Stats for 1970 Dunlop International final (Laver-Rosewall)

[krosero]

This five-set final in March 1970 has a higher rate of winners per game, by Laver, than we have found in three other matches (all in 1969). It also gives us our first stats for Rosewall in a competitive match.

Laver d. Rosewall 3-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2, 6-3

I don't know why this match is not listed on the ATP site’s page for their head-to-head.

Laver was 31, Rosewall 35.

The tournament was held in the White City, Sydney. The announcers mentioned that Rosewall had won his first Australian Championships on the same court in 1953.

Laver walked onto the court as the titleholder at all the Slams except the Australian Open, which he (and Ken) had skipped a few months earlier.


All of the following are my own stats/data. Note that my DVD is missing the end of one point, won by Rosewall at 2-all, 30-love in the fifth.

Rosewall had two break points for a 4-2 lead in the fifth set but failed to return Laver's serve each time (once on a second serve). He had 40-15 on his own serve at 3-all but made an unforced error at the baseline, got lobbed on the next point, and made another unforced error trying to get into net; he was broken when a Laver passing shot jumped off the netcord. Ken had made 7 of 8 first serves in that game.

Again Rosewall stood at 40-15 on his serve in the last game of the match, but he made an unforced error at net and then got passed. In that game he made all 8 of his first serves.



Laver served 3 clean aces, 6 service winners, and 16 double faults, including a double on the last point of the third set.

Rosewall served 2 clean aces, 2 service winners, and 4 doubles.

Laver won 162 points, Rosewall 147.

Laver won 90 of 158 points on his service, Rosewall 79 of 151.

Laver won 9 of 16 break points, Rosewall 6 of 15.

Laver got his first serve into play on 6 of 15 break points (or 40%), Rosewall on 11 of 16 (or 69%).


Laver’s service percentage was 51% (or 81 of 158 first serves). By set:

41% (9 of 22)
46% (17 of 37)
48% (15 of 31)
69% (22 of 32)
50% (18 of 36)

Rosewall’s service percentage was 57% (86 of 151 first serves). By set:

63% (27 of 43)
48% (12 of 25)
61% (11 of 18 )
33% (11 of 33)
78% (25 of 32)

Laver served at 69% in the fourth set with only 2 doubles. It turns out that in the same set he also hit 17 winners over the course of just 8 games.


Laver hit 58 clean winners: 9 FH, 18 BH, 14 FHV, 7 BHV, 10 overheads.

Rosewall hit 36 clean winners: 3 FH, 8 BH, 10 FHV, 6 BHV, 9 overheads.

Laver’s rate of winners per game is 1.35 – higher than his rates against Ashe and Newcombe at Wimbledon eight months earlier. (With aces included his rate comes to 1.42, lower than his 1.48 against Newk). However this match had an average of 7.2 points per game, compared to 6.2 in the Wimbledon final; so Laver’s rate of winners when that is taken into account is higher in that match than it was against Rosewall.

Laver’s winners by set: 6, 11, 10, 17, 14
Rosewall’s winners by set: 7, 7, 4, 10, 8

It’s curious how in the fifth set each man managed a personal high for the match in ground-stroke winners – but all their groundstroke winners in that set were from the backhand. Laver had 9 fifth-set winners off that side, Rosewall 4.

Laver again is nicely balanced in his winners, with 31 from volleys/smashes and 27 from ground strokes.

Laver returned Rosewall’s first serve three times with clean winners from the BH. He also got a FH winner off Rosewall’s second serve. The backhands were passes.

In addition, Laver had one BH lob winner and 20 other passing shots: 7 FH’s and 13 BH’s (including the lucky netcord BH mentioned above).

Laver made the only baseline-to-baseline winner that I noticed in the match, a BH in the fifth set.

Rosewall returned Laver's first serve for clean winners twice with his BH and once with his FH; the numbers were identical on Laver's second serve. That's a total of 6 winners, all passes.

In addition, Rosewall had one BH lob winner and only 3 other passing shots (all BH's).

 

[BeHappy]

wow!

could you please upload just one of your rosewall/laver match ups?, when you're not busy with something else of course.

