Federer's Schedule 2018

[Johnsteinbeck]

Rafa's serve remains one of the most remarkable mysteries in modern men's tennis. The fact that his 2nd serve stats are among the best in history (I think I'm right in saying that)

it's good (great?) at 57%, but only 2 points higher than his Win on 2nd Srv returns (compare that to Fed, who has the same 57% on his 2nd srv, but only 51% when returning second serves). you got to look at the spread. So in all likeliness, it just says a lot about his rally game.

 

[Federberg]

it's good (great?) at 57%, but only 2 points higher than his Win on 2nd Srv returns (compare that to Fed, who has the same 57% on his 2nd srv, but only 51% when returning second serves). you got to look at the spread. So in all likeliness, it just says a lot about his rally game.

According to the ATP website Rafa wins 57.2% of his 2nd serves which is the highest percentage career wise. Federer is 2nd at 56.7%. Sampras is only 29th which blew my mind

And for ROS Rafa is 3rd career wise for 1st serve return points won while Federer is 21st. For 2nd ser return points won, Rafa is 4th and Roger is 91st.

These are all time stats (I was surprised to see Rafa above the likes of Novak and Agassi). The point is that Rafa is pretty extraordinary at this stuff. I'm probably having a bit of a slow day so I'm a bit confused about your comment about the spread?

 

[Federberg]

in case you want to see the link...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-return-points-won/all/all/all/

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

According to the ATP website Rafa wins 57.2% of his 2nd serves which is the highest percentage career wise. Federer is 2nd at 56.7%. Sampras is only 29th which blew my mind

And for ROS Rafa is 3rd career wise for 1st serve return points won while Federer is 21st. For 2nd ser return points won, Rafa is 4th and Roger is 91st.

These are all time stats (I was surprised to see Rafa above the likes of Novak and Agassi). The point is that Rafa is pretty extraordinary at this stuff. I'm probably having a bit of a slow day so I'm a bit confused about your comment about the spread?

yeah, career wise the 0.5 difference between them might be relevant, didn't show that in their individual stat pages where i got only the (rounded) 57% for both.

what i was trying to say:
1. Yes, Nadal has an excellent win percentage on his second serves. However, it's only slightly better than his percentage when RETURNING second serves. to me, that makes it quite likely that a huge chunk of him winning his own second serve points is just him excelling in rallies (given that second serve points are somewhat likely to start a neutral-ish rally ), as compared to setting up the points so well with his second serve.

2. For comparison, Federer is almost as good on the second serves but considerably worse when RETURNING second serves. so here, we see that Fed relies on the quality of his second serve more so than Rafa.
EDIT: that's what i meant by spread: the interesting part to me is the difference between how succesful i am with my own 2nd serve as opposed to how i do on my opponents. (i think it's similar when we look at the "break points saved" category. there, we got all those monster servers leading the way. that doesn't mean they excel at saving break points. it's just that they usually win their serving points anyway. if we want to know how good they are at saving bp, we need to look at how much better/worse they fair on BP than on any other served point..)

of course, this doesn't do enough justice to their differences in return quality etc. i'm just pointing out that scoring high on 2nd serve points won in itself is no reliable indicator of the quality of the 2nd serve.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

oh, another, drastic example: Nalbs. he is up in the top 40 all time on 2nd serve points with 52.2%. however, it's actually WORSE than his percentage on 2nd serve return points (54.5%), which leads as to assume that his 2nd serve is actually so bad, it'd be better for him to let the other guy serve.

 

[Federberg]

yeah, career wise the 0.5 difference between them might be relevant, didn't show that in their individual stat pages where i got only the (rounded) 57% for both.

what i was trying to say:
1. Yes, Nadal has an excellent win percentage on his second serves. However, it's only slightly better than his percentage when RETURNING second serves. to me, that makes it quite likely that a huge chunk of him winning his own second serve points is just him excelling in rallies (given that second serve points are somewhat likely to start a neutral-ish rally ), as compared to setting up the points so well with his second serve.

2. For comparison, Federer is almost as good on the second serves but considerably worse when RETURNING second serves. so here, we see that Fed relies on the quality of his second serve more so than Rafa.
EDIT: that's what i meant by spread: the interesting part to me is the difference between how succesful i am with my own 2nd serve as opposed to how i do on my opponents. (i think it's similar when we look at the "break points saved" category. there, we got all those monster servers leading the way. that doesn't mean they excel at saving break points. it's just that they usually win their serving points anyway. if we want to know how good they are at saving bp, we need to look at how much better/worse they fair on BP than on any other served point..)

of course, this doesn't do enough justice to their differences in return quality etc. i'm just pointing out that scoring high on 2nd serve points won in itself is no reliable indicator of the quality of the 2nd serve.

hmmmm... this is probably me being dense. For some reason I'm having difficulty with this. Surely we can't come to that conclusion though. For a start it's not like Roger's a slouch in rallies either.

