Aces Cracked! Novak puts a bad beat on Roger…

I agree with you 100%, especially in your analysis of the reason why Federer has better chances to win over Nole than Nadal does.

Okay but what about the math for Novak?  Complete the story problem.  ;-)

Hi Will, your analysis was very interesting; however, as in any game of “chance” there is always the “unforseen variable”. Federer had the match on his racquet and did not get the job done. It’s as simple as that. Roger’s confidence is shaky right now and has been for the last 8 months. Rafa is really in a daze and he too is not as confident of his abilities to hit winning shots. Novak has shaken the pot and his confidence is soaring! And rightly so; he deserves to be #1. He made it happen for him against the top players in the world. What I hope doesn’t happen is for the tennis experts to proclaim Novak “the greatest player of all time” as they were doing for awhile regarding Roger Federer, then Rafa etc. etc. Anything can happen in this wonderful game of tennis. When all is said and done, the player that can combine technique, execution, and physical staying power will almost always prevail.

Good analysis, Will!
Please, send this video to Roger. I really want him to win!
P.S. How about building a regression model to adjust for covariates like wind, time of the day, number of Fed’s fans at the stadium, condition of Jokovic’s back etc.?

Agree totally.

Nice work Will. I couldn’t sleep that night after the match cause I couldn’t believe Fed lost that match, I was having nightmares. I now I can understand why there’s no way he should have lost that match but as Fed said to his credit that’s why we watch sport cause you can never guarantee the winner.
But now with Djokovics’ back all bets could be off for a while at least. and with Raffa being injury prone the Fed just might out last them to win one or two more majors, who knows. But one things for sure we haven’t had this many great players all vieing for major contention for a long time and it can only be good for tennis.
Keep up the insightful analysis
Alan

federer had 86% of winning at least one of those match points, not of winning the match. the actual chances of winning the match were much higher. When it was 40-40, federer still had a chance of winning that game (if you’d say federer wins advantages when he’s serving 50% of the time, then the chances of winning the match go to 93% (100 – 14*0.5). But it’s not over, even after djokovic breaks, federer still can won the match, setting the odds higher to something like 97% (if you don’t take motivation and psychological stuff into the equation).

Indeed, Rafa does not have the answers.

This is exactly why tennis is such a great game and a sport I love to talk about and teach………….the scoring system just means that whatever the maths say should happen don’t always happen and “if you ain’t won that last point – you ain’t won!!”

Very interesting analysis, but did you realize Fed is actually now No. 4, so he will avoid Djokovic in the semis now anyway. The only trouble is he will now have to get past Nadal first, LoL.

Nice figure work going on here Will…..and the calculator was nowhere to be seen

Nice figure work going on here Will…..and the calculator was nowhere to be seen

Yes, tennis is like an equation you need to address both sides

One thing I vividly remember noticing while watching was the crazy s**t kicking smirk Djok had on his face right before he smoked that 40-15 service return winner. I’ll never forget that, cuz I was feeling like Fed had bested him again after an amazing Djok season. 

Yep for sure, Fed can beat Novak and Rafa I am afraid is a long way off at this point…….yet I would have backed him heavily to have beaten Fed if he would have beaten Novak………it’s all about match ups!!

yes, roger needs to play more smaller tournaments, good call. going into a different bracket would be good for him. i wonder if he watches your videos =) 

I think Roger can increase his probability of winning by increasing his first serve percentage on crucial points. As I remember, in earlier matches he could always serve ases when he was behind or when he needed to close up. It seems that he wasn’t as confident in this match. The problem may be in his mental state.

victory goes to the person who makes the 2nd to last mistake

Very nice explanation Will. I was there in stadium when match slipped away from Roger’s grip. It blew me away. Could not sleep well for next 2 nights. I just hope Roger gets to win atleast one major before he retires

 interesting – roger’s stats don’t play out like that with rafa – likely the rafa backhand to roger’s neutralizes the stats somewhat.
also, rafa is closer to the baseline with roger vs. nole which i think adds to nole’s advantage to wind up and kick the sugar out of the ball. you can see that generally rafa’s return balls are shorter in the court with nole than federer who struggles with that deep backhand. 
psychologically (if you believe in it) roger can not beat rafa who is gaining on his slam titles losing to nole who can beat rafa is a better strategy to keep history intact.

Re: Paul Gold – Federer is NOT No. 4 in the ATP Rankings…he’s still No. 3 and has 1,215 points more than Andy Murray, who’s No. 4. 

I want your shirt!

Good analysis, Will.  That match should really be the final game of the tournament if you think about the quality of tennis.  Yes, everything will change if Federer becomes number 2.  He can do it, no doubts.

Djokovic actually beat Federer in 3 straight point because he got the ad so what is the pct of winning 3 straight points?

Thats really good analysis and it would be interesting if Federer becomes no 2 and then Federer and Djkok face each other in final.

I am wondering one thing. Federer has answers for Djok but why he don’t have for Rafa ?

Now….This is the best home-school math lesson I can find! Makes sense to me….and James!
Visual-Smart-Applicable-Entertaining-On the money!
Thank you fuzzy yellow ball man!

Many Rafa’s returns to Djoker were short and too much spin which gave Djoker time to recover.Rafa need to mix with some fast flat shots to catch Djoker offguard.

In my opinion Fed needs to keep the points shorter against Nadal by getting into net early in the point.  He begins the match by doing that and wins but reasons unknown changes strategy into a groundstroke duel as the match progresses.  During the longer baseline exchanges, because Fed can’t penetrate the court with his topspin backhand against Nadal, he needs to use his slice backhand down the line into Nadal’s backhand to open up his own forehand for the inside out or inside in wrong foot.  When Fed does go crosscourt with his backhand during rallies he needs to keep it angled into the short corner with slice.