 

[urban]

I have given my impressions on the match some months ago in another thread. Two stats stand out imo: the numbers of double faults, Laver made. Partly due to back trouble, Laver's serve went a bit off in the 70s, resulting in doubles. The second is the number of backhand winners. It shows imo, that Laver's topspin and slice backhand in his prime could topple even the famous Rosewall backhand. Maybe Muscle's backhand was more consistent and accurate over a long period, but Laver's probably was more deadly and deceiving, because Laver could hide the direction until the last moment of impact.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Here's what Newcombe said about Laver in a 1974 issue of Sports Illustrated:

"He's lost confidence in his serve. Once he lost confidence in his first serve, that put so much pressure on his second, he lost confidence there, too. The Americans understood that before we did, because Rocket was one of us & we respected him so. Riessen, Smith, Lutz- all those guys were attcking him off his serve before we understood. Rocket looks in pain now when he has to serve. And you can see the jealousy in his eyes out there, because he was No. 1, and that was very important to him- much more than it is to me- and we took that thing away from him."

 

[hoodjem]

It shows imo, that Laver's topspin and slice backhand in his prime could topple even the famous Rosewall backhand.

This is saying something, considering that Rosewall's backhand is one of the most fabled shots in tennis history.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Muscles ever hit a topspin backhand. My recollection is that it was mostly a skidding slice and occasionally flat, but never topspin.

What does this match show?

 

[krosero]

This is saying something, considering that Rosewall's backhand is one of the most fabled shots in tennis history.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Muscles ever hit a topspin backhand. My recollection is that it was mostly a skidding slice and occasionally flat, but never topspin.

What does this match show?

It's not something I was looking for, and since I've never seen him play before I'm not sure exactly what to look for. I don't recall any topspin backhand. His backhand looks subtle; it's not an obvious slice like Graf's. Sometimes with his follow-through it looks almost like a flat shot, but again, I wasn't looking at it carefully.

 

[krosero]

It shows imo, that Laver's topspin and slice backhand in his prime could topple even the famous Rosewall backhand. Maybe Muscle's backhand was more consistent and accurate over a long period, but Laver's probably was more deadly and deceiving, because Laver could hide the direction until the last moment of impact.

With his strong wrist he seems to have been able to pull the shot crosscourt at the last moment.

And yes, his BH produced more winners in the match than any other shot between the two men. He had half of his backhand winners in the fifth set (as did Rosewall).

 

[krosero]

Partly due to back trouble, Laver's serve went a bit off in the 70s, resulting in doubles.

What I wonder is when this back trouble might have begun -- and what might have been other contributing factors to the decline in his play (apart from age). After this match he does mention having a five-month newborn, and that he's looking ahead to cutting back his schedule.

I wonder if anything was going on with him generally, or with his back and serve specifically, when he lost that five-set exhibition match to Gonzales at Madison Square Garden, eight weeks before the Rosewall match.

And I hope someday that match turns up somewhere, so we can look at the stats.

 

[urban]

There were some reasons, why Laver lost his grip on the majors in the early 70s. After his Grand Slam, he didn't really focus on the majors, he played only 6 overall 1970 to 74, partly due to promotional troubles between ITF and WCT. Now in his thirties, he went for the money, which was now real money, and played way too much, over 100-125 singles matches from 69 to 71. Going by todays points race standards, he remained the leading player in 70 and even in 71.
For the dollar, he also played with 3 different rackets in Europe, USA and Australia. Since 1971, his back trouble begun, and since 1972 he reduced his schedule to half or 2 thirds of a season. His problems with the serve are also mentioned by Newcombe in his autobiography.

 

[hoodjem]

For the dollar, he also played with 3 different rackets in Europe, USA and Australia.

Can anyone comment on this?

I'd heard that he played with a Chemold metal racquet, that hurt his game because it was a piece of junk.

 

[urban]

Hoodjem, as far as i know, Laver played in the US with a golden Chemold aluminium racket since 1970/71. I seemed to be quite fragile and could break into pieces, as even Borg stated in his book (with Gene Scott). Stolle tells a story, that Laver threw his alu rackets into a lake in 1972.In Europe, Laver played with a wooden Donnay racket. Since late 1971 he returned to his old Dunlop Maxplys, which he painted over. It was McCormack, who forced these contracts. John Barrett wrote, that Laver gave up his Stradivari, when he gave up his Maxply for the Dollar. Borg played with different rackets, too (Donnay in Europe, Bancroft in the US), but at least they were all wooden.

 

[CyBorg]

Thanks Krosero. May I ask where you acquired the match?

 

[krosero]

Thanks Krosero. May I ask where you acquired the match?

I don't think a link will stay but you can Google Rick Sasha.

