Detailed Analysis of The Federer-Nadal Final of the Australian Open 2009
Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer played another epic final in the Australian Open 2009 and Nadal once again proved too tough for Federer.
Rafa won 7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2 and denied Roger’s 14th Grand Slam title which would tie Roger with Pete Sampras’s record.
 |
| Picture courtesy of Getty Images |
While the official stats of the match do explain what happened in the match, they lack a few important stats. The first and the most important are the shots that force a mistake.
The official statistics shows only winners (shots where the opponent did not touch the ball or barely touched it) and unforced errors. (shots where the player was in a comfortable position and still made a mistake)
A shot that forces an error is a very good shot from the opponent that’s not really an outright winner but still forces the opponent into a mistake.
Of course, many shots in the match have the intention of forcing a mistake (that’s why the players hit the ball so hard and close to the lines) but the opponent is able to neutralize, defend or even counter-attack sometimes.
And sometimes, the intention of forcing a mistake actually forces a mistake. 
The match analysis you’re about to see is based in the so called Aggressive Margin which I first learned from John Yandell (tennisplayer.net).
I’ve modified his system and it is explained in detail in How to Analyze A Tennis Match article.
(UE – unforced errors, WF – winners and forcing shots)
Here’s how the Federer – Nadal stats table of the first set in the Australian Open final 2009 looks like:
| Roger Federer | Rafael Nadal | Comments | |||
| Score | UE | WF | UE | WF | |
| 0′-0 | B,S,B,F | B | Fed mishits 3 shots in the first game. Nervous? | ||
| 0-1′ | B,F,B | Bp,F,F,F,F | F,F | F,S,S | 2 first serves from Nad when break point down |
| 1′-1 | F,F,S | Br | B | ||
| 2-1′ | B | F | F,S,S | ||
| 2′-2 | F,B | S,F,F,S | Bv,Br | ||
| 3-2′ | Br | Bp,F,Fr | F | S | Fed runs around B to attack the second serve on break point with his F – breaks Nad |
| 4′-2 | Bv,S | S,S | Fp,B | 2 incredible counter-attack shots from Nad – he breaks back | |
| 4-3′ | B | F,F | F,S,S | First body serve from Nad on game point – his surprise serve saved for an important point | |
| 4′-4 | S,S,S | F | B,F | ||
| 5-4′ | Blob,B | Bp,Br | B,S | ||
| 5′-5 | Fv,F | Fv | B,Fp | Fed playing very short points (rushing and not constructing the points as before!) – Nad breaks | |
| 5-6′ | B,F,F | B | B | F | Fed forcing too much too early |
| 5′-7 | 20 | 28 | 9 | 20 | Total stats of the set |
| Aggressive Margin | 28–20=+8 | 20–9=+11 | |||
The Aggressive Margin is the calculated by adding all unforced errors of the set, adding all winners and forcing errors of the set and then subtracting all unforced errors from winning shots.
Roger Federer’s margin is +8 and Rafael Nadal’s margin is +11 and that clearly explains who the winner of this set was.
In my opinion, Federer lost the first set because he suddenly started to rush points at 5-5. I believe it was the nerves that got better of him and he just couldn’t keep with the pressure when rallying from the baseline with Nadal.
Rafael on the other hand played his typical tennis with very few unforced errors and tried to play to Federer’s backhand almost all the time. He served well – in my statistics he served 8 winners and forcing serves – the same as Federer.
Here are some more interesting stats that this table shows you:
- Fed has 8 B and 6 F unforced errors, Nad 3B and 5F (+ one volley)
- Fed has 6 B and 11 F (+ 1 volley) winners and forcing shots, Nad 5 B and 7 F
- Fed was the more active player with 48 points created (unforced errors + winners and forcing shots), Nad more passive with 29
What I also noticed in the first set and throughout the match:
- Federer played his backhand returns immediately to Nadal’s backhand even on Nadal’s first serves. This is very difficult to do especially on the deuce side where Fed has to return in the inside-out direction. It’s the same return used in doubles and I think Fed practiced that a lot.