You are awesome Will!  I agree with you totally and I think Federer should have challenged the call on that amazing forehand return by Djokovic.  Federer won 100 percent of the time on the point after a challenge.  He may have gotten into Djokovics’ head too!

Very intelligent Will and a great analysis. I appreciate all the info that you make available to us tennis fans.

Keith

Very good analysis!

Ugh… you’re making my head hurt =)

You said what I felt after watching the match with perfection and fact. Thanks.

if he had the probability of 13.9 % of losing two serves in a row, he doesn’t have an 86.1% probability of winning the other points.  It isn’t that if he doesn’t lose two in a row he wins it all.  Novak could win one and Fed the other or the converse.  His only probability of winning is that he wins two serves in a row.  And that is only a 1 out of 4 probability.

Nice analysis!I’d also like to mention the fact that rafa’s backhand lacked depth.Most of the times it ended up close to the service box which gave novak an easy opportunity to hit a winner.Rafa was also not serving fast enough.

NADAL HITS TO MANY SHORT RETURNS HE NEEDSTO STOP THAT,ARTHUR SUM

Hi Will,
I agree with you that Rafa generally can beat Federer and Djokovic usually beats Rafa these days.  But I see 2 problems with your hypothetical situation with Federer taking over number 2 seed and Rafa number 3. 

First, if Rafa continues to play at the level he has all year, Federer will not be reaching number 2.  Even though Rafa has not been able to defeat Novak, he has pretty much beaten everyone else he has faced, including Roger.  The only way I see Fed taking over as number 2 is if Rafa is injured.

Second, even if Roger reaches number 2, there is an even chance that Roger will be the one to play Rafa in the semis, in which case he would probably not even make it to the finals to face Novak.  

interesting and funny, i almost puked watching this tiresome final, this is what happen when 2 pitbulls get at ea.

Do you think there is anything Rafa can implement into his game that can get into Djokovic’s head. I really like your analysis. I lost sleep for 3-4 days after Federer lost that match and your analysis has helped me get over it (yes, its 2 weeks after). I think Federer’s best chance to win a grand slam is at Wimbledon because the ball bounces lower than hard or clay courts, giving more trouble to Djokovic and semi-neutralizing Nadal’s high top-spin balls to his backhand. Let me know what you think. LETS GO ROGER!!!

Interesting math and perspective….thanks

Will,

I think the real reason that Federer lost his match was his poor choice of a service placement at 40-15.  At 30-15 Federer served to Djokovic’s backhand and got a shanked return out of play.  Then at 40-15 instead of serving to Djokovic’s backhand again, which he had just shanked, or into his body where he wouldn’t be able to take a solid rip at the ball, he serves wide to his forehand.  This allowed Djokovic to take a rip at the return with his strength and the wide serve allowed Djokovic to hit an unreturnable return crosscourt.

Hitting that return got Djokovic fired back up and he got the crowd fired up and returned many fans to his side.  Before that return Djokovic was upset with the crowd for being heavily favored towards Roger and looked like a beaten man.

At 40-30 Roger hit a good serve into the body and got a short return that he missed with his forehand.  I think if Roger had served to the backhand or into the body at 40-15 and got that same short forehand he would have put it away and be on his way to the US Open Finals.

While it is important to mix up your service placement, match point is not the time to do it.  On match point you want to use your strength to exploit your opponents weakness.  When serving at match point you want to serve to the location that has the greatest chance of producing either an error or a weaker return.  In this case, Roger should have served to Djokovic’s backhand, which he had just missed badly, or into the body, which should have produced a weaker return.         

Waw, results for Fed’s win were incredibly high! It’s very interesting, Will. Thank you. Your shirt is hillarious!

ART. O BY THE WAY WILL GOOD JOB,NOW WHAT ABOUT DJOKOVIC HE IS THE BEST.

Right on Will thank you. Really enjoyed the analysis.not sure about the 1000 or 500 events as typically a) the top guys tend to pace themselves on those to peak at the slams which b) often means they run into each other in the same preceding events… Don’t you think

Dead right on analysis, for Fed it’s all about ranking, he has to avoid Rafa by being in a different half of the draw.

Dead right on analysis, for Fed it’s all about ranking, he has to avoid Rafa by being in a different half of the draw.

Will, That is cool geek stuff…but I love it. Funny, never thought of strike zone to give opponents trouble. Thanks!

Will, That is cool geek stuff…but I love it. Funny, never thought of strike zone to give opponents trouble. Thanks!

Excellent serve math analysis and comments on high and low on the mark!  Stress elevated on MP2 with short shot … seemed like RF did not run through the shot for a winner instead of net cord ping out.  Thank you.

Excellent serve math analysis and comments on high and low on the mark!  Stress elevated on MP2 with short shot … seemed like RF did not run through the shot for a winner instead of net cord ping out.  Thank you.

you looks like ghost.
tks for bryan’s bros tips
it really helps

mathmatics time!

The point Will made was that RF had a 86.1% chance of winning the match by winning one of the two points.  If he doesn’t win in the next two pints (which he didn’t) then it is deuce and that is another calculation.
If RF wins the 3rd point then it is his AD and he has a 60+% of winning (which he didn’t)

Good info Will. But when the draws are made, the #1 seed has a 50% chance of drawing the #3 seed and a 50% chance of drawing the #4 seed, so even if Fed does get to #2, he still has a 50% chance that Rafa will be on his side of the draw, assuming Rafa is #3 or #4. 