 

[jeffreyneave]

metal racket

I thought laver used his metal chelmford racket in Europe in 1970/71. Pictures I have seen of him showing playing with the Chelmford at Wimbledon. Barrett and Grey partly blamed his poor Wimbledon loss to Taylor on his new metal racket. I've also read by late '71 he was playing with his old wooden racket and painting it over with the chelmford markings. From 1972 onwards he seem to always play with a wooden racket.


jeffrey

 

[urban]

Yes Jeffrey, from pictures i think in 1971 he played with the alu racket at Wimbedon, which he used in the US, but in 1970 he played with a white and black Donnay wood racket at Wimbledon. There is a good book by John McPhee on Wimbledon (with pictures of the famous Life photographer Eisenstaedt). The text covers the 1970 Wimbledon, but in the pictures the 1971 version (there you see Laver with a metal racket).

 

[hoodjem]

Was it Chemold or Chelmford?

Borg played with different rackets, too (Donnay in Europe, Bancroft in the US), but at least they were all wooden.

It would seem that Borg has much better success with his two wooden racquets. At least with Bancroft and Donnay, there is a tradition of quality, and they know how to make decent racquets.

 

[krosero]

I've made a highlight clip of this match for YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU.

I tried to make the ball show up as crisply as possible, though the original source goes faint around 4 minutes into the clip.

And I had a problem with my file around the beginning of the fifth set, so I was unable to include one point where Laver falls on his knees and stabs at a backhand (winning the point).

 

[pc1]

I've made a highlight clip of this match for YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU.

I tried to make the ball show up as crisply as possible, though the original source goes faint around 4 minutes into the clip.

And I had a problem with my file around the beginning of the fifth set, so I was unable to include one point where Laver falls on his knees and stabs at a backhand (winning the point).

Krosero,

Wow, I always wanted to see some of this match. Fantastic rallies. Thanks for putting it on.

Was it Chemold or Chelmford?

I believe it was Chemold. I had the racket and it's the worst racket of all time. If Laver's the GOAT, this racket is the WOAT (Worst of All Time.) It's probably one of the reasons Laver started to have some more losses in the 1970's, aside from the fact obviously that he was getting older and was declining.

http://woodtennis.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=3559872

What I wonder is when this back trouble might have begun -- and what might have been other contributing factors to the decline in his play (apart from age). After this match he does mention having a five-month newborn, and that he's looking ahead to cutting back his schedule.

I wonder if anything was going on with him generally, or with his back and serve specifically, when he lost that five-set exhibition match to Gonzales at Madison Square Garden, eight weeks before the Rosewall match.

And I hope someday that match turns up somewhere, so we can look at the stats.

It was clearly in the early 1970's when Laver had the back problems. When Laver was dominated by Stan Smith (very odd to write that Laver was dominated by anyone) in 1973 during the WCT tour one of the major reasons I believe was the back problems Laver was having.

Laver got his revenge on Smith later that year during the Davis Cup in which Laver was magnificent and destroyed Smith in four sets. While the Aussies won that Davis Cup final easily by 5-0 the competition was very memorable for a number of matches. The matches started off with an unbelievable match between Newcombe and Smith which Newcombe, as he always seemed to defeated Smith in five sets. Also if memory serves, the doubles match of the new team of Laver and Newcombe against Smith and Van Dillen had the Aussie team crushing the excellent American pair in three sets. That wasn't a big deal but what stands out for me in that match was the awe I felt in watching the Aussies play. I felt at the time that the doubles play of Laver and Newcombe was the finest I had ever seen. Newcombe in his book mentioned that he told Laver to really go for it on his backhand return against Stan Smith, who was serving. According to Newcombe he could barely see the blur when Laver returned the ball on the backhand side. It was the best backhand return Newcombe had ever seen and it also perhaps demoralized Van Dillen and Smith.

I hope someone finds the video of those matches.

 

[urban]

Thanks Krosero for putting this on you tube, although i have some trouble on my computer, to get the film running, especially the part after 4 minutes. I bought the video a couple of years ago from a British seller. It completely different to the Laver-Roche match from 1969 on you tube, when there were only short points on the fast grass. Here we have exceptional long rallies, with both players covering all parts and every inch of the court. That's real all court tennis. Under the impression of Laver's strong backhand returns, Rosewall stayed back often on his second serve, sometimes even on his first serve. Its nice to see the clever maneouvering of Rosewall, who often plays to the wrong foot, not into the open court, but into the area, where the opponent is coming from.
As far as i know, Laver's back problems began in the early 70s. I know, that he was rushed to a hospital during the WCT event at Chicago in spring 1971, because he had back spasms and was unable to walk or run, and he had to cancel taht and some other events. It got worse in the autumn season in 1972. Yes, pc 1, i remember Newcombe's comment on that doubles match in 1973. I think, it was only the second point in the whole match, when Laver's backhand cracker stunned the Americans. Laver had beaten his nemesis Tom Gorman in the second singles after a 1-2 deficit in sets, winning the last two 3 and 1.