I get that scoring high on 2nd serve points doesn't mean that it's the serve alone that's doing it. But surely it's a fairly good indicator of the quality of the 2nd serve when we're talking about career data?

 

[Federberg]

oh, another, drastic example: Nalbs. he is up in the top 40 all time on 2nd serve points with 52.2%. however, it's actually WORSE than his percentage on 2nd serve return points (54.5%), which leads as to assume that his 2nd serve is actually so bad, it'd be better for him to let the other guy serve.

but surely if you're winning over 50% of your 2nd serve points, your serve has to be reasonably good? Ugh why is this so hard for me!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

"IF" Rafa is still dealing with health issues by then, should Roger give RG a shot? Is he still one of the best of the rest on clay?

 

[britbox]

Sampras is only 29th which blew my mind

Astonished by that stat!

 

[britbox]

2) i caught myself thinking about how it'll be when Fed does retire. what do you guys'n'gals think: announcement (long) after his last match (a la Sampras, to the extreme), a little earlier (like Agassi) or way in advance, at the start of the season? i think there would be an interesting case to go with the early announcement. of course, on the one hand, he probably doesn't want a farewell tour where it's less about his competitive abilities and more about nostalgia. but on the other side, the appearance fees he could collect would be insane and it'd probably put the audiences even more firmly behind him (if possible) at every event, and put a lot of extra pressure on his younger opponents (if possible). of course, the pressure might be on him, too, and we know how sentimental he can get...

Hey JS - I think Federer will probably do a farewell tour unless injury derails him to the extent where he can't play. As much as I like him, he is a narcissist (well earned self-admiration btw) and a cash cow. Like you mentioned, the money swilling around will be staggering.

 

[Federberg]

"IF" Rafa is still dealing with health issues by then, should Roger give RG a shot? Is he still one of the best of the rest on clay?

I really hope he doesn't do that. The smart thing to do is keep going on his best surfaces. Montreal should have taught him enough last year.

 

[Federberg]

Hey JS - I think Federer will probably do a farewell tour unless injury derails him to the extent where he can't play. As much as I like him, he is a narcissist (well earned self-admiration btw) and a cash cow. Like you mentioned, the money swilling around will be staggering.

I continue to suspect that he'll do the clay season only when he's on his farewell tour. I'm of two minds about the farewell tour thing though. Edberg did that. And I'll admit, mid-way through the year even I was starting to think "for gawds sakes just go already!" far too much sentimentality. But as you say Fed has a healthy amount of self admiration

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

but surely if you're winning over 50% of your 2nd serve points, your serve has to be reasonably good? Ugh why is this so hard for me!

being above 50% means that it's Probably, maybe not a considerable weakness. but it doesn't say that it's necessarily strong - because a lot (depending on the player: the majority) of the points will end up being decided after a neutral rally. we don't have "points that involved a neutral rally" statistic - we'd need like a career "4+/ shot points won"-statistic, but even that would be skewed.

since we don't have that, i tried to involve the 2nd serve return points. it's not perfect, but it'll give us a glimpse of what's happening with the serve - better so than the win percentage alone, as i showed.

There we see that Sampras, 29th on the 2nd serve won, comes out 98th(!) on the 2nd serve return won. so yeah, his 2nd serve probably wasn't the greatest weapon, but still it enabled him to be a LOT more succesful than when returning. Nalbandian and Sampras are actually really close on 2nd serve points won (only 0.4 pp difference) - yet to anyone with eyes and a memory, it is clear that for Sampras, the 2nd serve itself was a big factor in winning the points whereas for Nalbandian, it was the ground strokes. seeing their stats on 2nd serve Return points and acknowleding the "spread" i was talking about helps us grasping that fact even just looking at the numbers.

another extreme: Big John Isner. 3rd on the 2nd serve won, he's not even in the Top 200 on 2nd serve return points. his (for geometrical reasons) great 2nd serve (i would guess that he must have one of the highest percentages of unreturned 2nd serves) helps him survive despite being abysmal in neutral points.

 

[Federberg]

being above 50% means that it's Probably, maybe not a considerable weakness. but it doesn't say that it's necessarily strong - because a lot (depending on the player: the majority) of the points will end up being decided after a neutral rally. we don't have "points that involved a neutral rally" statistic - we'd need like a career "4+/ shot points won"-statistic, but even that would be skewed.

since we don't have that, i tried to involve the 2nd serve return points. it's not perfect, but it'll give us a glimpse of what's happening with the serve - better so than the win percentage alone, as i showed.

