Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Murray, US Open final, 2008

[Waspsting]

Roger Federer beat Andy Murray 6-2 7-5 6-2 in the final of the US Open, 2008 on hard court

The win gave Federer a 5th successive US Open title and 13th overall Slam title - 1 short of the then record

Federer won 94 points, Murray 68

Serve Stats
Federer....
- 1st serve percentage (47/81) 58%
- 1st serve points won (37/47) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (16/34) 47%
- Aces 3, Service Winners 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/81) 28%

Murray. ...
- 1st serve percentage (45/81) 56%
- 1st serve points won (23/45) 51%
- 2nd serve points won (17/36) 47%
- Aces 3 (1 a 2nd serve)
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (14/81) 17%

Serve Pattern
Federer served...
- to FH 47%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 4%

Murray served...
- to FH 24%
- to BH 76%


Return Stats
Federer made...
- 64 (25 FH, 39 BH), including 11 runaround FHs and 3 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 FH), both runarounds
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (6 BH)
- 5 Forced (3 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (64/78) 82%

Murray made...
- 58 (25 FH, 33 BH)
- 2 Winners (2 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (2 FH, 4 BH)
- 11 Forced (7 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (58/81) 72%


Break Points
Federer 7/10 (8 games)
Murray 2/5 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Federer 27 (14 FH, 4 BH, 5 FHV, 4 OH)
Murray 12 (6 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)

- of Federer's FHs, 5 were inside-out (3 half-courters, 1 at net and 1 particularly powerful one from a standard baseline position), 4 were down-the-line (including 1 step-in, 1 half courter and 1 running down a drop shot), 2 were crosscourt (both step-ins), 2 returns were inside-ins of 2nd serves and 1 was a drop shot played at net

- he had 2 passes, both BH cc. One was pushed past an off-balance Murray the other was firmly struck

- 2 other BHs - a standard cc, and a heavily sliced drop shot that almost spun backwards on hitting the court

- 3 OHs were the finishing shot to multiple OHs in the rally

- 1 FHV was a swinging shot and 1 was the 2nd volley in a S/V point

- Murray had 2 passes (1 FH, 1 BH), both cc. He had one other FH cc with Federer in no-mans land that can be said to be a pass

- 2 FH returns - 1 a blistering step-in cc, the other trickling over on a net chord

- his most spectacular looking winners were a running FH cc with Federer creeping forward, a powerful BH cc from a regulation position and a BH dtl

- the FHV was a slapping shot to a floating ball and the BHV was to a medium height ball and was played into a wide open court

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Federer 42
- Unforced 34 (18 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH, 2 BHV)
UE forcefulness index 45.9

Murray 41
- 24 Unforced (14 FH, 10 BH)
- 17 Forced (5 FH, 12BH)
UE forcefulness index 45

(Note: the UE forcefulness index is a measure of how aggressive the average UE for a player. 20 is minimum [Passive], 40 is neutral and 60 is maximum [Aggressive])


Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was 22/30 (73%) at net, including 4/8 serve-volleying and 3/3 return-approaching

Murray was 8/13 (62%) at net, including 1/1 serve-volleying

He was 1/2 when forced back from the net
------------

Match Report
Aggression from Federer and passivity from Murray were the defining traits of this final. Other points of interest are -

- Federer's outstanding footwork and steady return
- Federer's so-so volleying
- Murray's return plan and overall passivity

The Swiss was well nigh flawless in the first set. Murray for his part adopted an exaggerated defensive return position, characteristic of Nadal

He had smashed the #1 ranked Nadal in the semis using the position apparently but here, it played into his opponents hand. Federer dictated play from the get go with his favourite forehand. The runaround inside-out was especially damaging

Having swept through the first set, a rout seemed on as Federer broke at the start of the second set, but Murray broke back immediately to love

There was an unfortunate call in the next Federer service game. Break point down, the Swiss hit a ball 2 inches long that went uncalled. He went on to hold

The play remained even for the rest of the set, mostly due to a drop from Federer's first set level. Murray remained unduly passive but by now, Federer was making more errors to keep things about level

The Swiss turned it on at the right time though, breaking to love with 3 clean winners and a very forced Murray error to seal the set

So it continued into the third as Fed raced out 5-0. Murray not only denied the bagel but broke once for good measure before Fed closed out the match with his third break of the set

----

I was struck by Fed's immaculate footwork, especially in running around his backhand. Though lacking Fed's variety and shot making, Murray struck the ball cleanly and with power

Running round backhands was no easy job against Murray's force - but you wouldn't know that watching Fed. And once he got around, he was mostly on point with his inside-out forehands. Murray's potential backhand down-the-line didn't look a realistic option - he was forced on the defensive

Federer's return was also very good. He didn't miss many - a return rate of 82% is extremely high and largely accounts for Murray's low 51% first points won. The other reason is the Scot's passivity

Murray seemed to just hold back and hope his opponent faltered. On points in which he had the initiative, he was reluctant and hesitant to step-in and hit offensive groundstrokes (Fed was the complete opposite - always looking to step in and hit the winner or force the error)

Instead, he mostly went in for neutral, regulation rallying shots. Federer's backhand was upto this challenge. The BH -BH duels were about equal, with Fed on the look out for openings to turn it on its head with a runaround forehand

Just one critique of Fed's showing. His volleying had room for improvement... strange as that sounds for a player who won 73% of his net points

He muffed a number of regulation volleys - 5 unforced errors in my judgement, a big chunk of the volleys he actually hit - and didn't place or put away the ones he did get over particularly well

All in all, a destructive display from Federer, a colourless one from Murray

 

[FHtennisman]

That was vintage Fed, this was during the period where Murray was beating him consistently in BO3, but Fed was and still is a different beast in slams and put in a peak performance to show who was boss and salvage his 2008.

