Barclays ATP World Tour Finals 2012...London, England

[julian1]

High percentage?

Most people are mesmerized by winners, especially spectacular ones like Federer makes. Even Federer was fooled a little. The true test of how well he is playing is whether or not he is keeping the ufe's to a minimum. He always makes a few unbelievable winners.

don

Don,
do you think Federer played high percentage on the last point?
Federer played "cross"
Please click the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

Does the theory of probability work for tennis?
I understand that Federer was drawn to the net by Djokovic
Did Federer have a better option of placing his last shot?

regards,
Julian

[julian1]

See post#61,please

I don't think Roger can do anything about his UE count. It's just him breaking down under severe, relentless pressure. He's the aggressor in all his matches and there has to be a limit, a breaking point. Exactly what happened against Djokovic we've seen happen countless times against Nadal...in the bigger matches...he breaks down when right when he cannot afford not to. It's always tight but Nadal and Djokovic are just that bit better...despite his 17 slam titles...when it gets right down to it, when Nadal and Djokovic are playing their best, Roger is not quite as good. And I think Roger is a better player now than he was in his twenties:

The standard just went up...

See post#61,please

[tennis_chiro]

Good point

Don,
do you think Federer played high percentage on the last point?
Federer played "cross"
Please click the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

Does the theory of probability work for tennis?
I understand that Federer was drawn to the net by Djokovic
Did Federer have a better option of placing his last shot?

regards,
Julian

Good point, Julian. Federer had to go at least an extra 2 to 3 feet to be in position having hit that inside out forehand crosscourt from where he was (halfway between the center of the court and the ad-court singles sideline to his left) and he ended up being about 2 to 3 feet from being able to cover Novak's pass down the line. Sure he would have faced Djoker's forehand if he'd taken that forehand inside/in, but Novak would have a much smaller window, and Fed would probably have been better set to make a necessary break; that's assuming Fed had hit the inside/in as well as he hit that inside/out Fh. Certainly, Djokovic made a great shot, but he did have an opening. That opening would have been much smaller had Fed taken that shot deep to Djoker's deuce side, but without taking it all the way to the corner and giving Djoker the angle to come up the line. Fed might actually have been better off had he not hit that inside/out so far outside and rather gone deep to Djoker's backhand and counted on finishing with another volley. That's the thing about today's players: they don't want to have to hit that final volley; Federer was thinking winner with the forehand, not approach to set up a volley. Pancho Gonzales would never have hit such a big forehand in that situation, but he would have put himself in a geometrically advantageous position to hit a concluding volley. Maybe more contemporaneously, we could say the same about Edberg.

don

[stotty]

Good point, Julian. Federer had to go at least an extra 2 to 3 feet to be in position having hit that inside out forehand crosscourt from where he was (halfway between the center of the court and the ad-court singles sideline to his left) and he ended up being about 2 to 3 feet from being able to cover Novak's pass down the line. Sure he would have faced Djoker's forehand if he'd taken that forehand inside/in, but Novak would have a much smaller window, and Fed would probably have been better set to make a necessary break; that's assuming Fed had hit the inside/in as well as he hit that inside/out Fh. Certainly, Djokovic made a great shot, but he did have an opening. That opening would have been much smaller had Fed taken that shot deep to Djoker's deuce side, but without taking it all the way to the corner and giving Djoker the angle to come up the line. Fed might actually have been better off had he not hit that inside/out so far outside and rather gone deep to Djoker's backhand and counted on finishing with another volley. That's the thing about today's players: they don't want to have to hit that final volley; Federer was thinking winner with the forehand, not approach to set up a volley. Pancho Gonzales would never have hit such a big forehand in that situation, but he would have put himself in a geometrically advantageous position to hit a concluding volley. Maybe more contemporaneously, we could say the same about Edberg.

don

I feel Federer played the right shot. He hit into the bigger gap. Djokovic had quite a bit further to go to run it down than he would have had Federer struck to the deuce court...true Djokovic would have had a smaller window...but also more time.

The downside of Federer's decision was Djokovic's only option was the pass down the line, and Federer couldn't cover it because of the gap he left to hit his inside out forehand...doesn't make it the wrong decision...Djokovic pulled off the shot of the tournament on match point...there's no accounting for that.

Federer made the right decision for his style of play...

[julian1]

A drop shot or a drop volley

I feel Federer played the right shot. He hit into the bigger gap. Djokovic had quite a bit further to go to run it down than he would have had Federer struck to the deuce court...true Djokovic would have had a smaller window...but also more time.

