Bad tennis habits i don't want to see at the AO

First topic message reminder :

With the AO days away, tennis will be back in full again and with that comes some great plays, bad plays and out right disgraceful plays. Players have bad habits they can't stop when playing. This actually is not what they do between breaks but when the ball is in motion.

Federer verbally attacked Djokovic at last years USO for hitting a winner off his serve using a bad play ground tennis habit of "hit hard and hope for the best". Well that may be true but i call it guts. Anyway, these are the bad tennis habits i don't want to see at the AO.

1. Ball Shanking - Main culprit - Roger Federer.

Shanking is a disgraceful habit cultivated at a young age. It's worse when you consider shanking is when a player throws racquet at a ball in hope just because he couldn't time the ball properly or lacks the skills to deal with certain types of balls. Thankfully for the good image of tennis, shanking often results in the ball ending in the net or in the crowd.

2. Hawkeye Abuse - Main Culprit - Federer

Hawkeye hypocrisy in the worse crime in tennis. For a player who was vocally against hawkeye when it was introduced leading to even challenging it's accuracy, Federer abuses the hawkeye system more than any other player. Using it to break opponents rythm ; poor gamesmanship.

3. Choking - Main Culprits - Roger Federer, Victor Triocki.

My advise - Get a sport psychologist.

Choking is an embarrasing habit that must be eradicated from the game. Hit an ace on match point. Don't hit the ball into the net on match point. No 5th set choking or mental crumbling.

Here is to a great AO free of the above.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, not in the sense you mean. I believe Fed has the best tie-break record of any player, which indicates a distinct lack of choking. Most of his losses in 5th sets are not choking, but often tiredness - read Rafa's book for his description of the Wimby 2008 final. Rafa knew that Fed was tired at the start of the fifth set and all he had to do was wear him down to him - in Rafa's opinion.
His one mental weakness in that area is that if he loses a couple of match points in a close 5th set he seems to panic a bit and be unable to recover the match. Hardly the choker you make him out to be.

Amritia, this was my response to 'is Fed a choker'. I had hoped S_A would address this, but clearly it was a hope too far.
I also pointed out somewhere, I think, that being 15-40 up on your opponent's serve and then receiving 2 aces does not indicate choking. Without looking at every MP Fed has lost (which I can't be bothered to do and which S_A surely hasn't done either) how do we know if Fed choked or not? My point is that having lost MPs he has trouble re-grouping to win the match. Although he may have lost MPs in other matches and then gone on to win them anyway, for all I know.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, not in the sense you mean. I believe Fed has the best tie-break record of any player, which indicates a distinct lack of choking.
His one mental weakness in that area is that if he loses a couple of match points in a close 5th set he seems to panic a bit and be unable to recover the match. Hardly the choker you make him out to be.

Amritia, this was my response to 'is Fed a choker'. I had hoped S_A would address this, but clearly it was a hope too far.
I also pointed out somewhere, I think, that being 15-40 up on your opponent's serve and then receiving 2 aces does not indicate choking. Without looking at every MP Fed has lost (which I can't be bothered to do and which S_A surely hasn't done either) how do we know if Fed choked or not? My point is that having lost MPs he has trouble re-grouping to win the match. Although he may have lost MPs in other matches and then gone on to win them anyway, for all I know.

Yes, interesting points Julius.
I do believe we should avoid the use of the word 'choker' as it can be perceived differently by people.
Anyway why do you believe Federer suffers from these mental weaknesses. Tenez suggested he tends to 'relax' in these situations. If so this would be very surprising and quite a big weakness, I can't imagine Nadal or Djokovic 'relaxing' at any point during a match.

In the past two years or so Federer seems to lose concentration during his matches. He is playing exceptionally well and winning and then in the next set he seems to drift and allows the opponent back in. In the past he would remain focussed throughout the match and finish his opponent off in quick order. This is not choking but would be a better and more meaningful topic of debate. Maybe it has something to do with maintaining energy levels. The only player Federer has never been able to master is Nadal.

I'd need to know if (and how many times) he's lost match point but then gone on to win anyway. If that's never happened, then maybe he somehow views those first match points as the ones he needs to win.
I don't think he relaxes or takes the win for granted when he reaches match point, but maybe he just thinks he's lost his chance and can't quite put those points out of his mind i.e. "That was my chance, now how will I win?"

In any case, it's one very specific scenario, and considering his mental strength in every other area, it's more of a footnote than anything else.