- Federer’s backhand also felt much more solid. He played with good amount of top-spin and was not really bothered by Nadal’s forehands to his backhand. Again, I believe he did a lot of work on his backhand to make it more solid against Nadal’s annoying high top-spin shots to this side.
Note that my stats differ from the official stats. There are two reasons:
- I also include forcing shots which the official stats don’t count. This gives the winners section in my table more points than in the official version.
- The definition of an unforced error or a forcing shot can be given in theory but in reality this depends on the judgment of the person who is analyzing the match. So my judgment of an unforced error may be slightly different than the judgment of the official referee who analyzed the match that’s why our numbers differ.
For the next 4 sets we’ll take a look at the final stats of the set…
Set #2: Federer wins 6-3
Fed: 8 UE and 28 WF, margin: +20
Nad: 9 UE and 19 WF, margin: +10
Analysis:
- Fed played 4 or 5 points in the first 2 games of the set slower with more control and Nadal was immediately able to dominate the points. Fed was maybe testing how he would fare against Nadal with more controlled play…
- The game at 2-1 had 6 winners and 2 UE – great game
- At 2-3, Nad serving (he broke Fed in the previous game), Nad makes 4 UE – the first let down of Nadal in the match
- At 3-3 Fed plays very aggressive with more risk – 3 forehand and one S WF
- At 4-3 for Fed, Fed breaks Nad’s serve with 7WF, Nad had 5 WF, both one UE. That’s 12WF and 2 UE in one game: +10 margin
Set #3: Nadal wins 7-6
Fed: 21 UE and 29 WF, margin: +8
Nad: 21 UE and 31 WF, margin: +10
Analysis:
- Nad starts to play very aggressively and Fed is forced to run all over the court. This goes on until 2-3. Nadal’s margin in the first 5 games is 15 WF – 5 UE = +10
- Both players have a letdown at 2-3: 3 UE for each in the same game
- Fed still in the letdown at the 3-3 (Nad serving), making 3 UE again
- Fed is back the next game – hitting 2 great forehands
- 5-5: very tough game, Fed has break points, plays too safe. Nad then starts to play very aggressively again, Fed has to defend all the time. Nad hits 4 forehand winners to go ahead 5-6.
- Fed makes 4 UE in tie-break, rushing the points again. Nad has 1 UE, 3 WF.
Set #4: Federer wins 6-3
Fed: 10 UE and 25 WF, margin: +15
Nad: 10 UE and 13 WF, margin: +3
Analysis:
- The game at 2-2 was the key to this set. Fed was serving and was in trouble. He forced the play, had 6 UE and 8 WF, Nad 3 UE and 2 WF. Fed goes ahead 3-2.
- 2 UE from Nad and 2 WF from Fed for a break to 4-2.
- 5-3 Fed attacks with no mercy – 3 service winners and one F WF, Nadal seemed tired.
Set #5: Nadal wins 6-2
Fed: 14 UE and 8 WF, margin: – 6
Nad: 8 UE and 13 WF, margin: + 5
Analysis:
- At 1-2 Fed has a big letdown, making 4 UE. Nad in the same game has 0 UE and 0 WF. Nad breaks to go 3-1.
- At 1-3 Fed again makes 2 UE, Nad 2 WF.
- At 2-5 Fed serving, Fed again goes for too much with 3 UE.
In the final set both players seemed tired but they employed very different tactics to deal with that.
Federer started to play riskier to shorten the points while Nadal started to play slower and safer to minimize the unforced errors.
When a player is tired, his footwork is not that good anymore, he is slightly late on the ball, his brain does not perceive the situation that well, the instant decisions during the rally can be based on saving energy instead of playing tactically correct tennis and all this makes tennis very difficult to play even for top pros.
Nadal just reverted back to his favorite style of play with which he won French Open so many times – keep the ball deep with lots of top-spin and aim to Federer’s backhand. That’s all he did in the final set and Federer was too tired and his concentration was not good enough to solve this problem.
My stats show 8 UE for Nadal but 4 of those UE were backhand returns on Fed’s second serve. This just shows that even returning Fed’s second serve proved quite a challenge for Nadal in the fifth set and Nadal was clearly not as focused as before.