 

[Steve0904]

Fedr GOAT.

 

[Steve0904]

Fedr GOAT.

 

[FHtennisman]

Fedr GOAT.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Fedr GOAT.

 

[ojo rojo]

Murrderer

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Mury GOAT.

(Please don’t lynch me)

 

[Mainad]

Deleted post.

 

[Mainad]

That was vintage Fed, this was during the period where Murray was beating him consistently in BO3, but Fed was and still is a different beast in slams and put in a peak performance to show who was boss and salvage his 2008.

Following that US Open final Murray went on a bit of a revenge tear against Fed and beat him in their next 4 meetings (2008 Madrid, 2008 WTF, 2009 Doha, 2009 IW).

 

[letstakeourshirtsoff]

fedr goat

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Following that US Open final Murray went on a bit of a revenge tear against Fed and beat him in their next 4 meetings (2008 Madrid, 2008 WTF, 2009 Doha, 2009 IW).

Mandy was very impressive in BO3 since his breakthrough post-Wimbledon 2008 until the end of 2009, not so much in BO5. Federer, vice versa.

 

[abmk]

@Waspsting : 33 W to 39 UEs for fed overall , really ?(-6)

Official stats have 36w to 33 UEs(+3)

You have 15 w to 33 UEs for Murray, overall
(-18)

Official is 16 w to 28 UEs (-12)

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

@Waspsting : 33 W to 39 UEs for fed overall , really ?(-6)

Official stats have 36w to 33 UEs(+3)

You have 15 w to 33 UEs for Murray, overall
(-18)

Official is 16 w to 28 UEs (-12)

I wonder if this is a constructive comment.
I remember you were unfazed by your 2018 AO final stats not matching the official ones. Rightly so, because they're not something one has to follow.
Sorry if it sounds rude, but you could really give it a rest criticising anything and everything you don't happen to agree with, couldn't ya?

 

[Sudacafan]

Roger Federer beat Andy Murray 6-2 7-5 6-2 in the final of the US Open, 2008 on hard court

The win gave Federer a 5th successive US Open title and 13th overall Slam title - 1 short of the then record

Federer won 94 points, Murray 68

Serve Stats
Federer....
- 1st serve percentage (47/81) 58%
- 1st serve points won (37/47) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (16/34) 47%
- Aces 3, Service Winners 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/81) 28%

Murray. ...
- 1st serve percentage (45/81) 56%
- 1st serve points won (23/45) 51%
- 2nd serve points won (17/36) 47%
- Aces 3 (1 a 2nd serve)
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (14/81) 17%

Serve Pattern
Federer served...
- to FH 47%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 4%

Murray served...
- to FH 24%
- to BH 76%


Return Stats
Federer made...
- 64 (25 FH, 39 BH), including 11 runaround FHs and 3 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 FH), both runarounds
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (6 BH)
- 5 Forced (3 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (64/78) 82%

Murray made...
- 58 (25 FH, 33 BH)
- 2 Winners (2 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (2 FH, 4 BH)
- 11 Forced (7 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (58/81) 72%


Break Points
Federer 7/10 (8 games)
Murray 2/5 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Federer 27 (14 FH, 4 BH, 5 FHV, 4 OH)
Murray 12 (6 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)

- of Federer's FHs, 5 were inside-out (3 half-courters, 1 at net and 1 particularly powerful one from a standard baseline position), 4 were down-the-line (including 1 step-in, 1 half courter and 1 running down a drop shot), 2 were crosscourt (both step-ins), 2 returns were inside-ins of 2nd serves and 1 was a drop shot played at net

- he had 2 passes, both BH cc. One was pushed past an off-balance Murray the other was firmly struck

- 2 other BHs - a standard cc, and a heavily sliced drop shot that almost spun backwards on hitting the court

- 3 OHs were the finishing shot to multiple OHs in the rally

- 1 FHV was a swinging shot and 1 was the 2nd volley in a S/V point

- Murray had 2 passes (1 FH, 1 BH), both cc. He had one other FH cc with Federer in no-mans land that can be said to be a pass

- 2 FH returns - 1 a blistering step-in cc, the other trickling over on a net chord

- his most spectacular looking winners were a running FH cc with Federer creeping forward, a powerful BH cc from a regulation position and a BH dtl

- the FHV was a slapping shot to a floating ball and the BHV was to a medium height ball and was played into a wide open court

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Federer 42
- Unforced 34 (18 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH, 2 BHV)
UE forcefulness index 45.9

Murray 41
- 24 Unforced (14 FH, 10 BH)
- 17 Forced (5 FH, 12BH)
UE forcefulness index 45

(Note: the UE forcefulness index is a measure of how aggressive the average UE for a player. 20 is minimum [Passive], 40 is neutral and 60 is maximum [Aggressive])


Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was 22/30 (73%) at net, including 4/8 serve-volleying and 3/3 return-approaching

Murray was 8/13 (62%) at net, including 1/1 serve-volleying

He was 1/2 when forced back from the net
------------

Match Report
Aggression from Federer and passivity from Murray were the defining traits of this final. Other points of interest are -

- Federer's outstanding footwork and steady return
- Federer's so-so volleying
- Murray's return plan and overall passivity

The Swiss was well nigh flawless in the first set. Murray for his part adopted an exaggerated defensive return position, characteristic of Nadal

