Olympic Prospects of The Men

I personally believe that in their best form the big four are un-matched on grass no matter over how many sets they play. I say 'in their best form', because for example, after a 3-month clay court period, they are not as prepared as other players especially the grass court specialists, who do not even mind entering clay court tournaments. But now ,excluding Nadal, the big-three got used to grass after Wimbledon.


One other advantage of the big-three is that people in the tennis world started to really care about Olympics, which makes it at least as important as a Grand Slam or even more, favoring the players who can play under pressure. (although still being in test run, we can assume that Murray can handle pressure at least in Wimbledon).


That's why, I don't see the draw as indicative. (here is the draw) For, sure Djokovic is on the hardest part of the draw. If you look in detail, all the best players attended the Olympics and each constitutes a threat. For example, Nalbandian is always a serious threat who leads Federer in head-2-head stats. Players with big serves, Raonic, Isner, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro are always serious threats. Remember what Tsonga did to Federer in Wimbledon 2011. He gave him his first defeat from two sets to love. Roddick overpowered Federer in Miami this year. Nalbandian was about to defeat Nadal in Indian Wells. Raonic had a close match with Federer in Halle, which was a battle of serves. 

It's a hard job to handle the grass of Wimbledon courts, which is a part of controversial topic 'the recent slowing down of the courts'.  The groundsmen of Wimbledon admit that any delay into a third week would be a serious problem

What I'm trying to say is, there are many good players in the draw. Some are playing really good tennis right now like David Ferrer, who saw his first SF in Wimbledon this year, Cilic, who won a tournament before coming here and saw a final, Tipsaravic as well had a championship and a final after playing in Wimbledon. Some are not as good but still can blast and play a few good matches like Roddick or Isner. However, Olympics is quite a journey, in which you must venture through 6 difficult matches and also wear the flag of your nation.

Players play in Olympics for themselves and for their nation as well, which slightly separates the Olympics  from other tournaments.

Aside from the challengers to the reign of top-4, I'd like to stress a bit on the top-4. As you know Nadal suffering from his tendinits is out so we're left with Federer, Djoker and Andy. I think Djokovic still has the most potential to win but also less likely to win, because he may face strong opponents a possible quater-final with Raonic or Tsonga is waiting for him before he opposes Murray or Federer. But he is consistent, his play does not heavily depend on serve, since he is the best returner of the game and has an outstanding baseline play, which he adapted to grass as well. So, the biggest issue for him would be how will he react and use his serve against big servers on grass.


Murray is in very good form, as he played a very good match against Federer in the Wimbledon final. He was really consistent and did just several unforced errors in the first two sets and pushed Federer really to the edge before Federer sorted things out with the help of closed roof. He will definitely try again. Having on of the best returns in the game and good reflexes, he is prepared to face big servers as well. We will have a chance to see the added value of Ivan Lendl on his corner, who has a hard job recovering his protege after his last loss.


Finally, I don't see Federer as an invincible player right now, even on grass. I believe he would quit Wimbledon in 3rd round, unless Bennetau maintained his form and health throughout the match. The same argument is valid for his win against Del Potro on RG, since he was barely moving on the court in the last sets. What would be the odds for Federer, if he had lost both to Del Potro and Bennetau and was the number 4 right now? I acknowledge his fighting spirit and finding a remedy to each opponent, but the conditions and odds really favored him in the last 2 months. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous posts 'Big Champs Strike Back' the closing of the definitely aided him in his final and semi-final clashes. It is also very obvious for me that he can't stay in rallies with the strong and consistent guys like Djokovic, Murray and arguably against Ferrer or Del Potro at least on clay. I believe his genius will help him to sort things out at least to some extent, but he definitely needs consistent and to the point first serves.


