Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Murray, Wimbledon final, 2012

[Waspsting]

Roger Federer beat Andy Murray 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon final, 2012 on grass

The win gave Federer a recording tying 7th Wimbledon title and it was his first Slam in over 2 years (and would turn out to be his last in nearly 5). The result also saw him return to world number 1, guaranteeing that he pass Pete Sampras' record of 286 weeks at that spot. With the loss, Murray had lost 4/4 Slam finals (3 of them to Federer). He would go onto win Olympics played at the same venue shortly afterwards (beating Federer in the final), win the next Slam at the US Open and win the next Wimbledon the following year

Federer won 151 points, Murray 137

Serve Stats
Federer...
- 1st serve percentage (90/131) 69%
- 1st serve points won (68/90) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (20/41) 49%
- Aces 12, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (29/131) 22%

Murray...
- 1st serve percentage (88/157) 56%
- 1st serve points won (61/88) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (33/69) 48%
- Aces 17 (2 second serves & 2 not clean), Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (49/157) 31%

Serve Patterns
Federer served...
- to FH 52%
- to BH 47%
- to Body 2%

Murray served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 73%
- to Body 1%

Return Stats
Federer made...
- 107 (43 FH, 64 BH), including 13 runaround FHs & 6 return-approaches
- 3 Winners (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 29 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (6 FH, 4 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 19 Forced (7 FH, 12 BH)
- Return Rate (107/156) 69%

Murray made...
- 99 (52 FH, 47 BH)
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 16 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 14 Forced (7 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (99/128) 77%

Break Points
Federer 4/12 (6 games)
Murray 2/7 (5 games)

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Federer 48 (18 FH, 8 BH, 8 FHV, 1 BHV, 8 OH)
Murray 27 (12 FH, 5 BH, 4 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)

Federer's FHs - 4 cc (1 return), 3 dtl (1 return), 4 inside-out, 3 inside-in, 2 drop shots (1 inside-out, 1 inside-in), 1 at net and 1 lob
- BHs - 4 cc (1 pass and 1 non-clean return), 1 dtl, 1 longline at net, 1 cc running-down-drop-shot at net and 1 dtl running-down-drop-shot at net

- 5 FHVs were swinging shots (2 cc, 2 inside-out, 1 longline). 1 of the inside-outs was not a net point
- 1 FHV was the first volley of a serve-volley point and 1 other was played net-to-net

- 2 from return-approach points (1 BHV, 1 OH)

Murray's FHs - 5 cc, 3 dtl (2 passes), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in and 1 cc running-down-drop-shot at net (which was hit right at Federer, who ducked to avoid being hit)
- BHs - 3 cc (2 passes), 1 longline and 1 net chord dribbler return

- 1 BHV can reasonably be called a BHOH. It was possibly not clean
- 1 OH can reasonably be called a high FHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Federer 58
- 39 Unforced (23 FH, 14 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)… the FHV was not a net point
- 19 Forced (10 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.6

Murray 73
- 39 Unforced (22 FH, 15 BH, 2 FHV)
- 34 Forced (18 FH, 15 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.4

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was...
- 44/56 (79%) at net, including...
- 2/2 serve-volleying, both first serves
--
- 3/6 (50%) return-approaching

Murray was...
- 21/34 (62%) at net, with...
- 1/2 forced back/retreated

Match Report
A great match, with Federer turning it on in second half to the sublime degree. Murray plays well too, and hangs in there, though contrast in his mechanical playing style and Federer's dream like brilliant one might superficially disguise that

Key areas of the match are Federer's shot making, including net instincts, Murray's returning and Federer's ability to attack the weak Murray second serve

Serve & Return
Federer serves at 69% - and serves as well as he usually does. Which is very well. On a fast grass court. And is kept to just 22% unreturned serve by Murray's returning. To put this in perspective, look at how Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal have fared against same opponent on same surface

Against Djokovic in previous round, Fed had 44% unreturned serves (Fed served even more precisely there). In 2014 and 2019 final, the numbers were 35% and 35% respectively. Rafael Nadal, who specializes in consistency on return, in 4 matches in '06, '07, '08 and '19 managed 39%, 37%, 34% and 33%

Nor is this apparently out of the ordinary from Murray. In the Olympics final about a month later, he again held Federer to 24% - a match Federer played badly in, but served just fine

Murrays' returning style is something of a cross between Djokovic and Nadal. Not as many damaging deep returns as Djokovic, but along the same lines and apparently, even more able to just get balls in play than Nadal. He takes the first serve return from further behind than Djoko does but not as far as Nadal. Good clean hitting on the return too. Fed gaining cheap points - a big piece in what makes him so effective on grass - is kept to a bare minimum

I think Fed goofs just a bit with his directions. Murray is an equally-strong-off-both-sides returner and its best to not overdo default majority to BH patterns to such players. Fed seems to go the other way - and actually serves majority to FH. Unlike Djokovic, who does appear a shade less consistent of the FH return, I don't see any justification for this. Fed draws same number of errors - forced and unforced - from both sides. Nor is Fed's patterns based on serving out wide... he serves all 12 balls in one game to the FH, which is extremely rare move by anyone against anyone. Not sure what Fed's reasoning was (he didn't repeat it at Olympics match), but he mostly serves to Murray FH. why not the shorter reaching BH, if the two sides are about equally strong?

