Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,649 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
To fully comprehend the notion of aggressive play versus passive play and strategic play, the whole set of statistics was done for the 32 players currently in R3.

At the top of the list is Verdasco, who admirably played the most points of them all and scored through very few opponent UEs. His winner and forced error scores are quite good.

At the bottom of the list we find Granollers, who played one match and 4 games, and still managed to score through 100 opponent UEs (96 of which were in R2).

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
Re: Who hit and who pushed their way to R3 [the correct Slasher version]

Thanks for the great stats :)

Granollers isn´t to blame though, there´s not much you can when Dolgopolov just misses everything. It´s like Nadal against Thiem, you can´t hin winnners or make him hit forced errors when your opponent goes for stupid shots and makes tons of UEs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,539 Posts
Re: Who hit and who pushed their way to R3 [the correct Slasher version]

"the correct Slasher version" :eek:

Hand me a bucket, please
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Good intention but the data is quite pointless and misleading to be honest. Some thoughts below:

The analysis does not cover the most important aspects of the game that determine whether a player is passive or aggressive in a certain match-up... (quality of serve and return of both players, opponent's style of play, weather conditions etc.). Moreover, we cannot equate UE against Rafa's forehand topspin and UE against Djokovic's flat backhand...it's apples and oranges. Additionally, we would need to control in some way for type of surface, since we can expect that on slightly different surfaces, different levels of aggression will be slightly more optiomal/effective than others.

My suggestion is either state and explain further, at least some of, the limitations or try to be more comprehensive in the analysis. In general, posting something like this in its current form is likely to do more harm than good...e.g. instead of improving understanding among MTF, it will fuel even more MTF's hate towards certain so-called "pusher" players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
There are few things which are obvious. Nadal's one of the worst, if not the worst server left. So very few easy free points. So far Nadal and Djokovic have played the same number of points almost, however based on the stats it looks like you'd get the impression Nadal has done afair bit more running.

Isner with the most aces. Grabollers right at the bottom, is anyone surprised?
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,649 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
My suggestion is either state and explain further, at least some of, the limitations or try to be more comprehensive in the analysis. In general, posting something like this in its current form is likely to do more harm than good...e.g. instead of improving understanding among MTF, it will fuel even more MTF's hate towards certain so-called "pusher" players.
Why state anything further when your post does do justice and is a good form of analysis.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Why state anything further when your post does do justice and is a good form of analysis.;)
Yeah, that's part of the purpose of the forum in general. You give and get feedback on your opinion/work and entice/encourage discussion but there needs to be an ultimate goal e.g. increasing understanding, not merely trying to get a discussion going(you can do that even without doing analysis but simply creating one of those stupid fanboyish threads). Of course you should not try to be completely thorough since that would probably stifle discussion but there should be a better balance, shouldn't it?

And let's face it, 99% of people don't go through even 50% of all posts if the the thread becomes more than 1-2 pages. So, it will be good to either follow-up on the work or summarize some of the problems/limitations related to such analysis. Hopefully, we will be able to improve on our measures eventually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57,606 Posts
While there are still small nuggets of truth re: their playing style in this, a lot of it can be explained by opponent. Granollers' ridiculously low stat may be partially because he is defensive- but he was also playing an injured opponent in both matches, one of which retired, who probably went for winners off of every shot. Some are just about who is being played. Ferrer and Murray have both just played extremely aggressive players in both rounds. Verdasco, meanwhile, had two very slow opponents, including a serve and volleyer who had many poor volley=easy putwaway for Verdasco points. Unless there's some way to control for the opposition, these stats really don't say much, especially in the early rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Great post slasher and very in depth.

But some of these players played more sets and some didnt so that affects the outcome too.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,649 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
While there are still small nuggets of truth re: their playing style in this, a lot of it can be explained by opponent. Granollers' ridiculously low stat may be partially because he is defensive- but he was also playing an injured opponent in both matches, one of which retired, who probably went for winners off of every shot. Some are just about who is being played. Ferrer and Murray have both just played extremely aggressive players in both rounds. Verdasco, meanwhile, had two very slow opponents, including a serve and volleyer who had many poor volley=easy putwaway for Verdasco points. Unless there's some way to control for the opposition, these stats really don't say much, especially in the early rounds.
Yes, a brilliant synthesis. You've given me the idea to continue the stat as more rounds are played.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
I like the work Slasher, this is what I've been wanting to do for every major tournament since I posted on it during AO but only did it for the big players. Where are you pulling your stats from? I had a difficult time pulling everything together and thus could only do a few players.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,649 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I like the work Slasher, this is what I've been wanting to do for every major tournament since I posted on it during AO but only did it for the big players. Where are you pulling your stats from? I had a difficult time pulling everything together and thus could only do a few players.
I pulled the data out from the match stats from the official site. Tedious work, you must pay attention to the details and not miss a number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,597 Posts
Thanks for posting. :) It would be interesting to do this again for the four remaining semifinalists presuming they all play against a fair share of different type of players which is not always the case but the results will still be more representative.

While there are still small nuggets of truth re: their playing style in this, a lot of it can be explained by opponent. Granollers' ridiculously low stat may be partially because he is defensive- but he was also playing an injured opponent in both matches, one of which retired, who probably went for winners off of every shot. Some are just about who is being played. Ferrer and Murray have both just played extremely aggressive players in both rounds. Verdasco, meanwhile, had two very slow opponents, including a serve and volleyer who had many poor volley=easy putwaway for Verdasco points. Unless there's some way to control for the opposition, these stats really don't say much, especially in the early rounds.
You raise valid points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
The couple of players who hit less winners than Pushdal should be ashamed of themselves. No one wants to hold that accolade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,412 Posts
This is actually wrong as well. If you're deleting the aces from the points the opponent has won via winner shouldn't you delete the aces(and opponent double faults) from the total points won count as ell since they couldn't win that point by a raly winner as they didn't get the chance.

For example Raonic won 216 points, but 47 were his aces, and 7 ere opponent double faults, so effectively he won only 162 points that had any type of rally in it. So his % should be 123/162 = 75.9%. That that goes for everyone there. It's more drastic for the guys who had more aces or won more points off opponent double faults because effectively that's lowering their % which you're trying to indicate as pushing here when hitting an ace or recieve a double fault is nothing of the sort.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top