He had smashed the #1 ranked Nadal in the semis using the position apparently but here, it played into his opponents hand. Federer dictated play from the get go with his favourite forehand. The runaround inside-out was especially damaging

Having swept through the first set, a rout seemed on as Federer broke at the start of the second set, but Murray broke back immediately to love

There was an unfortunate call in the next Federer service game. Break point down, the Swiss hit a ball 2 inches long that went uncalled. He went on to hold

The play remained even for the rest of the set, mostly due to a drop from Federer's first set level. Murray remained unduly passive but by now, Federer was making more errors to keep things about level

The Swiss turned it on at the right time though, breaking to love with 3 clean winners and a very forced Murray error to seal the set

So it continued into the third as Fed raced out 5-0. Murray not only denied the bagel but broke once for good measure before Fed closed out the match with his third break of the set

----

I was struck by Fed's immaculate footwork, especially in running around his backhand. Though lacking Fed's variety and shot making, Murray struck the ball cleanly and with power

Running round backhands was no easy job against Murray's force - but you wouldn't know that watching Fed. And once he got around, he was mostly on point with his inside-out forehands. Murray's potential backhand down-the-line didn't look a realistic option - he was forced on the defensive

Federer's return was also very good. He didn't miss many - a return rate of 82% is extremely high and largely accounts for Murray's low 51% first points won. The other reason is the Scot's passivity

Murray seemed to just hold back and hope his opponent faltered. On points in which he had the initiative, he was reluctant and hesitant to step-in and hit offensive groundstrokes (Fed was the complete opposite - always looking to step in and hit the winner or force the error)

Instead, he mostly went in for neutral, regulation rallying shots. Federer's backhand was upto this challenge. The BH -BH duels were about equal, with Fed on the look out for openings to turn it on its head with a runaround forehand

Just one critique of Fed's showing. His volleying had room for improvement... strange as that sounds for a player who won 73% of his net points

He muffed a number of regulation volleys - 5 unforced errors in my judgement, a big chunk of the volleys he actually hit - and didn't place or put away the ones he did get over particularly well

All in all, a destructive display from Federer, a colourless one from Murray

Please provide an executive summary, and I’ll be back. Thank you.

 

[AiRFederer]

Murderered.

 

[Charlemagne]

One of Federer's better performances in a GS Final

 

[Charlemagne]

One of Federer's better performances in a GS Final

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Just to confirm: We all call this match up "Murderer", right?

Good.

 

[abmk]

I wonder if this is a constructive comment.
I remember you were unfazed by your 2018 AO final stats not matching the official ones. Rightly so, because they're not something one has to follow.
Sorry if it sounds rude, but you could really give it a rest criticising anything and everything you don't happen to agree with, couldn't ya?

1. I was typing from my mobile. So couldn't check and go into detail into some of the things. The official stats matched perfectly with my impression of the match. So I quoted those. Now lets look at this in detail.

2. I was annoyed at the over-counting of the UEs in this one.
a -ve W/UE in an excellent performance from Federer on a medium-fast HC ? yeah,ok. Lets go further.
Murray's performance was below, par, but its made to look horrible by this.
the extra UEs on both sides affect the forced error counts on both sides as well, making the performances on both sides much worse than they were.

compute AMs going by these UEs : you get Fed's AM to be only 12.96% and Murray's to be =-3.09% (yes, minus 3.09). A -ve AM is not just below par, but horrible. (on any non-clay surface at the very least)

compute AMs going by the official # of UEs : you get Fed's AM to be 20.37% and Murray's to be 4.32%. These look alright going by how the match went. (& my previous experience of seeing the AMs quite a few matches)

For one reference point, Djokovic's AM in the USO 07 final was 13.06% (official stats)
For another reference point, Murray's AM in that wind affected final in USO 12 was 12.38% (close enough to 12.96 ?)

you think those performances touch those of fed in that in USO 08 final ?

Fed's AM in these matches : vs Agassi in USO 04, vs Hewitt in USO 05, vs Agassi in USO 05, vs djoko in USO 07, USO 08, vs djoko in USO 09 etc. all in the range of ~18 to 25 or so.

the Agassi one in USO 05, Roddick ones in 06,07 and of course the Hewitt one in 04 are above 25.

I hope I don't have into further detail regarding these and that some things are obvious by common-sense.

3. Re : the Fed-Cilic AO match, I did actually re-check for a couple of sets and found the UE count to be pretty high/unreasonable.
You have 62 UEs still on TA.
You agreed the one BH slice early in the 4th set was a FE, not UE.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...n-2018-final-statistics.609400/#post-12008000
that makes it 61.

If we reviewed some of the ones like that one above, I think you'd revise it to 54-56 UEs
Then you'd end up saying/agreeing with me that the official count of UEs in that match for Cilic was high

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

1. I was typing from my mobile. So couldn't check and go into detail into some of the things. The official stats matched perfectly with my impression of the match. So I quoted those. Now lets look at this in detail.

Well yes, it's not nice to announce the intention and then keep others waiting for when the critical hammer strikes. I certainly don't like the feeling of expecting an unpleasant response and doubt many do.

