Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble

[El Dude]

First, my apologies to fellow Fedfans: What I am about to share with you is going to be painful and perhaps dispel the notion that the 2017 version of Roger is better than he's been in years.

And let me start with a caveat: Roger had a great year in 2017. By just about any standard, it was his best year since at least 2009, possibly 2007. Only four years were clearly better, his peak of 2004-07. 2017 is probably the best of his second trio of almost-great years: 2009, 2012, and 2017.

But there is a tarnish to this so-called resurgence of Rogerian greatness. What I'm going to show you is that he's actually closer to 2014-15 form. In fact, his performance is just about the same.

Wait a minute, what about those two Slams and three Masters titles? Roger hasn't won two Slams since 2009, and five big titles since 2007!

So let's compare 2014, 2015, and 2017 - Roger's last three healthy seasons.

2017: 2 Slams (2-0 in finals), 3 Masters (3-1 in finals), 52-5 (91%).
2015: 0 Slams (0-2 finals), 1 Masters/WTF (1-3 in finals), 63-11 (85%)
2014: 0 Slams (0-1 in finals), 2 Masters/WTF (2-4 in finals), 73-12 (86%)

Clearly 2017 was better, right? Maybe not as much as the record implies.

Let me put it this way: How was 2017 different than any other year for Roger? Aside from his dominance of Rafa - that is undeniable, and we'll get back to it. Well, in two ways: One, he didn't play a single clay match; and two, he didn't play Novak Djokovic.

In 2015, Roger was 3-5 vs. Novak, 13-4 on clay. Combining the two and he was 16-8 on clay and vs. Novak (he lost once to Novak on clay), which yields a 47-3 non-clay/Novak record, or 94%.

In 2014, Roger was 3-3 vs. Novak, 8-4 on clay, and 10-7 combined, yielding a 63-5 record otherwise, or 93%.

Overall in 2014-15 Roger was 110-8 off clay and vs. non-Novak opponents, or 93.2%. Compare that to his 91.2% record this year. In other words, taking away the two factors that were different, and Roger actually performed slightly better in 2014-15 than he did in 2017.

But what about Rafa? Roger was, as you know, 4-0 vs him in 2017, and 1-1 in 2014-15. So that would imply improvement, at least against his arch-nemesis. But I think it is a small enough sample that it doesn't impact the findings above. It may be that Roger simply solved the match-up problem with his improved backhand, or it may be that his 4-0 is just regression to the mean. I would argue that most of it is psychological, and that if Rafa had won the AO he might have won two or even three of the remaining matches.

Now of course none of this delves deeper into what actually happened on court. I'm not looking at serve percentages, return of serves, etc. And it goes without saying that win percentages only tell part of the story and don't differentiate matches (e.g. there's no difference between the first round of an ATP 250 and the final of a Slam).

But at the very least, I do think these numbers clearly show that Roger's resurgence wasn't quite as massive as we thought, and if we take these numbers at face value, they say that he only returned to his 2014-15 form--and maybe even a fraction below.

In other words, these numbers show us that Roger in 2017 was basically the same level of player as he was in 2014-15, but he had better results in 2017 only because he didn't have to face peak Novak, and also didn't play clay.

Sorry, my fellow Fedfans.

 

[El Dude]

By the way, I don't think this means that Roger is coming back down to earth in 2018. He may yet be the best overall player on tour, as he was in 2017. It is just that he's not playing at a level that is quite at the very best of Novak, or Rafa, or even himself during his own peak (2004-07). In a way this only makes his level even more impressive, in that while he's not as good as a ultra-great at his very best, he's still better than everyone else - including his nemesis at his non-peak level.

 

[Federberg]

The only thing this nonsense shows is that it’s possible to collect data and completely misread the facts. If you can look at Federer in 2017 and think he wasn’t playing better quality tennis than in 2014-15 the obvious conclusion is that you don’t really understand tennis. It’s been clear for a while you don’t really understand how to use data anyway

 

[El Dude]

So you're going to insult me rather than discuss the actual numbers presented? Seems like just a knee-jerk reaction to me.

Anyhow, I never said Roger didn't look better on the court this year. I'm presenting factual statistics. How about discuss those rather than resorting to ad hominems, which only make you look foolish.

 

[Federberg]

No, you said his form in 2017 was not much better than in 2014-15. If you can't appreciate the rank stupidity of that, then there's no help for you. And you're not presenting factual statistics. You're showing a slice of data that appears to illustrate your opinion. It's a pile of manure, and it's laughable that you don't seem to get that

 

[atttomole]

Whilst I agree that Roger won in part because Djokovic did not play very well in 2017, I would not say that Roger did not play better in 2017 than his early years. I think his backhand improved a lot, and his serve looked more consistent. His return of serve was the best we have seen since around 2006. The combination of all of these factors improved Roger's game in 2017 compared to 2013-2015. Not to mention he beat Nadal in all their meetings in 2017.