 

[krosero]

Thanks Krosero for putting this on you tube, although i have some trouble on my computer, to get the film running, especially the part after 4 minutes. I bought the video a couple of years ago from a British seller. It completely different to the Laver-Roche match from 1969 on you tube, when there were only short points on the fast grass. Here we have exceptional long rallies, with both players covering all parts and every inch of the court. That's real all court tennis. Under the impression of Laver's strong backhand returns, Rosewall stayed back often on his second serve, sometimes even on his first serve. Its nice to see the clever maneouvering of Rosewall, who often plays to the wrong foot, not into the open court, but into the area, where the opponent is coming from.

You're right the two matches do look different, whether from Rosewall's style, or from different camera angles, or the speed of the court. When it's said that Australia had fast grass courts, well that Laver/Roche court does look incredibly fast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs.

 

[krosero]

Thanks Krosero for putting this on you tube, although i have some trouble on my computer, to get the film running, especially the part after 4 minutes. I bought the video a couple of years ago from a British seller. It completely different to the Laver-Roche match from 1969 on you tube, when there were only short points on the fast grass. Here we have exceptional long rallies, with both players covering all parts and every inch of the court. That's real all court tennis. Under the impression of Laver's strong backhand returns, Rosewall stayed back often on his second serve, sometimes even on his first serve. Its nice to see the clever maneouvering of Rosewall, who often plays to the wrong foot, not into the open court, but into the area, where the opponent is coming from.

I'm not sure why YouTube clips sometimes load slowly, but it's happened to me too. I'm running Vista and my browser is Firefox. Sometimes when I use Internet Explorer (on Windows XP) I have a little more trouble, though it's hard to compare. I've heard a really fast browser is Google's Chrome.

When a video doesn't load smoothly, I usually just start over. I close the browser, go back to the clip, pause it as soon as it starts, and wait until it loads completely before watching it.

Some friends have told me to upload short clips because longer ones are hard to load. This clip happens to be 2 GB, right at the maximum of what YouTube allows for regular users. But I've found movie-length clips of an hour and half or more that I can play just fine. And sometimes really short clips will stall anyway. So whether the size of clips have anything to do with poor playback, I don't know.

 

[pc1]

I'm not sure why YouTube clips sometimes load slowly, but it's happened to me too. I'm running Vista and my browser is Firefox. Sometimes when I use Internet Explorer (on Windows XP) I have a little more trouble, though it's hard to compare. I've heard a really fast browser is Google's Chrome.

When a video doesn't load smoothly, I usually just start over. I close the browser, go back to the clip, pause it as soon as it starts, and wait until it loads completely before watching it.

Some friends have told me to upload short clips because longer ones are hard to load. This clip happens to be 2 GB, right at the maximum of what YouTube allows for regular users. But I've found movie-length clips of an hour and half or more that I can play just fine. And sometimes really short clips will stall anyway. So whether the size of clips have anything to do with poor playback, I don't know.

Krosero,

Thanks again for that new Laver-Rosewall clip. That's another new video for me to watch while I'm working on paperwork.

 

[hoodjem]

Does anyone know the draw for this tournament?

Did Ashe play?

 

[pc1]

Does anyone know the draw for this tournament?

Did Ashe play?

Laver was top seed. Here are some of the players, Nastase, Okker, Dibley, Taylor, Lutz, Arthur Ashe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Stan Smith, Riessen, Gonzalez, Emerson, Anderson, Ralston,Gimeno, Newcombe.

That is an awesome field.

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tournaments/drawsheetbyround.asp?tournament=1010003294&event=

 

[hoodjem]

That is an awesome field.

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tournaments/drawsheetbyround.asp?tournament=1010003294&event=

Wow!!! You are right.
Laver
Ashe
Rosewall
Gimeno
Nastase
Pancho
Emmo
Sedgman (holy cow?)
Newcombe
Ralston
Stan Smith
Tiriac
Stolle
Okker

This is a ferocious field!