But he adapted his tactics when he recognized his problems and was willing to play safer and stay on the court as long as he had to to win the match. Nadal did NOT threaten Federer at all from the baseline in the fifth set. Of those 13 WF 7 were serves and only 6 were baseline shots.
There were 43 points in final set of which Nadal won (forced with his play) only 6 from the baseline. He still won the set 6-2.
This shows how much Federer’s game dropped in the final set.
The total match stats:
- Federer 73 UE, 118 WF, margin: +45, Nadal 57 UE, 96 WF, margin: +39
- Average points per game: 347 points / 52 games = 6,7 points per game
You can see the official stats for the match below:
 |
| Stats from the Australian Open website |
So why did Nadal win?
- I think Federer played too passively on break points. His conversion was 6 of 19 (32%). That was very obvious when he had 0:40 and 15:40 twice in the match and just played too safely trying to really safely outplay Nadal. While playing smart on a break point may the the right tactic, Federer played too safe and Nadal had not trouble in those rallies.
- In the fifth set, Federer lost focus. He may have been tired and that affected his concentration. His also didn’t notice that Nadal wasn’t really dangerous from the baseline anymore and he Federer risked too much when there was no need.
- Nadal on the other hand played a solid match and came up with some unbelievable winners when he needed to. This always happens against Federer because Fed pushes Nadal to the extremes. This seems to frustrate Federer too much. Instead he should expect it and accept it. That’s how tough tennis is and that’s how tough it is to win a Grand Slam.
- Nadal also adjusted the risk of his game. He played very aggressively when he was behind and didn’t let Federer dictate the game. He also played the right attacking shots when he had a short ball. When he felt tired, he played a safer game.
- Nadal’s cross-court backhand was very good today. When he has the time to set up and he stands inside the court, he regularly hits a winner with a very flat cross-court shot. This means that Federer doesn’t have any options to play a safe ball if needs to. Nadal is now dangerous from both sides.
Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section below!
- Related posts:
- Nikolay Davydenko – Juan Martin Del Potro ATP Final Match Analysis
- Vera Zvonareva – Sania Mirza Match Analysis From PTT Pattaya 2009
- Learning From Federer – Soderling Rematch
- How Roger Federer And Rafael Nadal Played The Final Of Wimbledon 2007
- Roger Federer – Andy Murray Australian Open 2010 Final Analysis
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Wow. Really nice analysis. I watched part of the match again after reading the post. Now the game makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks!
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Interesting post. It basically seems that Federer doesn’t have a plan B. I think the serve and volley would help. He could also chip and charge just to mix it up and especially on the second serve. Nadal hits great passing shots but at least he is trying something different. On grass, Federer needs to recall his win over Sampras. The grass may be different but he needs to apply more pressure to Nadal if he has any hope of winning. The interesting part is that even champions lose. It is a lesson for all of us in humility.
Arturo
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Arturo,
Yes, serve and volley would definitely help but not in a way Fed has done it – at the end of the first set when this is a way to shorten the points and not sustain the pressure.
I think Fed needs to look deep inside himself and admit that he doesn’t feel better than Nadal. This lack of self-belief comes out in the crucial moments and Federer makes mistakes – going for too much.
Why should he take risks if he is better than Nadal?
That’s the key question and once Fed can answer that, he can win again.
If Federer wants to be the greatest, he HAS to BELIEVE that he is the greatest. He has to confront his fear of Nadal and win his own internal battle with that fear. It’s not really Nadal that beats Federer, it’s Federer’s FEAR of Nadal that disrupts his game, lower his game and at that point, Nadal is able to score points.
In my opinion, Nadal beat Federer ONLY in their last French Open final (2008). All other matches that they played, Federer lost because of his fear of Nadal. His fear took over, therefore his game plan changed, he made stupid mistakes and beat himself.
So in the end, Federer’s tactics are not perfect but good enough to beat Nadal if in his mind he would be as calm as he is when he plays anyone else.
