« Photos. | Main | Either Djokovic needs to get stronger or opt for 'weaker' freaking shirts? Geeeezzzz!!!! Go to 0:09. This is right after he lost the second set, sat down and blurted out obscenities. »

07/13/2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

O

MOTHER

O

Djokovic's MOTHER?

Gary Moser

I'm gonna lose.....so I'd RATHER be somewhere else right now. :->

O

He's an AUTHOR?

Bettyjane

Sr.Tour??? (although that period haunts me, it's just the kind of mean-spirited remark you would make on this very sad day.)

O

AM I A METEOR?

O

Should I take a DETOUR?

O

I need ANTLER?

O

I lost, but I'm BETTER?

Tennis Planet

O

You solved the 'word'. Can you solve the entire puzzle too? Remember the 'word' is just a hint for the right answer.

O

I'm losing this, but my footwork is BETTER?

Gary Moser

BETTER win this one, because it's my last best chance.

Veglia

This guy is actually better than me!

O

Don't know if there will be BETTER chances to win W than right now.

Bento

I wish Wawrinka was here, he's so much HOTTER!

Jonathan

I'm a BETTER father.

Bettyjane

Better win the first set (I still like my first answer better)

alex

omg I wish I were fitter for this tournament. Too bad he has a better draw.

Zorana

The king is dead, lonsaid after g live the king! That's what Djokovic's mother said after Nole beat Fed in Australia 2008.

Zorana

Sorry, the king is dead, long live the king!

BruceLee

BITCHSLAPPED

imaginaryband

He's just better than me

Stella

if I was a better and had put money on this ....................

M

Haaaahahahahaha

:-)

M

FEDERER is BETTERER.

alex

Winner
O

I think TP thinks that Roger is thinking of going somewhere else.

O

Thank, Alex, but I agree TP might have a lot of things in his mind that could be better.

Stella

thinking -- my stats are better and if anyone asked the viewing audience who plays the better tennis I would win hands down against this robot

sperry

"who plays better tennis I would win..." If Roger is thinking that, he's in denial. Ya gotta go with the guy who scores the last point.

Bento

Exactly. To be fair, I think his flexibility and wingspan are pretty remarkable. But overall I find his tennis ugly and uninspiring.

Stella

agreed

Stella

true, but if you are looking for style, inventiveness, flair, entertainment, skill, wow factor RF has it --- but that won't always win the hardware for you

DSG

It has to be "ANTLER"

Ricke

I BETTER figure out a way to get some glutton into his drink.....It is like Kryptonite to him.

alex

O
u mean Goats and Inflatables and next door neighbor's daughter?

Or joining Tomic's Miami party?

ha ha ha

alex

agreed.

Also his display of frustration is undesirable.

Alpha

Because Novak defends so well, people think he's a defensive player. In reality, he's not. He stands close to rhe baseline, takes the ball early and directs it with remarkable depth and accuracy to his opponent. There is a reason Roger couldn't come in and attack as much -- he was receiving.a ball that was too deep to attack. If great ball control and athleticism is ugly, then so be it. To me, Novak plays remarkable tennis --- usually has his opponent on a string. Agassi plus more.

Stella

you missed the point --- I wasn't saying that I thought Nole was a boring robot --- I was answering the quiz question of what Federer might have been thinking ( and kowing TP that thinking is really out there )

O

I better get fitter next year, I can't handle these crazy deep shots near the line.

Alpha

Ah, sorry. didnt realize that.

alex

What is the answer TP??

Tennis Planet

Veglia:

You are close but not close enough to clinch it. You get one more day / attempt.

And for all you cheap cheating opportunist freaks, you cannot take the hint and win. All you can do is help Veglia - concept 'like totally' foreign to you (helping). Geeezzzz!!!!!

O

This guy is a better version of Murray?

O

This guy is better than my very best ever here at W?

O

He's playing tennis better than anyone ever played?

Sree

He is playing better than in last year's final.

alex

Becker has made him Better.

alex

He has a better coach?

O

He's playing better than I ever played?

BruceLee

He is UTTERLY BETTER player than me, but who cares. Those bozos prefer me than me anytime, anywhere. Suckers....

Veglia

OK, let's try ... Federer is thinking:

"I'm playing better than last year. Heck, I'm playing better than Djokovic played last year. But he plays even better than that! How does he do that??!!"

Tennis Planet

Correct answer: This guy is better than my very best ever here at Wimbledon.

O

OK, I did post that same for Veglia, please declare her the winner then:

"""This guy is better than my very best ever here at W?"""

Thanks, TP, that was brilliant.

Tennis Planet

O

Veglia had to choose your 'prompt' for an answer to win.

O

But by default of your rule, all those answers went to her anyway, don't mean to to be argumentative.

Tennis Planet

O

OK, request granted but Veglia has to take you out for dinner.

WINNER: VEGLIA.

O

Thanks, TP, you are so great!

Veglia

O and TP, thanks! Also honoured to be taken as a she :) Yes, Veglia is, despite all the good logic, still a he.
O, your dinner is well deserved. Next time you are in Toronto...

Bettyjane

TP do you believe that, or do you just think Federer believes that.

O

Well done, Veglia, and thanks, keep up the good work!

Tennis Planet

BETTYJANE

In such cases, 'others' get the wind of it LONG after the 'incumbent' KNOWS it.

Bettyjane

Oh dear. I suppose that's true.

