Why Federer won?

[Federberg]

Btw.. there's a Roddick interview during the lead up the finals, where he was asked which of the two he hated playing more. And he said a very nuanced thing (at least to me). He said... "Roger! Tennis is all about match ups, and I hated that match up!" This is the bottom line. You can have player A who is average, but for whatever reason he gives a top player fits and sometimes beats him. But against another top player the rankings clearly work correctly. This is the beauty of tennis. And it's why I tend to think a little less about match ups and more about who carries home the trophy at the end of the day

 

[mrzz]

Yes, but Rafa let him in, and gave him hope. Yes, Fabio stepped up and played great, at the end. But it's a little like, IMO, why Novak lost RG in 2015. He had a lead over Stan, and pulled back, as he was so nervous to lose. He counted on Stan not really being able to redline his game for 3 sets, but the more he gave Stan fuel, the more Stan fed on it. I'm not saying Wawrinka didn't play a great match...he did. But Djokovic's hesitancy helped feed the fire. These are intangibles, but, when you're watching the match, you see them in real time.

Good point about the intangibles. Yes, only when you watch a match you are able to get them, even if it is quite easy to use "tinted goggles" (had to google goggles) in this case. But I believe you 100% on the match in question (RNxFF).

But that is exactly the distinction I made, between the ability to raise his level on crucial moments and the ability of not self-imploding during or after them. I agree with you that surely Nadal lost for a while the first -- and you gave an example of it -- but I still do not think he ever lost the second.

And this shifts in intensity, just to make a general remark about it, are not instantaneous. It is a long, grueling, dialectical process. If one of the parties is strong enough, he can stop (or try to stop) the trend (or enforce it). All part of the fantastic game of chess which high level tennis is.

 

[Federberg]

Very interesting article...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/tennis/88923726/-

 

[Federberg]

Some interesting stuff in the video at the end of this article...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/tennis/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-tennis-rivalry/index.html

 

[El Dude]

Very interesting article...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/tennis/88923726/-

Interesting, but a weak argument, in my opinion. He points out some of our psychology at work and uses that to suggest that because we tend to be prone to recency bias and availability, therefore we must be wrong about Federer being the GOAT. This is sort of like saying that because blue is my favorite color, it can't be the best color because of my personal bias. This would only make sense if his statistical resume was inferior to Nadal's, which it is not. His only statistical back-up for saying Federer is probably not the GOAT is because of his inferior h2h against Nadal and Djokovic. No nuance here, and very selective reading...I'm guessing this author isn't a huge fan of Roger's.

 

[Federberg]

^Yes absolutely. I wasn't saying I agreed, just thought his argument was interesting. At least he seemed to be thinking it through

 

[Carol]

Not really. Actually, I feel kind of bad now. I apologize for goading you - I know it is painful to see your guy lose. Believe me, I know! Be hopeful, because Rafa looks the best I've seen him since 2014...I'll give you, that you were always hopeful and look to be right when I and many others were wrong about him!

To be honest it was a little bit painful but not so much. I mean to me I'm glad that he has getting his confidence back and close to his best after to see him going through that bad patch and most important to be injury free. I hope this year he can rebuild what he left to do for two years, he seems to be very motivated and the way he looked and talking in the Trophy Ceremony he wasn't affected at all for the loss which means a lot to see that he knows he can do better. He won't play in the D.C. to take more rest which I see he is scheduling more smart . The year just has started

 

[Carol]

And by the way sorry to be late but it's better late than never, CONGRATS to all Roger's fans !

 

[Moxie]

Good point about the intangibles. Yes, only when you watch a match you are able to get them, even if it is quite easy to use "tinted goggles" (had to google goggles) in this case. But I believe you 100% on the match in question (RNxFF).

But that is exactly the distinction I made, between the ability to raise his level on crucial moments and the ability of not self-imploding during or after them. I agree with you that surely Nadal lost for a while the first -- and you gave an example of it -- but I still do not think he ever lost the second.