 

[pc1]

Wow!!! You are right.
Laver
Ashe
Rosewall
Gimeno
Nastase
Pancho
Emmo
Sedgman (holy cow?)
Newcombe
Ralston
Stan Smith
Tiriac
Stolle
Okker

This is a ferocious field!

If any one of them won the tournament, that person would be a worthy champion.

In the Old Pro Tour, Laver used to have to defeat greats virtually every week to try to win a tournament, so I don't understand how some people can put down Laver winning these tournaments and discounting the tournament victories.

 

[hoodjem]

If any one of them won the tournament, that person would be a worthy champion.

In the Old Pro Tour, Laver used to have to defeat greats virtually every week to try to win a tournament, so I don't understand how some people can put down Laver winning these tournaments and discounting the tournament victories.

I see at least three GOATs there. Throw in Nastase, Newcombe, and Smith and you have a terrific draw.

This is a great tournament.

 

[pc1]

I'm not sure why YouTube clips sometimes load slowly, but it's happened to me too. I'm running Vista and my browser is Firefox. Sometimes when I use Internet Explorer (on Windows XP) I have a little more trouble, though it's hard to compare. I've heard a really fast browser is Google's Chrome.

When a video doesn't load smoothly, I usually just start over. I close the browser, go back to the clip, pause it as soon as it starts, and wait until it loads completely before watching it.

Some friends have told me to upload short clips because longer ones are hard to load. This clip happens to be 2 GB, right at the maximum of what YouTube allows for regular users. But I've found movie-length clips of an hour and half or more that I can play just fine. And sometimes really short clips will stall anyway. So whether the size of clips have anything to do with poor playback, I don't know.

Krosero,

I understand the fastest browser is Opera.

 

[krosero]

Additional stats

Laver won 56 of 81 points on 1st serve (69%) and 34 of 77 on 2nd serve (44%).

Rosewall won 50 of 86 points on 1st serve (58%) and 29 of 65 on 2nd serve (45%). He dropped to 44% success on 1st serve points in the final set, and in that set his success on second serve was actually higher (57%). At the end of the match he seemed tentative with his serve.


Success on serve in rallies of 2 or more good shots (that is, whenever the service returns were good):

Laver 55% on first serve (31/56) and 44% on second (21/48 ).
Rosewall 48% on first serve (33/69) and 44% on second (25/57).

So the only serve that remained an advantage when it was returned was Laver’s first serve.


Laver missed 19 service returns (15 on 1st serves): 10 FH and 9 BH. He missed 8 returns in the 1st set but immediately cut that down; he missed only 1 return in the second set.

Rosewall missed 35 service returns (22 on 1st serves): 15 FH and 20 BH


Laver served on 158 points and 38 serves did not come back: 24.1%
Rosewall served on 151 points and 21 serves did not come back: 13.9%

 

[Limpinhitter]

Excellent! I hadn't seen this! Amazing match and fantastic win for Laver over a still brutally competitive and talented Rosewall.

A question for me is, how fast was the court compared to other grass courts? From the video, it seems very fast. Some shots that don't seem to be hit particularly hard just fly off the court into the backstop. On the other hand, they both stay back more than you would expect on a fast grass court.

 

[timnz]

True Australian open

In my view it was the true australian open that year. No one can say the australian open had anywhere near the field of the dunlop. And ashe the winner of it played the dunlop.

Question for you? If laver had lost this but played and won the australian open that year, would anyone be questioning his number 1 status for 1970? after all he would have won a grand slam tournament! But as you have seen winning the dunlop was a far greater achievement than winning the australian open that year.

 

[pc1]

In my view it was the true australian open that year. No one can say the australian open had anywhere near the field of the dunlop. And ashe the winner of it played the dunlop.

Question for you? If laver had lost this but played and won the australian open that year, would anyone be questioning his number 1 status for 1970? after all he would have won a grand slam tournament! But as you have seen winning the dunlop was a far greater achievement than winning the australian open that year.

You make an excellent argument for Laver being number one for 1970.

Incidentally I love watching the highlights of this match. Thanks Krosero.

 

[Moose Malloy]

In my view it was the true australian open that year. No one can say the australian open had anywhere near the field of the dunlop. And ashe the winner of it played the dunlop.

Question for you? If laver had lost this but played and won the australian open that year, would anyone be questioning his number 1 status for 1970? after all he would have won a grand slam tournament! But as you have seen winning the dunlop was a far greater achievement than winning the australian open that year.