Congrats to Veglia and kudos to O

Alpha

But according to your question, Federer definitely thought of this DURING the final. So this LONG lag you refer to between "others" and the "incumbent" getting it is, what, 1 set? 30 minutes? Do you have a number of games or time frame in mind?

Veglia

This calls for a poll, TP. "Is Djokovic 2015 better than Federer 2006?"

Gary Moser

Federer 2006 lost the FO Final to NADAL.....not a mere Wawrinka.

Poll over! :->

Alpha

You really want a poll on this site as to who was greater -- Federer or Djokovic? You're serious? Do you really have any doubt what the answer will be? But, as I posted a few days ago, serous attempts have been made to answer that very question. I am attaching the link again

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21657818-everybody-knows-todays-sportsmen-are-better-their-predecessors-working-out-how

Gary Moser

This is the only paragraph of the article that is relevant to tennis:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fortunately for fans of Mr Djokovic, tennis seems to have improved faster than bat-and-ball games. In 2014 Jeff Sackmann, a statistical analyst, examined the performances of players since 1970 who were ranked in the top 50 for two consecutive years. He found that they scored an average of 2.2% fewer return points against other top-50 opponents in the second season than the first, because the players who entered the group in the second year were better than the ones they had replaced. Compounded over 44 years, that pace of improvement suggests that Mr Laver would struggle to win a single game, let alone a set or match, against Mr Federer or almost any other modern opponent. And unlike the plateaus seen in many forms of racing, the rate of progress has slowed only modestly to 1.5% in recent years. Even Mr Djokovic will probably pale in comparison to future talent."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the whole thesis is "they scored an average of 2.2% fewer return points"?!?!?

Seeing as how SERVE POINTS are not even mentioned, let alone statistically compared,
well,.....I have to regard this askance.

Alpha

I haven't read the original article and so am not sure how they've specified the problem. But you are getting two statistical issues wrong. As a pure statistical exercise, you only need to consider return (or serve) points as one's person's serving stats are the mirror image of the other person's return points. You count both, you then double count. The second point is that 2.2% difference in points is pretty significant in deciding a match. For example, in this year's Wimbledon final which Djokovic won handily, the difference in return points was 3%. Further, the exercise is not trying to tell you the difference between one match to the next or even one year to the next but the difference between two different eras. As such, the 2.2% gets compounded over the years and you get a seriously large number.

Tennis Planet

ALPHA

Federer: After third set. July 12 about 7:30 AM.

Others: July 13 @ 2:55 PM (Date and time of the post).

Long enough - specially given quality of brain cells and 'busy' schedule of someone in the basement.

Alpha

Ha ha! Good answer.

Gary Moser

(1) I think I understand compounding. [ Like interest on money...right? ]
Regardless [ irregardless? ] , it's not my concern here.

(2) I think Sackmann IS INDEED trying to tell me the difference between
"one year to the next" --- as evidenced by his phrase
"...in the second season than the first...".

(3) By my admittedly quick-and-dirty calculations, if Roger wins the
second set point opportunity that he had near the end of the first set,
thereby changing the result of that point,
plus pre-empting the next 3 points that Novak won to hold serve,
plus pre-empting the tie-breaker that Novak won 7-to-1,
it's a dead-even match after 4 sets with Roger's service-return percentage
coming in at 33.333 to Novak's 32.847

(4) Would love to see what Sackmann would have come up with
had he used a starting year other than 1970 and/or
Top 30 versus Top 50, etc...

Alpha

As I said, i hevn't read the original article. But:

On (3) It's one match and I simply used it as anecdotal evidence to show that a 2.2% difference can be significant. To draw any statistical conclusions, you'd need a larger sample size, which he does use.

On (2) it's a pool of players and the numbers you are getting is a series over time. Over time, players ranked in the top 50 tended to win 2.2% less return points in one year versus the next. It is NOT saying what happens between year 1 and year 2 or if that is statistically significant. For example, I could say that runners past age 40 get 5% slower each year. That doesn't mean I'm comparing age 45 to 46.

Veglia

Well Mr.Djokovic beat the same Mr.Nadal at FO in 2015, so ...

But I'm not comparing seasons or results, just a level of play. Back to the original topic: I believe that during this year's Wimbledon final Federer indeed thought about comparing his best to Djokovic's best and had some doubts. But I think he will never admit, neither in public nor to himself, that Djokovic's best is better than his best. In fact, I think he truly believes he's the best ever. So, his thoughts shifted towards explaining in his mind that there's something specific in Djokovic's game that just doesn't match well with his own. Kind of like Nadal's high-bouncing fh to his bh, especially on clay. So once he found that something (and I can't figure out what it is in his head) he was OK with losing the match, because there is an 'explanation'. So he let his guard down as the match progressed.

And this may be true, the little detail that we cannot discover/recognize. You have to know these guys play a different game than we play at our clubs.

In any case, Djokovic's performance at Wimbledon was awesome in my view. Maybe not pretty, but rock solid. Certainly more appreciated by those who play tennis.

Gary Moser

While I agree that 2.2% can be significant in an individual match,
it just as easily may be NOT significant, turning on the single swing of a racquet.
The individual match in question needs to be examined, ala Federer-Djokovic.

As for over time with a large field of players, no way to know without examining
all of the underlying data and testing the logic of Mr. Sackmann's formulas.

For starters, I'd love to see a sub-division of his Top 50 into 5 groups of ten,
to see how much variance there is between the FIRST TEN, the SECOND TEN,
the THIRD TEN, the FOURTH TEN and the FIFTH TEN.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be something like
0.2, 1.2, 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 respectively for a 2.2 blended average.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)