Match Stats/Report - Becker vs Curren, Wimbledon final, 1985

[Waspsting]

there are so many examples where a young player plays his best tennis in his first slam final from the start, and the much more experienced player has a bad start.

experience is the most overrated thing in tennis.

As far as handling pressure goes, I agree (it does help with shot selection and planning out a match, stuff like that)
Think its more about temperament than experience... old hand might be nervy and prone to choke, youngster fearless in same situation etc.
There's no reason why a slightly nervy youngster might not get worse with experience at handling his nerves, rather than better either


There's a lot of trite cliches in tennis that I doubt stand up to scrutiny

examples - serving first in decider is advantage (I doubt it), Channel Slam is so difficult because of the adjustment (no, its difficult because its difficult. you could hold the events 3 months apart and it'd be just as difficult at least, probably more - if you win them close together, your probably seeing, hitting ball well on clay, and can take that into grass, whereas after a gap, that form would likely be gone)

Those can easily be verified from data. I casually looked at the second and saw no evidence of it, in fact, evidence to the contrary and would expect to find no evidence of the first
There was no evidence indicating advantage player who played first semi vs second semi at Aus Open

People in influential positions (commentating) say one of these things, fans hear it... and in time, just assume its a given and obvious and keep repeating it
It becomes sort of like a religon where if you ask 'how do you know that exactly?' - they respond with something along the lines of 'everyone knows it'

That usually means they have no idea why they're saying what they're saying (they're probably doing it simply because they've heard it repeatedly and never thought about it)
Lot of it can easily be tested

 

[NedStark]

Baseline rallies? How many baseline rallies could there have been in that match?

According to Waspsting's match report, "Both players serve-volleyed off all their serves, with the exception of 1 Curren second serve."

IMO he means volleys, returns and passes, in all of these areas Becker was much better.

It was asking an awful lot to expect Curren to play as well against Becker in the final as he had against Mcenroe and Connors. He was just off the charts in those two matches. He did not play bad against Becker, he just came down to earth. He was competitive, just not nearly as good as he was the two previous matches.

It is a great question to what would have happened if it was Connors or Mcenroe playing Becker in the final. Probably would have gone down to the wire.

Curren actually said that he preferred Jarryd because he feared Becker serve.

As for whether how Mac and Connors would have fared against Becker, IMO it would not be much better. Curren’s serve was surely red hot, but Becker’s serve in the final was also huge and don’t forget that Becker had better volleys, returns and passes.

 

[JasonZ]

As far as handling pressure goes, I agree (it does help with shot selection and planning out a match, stuff like that)
Think its more about temperament than experience... old hand might be nervy and prone to choke, youngster fearless in same situation etc.
There's no reason why a slightly nervy youngster might not get worse with experience at handling his nerves, rather than better either


There's a lot of trite cliches in tennis that I doubt stand up to scrutiny

examples - serving first in decider is advantage (I doubt it), Channel Slam is so difficult because of the adjustment (no, its difficult because its difficult. you could hold the events 3 months apart and it'd be just as difficult at least, probably less)

Those can easily be verified from data. I casually looked at the second and saw no evidence of it, in fact, evidence to the contrary and would expect to find no evidence of the first
There was no evidence indicating advantage player who played first semi vs second semi at Aus Open

People in influential positions (commentating) say one of these things, fans hear it... and in time, just assume its a given and obvious and keep repeating it
It becomes sort of like a religon where if you ask 'how do you know that exactly?' - they respond with something along the lines of 'everyone knows it'

That usually means they have no idea why they're saying what they're saying (they're probably doing it simply because they've heard it repeatedly and never thought about it)
Lot of it can easily be tested

that serving first in decider is advantage theory is really something i ask myself for nearly 30 years, since i started watching tennis. as far as i know, there was never a stat analysis made that confirms or dismisses this theory. for slam matches in the 5th set it would be the most interesting.

in football, it is proven that the team that shoots first in the penalty shootout has a winnng chance of close to 60%! in tennis, my feeling also tells me that serving first in the decider, especially 5th set, is an advantage and the player who starts wins at more than 50%.

but even if stats would prove that it is 50/50 and it totally doesnt matter who starts the decider, i still would want that my fav player will somehow start the decider.

 

[Mustard]

that serving first in decider is advantage theory is really something i ask myself for nearly 30 years, since i started watching tennis.

If there is such an advantage, it is purely subjective (i.e. purely in the mind). Objectively, it makes no difference whether you serve first or second in the set.

Some players will find it easier, mentally, in the business end of a fifth set, to be holding serve and being at 5-4 or 6-5 up, and having to break the opponent's serve to win the match, rather than having to break serve at 4-4, 5-5 or 6-6 and then hold serve for the victory.

 

[JasonZ]

If there is such an advantage, it is purely subjective (i.e. purely in the mind). Objectively, it makes no difference whether you serve first or second in the set.

Some players will find it easier, mentally, in the business end of a fifth set, to be holding serve and being at 5-4 or 6-5 up, and having to break the opponent's serve to win the match, rather than having to break serve at 4-4, 5-5 or 6-6 and then hold serve for the victory.

if it is a mind advantage to serve first for the majority of players, then it is an objective advantage. but we need a stat that confirms it to know if it is really an advantage.

 

[Mustard]

if it is a mind advantage to serve first for the majority of players, then it is an objective advantage. but we need a stat that confirms it to know if it is really an advantage.

No, it is NOT an objective advantage. You have to hold your own serve and then later break your opponent's serve to win, or the other way round, so there is no objective advantage at all. If it's an advantage, it is purely in the mind, i.e. subjective.

An objective advantage would be like giving one player a 2-0 headstart lead in the fifth set.

 

[JasonZ]

No, it is NOT an objective advantage. You have to hold your own serve and then later break your opponent's serve to win, or the other way round, so there is no objective advantage at all. If it's an advantage, it is purely in the mind, i.e. subjective.

An objective advantage would be like giving one player a 2-0 headstart lead in the fifth set.

ok, whatever.

 

[Mustard]

ok, whatever.

Learn the difference between objective and subjective. Objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence. Subjective means information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions, or emotions.

 

[Hard Court]

IMO he means volleys, returns and passes, in all of these areas Becker was much better.


Curren actually said that he preferred Jarryd because he feared Becker serve.

As for whether how Mac and Connors would have fared against Becker, IMO it would not be much better. Curren’s serve was surely red hot, but Becker’s serve in the final was also huge and don’t forget that Becker had better volleys, returns and passes.

I guess what I was getting at was if McEnroe or Connors played like you would expect them to (at that stage of their career) would they have beaten Becker?

Becker was struggling to win round after round. Barely beat Nystrom. Mayotte took him to 5. In the QF, Becker had a tough 4-set match against Jarryd with one of the sets that Becker won was in a tiebreaker. Same with Jarryd in the SF.

McEnroe had no problems until the QF vs Curren. Connors rolled until the SF vs Curren.

Becker didn't play near the level in the f that Curren played in the QF and SF. in the final, Curren pretty much played at the about the level that he normally did.

 

[Mustard]

In truth, without hindsight, McEnroe and Connors would both be favoured to beat Becker in 1985, especially McEnroe.

McEnroe and Connors were both favoured to beat Curren though, and got destroyed.