Fed Lacks Killer Instinct? (but does not need it often)

[GameSetAndMath]

According to the following article , Federer lacks killer instinct. But, he often did not need it,
as he was so dominant.

This article indeed makes sense (at least to me).

Sometime last year, another member of this forum posted an article from Atlantic Monthly
called "Simpson's Paradox". That is related to this article. Simpson's Paradox refers to matches
in which the loser has actually won more points than the winner. The most recent example
is Fed's loss to Seppi where he actually won one more point than Seppi.

 

[Billie]

I can't see the article, you have to pay for it.

I don't know what is said in it, but I find it hard to believe that Federer lacks killer instinct.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sorry, if it is behind a "pay wall". The translation of the data into words "killer instinct"
is somewhat questionable. But, the raw data makes sense. I will try to see if I can
get it out of the pay wall. The article is from "Financial Times" and so it is no wonder
it is hidden behind a pay wall.

 

[isabelle]

He lacks of youth and fitness

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

He lacks a third set of twins...

 

[Federberg]

I've seen this type of analysis before. No one can argue with the data, but it's the interpretation that's suspect. Yes Roger has lost a lot of matches where he's won more points than the winner. But you could say that's a function of his aggressive style. You could say that he creates opportunities to win better than anyone else today. Or you could look at it and say that not enough of those points are critical points (obviously!). Without a bit more detail it's difficult to know. As they say, lies, damn lies and statistics!

 

[Kieran]

It's difficult to say that a guy who's won 17 majors and over a thousand tennis matches lacks killer instinct. I'm curious as to how they measure this. Because he lost some matches? Usually in his prime, to beat Federer you needed a necklace of garlic, a wooden stake and a Catholic priest carrying a bucket of holy water. His rare lapses were usually epics - Safin, Nalbandian, Rafa in Rome. But this points to his warrior side, not killer instinct. Often Federer could be like a cat toying with a mouse - and generally he was beating mice early on :snicker - so he'd dazzle and torment them and they'd grin at the net and be thrilled to be beside him, but that still doesn't mean he lacks killer instinct.

He looked quite ruthless at Wimbledon in 2012, and he showed his killer side a few times against Rafa at the WTF. I'd say we have to accept that he couldn't be such an uber-champ without having a mean killer instinct. It would be a contradiction, of sorts, but I'd have to read the article to be sure on what they're saying. I don't know if you'd be allowed to copy and paste it in, since there might be copyright issues involved...

 

[El Dude]

I think you can copy and paste portions of articles and there isn't any risk of copyright infringement, just not the whole thing. I'm not sure if that is some, most or nearly all of an article though.

Anyhow, I think it is worth remembering that Roger is 33 years old, an age when most tennis greats were either retired or in steep decline. Different players decline at different rates and in different ways. For example, I think it could be that we're seeing the beginnings of Rafa's decline - but that the way it will work for him is that he'll be his usual great self when he's healthy and focused, but that it will be harder and harder for him to get to that place. To put that another way, Rafa's body may give out (or be giving out) before his skills do, so he could hang around for another five years if he's willing to go through numerous come-backs and deal with constant nagging injuries, even moreso than in the past. At some point Rafa is probably going to say, "I'd rather just hang out on the Spanish beaches with Xisca."

Roger seems to be making continual adjustments, but there's a law of diminishing returns at work. I think what we're seeing with his so-called "lack of killer instinct" is simply him gradually losing the very top range of his performance level. I could really see Roger remaining a top 10 player for another five years, even hanging in the top 20 until his 40th birthday or so...again, if he wanted to. But the times that he can attain his peak form are become fewer and fewer and I think once he feels that he no longer has a decent chance to win a Slam, he'll hang up his racket.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The basic idea behind the article is the mantra "not all points in tennis are equal", which
we know. A player has killer instinct, if the player is sharper on more important points.

The article is looking at how much percentage of matches a player loses in which he
has won more points than opponents. On the other side, it also looks at how much
percentage of matches a player wins in which the opponent has more points than oneself.

It appears that Fed's performance on the above two parameters are comparable to
that of a typical top 20 player rather than a top 10 or top 5 or top 3 player.