2. I was annoyed at the over-counting of the UEs in this one.
a -ve W/UE in an excellent performance from Federer on a medium-fast HC ? yeah,ok. Lets go further.
Murray's performance was below, par, but its made to look horrible by this.
the extra UEs on both sides affect the forced error counts on both sides as well, making the performances on both sides much worse than they were.

compute AMs going by these UEs : you get Fed's AM to be only 12.96% and Murray's to be =-3.09% (yes, minus 3.09). A -ve AM is not just below par, but horrible. (on any non-clay surface at the very least)

compute AMs going by the official # of UEs : you get Fed's AM to be 20.37% and Murray's to be 4.32%. These look alright going by how the match went. (& my previous experience of seeing the AMs quite a few matches)

For one reference point, Djokovic's AM in the USO 07 final was 13.06% (official stats)
For another reference point, Murray's AM in that wind affected final in USO 12 was 12.38% (close enough to 12.96 ?)

you think those performances touch those of fed in that in USO 08 final ?

Fed's AM in these matches : vs Agassi in USO 04, vs Hewitt in USO 05, vs Agassi in USO 05, vs djoko in USO 07, USO 08, vs djoko in USO 09 etc. all in the range of ~18 to 25 or so.

the Agassi one in USO 05, Roddick ones in 06,07 and of course the Hewitt one in 04 are above 25.

I hope I don't have into further detail regarding these and that some things are obvious by common-sense.

Eh, I said before it's proper to compare like to like. A stricter standard of evaluation will make all performances seem 'worse' compared to a more lenient standard, but relative comparisons may stay the same, if most performances are made 'better' or 'worse' by similar differentials. It would be good to look into specific points (UEs or FEs) to make sense of where your analyses differ from each other (or mine, if I make one), but this is not a match I'd like to analyse any time soon - not only because it's already TA-charted and I'm focusing on adding new charts, but also because I found it quite boring, honestly... yes, even a Federer match can be boring, though there's always a couple points that make me marvel at Fed's abilities. One-sided matches tend to be boring, unless the winner is truly playing exceptional tennis (Federer-Roddick, Nadal-Federer, Djokovic-Ferrer etc., you know which ones I'm talking about).

3. Re : the Fed-Cilic AO match, I did actually re-check for a couple of sets and found the UE count to be pretty high/unreasonable.
You have 62 UEs still on TA.
You agreed the one BH slice early in the 4th set was a FE, not UE.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...n-2018-final-statistics.609400/#post-12008000
that makes it 61.

If we reviewed some of the ones like that one above, I think you'd revise it to 54-56 UEs
Then you'd end up saying/agreeing with me that the official count of UEs in that match for Cilic was high

Doubt that, still 58 minimum IMO. I can't edit the chart page myself - would have to send a revised chart for re-processing. A few "upgraded" errors are not worth it - there's little difference and the impression the chart is meant to convey stays the same: Cilic plainly sucked at the start and the end, but played decent three sets between that (+the first game of the fifth), and was repeatedly clutch under pressure in sets 2 & 4 - Cilic winning those sets had as much to do with him being clutch as Federer's level dropping, so he deserves credit for that. A poor final by 'strong era' standards, but a decent one for the time we're in now - better than the previous two. (More exciting then the RG final for me, too, but Nadal was so good there that final may have been better quality by his merit alone, Wawrinka wasn't much worse than Cilic, really.)

 

[abmk]

Well yes, it's not nice to announce the intention and then keep others waiting for when the critical hammer strikes. I certainly don't like the feeling of expecting an unpleasant response and doubt many do.

a) it wasn't for you.
b) that wasn't even a particularly unpleasant post. If I wanted to be mean, could've worded it much more harshly.

Eh, I said before it's proper to compare like to like. A stricter standard of evaluation will make all performances seem 'worse' compared to a more lenient standard, but relative comparisons may stay the same, if most performances are made 'better' or 'worse' by similar differentials. It would be good to look into specific points (UEs or FEs) to make sense of where your analyses differ from each other (or mine, if I make one), but this is not a match I'd like to analyse any time soon - not only because it's already TA-charted and I'm focusing on adding new charts, but also because I found it quite boring, honestly... yes, even a Federer match can be boring, though there's always a couple points that make me marvel at Fed's abilities. One-sided matches tend to be boring, unless the winner is truly playing exceptional tennis (Federer-Roddick, Nadal-Federer, Djokovic-Ferrer etc., you know which ones I'm talking about).

and did you have a look at the UEs stat as per TA (which are normally higher than the official ones) ?
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20080908-M-US_Open-F-Roger_Federer-Andy_Murray.html

25 UEs for both.

there is stricter standard of evaluation of UEs and there is below par ability to distinguish b/w unforced and forced errors. This falls into the latter case.
Which basically makes the categorization of UEs and FEs in Waspsting's evaluation in this match a bad one.

Doubt that, still 58 minimum IMO. I can't edit the chart page myself - would have to send a revised chart for re-processing. A few "upgraded" errors are not worth it - there's little difference and the impression the chart is meant to convey stays the same: Cilic plainly sucked at the start and the end, but played decent three sets between that (+the first game of the fifth), and was repeatedly clutch under pressure in sets 2 & 4 - Cilic winning those sets had as much to do with him being clutch as Federer's level dropping, so he deserves credit for that. A poor final by 'strong era' standards, but a decent one for the time we're in now - better than the previous two. (More exciting then the RG final for me, too, but Nadal was so good there that final may have been better quality by his merit alone, Wawrinka wasn't much worse than Cilic, really.)

disagree. It was a decent final atleast by any standards. Hardly a poor final by strong era standards. A pretty good final in a weaker era (as of now)
and yes, Wawrinka was considerably worse than Cilic. it wasn't even close, IMO. I actually felt Stan played some decent tennis in the 3rd set, but Nadal was too dominant/in free flow by then. Not so much good stuff from Stan in the 1st 2 sets from what I remember.

