Interesting, but flawed...

[Gary Duane]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/infosys-federer-december-2015

As a person who is fascinated with stats I found this to be horribly flawed...

I would agree that Fed has been at peak level on HCs in 2015 when NOT facing the very best players - something I mentioned earlier this year - but the analysis is not done by surface. ATP stats clearly show a huge decline on grass, Fed's best surface.

Thoughts?

 

[OhYes]

Weak era camouflaged good.

 

[Charlemagne]

2 take aways... Djokovic has been a major obstacle for him bagging #18.. And while Federer continues to serve very well (something that isn't affected by a decline), his poorer (relatively speaking) return game continues to lose him major tournaments.

 

[RSH]

Since 2004, it looks like the 1st serve percentage and percentage of service games won have generally hovered around 62% and 90% without much fluctuation. There seems to be a slight uptick in the 1st serve points won percentage though. Federer maybe relied more on his overwhelming ground game to win service games back then and is now putting more emphasis on the first serve itself to hold in order to compensate for his decline.

That win-loss record is interesting. It suggests Federer can still sweep away the field quite easily and that without the existence of Novak Djokovic, we might be in the weakest era of all time

 

[Gary Duane]

Going only on stats and not speculating about strength or weakness of the field:

2015:::::: HC: 91.88+30.24 122.12
2014:::::: HC: 90.24+26.95 117.19
2013:::::: HC: 86.22+25.00 111.22
2012:::::: HC: 92.16+25.71 117.87
2011:::::: HC: 89.60+30.21 119.81
2010:::::: HC: 88.92+28.48 117.40 ---------------------------AO
2009:::::: HC: 88.92+25.45 114.37
2008:::::: HC 89.86+/25.41 115.27 -------------------------------USO
2007:::::: HC 90.61+28.67 119.28 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2006:::::: HC 90.51+31.69 122.20 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2005:::::: HC 91.16+30.48 121.64 -------------------------------USO
2004:::::: HC 91.83+29.37 121.20 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2003:::::: HC 87.38+27.71 115.09
2002:::::: HC: 87.12+25.05 112.17

The magic number is 120 (60%). Any year when a player wins 60% or more, that's a great year. I'll add 119 to that, because that's 59.5% which would round to 60%.

I would make this observation: Federer was consistently around 60% or higher during his peak years, and in 2008 his level fell, only getting back to his previous high level in 2011. And that was the year Novak played insane HC tennis. This was Fed's 2nd best year on HCs in terms of winning games, so his "BP problems" have only been a real problem against Novak, and that has worked by ways. If I remember correctly, Novak only got three opportunities at Cincinnati and could convert any of them.

So I have to conclude, reluctantly, that most of what is "wrong" with Federer right now, on HCs, is caused by the Serbian Surgeon.

But the story is very different on grass...

It is much the same this year.

 

[Gary Duane]

Federer

2015:::::: Grass: 96/21 117 (Novak 119)
2014:::::: Grass: 95/22 117 (Novak 115)
2013:::::: Grass 95/27 122 (Murray 119) * Fed lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon.
2012:::::: Grass: 91/25 116 -------------------------------WIMBLY(Novak 119, Murray 117)
2009:::::: Grass: 96/23 119 -------------------------------WIMBLY (Murray 120)
2008:::::: Grass 96/23 119 (Nadal 117)
2007:::::: Grass: 93/24 117 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2006:::::: Grass 94/30 124 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2005:::::: Grass 93/26 119 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2004:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2003:::::: Grass 92/31 123 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2002:::::: Grass: 86/21/107

There are very few matches on grass each year. In peak years Fed won 12. This year Novak only played 7 and of course won them all. 2012 stands out as a year where two players were winning a higher % of games, but Fed was able to raise his game. Murray could easily have won in 2009 with a bit more luck, winning a few key games. But Fed at his peak simply won more than anyone else, 65% in 2004. Four years in a row at 60% or higher, 2013 is not valid because Federer only won Halle, then went out in the second round at Wimbledon.