And this shifts in intensity, just to make a general remark about it, are not instantaneous. It is a long, grueling, dialectical process. If one of the parties is strong enough, he can stop (or try to stop) the trend (or enforce it). All part of the fantastic game of chess which high level tennis is.

Nadal isn't really the "self-imploding" type, even when not playing his best, but that was a term you brought up. I still maintain that a lot of his issues had to do with lack of confidence, and it's not something fans made up...he spoke of it himself.

 

[Federberg]

http://deadspin.com/science-shows-t...d&utm_campaign=Feed:+deadspin/full+(Deadspin)

 

[Moxie]

^Yes absolutely. I wasn't saying I agreed, just thought his argument was interesting. At least he seemed to be thinking it through

I sort of agree with El Dude: the writer-dude was working very hard to make an argument that we trick our minds into believing that Roger is the GOAT. We can and have made lots of discussions about if there's a GOAT, if aesthetics are the best measure, etc. etc. But I don't think any amount of using Michael Lewis (whom I love) really sells his argument. (BTW, I also think he's wrong about J. McEnroe...he's no aesthete. And he'll say many things, but I think most of us know he's personally inclined to Rafa. P-Mac is Roger.)

That said, I think he makes a point, via Lewis, that is interesting, and we touch on it here, occasionally: that what is freshest in our minds colors how we judge and project into the future. Suddenly now, Murray and Novak are over, Roger might win Wimbledon again, and Rafa RG. (OK, the last one, yes. LOL!) It's a bit of an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. Not long ago, no one could picture Novak losing for the foreseeable future. We're all tempted to this "current-state of events" mentality, but I quote @britbox, who often reminds us: tennis can change quickly.

 

[Moxie]

http://deadspin.com/science-shows-that-roger-federers-backhand-in-fact-def-1791829176?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+deadspin/full+(Deadspin)

Interesting to see the numbers, but the Fed backhand passed the eye-test without them. Rafa also didn't seem to merely hammer on it, seeming to prefer to mix it up more. Whether that was tactical error or lack of opportunity, it's hard to say. But Roger did limit Rafa's options. And Roger's BH clearly held up better than in years. On that, your statistics are rather astonishing.

 

[El Dude]

I sort of agree with El Dude: the writer-dude was working very hard to make an argument that we trick our minds into believing that Roger is the GOAT. We can and have made lots of discussions about if there's a GOAT, if aesthetics are the best measure, etc. etc. But I don't think any amount of using Michael Lewis (whom I love) really sells his argument. (BTW, I also think he's wrong about J. McEnroe...he's no aesthete. And he'll say many things, but I think most of us know he's personally inclined to Rafa. P-Mac is Roger.)

That said, I think he makes a point, via Lewis, that is interesting, and we touch on it here, occasionally: that what is freshest in our minds colors how we judge and project into the future. Suddenly now, Murray and Novak are over, Roger might win Wimbledon again, and Rafa RG. (OK, the last one, yes. LOL!) It's a bit of an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. Not long ago, no one could picture Novak losing for the foreseeable future. We're all tempted to this "current-state of events" mentality, but I quote @britbox, who often reminds us: tennis can change quickly.

Yes, it is a good point and one that must always be taken into account. Biases and logical fallacies are always part of the picture; in this case, the author is talking about "recency bias."

But both sides are true. On one hand, we shouldn't be so prone to think that, with every new thing, that "everything has changed." On the other hand, as Britbox says, tennis can change quickly.

I'd love to do a study about this at some point, but it seems to me that players often breakthrough in a single tournament - or at least it seems that way. We can look at Grigor Dimitrov, who seemed to reach a new level at the Australian Open. Now we can look to his Brisbane title and push it back to then, or his generally improved play in the second half of last year. And of course he had a pretty good year in 2014, so there's that. But it seems that players often go through a pattern of gradual improvement, with little micro-surges, and then a big surge that brings them into their full potential.