Fed is sharp in being the on the look out for weak returners - which are inevitable against him. He runs up and dispatches floaters with swinging volleys

Standard very good serving from Federer, exceptionally good returning from Murray

The returner Federer also does a better job than the server Murray does. First, Murray has a huge first serve - bigger, if not as well placed, as his opponent. Particularly from 3rd set onward, Fed does a great job blocking it back and getting as many balls as possible. The Murray second serve though, is weak. Fed attacks it with strong runaround FHs, return-approaches (including a couple firmly hit ones - not chip-charges) and even regular BHs (Murray also slips in 2 aces - 1 catching Fed out by surprisingly going to FH, the other a bad bounce)

Murray goofs a bit too with his mixing it up. Usually, "mixing up his serves" is used complimentary, but on grass, when someone has a bomb of a first serve like Murray's, mixing it up too much is neither necessary or desirable. Lead with the big serve... its all you need. Fed does well returning even the big serve (though worse than he does anything else), but Murray probably doesn't use it enough. Nor was Murray missing big first serves and desisting from them to keep a better percentage... he just seems to want to mix it up unnecessarily

Note Murray out-acing Fed 17-12... mostly a product of Murray's superior returning against strong serves

Play - Baseline
Play is near even for first two sets. Murray plays steadily throughout, Fed is more attacking but not unduly so (particularly from baseline... key of his attacking play is coming to net). From the baseline, dynamics are such that consistency (i.e. not making unforced errors) is a bigger factor than shot-making (i.e. hitting winners)

Its far from being passive tennis. There's plenty of point construction - moving the other guy around to encourage errors (skirting line between being forced and unforced) and taking net after gaining advantage from the back (especially by Federer, but Murray partakes too), but it'd be an exaggeration to call it attacking tennis also

Murray probably edges play in this part of the match. His movements are a bit better and Fed's occasionally a bit slow to his FH side. When going all out, Murray has the advantage FH-FH - his is the more powerful. He does his mixing-it-up bit here too - though its more understandable in this context, as he doesn't have a huge superiority, and the change ups are part of what makes his ground game effective

Early in the second set, there's a 15 delay as the roof closes. Dynamics change for good at this point, with Fed playing more attackingly afterwards of both wings as well as coming to net. Fed hits the baller cleaner, looks to and successfully sweeps BHs he'd been near pushing earlier, is quicker to utilize angles on the FH after the roof goes up while Murray plays much the same. Even Fed's returning becomes better

After this point, Fed is clearly ahead in play (also on serve-return complex)

 

[Waspsting]

Fed finishing with 48 winners to 39 UEs is strong enough, even without considering the huge 34 errors he forces out of Murray

Curiously, the UEs and their nature are all but identical. Both have exactly 39 UEs. Their nature are -

- Defensive - Fed 1, Murray 1
- Neutral - Fed 20, Murray 21
- Attacking - Fed 7, Murray 6
- Winner attempts - Fed 6, Murray 6

With Fed playing a lot more attackingly - though in a controlled, point constructing way (as opposed to wild, shots out of nowhere style he sometimes goes in for) - these figures indicate a big win for Fed on this front.

To make match closer, Murray would need to make far fewer neutral UEs and hope Fed had more attacking and winner attempt ones. The latter is out of his hand... and the former is close because Fed's count is low, not Murray's count being high....In other words, Federer plays very well

Play - Net
79% net points won from Federer - he's phenomenal at net in the match. Net instincts are even better than the volley

As outlined earlier, he's quick to pounce on any floating returns. Just 2 serve-volley points - but a healthy chunk of his winning plays start from third ball volleys - 'delayed' serve-volleys (which are counted net points, but not serve-volleys). Lots of good swinging FHVs - cc, inside-out and even a longline winner

For first two sets, coming to net was his principal attacking weapon and he isn't looking to finish points from back of court. Last two sets, he keeps coming forward on top of attacking in measured way from back

Murray I think errs in overdoing the lobbing. Note the 8 Federer OH winners - and there's a number of Murray errors forced with the smash too. Murray tends to go with lobs rather than passes more than was smart

He lobs exceptionally well. Fed has to make a number of awkward OHs and frequently has to make multiple OHs to win a point. But Federer is giant on the shot... its highly unlikely he'd falter on it. On the volley, he has good days and bad... better to test him on it than on the OH. A small amount of the time, Murray throws out the lob because its his only option, but usually, he goes that route when a pass was just as good an option

Fed approaches off strong shots that push Murray on the defensive, making it difficult to hit effective passes

Murray too is very good in the forecourt, and like Fed, looks to come in after grabbing control of the point from back. In other words, neither player manufactures approaches or come in for the sake of coming in or are desperate to be at net. They come in organically, when situation warrants it - with Fed in the early part of match, looking for such chances a bit to boot

Match Progression
Murray break to start the match with Fed making 3 errors in a row, the last, a swinging FHV miss. Fed breaks back awhile later in a 12 point game mostly through Murray errors. Murray sees of 2 break points in a 16 point game and breaks Fed to 15, again mostly due to errors from the Swiss - and serves out the set

Its tough tennis with 5/10 games going to deuce. The edge lies with Murray, since his returning takes away a major source of Fed's usual success plan of cheap service points. That leaves Fed needing to outplay Murray in court... and he's not able to do so.