My conclusion is that in general Fed's play on grass has fallen a good bit. Whether it is competition (I don't think so) or changes in the grass (possible) or age (debatable) will continue to be endlessly debated.

 

[PeterHo]

I think the article is fine.

It shows against the field, federer is doing very well, and only playing with about 2~3% below his peak years.

While you said he isn't doing very well against the very best, well, djokovic is the only reason. Give him the field of 2006，and fed would have been good enough to win a slam.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think the article is fine.

It shows against the field, federer is doing very well, and only playing with about 2~3% below his peak years.

While you said he isn't doing very well against the very best, well, djokovic is the only reason. Give him the field of 2006，and fed would have been good enough to win a slam.

On HCs I mostly do not disagree, although there is something that seems to happen to all aging players at the end of majors and other big tournaments.

My only disagreement with the article is that it did not break down records by surface, which can lead us to some incorrect conclusions.

For the record, here is the way I see it:

Federer/Novak pretty much neck and neck on HCs but peaking different times because of age difference. If they could play each other, both at their peaks, I'd pick the winner by flipping a coin.

Federer is far and away the best grass player of all the guys around now. I would put Federer and Sampras about even, same idea. If they could face each other, both at their peak levels, I would also flip a coin. But there is the issue of grass - which grass?

Nadal is the best clay player now by such a margin that it is ridiculous. I would rate Nadal and Borg equal on clay, at their peaks, but of course the game is so much different that becomes a bit strange. Still, Borg was the only other player to win by such high margins on clay.

That's about it.

 

[PeterHo]

On HCs I mostly do not disagree, although there is something that seems to happen to all aging players at the end of majors and other big tournaments.

My only disagreement with the article is that it did not break down records by surface, which can lead us to some incorrect conclusions.

For the record, here is the way I see it:

Federer/Novak pretty much neck and neck on HCs but peaking different times because of age difference. If they could play each other, both at their peaks, I'd pick the winner by flipping a coin.

Federer is far and away the best grass player of all the guys around now. I would put Federer and Sampras about even, same idea. If they could face each other, both at their peak levels, I would also flip a coin. But there is the issue of grass - which grass?

Nadal is the best clay player now by such a margin that it is ridiculous. I would rate Nadal and Borg equal on clay, at their peaks, but of course the game is so much different that becomes a bit strange. Still, Borg was the only other player to win by such high margins on clay.

That's about it.

Hard court is pretty straightforward, Nole is better at AO and fed better at US.

Grass I would rate sampras as more impressive, given they both have 7 WBs I give the edge to the earlier player because later generations have more motivation (records to chase).

Clay is nadal, by a margin. He's won 50% more RGs than Borg. That's a lot. Borg sits comfortably at no.2.

I don't compare peak to peak absolute performance since it is really an unfair comparison, the younger generations have too many advantages.

 

[bjsnider]

Deceptive in that Federer is scheduling fewer tournaments, dropping the ones he's less likely to win. The trend will increase with no matches on clay except at RG in 2016.

 

[Gary Duane]

Hard court is pretty straightforward, Nole is better at AO and fed better at US.

That's probably fair.

Grass I would rate sampras as more impressive, given they both have 7 WBs I give the edge to the earlier player because later generations have more motivation (records to chase).

I would not argue against that. But I would do the same thing for other players:

Clay is nadal, by a margin. He's won 50% more RGs than Borg. That's a lot. Borg sits comfortably at no.2.

By number of RGs won, yes. But Borg was as dominant when he played RG.

First of all, check out this list:

If you compare Borg to Nadal at RG, not by # of slams won but at the level they both played at, it is very even:

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_career.html#slam

Just scroll down to the orange, RG:

At 65% and 67% they just stand out as simply better than everyone else there. I would say that's a pretty good indication of peak level on clay, in general.

 

[Gary Duane]

Deceptive in that Federer is scheduling fewer tournaments, dropping the ones he's less likely to win. The trend will increase with no matches on clay except at RG in 2016.