S_A, of course, will use it to bash Fed 'cos he hates him with a passion, but we've all grown used to that, and even look forward to it at times.

Nore Staat wrote:This is not choking but would be a better and more meaningful topic of debate.

Well I do agree this is another weakness that Fed has developed lately. Do you blame the match points squandered on this?

JuliusHMarx wrote:
I don't think he relaxes or takes the win for granted when he reaches match point, but maybe he just thinks he's lost his chance and can't quite put those points out of his mind i.e. "That was my chance, now how will I win?"

Very valid opinion
I don't know whether it is right, but it could be.

amritia3ee wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:This is not choking but would be a better and more meaningful topic of debate.

Well I do agree this is another weakness that Fed has developed lately. Do you blame the match points squandered on this?

No, it has nothing to do with what happens at the end of the match, it's something that happens during a match that didn't happen in the past (AFAIK).

Julius your point was taken but lacks substance. Tie breaks are hardly ever a big indicator of choke as you play tie breaks from the first set. They are hardly ever pressured points in those situations. Your claim of tiredness for Federer is laughable. I don't even want to get to the 5th set part.

Julius your point was taken but lacks substance. Tie breaks are hardly ever a big indicator of choke as you play tie breaks from the first set. They are hardly ever pressured points in those situations. Your claim of tiredness for Federer is laughable. I don't even want to get to the 5th set part.

amritia3ee wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:This is not choking but would be a better and more meaningful topic of debate.

Well I do agree this is another weakness that Fed has developed lately. Do you blame the match points squandered on this?

Recent lapses of concentration I put down to the grind of the tour. After 900, 1000 matches, something's going to give at some point. I suspect that his mind can wander during lesser tournaments against lesser players (been here, done that, what's for dinner?) and it can become a bad habit that then appears in more important matches.
It might also be due to injuries he hides very well when on court. To me, his mind seemed to have wandered during his match with Seppi, but it turned out it was his bad back. I wonder how many times that sort of thing has happened and we've never found out about it.
All just speculation of course, none of us can know for sure.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius your point was taken but lacks substance. Tie breaks are hardly ever a big indicator of choke as you play tie breaks from the first set. They are hardly ever pressured points in those situations. Your claim of tiredness for Federer is laughable. I don't even want to get to the 5th set part.

You do make me laugh S_A. Lacks substance - nice one. Tie breaks aren't pressure situations and don't indicate mental strength. Yeah OK.
It wasn't my claim of tiredness for Fed - it was Rafa's claim. I'll let Rafa know you're laughing at him.

Julius perhaps you can do a stats work final set tie breaks. 3rd set in a 3 set match or 5th set will help your case fractionally if Federer comes on top.

Something like 80%+ of 3-set matches are won by the player who wins the first set. So a 1st set tie-break is crucial - win that and you're the heavy favourite to win the match.
And so is a 2nd set tie-break, because if you're a set down you have to win it and if you're a set up you can win the match.
Fed is in the top 11 of every 'Pressure' category in the ATP reliability index (past and present players) except Deciding set - even there he's above Edberg, Kuerten, Moya, Rosewall
Yet to according you he's the main culprit of choking in the top 100-150 current players. You must keep educating me, clearly I'm a tennis buffoon.

SA - You did not comment on the clip I posted about that USO semi. Don;t you agree that Djoko was the obvious chocker there? Had he missed that return all eyes would have been on Djoko crumbling in that 8th game of the 5th set.

Isn't it amusing that the first to choke when it mattered was Djoko not Federer?

If you watch Federer play live, it's so obvious he is relaxed...completely relax. That's why he can pull winners like in that FO09 while facing virtual MP.

He has teh sharpest game on the tour, any form of choking would be extremely obvious. Unlike others he doesn;t bash senselessly the ball 3m over the net and in the middle of the court. No risk of choking for those...though they still do.

Federer has the best record with the riskiest game (as you say he shanks a lot)...so that just shows how cool the guy is.

Julius that stat is for tie breaks. Even i will admit Federer is a good front runner but the choking becomes evident in tight and pressured moments.3rd set tie breaks and 5th as well if we are to use your tie breaks stats. You will have to show this.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius that stat is for tie breaks. Even i will admit Federer is a good front runner but the choking becomes evident in tight and pressured moments.3rd set tie breaks and 5th as well if we are to use your tie breaks stats. You will have to show this.

Congratulations on ignoring pretty much everything I wrote

Simple_Analyst wrote:8 has proved so. Infact i shouldn't even attempt adding more. It's left upon others to prove other wise. A bit like the a Tenrez length per time taken thread which you debunked and i later made mockery of with my brilliant Conditions theories thread.

