Early Wimbledon Talk

[DarthFed]

Unless he's playing Rafa. I'll leave you to your illusions and your grief, now.

Yes because Rafa usually saves 92% of BP's against Fed and Roger usually wins a paltry 56% at net against him.

 

[Moxie]

Yes because Rafa usually saves 92% of BP's against Fed and Roger usually wins a paltry 56% at net against him.

Maybe. Shall I look it up? But in any case, you have to look at the moment they were in in their careers. Rafa was saving loads of BPs, and passing Roger at will.

 

[DarthFed]

Not sure what you would use to look it up but you are seriously underestimating just how bad 1/13 is for anybody. 8% BP conversion isn't normal even against someone like Karlovic if he was landing 1st serves. And yes Rafa has always had the best passing shots but if you think Fed winning an appalling 56% at net on grass was "expected" against Rafa you are again overthinking things.

 

[britbox]

Not sure what you would use to look it up but you are seriously underestimating just how bad 1/13 is for anybody. 8% BP conversion isn't normal even against someone like Karlovic if he was landing 1st serves. And yes Rafa has always had the best passing shots but if you think Fed winning an appalling 56% at net on grass was "expected" against Rafa you are again overthinking things.

Yep, Fed's BP conversion rate isn't always the best, and against Nadal it's fricken horrible. Sounds silly, but a BP on Nadal's serve aint a great matchup for Fed's game. Typically the outswinger to the backhand... always caused him lots of grief.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I think with the augmented BH, he should do better on the BPs now. Looking at how he has fared against Nadal in the last 4 matches, there is a lot of hope.

 

[DarthFed]

Yep, Fed's BP conversion rate isn't always the best, and against Nadal it's fricken horrible. Sounds silly, but a BP on Nadal's serve aint a great matchup for Fed's game. Typically the outswinger to the backhand... always caused him lots of grief.

Definitely and Rafa is/was quite good at saving them. But obviously 1/13 that match and 1/17 in RG 07 final are extremes. If it was always that bad the H2H would be a whole lot worse.

 

[Moxie]

I think with the augmented BH, he should do better on the BPs now. Looking at how he has fared against Nadal in the last 4 matches, there is a lot of hope.

Only the last 3 are attributable to any change in his game. The fourth back was not a match Roger should have lost anyway: final in Basel, indoor HC, in 2015, when everyone beat Rafa, even Roger, though Nadal made it a bit tough for him, even at home.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Only the last 3 are attributable to any change in his game. The fourth back was not a match Roger should have lost anyway: final in Basel, indoor HC, in 2015, when everyone beat Rafa, even Roger, though Nadal made it a bit tough for him, even at home.

Oh ya, that was an ugly match. I was expecting an easy win for Fed in straight sets considering Rafa's situation at that time. But, due to Rafa living in his head, the match was very ugly and went to three sets and Fed barely managed to win.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Andy, Stan, Kyrgios and Raonic all lose in opener at Queens. This Wimbledon is Fed's to lose. Ironically that can only add to pressure.

 

[atttomole]

Andy, Stan, Kyrgios and Raonic all lose in opener at Queens. This Wimbledon is Fed's to lose. Ironically that can only add to pressure.

We can not predict how these guys would perform at Wimbledon based on these results. They could be fine-tuning their game before the big one.

 

[El Dude]

(Cross-posting from the Who Will be #1 Thread):

Andy's early loss in London really helps Rafa. Here are their points going into Wimbledon, with last year's Wimby taken off:
Andy: 7390
Rafa: 7285
Andy +105

Meaning, barring an early round defeat for both, whoever does better at Wimbledon is #1 after the tournament; tie goes to Andy. Or in other words:

Rafa will be #1 if...
1) He reaches at least the 4R and Andy goes out in the 1R or 2R, or
2) He reaches the QF or later, and Andy goes out one round earlier

Andy will be #1 if...
Andy equals or exceeds Rafa's result

 

[El Dude]

What is this blog people keep referring to?

 

[Moxie]

Clearly Novak was super dominant in 2011 and then 2015 to mid 2016, but I think he was subtly dominant in 2012-14 in that he was the only player who was there in every big tournament - if not winning it, then going deep. In each of those three years he won a Slam, the WTF, and at least three Masters, or 16 big titles in those three years. Compare that to Rafa's 12, Roger's 6, and Andy's 3.