Exactly true.

Novak served 1082 games this year, and of course returned about the same number.

Fed was down to 890.

At his peak, in 2006, he served 1229 times. He was an iron man.

The difference is huge. It takes him way longer to recover now, and that speaks to stamina.

The same thing will happen to Novak in years, sooner than that. He will have to start picking his tournaments more carefully.

 

[xFedal]

Going only on stats and not speculating about strength or weakness of the field:

2015:::::: HC: 91.88+30.24 122.12
2014:::::: HC: 90.24+26.95 117.19
2013:::::: HC: 86.22+25.00 111.22
2012:::::: HC: 92.16+25.71 117.87
2011:::::: HC: 89.60+30.21 119.81
2010:::::: HC: 88.92+28.48 117.40 ---------------------------AO
2009:::::: HC: 88.92+25.45 114.37
2008:::::: HC 89.86+/25.41 115.27 -------------------------------USO
2007:::::: HC 90.61+28.67 119.28 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2006:::::: HC 90.51+31.69 122.20 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2005:::::: HC 91.16+30.48 121.64 -------------------------------USO
2004:::::: HC 91.83+29.37 121.20 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2003:::::: HC 87.38+27.71 115.09
2002:::::: HC: 87.12+25.05 112.17

The magic number is 120 (60%). Any year when a player wins 60% or more, that's a great year. I'll add 119 to that, because that's 59.5% which would round to 60%.

I would make this observation: Federer was consistently around 60% or higher during his peak years, and in 2008 his level fell, only getting back to his previous high level in 2011. And that was the year Novak played insane HC tennis. This was Fed's 2nd best year on HCs in terms of winning games, so his "BP problems" have only been a real problem against Novak, and that has worked by ways. If I remember correctly, Novak only got three opportunities at Cincinnati and could convert any of them.

So I have to conclude, reluctantly, that most of what is "wrong" with Federer right now, on HCs, is caused by the Serbian Surgeon.

But the story is very different on grass...

It is much the same this year.

Can you do this for Novaks numbers on HC?

 

[Jaitock1991]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/infosys-federer-december-2015

As a person who is fascinated with stats I found this to be horribly flawed...

I would agree that Fed has been at peak level on HCs in 2015 when NOT facing the very best players - something I mentioned earlier this year - but the analysis is not done by surface. ATP stats clearly show a huge decline on grass, Fed's best surface.

Thoughts?

Huge decline on grass? Wow. I haven't seen the stats in detail, so what is it about his grasscourt game that has declined so much? His return game? Winners/errors ratio? His serve was very dominant this year(had a scary streak of service games won in a row).

 

[captainbryce]

I would agree that Fed has been at peak level on HCs in 2015 when NOT facing the very best players - something I mentioned earlier this year - but the analysis is not done by surface. ATP stats clearly show a huge decline on grass, Fed's best surface.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are, I disagree with you -- and here's why.

2015 Wimbledon Final (Federer vs Djokovic)
1st Serve Percentage 67%
1st Serve Points Won 74%
Service Games Won 92%

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

His stats against the BEST player in the world on grass are not significantly different from the period in which he won 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles (when HE was the best player in the world)! So to me, that completely disproves your theory (about his supposed "decline" on grass anyway). The fact of the matter is, he just came up against a BETTER player (Djokovic), than he routinely faced in his prime (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc) outside of Nadal on clay.

 

[Gary Duane]

My thoughts are, I disagree with you -- and here's why.

2015 Wimbledon Final (Federer vs Djokovic)
1st Serve Percentage 67%
1st Serve Points Won 74%
Service Games Won 92%

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

That's only about serving.

His stats against the BEST player in the world on grass are not significantly different from the period in which he won 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles (when HE was the best player in the world)! So to me, that completely disproves your theory (about his supposed "decline" on grass anyway). The fact of the matter is, he just came up against a BETTER player (Djokovic), than he routinely faced in his prime (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc) outside of Nadal on clay.