He needs to work internally, find what frightens him about Nadal, which part of Nadal’s game irritates him, which part of Nadal’s personality irritates him and discover his own weaknesses which are getting triggered by Nadal’s appearance, behavior and play.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:35 am
Hmmm… I thought about that too. All of us have opponents that beat us because we fear them.
So, yes, clearly Nadal is in Federer’s head. In fact, what sets Nadal apart in my mind is his ability to play each and every point against anyone. He even talks about his love of the battle during tennis.
I think a good coach would work this out with Fed. But if you look back at other matches, especially Agassi vs. Federer 2005 US open you will find a similar pattern.
In fact, even when Fed wins he seems to coast through at times. He seems detached. Then suddenly his opponent level drops, Fed makes a few great plays and the opponent’s heart drops and the game is over.
But you are right. In the the fifth set, Fed basically said, “I would rather lose in an easy fifth, than fight till the end and lose a heartbreaker.”
After reading your book and doing a lot of reflecting I have come to the conclusion that with two opponents that are okay physically and on a relatively even playing field most of the time the mind is the one that determines who wins. So in a sense, Federer needs to rid himself of his negative self.
Nadal in this sense benefits from a very health psyche. I have seen matches where he is about to lose and he is still fighting to win points. For him it is all about the battle. Even if he loses the match he knows that if he fought with everything he accomplished his goal.
Everyone says that Fed needs to beat Nadal. Maybe he will or maybe he won’t. What Fed needs to do is fight for a match till the end against him. He needs to accept that he will not always win.
Perhaps this is the “monster” he referred to. The one in his head that ALWAYS won.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Well, I guess I agree with your comments TOMAZ. Fed is not enjoying his game when playing with Rafa.
2 things i can think of:
1. He is not enjoying his game when it comes to play with Nadal
2. On top of it, he might be thinking of records; when those things precedes you longer enjoying your game! I thinks that’s the key.
Fed has to believe in himself, take the crap out and just enjoy tennis! Fed will run for 20 slams!
February 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I tackle this purely from a player’s perspective; Firstly the matchup is a difficult one for Federer. It’s as simple as that. Nadal neutralizes one of Fed’s prevalent weapons agains right-handed opponents.
What is this weapon? It is the ability to entice, at his beckoning, the opposing player into their back-hand service box, employing that nasty little slice.
The onus then falls upon the opposing player to either commit to the approach and follow to net, or attempt to drop-shot in return; least likely, from a percentage basis, attempt to hit a winner from this position. Conversely, Fed has entrapped so many players with this ploy, with his quickness, and acumen, he understands the possibilities available to his opponent, and holds a handful of options to play and typically wins the point once he has placed his opponent in this situation.
This is a favorite oft used tactic, the opponent knows its happening and is compelled to play an extraordinary shot if he is to walk away with the point. Nadal, on the other hand punishes Fed when he seeks to employ this tactic, as it provides a feast for the Nadal forehand…
When points become testy, protracted, and contentious, the Fed can draw them to an end with this ploy which typically esnures to his benefit. Not the case with Nadal.
There are several other nuanced conditions that I could go on about, however the aforementioned is a critical one in this matchup.
Now to the Nadal Serve. I have often suggested Nadal would have to improve and vary this, in order to become a better hardcourt player. I will first point to the Verdasco/Nadal match-up and the degree of effectiveness Fernando had (two-hands) with the Nadal serve.
Now with regard Fed (one-hand) he was rendered to returning continually to the Nadal deuce-court, at this juncture, keeping in mind this was a four hour affair, I cannot recall one time where Fed returned from the deuce court into the add court of Nadal.
The fact that Nadal is capable of tempering the shot-making genius of Federer, of the return… again I find quite interesting. Nadal’s straight forward approach serving 90% to the Fed backhand allows Nadal often to only have to play half the court to either resume his high-topspinned weighty balls to the Fed backhand, or perhaps a riskier attacking greatly improved back-hand with lazer precision to the Fed forehand court.
How does one explain the diminishing of the Fed first Serve? How, when throughout the tournament, Fed had extricated himself so many times, with this great weapon? What possibly could this have to do with Nadal?