Second set goes like the first and again, Murray has the better of it. He ha to save 1 break point in a 12 point game but otherwise loses 2 point in 4 service games. Fed struggles more, is taken to deuce in 3 games and fights off 4 break points

Then Murray steps up to send the set into a tiebreak. Fed plays a sublime game to break. A drop shot force a elicits a weak return that Fed puts away BH dtl at net. At 30-30, a rally develops with Murray having the initiative

Fed first defends ably and gradually neutralizes Murray's advantage. He then takes it with a good FH inside-out. Finally, he nurses it to win the point with a beautiful and perfect drop FHV (granted, the ball he plays the shot to was going out) that forces an error. Next point is just as sumptuous. From defensive position, Fed hits a FH cc to open the court, follows up with BH cc to completely open it and finishes off with drop BHV winner

An even set - actually, one where Murray had the edge - gone in 3 minutes of near flawless tennis. Beautiful stuff from Federer

5 comfortable holds to start the 3rd, during which there's a 15 minute delay as the roof is closed. It looks like 6 with Murray serving at 40-0. Instead, 23 points later, Fed breaks serve. Its starting here that Fed turns it on... consistent returning against first serves, attacking ones against seconds, clean groundstrokes, sharp BH angles and ground clinging slices, well placed FHs, touch shots and drop shots, moving Murray around, coming in to finish etc. etc.... he shows it all from here on end.

Particularly memorable shots include a ridiculous runaround FH inside-out drop shot, a FH inside-in slice that was disguised to look like a drop shot, a FH dtl 1/2volley off the baseline, a touch FH lob (Murray slipped, hindering him from running it down), a BH cc pass to break in the fourth, a FH inside-out-FH cc 1-2 winning combo... its a highlights reel

For all that, Murray doesn't falter and continues to play solid tennis. Fed's as solid at least... and has 2 extra gears of shot making. For all that...

Differentiating between Quality and Aesthetics
While aesthetics naturally colour our perceptions of quality, 1 point is still 1 point - whether it ends with a glorious winner or an ugly error

When a player like Federer - graceful in his commanding play - meets a player like Murray - efficient if unspectacular - there's a tendency to notice just the former.

Often matters are seen as -
- if the former wins, he played great.
- If the latter wins, the former played badly - quite easily done

Its rarely as simple as that (though it does happen with Federer from time to time). Its not true here either

Best example of this is a breakdown of last two sets. One could be forgiven for barely noticing Murray in this part of the match so smoothly of style (and well) does Federer play. One of the commentators makes it sound like Murray is in a hopeless situation fighting for his life

This is hogwash

Federer wins set 3 with 1 break - a 26 point game filled with glorious play. A game Murray led 40-0 in. On his last game point before deuce, Murray misses an easy run-down-drop-shot FH from about the service line... and goes on to get broken. A distorted way of viewing the game is of calling it a Murray choke. No one in their right mind would do that. Compare to Wimbledon '19 final... there's little difference between what happened there and what happened here, but note the difference in the way the two are perceived

Other than that game, there's no significant difference on the level of score between two players in the set. And Murray had 6 game points in the game he was broken in

In set 4, both players have 1 break point. Fed makes his, Murray doesn't (Fed would have had another had Murray thwarted the first). Fed's service games last 8, 4, 6, 6 and 6 points - comfortable, but hardly the stuff of 'returner doesn't have a chance in hell to break' stuff. Very normal for grass. Murray's holds last 6, 6, 6 and 10 points each - less secure than Fed, but hardly the stuff of 'returner's always knocking on the door to breaking' stuff

Federer plays beautifully, but ignore accounts of Murray being shut out of the match... that's just a shaped-by-style perceptual distortion
--
Summing up, excellent match with first class play - enabled by both players sure returning, Murray being particularly impressive against strong opposition in that regard. In play, Fed turns it up a notch and does some magical stuff that Murray can't keep up with

Stats for their Olympic finals match - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...y-vs-federer-olympic-games-final-2012.633956/

Stats for Federer's semi with Djokovic - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vs-djokovic-wimbledon-semi-final-2012.659861/

 

[RS]

The offical stats have Federer at 62 winners to 38 errors
Muuray at 46 winners to 25 errors
Great as always though.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Thanks a lot for this. One of my favourite matches to rewatch.