To conclude, the big-three will be the major contenders counting days to win their first Olympic Medals and all knowing they might not have another chance. And for the contenders, players who have a great serve may be a contender for a medal, like Raonic, Tsonga, Roddick or Berdych but not Ferrer or Tipsaravic. I think they have a chance to make an impact in best of 3-sets and get at least a medal maybe not a gold one.

Bjorn Borg vs Rafael Nadal

I would actually intend to write A Player from 70s vs A Player from 2010s as the title but it wouldn't be as catchy. The very same question arises nearly in all sports. Who is the best? Is the best player or team of today can beat the best one in bla bla? US built an incredibly strong basketball team for the Olympic games. When I first saw it, I was like 'It won't be fun for the opponents and it won't be fun either to watch US' games aside from seeing some spectacular moves and dunks." But then, what happened? On the very same day, I saw people comparing Dream Team of 92 Olympics to these guys! I understand the urge to compare the then best with the 'arguably' best in the history. But having some common sense can satisfy this urge.


To be honest, I am against drawing comparisons between players of different eras, because basically it is like comparing oranges harvested 100 years ago with the contemporary genetically modified oranges that grow with the help of numerous pesticides, herbicides. Both oranges have the same seed but there is a big industry working to improve its taste and nutrition level. As in the orange case, there are big industries trying to develop new equipment like rackets, strings, shoes, socks even these blue kinesio tapes, the benefit of which is argued nowadays, new training equipment, new diets and hence the science of sport is advancing. What I mean with sport science, is like mixture of knowledge and technology. People may implement some minor technical changes in the game play and shot making departments or could invent new training equipment which render stronger and healthier muscles or make new very specific diets considering the metabolic activities or deficiencies of the players. It is maybe exaggerated a bit, but Djokovic's gluten-free diet was one of the constituents of his rise to World no.1. 

Modern racquets (combination of fiberglass and graphite and titanium alloys) weigh around 200 g in contrast Borg's era racquets (wood) which are around 400 g. But new ones still provide  a larger swingweight, heavier shots and less vibration and inconsistency.

There is also another debate going on. The question is 'Did the courts slow down?' There is a serious concern of current and old professional players that the slowing down of the courts transforms today's tennis and renders the serve-and-volley game basically more ineffective. It is also very crucial firstly to mention that I couldn't find any real 'scientific evidence' supporting or refuting this theory. The only source is the claims of players and officials who are responsible of the grass surfaces in Wimbledon. However, the alleged changes have an ad hoc basis. As of 90s, with the help of technological developments in the racquet and string technology guys with big serves started to dominate the game with their serves and volleys. So, to protect the balance between different game types, the federation decided to take some measures and especially the grass courts lost pace. There is still a debate going on, so I'll stress on this topic in another post. But what I wanted to say is, there is arguably another variable, the court conditions, which makes our comparison of old and contemporary players arguably harder. 


After 40 years of continual development and research for the better, how can we treat two individuals from different times as competitors on the same scale? They had different styles, played with different strings, rackets and balls on arguably differently paced courts. Even now it is hard to tell and decide, which player is better. For example, Nadal leads Federer in head-to-head 18-10, but this is not the sole indicator people say, and they also tell us to look at their accomplishments, their trophies. Federer having 17 Grand Slam and nearly 290 week of no.1 clearly is ahead of Nadal who has 11 Grand Slams only(!) 102 weeks. But how would it have been, if Nadal were 4 years older than Federer and he started to dominate tennis before and faced with young Federer in mid 2000s? Interesting question right? So, it is better to appreciate these players successes and talents and hesitate to compare them quickly and claim that someone is the best in history.

Serena Williams One of the Best

Serena Williams seems to be like the woman version of Roger Federer. No offense to Serena Fans. Having some differences in their game play, I think that overall they have the same strategy: attack and crush the opponent. They dictate their service games with their services. Federer has very good tactical serves but is not the fastest one on the tour, whereas Serena has both a tactical serve and a very fast one compared to the ones of the other women in the tour. She can vary her serve hitting powerful flat serves and wide serves with much slice and lower pace.