As far as Cilic goes,46 W to 54-56 UEs looks considerably better than 46 W to 61-64 UEs. Not insisting that you do it.
My main point was in rebuttal to your statement about me being unperturbed by the disparity in my UE count and the official UE count for Cilic.

In a 5-setter, though not a long 5-setter, a difference of 5-7 UEs in evaluation is understandable.
A difference of 15 UEs is high. (49 UEs of mine to 64 UEs in official count)

 

[metsman]

One of Federer's better performances in a GS Final

Probably not even in the top 10. 03 Wimby, 05 Wimby, 04 AO, 07 AO, 04 USO, 06 USO, 09 RG all clearly better. 05 USO, 06 Wimby, and 10 AO likely better too. 04/07/09 Wimby and 07 USO on a similar level.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

a) it wasn't for you.
b) that wasn't even a particularly unpleasant post. If I wanted to be mean, could've worded it much harshly.

Okay, call me a hypochondriac. I pay attention to what you have to say because normally you have some good observation or stat in store, so it was quite annoying to see you express disagreement without elaborating.

and did you have a look at the UEs stat as per TA (which are normally higher than the official ones) ?
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20080908-M-US_Open-F-Roger_Federer-Andy_Murray.html

25 UEs for both.

there is stricter standard of evaluation of UEs and there is below par ability to distinguish b/w unforced and forced errors. This falls into the latter case.
Which basically makes the categorization of UEs and FEs in Waspsting's evaluation in this match a bad one.

We - and I mean everyone who likes to analyse matches for fun, frequently or not - could really discuss and compare our actual charting approaches at some point. I don't think it has truly been done still - you showed me some early discussions and comments by official statisticians, but what's missing is a description of how *you* chart matches. Maybe we should choose a nice 'test' match (that no one has charted yet, a future match probably), chart it independently each, and then share and discuss how winners/errors were determined. Although I'm afraid it could end up causing another round of vehement disagreements and 'no, you're doing it all wrong', besides being a difficult technical discussion by itself.

disagree. It was a decent final atleast by any standards. Hardly a poor final by strong era standards. A pretty good final in a weaker era (as of now)
and yes, Wawrinka was considerably worse than Cilic. it wasn't even close, IMO. I actually felt Stan played some decent tennis in the 3rd set, but Nadal was too dominant/in free flow by then. Not so much good stuff from Stan in the 1st 2 sets from what I remember.

I can't agree with this, sorry.
When I think of 'strong era' in modern tennis, I think of 2009 and 2011-12, and I would say all those finals were better quality - except, obviously, AO 2011. It actually seems its 'badness' is exaggerated - I found it pretty poor, but not godawful - because of the other 2011-12 major finals looking much better.

Wawrinka was bad for half of the match and ok for the other half. Started slow but clutch, was able to make use of Nadal's own slow start to give him some fight - the symbolic killer shot was Nadal's 2nd serve ace to hold for 3-2, then Wawr lost 6 games in a row with some lousy play until 0-3 in the 2nd, but recovered and played ok again until missing that smash - *1-3 AD-40 per TA chart (thank you very much), after which he won 2 points for the rest of the match.

Had Federer played as well in the AO final as Nadal in the RG final, I fancy a straight-set win as well (at the very least, if the 2nd set still goes to TB, Federer's forehand would NOT be sucky in the breaker), so it seems fair to compare three sets to three sets (which was the basis of my comparison, I guess not obvious, my bad then). 1st - mild advantage Waw (same amount of suckage, but Cilic sucked first and got good when it didn't matter anymore, while Wawrinka fought first and then sucked). 2nd - strong advantage Cilic (didn't give a break, was clutch throughout; Wawrinka got good when he already down a break so it didn't matter much). 3rd - technically advantage Cilic, really it doesn't matter (I mean, sure, Wawrinka quit mentally when he was down two sets and a break to Nadal at RG - you bet Cilic would quit as well from that position; Nadal was going to hold anyway, really), both were decent early on, Cilic continued being decent after getting broken but it didn't matter. Result: advantage Cilic, but mildly.

 

[abmk]

Okay, call me a hypochondriac. I pay attention to what you have to say because normally you have some good observation or stat in store, so it was quite annoying to see you express disagreement without elaborating..

well, the good observation or stat in store was the actual W-UE count (which as you would've guessed , I agreed with). If you had looked at the TA stats that time, which normally have higher UE counts than official ones, but in this case have lower, you'd have agreed at the beginning itself.

the stats don't correspond with waspsting's subjective evaluation (which is fine ), which is something you could've noticed yourself

A -ve W/UE ratio in an excellent match for fed on a medium fast court should be warning enough

We - and I mean everyone who likes to analyse matches for fun, frequently or not - could really discuss and compare our actual charting approaches at some point. I don't think it has truly been done still - you showed me some early discussions and comments by official statisticians, but what's missing is a description of how *you* chart matches. Maybe we should choose a nice 'test' match (that no one has charted yet, a future match probably), chart it independently each, and then share and discuss how winners/errors were determined. Although I'm afraid it could end up causing another round of vehement disagreements and 'no, you're doing it all wrong', besides being a difficult technical discussion by itself.

So firstly, are we in agreement that the official stats look ok/fine for this match and that waspsting's UE counts are incorrect ?

It won't be easy for sure , but the discussion over here went fine :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...australian-open-2018-final-statistics.609400/

I agreed with you on a service winner 'correction' and you agreed with me on an unforced/forced error 'correction'.
The ones we disagreed with , the elaborations were there.

I did mention more than a bit about how I charted unforced errors/forced errors and winners over there.