Will:Your math is wrong. Yes, chance of Fed losing 2 points in a row was 13.9%. But chance or him winning 2 points in a row is NOT 86%, but .6271 x .6271 = 39.3%. The remaining percentages are winning 1 point and losing 1 point. 
Pete

your math starts off okay, then wavers.  there is an 86% chance of winning the match in the first two points.  then he still has a better than 50% chance, much better actually, of winning that game from deuce.  and even if he loses the game, he still has about a  50% chance of winning the match because it’s tied.  the chance of losing the whole match, not just the first two points, leading the fifth set at 40-15 on serve is probably 1-2%.  of course, he did lose.  

If you only thing in term of math Federer as way more chance than 86.1% to win the match because 13.9% is not the chance of Djokovic to win the match it is the % he get to 40 40 now you would have to know what is the odds Federer loose is serve against Djokovic at 40 40 you could estimate it (very complicated because it can go forever best way to do it is a Montecarlo computer simulation like they use for backgammon and some poker analysis)and than only after Novak equal the score make an estimate of what is there respective chance to win the match. For exemple I will be very generous for Novak and give him 39% chance to win from 40 40 than after he equal the score I give him 50% it give him 50% x 39%=19.5% to win if he get to 40 40 so 13.9% x 19.5% =2.7105% at best for Novak so Federer get 97.2895% to win that is way better than AA it more like having a set against a pair than your opponent catch 2 time and make a full bigger than yours.

But I do think psychology as bigger importance than math suggest so Novak and actually more than 2.7105% to win..

The math doesn’t tell the story.  Fed gambled hitting a hard service to the corner might possibly ace the point…  Djoker gambled this was coming and clocked the return and then won the second…  IMHO, Fed should have played it safe by taking it directly to Djoker with a big (kick) serve to the body, putting Djoker in position to hit a weak return and better chance for Fed to win the point.  In baseball terms, when a fast ball is expected, go with a change up or slider.  But then they don’t play much baseball in Switzerland…

Hi Will, An excellent, intelligent and useful analysis. Well done.
Charlie

Great video!

Actually, if you are seeded 1 or 2, you have an equal chance to be playing 3 or 4 in the semi finals. It is just by chance that the last few times Nadal has played Murray and Fed, Djok. 

Kind comment : What is % of Fed’s Match point first service from all last year’s games ? I imply it’s low . Match point emotions breake the ststistics.

I agree that Rafa is hopeless. As for Federer, can really he beat Nole?  Yes,  but at the moment Nole has the confidence factor. However, given the inconsistencies seen in Nole’s career until this year, I suspect that Federer will indeed take him several times next year.

haha the math is just for fun 
the thing about getting to no.2 is that he will have 50% of getting to play just djokovic compared to when he is no.3 he will have to play against rafa no matter what ) (assuming that rafa only loses to djokovic)
like when he is no.3 he will have to beat rafa/djok in the semi and beat the other in the final in order to win the tournament
when he is no.2 he has 50% of having rafa plays djok in the semis and that is much better for him )
so Will you are right 

Interesting video and great T-Shirt!

Loved how you broke down the match.  It was a great match where Fed seem to break and it cost him the match

good maths lesson… i was hopeless at that subject. i just wish fed hit his match point serve at the body and came into the net.. very similar to when novak did against rafa at wimbledon during the final on his way to match point. I agree with some of the other writers that fed , if he still stays motivated and fit he will indeed have Novak,s number next season because he has been on top in their last 2 encounters. also he needs to nail a 2 set lead and not hit the peaks and troughs in his game. Novak has Rafa,s number but i really do think Fed can come good and take them both again.. Forget Murray, he,s history and will never win a major… too brittle mentally.

good maths lesson… i was hopeless at that subject. i just wish fed hit his match point serve at the body and came into the net.. very similar to when novak did against rafa at wimbledon during the final on his way to match point. I agree with some of the other writers that fed , if he still stays motivated and fit he will indeed have Novak,s number next season because he has been on top in their last 2 encounters. also he needs to nail a 2 set lead and not hit the peaks and troughs in his game. Novak has Rafa,s number but i really do think Fed can come good and take them both again.. Forget Murray, he,s history and will never win a major… too brittle mentally.

 ’there’s lies , damn lies and statistics’. The game at this level is mind power, we saw this with Andre agassi and Tony Robbins in the 80′s. I was over in Estonia recently and while watching a tournament of 200+ in the world , saw how little focus and discipline they have . Look at murray, he gets a coach to stop him from lashing out , but forget to tell him how to dislove his frustration.Now he looks like an inflated baloon waiting to burst.  To be great you have to play great , to be outstanding is ‘Unconscious belief’ .Something happened to Nole on an Unconscious level last year,that changed his career, Nadal is a one trick pony , only federer can take him out, and will do next year or year after. The only reason Nole beat federer was because he believed on an unconscious level he couldnt lose , hence ‘I just closed my eyes and hit the ball’. I am amazed no-one has developed the mental game yet.

Pete, your calculation of 39.3% as the odds of Fed winning two points in a row is correct; however, it is incorrect to conclude that Will’s math is wrong.  The reason is that when Fed is up 40-15, he only needs to win one point to win the match.  He may win it immediately at 40-15, or he may lose the first point and then win it with the score 40-30.  It is Nole who must win two points in a row to stay “alive”.  So, Will is correct in using all the “remaining percentages” as you mentioned above.  Regards, Juan.

excellent calculation.
But what you need to to is to correct in drawing the numbers out of the real:
How much games does Roger win when he is up 40 15 and hits 2 first serves in with this 2 serves.
How much games wins Roger (with the real data) when he is 40 15 up despite first or second serves with the 2 points.
How much games does Roger win when he is up 40 15 and serves even when he loses the next two points?

on both match points against Djokovic this year and one of the match points last year against him, Federer hit his first serve so this is not what is challenging for him, if someone can return like Novak did, the only thing you can do is to take the net 2 feet higher )))

Wonderful stats.
Here the real question out of the real world.
How much games does Roger wins with real data when he is up 40 15 and hits 2 first serves in?
……and hits 2 serves in despite 1st or 2nd
…… wins overall when he lead 40 15
please answer out of the real data

Rai L

It is much more difficult to win the match point than to win the first ball in the game. So whole match ststistics can not be correct for last two balls of the semifinal. This is the only thing I wanted to say. The higher the net the closer to badminton – this is simply different game.