She mastered nearly in all shots of the game, from baseline forehands to overhead smashes. She can hit powerful forehands down the line or can give a very obscure angle and make the ball follow very different angles. Her backhand is maybe not as good but still very very good and she can vary her backhand too. She has a powerful net game, which definitely helps her to win a 13 Grand Slams in doubles and 2 in Grand Slams in mixed doubles. Having said all that, I see her as an invincible player, when she is totally healthy and fully focused, both of which she didn't have in some big part of her career. For example in mid 2000s and in early 2010s.


I remember a statement of McEnroe: "I've seen them all, Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert was a machine... Monica Seles, Steffi Graf but I believe we're watching the greatest female player that's ever played this game." To be honest, I am against drawing comparisons between players of different eras, because basically it is like comparing apples and oranges. I am going to discuss this topic in another post. But at this point, McEnroe really seems to be right, in terms of technical and physical attributes, she seems invulnerable and  unbeatable.


But, tennis is an individualistic sport. It'd be so cliche but you have to fight your opponent to submission on the court by yourself. There is no one out there to help you. There is no one to save your ass. And every occasion in tennis is a tournament so you cannot sacrifice one match, because you are not in the mood that day. Having all those powerful weapons, Serena lacks mental stability. What I mean is, stability during a match or during a bigger time period. You can remember how she reacted to the line referee, who calls a foul during Serena's serve in US Open 2010 I guess. Or again her reaction to the referee, when she had a penalty for shouting before Stosur hits the ball. 

Maybe she does not like tennis as much as Nadal or Djokovic does. Maybe she hates working out every day. Or maybe she loves tennis but at the same she wants to do something else as well. For example in one of her interviews she says " 'I've never considered tennis as my only outlet. I've always liked doing different things when I was younger. I just never really liked focusing on tennis. I do see myself as a crossover.' (the text continues) Williams's ventures outside of tennis include degree studies at the Art Institute of Florida, designing outfits for her signature line, Aneres, with her sponsor Nike, and doing guest spots on television shows." In another interview she also said "I don't love tennis today but I'm here .... I can't live without it -- there's a difference between not loving something and not being able to live without it. I have never liked sports and could never understand how I became an athlete." When I first read this, it occurred to me that playing tennis and winning matches are like an addiction to her. I know it sounds silly but that sounds already silly to her so never mind, just respect her and her accomplishments.

Hence, you cannot blame not breaking all the records on her. She is still a big champion and has some room for a couple of more trophies I guess. After her last comeback she really looks fit and thinner. She has a record of 59-6 winning rate and lifted 6 trophies, more than everyone else. (Sharapova has 4 and Azarenka has 4) Especially for this incredible comeback in the age of 30 (now she is 31) she deserves another homage.

Is it Really the Return of the King?

We humans are always in favor of exaggerating the truth and sometimes of seeing the past as we want to so as to support our conclusions about today. This method generally results in wrong interpretations of the past events. This type of behavior is more visible in mass media.


There were people claiming that the reign Federer was almost finished or had already been finished after his defeat to Djokovic in French Open 2012. But after his wins over Djokovic and Murray in Wimbledon, he has started to be praised again and is expected to win a couple more Grand Slams despite his old age and harsh competition on the top. His number one spot also rendered these comments plausible.


I'm not against Federer or do not underrate his facts and trophies, but try to see the reality as it is, not under the effect of the last tournament he played. Let's remember year 2011. He just won the first tournament of the year in Doha in January, then won a couple in the very late season some indoor tournaments including the ATP Masters Final in London. In between, he barely made finals.He was again the underdog in RG because of his lack of form. His sole sensational success was against Djokovic, when he stopped his exceptional unbeaten run in French Open 2011 semi finals in 5-sets.  But then, he lost to Tsonga in Wimbledon QF and to Djokovic in US open SF both in 5 sets and didn't won anything in the meantime. He seemed to be so down that people played down his chances of being number 1 again, as do I. Then he finished 2011 with successive trophies in indoor tournaments and ATP Masters Final.