The downside of Federer's decision was Djokovic's only option was the pass down the line, and Federer couldn't cover it because of the gap he left to hit his inside out forehand...doesn't make it the wrong decision...Djokovic pulled off the shot of the tournament on match point...there's no accounting for that.

Federer made the right decision for his style of play...

LC,
a drop shot or a drop volley was ANOTHER possibility.
Going back to the previous conversation:
You may use the left and the right arrow to STOP at the time
indicated as 0:19/0:59
You may see that when the ball comes of the racket of Djokovic
the right half of the court (from the point of view of Federer) is "empty"/"not covered".
The problem looks kind of "magnified" in the slow motion

[tennis_chiro]

I was wrong...

LC,
a drop shot or a drop volley was ANOTHER possibility.
Going back to the previous conversation:
You may use the left and the right arrow to STOP at the time
indicated as 0:19/0:59
You may see that when the ball comes of the racket of Djokovic
the right half of the court (from the point of view of Federer) is "empty"/"not covered".
The problem looks kind of "magnified" in the slow motion

You can make the argument either way, but now that I think about it and look again, I realize I was wrong when I said he had to move an extra 2 or 3 feet to be in position after hitting that ball cross-court. That would have been the case had Fed hit a backhand approach (what Edberg might have done), but with Fed's move to the left to go inside/out with his forehand, he actually had to go that 2 or 3 feet plus the extra 4 feet he had moved to his left to hit the inside out forehand from the ad side of the court. That created a huge hole. If he went to that side, he needed absolutely to hit a winner and he didn't.

don

[don_budge]

Approach shots...and the equipment factor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

Hmmm...for the thousandth time...what about his choice of spin? If Federer hits a nice wicked sidespin to the Djokovic backhand the ball doesn't sit up as it does here when he hits that inside out topspin and therefore Djokovic doesn't get the spin that he has been used to hitting the whole entire rally. Maybe that is just enough to throw off the passing shot and gives Roger a bit more time to close in on the net. Maybe a short spinning slider or something deeper into the corner. That ball that Federer approached on landed short...it was just beyond the service line with the topspin. He didn't hit that approach very sweetly and it just sort of stood up as an invitation to Djokovic to do what he did with it. The approach shot was like a desperate shot that had very little chance of winning...like a desperate player on the verge of losing that had all but conceded defeat. Looking back in hindsight one would have to conclude that it was the poorest of all possible choices to attack on.

At any rate his choice of shots and his choice to attack was ill fated...that much we know. His fate was sealed long before that shot as a matter of fact. It doesn't matter any longer...what is done is done. He gives way too much away to Djokovic in the equipment department. Coupled with the age differential it was pretty much a foregone conclusion and only a Super Man effort on the part of Roger was going to change that. The fact that he was up a break in each set and not able to close it out tipped us off that something was amiss. That's not like Roger...all things being equal.

My question about his equipment however still stands and with all of the mathematical minds and Phd's out there why hasn't someone considered the fact that a percentage of Roger's mishits and errors are due to a certain lack of hitting area in his equipment. Someone brought up the question of statistics...doesn't the player, with all things being equal, with the larger area in his racquet, have a better shot percentage wise hitting the sweet spot of the strings. Percentage wise statistically speaking. Of course it does. I have played that racquet that Federer plays and I can tell you that it is far less forgiving and is inferior in performance even to the racquet that I play now. I switched for that very reason...look for Federer to do the same in the near future.

A huge contract with Head or any equipment manufacturer would make all of the sense in the world. Notice how he upped the ante on Basel, his hometown. It is time to up the ante on Wilson and tell them to take a hike. Money talks. How many titles has he forfeited on account of inferior equipment? He has lost so many titles to Nadal, Djokovic and now Murray. All play with larger hitting areas and superior equipment. Add them up. That 10% + that he gives up adds up during the course of each point, the longer the point goes on the bigger the advantage to the bigger racquet.

Even the announcers were making the comment to that effect...sans the equipment factor. Boris Becker and Peter Fleming both made comments to the effect that Roger was looking for ways to end the point quicker. This is not to mention the actual advantage over the course of the match...and especially when it comes to tight points and critical points. Roger is the superior "tennis player" but his equipment is inferior. That racquet that Djokovic is wielding is far superior to that of Federer's. I expect that there should be overwhelming support for this theory of mine...but on the other hand it will be pooh poohed back to my keyboard here on the Swedish Internet, which incidentally has the reputation of being the fastest in the world. And I know just how much modern tennis gurus and junkies worship speed.