Good point! Are you able to retrieve that number and further analyze this aspect, Will? Thanks in advance.

Completely agree, of course… good job Will!

Hi Will,

Great presentation and analysis (as usual i might say!) How i wish
Federer could actually see this, he really needs to change some of his
thinking and attitude as I’m very sure he wants to and need to win
another major to get some of his doubters of his back.

By the way, what happened to fybpremium? I can’t find the sight again?

Regards

Gbolahan

‘site’ I mean to say

Hi Will,

Great presentation and analysis (as usual i might say!) How i wish
Federer could actually see this, he really needs to change some of his
thinking and attitude as I’m very sure he wants to and need to win
another major to get some of his doubters of his back.

By the way, what happened to fybpremium? I can’t find the site again?

Regards

Gbolahan

The important stat is ‘which player holds the most major titles?’
It is the confidence that this generates in the holder (and doubt in the mind of the opponent) that influences the way pressure points are played. That is why Fed and Rafa were ‘unbeatable’ and now Novak appears invincible.

No matter how many time you toss a coin, the chances of it coming up on one sid or the other is always 50%.

Good analysis of the rock paper scissors  thing similar to Borg Mac and Connors. Mac had a hard time with Borg’s dipping topspin and better angles than he did with Connors flat pounding drive and Connors flat drive hurt Borg more than the Mac counter punch style and touch volley attack.  Back when Fed was coming up he all of a sudden realized he couldn’t lose and the confidence just made him better.  If Fed doesn’t take him again soon Nole whose confidence to win has gotten high might be on a real role. Believers are hard to beat they think so and then so does the opponent.

Will, I like the math, but did you consider taking Fed’s serving percentage at the time of the double match point or did you take his overall serving percentage for the match?  I think the former might show even slightly higher odds for him to win the match.  Also, in hindsight, which would be great to have prior to playing any point, I think that Fed was very successful on the wide serve in the deuce court early in the match, but I saw Novak’s forehand return on that side get better in the 3rd and 4th set and Fed did not adjust to it.  At 40-15 I think Novak guessed that Fed would be going there again and took a cut.  In my opinion, Fed would have been smarter to take a flat serve up the middle, which essentially and theoretically should have more speed to it.  On the 40-30 point, I agree it was just bad luck when he clipped the tape, but after he lost that point and subsequently the game, I think Fed lost some confidence.

Hey Will great video I really needed some help on this, how do i strategically beat a guy who plays with a huge amount of topspin and power which im not used too. Please answer back Thanks  

Hi Will — Interesting concept of getting Roger up to #2 — Your presentation of the strike zone patterns is real food for thought, tells me I should get much more serious about being able to hit both topspin and slice off both sides – 
     Aren’t the odds of Federer winning even greater than 86%? Didn’t you just calculate the odds of Federer losing any two points on serve in a row in that match as 86%? If so, that gets the match to deuce and Novak still has to win another two points in a row to beat Roger.

Prior Post Correction: Losing an two points on serve in a row should have said 14% not 86%, sloppy

Awesome thoughts out there, Will. At one stage you talk about Fed’s chances of winning the match as 86%, but what would be the chances of Fed losing 4 points n a row( which he did) to lose the game & subsequently the match.
You advocate RF to focus on the minors(1000,500 etc) & up his ranking. But then so will RN & ND as the others too, will be playing. So? Back to square one? And suppose- he gets on the other half of ND in the minors, well- Rafa would be waiting for him, which is a much bigger hurdle for the gr8 RF.
And then the others like AM & Soderling & Delpo…

Your take Will! 

Awesome thoughts out there, Will. At one stage you talk about Fed’s chances of winning the match as 86%, but what would be the chances of Fed losing 4 points n a row( which he did) to lose the game & subsequently the match.
You advocate RF to focus on the minors(1000,500 etc) & up his ranking. But then so will RN & ND as the others too, will be playing. So? Back to square one? And suppose- he gets on the other half of ND in the minors, well- Rafa would be waiting for him, which is a much bigger hurdle for the gr8 RF.
And then the others like AM & Soderling & Delpo…

Your take Will! 

My son and I had basically the exact same observations after watching both matches.
Interesting game of rock, paper, scissors going on. Novak handles the high backhand he is given from Nadal and has the speed to cause problems every where else. Isner can handle the heights but just doesn’t have the speed and durability in a 5 setter against Nadal. Been enjoying your productions.. good job… from an X- teaching pro. 

Federer’s slice backhand is better than Rafa’s because Fed can slice or curl the ball into Djoko’s body while Rafa’s curls away therefore one is jamming while the other is a matter of just stepping into it early which Djoko has no problem with stepping into early. Which leads me to the other point Fed’s success has to do with his grip and his position on the court against Djoko they both can bang on the baseline  and with Federer’s grip he can flatten the ball out better than Rafa and keep Djoko in trouble better. If I were Rafa i would work on getting up on the baseline and flattening the ball out better it’s the only way he will beat Djoko on a fast court.