I mention this, because it could be that with someone like Grigor, everything finally "clicked." This supports Britbox's view. On the other hand, we should be cautious with Grigor, because he looked like he was breaking out in 2014 and then fell back in 2015-16.

But to go back to the article, my main issue with it is what I perceive as a failure in logic. He is saying that because we're biased towards Federer as the GOAT, he therefore cannot be the GOAT because we're biased and must be wrong.That simply doesn't follow.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, it is a good point and one that must always be taken into account. Biases and logical fallacies are always part of the picture; in this case, the author is talking about "recency bias."

But both sides are true. On one hand, we shouldn't be so prone to think that, with every new thing, that "everything has changed." On the other hand, as Britbox says, tennis can change quickly.

I'd love to do a study about this at some point, but it seems to me that players often breakthrough in a single tournament - or at least it seems that way. We can look at Grigor Dimitrov, who seemed to reach a new level at the Australian Open. Now we can look to his Brisbane title and push it back to then, or his generally improved play in the second half of last year. And of course he had a pretty good year in 2014, so there's that. But it seems that players often go through a pattern of gradual improvement, with little micro-surges, and then a big surge that brings them into their full potential.

I mention this, because it could be that with someone like Grigor, everything finally "clicked." This supports Britbox's view. On the other hand, we should be cautious with Grigor, because he looked like he was breaking out in 2014 and then fell back in 2015-16.

But to go back to the article, my main issue with it is what I perceive as a failure in logic. He is saying that because we're biased towards Federer as the GOAT, he therefore cannot be the GOAT because we're biased and must be wrong.That simply doesn't follow.

The author seemed to be trying to push that just because we "perceive" Federer as great, we may be fooled by smoothness, and results. Smoothness, I get, but the "results" are not just recent, they're also bordering on Paleolithic. This is risible.

Obviously, while previously not predictable here, there's nothing especially new about a Fedal final. A surprise, but only in its "throwback" aspect. As to Grigor, I'm still not sure what to make of him. I think he's been in a SF before, so I'm not sure if you can call this a breakthrough. He's more lateral. As you say, we were looking to him to make the move in 2014.

I'd say it's been a long time since a player made a breakthrough in one tournament. Rafa is obvious, and Soderling is another one. We see some of the younger players making solid progress, particularly Sasha Zverev and Thiem. But I really can't think of anyone who has taken a stunning performance and run with it, in ages. Kyrgios is obvious, but no. Cilic...pfft. Kei and Milos ramble around in the mid-top 10 but can't get the job done. Even if they do, they wouldn't be break-out stars. I think Sasha Zverev has the biggest chance of surprising us this year. I'd make Kyrgios my second choice (cautiously), and Thiem my 3rd. Who else is really poised to shake it up and breakout? Perhaps Dimitrov will finally come good, but I think it could hardly be called a "breakout," as we've been looking at him since he was about 17.

 

[mrzz]

Nice stats about the backhand, it shows in numbers what we noticed during the match. I am particularly happy about it, because in the pre-match discussions I stated that Federer´s backhand was a much improved shot in comparison to their other matches in the last 3 or 4 years.

About the possible tactical error... I guess we are under estimating Nadal´s ability to read the match. He probably realized way before us that backhand was sharper than the forehand, and adjusted his game accordingly. What happened in the fifth is that Federer finallly stopped to spray his forehand, and had Nadal won we would right now be celebrating his genial tactical correction (which I think it really was). There are no tactical or strategical answer to the level of play that Federer brought to the second half of the fifth set. The only possible answer would be Nadal raising his own level to make it at least competitive (after all the match ended with 5 straight games from Federer. He broke or had break points in all Nadal service games in that set), but it wasn´t to be this time.

I can only wonder what type of adjustment Nadal will bring to thei next match. I would guess that he will start much more agressive and try to break Federer´s spirit from the beginning. And he will not give him any angles. But the thing is they don´t have the luxury anymore to focus on each other games.

 

[Carol]

Does someone has the stats of Rafa's serve in the fifth set?