I believe he wasn't allowed to play the Australian Open in 1970, due to being under contract with the NTL(which included many other Australian players)

Pro tennis was incredibly ****ed through much of the early to mid 70s.

To quote Newcombe, how can you call yourself a major if you ban players from playing it?

And Laver wasn't allowed to play the French either in '70(WCT)

So he couldn't defend 2 of the majors he won in '69.

So much for the 'Open Era' that most fans today are led to believe started in '68.

 

[krosero]

A question for me is, how fast was the court compared to other grass courts? From the video, it seems very fast. Some shots that don't seem to be hit particularly hard just fly off the court into the backstop. On the other hand, they both stay back more than you would expect on a fast grass court.

During Laver's marathon win over Roche at the '69 AO, the Australian commentators talked about the various AO sites. The '69 AO was played at the Milton Courts in Brisbane. The commentators said that those courts always played slower than the Kooyong, Adelaide and White City venues. (The Dunlop was at White City.) They said this allowed the players at Milton Courts to play groundstrokes with more freedom.

 

[hoodjem]

The second is the number of backhand winners. It shows imo, that Laver's topspin and slice backhand in his prime could topple even the famous Rosewall backhand. Maybe Muscle's backhand was more consistent and accurate over a long period, but Laver's probably was more deadly and deceiving, because Laver could hide the direction until the last moment of impact.

Good point.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Good point.

Slow day on the boards?

 

[pc1]

I have given my impressions on the match some months ago in another thread. Two stats stand out imo: the numbers of double faults, Laver made. Partly due to back trouble, Laver's serve went a bit off in the 70s, resulting in doubles. The second is the number of backhand winners. It shows imo, that Laver's topspin and slice backhand in his prime could topple even the famous Rosewall backhand. Maybe Muscle's backhand was more consistent and accurate over a long period, but Laver's probably was more deadly and deceiving, because Laver could hide the direction until the last moment of impact.

Good point.

Laver's backhand would still be very powerful today IMO, especially with the new racquets. Rosewall's backhand, with its slight bit of slice was not built for the current racquets. He would have to learn a topspin backhand I believe.

Arthur Ashe believed both Laver's and Rosewall's backhands were about equal. Ashe's backhand would be quite effective today also. He could hit a topspin backhand with tremendous force. I think Vilas' backhand, with it's enormous topspin would be great today also

 

[pc1]

Slow day on the boards?

I'm kind of bored myself!

 

[thrust]

This is saying something, considering that Rosewall's backhand is one of the most fabled shots in tennis history.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Muscles ever hit a topspin backhand. My recollection is that it was mostly a skidding slice and occasionally flat, but never topspin.

What does this match show?

Years ago I read an article in which Arthur Ashe described his different backhand shots, he then said that Rosewall had just one, which was perfect. I watched a match on TV, a clay court final between Ken and Newcombe. At one point Ken at the net, accidently hit a top spin volley winner which shocked Newcombe. John, laughing with a shocked look on his face asked Ken, where did that come from?

 

[thrust]

I've made a highlight clip of this match for YouTube:

.

I tried to make the ball show up as crisply as possible, though the original source goes faint around 4 minutes into the clip.

And I had a problem with my file around the beginning of the fifth set, so I was unable to include one point where Laver falls on his knees and stabs at a backhand (winning the point).

Fabulous all court tennis, very much like the WCT finals 71-72, Thanks!

 

[KG1965]

A lot of balance, some big surprise in this match:
1) Kenneth's serve >> Laver
2) BH >> FH but FHV >> BHV .. both Laver which Ken.

 

[hoodjem]

I think Vilas' backhand, with it's enormous topspin would be great today also

If you look at Vilas's high takeback action on his backhand, it does appear quite similar to Wawrinka's.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Tennisabstract's Jeff Sackmann charted this match a few days ago, and it is now the oldest fully charted match in the database!

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19700322-M-New_South_Wales-F-Ken_Rosewall-Rod_Laver.html

I really like his charting system, tracks a great deal of info.

 

[abmk]

Tennisabstract's Jeff Sackmann charted this match a few days ago, and it is now the oldest fully charted match in the database!

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19700322-M-New_South_Wales-F-Ken_Rosewall-Rod_Laver.html

I really like his charting system, tracks a great deal of info.