You really haven't got the point about evidence have you? It is down to the prosecuter (ie you) to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt. You haven't even reached the civil standard of balance of probabilites - again down to the plaintiff to demonstrate.

Case dismissed through lack of evidence.

All parties are excused.

Lol Djokovic choking for winning the match? Now i've heard it all

Carriege4, no actually. I've presented my case with 8 different instances of MPs choked and making Federer the culprit. All you have to do is find 9 other instances for a current player in the draw and we have another debate. The onus is on you.

Julius how have i ignored your point?

You haven't adequately shown that losing from MP is choking - fundamental to your case. Until you prove this there is no case to answer and no rebuttal required.

carrieg4 wrote:You haven't adequately shown that losing from MP is choking - fundamental to your case. Until you prove this there is no case to answer and no rebuttal required.

Lol, ok Jose. May be i should also adequately proof the earth is oblate
spheroid in shape?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:You haven't adequately shown that losing from MP is choking - fundamental to your case. Until you prove this there is no case to answer and no rebuttal required.

Lol, ok Jose. May be i should also adequately proof the earth is oblate
spheroid in shape?

So, no proof for your case then? OK.

A good indicator that something is an opinion (rather than a fact) is when the word 'I' is inserted into a sentence. If you read the thread title 'Bad tennis habits i dont want to see at the AO' i is the give away this is an opinion based thread, not an evidence based thread at all. As my professor at university said a long time ago, if people can usually disagree with you on something that's usually a pretty good indicator it's an opinion (unless proven otherwise by scientific endeavor or the person is not of sane mind).

The only person who thinks he's presented any 'evidence' is you SA, no one else. You really haven't understood the thing about interpretation, have you? Something you appear not to understand is that evidence on its own doesn't suggest anything. It's how you interpret that evidence and how convincing your analysis of that evidence and evaluation of it is that dictates how strong your case is, not simply stating you think the evidence exists and supports you (as your doing). I'm assuming you studied at university SA? If you did, why are you making such foolish elementary mistakes in a debate? You're interpretation of the evidence isn't proven because not everyone agrees with it hence why you have to reply to other poster's interpretation (which instead you've mostly ignored).

You haven't got a case, you know it and no amount of 'lol' will change that. carrieg4 doesn't need to prove the earth is a sphere because science has proven it beyond doubt. No one disputes the earth is anything but round.

Being highly evasive and saying you won't answer other posters because they lack 'substance' (in your opinion) is more illustrative that you don't have any answers and aren't willing to engage in a debate which show you've clearly lost the debate but keep digging. It reminds of the 5th set tie breaker thread you made where you were completely humiliated but even now try to pretend it didn't show you up. Nice try, but seriously, is it good for your health to embarrass yourself so often and regularly on this forum?

Lol Luciusmsn is back. I suppose you fled last night when i provided Amritia with that evidence. Of course the videos of those matches are enough proof of Federer a choker? For instance, can you proof to me Federer is talented? You show me videos and results to make a case wouldn't you?

The man is a choker Luciusmann, as much ad you don't want to believe this, he has consistently backed this up.

Yes he does have certain mental weaknesses, but you have jumped to the conclusion he is the biggest culprit too quickly.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol Luciusmsn is back. I suppose you fled last night when i provided Amritia with that evidence. Of course the videos of those matches are enough proof of Federer a choker? For instance, can you proof to me Federer is talented? You show me videos and results to make a case wouldn't you?

The man is a choker Luciusmann, as much ad you don't want to believe this, he has consistently backed this up.

Still no proof for your case then?

There is more than enough proof. 8 of them in concrete video evidence. May be you can proof to ne Federer is talented Carrieg4?

Sorry, I must have missed something, did you understand the point I made about interpretation? If you don't I suggest you go to university and find out about it because clearly you don't understand how to debate. I'll say it again, evidence on its own doesn't suggest anything. What you provided is no proof which supports your view because others have already said they have a different view as to what the evidence suggests, as JHMarx has alluded to. I don't need to present any evidence, I didn't say Federer was a choker, you did, it's only reasonable you support your case, if your too lazy to, don't come on the forum to debate poorly supported views like your own.

When you understand that, we can have a proper debate.

If you want to know where I been you only need ask as opposed to assume I've fled SA, it's not hard. I been working this morning and I've just had a late lunch with my friends and just got back half an hour ago, hence why I haven't been posting. Some of us have other things to do on Sundays than spend them constantly posting on internet forums like yourself.