Now we come to an area where Federer lovers will become defensive, we come to an area, where I have held the belief for a long time, is the achilles heel of the Fed game, invariably it comes to bear again and again in the Fed/Nadal matchup. It is very simple, and is instructive as to where and why the results are as incontrovertibly weighted for Nadal.
I would argue, no player imposes so great a physical duress upon his opponent than Nadal. I would argue that Nadal’s game, even when he is predictably hitting back to the Fed backhand, causes actual physical stress, as well as the emotional stress of the knowing he is going to hit another ball, into an area of the court that is most uncomfortable and tiring for me to defend, not only that, but each and every time he hits it there, he is also telling me:
“I know your weakness” …”I know you may fend well for awhile but you are weak there, you can’t hurt me there, and I will break you down.”
“I’m going to make you think about this for the next four hours or however long it takes, and just when you think you have solved the riddle, I will flatten out a backhand, send you stretched out like a mongoose to the forehand side, reaching for a squash-shot return, which I will promptly hit up high into your back hand corner, for you to confront my knowing you are weak time and time again.”
So where is the Serve? It is in the tired legs, it is in the added pressure in the Head of Federer as to how in such a physical match it is much more crucial, but finally it is in the legs; In the legs that Nadal is unmatched in relentlessly taking from you; So more than mental, though the mental can contribute to the physical detriment, it is more the actual physical labor Nadal forces on the Fed that steals him from his greatest ally, his serve.
Not real big on statistics… However, throughout the tournament I recall first serve percentages for Fed at 59% to 70% If I’m not mistaken he was about 46% for this match…
There are several observations, from a players’ point of view, however I have gone on much too long as it is: I will sum my feeling this way.
Federer cannot be perceived as the greatest of all time, not that such a distinction is valid, players can only be the greatest in their time: However, the need for any distinction becomes moot when confronted with the fact that his contemporary, Mr. Nadal, has a winning record over him.
At the age of 22 has I believe 6 Slam’s………Grass…….Clay……..Hard. Fed cannot make even this claim.
I will digress further, to say, that Laver, who possesses two Grand Slams which is impressive and not to be diminished: when scrutinized we must keep in mind that those slams entailed two surfaces, clay and grass……….that no player………has held the “modern slam” clay…grass….and two slightly varied hards.
Federer, in order to re-establish dominion in this game, at least over Nadal, will need to get a Coach, and will need to get Fit. Fifth set collapses because of lack of fitness resulting in mental fatigue, thus poor decisions, coupled with the breakdown and the failure of the body to run another step or hit another stroke have in my mind, been Federer’s achilles from the inception of this Great Rivalry.
Fed Needs to Get Stronger, Needs to be Able To Run All Day. There’s no other Fix…
Finally it is this realization within the Fed, it is this knowing that is the difference, results in the hurried attempts at ending points to quickly, poor shot selection in the fourth and fifth set. I know Fed lovers don’t like to hear this type of critique. But through the prism of truth there is no escaping this fatal flaw.
Fed is the greatest shotmaker I have ever seen, the movement the transition the flow creativity and that Swiss precision………he is artistry elevating and transcendant.
Nadal is boring, and brilliant in the execution of his construct, he is an irrepressible force of nature, who’s innate comprehension of the task before him is not dissuaded from its pursuit: he is the tides and the storms agains Gibraltar each erosive touch destined at a higher end leaving the fortress of the soul in fragmented pebbles.
His hardcourt game has come alive. He should have by reasonable measure, never beaten Verdasco, who I believe would have beaten Fed. He understands now that he need not run around his back-hand on the hard, he is comfortable hitting his back-hand, thereby protecting is forehand court… he is intuitive and still learning.
He does understand Fed’s tears, he has cried them, more importantly he has taken his lessons to the court, where he has given sway to the alchemy of change, augmenting his already solid soil, with further stable ground.
His are the tears of Change, for Now Fed’s are merely tears… We are so blessed to have these two great Champions.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I believe that Roger can’t consistently beat Rafa from the baseline. Rafa’s heavy topspin gives him a huge psychological advantage. At pressure moments he can relax and hit heavy spin knowing that he he will make few errors.