Then, the article asks a self-reflective question as to how come Fed has achieved
so much despite not having "killer instinct". The article answers it correctly by saying
it is because Federer rarely gets into this type of matches (simpson paradox matches).
A whooping 83% (higher percentage than any other player) of Fed's matches are
those in which the winner (most often himself) has won more points than the other.

The conclusion of the article is that Fed lacks killer instinct, but his opponents
rarely get a chance to exploit this.

All of the above are my paraphrasing based on what I remember. I will try
to a cut paste using the original article sometime. But, the article had nice charts
and graphs to illustrate the point also.

 

[Billie]

^^^^ Weak competition:snicker

Stop posting such articles, you'll find some that will have Federer winning only 10 majors.:laydownlaughing

 

[Haelfix]

This article is nonsense. It is often the case that big servers, people with a very high percentage of hold games, score more total points than the players they lose too.

How many times over the years have we seen the Isners/Raonics/Karlovics of the world hold 5 service games nearly at love, only to lose a single service games b/c of a mental lapse or a lack of first serves in etc.

Of course they score more points than the opponents. It has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of killer instincts, but rather what they are good at. Meanwhile they can never quite break, despite getting a few more free points off baseline errors by the adversary, b/c their return games are horrible.

All of this is well known in tennis circles. Against players with great hold games, the type of match is fundamentally different. It's all about patience, and slowly grinding away at their physicality and mental.

 

[El Dude]

The basic idea behind the article is the mantra "not all points in tennis are equal", which
we know. A player has killer instinct, if the player is sharper on more important points.

The article is looking at how much percentage of matches a player loses in which he
has won more points than opponents. On the other side, it also looks at how much
percentage of matches a player wins in which the opponent has more points than oneself.

It appears that Fed's performance on the above two parameters are comparable to
that of a typical top 20 player rather than a top 10 or top 5 or top 3 player.

Then, the article asks a self-reflective question as to how come Fed has achieved
so much despite not having "killer instinct". The article answers it correctly by saying
it is because Federer rarely gets into this type of matches (simpson paradox matches).
A whooping 83% (higher percentage than any other player) of Fed's matches are
those in which the winner (most often himself) has won more points than the other.

The conclusion of the article is that Fed lacks killer instinct, but his opponents
rarely get a chance to exploit this.

All of the above are my paraphrasing based on what I remember. I will try
to a cut paste using the original article sometime. But, the article had nice charts
and graphs to illustrate the point also.

Now this is interesting and I think is a valid theory. It also fits with what I said above, that the "top-end" of Federer's game has gradually eroded, leading to closer games and thus more games lost - due to opponents exploiting Federer's supposed lack of a killer instinct.

That said, isn't Federer historically excellent in tiebreakers? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere...will try to find the info. It would be interesting if he's gotten worst at tiebreakers in his later career.

 

[El Dude]

OK, Federer had a .634 winning pct in tiebreakers in 2014 compared to .649 for his career...not hugely different. His .649 is the highest of any active player.

Now obviously tiebreakers are only one aspect of "killer instinct," but it does say something.

 

[Federberg]

^I believe this analysis would have held even at Federer's peak, so this is not about his game eroding. I have some sympathy with Haelfix's view point on this.

As for tie-break records, I recall seeing somewhere that only Arthur Ashe has a better career tie break record than Federer. Which certainly calls into question killer instinct in my view..

 

[Kieran]

I'm trying to figure the connection between "losing but won more points" and "killer instinct."

How about the connection between "won 1000 matches and 17 slams" and "killer instinct." It works a bit better for me that way...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

No matter what stat you look at, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that Roger lacks killer instinct. He is as ruthless as they come on the court. Sure, he will lose here and there like anyone but nobody wins as much as he has by being soft.

 

[Haelfix]

Incidentally, the same reason that Federer can't be credited for not having mental strength b/c of his 5th set record and the return game break of serve chance, is also the same reason that his great tiebreak record can't necessarily be a sign of his great mental strength.

