Stats for 1970 Dunlop International final (Laver-Rosewall)

[abmk]

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.

Example 1 :

Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2009 stats :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-roddick-wimbledon-2009-final-stats.601418/

My stats :
Winners for Federer - 106 - including 36 fh winners,8 bh winners
Winners for Roddick - 72 - including 22 fh winners, 7 bh winners

Official stats :
Winners for Federer - 107
Winners for Roddick - 74

Tennisabstract stats :
Winners for Federer - 110 - including 39 fh winners, 13 bh winners
Winners for Roddick - 87 - including 24 fh winners, 10 bh winners

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20090705-M-Wimbledon-F-Andy_Roddick-Roger_Federer.html


Assuming, they have fh volley and bh volley winners under the fh and bh winners,
if I add for mine, I get
Winners for Federer - 38 fh wing winners, 12 bh wing winners (2 fhv, 4 bhv)
Winners for Roddick - 25 fh wing winners, 10 bh wing winners (3 fhv, 3 bhv)

which is pretty close with those of TA.

But the problem is the total # of winners for Roddick. 87

TA has him at 27 aces, so do I and so the official stats.

So as per TA, # of overhead winners+service winners = total winners-fh wing winners-bh wing winners-aces
= 87-24-10-27 = 26

That's way too high.
I have him at 0 overhead winners btw.
and # of service winners (which is subjective) at 10.

----that's just way too much of discrepancy of TA winners for Roddick compared to mine and official----

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

Let me make a note of the UE count as well.

I have :
Federer with 37 UEs, Roddick with 33 UEs

Official stats have :
Federer with 38 UEs, Roddick with 33 UEs

TA has :
Federer with 50 UEs, Roddick with 55 UEs

----that's just way too much of discrepancy of UEs for both compared to mine and official, even more for Roddick----

 

[abmk]

Example 2:

Nadal-Soderling RG 2009:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-soderling-french-open-2009-4r-stats.327251/

Mine :
Soderling with 62 winners to 58 UEs
Nadal with 34 winners to 31 UEs

Official :
Soderling with 61 winners to 59 UEs
Nadal with 33 winners to 29 UEs

TennisAbstract:
Soderling with 63 winners to 71 UEs
Nadal with 36 winners to 39 UEs

The winners count are close enough, but the UE counts are way too high on TA.
(12 more for Soderling from the official ones and 10 more for Nadal)

This was my note after I did the stats for the match.

yeah, the UE counts turned out to be pretty close. There weren't too many doubtful ones among the errors ( ones that were hard to decide whether they were forced or unforced )

So its not like determining which error was unforced was difficult in this match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

examples

Yes, the TA chart credits Roddick with 26 service winners in that match. That's an unusually big figure, true. Perhaps the charter included all points where the return failed to reach the other side of the court before bouncing? I notice that specific charter only has 2 charted matches - W 09 and 12 finals. Might be lack of experience - jeffsackmann isn't authoritative about that and welcomes everyone, apparently aiming to collect a big database before considering checking already existing charts.

As for unforced errors, I don't even think the difference between noting 30 and 40 of them in a four-setter is that big, given the semi-subjective nature of the stat. It's still in the same ballpark, at any rate. +22 UEs for Roddick is big, though - that seems to happen sometimes with big servers when the charter underrates their rally prowess.

Anyway, of course no database/collection/chart is perfect, but tennisabstract is generally reliable enough, produces a lot of stats from the match data fed to it, and, most importantly, offers full match progression (point-by-point description) to see. Simply noting winners and errors does not tell the story of tension and big point play. That's the invaluable quality, because nobody else does full match charts, which I find very helpful and for that reason decided to contribute. Don't worry, I'm not one to rush it and double-check everything to see if I got everything right as I think.

 

[timnz]

Miloslav Mecir - should have won 25 slams! - Wilander

Listen from 15:47 onwards

 

[thrust]

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.

Years ago I read an article by A Ashe in which he was describing his various types of backhands, he then said that Rosewall had just One backhand, which was perfect.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Years ago I read an article by A Ashe in which he was describing his various types of backhands, he then said that Rosewall had just One backhand, which was perfect.

Rosewall's backand was the best underspin bh I've ever seen and was very effective on the fast, low bouncing courts he played on most of his career. However, I do not think it would be as effective on slower, higher bouncing courts against players who hit very heavy topspin on purposely slowed, higher bouncing surfaces.

 

[Drob]

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.

Laver and Collins mention this briefly in Education of a Tennis Player. But it was only two rackets, not three, as I recall. He would play tournaments at times with the metal racket to fulfill his contract. Probably hurt him, competitively if not physically. A Chemold metal racket ca. 1970? Give me a break!

 

[Drob]

Rosewall's backand was the best underspin bh I've ever seen and was very effective on the fast, low bouncing courts he played on most of his career. However, I do not think it would be as effective on slower, higher bouncing courts against players who hit very heavy topspin on purposely slowed, higher bouncing surfaces.

Interesting.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Interesting.

Is Limpinhitter still posting?

 

[Drob]

Is Limpinhitter still posting?

Oh.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Oh.

I was not sure, haven't heard from him for a while.

 

[Drob]

I was not sure, haven't heard from him for a while.

Dan -

He is not posting.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan -

He is not posting.

I am still posting where possible....just not on certain threads. I try to avoid the "H" word, except in straightforward contexts.

 

[Drob]

I am still posting where possible....just not on certain threads. I try to avoid the "H" word, except in straightforward contexts.

Glad to hear it. It is for the best.

Keep contributing. You have good knowledge and have taught me a few things.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Glad to hear it. It is for the best.

Keep contributing. You have good knowledge and have taught me a few things.

The better the post, the more problematic if status quo is challenged.

 

[Moose Malloy]

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.

Bumping this for all the newbies asking these questions...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Bumping this for all the newbies asking these questions...

And Laver had already won the majors multiple times...he had nothing more to prove.