 

[ForehandCross]

@Waspsting you seem to have been watching alot of matches past and present.

Do you agree with the notion that federer plays better 2014-15 onwards or did he play better before in his 'peak' years ?

As in would 2004-07 Federer perform better than his future version in those seasons?

 

[Third Serve]

Thanks for this Christmas gift. I liked watching this match a lot.

 

[Waspsting]

@Waspsting you seem to have been watching alot of matches past and present.

Do you agree with the notion that federer plays better 2014-15 onwards or did he play better before in his 'peak' years ?

As in would 2004-07 Federer perform better than his future version in those seasons?

I'm a little light on '04-'07 Fed matches - so will make that comparison tentatively.

(going to call '03-'07 Fed "young Fed" and '14-'15 and onwards Fed "Old Fed" for simplicity's sake)

For stamina and day-to-day consistency of playing level alone, I think young Fed would out far outstrip old Fed over a season... old Fed had/has a lot more off days and gets/got gassed fairly easily (young Fed was exemplary in both these areas)

Of game... in my opinion young Fed was significnatly better player, but not to the extent of sweeping everything old Fed faced away under heading of his being old (and the implicit suggestion that if young, all that would have been diferent)

First and foremost - young Fed was much faster of court coverage. Leaving aside the obvious advantages in defence, it allowed him to get into better postions neutrally and offesnively. Tennis beign the kind of game were even a small drop in speed can have a magnified effect because its something that feeds into everything else - FH, BH, net play etc.

Young Fed was probably the second fastest guy on tour, behind Rafael Nadal (who was superhuman in this regard). Possibly had the best short range movements (i.e. footwork) too (Nadal possibly edged him there - but its close, no significant difference I'd say)

Old Fed played a different, more aggresive game.

- his serve has gotten better and better - it might be at its best right now
- his returning, especially of the BH - has in spurts been far more commanding than young Fed
- desire to come to net
- most of all, he's played much closer to the baseline

Young Fed mostly played orthodox positions, rallying from couple feet behind baseline. Old Fed's been right on the baseline, a'le Agassi

Young Fed is generally seen as a brilliant player, but his style is quite conservative compared to old Fed (that's just aesthetics, not necessarily quality)

- For all his baseline prowess, a healhty chunk of his success came from holding steady from baseline - with odd attacking FHs thrown in (or not) - and strong serve and sure returning putting him over. More efficient than brilliant, I'd say... though with a potential brilliant shot making gear in the locker that most players don't have. And his very smooth hitting style and movement also biasing perceptions to his being brilliant rather than efficient

- put in match stats terms... making fewer UEs than his opponenets was a big part of his success. That hasn't been the case for good while... its all about his winners/errors he can force and how few errors he's forced into now

The smartest way to play tennis is to play as safely as possible while still being superior of game. Young Fed had the resources to play fairly safely - and keep most of the brilliant attacking stuff he's known for as a back-up or secondary line of play. Old Fed doesn't - he's had to lead with the brilliance because his stock neutral rallying stuff couldn't hack it like before. When you lead with brailliant stuff... you get a lot more inconsistency and occasionally falling on your face

I don't know if the quality of BH has changed much over the years (other than superior getting into position basework), but the quality of explosvieness of FH has clearly deteriorated with the years - even without the natural decline in movement. Its something I'm particularly interested in and will keep a look out for (BH is as interesting as the FH to me)

I back-to-back watched his 2 Australian Open finals with Nadal to start gauging how both players had changed over years awhile ago - that's here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rer-australian-open-finals-2009-2017.632715/… but that's just a start to looking at the matter closely

Happy new year, everyone

 

[ForehandCross]

I'm a little light on '04-'07 Fed matches - so will make that comparison tentatively.

(going to call '03-'07 Fed "young Fed" and '14-'15 and onwards Fed "Old Fed" for simplicity's sake)

For stamina and day-to-day consistency of playing level alone, I think young Fed would out far outstrip old Fed over a season... old Fed had/has a lot more off days and gets/got gassed fairly easily (young Fed was exemplary in both these areas)

Of game... in my opinion young Fed was significnatly better player, but not to the extent of sweeping everything old Fed faced away under heading of his being old (and the implicit suggestion that if young, all that would have been diferent)

First and foremost - young Fed was much faster of court coverage. Leaving aside the obvious advantages in defence, it allowed him to get into better postions neutrally and offesnively. Tennis beign the kind of game were even a small drop in speed can have a magnified effect because its something that feeds into everything else - FH, BH, net play etc.

Young Fed was probably the second fastest guy on tour, behind Rafael Nadal (who was superhuman in this regard). Possibly had the best short range movements (i.e. footwork) too (Nadal possibly edged him there - but its close, no significant difference I'd say)

Old Fed played a different, more aggresive game.