I do not agree with the Rock Paper Scissors thing. It would have been the case if Fed had won more than once against Djokovic. Maybe next year. This year is the Rock Paper Steamroller game year. 

Wow, all that and a math whiz, too!  You just slid that probability theory right in there like a backhand drop shot .. Dude!
Seriously, if Federer is going to lose 1 out of 7.5 times in that situation, it is going to be at a set or match point against Djokovic, who now has the confidence to “tee it high, and let it fly,” as the PGA pros used to say.

It is strange to me, that everyone who played against Djokovic this year had in average only one good set and other sets – played in very unorganized style. This is not because of the play of Djokovic. They just start making more mistakes suddenly and become slower.  Why?

Yeah he blew it ,but that backhand still breaks down and sometimes Fed hit the ball to the player side with the other side wide open .That may have been his best chance left.

Yeah he blew it ,but that backhand still breaks down and sometimes Fed hit the ball to the player side with the other side wide open .That may have been his best chance left.

Will:
Like your website and your analyses on matchups (and, yes, Fed matches up much better vs. Djokovic then vs. Rafa {Fed cannot handle Nadal’s forehand to his high backhand}), he almost always has tight matches vs. Novak – agree with hitting zone point but he loves Novak’s pace as well) but cannot believe you said that Fed must move up to N0. 2 to avoid playing both with the draw. THAT IS NOT THE CASE! It has worked out at the Open that way for a while now but it is done by a DRAW! No 1. seed DOES NOT HAVE to play no. 3 seed. The top two seeds are put at the opposite ends of the draw and then you pick out the number 3 and number 4 seeds and they can go at either end. So, no. 1 seed can play no. 3 OR no. 4 seed and no 2 seed can play no. 3 seed OR no. 4 seed.
As for Fed winning more major Masters tourneys to improve his ranking, that is easier said then done becasue he will probably have to beat not only either Rafa or Novak but Andy Murray along the way – and Fed struggles to beat Murray as well (at least in non-Slams).

Will:
Like your website and your analyses on matchups (and, yes, Fed matches up much better vs. Djokovic then vs. Rafa {Fed cannot handle Nadal’s forehand to his high backhand}), he almost always has tight matches vs. Novak – agree with hitting zone point but he loves Novak’s pace as well) but cannot believe you said that Fed must move up to N0. 2 to avoid playing both with the draw. THAT IS NOT THE CASE! It has worked out at the Open that way for a while now but it is done by a DRAW! No 1. seed DOES NOT HAVE to play no. 3 seed. The top two seeds are put at the opposite ends of the draw and then you pick out the number 3 and number 4 seeds and they can go at either end. So, no. 1 seed can play no. 3 OR no. 4 seed and no 2 seed can play no. 3 seed OR no. 4 seed.
As for Fed winning more major Masters tourneys to improve his ranking, that is easier said then done becasue he will probably have to beat not only either Rafa or Novak but Andy Murray along the way – and Fed struggles to beat Murray as well (at least in non-Slams).

Nice maths Will and good theory but you’ve forgotten one thing. A draw is made to find out if # 1 plays 3 or 4 in his half so he still has a 50% better chance anyway depending upon the draw. Personally, if I do a club draw I always put #’s 1 & 4 in the same half. The # 1 deserves it.

I couldn’t really get ‘into’ the finals, but I was glued to the screen during the Fed-Djo match. But I always end up hurting people’s feelings when I try to explain why..

You’re right about playing the smaller tournaments, it just makes sense to take points from Djokovic and Nadal bij winning their tournaments. He will probably have thought of this I think.

I couldn’t really get ‘into’ the finals, but I was glued to the screen during the Fed-Djo match. But I always end up hurting people’s feelings when I try to explain why..

You’re right about playing the smaller tournaments, it just makes sense to take points from Djokovic and Nadal bij winning their tournaments. He will probably have thought of this I think.

[...] Novak cracks Roger’s aces Interesting assessment on why Federer statistically should have closed out Djokovic in the semis of the 2011 US Open. (video) (tags: tennis) Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

How about this for stirring the pot a little: Forget about the stats, it could be the enormous pressure that must have caught you off guard when you suddenly realize you’re on the verge of winning the 17th grand slam and the possibility of retiring at the top of world. I don’t know, I am not the great RF.

Awesome video; enjoyed the math crunching and the Novak/Rog/Rafa triumvirate comparison and break down.  Well done!  Hopefully Roger has the same thought process as you do Will and figures out what he needs to do in order to remount the dog pile.

HEY WILL EXCELLENT ANALYSES INCREDIBLE AH ? I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT BUT IT CAN HAPPEN AS IF YOU ARE 5 LOVE AND GET BACK AND WIN THE SET THAT PROVES THAT NOTHING IS WRITTEN UNTIL THE LAST POINT IS PLAYED
HOPE TO KEEP WATCHING YOU IN YOU’RE GREAT INFO IN THIS BEAUTIFUL GAME

Will, 

Great analysis here…. though I’m just average at math … I do love your making it a tool to better understand what is happening on the court.  Like the old adage about what appears to be sure on paper… “it’s why they play the game!”.Keep up the great work!Bill

That was really fun!  However, it would be even more interesting if you would take it out of the machine/statistic element and insert the ever present with all pros emotional aspect of not being in control at the crucial moments of the match.  The performance early on when relatively loose and flowing compared to the tightening aspect of having to finish off an important point which is usually serving for the set or the match is what would really be an interesting study, because it happens to all of us.  We can´t seem to stay calm and let the talent take over instead of the brain and the emotion.  Even a losing position, like the jokers, was overcome by his go for broke, nothing to lose, let it rip attitude.  It begins to boil down to on and off court attitude.
If life is easy going without the struggle and conflict of emotional reactions and sustaining a joyful. playful attitude, it carries over to the court.  Being loose and flowing is not an easy tool, but it is really important when the score gets tight and more so when you are winning and trying to finish it off.  Take a deep breath, look at the clouds in the sky, and know that you are all right with the world.  Then rip a winner like the joker did with fed.  That´s all folks, as donald duck would say.