Broken said that Novak was, on average, the best player in that period, so I don't see that you need the window dressing of "super-dominant" and "subtly dominant." GSM is telling us that there doesn't have to be one dominant player in a particular year, and I think that makes sense, especially in this era of a Big 4. I'd say that Novak loomed larger in everyone's mind starting in 2011, but had years when he sealed the deal more often than in others in that period.

 

[Moxie]

We can not predict how these guys would perform at Wimbledon based on these results. They could be fine-tuning their game before the big one.

Maybe yes and no. Andy has got to up his game quickly. Kyrgios could be injured...that's to be seen. Raonic's stock is falling a bit, so we'll see. With Wawrinka, one never quite knows, but grass hasn't historically been his surface. He could probably have used a few more matches.

 

[El Dude]

Broken said that Novak was, on average, the best player in that period, so I don't see that you need the window dressing of "super-dominant" and "subtly dominant." GSM is telling us that there doesn't have to be one dominant player in a particular year, and I think that makes sense, especially in this era of a Big 4. I'd say that Novak loomed larger in everyone's mind starting in 2011, but had years when he sealed the deal more often than in others in that period.

It really depends upon how granular you want to be, because I think it is meaningful to look at different degrees of dominance. For instance, Novak's huge dominance in 2015 vs. his lesser dominance in 2012, when Roger, Andy, and Rafa were closer to him.

Anyhow, there's always a sliding scale depending upon what time frame you're looking at, which sometimes overlap. For example, we can say that Roger was the overall most dominant player from 2004-09, Rafa from 2008-13, and Novak from 2011-16, even though Rafa was more dominant than Roger in 2008, Roger than Rafa in 2009 and Novak than Rafa in 2011, Rafa than Novak in 2013 and Andy than Novak in 2016.

On a side note, one year that I find particularly fascinating in terms of shared dominance is 2003. The top 3 (Roddick, Federer, Ferrero) were clustered very close, within 330 ranking points (about equivalent to double that today), and then another cluster at #4-6 (Agassi, Coria, Schuettler).

 

[DarthFed]

Only the last 3 are attributable to any change in his game. The fourth back was not a match Roger should have lost anyway: final in Basel, indoor HC, in 2015, when everyone beat Rafa, even Roger, though Nadal made it a bit tough for him, even at home.

They all count, or should we also throw away the 4 gimmes Fed handed Rafa in 2013 when he even managed to lose to him at Cincy and YEC? Fed of 2015 was already playing a lot more aggressive than previous years and had the new racquet. I know Rafa was obviously not playing well but that's happened with Roger vs Rafa a few times too since 2010.

 

[DarthFed]

Andy, Stan, Kyrgios and Raonic all lose in opener at Queens. This Wimbledon is Fed's to lose. Ironically that can only add to pressure.

Damn near every Wimbledon since 2003 has been his to lose. Get the match practice at Halle, and dig in and play like it's life and death this year and he'll be fine.

 

[Moxie]

They all count, or should we also throw away the 4 gimmes Fed handed Rafa in 2013 when he even managed to lose to him at Cincy and YEC? Fed of 2015 was already playing a lot more aggressive than previous years and had the new racquet. I know Rafa was obviously not playing well but that's happened with Roger vs Rafa a few times too since 2010.

Of course they count. But Shivashish was grouping them into the effect of the new BH, which I don't think includes the 2015 Basel. If Roger had had a new strategy v. Nadal, he'd have performed better when all the positives were on his side of the court there.

 

[Moxie]

It really depends upon how granular you want to be, because I think it is meaningful to look at different degrees of dominance. For instance, Novak's huge dominance in 2015 vs. his lesser dominance in 2012, when Roger, Andy, and Rafa were closer to him.

Anyhow, there's always a sliding scale depending upon what time frame you're looking at, which sometimes overlap. For example, we can say that Roger was the overall most dominant player from 2004-09, Rafa from 2008-13, and Novak from 2011-16, even though Rafa was more dominant than Roger in 2008, Roger than Rafa in 2009 and Novak than Rafa in 2011, Rafa than Novak in 2013 and Andy than Novak in 2016.

I think you have to be a bit "granular," given it's the times we're living in, and the quality of the players. I think my point, and maybe GSM's, is that you don't always have look for complete dominance just to say so, even if you'd say there was an "alpha" to be argued in there somewhere. You list the over-laps very well. They don't always conveniently line up by calendar years, and in some of the last few it may be more right to say there wasn't exactly a definable "one."

 

[Moxie]

Someone said that Stan losing today helps Roger's cause in the Wimbledon seedings. I'm not sure who's in charge of those baroque calculations.