Every % point is huge when examining the best of the best:

Federer

2015:::::: Grass: 96/21 117 (Novak 119)
2014:::::: Grass: 95/22 117 (Novak 115)
2013:::::: Grass 95/27 122 (Murray 119) * Fed lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon.
2012:::::: Grass: 91/25 116 -------------------------------WIMBLY(Novak 119, Murray 117)
2009:::::: Grass: 96/23 119 -------------------------------WIMBLY (Murray 120)
2008:::::: Grass 96/23 119 (Nadal 117)

Rounding off, he hit 60% in 2008 and 2009, 61% in 2013

But in his peak years, he was at 62%, 65%, 60%, 62%, obviously falling lower for the first time in 2007.

2004 stands out

2007:::::: Grass: 93/24 117 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2006:::::: Grass 94/30 124 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2005:::::: Grass 93/26 119 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2004:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2003:::::: Grass 92/31 123 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2002:::::: Grass: 86/21/107

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html

Check the players who have top 10 records on slams.

Fed barely makes it at the AO. He's #10. Novak is there three times. Agassi tops the list.

Check the other slams, see who is at the top.

Borg and Nadal top the list at RG.

JMac, Fed and Borg top the Wimbledon list.

 

[Gary Duane]

Huge decline on grass? Wow. I haven't seen the stats in detail, so what is it about his grasscourt game that has declined so much? His return game? Winners/errors ratio? His serve was very dominant this year(had a scary streak of service games won in a row).

His return game.

21% of games won this year. The last time his return stats were so low was in 2002. And he was barely better last year, at 22%

He returned well this year on HC, but not on grass.

Novak's best year for returning was in 2011, where his record was astounding. He might have lost a match that year if his serve had been as strong as it is now.

 

[xFedal]

His return game.

21% of games won this year. The last time his return stats were so low was in 2002. And he was barely better last year, at 22%

He returned well this year on HC, but not on grass.

Novak's best year for returning was in 2011, where his record was astounding. He might have lost a match that year if his serve had been as strong as it is now.

I asked you for Novaks HC numbers the way you did this for fed:


2015:::::: HC: 91.88+30.24 122.12
2014:::::: HC: 90.24+26.95 117.19
2013:::::: HC: 86.22+25.00 111.22
2012:::::: HC: 92.16+25.71 117.87
2011:::::: HC: 89.60+30.21 119.81
2010:::::: HC: 88.92+28.48 117.40 ---------------------------AO
2009:::::: HC: 88.92+25.45 114.37
2008:::::: HC 89.86+/25.41 115.27 -------------------------------USO
2007:::::: HC 90.61+28.67 119.28 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2006:::::: HC 90.51+31.69 122.20 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
2005:::::: HC 91.16+30.48 121.64 -------------------------------USO
2004:::::: HC 91.83+29.37 121.20 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO

 

[bjsnider]

@Gary Duane

That stat you're using doesn't always translate well as a predictor of wins and losses. Not sure how much value I'd assign it.

 

[Jaitock1991]

His return game.

21% of games won this year. The last time his return stats were so low was in 2002. And he was barely better last year, at 22%

He returned well this year on HC, but not on grass.

Novak's best year for returning was in 2011, where his record was astounding. He might have lost a match that year if his serve had been as strong as it is now.

Yeah. Pretty much what I expected. But I think this is just as much a product of his detoriated groundgame as it is a product of the return itself. It's VERY obvious to me that his groundgame is no where near as potent as it was 9-10 years ago. And in today's baseline oriented game, most of the points behind your opponent's serve will naturally be fought from the back of the court. On Fed's own serve(which I believe is better than ever, and is by far the most important reason he's still such a factor), the nature of the point is much more on his racquet, which allows him to implement HIS game a lot more often.

I still think these stats are surprising though. If what I just stated was true, you'd think that his return stats on HCs would be even worse due to it being better suited for baseline tennis than grass, but as you said; they aren't.