- his serve has gotten better and better - it might be at its best right now
- his returning, especially of the BH - has in spurts been far more commanding than young Fed
- desire to come to net
- most of all, he's played much closer to the baseline

Young Fed mostly played orthodox positions, rallying from couple feet behind baseline. Old Fed's been right on the baseline, a'le Agassi

Young Fed is generally seen as a brilliant player, but his style is quite conservative compared to old Fed (that's just aesthetics, not necessarily quality)

- For all his baseline prowess, a healhty chunk of his success came from holding steady from baseline - with odd attacking FHs thrown in (or not) - and strong serve and sure returning putting him over. More efficient than brilliant, I'd say... though with a potential brilliant shot making gear in the locker that most players don't have. And his very smooth hitting style and movement also biasing perceptions to his being brilliant rather than efficient

- put in match stats terms... making fewer UEs than his opponenets was a big part of his success. That hasn't been the case for good while... its all about his winners/errors he can force and how few errors he's forced into now

The smartest way to play tennis is to play as safely as possible while still being superior of game. Young Fed had the resources to play fairly safely - and keep most of the brilliant attacking stuff he's known for as a back-up or secondary line of play. Old Fed doesn't - he's had to lead with the brilliance because his stock neutral rallying stuff couldn't hack it like before. When you lead with brailliant stuff... you get a lot more inconsistency and occasionally falling on your face

I don't know if the quality of BH has changed much over the years (other than superior getting into position basework), but the quality of explosvieness of FH has clearly deteriorated with the years - even without the natural decline in movement. Its something I'm particularly interested in and will keep a look out for (BH is as interesting as the FH to me)

I back-to-back watched his 2 Australian Open finals with Nadal to start gauging how both players had changed over years awhile ago - that's here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rer-australian-open-finals-2009-2017.632715/… but that's just a start to looking at the matter closely

Happy new year, everyone

Take a like good sir.

You hit the nail in every aspect I suspected. Especially the short distance movement bit.

Young Federer had a lot of substance backing his flash. Older one adapted but didn't have the same solidarity.
He had too many variants of tactics to use.
Older one was too dependent on serve and lacked stability. He too was very effective but still not as solid.




Happy New year too.

Your contributions are very appreciated.

 

[JaoSousa]

The offical stats have Federer at 62 winners to 38 errors
Muuray at 46 winners to 25 errors
Great as always though.

Maybe did not include aces?

 

[ForehandCross]

I'm a little light on '04-'07 Fed matches - so will make that comparison tentatively.

(going to call '03-'07 Fed "young Fed" and '14-'15 and onwards Fed "Old Fed" for simplicity's sake)

For stamina and day-to-day consistency of playing level alone, I think young Fed would out far outstrip old Fed over a season... old Fed had/has a lot more off days and gets/got gassed fairly easily (young Fed was exemplary in both these areas)

Of game... in my opinion young Fed was significnatly better player, but not to the extent of sweeping everything old Fed faced away under heading of his being old (and the implicit suggestion that if young, all that would have been diferent)

First and foremost - young Fed was much faster of court coverage. Leaving aside the obvious advantages in defence, it allowed him to get into better postions neutrally and offesnively. Tennis beign the kind of game were even a small drop in speed can have a magnified effect because its something that feeds into everything else - FH, BH, net play etc.

Young Fed was probably the second fastest guy on tour, behind Rafael Nadal (who was superhuman in this regard). Possibly had the best short range movements (i.e. footwork) too (Nadal possibly edged him there - but its close, no significant difference I'd say)

Old Fed played a different, more aggresive game.

- his serve has gotten better and better - it might be at its best right now
- his returning, especially of the BH - has in spurts been far more commanding than young Fed
- desire to come to net
- most of all, he's played much closer to the baseline

Young Fed mostly played orthodox positions, rallying from couple feet behind baseline. Old Fed's been right on the baseline, a'le Agassi

Young Fed is generally seen as a brilliant player, but his style is quite conservative compared to old Fed (that's just aesthetics, not necessarily quality)

- For all his baseline prowess, a healhty chunk of his success came from holding steady from baseline - with odd attacking FHs thrown in (or not) - and strong serve and sure returning putting him over. More efficient than brilliant, I'd say... though with a potential brilliant shot making gear in the locker that most players don't have. And his very smooth hitting style and movement also biasing perceptions to his being brilliant rather than efficient

- put in match stats terms... making fewer UEs than his opponenets was a big part of his success. That hasn't been the case for good while... its all about his winners/errors he can force and how few errors he's forced into now

The smartest way to play tennis is to play as safely as possible while still being superior of game. Young Fed had the resources to play fairly safely - and keep most of the brilliant attacking stuff he's known for as a back-up or secondary line of play. Old Fed doesn't - he's had to lead with the brilliance because his stock neutral rallying stuff couldn't hack it like before. When you lead with brailliant stuff... you get a lot more inconsistency and occasionally falling on your face

I don't know if the quality of BH has changed much over the years (other than superior getting into position basework), but the quality of explosvieness of FH has clearly deteriorated with the years - even without the natural decline in movement. Its something I'm particularly interested in and will keep a look out for (BH is as interesting as the FH to me)

I back-to-back watched his 2 Australian Open finals with Nadal to start gauging how both players had changed over years awhile ago - that's here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rer-australian-open-finals-2009-2017.632715/… but that's just a start to looking at the matter closely

Happy new year, everyone

The single best take on this topic.