Big servers are much more likely to win tiebreakers than great returners. Big servers who also have a relatively high rate of return point won like Federer will consequently have amongst the best tiebreak records of all time.

At the end of the day, there is a lot more to 'clutchness' than what is visible on a tv screen. It's often not the great return on match point that matters so much, but rather the relatively mundane point where a break of serve was completed going against the wind, where the adversary had a large advantage.

 

[El Dude]

Incidentally, the same reason that Federer can't be credited for not having mental strength b/c of his 5th set record and the return game break of serve chance, is also the same reason that his great tiebreak record can't necessarily be a sign of his great mental strength.

You're a bit heavy on the absolutes there, Haelfix. I would rather say that these sorts of numbers offer perspectives and indications, but are neither absolute proof or absolute garbage.

Big servers are much more likely to win tiebreakers than great returners. Big servers who also have a relatively high rate of return point won like Federer will consequently have amongst the best tiebreak records of all time.

This makes sense, but is a great example of an assertion that could use some statistical support. It might be worth comparing a sampling of three classes of players--big servers, greater returners, and players that are good at both--and then comparing their total point winning percentage with their tiebreak percentage.

I'm not suggesting that what you're saying isn't true, but that it isn't as overwhelming as you say. For instance, Novak Djokovic is a good server but not a "big" one yet he's third among among active players in tiebreak percentage at .631, about equal with Milos Raonic (.630). Nadal, with a mediocre serve, isn't far behind at .619.

My point being that a tiebreaker isn't only about how big of a serve you have, but has other factors - and in this context, most importantly a huge mental component.

At the end of the day, there is a lot more to 'clutchness' than what is visible on a tv screen. It's often not the great return on match point that matters so much, but rather the relatively mundane point where a break of serve was completed going against the wind, where the adversary had a large advantage.

Yes, agreed.

 

[coban]

According to the following article , Federer lacks killer instinct. But, he often did not need it,
as he was so dominant.

This article indeed makes sense (at least to me).

Sometime last year, another member of this forum posted an article from Atlantic Monthly
called "Simpson's Paradox". That is related to this article. Simpson's Paradox refers to matches
in which the loser has actually won more points than the winner. The most recent example
is Fed's loss to Seppi where he actually won one more point than Seppi.

Here is the thread (and link) to the article: http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1678&highlight=simpson

 

[Haelfix]

Incidentally, the same reason that Federer can't be credited for not having mental strength b/c of his 5th set record and the return game break of serve chance, is also the same reason that his great tiebreak record can't necessarily be a sign of his great mental strength.

You're a bit heavy on the absolutes there, Haelfix. I would rather say that these sorts of numbers offer perspectives and indications, but are neither absolute proof or absolute garbage.

Big servers are much more likely to win tiebreakers than great returners. Big servers who also have a relatively high rate of return point won like Federer will consequently have amongst the best tiebreak records of all time.

This makes sense, but is a great example of an assertion that could use some statistical support. It might be worth comparing a sampling of three classes of players--big servers, greater returners, and players that are good at both--and then comparing their total point winning percentage with their tiebreak percentage.

I'm not suggesting that what you're saying isn't true, but that it isn't as overwhelming as you say. For instance, Novak Djokovic is a good server but not a "big" one yet he's third among among active players in tiebreak percentage at .631, about equal with Milos Raonic (.630). Nadal, with a mediocre serve, isn't far behind at .619.

My point being that a tiebreaker isn't only about how big of a serve you have, but has other factors - and in this context, most importantly a huge mental component.

At the end of the day, there is a lot more to 'clutchness' than what is visible on a tv screen. It's often not the great return on match point that matters so much, but rather the relatively mundane point where a break of serve was completed going against the wind, where the adversary had a large advantage.

Yes, agreed.

I've looked at the numbers before, so i'm not just pulling this out of thin air =) Its less about the serve and more about the hold percentage. Both Nadal and Djokovic have a pretty high hold percentage in the last few years. If you want to do it properly, correlate hold percentage rate with tiebreak success and you will find a pretty good R value. Of course they are also pretty extreme outliers b/c they have very, very abnormal return percentages.