 

[Gary Duane]

I asked you for Novaks HC numbers the way you did this for fed:

Sure, but it takes time...

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah. Pretty much what I expected. But I think this is just as much a product of his detoriated groundgame as it is a product of the return itself. It's VERY obvious to me that his groundgame is no where near as potent as it was 9-10 years ago. And in today's baseline oriented game, most of the points behind your opponent's serve will naturally be fought from the back of the court. On Fed's own serve(which I believe is better than ever, and is by far the most important reason he's still such a factor), the nature of the point is much more on his racquet, which allows him to implement HIS game a lot more often.

I still think these stats are surprising though. If what I just stated was true, you'd think that his return stats on HCs would be even worse due to it being better suited for baseline tennis than grass, but as you said; they aren't.

Fed's performance this year is a mystery to me. He has greatly cut down on his schedule. He obviously has been returning very well on HCs, but not so well this year on grass.

Obviously the return is vital in winning games returning. That's like saying A=A. The question is: how is he doing this? In general the points have to be shorter, and that's his biggest problem against Novak. How do you shorten points against Novak? Against most players he can move in more often. Again, that is usually not going to work against Novak.

And yes, his serve is better, but I think a lot of that is due to the strings. Everyone in general is serving better today, and in general everyone wins fewer games returning. We often lose sight of that because points themselves are longer. In previous eras players did not suddenly start serving better after age 30. The great ones still probably served just a well. But the difference in spin is allowing servers to hit safely, still with a lot of pace, but clearing the net more. I would say in general fewer faults are hitting the net, and more are just long or wide.

 

[merwy]

When I read the title I thought this thread would be about Kyrgios

 

[Gary Duane]

I asked you for Novaks HC numbers the way you did this for fed:

2015:::::: HC: 88/37 125-----------------AO------------USO
2014:::::: HC: 89/34 123
2013:::::: HC: 89/34 123 ------------------------- AO
2012:::::: HC 89/37 126 -------------------------------AO
2011:::::: HC: 85/41 126 -------------------------------USO--------------AO
2010:::::: HC: 82/32 114
2009:::::: HC: 85/30 115
2008:::::: HC: 88/27 115 -------------------------------AO
2007:::::: HC: 87/29 116

There are two odd years here: In 2014, Novak was the best player on HCs, easily, but he couldn't produce the results in slams. Cilic and Wawrinka both came out of nowhere. You can never predict that.

2008 was odd in that none of the top players won 60% of their games. Novak was around 58%, and so was Federer, who won the USO. Nadal was highest, at around 59%, but he just couldn't quite make it through to the end at the AO and the USO.

Other than that, it's pretty obvious how a % of well over 60% tends to translate to wins at slams on HC.[/QUOTE]

 

[Gary Duane]

@Gary Duane

That stat you're using doesn't always translate well as a predictor of wins and losses. Not sure how much value I'd assign it.

In NO way can a winning % on grass be a good predictor because you don't know what it is until Wimbledon is over. You don't know much after a grass tune-up, and players don't necessarily even do that now.

You also can't go by who has the highest %, because in some cases you end up with a tune-up result before a player is out in a very early round. So there is simply not enough data.

However, you can surmise after the fact that the most dominant grass players, the ones who win several Wimbledons and who are also ranked at #1 or very close to it, will be close to 60% or over that mark, year after year, and you can see that the result in Wimbledon itself is a huge indicator of the whole season today because it is MOST of the season.

If a champion wins a tune-up, 5 matches Bo3, then Wimbledon, 7 matches, Bo5, most of the record will be from the slam itself.

Then you look at who has won Wimbledon and who won it with more than 60% of games, and mostly you find the best of the best at the top of that list.

In fact, if you look at all 53 entries here:

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html#low_winner

You pretty much find the names of the greatest players, and most of the time the people listed there won those slams, all those marked *.