There we see that Sampras, 29th on the 2nd serve won, comes out 98th(!) on the 2nd serve return won. so yeah, his 2nd serve probably wasn't the greatest weapon, but still it enabled him to be a LOT more succesful than when returning. Nalbandian and Sampras are actually really close on 2nd serve points won (only 0.4 pp difference) - yet to anyone with eyes and a memory, it is clear that for Sampras, the 2nd serve itself was a big factor in winning the points whereas for Nalbandian, it was the ground strokes. seeing their stats on 2nd serve Return points and acknowleding the "spread" i was talking about helps us grasping that fact even just looking at the numbers.

another extreme: Big John Isner. 3rd on the 2nd serve won, he's not even in the Top 200 on 2nd serve return points. his (for geometrical reasons) great 2nd serve (i would guess that he must have one of the highest percentages of unreturned 2nd serves) helps him survive despite being abysmal in neutral points.

ok that makes a lot of sense. Probably more correct to say the larger the spread between % of 2nd serves won vs % of 2nd serve return points won the more effective your rallying has to be. Do you agree? The reason I'm trying to clarify is that if your 2nd serve was just puff surely most people would just belt it back. Just look at what Roger does to Murray's 2nd serve as an example

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Probably more correct to say the larger the spread between % of 2nd serves won vs % of 2nd serve return points won the more effective your rallying has to be.

damn, we're so close. and yes, Murray is a good example, he suffers from the same problem as Nalbandian: he actually does worse on his own 2nd serve than on his opponents'.



I'd say that if "the spread between % of 2nd serves won vs % of 2nd serve return points" is BIGGER, it is likely that your 2nd serve is a positive asset (example: Isner).

if the spread is SMALLER, then the effect of your second serve is probably just neutral-ish.

if the spread is NEGATIVE (Murray), then your second serve might actually be a weakness and any success on those points is mostly about your rallying abilities.


so when we look for good/greatest second serves, we have to move past the success rate on 2nd serves and look at that spread. i don't know where this leaves us for Fed and Rafa, but it's pretty clear that Isner has a freakin' effective 2nd serve.

 

[Federberg]

damn, we're so close. and yes, Murray is a good example, he suffers from the same problem as Nalbandian: he actually does worse on his own 2nd serve than on his opponents'.



I'd say that if "the spread between % of 2nd serves won vs % of 2nd serve return points" is BIGGER, it is likely that your 2nd serve is a positive asset (example: Isner).

if the spread is SMALLER, then the effect of your second serve is probably just neutral-ish.

if the spread is NEGATIVE (Murray), then your second serve might actually be a weakness and any success on those points is mostly about your rallying abilities.


so when we look for good/greatest second serves, we have to move past the success rate on 2nd serves and look at that spread. i don't know where this leaves us for Fed and Rafa, but it's pretty clear that Isner has a freakin' effective 2nd serve.

yes I think you nailed it

 

[GameSetAndMath]

alright kiddos, another break from lurking for two thoughts, one re: current events, another as general musing:


2) i caught myself thinking about how it'll be when Fed does retire. what do you guys'n'gals think: announcement (long) after his last match (a la Sampras, to the extreme), a little earlier (like Agassi) or way in advance, at the start of the season? i think there would be an interesting case to go with the early announcement. of course, on the one hand, he probably doesn't want a farewell tour where it's less about his competitive abilities and more about nostalgia. but on the other side, the appearance fees he could collect would be insane and it'd probably put the audiences even more firmly behind him (if possible) at every event, and put a lot of extra pressure on his younger opponents (if possible). of course, the pressure might be on him, too, and we know how sentimental he can get...

No farewell tour for Roger. He has explicitly stated he won't do that. He has stated that he will go through "phased retirement". i.e., instead of suddenly quitting one day, he will gradually reduced the number of tournaments he plays in an year and eventually quit.

However, this actually leads to farewell tour for specific events staggered over different years. For example, one year he may play RG and announce before that that it will be his last RG even though he will be playing for few more years and so on.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^link?

 

[Andy22]

I think this could be Federer last F0, so he should play it, Federer will announce retirement after Wimbledon?

 

[Front242]

I think this could be Federer last F0, so he should play it, Federer will announce retirement after Wimbledon?

In your dreams. 2020 will be his last year on tour imo as it's an Olympic year. Why in the name of hell would he announce retirement after Wimbledon when he's the clear favourite at the USO if healthy?! He'll be here a while yet and hopefully keep making Nadal fans cry.

Edit: The only possible scenario I could see where he might consider retirement is if Nadal fails to win a single slam this year AND Federer wins both Wimbledon and the USO. But even if the scenario above happens I'd hope he'd have the sense not to retire and keep playing till 2020. A lot of other records to break, eg hitting 110 titles (to surpass the 109 of Connors) and winning more matches than Connors. Also, if Nadal returns to full health, Federer retired and Djokovic and Murray continue to either suck or not play at all, Nadal could clean up so 6 ahead would not be safe as mad as that sounds.