Forget future match, we could pick a small older match and do it some time.

I can't agree with this, sorry.
When I think of 'strong era' in modern tennis, I think of 2009 and 2011-12, and I would say all those finals were better quality - except, obviously, AO 2011. It actually seems its 'badness' is exaggerated - I found it pretty poor, but not godawful - because of the other 2011-12 major finals looking much better.

Only 2009 AO, 2009 Wim, 2012 AO and 2012 Wim were much better than AO 18 final. Others were better (some by some distance, but not much better)/similar level or even slightly worse.
And this is quality-wise. If we look at it as an overall package, it goes up due to the drama.

2004,05,07,08 were atleast medium-strong years and they had some below par finals as well.
And I was thinking about the whole open era , not just the modern era.

Wawrinka was bad for half of the match and ok for the other half. Started slow but clutch, was able to make use of Nadal's own slow start to give him some fight - the symbolic killer shot was Nadal's 2nd serve ace to hold for 3-2, then Wawr lost 6 games in a row with some lousy play until 0-3 in the 2nd, but recovered and played ok again until missing that smash - *1-3 AD-40 per TA chart (thank you very much), after which he won 2 points for the rest of the match.

Had Federer played as well in the AO final as Nadal in the RG final, I fancy a straight-set win as well (at the very least, if the 2nd set still goes to TB, Federer's forehand would NOT be sucky in the breaker), so it seems fair to compare three sets to three sets (which was the basis of my comparison, I guess not obvious, my bad then). 1st - mild advantage Waw (same amount of suckage, but Cilic sucked first and got good when it didn't matter anymore, while Wawrinka fought first and then sucked). 2nd - strong advantage Cilic (didn't give a break, was clutch throughout; Wawrinka got good when he already down a break so it didn't matter much). 3rd - technically advantage Cilic, really it doesn't matter (I mean, sure, Wawrinka quit mentally when he was down two sets and a break to Nadal at RG - you bet Cilic would quit as well from that position; Nadal was going to hold anyway, really), both were decent early on, Cilic continued being decent after getting broken but it didn't matter. Result: advantage Cilic, but mildly.

the 2nd set is good enough to make a significant difference in the first 3 sets itself.
And I was comparing the entire matches.

 

[beltsman]

Roger Federer beat Andy Murray 6-2 7-5 6-2 in the final of the US Open, 2008 on hard court

The win gave Federer a 5th successive US Open title and 13th overall Slam title - 1 short of the then record

Federer won 94 points, Murray 68

Serve Stats
Federer....
- 1st serve percentage (47/81) 58%
- 1st serve points won (37/47) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (16/34) 47%
- Aces 3, Service Winners 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/81) 28%

Murray. ...
- 1st serve percentage (45/81) 56%
- 1st serve points won (23/45) 51%
- 2nd serve points won (17/36) 47%
- Aces 3 (1 a 2nd serve)
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (14/81) 17%

Serve Pattern
Federer served...
- to FH 47%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 4%

Murray served...
- to FH 24%
- to BH 76%


Return Stats
Federer made...
- 64 (25 FH, 39 BH), including 11 runaround FHs and 3 return-approaches
- 2 Winners (2 FH), both runarounds
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (6 BH)
- 5 Forced (3 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (64/78) 82%

Murray made...
- 58 (25 FH, 33 BH)
- 2 Winners (2 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (2 FH, 4 BH)
- 11 Forced (7 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (58/81) 72%


Break Points
Federer 7/10 (8 games)
Murray 2/5 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Federer 27 (14 FH, 4 BH, 5 FHV, 4 OH)
Murray 12 (6 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)

- of Federer's FHs, 5 were inside-out (3 half-courters, 1 at net and 1 particularly powerful one from a standard baseline position), 4 were down-the-line (including 1 step-in, 1 half courter and 1 running down a drop shot), 2 were crosscourt (both step-ins), 2 returns were inside-ins of 2nd serves and 1 was a drop shot played at net

- he had 2 passes, both BH cc. One was pushed past an off-balance Murray the other was firmly struck

- 2 other BHs - a standard cc, and a heavily sliced drop shot that almost spun backwards on hitting the court

- 3 OHs were the finishing shot to multiple OHs in the rally

- 1 FHV was a swinging shot and 1 was the 2nd volley in a S/V point

- Murray had 2 passes (1 FH, 1 BH), both cc. He had one other FH cc with Federer in no-mans land that can be said to be a pass

- 2 FH returns - 1 a blistering step-in cc, the other trickling over on a net chord

- his most spectacular looking winners were a running FH cc with Federer creeping forward, a powerful BH cc from a regulation position and a BH dtl

- the FHV was a slapping shot to a floating ball and the BHV was to a medium height ball and was played into a wide open court

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Federer 42
- Unforced 34 (18 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH, 2 BHV)
UE forcefulness index 45.9

Murray 41
- 24 Unforced (14 FH, 10 BH)
- 17 Forced (5 FH, 12BH)
UE forcefulness index 45

(Note: the UE forcefulness index is a measure of how aggressive the average UE for a player. 20 is minimum [Passive], 40 is neutral and 60 is maximum [Aggressive])


Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was 22/30 (73%) at net, including 4/8 serve-volleying and 3/3 return-approaching

Murray was 8/13 (62%) at net, including 1/1 serve-volleying

He was 1/2 when forced back from the net
------------

Match Report
Aggression from Federer and passivity from Murray were the defining traits of this final. Other points of interest are -

- Federer's outstanding footwork and steady return
- Federer's so-so volleying
- Murray's return plan and overall passivity