For Roger it’s just the opposite; he knows that the longer the rally goes the less of a chance he has to win the point so he begins to press (the pressure is getting to him).
For Roger to beat Nadal and I believe he can he has to use his serve the way Sampras would. Sampras basically used two first serves instead of a first serve and a safer/weaker second serve. He will obviously have more double faults, but he will have a bunch more service winners and weak replys.
If he employs this tactic he will be very hard to break. Then he needs to be very aggressive when he returns serve.
He likes to chip the return to just start the point but he can’t do that against Rafa. He must take chances and continuously put pressure on Rafa’s serve.
Roger also uses the sliced backhand a lot which works well against most players but it usually goes to Rafa’s forehand. Surprisingly that low ball doesn’t bother Rafa who uses an extreme western grip.
The key is that Roger can’t always hit it cross-court. He needs to hit it right at Rafa to make him get out of the way and also it would be much harder to create and angle with the reply.
I only hope that Roger can recover mentally from this loss. He is a great player whose current game doesn’t match up well against Rafa’s.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:44 am
An excellent analysis! Also some interesting comments.
I certainly agree with the concept of forced winners/forced errors.
I didn’t read the comments of Arturo, Mokibra and John because they are simply “walls of text”. A headache to read!
Folks, please include some paragraphs and white space. Pleeeease!
February 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am
In my opinion Federer lost the match in the first set. This is such a mental thing right now for Federer that once he lost that first he felt so far behind in the match.
I also believe there is a specific point at which he lost the match. I have only seen the match twice, but I remember pretty well how angry I got when Fed broke to go up 4-2 in the first then started to Serve and Volley for the first time in the match. Federer is probably once of the best on tour at this, and probably has the best complete attacking game on tour, BUT that was certainly not the time. Especially after being all over Nadal and working him in the first 4 games he won. If Fed would have stuck to the baseline battle in the first set, I feel he was fresh enough to win.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Very impressive commentary.
In the follow-up, I especially like Mokibra’s assertions. I have felt that Federer is squandering opportunities by not having a coach (and perhaps a mental toughness trainer for the Nadal matches) ever since he started regularly losing to Nadal in finals and other matches.
The clock is ticking, so I hope that he catches on lest his career slam title record remain at thirteen!
February 6th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Yes, John. I agree with you. I thing you got the point. First, at the time this historical rivalry began, Fed noticed he wasn’t able to overcome Nadal, chiefly from the baseline. Now, he really feels unconfortable whenever he faces Nad. He doesn’t have a Plan B. He got to build a new Plan A, indeed. Nothing far from what everybody claimed above, but he is no longer able to beat “The Boy” in his own terms. Nad doesn’t fear him at all, that’s a fact. I would say the same starts to apply to FED and Murray Clashes. In other words, a good coach might be useful at this moment. Mainly to work Fed’s mind out.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Hello Tomaž!
Roger lost the match with Nadal because of three main reasons:
His first serve (1) was bad, only about 52%. In the first set he lead with 4 : 2 and than he was serving four times quite weak;
He was too nervous (2): he lost first set 5:1 after leading 4:2; He lost last set with 5:1 after 1:1;
His tactics approach (3) was bad. After leading 4:2 in first set he rushed twice to the net and Nadal got first two points 0 : 30 and he made a break!
It was beginning of big disappointment of Roger. He underestimated Nadal!! But Nadal played some unbelievable shots!
February 7th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Good points, Richard. I’ve also edited the comments so that they are easier to read. Thanks to Mokibra for the longest comment of this blog!
February 7th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Hey Emil,
Good analysis! Thanks for stopping by, see you soon in Slovenia!
February 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I really like the fact that this analysis has a real methodological approach. Great job!
I have one small comment though. At some point you state “Fed was the more active player with 48 points created (unforced errors + winners and forcing shots), Nad more passive with 29″. I don’t think that this is a really good way to analyse who was the more active player. An unforced error only shows how erratic somebody was, not how “active” somebody was.