 

[Moxie]

Nice stats about the backhand, it shows in numbers what we noticed during the match. I am particularly happy about it, because in the pre-match discussions I stated that Federer´s backhand was a much improved shot in comparison to their other matches in the last 3 or 4 years.

About the possible tactical error... I guess we are under estimating Nadal´s ability to read the match. He probably realized way before us that backhand was sharper than the forehand, and adjusted his game accordingly. What happened in the fifth is that Federer finallly stopped to spray his forehand, and had Nadal won we would right now be celebrating his genial tactical correction (which I think it really was). There are no tactical or strategical answer to the level of play that Federer brought to the second half of the fifth set. The only possible answer would be Nadal raising his own level to make it at least competitive (after all the match ended with 5 straight games from Federer. He broke or had break points in all Nadal service games in that set), but it wasn´t to be this time.

I can only wonder what type of adjustment Nadal will bring to thei next match. I would guess that he will start much more agressive and try to break Federer´s spirit from the beginning. And he will not give him any angles. But the thing is they don´t have the luxury anymore to focus on each other games.

Yeah, unknowable, in terms of tactics. The winning factor was that Roger played better, especially in the 5th. It will be interesting what they do, if they get to play again.

 

[El Dude]

Does someone has the stats of Rafa's serve in the fifth set?

Tennis Abstract, my usual go-to for those kinds of stats, doesn't have them up yet, but AusOpen.com has some:

0 Aces, 2 Double Faults
First Serve in: 85%
Win% on First Serve: 50%
Win% on Second Serve: 50%

Roger:
5 Aces, 0 Double Faults
First Serve n: 52%
Win% on First Serve: 80%
Win% on Second Serve: 57%

The big difference was Roger had 23 winners to Rafa's 13, both with 9 UFE. And of course that huge difference on first serves...Rafa got a lot more in, but Roger won a lot more of his.

 

[El Dude]

I had to re-watch the entire fifth set, and my impression is slightly different from before. Both Roger and Rafa were playing very, very well - and, in some ways, typical of their strengths. Roger was creating a ton of breakpoints with incredible shot-making, but Rafa was coming up with his signature incredible shots at the most crucial moments.

Now after Rafa broke Roger to start the set, rather than Roger collapsing he kept steady and put the pressure on Rafa, winning most of his service games relatively easily, while creating a ton of break opportunities. The 6th game was, of course, the turning point and it really looked like Rafa was going to drive the point home on the way to victory. But Roger kept pressing, and eventually Rafa hit that ball wide, evening up at 3-3. When Roger held quite easily to go up 4-3, and then went up 40-0 on Rafa's service game, it looked like the wind had been knocked out of Rafa. But Rafa did what he does best: he came back.

So the pivotal games were the 6th, when Roger broke back, and then the 8th, when he broke Rafa again. In both cases, Roger did something he hadn't really been able to do against Rafa, at least for years: he fought on and found a way to beat him his own way. He stayed to his game plan, being both aggressive and varying his shots. That fifth set, especially after the first game, was really Roger at his finest. We've seen Roger play this way before, but not against Rafa - at least in the last decade or so.

 

[Carol]

Something that I was very surprised is

Tennis Abstract, my usual go-to for those kinds of stats, doesn't have them up yet, but AusOpen.com has some:

0 Aces, 2 Double Faults
First Serve in: 85%
Win% on First Serve: 50%
Win% on Second Serve: 50%

Roger:
5 Aces, 0 Double Faults
First Serve n: 52%
Win% on First Serve: 80%
Win% on Second Serve: 57%

The big difference was Roger had 23 winners to Rafa's 13, both with 9 UFE. And of course that huge difference on first serves...Rafa got a lot more in, but Roger won a lot more of his.

Thanks for that information which has confirmed me that Rafa took a very bad decision playing and waiting for the serve far behind the baseline when he didn't vs Raonic having this one so powerful serve and helping Roger to play a lot more comfortable and easier . I'd like to know why he changed the tactic but I'm sure he has done several time to now