Simple_Analyst wrote:There is more than enough proof. 8 of them in concrete video evidence. May be you can proof to ne Federer is talented Carrieg4?

As I have repeatedly stated, you haven't shown that losing from MP up is always down to choking. You are ignoring the bloke with a bat on the other side of the net. So there is inadequate proof.

Federer is a choker ?

Of course you can only compare the ability to choke with other players who have achieved much more in their career, therefore to compare Roger to a choker, you are placing every player below him in the achievement stakes as worse than chokers, they must be composite losers in every aspect that bottling can be described.

Which is complete nonsense of course, and by the powers of even a very small intellectual mind, it can be seen your article is complete and utter nonsense too.

There are so many dead horses in most of your replies on here, you may well have worn out your flogger.

Lol you do talk about University alot. Are you that excited about your coming fresh man year? I was years ago.

Now you are saying evidence alone doesn't say anything. Please don't study law in university.

I finished years ago: again, don't assume anything SA, you'll only embarress yourself which you're rather good at.

I talk a lot about university because it's funny how you go on as if you're educated (and have this arrogant patronizing tone to go with it) but you make so many foolish elementary mistakes in logic and in debate. You could know a 100 languages SA, it doesn't change how silly your views come out, it could be in English or Spanish or any language you choose, silly is silly.

Nice try @ side stepping the substance of my post. Again. Yawn, same old tricks and easily found out. Again.

All talk as usual Luciusmann, no substance.
May be all tennis players and some commentators etc can't educate you on tennis because because they did not go to university. Were you not doing latin there? Don't brag about your education on internet forums my friend. You'll be left in dust especially if you studied latin.

Puts Serious Cap On
Seriously if one wants to talk about "stats" then one must compare the number of match points won to the number of match points lost. One must then compare this to the stats of other players. Considering match points lost in isolation is meaningless.

Takes Serious Cap off
I agree with everything Simple Analyst has just said.

SA, you started getting personal to deflect from the subject, not me. Saying I'd fled when I hadn't. No need to call me a friend, -we most certainly are not!

You've ignored the substance, again, nice try, but there are many, many posts above, from many others posters too, all of which you've evasively ignored. It's not my fault you have a flawed argument and persist in retaining it. It says more about how stubborn you are than anything else.

I've not mentioned anything about my degree, simply how if you want a debate, there's a way to debate, saying because 'I say so' is not going to cut it(which is what you do), here on this forum or anywhere (unless you're in a church perhaps).

A few of my modules involved Latin. Here in the UK and in fact many countries, we have a modular system which means you can choose a range of modules. My degree was not in Latin. I did study Latin as part of my degree. Irrelevant to this forum and thread.

Oh really? So university is irrelevant here? Were you not the one mentioning it and professors? For what i have no idea. The evidence pesented is enough. Federer is a choker.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The evidence pesented is enough.

It's enough for you - that's what matters.

Appears you misunderstood. Whether I have a degree is irrelevant to this forum. What I learnt (or what anyone else learns there) is most certainly not irrelevant if it helps the discussion.

Jeee, clearly what I've said is not getting through. What you have presented is evidence, that much is true. None of it supports your interpretation however, anymore than anyone else's interpretation on here.

Saying like you are, here's the evidence, so he's a choker, is not conclusive. Where's your analysis? Evaluation of the evidence? Er, oh yeh....there isn't very much of that at all, just take me on faith.....and why should we do that?

Specifically, to choke MPs, you must get their first. The players he had MPs against, must be even weaker mentally to allow him to get to such a juncture in the match.

SA on his one-person crusade.

Don't worry Luciusmann, when he chokes match points at the semi finals of the USO to make it a hattrick, i'll have enough evidence and analysis he is a choker in your world Right now on in reality he is a choker backed by evidence.

S_A I would enjoy reading your dismissal of the ATP Reliability Index, 'Pressure' section, if you would oblige. I'm sure it would make for enjoyable reading.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Don't worry Luciusmann, when he chokes match points at the semi finals of the USO to make it a hattrick, i'll have enough evidence and analysis he is a choker in your world Right now on in reality he is a choker backed by evidence.

The fact you're speculating as to the future now shows you've already left reality and are now desperately trying to find evidence which doesn't even exist at this moment. Oh dear....really, you mustn't keep spoiling us like this!