Different from 2011, he continued winning tournaments in spring of 2012 in Rotterdam (hard court) Indian Wells (hard court), Madrid (blue clay) despite a loss in Australian Open SF to Nadal, in which he again seemed to be desperate to win. He captured the number 2 spot from Nadal for a week, for the first time 1.5 years before RG. Now he came to RG as one of the favorites as did Nadal and Djokovic. We had the same clash between Djokovic and Federer in the semis. This time however, Djokovic thrashed Federer in 3 sets and looked really really solid, not affected or intimidated by Federer at all. Then, people started commenting as if Federer is a lost case and he would retire soon maybe not this year but next year.


And then, what an upswing from him! He crushed everyone on the road to the trophy including beating Bennateu with a two sets deficit. A reasonable man must contemplate on the causes of his ups and downs. Federer never retired in a match or missed a Grand Slam due to injury. He works with his coach Paul Annacone for a pretty long time and has a stable family life with his twin daughters. So, everything seems to be stable in his tennis and family life. So some psychological factors or some court conditions might explain his ups and downs.

Federer's win/loss streak in years 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively.

Here is a wrap up of his form. As of 2010, he started to lose his dominance as well as his World no.1 ranking to Nadal and then to Djokovic.


The grass court performance is limited to Wimbledon and maybe a warm-up tournament for Wimbledon. Although he was very dominant on grass in his early and mid-career, in 2010 and 2011 he lost in QF of Wimbledon but won it this year, which is not reflected on the figure. So this year's grass part will be 7-0.


He is generally very good on hard courts, which are quick and is not as good on clay. He is still very good on clay and made to the RG finals a few times but Nadal is one of the best and better than Federer on clay, that is obvious.


The most apparent statistic is his indoor performance. He just lost one match in all three years! 37-1! Can you believe it? So, if he is not disturbed with the wind or the sunshine or whatever comes from open air, he is basically invulnerable. This 37-1 streak encompasses 10 wins over top-8 players of the world in London ATP Finals tournament. So, playing the semis and the second half of the final indoors in Wimbledon boosted his performance no matter what.


I will elaborate on the performance of Federer as well as on the one of Nadal and Djokovic to draw better comparisons.

Big Champs Strike Back

Both Serena and Federer waited for two years to win another Grand Slam title. Both players had been dominant in the mid 2000s and won a number of Grand Slams. Federer improved men's record of Grand Slam titles to 17 and Serena won her 14th Grand Slam title.


What a turn of events!


Serena spent 2011 with some unfortunate lethal health problems. First, she had a cut in her foot, then had a very serious disease in her lungs, which might have serious consequences, let alone playing tennis in this level. But she persevered and recovered from that disease and started playing tennis in WTA level in Wimbledon 2011 after a one year of break. She was in very good form physically and had some serious success in Master's tournaments and came to the final of US OPen 2011, which she lost to Sam Stosur who played unbelievable tennis. It was such an extraordinary form from Stosur, that she thrashed Serena, who was also in very good form. Although Serena didn't have a sensational success in the following Grand Slams she had a 56-6 winning record after her return and won 5 tournaments winning all her matches against top 10 players. But this Wimbledon final sealed her success story with a sensational end.


On men's side, many authorities had agreed on the relative decline of Federer compared to other top players Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, who won the last 9 Slam titles. Aside from the title counts, Federer's form was not promising, especially in 5 set matches, which are confined to only Slams. We can name different reasons causing this relative decline. One of them, probably the predominant one would be the fact that he is 30 years old and does not have the stamina to withstand numerous long rallies with these guys. This fact seemed to be underlying reason behind his loss to Djokovic in RG 2012 in straight sets. Having in mind that red clay is the most physically demanding surface in tennis and lessens the effects of big serves, you have to endure long rallies and ready to hit and run all the time. In addition to that loss, his loss to Nadal in Australian open 2012 in SF, was a carbon copy of that defeat. To be concrete, Nadal and Djokovic are stronger and have a big arsenal of shots and tactics to hurt him, in open air and slower courts. (Australian open's surface is regarded as one of the slowest hard courts due to the chemical compounds constituting the court.)