I made the same kind of noises back in 1981 but the response then was nonsense and as deafening as it was retarded...the consensus was that there was no advantage to the Prince Graphite over the Jack Kramer Autograph. Sheer and utter nonsense. Standardize the equipment...reduce the head size while you are at it.

[stotty]

I agree...

If I ruled tennis I would make every player play with a Dunlop Maxply. Now that would be fun. I wonder what the modern game would look like with wooden rackets....

[julian1]

Power Zones of the racket of Roger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

Hmmm...for the thousandth time...what about his choice of spin? If Federer hits a nice wicked sidespin to the Djokovic backhand the ball doesn't sit up as it does here when he hits that inside out topspin and therefore Djokovic doesn't get the spin that he has been used to hitting the whole entire rally. Maybe that is just enough to throw off the passing shot and gives Roger a bit more time to close in on the net. Maybe a short spinning slider or something deeper into the corner. That ball that Federer approached on landed short...it was just beyond the service line with the topspin. He didn't hit that approach very sweetly and it just sort of stood up as an invitation to Djokovic to do what he did with it. The approach shot was like a desperate shot that had very little chance of winning...like a desperate player on the verge of losing that had all but conceded defeat. Looking back in hindsight one would have to conclude that it was the poorest of all possible choices to attack on.

At any rate his choice of shots and his choice to attack was ill fated...that much we know. His fate was sealed long before that shot as a matter of fact. It doesn't matter any longer...what is done is done. He gives way too much away to Djokovic in the equipment department. Coupled with the age differential it was pretty much a foregone conclusion and only a Super Man effort on the part of Roger was going to change that. The fact that he was up a break in each set and not able to close it out tipped us off that something was amiss. That's not like Roger...all things being equal.

My question about his equipment however still stands and with all of the mathematical minds and Phd's out there why hasn't someone considered the fact that a percentage of Roger's mishits and errors are due to a certain lack of hitting area in his equipment. Someone brought up the question of statistics...doesn't the player, with all things being equal, with the larger area in his racquet, have a better shot percentage wise hitting the sweet spot of the strings. Percentage wise statistically speaking. Of course it does. I have played that racquet that Federer plays and I can tell you that it is far less forgiving and is inferior in performance even to the racquet that I play now. I switched for that very reason...look for Federer to do the same in the near future.

A huge contract with Head or any equipment manufacturer would make all of the sense in the world. Notice how he upped the ante on Basel, his hometown. It is time to up the ante on Wilson and tell them to take a hike. Money talks. How many titles has he forfeited on account of inferior equipment? He has lost so many titles to Nadal, Djokovic and now Murray. All play with larger hitting areas and superior equipment. Add them up. That 10% + that he gives up adds up during the course of each point, the longer the point goes on the bigger the advantage to the bigger racquet.

Even the announcers were making the comment to that effect...sans the equipment factor. Boris Becker and Peter Fleming both made comments to the effect that Roger was looking for ways to end the point quicker. This is not to mention the actual advantage over the course of the match...and especially when it comes to tight points and critical points. Roger is the superior "tennis player" but his equipment is inferior. That racquet that Djokovic is wielding is far superior to that of Federer's. I expect that there should be overwhelming support for this theory of mine...but on the other hand it will be pooh poohed back to my keyboard here on the Swedish Internet, which incidentally has the reputation of being the fastest in the world. And I know just how much modern tennis gurus and junkies worship speed.

I made the same kind of noises back in 1981 but the response then was nonsense and as deafening as it was retarded...the consensus was that there was no advantage to the Prince Graphite over the Jack Kramer Autograph. Sheer and utter nonsense. Standardize the equipment...reduce the head size while you are at it.

Dear Sir,
Power Zones of the racket of Roger are available.
Power Zones are more or less generalizations of a sweet spot.
The analysis is available (with some pain) from Tennis Warehouse
To suprise you I played a 95 squared inches version of the Federer racket

[julian1]

The circular nature of the beast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

Hmmm...for the thousandth time...what about his choice of spin? If Federer hits a nice wicked sidespin to the Djokovic backhand the ball doesn't sit up as it does here when he hits that inside out topspin and therefore Djokovic doesn't get the spin that he has been used to hitting the whole entire rally. Maybe that is just enough to throw off the passing shot and gives Roger a bit more time to close in on the net. Maybe a short spinning slider or something deeper into the corner. That ball that Federer approached on landed short...it was just beyond the service line with the topspin. He didn't hit that approach very sweetly and it just sort of stood up as an invitation to Djokovic to do what he did with it. The approach shot was like a desperate shot that had very little chance of winning...like a desperate player on the verge of losing that had all but conceded defeat. Looking back in hindsight one would have to conclude that it was the poorest of all possible choices to attack on.