Just be careful not to take the tennisabstract winner-UE stats seriously.
They are awfully off from the official stats.
(awfully off from the stats of mine/krosero/Moose as well -- which are more or less the same as official stats - the winners in almost every case atleast)

 

[abmk]

Just to elaborate, I initially thought that they were doing an excellent work charting that much of info. But was put off by their awfully wrong winner-UE counts.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Just to elaborate, I initially thought that they were doing an excellent work charting that much of info. But was put off by their awfully wrong winner-UE counts.

How can you have a wrong winner count? There's very little subjectivity about a winner shot in tennis.

As for forced/unforced errors, I say the same again - you value/trust official stats too much. An "expert opinion" is still an opinion, statisticians have off days as well.

For sure, there are going to be some matches with exaggerated/diminished UE counts when the charter's eye was off, but generally they seem very reliable. Obviously it's not the gospel of truth, but if you see a W-UE ratio of -10, it's not going to turn out to be +10 in actual relality, and vice versa.

It seems you're motivated by protective feelings over your own principles

I am thinking of charting some old matches for the project, too. Should be fun, even if you'd rather be an uppity snob about that.

 

[abmk]

How can you have a wrong winner count? There's very little subjectivity about a winner shot in tennis.

mainly two places.
a) In a rally , where the player gets a very slight touch. Can be considered a winner. Not too frequent
b) Service winners - unreturned serves where the player gets a very slight touch. More frequent than a)

As for forced/unforced errors, I say the same again - you value/trust official stats too much. An "expert opinion" is still an opinion, statisticians have off days as well.

I don't. I'm just stating it as I see it. There are places where official stats are wrong, but they are right more often that not and certainly winners/UE stats almost always tally up with what I get

(winners stats almost always tally up whenever krosero and Moose have done it as well)

Here's me showing where the official stats were wrong.

1.

I will admit, I am a bit surprised that they have federer at only 10 UEs in the semi. I thought he made more than that ...

federer djokovic wimbledon 2012

krosero,

I rewatched this match ...I take back my statement that federer returned better in the final .. I think he was just as good in the semis as he was in the finals as far as returning goes ... However still think murray did return quite a bit better than djoker ...( even though it was against a weaker federer serve )

at the tail end of the match, a stat was shown, 57% returns in for djoker and 68% in for federer

I did the UE stats for this as well,

wimbledon.org has UEs by set :

federer : 2,3,4,1 - total of 10
djokovic : 5,3,9,5 - total of 22


I have significantly different :

federer : 4,4,9,1 - total of 18
djokovic : 6,3,11,7 - total of 27

which brings their AMs to :

federer : 31.95%
djokovic : 26.4%


funnily enough, I have 4 UEs on the return for fed,7 for djoker
wimbledon.org has 5 for fed and 8 for djoker

so I don't know how lenient the statistician was on strokes apart from the return :shock:

My initial impression was justified, there were more unforced errors than what is on the site and difference is non-trivial ..

If by any chance, you are planning to watch this, can you please keep track of the UEs and see how many you end up with ?

I re-watched this match a couple days ago and had the same reaction I had the first time I watched and saw the very low UE count flash on screen: What!?

BTW, I didn't score it because I don't know how. Can anyone suggest an authoritative guide to differentiating UE, winners and forced errors?

2.

oh and I am assuming you calculated the RG 2008 final stat for nadal from the official website ? well those stats are totally wrong ...I don't know what the hell the statistician was doing !

I did the stats for the first set:

federer: 3 winners, 17 UEs, 7 forced errors
nadal : 6 winners, 4 UEs, 8 forced errors

they have :

federer : 9 winners, 12 UEs, 3 forced errors
nadal: 15 winners, 3 UEs , 3 forced errors

while you could say UEs are subjective, the winner counts are way off

federer won 52 points in that match, they have him @ 31 winners, nadal at 7 UEs, therefore federer only forced 14 errors from nadal ?

he had 31 winners , but forced only 14 errors from nadal? :-?

The FO 2008 stats have # of first serves by the player in the winners column.

But # of UEs seem fine.

Federer won 52 points. 7 were UEs from rafa. So total of 45 winners+forced errors.

Tennisabstract has Federer at 16 winners - which seems reasonable.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20080608-M-Roland_Garros-F-Roger_Federer-Rafael_Nadal.html

This was Federer's 2nd shortest slam final after RG 08 final in terms of points, even shorter than the double bagel final in USO 04. ( This had 160 points to 164 in the USO 04 final).
Federer hit 40 winners in that one.