The Swiss was well nigh flawless in the first set. Murray for his part adopted an exaggerated defensive return position, characteristic of Nadal

He had smashed the #1 ranked Nadal in the semis using the position apparently but here, it played into his opponents hand. Federer dictated play from the get go with his favourite forehand. The runaround inside-out was especially damaging

Having swept through the first set, a rout seemed on as Federer broke at the start of the second set, but Murray broke back immediately to love

There was an unfortunate call in the next Federer service game. Break point down, the Swiss hit a ball 2 inches long that went uncalled. He went on to hold

The play remained even for the rest of the set, mostly due to a drop from Federer's first set level. Murray remained unduly passive but by now, Federer was making more errors to keep things about level

The Swiss turned it on at the right time though, breaking to love with 3 clean winners and a very forced Murray error to seal the set

So it continued into the third as Fed raced out 5-0. Murray not only denied the bagel but broke once for good measure before Fed closed out the match with his third break of the set

----

I was struck by Fed's immaculate footwork, especially in running around his backhand. Though lacking Fed's variety and shot making, Murray struck the ball cleanly and with power

Running round backhands was no easy job against Murray's force - but you wouldn't know that watching Fed. And once he got around, he was mostly on point with his inside-out forehands. Murray's potential backhand down-the-line didn't look a realistic option - he was forced on the defensive

Federer's return was also very good. He didn't miss many - a return rate of 82% is extremely high and largely accounts for Murray's low 51% first points won. The other reason is the Scot's passivity

Murray seemed to just hold back and hope his opponent faltered. On points in which he had the initiative, he was reluctant and hesitant to step-in and hit offensive groundstrokes (Fed was the complete opposite - always looking to step in and hit the winner or force the error)

Instead, he mostly went in for neutral, regulation rallying shots. Federer's backhand was upto this challenge. The BH -BH duels were about equal, with Fed on the look out for openings to turn it on its head with a runaround forehand

Just one critique of Fed's showing. His volleying had room for improvement... strange as that sounds for a player who won 73% of his net points

He muffed a number of regulation volleys - 5 unforced errors in my judgement, a big chunk of the volleys he actually hit - and didn't place or put away the ones he did get over particularly well

All in all, a destructive display from Federer, a colourless one from Murray

Thank you for these great analyses.

 

[tennisaddict]

One of the first USO final that was played on Monday because of rain . This curse went on for the next several years until they have now built a roof over AA

 

[Waspsting]

Maybe we should choose a nice 'test' match (that no one has charted yet, a future match probably), chart it independently each, and then share and discuss how winners/errors were determined

I think this is great idea. By "chart" do you mean doing stats like I've done here or something more? (I've taken to thinking of it as "statis-tification"... just as long as we're on the same page, its all good)

Federer-Djokovic 2007 US, sound good? It'll be a week or so my end. I'd suggest we keep the stats to ourselves unpublished so as not to possibly influence what others come up with

And you can "warm-up" with this one if you like - I'd be curious to see what you come up with on this one

Although I'm afraid it could end up causing another round of vehement disagreements and 'no, you're doing it all wrong', besides being a difficult technical discussion by itself

I expect disagreements - I doubt any two people will come up with the same breakdown for FEs and UEs

The "vehement" part usually comes from people with an "I'm-right/you're-wrong " mentality (with hints of "I'm-smart/you're-dumb" thrown in) about things that are a matter of interpretation (so the question of right or wrong doesn't arise). In my experience, it's a waste of time trying to explain the difference between facts and opinion to such people - if they're adults and haven't figured it out yet, they're probably not going to anytime soon (see the Top 10 of All Time thread on the Former Players Section of the Forum for countless examples)

Says more about the personality of the opinion giver than whatever it is they're giving an opinion on

I wouldn't mind getting their take on the breakdowns too... but think the "vehemence" they bring to a discussion - and normal people's defensive tendencies to the rudeness - ends up misdirecting and lowering the quality of discussion rather than enhancing it

@The Green Mile - you want to get in on this?

Thank you for these great analyses.

You're most welcome - appreciate your appreciation

 

[abmk]

@Waspsting :

Yes, there is subjectivity in unforced errors/forced errors and there will be some discrepencies when 2 different people are charting, but there is a limit for that as well. There are only some points in which there is doubt.

your count of Fed's UEs = 40
official count = 33
TA count = 25

your count of Murray's UEs = 33
official count = 28
TA count = 25

Don't you think there is a distinct possibility you've over-counted the UEs in this match ?

If by any chance, any part of post #26 is directed in part to me , let me know. I'd atleast want a chance to address it.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think this is great idea. By "chart" do you mean doing stats like I've done here or something more? (I've taken to thinking of it as "statis-tification"... just as long as we're on the same page, its all good)

I'm doing full tennisabstract charts, but any way to present stats is fine, it wouldn't be much difficult for me to extract them in different ways.

Federer-Djokovic 2007 US, sound good? It'll be a week or so my end. I'd suggest we keep the stats to ourselves unpublished so as not to possibly influence what others come up with

I don't want this to be between just the two of us - the best thing would be to get everyone involved, including @abmk and @krosero. We're all striving to do the same ultimately and should respect each other's work, hmm?