 

[atttomole]

It's almost certain that if Roger had lost the AO, Rafa may have ended up winning the rest of their meetings, and that would not have been new. What is new is that Roger beat Rafa at the AO, and went on to win the other three meetings. That is huge!!

 

[mrzz]

Thanks for the data, @El Dude . They are different from what I expected, and that is always good (as it makes you think). I think that your data shows that 2015 Federer was in general as effective as 2017 Federer -- but I cannot forget what my eyes told me, that Federer was simply playing better. Maybe data from the matches would support that (but I am obvisouly guessing), for example the straight sets won between Halle and Wimbledon, winner/UFE ratio, etc.

I guess the statistical difference important now is really Nadal, and I don't think the sample is that small to see that (you could use sets played to enrich the sample a bit). He won seven straight sets on HC against Nadal this year. Even if prior to 2017 his chances of beating Nadal in a HC set would be, say, 60% (a number still quite high), the chance of winning 7 straight sets with this probability is around 0,016%. I know you know that all this are gross estimations, but there is enough reason to believe that his chances of beating Nadal have actually increased, given the seven straight sets.

In other words. The data is there (I do not think is that a so fair-fetched slice of data, Federberg). We need to explain it somehow. I would explain it saying that in 2017 earlier rounds he was beating the same guys he beat in 2015, but in an easier fashion (so the same numbers against them), but as his overall level is higher, his record on finals is better (the matches he competitively lost in 2015 he was able to win in 2017).

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

In my opinion,he played great and was almost exclusively stopped by Peak Djokovic from winning more titles and his record would be similar if Djokovic was removed in 2015 and arguably 2014(just 1 slam though).

However there is a vast difference in his game.His backhand in 2017 is vastly better than 2015.However in 2015 his serve was peak in his post-30 years.

 

[El Dude]

@Federberg, no need to be so upset about it. The numbers are what they are - you can't wave them away just because you don't like them. I'm reminded of a child plugging his ears, saying "I can't hear you!" But to be honest, I have little interest in trying to have a conversation with someone who is clearly so angry and unwilling or unable to discuss in a reasonable manner. The facts are what they are - none of the numbers I offered are wrong. As I said in the OP, they don't necessarily tell the whole picture - but they do say something. But really, no need to throw insults around. It just makes you look bad.

@mrzz, your view is similar to mine: the numbers say one thing, the eye-test another. Roger looked better in 2017, at least early on (AO, IW, Miami). Later on he looked more on par with 2014-15, imo.

I think you might be onto something in your last paragraph.

@atttomole, agreed. Again, the numbers say something different than what we all saw. That presents a mystery that we can't just explain away - like mrzz points out.

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg, no need to be so upset about it. The numbers are what they are - you can't wave them away just because you don't like them. I'm reminded of a child plugging his ears, saying "I can't hear you!" But to be honest, I have little interest in trying to have a conversation with someone who is clearly so angry and unwilling or unable to discuss in a reasonable manner. The facts are what they are - none of the numbers I offered are wrong. As I said in the OP, they don't necessarily tell the whole picture - but they do say something. But really, no need to throw insults around. It just makes you look bad.

@mrzz, your view is similar to mine: the numbers say one thing, the eye-test another. Roger looked better in 2017, at least early on (AO, IW, Miami). Later on he looked more on par with 2014-15, imo.

I think you might be onto something in your last paragraph.

@atttomole, agreed. Again, the numbers say something different than what we all saw. That presents a mystery that we can't just explain away - like mrzz points out.

Lol! Here you go again, I'm not upset mate. Perhaps you're projecting? It's a bit pathetic how you persistently try to attribute motives to the things I post. I get you're defensive when anyone challenges your data/ "facts". The fact that you're persisting with this just shows your complete lack of understanding not just of data, but of sports as well. I repeat you are not presenting facts, you're posting data and drawing your own conclusions about them. Your conclusions are just plain wrong. The idea that Roger's level in 2014 - 2015 is comparable to last year is one of the dumbest things I've heard on here for a long time and that includes the nonsense that Carol posts A player's level is an entirely different topic to the results they achieve, but it's clear from your "musings" that you don't have a clue about the difference

 

[Federberg]

In other words. The data is there (I do not think is that a so fair-fetched slice of data, Federberg). We need to explain it somehow. I would explain it saying that in 2017 earlier rounds he was beating the same guys he beat in 2015, but in an easier fashion (so the same numbers against them), but as his overall level is higher, his record on finals is better (the matches he competitively lost in 2015 he was able to win in 2017).