Hi Will, 

I believe your math is right on as far as Federer losing 2 points in a row on his serve.  However, I would like to know the statistics for Federer losing 3 points in a row on his serve, which is what he did.  In fact, serving at 40-15, Fed lost 3 points in a row, served an ace to make it deuce, then lost 2 points in a row again to lose the game.  I think the forehand return winner Djokovic hit at 40-15 clearly rattled Fed’s confidence, so whatever statistics were in Fed’s favor before that forehand didn’t apply anymore because he was no longer employing the same strategies that he was in earning those statistics.  

Everyone keeps talking about Djokovic’s forehand return winner at 40-15, but what we fail to talk about is how he still had to earn 3 more points to win the game.  Yes, Djokovic hit an amazing shot at 40-15, but it was Federer’s complete mental meltdown that caused him to lose the match.  This is the edge that he has lost against top 10 players in the last few years.  Unless he learns how to play the mental game of tennis, he will not win another grand slam.

Hi Will, 

I believe your math is right on as far as Federer losing 2 points in a row on his serve.  However, I would like to know the statistics for Federer losing 3 points in a row on his serve, which is what he did.  In fact, serving at 40-15, Fed lost 3 points in a row, served an ace to make it deuce, then lost 2 points in a row again to lose the game.  I think the forehand return winner Djokovic hit at 40-15 clearly rattled Fed’s confidence, so whatever statistics were in Fed’s favor before that forehand didn’t apply anymore because he was no longer employing the same strategies that he was in earning those statistics.  

Everyone keeps talking about Djokovic’s forehand return winner at 40-15, but what we fail to talk about is how he still had to earn 3 more points to win the game.  Yes, Djokovic hit an amazing shot at 40-15, but it was Federer’s complete mental meltdown that caused him to lose the match.  This is the edge that he has lost against top 10 players in the last few years.  Unless he learns how to play the mental game of tennis, he will not win another grand slam.

The Final was brutal! Literally hard, really. Your teory is very good, 2nd on ranking one

Porky Pig says that :p

The best result for Rafa&Fed will give them the” EGG” or space ship if you wanna that Djokovich use to recover 

A number of my friends and myselfvhave talked about this n you have put it in words the we could not, put please let’s not forget about the short balls of both rafa and fed hit to novak

Will

 A thoughtful analysis of how Federer can improve his rankings. 

June

technically if fed was #2 he might have to face rafa in the semis which would be worse for him. but for the most part its better for him to be #2 because of the chance that he won’t have to face either until the final

Love it!

Wi

thank you for this smart analysis of the match fed-joko , I think is great . Best regards

A job well done. Again.
Thanks for the interesting perspective.

This
is a very interesting and correct analysis, from the local point of view.
Local, meaning if you concentrate around those two particular shots (Fed’s
match points). However, if you look at the whole match, Djokovic should have
won and here is why. In terms of first serves in, winners, and second serves
wins, the two players were about the same. However, Fed had 24 more errors, 16%
less first serves wins, he had only 5 break points, whereas Novak had 12, and
finally, Fed won 18 points less than Novak in the whole match. Of course this
is the overall match statistics, which includes the 3 final games which would
not have been played had Fed had won one of his match points, but it could only
be changed slightly in those last three games. In other words, Novak should
have won when you look at the overall statistics of the match.

Hey Will!
I think that Djokovic exactly knew about his perspectives at 40:15 and so he said to himself “Well, hit a great shot or loose. Because if you don´t, you´ll gonna loose at more than 80 %”. And he got it!
I also think that you´re right about these three guys. Djoker beats Rafa, Rafa beats Fed and Djoker and Fed are equal. But as far as I know, #3 and #4 don´t always play against the same of #1 or #2. Fed (being #2 the last two years) hat to play Djoker in the US Open Semi-Finals – so that was #2 against #3. Now Djoker was #1 and Fed #3 and they also played against each other in the semis.
cu soon
Phil from Austria

Just great mathematical analyze of the match. Good work Will!

Thank you for your work, but this is totally meaningless video. We all know Fed should’ve won. But also we all know that Djoker should’ve not lost his serve at love to give Fed a chance to serve for the match. Two great chams, what’s there more to say?

You have focused the math on only the two points when Roger had match points.  There are also additional probabilities to consider once Djokovic won those points.  Meaning that the chance that Roger would win the match is even greater than 86%.

You applied a mathematical analysis to a problem that wasn’t really mathematical.  if anything it was mental.  If you look at how Djokovic played the 40-15 point, many would say he wasn’t even trying to win the match…he had already given up.  To wit, he was smiling/laughing and nodding before the point was played.  An experienced tournament player would recognize what Djokovic did (the huge forehand swing) as a release of anger/frustration rather than a serious attempt to win an important point.  No one was more surprised than he was that it went in and won the point.  Then, at 40-30, Roger choked a bit.  This is nothing new for Roger.  

While we think of Roger as one of the greatest players of all time, few people look at his record in tight matches and pressure situations.  It’s not particularly good.  Usually, he either dominates people (as he often did in 2004 – 2008), or he stands a fairly even chance of losing/winning in big matches.  Indeed, his five set career record is barely over .500, and that includes all matches, not just those against top players.  He has lost more of the really close important matches of his career than he’s won.  He’s just not that good under pressure, but no one talks about that much.