So saying there is a high correlation between % of games won BEFORE slams and predicting who is most likely to win those slams is pretty high, and it works best for HCs because so many games are played before the USO, and you can make a good prediction by watching what happens between the USO and the beginning of the next year.

At the time of the USO Fed and Novak were almost exactly even, with Fed actually a bit ahead. That's why I figured he had a good chance at the USO. Since then he has moved down just a little, and Novak has been moving up a bit. So it's not exactly rocket science to say:

1) He is the most likely to win the AO.
2) If his record stays this high, still over 60% by the USO, he is very likely to win that too.
3) You can't ever predict someone like Cilic or Waw.

The biggest mystery to me is that Sampras never had a slam where he won 65%, and he appears twice on the this list:

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html#low_winner

According to my own research Pete of all the champions I've studied coasted more than anyone else. You either have to assume that he was in the weakest era ever - which I do NOT believe - or that Pete had an extra gear that no one else in the Open Era had - and that I DO believe.

 

[Dave1982]

I think the article is fine.

It shows against the field, federer is doing very well, and only playing with about 2~3% below his peak years.

While you said he isn't doing very well against the very best, well, djokovic is the only reason. Give him the field of 2006，and fed would have been good enough to win a slam.

Hard to argue against that.

 

[PeterHo]

The biggest mystery to me is that Sampras never had a slam where he won 65%

not a mystery in my book.

on grass you don't need a great return game to win WB titles. this explains sampras' overall low %, but he's extremely high on service game %, and could coast to victory with return % in low 20s.

But this is also why he's only won 2 titles at AO, and 0 at RG.

Even look at Federer of 2012. He's not the highest in overall win%, but he's won WB with a better service game than Nole/Murray.

So for grass, you can't just simply add up the two numbers and divide by 2. there's a larger weighting on the service game. on clay, there's a larger weighting on return.

The overall percentage is most suitable for medium speed hard courts.

 

[OhYes]

That win-loss record is interesting. It suggests Federer can still sweep away the field quite easily and that without the existence of Novak Djokovic, we might be in the weakest era of all time

In last decade we have witnessed crazy level of tennis. Not only that, we have abundance of retired players from Golden era of tennis taking active part in this one.
Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Goran Ivanisevic, Daren Cahill, Brad Gilbert, Jimmy Connors, Paul Annacone, were coaching most famous tennis players of today, Matts Wilander and John McEnroe are TV commentators as well as game analysts, Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras are often seen at exhibition matches, Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg can be often seen at stands as tennis icons who are making big contribution to tournaments stature, and we have 2 GOATs playing, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Juan Martin del Potro, Stan Wawrinka... Almost every important figure in men tennis is actively participating.

It's not weak era, people are spoiled.

 

[RF-18]

And when I suggest that he has been playing some of his best tennis this year, and possibly a level we haven't seen from him in the past in a few matches since wimbledon I get attacked people thinking I'm actually saying it as a bad thing and I get called a fake. Morrons. It seems the only people disagreeing with me is the ones in here butt the people outside of this forum, experts, ex players, commentators, agrees.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

And when I suggest that he has been playing some of his best tennis this year, and possibly a level we haven't seen from him in the past in a few matches since wimbledon I get attacked people thinking I'm actually saying it as a bad thing and I get called a fake. Morrons. It seems the only people disagreeing with me is the ones in here butt the people outside of this forum, experts, ex players, commentators, agrees.

Bake yourself a massive cookie.

 

[RF-18]

Bake yourself a massive cookie.

I don't need to. Because I know I'm right majority of the time.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I don't need to. Because I know I'm right majority of the time.

What does that even have to do with it. You didn't even understand what I meant - lol. It's not about right or wrong.

Now go bake.

 

[RF-18]

What does that even have to do with it. You didn't even understand what I meant - lol. It's not about right or wrong.

Now go bake.

Well if you were being attacked when having this opinion on here (and I sense you probably agree with what I've been saying about Feds level of play this year) but you don't seem to have the guts to say it as it is because you know the storm that is about to arrive for ya. You are always unclear with what you think wich I believe is weak.