3. See this post regarding IW 2005 official stats going wrong :

Adding up the winners and unforced errors, you get a total of 164 points
Out of total 178 points, which leaves room only for 14 forced errors, which of course is rubbish.

The rest of the things seem fine.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...itt-iw-2005-final-stats.583793/#post-10992221

------------

For sure, there are going to be some matches with exaggerated/diminished UE counts when the charter's eye was off, but generally they seem very reliable. Obviously it's not the gospel of truth, but if you see a W-UE ratio of -10, it's not going to turn out to be +10 in actual relality, and vice versa.

It seems you're motivated by protective feelings over your own principles

I've seen this for a lot of the tennisabstract matches, not just for one or two, believe me.

I am thinking of charting some old matches for the project, too. Should be fun, even if you'd rather be an uppity snob about that.

I knew this was coming. You don't think I knew what I was talking about ?
If clearly wrong stats annoying me is being a snob, well, I'll take it.

As far as charting goes, please absolutely, go ahead. Just get those W/UE stats right, instead of what those guys keep doing

I'll show the places where TA winner stats have gone horribly wrong. (even forgetting the UEs stats temporarily)

 

[abmk]

Believe me, I'd be thrilled to have one place where they have all these stats correctly done. But they don't - atleast not winners/UEs.

TennisBase is atleast getting it mostly right as far as collection of matches and scores is concerned and I'm really glad to see that.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

mainly two places.
a) In a rally , where the player gets a very slight touch. Can be considered a winner. Not too frequent

I don't see the problem with that. It's pretty much as good as a winner for all intents and purposes, since the losing player barely touching the ball means he couldn't have possibly returned it from the position he was in, unlike the typical forced error, where successful execution was unlikely, but not impossible.

b) Service winners - unreturned serves where the player gets a very slight touch. More frequent than a)

Service winners are winners, what's your point? Mixing service winners and aces? Since there is no practical difference for the players - either way the returner found it impossible to get the ball back - obviously I don't dismiss this distinction, but when studying other match charts, I am insterested in aces+service winners rather than aces only. The former's a better stat. So some service winners being mistakenly classified as aces doesn't bother me. It's not really important to the extent that one should rewind doubtful points anxiously to see if there was any slightest touch of the racquet. If there is no apparently noticeable touch, it's as good as an ace.

I do rewind points when in doubt regarding important distinctions - shot direction (sometimes), depth of return (more often) and, of course, forced/unforced errors (regularly).

I don't. I'm just stating it as I see it.

Here's me showing where the official stats were wrong.

Okay, good point.

I've seen this for a lot of the tennisabstract matches, not just for one or two, believe me.

Yes, that needs elaboration. I said I can see charts are off sometimes, but you're far from convincing me it's frequent enough to mistrust the whole system.

As far as charting goes, please absolutely, go ahead. Just get those W/UE stats right, instead of what those guys keep doing

I guess what you're implying is that it's gone too far for you to try and contribute Proper Analysis to save the system from the incompetent wannabe statisticians? That's the snobbery I was talking about. :<

 

[abmk]

I don't see the problem with that. It's pretty much as good as a winner for all intents and purposes, since the losing player barely touching the ball means he couldn't have possibly returned it from the position he was in, unlike the typical forced error, where successful execution was unlikely, but not impossible.



Service winners are winners, what's your point? Mixing service winners and aces? Since there is no practical difference for the players - either way the returner found it impossible to get the ball back - obviously I don't dismiss this distinction, but when studying other match charts, I am insterested in aces+service winners rather than aces only. The former's a better stat. So some service winners being mistakenly classified as aces doesn't bother me. It's not really important to the extent that one should rewind doubtful points anxiously to see if there was any slightest touch of the racquet. If there is no apparently noticeable touch, it's as good as an ace.

I do rewind points when in doubt regarding important distinctions - shot direction (sometimes), depth of return (more often) and, of course, forced/unforced errors (regularly).

was mentioning where subjectivity could come into the picture while counting winners. That was your question, right? So, I was answering that.

I guess what you're implying is that it's gone too far for you to try and contribute Proper Analysis to save the system from the incompetent wannabe statisticians? That's the snobbery I was talking about. :<

I'm saying far too many matches have these errors. That's why I'm using W/UE stats from there. Other stats are probably ok.
Secondly, and this is independent of the first part, as far as contributing there goes, that requires noting down quite a bit of info than I normally do and probably watching atleast twice for one match (more likely 3 times for quite a few points). Will get pretty bored of it.