But this is not the whole story. Federer is a big champion and never gives up. He keeps on working his shots and tactics with his well-known coach Paul Annacone. He is still able to defeat top players in best of 3-set events like his win over Nadal in Miami Open in early 2012 or his consecutive wins over top 10 players in the World Tour Finals in London. But his most preferred surface is grass and most preferred conditions is indoor conditions. (World Tour Finals in London is played indoors as well) I don't want to enter more details but would like to say that his semi-final match against Djokovic and the second part of the Wimbledon final after rain delay was played with a closed roof, which makes the court a pseudo indoor court. This means both the court surface and the conditions favor Federer. In my opinion, these conditions cause the turn around of his form and play against Djokovic in Wimbledon SF. His serving performance was unbelievably good against Djokovic, both his first and second serve. Djokovic, who is considered to be one of the greatest returners, was unable to react against these serves.


Closing the roof had a similar impact on Sunday's final. We can observe the change of forms of both players in the final if we see the match as two parts: one before the roof is closed and the one after the roof is closed. We cannot say that this is for sure the primary cause of turn of events in the final, maybe Murray already started to struggle with his back, or maybe as the tension escalated in the match, his tempers frayed. Yet, I give you two graphs which portray how precise Federer's shots became after the roof was closed.

Double faults of the players in the course of the game (Federer green, Murray purple)

Winners of the players in the course of the game (Federer green, Murray purple)

What do these figures represent? Why didn't I just give the number of winners or double faults per each set?
The answer is simple actually. We could still infer something from the number of winners or double faults per set but when we see the frequency of them scattered with respect to time, it is easier to make inference. The red line in the first figure separates the match into two parts, first part with open top and second part with closed top. And we can see how the number of unforced errors of Federer diminsihes as the ones of Murray increases.


Second figure shows the number of winners and we can see the same shift of momentum in both players' performances. However, this figure is less clear, yet roof is not the only driver of increasing performance of Federer. For example, in the second set Federer changed tactics and started to come to the net very often to shorten the points and hence to avoid long rallies which ate his stamina and scored many winners with volleys and smashes, which explains the densely scattered winners in the second set. And I put two red lines to exclude the longest game of the match, in which Federer eventually break Murray's serve.


I hope I could give some practical information about what's going on the court as well as how these players' form changes from time to time. I think we really had a very enjoyable tournament, with some big upsets like Sharapova's and Nadal's early exits. We also had a really tense and exciting final in men's singles. Though the women's final was a bit single sided (no offense to Radwanska but the course of the final heavily depended on the ups and downs of Serena) I hope to see much better tournaments with new flashy Germans Lisicki and Kerber and many other contenders for number 1 spot.

Why am I writing all this?

I'm a tennis fan played tennis for a couple years but not so seriously, just know how to hit a forehand a backhand and how to approach the net. (don't remember having a fancy point with a volley though) And I have been trying to follow what's going on in the tennis world. As all the other bloggers, I'd like to share my opinions about some stuff that I find interesting, related to the tennis of course and try to comment on what's happening on the court.

Sometimes, I will try to write about the used statistics in tennis matches, whether they really give us some practical information or  how they sometimes might be misguiding and how to improve them if it is possible to do so.

My main aim would be to convey you my thoughts about what I really saw on the court rather than what I read or hear about the out-of-the-court activities or trophy collections of the players. (sometimes I might break my rules though, it is always nice to praise your favorite player, when he sets a new record :))