Anyone nominating someone else for best tennis analyst is simply wrong.


As always you are a big asset to the forum, @Waspsting.

 

[BeatlesFan]

@Waspsting Your comparison of young/old Federer was absolutely brilliant. An outstanding post, thank you for your insight. You're without a doubt the King of all wasps.

 

[Third Serve]

@Waspsting Your comparison of young/old Federer was absolutely brilliant. An outstanding post, thank you for your insight. You're without a doubt the King of all wasps.

wtf

 

[Master Hegel]

I'm a little light on '04-'07 Fed matches - so will make that comparison tentatively.

(going to call '03-'07 Fed "young Fed" and '14-'15 and onwards Fed "Old Fed" for simplicity's sake)

For stamina and day-to-day consistency of playing level alone, I think young Fed would out far outstrip old Fed over a season... old Fed had/has a lot more off days and gets/got gassed fairly easily (young Fed was exemplary in both these areas)

Of game... in my opinion young Fed was significnatly better player, but not to the extent of sweeping everything old Fed faced away under heading of his being old (and the implicit suggestion that if young, all that would have been diferent)

First and foremost - young Fed was much faster of court coverage. Leaving aside the obvious advantages in defence, it allowed him to get into better postions neutrally and offesnively. Tennis beign the kind of game were even a small drop in speed can have a magnified effect because its something that feeds into everything else - FH, BH, net play etc.

Young Fed was probably the second fastest guy on tour, behind Rafael Nadal (who was superhuman in this regard). Possibly had the best short range movements (i.e. footwork) too (Nadal possibly edged him there - but its close, no significant difference I'd say)

Old Fed played a different, more aggresive game.

- his serve has gotten better and better - it might be at its best right now
- his returning, especially of the BH - has in spurts been far more commanding than young Fed
- desire to come to net
- most of all, he's played much closer to the baseline

Young Fed mostly played orthodox positions, rallying from couple feet behind baseline. Old Fed's been right on the baseline, a'le Agassi

Young Fed is generally seen as a brilliant player, but his style is quite conservative compared to old Fed (that's just aesthetics, not necessarily quality)

- For all his baseline prowess, a healhty chunk of his success came from holding steady from baseline - with odd attacking FHs thrown in (or not) - and strong serve and sure returning putting him over. More efficient than brilliant, I'd say... though with a potential brilliant shot making gear in the locker that most players don't have. And his very smooth hitting style and movement also biasing perceptions to his being brilliant rather than efficient

- put in match stats terms... making fewer UEs than his opponenets was a big part of his success. That hasn't been the case for good while... its all about his winners/errors he can force and how few errors he's forced into now

The smartest way to play tennis is to play as safely as possible while still being superior of game. Young Fed had the resources to play fairly safely - and keep most of the brilliant attacking stuff he's known for as a back-up or secondary line of play. Old Fed doesn't - he's had to lead with the brilliance because his stock neutral rallying stuff couldn't hack it like before. When you lead with brailliant stuff... you get a lot more inconsistency and occasionally falling on your face

I don't know if the quality of BH has changed much over the years (other than superior getting into position basework), but the quality of explosvieness of FH has clearly deteriorated with the years - even without the natural decline in movement. Its something I'm particularly interested in and will keep a look out for (BH is as interesting as the FH to me)

I back-to-back watched his 2 Australian Open finals with Nadal to start gauging how both players had changed over years awhile ago - that's here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rer-australian-open-finals-2009-2017.632715/… but that's just a start to looking at the matter closely

Happy new year, everyone

I know this is an old report, but I want to know your thoughts on how to determine which players are "better" accross eras.

I'll use Djokovic as a recent example because I have a good sense of his development. Djokovic in his physical prime (2011-2019) was undoubtedly superior physically to the later version of Djokovic. But I think it is evident that Djokovic in recent years is much more skilled than he used to be; his serve and his volleys in particular are better than they were in 2011 or 2015 or 2019. And we know that in general he is hitting the ball harder now than he was ten years ago. If, hypothetically, 2011 Djokovic played against 2023 Djokovic, is the former's physical advantage really enough to make up for the latter being more skilled in virtually every way?

You are talking about Federer here; I think I agree that the young Federer was superior to old Federer, but it can't be denied that Federer's backhand from 2017 to 2019 was infinitely better than it was prior to those years.

When talking about Nadal, people usually say he was best on clay in 2008 or 2010. Is this really true? He was without question physically superior in those years, but wouldn't he have been hitting harder later in his career?