One other problem with your analysis.  You talked about trying to improve his seeing from 3 to 2.  However, since most tournaments no longer follow the 2 plays 3 and 1 plays 4 format, there are too many variables to properly predict who would face whom most often.  Personally, I think they should go back to the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 format, as it’s more fair.  But that isn’t going to happen in the immediate future, if at all.  

First off 86% isn’t that much when you think about it. And secondly, you act like Fed can just play more tournaments and instantly be number 2. It doesn’t work that way, he’ll just tire his body more if he plays more tournaments and won’t be able to perform as well in these grand slams since he’s an older guy.

And I forgot to mention this. If Fed is #2 then he will play Rafa in the semis instead and could still play Djokovic in the finals. So I do not get where your coming from…

Just a quick note on your math in which you describe the probability of a coin coming up twice with the same result. You thinking on math is why Vegas prospers and the logic is flawed. If the odds of  an “action” is 50% each time it is attempted….the odds of it happening the second time is not reduced, it stays the same at 50%! You can flip a coin a thousand times and it will always remain a 50/50 deal, even if it comes up “heads” 999 times in a row…the 1000th flip will still have a 50% chance at coming up “heads”.

Great analysis.

He is talking about two consecutive coin flips coming up heads.  Not two independent coin flips.  Getting two consecutive head flips is not 50%, it is 25%.

There are much more complexities to calculating such probability than this simple mathematics, which anyone can do if they have graduated from the middle school. You cannot simply demonstrate the supposed win of Federer just from these statistics, because it may overgeneralize what has really happened, and credit too much consistency in Federer’s game play. For instance, his probability of winning his serve may vary greatly according to his condition at a certain stage; say that he has played 80% of his capability in the first two sets, then fell to 40% during the last two matches due to his loss in the third set, and the probability would be close to what is mentioned in the video. The opposite case, which supposes absolute consistency of 62.71% chance of winning, should seem unrealistic to general people. Thus, concerning the former explanation, if your video were to be more precise in speculating this match, it should focus more on how these statistics varied over the course of the game.

i am not impressed with your counter analysis..i believe Will more than you. Sorry!

Will, nice analysis! Good reference! I believe you more than these pundits who offers nothing but destructive criticism..Keep up the good work!!!

you comment is totally meaningless!!!

Liked the analysis. Math looked right  I was a math major.

Interesting observations, but the math is relatively meaningless overall. Math like this works when you are talking about pure numbers—things involving random chance and probability. Tennis isn’t like that. The strengths and weaknesses of the players involved factor into the equation as do things like endurance, injuries, mental toughness, game plan, player execution, management of pressure situations, etc. Because of my personal playing style, I have won MANY matches in my life where my opponent finished with more total points and games than I did. It is possible to be basically dominated by an opponent through a match, yet win a handful of crucial points and still win the match. I’ve done it a number of times. Beyond that, numbers mean nothing when presented in isolation. They can be skewed to seemingly say things that they don’t really say at all. Tennis isn’t poker. Djokovic had all but conceded that he was going to lose the match when Federer stepped up to serve at 40-15. Anyone who watches him in the moments before Federer serves can clearly see that. He rolled the dice and just took one huge swing which happened to result in an unplanned winner. If you like numbers, the odds are that if he tries that same return on a hundred serves like that, he will get that same result only extremely rarely. It’s the gambler who feels he has nothing to lose and pushes all his chips to the middle of the table, not because he has four aces, but because he knows that short of a miracle he is going to lose anyway, so he figures he may as well shoot for the moon. Every now and then it works as it did this time. Then, instead of treating it like the fluke it was and serving out the match at 40-30, Federer choked a bit and shot himself in the foot. Djokovic breaks, momentum shifts, Federer becomes the defender, Djokovic becomes the aggressor, and the match is gone. This isn’t about math. It is about personalities and the psychology of mind vs. mind and player vs. player. The numbers are always there for statisticians to mull over, but it’s like hearing a baseball announcer say, “Well, you know, over the last 7 weeks, in games starting after 7:20 pm, with the temperature between 64 and 77 degrees, when throwing against blonde-headed, left-handed batters from the Midwest who are less than 6’2″ tall, Billy-Bob here is 4-0. Yeah, this boy sure can pitch.” ROFL. Numbers may not lie, but they don’t tell the truth either. They are simply numbers and how you interpret them means everything—or absolutely nothing.

The math is right, but it is wrong.  He would win the match 86.7% of the time in that game, but after he lost, there is still some percentage he would still win that match.  If you say it is 50% in a close match like this was, his actual percentage of winning the match at 40-15 was more like 93.35%…just sayin’

Come to think of it, it is even higher because after those two points it was still only deuce.  He probably would win that game at least 70% of the time from deuce.  It can get very complicated.

Type your comment here.
As any competitor knows tennis is so much more a mental than a physical game,  that these simple objective statistics of a game of this nature, are simply a waste of time.  Tennis at this level is played between two individuals who bring so much subjectiveness into a match, which create the drama, momentum, physcology and angst which this great match had in spades.  To use statistics to point to a probable different conclusion in this match up is a farce!  Let the cards fall where they may, in my opinion if Fed wins in five, the physicality he expended puts a high probability on the fact he would more likely lose in the finals to Rafa…and to Djoker’s credit (with a possible back sprain) he presented the public with another spectacular Finals on the heels of this great match… pure New York, New York stuff!!!  Hell! if I was Fed I would have thrown in an underhand serve that the Djoker could have choked on?
Lefty,

on  

Very interesting & entertaining mathematical analysis of the Djok/Fed match.  I think it would be even more interesting if there were statistics on Djok’s return percentage with regards to his forehand vs. backhand returns on the deuce side vs. add side.  It seems to me that he has a better forehand return on the deuce side and a better backhand return on the add side.  He hits many incredible shots when he is stretched out.  That being said, and if Fed would have known this, he should have served down the middle or into Djok’s body on the deuce side when it was 40-15 match point.  When it was 40-30 match point, Fed hit the right serve, into the body, but he didn’t capitalize on Djok’s weak return.

