39% of the points
Djokovic: 4/6 (66.67%) ....at the net on 5.22% of the points
Total # of points: 115

2015 Wimbledon final:
Federer: 42/58 (72.41%) ....at the net on 20.28% of the points
Djokovic: 20/34 (58.82%) ....at the net on 11.89% of the points
Total # of points: 286

2015 Cincinnati final
Federer at net on 21% of all points, won 21 of 29 (72%)
Djokovic at net on 4% of all points, won 2 of 6 (33%)
(140 points in the match)

2015 US Open final:
Federer: 39/59 (66.1%) ....at the net on 20.21% of the points
Djokovic: 21/32 (65.63%) ....at the net on 10.96% of the points
Total # of points: 292

2016 Australian open semi:
Federer: 22/38 (57.89%) ....at the net on 19.29% of the points
Djokovic: 6/10 (60%) ....at the net on 5.07% of the points
Total # of points: 197


NEW TOTAL:
Federer at net on 14% of all points, has won 562 of 839 (67%)
Djokovic at net on 9% of all points, has won 335 of 553 (61%)
(a total of 6010 points played in these matches)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djokovic–Federer_rivalry#Djokovic_vs_Federer_head-to-head

 

[Moose Malloy]

Edberg came to net 243 times compared to 42 by the American, but committed 41 unforced errors while Krickstein made only 16.

do you know what the total points won by either player was? my copy is missing points. impressive UE count by Krickstein in such a long match.

I took stats on Mac-Sanchez '92 AO a while back, think he was close to 250 approaches as well(missing some points)

wouldn't be surprised if Edberg came in more than 254 times vs Krickstein at the '95 AO, based on the score.

 

[krosero]

do you know what the total points won by either player was? my copy is missing points. impressive UE count by Krickstein in such a long match.

I took stats on Mac-Sanchez '92 AO a while back, think he was close to 250 approaches as well(missing some points)

wouldn't be surprised if Edberg came in more than 254 times vs Krickstein at the '95 AO, based on the score.

No idea about the total points.

Those UE counts probably don't include DF's, but Krickstein's is impressive nonetheless.

Paul Annacone was known for attacking on everything when he played, maybe he put up a ridiculously high number of approaches somewhere.

 

[andreh]

Krickstein was the "turn around 0-2 deficit" king. He did it on many occasions if I recall correctly.

 

[heathcliff]

No idea about the total points.

Those UE counts probably don't include DF's, but Krickstein's is impressive nonetheless.

Paul Annacone was known for attacking on everything when he played, maybe he put up a ridiculously high number of approaches somewhere.

i´ve read during his final victory over edberg in los angeles ´85 annacone only played 1 point from the baseline... annacone won 76 67 76
btw this is one of the most interesting threads ever....

 

[heathcliff]

do you know what the total points won by either player was? my copy is missing points. impressive UE count by Krickstein in such a long match.

I took stats on Mac-Sanchez '92 AO a while back, think he was close to 250 approaches as well(missing some points)

wouldn't be surprised if Edberg came in more than 254 times vs Krickstein at the '95 AO, based on the score.

i´d like to know how many times mac approached during his 1990-uso-match against sanchez. as far as i recall he attacked everything ;-)

 

[WCT]

I think so.

For Krickstein-Edberg at '88 USO I found this:

Edberg came to net 243 times compared to 42 by the American, but committed 41 unforced errors while Krickstein made only 16. The Swede repeatedly missed his approach shots. The 3-hour, 52-minute battle was played in cool, swirling winds on the huge stadium court.​

170 exactly.

Thanks for these Connors stats, I have to study them some more

Just to be clear, many of the total points I listed were from stats you or moose did. Matches that might not have net stats, but had the total points each player won. I just started counting the total points maybe the last 10-15 matches I did, and I hadn't done one in many months.

But this discussion spurred me to go back and count the points for a couple.

1975 the Newcombe challenge match. 16 of 55 points 29%. But this is where it's deceiving. Connors isn't more aggressive in other matches where he had a higher %.
Newcome s/v on every serve. That eliminates Connors coming in half the games. I think Connors served 28 points. He had 11 free points. He missed 2 approach shots. Basically, every point on Connors serve was the same. A little under half the time he s/v. If he didn't, they'd rally a couple strokes and Connors would come in as soon as newcombe hit a ball within a foot or two of the service line. Not inside it, within a couple feet of it. It's reinforced every time I look at one of those matches it just reconfirms it. Anyone, who thinks that Jimmy Connors is a baseliner is delusional. He is the textbook example of an all court player. It's the later Connors that we can debate. 74-75 Segura Connors, forget it.

1983 Toronto Higueras. 16 of 48 33%. Obviously, these 2 matches are only partials. If I have the initiative maybe I'll check a few more. I've done the stats for several dozen matches that don't have the total points

 

[krosero]

At the AO this year Federer approached the net on 22% of all the points in his semifinal loss to Nadal, which is somewhat more than he typically has done in their matches as a whole.

But the tactic was not entirely new (all the talk about Edberg's influence notwithstanding). He's approached the net more aggressively in at least 3 matches against Nadal, all several years ago:

2008 RG final -- approached on 29% of all points played
2005 RG semi -- approached on 25%
2006 Rome final -- approached on 24%

Interesting that all of these were on clay.

 

[MTF07]

i´ve read during his final victory over edberg in los angeles ´85 annacone only played 1 point from the baseline... annacone won 76 67 76
btw this is one of the most interesting threads ever....

How is that even possible to come in that often when Edberg was also coming in on all of his serves? There must have been tons of rapid net exchanges during that match.