At any rate his choice of shots and his choice to attack was ill fated...that much we know. His fate was sealed long before that shot as a matter of fact. It doesn't matter any longer...what is done is done. He gives way too much away to Djokovic in the equipment department. Coupled with the age differential it was pretty much a foregone conclusion and only a Super Man effort on the part of Roger was going to change that. The fact that he was up a break in each set and not able to close it out tipped us off that something was amiss. That's not like Roger...all things being equal.

My question about his equipment however still stands and with all of the mathematical minds and Phd's out there why hasn't someone considered the fact that a percentage of Roger's mishits and errors are due to a certain lack of hitting area in his equipment. Someone brought up the question of statistics...doesn't the player, with all things being equal, with the larger area in his racquet, have a better shot percentage wise hitting the sweet spot of the strings. Percentage wise statistically speaking. Of course it does. I have played that racquet that Federer plays and I can tell you that it is far less forgiving and is inferior in performance even to the racquet that I play now. I switched for that very reason...look for Federer to do the same in the near future.

A huge contract with Head or any equipment manufacturer would make all of the sense in the world. Notice how he upped the ante on Basel, his hometown. It is time to up the ante on Wilson and tell them to take a hike. Money talks. How many titles has he forfeited on account of inferior equipment? He has lost so many titles to Nadal, Djokovic and now Murray. All play with larger hitting areas and superior equipment. Add them up. That 10% + that he gives up adds up during the course of each point, the longer the point goes on the bigger the advantage to the bigger racquet.

Even the announcers were making the comment to that effect...sans the equipment factor. Boris Becker and Peter Fleming both made comments to the effect that Roger was looking for ways to end the point quicker. This is not to mention the actual advantage over the course of the match...and especially when it comes to tight points and critical points. Roger is the superior "tennis player" but his equipment is inferior. That racquet that Djokovic is wielding is far superior to that of Federer's. I expect that there should be overwhelming support for this theory of mine...but on the other hand it will be pooh poohed back to my keyboard here on the Swedish Internet, which incidentally has the reputation of being the fastest in the world. And I know just how much modern tennis gurus and junkies worship speed.

I made the same kind of noises back in 1981 but the response then was nonsense and as deafening as it was retarded...the consensus was that there was no advantage to the Prince Graphite over the Jack Kramer Autograph. Sheer and utter nonsense. Standardize the equipment...reduce the head size while you are at it.

Dear Sir,
did I mention that in Switzerland chocolates grow on trees?

There is another VERY TRIVIAL point about the last shot of Djokovic.
If you have a right arrow on your computer you can go in a slow dead motion
and you can see that the last shot of Djokovic in the second set was very "safe". The word safe is meant to be "placed inside of side lines".
Obviously the side spin is involved.
It is NOT STRAIGHT down the line shot.
It is NOT CLASSIC cross court shot.
Some amount of sliding is involved.
It almost resembled a shot of a Spanish player whose last name starts with N.
The Spanish version's ball comes very often around a pole.
The ball was circling back after it passed Fed Ex.
PS I was trying to find a video of the Spanish version on the Swedish Internet
but failed.I apologize.

[don_budge]

Swiss Chocolates...and the difference between winning and losing

Dear Sir,
did I mention that in Switzerland chocolates grow on trees?

There is another VERY TRIVIAL point about the last shot of Djokovic.
If you have a right arrow on your computer you can go in a slow dead motion
and you can see that the last shot of Djokovic in the second set was very "safe". The word safe is meant to be "placed inside of side lines".
Obviously the side spin is involved.
It is NOT STRAIGHT down the line shot.
It is NOT CLASSIC cross court shot.
Some amount of sliding is involved.
It almost resembled a shot of a Spanish player whose last name starts with N.
The Spanish version's ball comes very often around a pole.
The ball was circling back after it passed Fed Ex.
PS I was trying to find a video of the Spanish version on the Swedish Internet
but failed.I apologize.

No need to apologize my good man, julian1. It is difficult to poke any holes in your dissertation above but I would like to add just one thing. The difference between losing or winning a tennis match may amount to micro millimeters these days...just ask Hawkeye! Would you care to contest or challenge that call, too?

[don_budge]

The Whole Enchilada...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAVKn2VCjLI

Here's the final on youtube...just in case you are looking for something to do over the holidays or in case you missed it in the first place. A second look can be enlightening.