I think it’s best to base the activeness of players on the winners and forcing shots alone. In this case we would still conclude that Federer was more active than Nadal (28 > 20).
February 8th, 2009 at 5:16 am
After thinking about this a bit more, I have another tiny criticism on the methodolgy that you use. The term aggressive margin is, in my humble opinion, a misnomer. You write
“If the result (of the aggressive margine) is positive, that means that the player won more points than he lost. In other words, the player did not beat himself because he “gave” more points to himself than to his opponent.”
This is true but it doesn’t exactly mean that you were aggressive, just that you were more consistent.
The aggressive margin should be calculated as
AM player 1 = WF player 1 – UE player 2. This shows the margin of points created by the player himself, in other words the amount of points created by himself opposed to the number of points given to him.
What do you think of this?
February 8th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Guiro,
Thanks for sharing. The unforced errors can show how active someone is. (I agree that it’s not the only thing that UE show)
If you don’t attempt hitting good shots at the pro level, you will make VERY few unforced errors. Don’t compare this with club tennis.
(I once practiced 30 minutes with a WTA player from Slovenia. We just hit down the middle and slightly left – right. She made 3 unforced errors, I made 12. We missed 15 balls in 30 minutes!)
Your definition of aggressive margin would also show an interesting factor. But the reason why it’s done by WF1 – UE1 is because these are almost under player’s control.
So a player can learn to balance his game (his WF and his UE) so that he is very tough to beat. UE2 (from the opponent) are out of his control so he cannot use this number for any future tasks – like what he has to improve tactically.
WF (high number) from opponent on the other hand CAN show that player 1 may play too safe and gives easy balls for the opponent to attack.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Hi Tomaz,
Thanks for your response. I agree with you that professionals will make very few UEs if they’re not trying to hit a good shot.
On the other hand, if a player is more or less waiting for his opponent to make an error (forced or not) then he will probably still end up with AM > 0 simply due to the fact that he hits very few UEs himself. On the other hand, a player who is too aggressive (going for too much hitting many UEs in the process) will end up with AM < 0.
Probably the only thing I disagree with is the term “Aggressive Margin”. The value of it is meaningful but what is calculated isn’t a measure of how aggressive a player was per se.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:40 am
I just flipped back to the site, some days later, to see what had transpired. I was rather delighted to learn there was no ostensible disagreement with the content, only there was some exasperation expressed as to the form. (absence of paragraphs). I realize I went on a bit too long, however, I feel it is my responsibility as the author to allow all the process of my reasoning. For there is always the need, I believe, to be thorough: The process is about allowing thoughts to stream, and maintaining a contunuity of rationale. I have yet to learn to think in paragraphs. However, I do accept that “the wall” can be daunting. I don’t think it valid however, that the wall should be ignored simply because it appears formidable.
There is one point I attempted to make, with regard the Champion Rod Laver, with regard His Grand Slams (2)….For those who had the courage to climb the “Wall” they would have found that I qualified Laver’s Slams, to a certain extent, in that though great accomplishments, they were held on two surfaces. Clay and Grass respectively.
As we are all aware, what I will refer to as the Modern Slam, would require one Player to Win each Major on a different surface, albeit, the distinction between the Surface used at The Aussie Open, and the U.S. Open, may have more in common than what might seperate them. One ultimately would have to conclude they do differ, however slightly.
We have previously discussed, in commiserating Roger”s Loss, his quest to achieve 14 slam titles, thereby equally Pete Sampras. My first response would be this, tongue in cheek, somewhat rhetorical; How many slam titles would Pete have amassed if three of the Four Majors in his career were played on Grass? By my reckoning Roger would be one shy of being half-way to Pete’s 28 career Slam titles. I would suggest there would be few who could deny Pete 8 years of being clearly the Greatest Grass court player? Oh, wait, paragraph.