I'll go bake now.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Well if you were being attacked when having this opinion on here (and I sense you probably agree with what I've been saying about Feds level of play this year) but you don't seem to have the guts to say it as it is because you know the storm that is about to arrive for ya. You are always unclear with what you think wich I believe is weak.

I'll go bake now.

Yeah right. I've stated my views several times and made it really obvious and in multiple threads. The difference is I don't go around saying "look at me I'm right and the experts agree." Have fun baking, hopefully you spend a long time in the kitchen. Your constant outcry for approval is weak.

Accept that you can't get everyone to agree with you.

 

[PinShot]

I believe that all this walking up and down various Statistics is useless and leads us to nowhere. Not even to useful Discussions.

Federers Serve Percentage is highly unimportant, as long as Djokovics Return is in full effect.

And Novak is better from the Baseline. And hes a better mover. And he is gutsy. Hence the better Tennis Player.

I don't need Statistics as long as I can see with my Eyes that Federer plays some of his best Tennis Ive ever seen him play.

But his Tennis is not good enough against Novak, unless Novak shifts down one ore two gears.

And moving like a Queer with a Potatoe nose in the middle of his Face won't change that.

 

[RF-18]

Yeah right. I've stated my views several times and made it really obvious and in multiple threads. The difference is I don't go around saying "look at me I'm right and the experts agree." Have fun baking, hopefully you spend a long time in the kitchen. Your constant outcry for approval is weak.

Accept that you can't get everyone to agree with you.

 

[bjsnider]

In NO way can a winning % on grass be a good predictor because you don't know what it is until Wimbledon is over. You don't know much after a grass tune-up, and players don't necessarily even do that now.

You also can't go by who has the highest %, because in some cases you end up with a tune-up result before a player is out in a very early round. So there is simply not enough data.

However, you can surmise after the fact that the most dominant grass players, the ones who win several Wimbledons and who are also ranked at #1 or very close to it, will be close to 60% or over that mark, year after year, and you can see that the result in Wimbledon itself is a huge indicator of the whole season today because it is MOST of the season.

If a champion wins a tune-up, 5 matches Bo3, then Wimbledon, 7 matches, Bo5, most of the record will be from the slam itself.

Then you look at who has won Wimbledon and who won it with more than 60% of games, and mostly you find the best of the best at the top of that list.

In fact, if you look at all 53 entries here:

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html#low_winner

You pretty much find the names of the greatest players, and most of the time the people listed there won those slams, all those marked *.

So saying there is a high correlation between % of games won BEFORE slams and predicting who is most likely to win those slams is pretty high, and it works best for HCs because so many games are played before the USO, and you can make a good prediction by watching what happens between the USO and the beginning of the next year.

At the time of the USO Fed and Novak were almost exactly even, with Fed actually a bit ahead. That's why I figured he had a good chance at the USO. Since then he has moved down just a little, and Novak has been moving up a bit. So it's not exactly rocket science to say:

1) He is the most likely to win the AO.
2) If his record stays this high, still over 60% by the USO, he is very likely to win that too.
3) You can't ever predict someone like Cilic or Waw.

The biggest mystery to me is that Sampras never had a slam where he won 65%, and he appears twice on the this list:

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html#low_winner

According to my own research Pete of all the champions I've studied coasted more than anyone else. You either have to assume that he was in the weakest era ever - which I do NOT believe - or that Pete had an extra gear that no one else in the Open Era had - and that I DO believe.

Sampras appears three times on that list -- 5, 17, 20.

Examining game winning percentage wouldn't have gotten you any further in terms of predictions at the USO than just looking at the seeds, right? 1 faced 2 in the final, 1 prevailed.

 

[torpantennis]

The fact that a player aged 34 still gets any such great stats, close to his best ever, is a further testament of the weakness of competition. 2004-2006 was obviously very strong in comparison!

 

[Gary Duane]

Sampras appears three times on that list -- 5, 17, 20.