I can make this matter more general. What do we mean when we say, "x is better than y?" Do we mean, "x would beat y in a match?" Or do we mean something else—when we are talking about (versions of) players from different eras? Players are hitting the ball harder than ever now; would Djokovic from 2011 be able to handle the pace of Sinner and Alcaraz?

When I watch older matches (think before the early 2000s), I often struggle to appreciate what is happening because I keep thinking, "these players would be obliterated if they played today." What are we talking about when we say that a match played in the 1980s was excellent? Are we referring to some transcendent standard of excellence? (I happen to think that we are, but it doesn't have so much to do with who would win a particular match.)

Anyway, this analysis is wonderful, and I look forward to reading more of your work.

 

[Waspsting]

Let me get me back to this when I have time to do it justice (its not going to be short or simple take). Couple of things to get you thinking -

...I keep thinking, "these players would be obliterated if they played today." What are we talking about when we say that a match played in the 1980s was excellent? Are we referring to some transcendent standard of excellence?

Have a look at the '85 Year End Championship final (Lendl vs Becker)
Then look at the '96 Year End Championship final (Sampras vs Becker)

Any sane person looking at the two will think '85 players would get obliterated by the '96 ones
And yet there's Boris Becker, the same man, in both matches

Or have a look at '87 French final (Lendl vs Wilander)
Then look at '91 French final (Courier vs Agassi)

The '87 final action looks like something your grandmother could play
The '91 final is something that'd give your father a heart attack

And yet Wilander beat Agassi in '88
And Lendl is 4-0 vs Courier (never lost a set, 4-6 is best Courier could manage) and 6-2 vs Agassi (6-0 to start)

Things... get more intense over time
What passes for 'hard hitting' or 'powerful' at any given time... shifts up and up over time, until its just 'norm'

Commentators for '82 US Open final (Connors vs Lendl) are in awe of the power on show (they weren't the hyperbolic sort who say that about everything)
Just look at it. Murray vs Simon is as intense

 

[Mustard]

Have a look at the '85 Year End Championship final (Lendl vs Becker)
Then look at the '96 Year End Championship final (Sampras vs Becker)

Any sane person looking at the two will think '85 players would get obliterated by the '96 ones
And yet there's Boris Becker, the same man, in both matches

Or have a look at '87 French final (Lendl vs Wilander)
Then look at '91 French final (Courier vs Agassi)

The '87 final action looks like something your grandmother could play
The '91 final is something that'd give your father a heart attack

And yet Wilander beat Agassi in '88
And Lendl is 4-0 vs Courier (never lost a set, 4-6 is best Courier could manage) and 6-2 vs Agassi (6-0 to start)

It's the different equipment of those different years, not the players' abilities. Too many fans make the mistake of thinking that it's the players of the 1980s not being as powerful, without recognizing that it's the equipment.

 

[objection_]

I know this is an old report, but I want to know your thoughts on how to determine which players are "better" accross eras.

I'll use Djokovic as a recent example because I have a good sense of his development. Djokovic in his physical prime (2011-2019) was undoubtedly superior physically to the later version of Djokovic. But I think it is evident that Djokovic in recent years is much more skilled than he used to be; his serve and his volleys in particular are better than they were in 2011 or 2015 or 2019. And we know that in general he is hitting the ball harder now than he was ten years ago. If, hypothetically, 2011 Djokovic played against 2023 Djokovic, is the former's physical advantage really enough to make up for the latter being more skilled in virtually every way?

You are talking about Federer here; I think I agree that the young Federer was superior to old Federer, but it can't be denied that Federer's backhand from 2017 to 2019 was infinitely better than it was prior to those years.

When talking about Nadal, people usually say he was best on clay in 2008 or 2010. Is this really true? He was without question physically superior in those years, but wouldn't he have been hitting harder later in his career?

I can make this matter more general. What do we mean when we say, "x is better than y?" Do we mean, "x would beat y in a match?" Or do we mean something else—when we are talking about (versions of) players from different eras? Players are hitting the ball harder than ever now; would Djokovic from 2011 be able to handle the pace of Sinner and Alcaraz?

When I watch older matches (think before the early 2000s), I often struggle to appreciate what is happening because I keep thinking, "these players would be obliterated if they played today." What are we talking about when we say that a match played in the 1980s was excellent? Are we referring to some transcendent standard of excellence? (I happen to think that we are, but it doesn't have so much to do with who would win a particular match.)

Anyway, this analysis is wonderful, and I look forward to reading more of your work.

Not Waspting and our opinions may differ (He's got more experience so probably place a bit more weight on his thoughts) but I'll chuck in my two cents

Let's start with Djokovic. IMO his physical prime was 2011-2016, although he was still pretty solid in 2018-2019. But what does physical superiority entail? Two key factors in my opinion:

1. Physical superiority on a match-to-match basis - The willingness to chase down every ball, hang in long matches and the endurance factor. Against Nadal specifically, this was the case from about 2009-2012. Both men seem to have reached some sort of informal agreement after AO 2012 that keeping up this style of play match-long was unsustainable. RG 2013 SF, was only about 4 and a half hours, and featured some easing on return games that wasn't quite there years prior. Against virtually all other opponents, Novak never tanked return games and was fully committed to chasing down every defensive get, a feature of his game not as visible post 2019.