Though the thrust of this writing is to ask all their thoughts with regard Mr. Nadal, as being the first player ever, Male, to hold all four titles on four different surfaces, in a Calendar Year? Pluto is in Capricorn, Obama is in the White House, winds of Change are afoot. I am stepping into where I am most comfortable, the proverbial limb. And I’m proclaiming Nadal will capture the Slam this year. I would be very interested in hearing (reading) the thoughts of others as to why he can or can’t accomplish the Holy Grail of tennis……..Oh I neglected he also holds the Olympic Gold..So we might dain this the Golden Slam.
I have formulated my reasoning fairly well, even including the somewhat disturbing loss last year to Murray at the Open…….Interested in hearing others with regard this possibility. By the end of May, barring injury, I think we can pretty much conclude Rafa will be half-way there, neatly tucking away is fifth French. So, taking it to a logical conclusion, as absurd as it might appear; by the end of 2009 with a bit of good luck and fortune…….Nadal will possess 9 Slam titles, including the Golden Slam: And at the age of 23 be five titles shy of tying Pete.
So my brothers let the arrows fly I’m prepared for the skewering associated with being so Bold. And Tomaz thanks for the editing and the added emphasis of the italics, though I believe the paragraph below should have received the same treatment. The three do contain the thrust of Nadal’s assault on the Fed. Aloha for the time being……..Mokibra
February 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
[...] I’ve analyzed the match in the same way as I did the Federer – Nadal final of Australian Open 2009. [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Good analysis. Roger needs to do what Smapras said recently which is to selectively come to the net and keep Rafa guessing and attack Rafa’s weak second serv e as well. You saw him do that once against Rafa when he ran around his backhand and smacked a winner of a second serve. But later he has break point opportunities and didnt go for it. So in the end you can analyse all you want like I have in my blog but what it comes down to is that Roger has to believe he can win because he clearly does not at this point.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
At the same age, Fed would have crush Rafa on any surface, he already inflicted three 6/0 to rafa on clay, grass and hard!
Imagine the trash rafa would suffer if Roger was 22 instead of 27! LOL
Lucky, lucky Rafa, winning the AO with 21 less winners!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Helen’s comment reveals a hard and true Federer Fan choosing to reconstruct reality rather than accept that at this pint federer is simply out matched in this rivalry. At the end of the day, it sometimes is the case, that the one with the most winners, the man with the most “points” can lose the match. In the instance at hand far more incredible to me, is that Nadal, who was tested to the limit in the Semi’s by Verdasco, managed to overcome Verdasco’s 95 winners, 95 winners I say it again. Out right winners……Alright….the way I have it figured that’s 23 games nearly four sets worth. And Nadal won the match…………It is inescapable that Federers winners total wasn’t half as many……..there’s obviously more to the overall appreciation of Nadal’s ability to persevere other than an age differential. Fact is, the differential in and of itself would point to a more solid and accomplished mindset held by the spaniard. A very Dear friend of mine, by the Name of Hugh Stewart, who played many Davis Cup Ties for the U.S., who is now 80 years of age: While ranked No 1. in the United States, at the age of 19, met a nearly 50 year old Bill Tilden, in a best of five match at the Lajolla Beach and Tennis club. Tilden won that match 6-3, 6-1, 6-0… Helen speaks of an age differential of 5 years with reference to Nadal and Fed……….Let’s try to keep it real?!! At 27 years of age, I didn’t understand fatigue, never knew it existed. If age is to be the veil behind which we conceal the merit of this rivalry we are lost from the onset……….mokibra
April 4th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I agree with most of these comments, especially the insights of Mokibra who must be a very good player. Looking at recent losses of Federer at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne one new factor, not mentioned, by anyone is: he has a child coming and he is not yet married. Fed, I predict, will retire in 2009 if he cannot win a Slam. Fed’s game needs fast surface and if commentators are right, Wimbledon and Australia are slower now then in 2004-2007,Fed’s hayday. Todays hardcourts are much slower than in old days. Only US Open is still fast. Fed needs a coach, new approach to his backhand and return of serve. Be great if Pete would do it. More important ,as Mobibra mentions, he needs a conditioning coach a la Gil Reyes. Otherwise Fed goes the way of Borg, McEnroe, (even Sampras to some degree, who could only win on fast fast grass ) out of contention at 28.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Good analysis by Mokibra.