SA, this is highly amusing....I'll repeat it again, since you didn't understand it when I said it earlier 'evidence in itself does not suggest anything'. Keep repeating that to yourself every day and you might understand what it means.

laverfan wrote:Specifically, to choke MPs, you must get their first. The players he had MPs against, must be even weaker mentally to allow him to get to such a juncture in the match.

No that's nonsense.

Anyway as for this article SA has provided a lot of evidence for Fed being called 'mentally weak' in certain situations but nothing to suggest he is the worst culprit.

In the FedEx 5th set ATP Reliability Index we have:

1. Rafael Nadal .833 - 15-3
2. Johan Kriek .818 - 18-4
3. Ross Case .813 - 13-3
4. Bjorn Borg .800 - 24-6
5. Harold Solomon .762 - 16-5
6. Aaron Krickstein .757 - 28-9
7. Bob Carmichael .733 - 11-4
8. Thierry Champion .733 - 11-4
9. Novak Djokovic .722 - 13-5
10. Chris Lewis .722 - 13-5
12. Andy Murray .706 - 12-5
13. John Newcombe .697 - 23-10
16. Pete Sampras .688 - 33-15
19. Rod Laver .682 - 15-7
21. Boris Becker .681 - 32-15
22. Ilie Nastase .667 - 34-17
23. Mats Wilander .667 - 26-13
30. John McEnroe .658 - 25-13
113. Roger Federer .529 - 18-16

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol you do talk about University alot. Are you that excited about your coming fresh man year? I was years ago.

Now you are saying evidence alone doesn't say anything. Please don't study law in university.

The evidence you have produced proves nothing as you cannot demonstrate what it is evidence of.

In order to present videos of losing from match point up as evidence of choking you have to first demonstrate that the only way to lose from match point up is by choking. You have failed to do so therefore your "evidence" is irrelevant.

If you could somehow find proof that the only way to lose from MP up is to choke then you would still need to demonstrate that no other players have done this more frequently. In order to be fair this would have to be as a proportion of total matches played.

You are making the assertion, you have to find the proof to back it up. Without the above you have no evidentiary basis on which to make your claim so cannot state it as a fact.

BTW I do have a law degree

FedEx ATP Reliability Index Tie Breakers

1. Roger Federer .661 - 306-157
2. Novak Djokovic .642 - 120-67
3. Pete Sampras .637 - 274-156
4. Andy Roddick .625 - 292-175
5. John Isner .622 - 120-73
6. Rafael Nadal .618 - 139-86
7. Andy Murray .608 - 93-60
8. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga .605 - 98-64
9. Michael Stich .601 - 134-89
10. Stefan Edberg .601 - 107-71

FedEx ATP Reliability Index: Deciding set (3 setters plus 5 setters)

1. Bjorn Borg .759 - 123-39
2. Novak Djokovic .699 - 79-34
3. Jimmy Connors .698 - 229-99
4. Rafael Nadal .691 - 94-42
5. John McEnroe .688 - 161-73
6. Pete Sampras .681 - 188-88
7. John Newcombe .681 - 94-44
8. Andy Murray .681 - 79-37
9. Johan Kriek .676 - 125-60
10. Boris Becker .673 - 165-80
11. Arthur Ashe .671 - 171-84
12. Rod Laver .671 - 102-50
13. Mats Wilander .668 - 125-62
14. Thomas Muster .660 - 169-87
17. Ivan Lendl .658 - 183-95
18. Lleyton Hewitt .657 - 157-82
24. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga .653 - 49-26
26. Andy Roddick .652 - 122-65
28. Andre Agassi .643 - 175-97
36. Roger Federer .634 - 144-83

amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:Specifically, to choke MPs, you must get their first. The players he had MPs against, must be even weaker mentally to allow him to get to such a juncture in the match.

No that's nonsense.

This whole article is full of it. , except NS's statistics.

amritia3ee wrote:Anyway as for this article SA has provided a lot of evidence for Fed being called 'mentally weak' in certain situations but nothing to suggest he is the worst culprit.

So who is the 'worst culprit', Vince Spadea?

Hmm actual objective statistics AKA evidence. That's more like it Nore Staat

So Federer is the most likely to win a tie-breaker but only the 36th most likely to win a deciding set. He drops to 113th if it is a five setter. He has still won more than he has lost but only just. Still not seing worst culprit for choking............................

carrieg4 so we can also agree Federer is not talented as there is no proof he is?

Nore staats have confirmed the chokers tag by that it told us what we know, Federer is a good front runner but chokes when the pressure is on.