2. Physical superiority season-long - Mainly focusing on playing as many matches and tournaments year-long. No issues for Peak Djoko whereas 2019+ was happy to skip smaller tournaments and what not to peak for slams.

Moving on to his game:
- The serve has undoubtedly improved under Goran's coaching. Mechanic wise it is fairly simple, compact and accurate. His serve was a disaster in 2010, good in 2011 and already quite excellent in 2015. At Wimbledon he even beat Fed in the unreturned serve department, 33% to 31%. The bigger gains appear to be more so with the second serve - He used to be fairly content just pushing it in at about 90mph, whereas when he goes for it now he can keep it around 100-105 mph, giving him a more advantageous starting position in the rally.
- The volleys have improved for sure.
- The forehand is a very interesting point to analyse. Around 2011 it was slower in speed but seemingly spinnier and heavier, giving him the ability to push Nadal back on clay and dictate the rallies from that point. From 2015 onwards it seems to be a more linear shot, faster in pace but lacking in weight of shot. Excellent in ensuring his dominance over medium-pace lower bouncing hardcourts, and neutralising Nadal on hardcourts. However, it may have cost him when facing a guy like Stan Wawrinka, unable to seize initiative of the rallies on slower, higher bouncing courts. The stroke from 2023 resembles the stroke from 2015, just hit a little harder. Not sure if it's necessarily better or worse, just suited towards the conditions of the time.

Taking all of this, ultimately I think the edge lies with 2011 Djoker. He'd have the advantage on clay due to the weight of shot and physicality, and on slower high-bouncing hardcourts. Grass and faster hardcourts are suited towards 2023 Djoker, and he'd certainly have his chances there in a vacuum. That being said, a potential battle between these two would likely take place in the later stages of a slam, and while 2011 Djoker would probably still be fresh as a daisy come the semis/finals, 2023 Djoker might have a little bit taken out of the tank having to face a strong opponent beforehand.

Fed's topspin backhand from 2017-2019 was better, especially on higher bouncing courts, but the racket change probably nerfed his forehand and slice backhand.

Nadal probably hits the backhand harder later in his career, especially down the line. The big crosscourt backhand was always a feature of his game since early on, and he probably should've used it more often. The forehand was a little bit more prone to dropping short around 2005-2007 and 2015-2016. It's alright on clay where the spin can still trouble the opponent, but was less threatening on hardcourts, where he could be rushed by big hitters. Ultimately however, clay is a surface in which constant pressured needs to be applied and momentum shifts occur often. When Nadal tried to go all out in RG 2021 he ended up getting injured, and later clay matches featured more up-and-down action, easing up on return games. As he battled against an older Djoker who also did the same, it might not be as noticeable, but against a younger Novak more willing to maintain that level consistently that could prove decisive for Novak's victory.

I think 2011 Djoker dumped right into 2025 might struggle for a bit, as he gets accustomed to the court conditions, balls, pace etc, but as virtually all greats do, he'll adapt quickly and be a formidable competitor once again. Don't know enough about 80's tennis so I'll leave it here.

 

[yama]

When I watch older matches (think before the early 2000s), I often struggle to appreciate what is happening because I keep thinking, "these players would be obliterated if they played today." What are we talking about when we say that a match played in the 1980s was excellent? Are we referring to some transcendent standard of excellence?

Isn’t the question whether that person understands the standard of play for that era?

If a 5-year-old can hit a decent serve, they’re a genius, but if a 20-year-old hits the same serve, they’re a complete amateur.

If you’re going to make a comparison on that basis, it’s bound to be difficult.

 

[Slingshot]

Part of it is equipment. Part of it is what coaching they've grown up with and then become accustomed to. Part of it is what other players are doing and what the challenge is in front of you.

Take the second point and third point together. Federer says that 20-25 years ago almost every player had a little chink in their armour; a weak side; and that this is not so much the case now. But that's natural. If the baseline bludgeoning game of now is what today's players have grown up with, the one they've watched, been coached, and practiced, then what excuse do they have for a weak backhand groundstroke? None.

In 2004, a 28-year-old may have had fairly similar tools at his disposal, but he also may have grown up playing serve and volley or playing a subtly different baseline game; one where his backhand needs to achieve this but maybe not that, and so that's what he's trained for. Expecting that guy to play a game fitted for 2026 is silly. He has a different challenge in front of him.

In that sense, comparison is silly. Could 2026 Sinner get the better of backhand rally exchanges with 2004 Federer? Probably. But Federer improved his backhand groundstroke as was demanded by the increasingly baseline focused rally game, to the point where he was still winning slams with it almost 15 years after his first slam, and was a point away from winning one 16 years after his first. As Waspsting points out, a player can raise himself to overcome a new challenge years later.