Good grief, those are the LOWEST percentages for slam winners.
"One Slam - Open Era (lowest W% for Champs) "

Examining game winning percentage wouldn't have gotten you any further in terms of predictions at the USO than just looking at the seeds, right? 1 faced 2 in the final, 1 prevailed.

All of these things are connected - most matches won on a surface, highest % of games on a surface.

So in a year like this, where it is very clear who the best players are, seeding is going to be easy.

But in a year like 2000, when everything was wacko, the seeding definitely did not indicate what was going on.

By the way, winning % did not help much either that year.



But it won't show you how the percentages vary from year to year, which is considerable.

 

[PeterHo]

The fact that a player aged 34 still gets any such great stats, close to his best ever, is a further testament of the weakness of competition. 2004-2006 was obviously very strong in comparison!

Well fact is there was a 35 year old making slam finals in 2004~2006 period as well.

And that guy has won less than half of the current 34 year old in their careers.

 

[torpantennis]

In last decade we have witnessed crazy level of tennis. Not only that, we have abundance of retired players from Golden era of tennis taking active part in this one.
Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Goran Ivanisevic, Daren Cahill, Brad Gilbert, Jimmy Connors, Paul Annacone, were coaching most famous tennis players of today, Matts Wilander and John McEnroe are TV commentators as well as game analysts, Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras are often seen at exhibition matches, Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg can be often seen at stands as tennis icons who are making big contribution to tournaments stature, and we have 2 GOATs playing, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Juan Martin del Potro, Stan Wawrinka... Almost every important figure in men tennis is actively participating.

It's not weak era, people are spoiled.

Anything is weak compared to peak Fedal.

 

[torpantennis]

Well fact is there was a 35 year old making slam finals in 2004~2006 period as well.

And that guy has won less than half of the current 34 year old in their careers.

Agassi only ever made one slam final after AO03.

 

[TennisHound]

2 take aways... Djokovic has been a major obstacle for him bagging #18.. And while Federer continues to serve very well (something that isn't affected by a decline), his poorer (relatively speaking) return game continues to lose him major tournaments.

X2 That's it. End of thread.

 

[captainbryce]

That's only about serving.

Every % point is huge when examining the best of the best:

Federer

2015:::::: Grass: 96/21 117 (Novak 119)
2014:::::: Grass: 95/22 117 (Novak 115)
2013:::::: Grass 95/27 122 (Murray 119) * Fed lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon.
2012:::::: Grass: 91/25 116 -------------------------------WIMBLY(Novak 119, Murray 117)
2009:::::: Grass: 96/23 119 -------------------------------WIMBLY (Murray 120)
2008:::::: Grass 96/23 119 (Nadal 117)

Rounding off, he hit 60% in 2008 and 2009, 61% in 2013

But in his peak years, he was at 62%, 65%, 60%, 62%, obviously falling lower for the first time in 2007.

2004 stands out

2007:::::: Grass: 93/24 117 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2006:::::: Grass 94/30 124 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2005:::::: Grass 93/26 119 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2004:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2003:::::: Grass 92/31 123 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2002:::::: Grass: 86/21/107

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html

Check the players who have top 10 records on slams.

Fed barely makes it at the AO. He's #10. Novak is there three times. Agassi tops the list.

Check the other slams, see who is at the top.

Borg and Nadal top the list at RG.

JMac, Fed and Borg top the Wimbledon list.

 

[Gary Duane]

It's all about the left eyebrow. Chase has the same thing going as Nadal.

 

[PeterHo]

Agassi only ever made one slam final after AO03.

basicallly if Agassi was able to do so well after turning 30, federer should also do well.

in fact i expect him to win double the amount as 30+ agassi did, given he's double the player.

an injured agassi was in a slam final at 35.

federer's not injured.

Motivated and healthy ATGs doing very well at 30+ is not extraordinary in the history of tennis.

 

[OhYes]

Anything is weak compared to peak Fedal.

You mean to peak Fedal sentiment ?