Federer's worst record out of all players since 1990

Tomxc

Professional
When I first saw the article title, I was kind of expecting BP conversion percentage, but turns out the stat is from a rather large data set (over 61,000 ATP and Grand Slam matches since 1990).

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...player-does-better-than-roger-federer/283007/

Simpson’s Paradox is a statistical quirk where seemingly correlated variables are reversed when combined. The application to tennis is nuanced: In tennis, a derivative of Simpson’s Paradox is seen in the small percentage of matches where players win more individual points than their opponent, but lose the overall match. This anomaly is an artifact of tennis’s decidedly unique scoring system. Its “best of N” format (best of three sets, usually, or best of five sets in some men’s professional matches) follows a point-game-set-match hierarchy with neither a running score nor a clock. The results can sometimes be peculiar. The only point the winning player must win is the last one.

In a data set composed of more than 61,000 men’s ATP and Grand Slam matches dating back to 1990, we found that about 4.5 percent exhibited these paradoxical characteristics. We then looked at the outlier players with the best and worst respective records to put our results in context.

At one end of the spectrum was American player John Isner. At 6’10,” Isner unleashes one of the most intimidating serves in tennis history. He is also often remembered as the winner of the longest match in the history of tennis–an 11-hour epic at Wimbledon in 2010 that ended with a 70-68 fifth set win over Frenchman Nicolas Mahut. A quick inspection of the box score, however, shows that Mahut won 24 more points than Isner. A review of Isner’s career record in two dozen similar matches—that is, matches in which the winner won fewer points than the loser—revealed an impressive 19-5 record.

Isner’s success in these odd matches was unsurprising. His playing style consists of a dominating serve and one of the weakest service returns among top 100-ranked players. The result is lopsided point-level score lines, frequent tiebreakers, and a certain degree of energy-conserving tanking when returning serve.

At the other end of the Simpson’s Paradox spectrum was, of course, Roger Federer. In completed matches, he was 4-24 in contests where the winner prevailed on less than 50 percent of the total points. Federer’s winning percentage in these matches (14.29 percent) was the worst among all 72 players in the sample who participated in at least 20 matches of this type during their careers. This result surprised us, as it differed wildly from other players who had similarly won multiple Grand Slam singles titles. Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Sergi Bruguera, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten were all .500 or better in Simpson’s Paradox matches. Jim Courier was the only player worse than 50-50 in such matches, with a non-alarming 11-15 record.
 
I remember Becker won the 1989 US Open final over Lendl, but was otherwise outpayed by Lendl. Meaning that Lendl won considerably more points.

I am not quite sure what conclusions to draw about Simpson's paradox.

On the one hand, one could say that winning a match while winning fewer points is indicative of mental toughness (being outplayed, but winning the important points to prevail).

On the other hand, the winner of such a match could be guilty of simply mailing in part of the match (eg. getting bageled in one set), and then prevailing in the majority of the rest of the closely played sets.

Example: 0-6 7-6 7-6 7-6

Probably a combination of both.

Sometimes I feel that Federer was not the mentally toughest player. However it also seems to me, upon recollection, that he rarely simply gave away sets.

Regarding Isner, it is not surprising to me that a big server would fare well with the Simpson's Paradox. It would seem to follow that a player who relies on a big serve to win points, and whose return is sometimes completely ineffective would win a few matches by getting to the tiebreak and then taking his chances there.

Think for instance of a hypothetical 7-6 (7-5) set. Our big server named X struggles with his return and he ends up winning only 6 games on the return prior to the tiebreak (an average of one per game). However his serve is so effective that he is never broken in spite of facing 6 break points and 12 deuce games from opponent Y.

In the tiebreak, however, opponent Y makes several unforced errors on serve, while player X holds serve in all mini-games to win the set.

This said, my thought experiment might not be condusive to reality at all. I don't see Ivo Karlovic on this list, while Andre Agassi and Gustavo Kuerten are (hardly big servers). So make of that what you will!
 
Last edited:
I remember Becker won the 1989 US Open final over Lendl, but was otherwise outpayed by Lendl. Meaning that Lendl won considerably more points.

I am not quite sure what conclusions to draw about Simpson's paradox.

On the one hand, one could say that winning a match while winning fewer points is indicative of mental toughness (being outplayed, but winning the important points to prevail).

On the other hand, the winner of such a match could be guilty of simply mailing in part of the match (eg. getting bageled in one set), and then prevailing in the majority of the rest of the closely played sets.

Example: 0-6 7-6 7-6 7-6

Probably a combination of both.

Sometimes I feel that Federer was not the mentally toughest player. However it also seems to me, upon recollection, that he rarely simply gave away sets.

Regarding Isner, it is not surprising to me that a big server would fare well with the Simpson's Paradox. It would seem to follow that a player who relies on a big serve to win points, and whose return is sometimes completely ineffective would win a few matches by getting to the tiebreak and then taking his chances there.

Think for instance of a hypothetical 7-6 (7-5) set. Our big server named X struggles with his return and he ends up winning only 6 games on the return prior to the tiebreak (an average of one per game). However his serve is so effective that he is never broken in spite of facing 6 break points and 12 deuce games from opponent Y.

In the tiebreak, however, opponent Y makes several unforced errors on serve, while player X holds serve in all mini-games to win the set.

This said, my thought experiment might not be condusive to reality at all. I don't see Ivo Karlovic on this list, while Andre Agassi and Gustavo Kuerten are (hardly big servers). So make of that what you will!

federer's desire to uphold integrity towards all aspects of his tennis can at times be his achilles heel. i know in some matches, he could have benefitted from mailing in some games/sets a bit more and conserving for when it matters, a la sampras.
 
Back
Top