I expect disagreements - I doubt any two people will come up with the same breakdown for FEs and UEs

The "vehement" part usually comes from people with an "I'm-right/you're-wrong " mentality (with hints of "I'm-smart/you're-dumb" thrown in) about things that are a matter of interpretation (so the question of right or wrong doesn't arise). In my experience, it's a waste of time trying to explain the difference between facts and opinion to such people - if they're adults and haven't figured it out yet, they're probably not going to anytime soon (see the Top 10 of All Time thread on the Former Players Section of the Forum for countless examples)

Says more about the personality of the opinion giver than whatever it is they're giving an opinion on

I wouldn't mind getting their take on the breakdowns too... but think the "vehemence" they bring to a discussion - and normal people's defensive tendencies to the rudeness - ends up misdirecting and lowering the quality of discussion rather than enhancing it

That surely is a bit of a jab at @abmk, and I know he can be rather assertive to the point of being rude, but despite that, the guy continuously sticks to reason, unlike certain other contributors in that poisoned thread. We should adopt a policy of reminding him to tone it down whenever he gets mean, that's it

 

[Red Rick]

Just to confirm: We all call this match up "Murderer", right?

Good.

Goat matchup name.

 

[Charlemagne]

Probably not even in the top 10. 03 Wimby, 05 Wimby, 04 AO, 07 AO, 04 USO, 06 USO, 09 RG all clearly better. 05 USO, 06 Wimby, and 10 AO likely better too. 04/07/09 Wimby and 07 USO on a similar level.

Ok

 

[abmk]

Probably not even in the top 10. 03 Wimby, 05 Wimby, 04 AO, 07 AO, 04 USO, 06 USO, 09 RG all clearly better. 05 USO, 06 Wimby, and 10 AO likely better too. 04/07/09 Wimby and 07 USO on a similar level.

seems legit, but still in the better half of his slam finals. And if we consider the ones outside of his peak (04-07) only, this becomes pretty golden.

 

[Druss]

Following that US Open final Murray went on a bit of a revenge tear against Fed and beat him in their next 4 meetings (2008 Madrid, 2008 WTF, 2009 Doha, 2009 IW).

Federer always won were it mattered most though

 

[abmk]

@AnOctorokForDinner :

How about charting this match :

Federer vs Agassi Miami 2005 SF:

It isn't there on TA. You can add the chart there.

I'll chart as I normally do.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

@AnOctorokForDinner :

How about charting this match :

Federer vs Agassi Miami 2005 SF:

It isn't there on TA. You can add the chart there.

I'll chart as I normally do.

Huh, I thought it was in the database, turns out it's their Dubai match and I mixed them up in my memory, so you're right.

I was thinking of a contrast-of-styles match, though, one that would be expected to have a decent number of net points as well as baseline rallies, so we can have a good sample of both to compare our charting ways. How about the other 2005 AO SF, Hewitt d. Roddick 3-6 7-6 7-6 6-1? Should provide a strong contrast, also good drama with those crucial tiebreaks. @Waspsting, you in?

 

[abmk]

Huh, I thought it was in the database, turns out it's their Dubai match and I mixed them up in my memory, so you're right.

I was thinking of a contrast-of-styles match, though, one that would be expected to have a decent number of net points as well as baseline rallies, so we can have a good sample of both to compare our charting ways. How about the other 2005 AO SF, Hewitt d. Roddick 3-6 7-6 7-6 6-1? Should provide a strong contrast, also good drama with those crucial tiebreaks. @Waspsting, you in?

Match by itself is a good choice for watching/charting. But its a much longer one than Fed-Agassi at Miami. You sure you want to go for a longer match ?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Match by itself is a good choice for watching/charting. But its a much longer one than Fed-Agassi at Miami. You sure you want to go for a longer match ?

We have all the time, haven't we? Being methodical and detailing my charting principles is what I'm after here. I'm not rushing anyone, least of all myself. So length is no concern. In fact, I want to get used to charting longer matches, because that's where the most exciting and dramatic matches ever lie. I charted a couple five-setters already, and there's still room for mental improvement so it would take less of a toll.

Remember, though, not to publish results until all participants are ready with their charts, so you do not influence others as they are still working.

 

[abmk]

We have all the time, haven't we? Being methodical and detailing my charting principles is what I'm after here. I'm not rushing anyone, least of all myself. So length is no concern. In fact, I want to get used to charting longer matches, because that's where the most exciting and dramatic matches ever lie. I charted a couple five-setters already, and there's still room for mental improvement so it would take less of a toll.

Remember, though, not to publish results until all participants are ready with their charts, so you do not influence others as they are still working.

yeah, I'm fine with that.
And obviously not going to publish the results untill all participants are ready with their charts.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So who else would like to join? @Waspsting I asked; this is hardly @krosero's or @Moose Malloy's cup of tea, but I should ask out of politeness at least, if not a slim possibility of you joining.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

 

[RS]

If Murray played the way he did in the SF this would have been close.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Pretty poor display from Andy. Watched the condensed match

People moan and cry when sinner raz match in RG turned bad but at least they were trying to go aggressive. Here Andy is just so so. Didn't feel like a final at all.

 

[Sport]

Brilliant from Federer. Elegant and clynical at the same time to finish with Murray, no less.

 

[ghostofMecir]

If Murray played the way he did in the SF this would have been close.

He wasn’t allowed to play the same way

a)Federer didn’t give him the balls Nadal did looping into that Murray BH cross court power drive.
b) Federer’s much better serve didn’t give Murray as many chances on return.
c) Federer was standing on the baseline taking the FH early and directing Olay throughout the entirety of the match.

Pretty poor display from Andy. Watched the condensed match

People moan and cry when sinner raz match in RG turned bad but at least they were trying to go aggressive. Here Andy is just so so. Didn't feel like a final at all.

He wasn’t given the opportunity to do so in a manner he felt comfortable with. He did when he got those chances vs. Nadal.