Regarding the rankings, I believe in the vast majority of tournaments and in 3 of the 4 Majors the #1 & #4 seeds are in one half of the draw and the #2 & #3 seeds are in the other half.  The US Open is the only Major that the #1 & #3 seeds were in the same half.  I agree with your analysis that Fed can beat Djok but can’t beat Rafa; and Rafa can beat Fed but can’t beat Djok.  Therefore, IMHO, in order for Fed to win another Major, the rankings/seedings need to be #1 Fed, #2 Djok, #3 Rafa, #4 Whoever; OR #1 Djok, #2 Rafa, #3 Whoever, #4 Fed but Fed would have to figure out a way to beat Rafa in the Final.

Thanks.

Anton

The maths is correct but the play in this situation may not be. If I was Fed, I got 4 services to win 1 point, what would I do? I would crank up 4 first services and gamble to get that 1 point. What the odds of Fed double faulting back to back? Even if that happened, we are only back to duce. Now, what is the percentage of Fed winning 1 point with 4 first service? Pistol Pete would have went even further and try to gamble an ace down the T with those 4 services. Its all or nothing. Then again, Pete is a poker player while Fed is not. Maybe that is why Pete was able to win that last Slam even when he was all washed up while there is a big question mark on if Fed is able to win another Slam.

You are absolutely right and you are even more right when you say that Fed just does not play that way. He does not gamble, he smartly relies on statistics.

Still I think Fed did everything right. The deuce serve was not bad at all, and he had a lot of success with it. Novak’s return was really lucky. Than the body add serve was also smart in the context of what Anton below said that “Novak hits many incredible shots when he is stretched out” and the previous wide serve did not work. However, Novak incredibly returns it. The rest is history.

I think this is really a very good analysis and the advice to Federer to play lower ranked tournaments in order to get to the nr. TWO-place in de world also makes sense. Very Good !!!
Regards, Casey van der Heide, Germany

No, I don’t think Novak’s return was just lucky. Those guys pratice these type of service returns day in and day out. They not only return the ball but always add interest to it with angle because they know if they don’t the point it is lost anyway. As said in the Bryan Brother’s video, its a play, and it just an automatic reflex, muscle memory. It is true that Novak said he closed his eyes and went for it but don’t forget he read the shot also. It is also true what Boris Becker said during commentary that Novak probably makes only 1 in 4 of these shots. But hey, what are the odds of a normal person getting a racket to the ball on such a service? 0.01%? So, to get to 25% in making such a shot is more that just luck and its a pretty good odd I would say.

What is a worrying sign for Fed is his ability to close out big matches – remember Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s great escape against Fed just a few months ago.  

No, I don’t think Novak’s return was just lucky. Those guys pratice these type of service returns day in and day out. They not only return the ball but always add interest to it with angle because they know if they don’t the point it is lost anyway. As said in the Bryan Brother’s video, its a play, and it just an automatic reflex, muscle memory. It is true that Novak said he closed his eyes and went for it but don’t forget he read the shot also. It is also true what Boris Becker said during commentary that Novak probably makes only 1 in 4 of these shots. But hey, what are the odds of a normal person getting a racket to the ball on such a service? 0.01%? So, to get to 25% in making such a shot is more that just luck and its a pretty good odd I would say.

What is a worrying sign for Fed is his ability to close out big matches – remember Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s great escape against Fed just a few months ago.  

Great vid will.

To be honest everyone the maths isn’t strictly important here. It’s more about using your strengths when under pressure. Feds serve is generally a strength and in that match it was pretty solid. So the logic of attacking with a first serve whether it’s first or second serve is sound. He really is unlikely to fault the game away.

I think the main issue with fed has been confidence for a long time. On the big points he’s getting conservative. He’s not backing himself to win. He’s waiting for the other guy to lose. We all know you don’t do that. Not when you’re on a roll and not against the number one in the world.

Novak is just backing himself to win in these situations, just like fed used to. The essential tennis episode with todd martin explained how he got nole to move from defence to offense more and that’s what i see. Novak doesn’t get pushed back as much as the others and steps into the court much more. Most points are won by someone attacking from inside the court. So the battle is to get to that point.

So fed should just use his strength in serving to keep nole on defensive. Don’t let nole dictate. The same happened last year. If fed had won either just imagine how it would affect everything. Fed would be the only guy nole couldn’t beat in the majors this year meaning he isn’t as dominant as fed was. That didn’t happen but i’m just saying fed is still so close. He was dominant so long he’s just forgotten how to chase.

Wills point is about using maths to direct your strategy in the big points. If you win so often on your first serve and your in a tight spot against the world number one. It makes sense to back yourself with first serves and force him to beat you. Feds just not doing that anymore. That’s the main difference

The beauty of tennis is that this can happen.

I agree.

Awesome. Love the perspective. Makes me think that there are different strategies for choosing tournaments.

Your math is wrong pal. I agree with the 13.9% of the time Fed loses both points played. But only 39.32% of the time he wins both points (62.71% x 62.71%).
The remaining percentage he looses 1 out of the two points played and that comes up to 100%-13.9%-39.32% = 46.78%.
So to recap:
Wins both points: 39.23%
loose both points: 13.9%
Wins one of the two points played: 46.78%

Thanks