Mate, I would have loved to have seen last years Federer against Novak. That would have been something to see. We can try to speculate about what would have happened but as I'm sure you know I have a particular distaste for woulda coulda stuff. I would rather employ the eye test and knowledge of tennis. Nothing wrong with the exchange of opinions, but this is simply dressing up opinion as fact which El Dude has a tendency to do. It doesn't make the information more cogent in my view. I would have loved to have seen what strategies Novak would have employed to counter the fact that Roger has been more willing to meet shots into the ad court with backhand drives. In the past few years Novak has been able to push Roger further and further on to the ad court and then drill winners into the deuce court. Roger last year was content to drive backhands both cross court and down the line. It would have been much tougher for Novak to employ that tactic. It would have been by far the most interesting match up to watch. But the fact is Novak wasn't there, he wasn't good enough, and then he wasn't fit enough to get to the appointment. Giving him virtual credit for that is about as stupid as saying Rafa was lucky Borg wasn't around on clay when he was coming into his own

 

[britbox]

I'm puzzled Dude... how are you using clay as one of the measurements to determine the level of Federer's 2017 season when he never played a single match on that surface? The other measurement is Djokovic.. who he never played in 2017 either?

 

[MartyB]

A snap shot of data and statistics are interesting to look at it and discuss. But visually as others have stated Fed was just better than he has been in years in 2017. That backhand was magical and miraculous last year. His ability to basically dominate Nadal is not just a statistic but a major shift in historical terms. I'm not sure that Fed can match what he did last year but what he achieved (maybe with the loss of Djokovic and Murray) to have turned back the clock and actually improve key parts of his game while being out for 6 months is more than a statistic.

 

[mrzz]

I would have loved to have seen what strategies Novak would have employed to counter the fact that Roger has been more willing to meet shots into the ad court with backhand drives. In the past few years Novak has been able to push Roger further and further on to the ad court and then drill winners into the deuce court. Roger last year was content to drive backhands both cross court and down the line. It would have been much tougher for Novak to employ that tactic. It would have been by far the most interesting match up to watch.

Very well put. Completely agree with this.

 

[El Dude]

I'm puzzled Dude... how are you using clay as one of the measurements to determine the level of Federer's 2017 season when he never played a single match on that surface? The other measurement is Djokovic.. who he never played in 2017 either?

Uh, that's exactly my point. Roger didn't play on clay or vs. Novak in 2017. What I did in the original post is remove Novak and clay from 2014-15. After doing that, he actually had a higher win percentage in 2014-15 than he did in 2017.

 

[El Dude]

@Federberg, I'm not the one throwing insults and ignoring the actual arguments. I'm not attributing motives - just pointing out the obvious: that when you feel threatened or challenged, or someone presents something you don't like, you resort to insults.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! Please explain to me why I should feel threatened by your molestation of data? Why I would feel challenged by someone that doesn't even seem to understand the sport? Actually don't... As for resorting to insults? By calling your thesis nonsense? It seems to me that if you were more intellectually secure you would be able to handle it, but you never seem up to it. I applaud your posts when you make sense, you don't seem to have a problem with that. If it's rubbish I say so, that's just honesty, robust yes, but just calling it like I see it

You on the other hand always resort to this type of nonsense. It's diversionary, but ineffective

 

[El Dude]

@Federberg, it baffles me how ridiculous you are being. It is very simple: I presented data - actual, factual data. There is nothing I presented, in terms of statistics, that didn't actually happen. Rather than actually addressing the data provided, you insulted me. It is garden-variety ad hominem fallacy (look it up).

Because you seem unwilling or unable to see this and discuss the actual data, I see no reason to continue this interaction.

 

[Federberg]

You see no reason to continue this interaction? Lol!

You haven't been interacting sensibly anyway. I stated that you pulled together data and then formed an incorrect conclusion. I saw no reason to challenge your "actual factual" data (you poet! ), I'm sure you can read, you seem to write well enough, so I can only conclude that you're deliberately pretending in order to avoid acknowledging my point. I'll try to clarify things for you...what I have done is addressed your opinion. Instead of trying to at least defend your thesis you're persisting with your usual victimhood and avoidance. It's quite pathetic really, but typical of you.

Don't respond, I don't require it. I've already stated my opinion. I repeat what you infer from your data is incorrect and rather silly quite frankly

PS, it's only now occurred to me that you might actually really believe that your conclusion is part of your "actual" factual data. I hope you're just being ignorant, instead of stunningly arrogant o_O