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.

Simple_Analyst wrote: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.

The fact that he has a much better record in 3-setter that go to 3 sets, rather than 5 setters that go to 5 sets would indicate that it is not mental strength that lets him down in 5-setters, but physical strength.
That would confirm Rafa's view of Fed in the Wimby 2008 final.

(Statistically, the smalller sample size of 5 set matches makes it less relevant, but we can ignore that.)

Having the best record in tie-breaks...oh, I forgot, those don't count as pressure situations. The ATP has got that wrong
In fact, the only pressure situation the ATP have got right...is the 5th set one. The rest aren't pressure situations at all!

Well Slams are far more important then other 3-set matches these days; and hence more pressure in these.

Simple_Analyst wrote: so we can also agree Federer is not talented as there is no proof he is?

If you have tried reading Nadal's biography (Rafa) here is a sentence which might be worth reading.

The gap in talent with Federer existed, but it was not impossibly wide.

This evidence, that too coming from the current ATP #2, who was ATP #2 for a significant period to Federer's ATP #1.

amritia3ee wrote:Well Slams are far more important then other 3-set matches these days; and hence more pressure in these.

Possibly, though that's a subjective argument, even if I tend to agree.
I would suggest that winning 16 slams would indicate extremely good mental strength, rather than being the main culprit of choking on the tour. Maybe Fed has such immense talent that he can win record slams and choke a few away as well for good measure!
The same way Sampras could win record slams without a decent clay court game.
(PS amritia, I reckon S_A is a hatah, wotcha think?)

JuliusHMarx wrote:
(PS amritia, I reckon S_A is a hatah, wotcha think?)

I have my suspicions that he is slightly anti-Federer, but lets not jump to conclusion before we review all the evidence.

Who likes Toblerone?

legendkillar wrote:Who likes Toblerone?

I don't mind it.

legendkillar wrote:Who likes Toblerone?

Why do they ruin perfectly good white chocolate with honey and almond nougat?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote: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.

The fact that he has a much better record in 3-setter that go to 3 sets, rather than 5 setters that go to 5 sets would indicate that it is not mental strength that lets him down in 5-setters, but physical strength.
That would confirm Rafa's view of Fed in the Wimby 2008 final.

(Statistically, the smalller sample size of 5 set matches makes it less relevant, but we can ignore that.)

Having the best record in tie-breaks...oh, I forgot, those don't count as pressure situations. The ATP has got that wrong
In fact, the only pressure situation the ATP have got right...is the 5th set one. The rest aren't pressure situations at all!

Mentioning the ATP record of tie break success to Simplistic is just plain cruel!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Who likes Toblerone?

Why do they ruin perfectly good white chocolate with honey and almond nougat?

Well I admit it is not my favourite Swiss Chocolate, Lindt White Chocolate is simply stunning.

Simple_Analyst wrote: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.

He has won 16GS so has prevailed in the toughest competitions on numerous occasions. That is about as an objective a view of talent as you can get as obviously talent has a subjective element and subjective elements cannot be proven but are judged by the reasonable man test. Would the reasonable man state that it takes talent to win 16 GSs? Very likely yes.

Nore staats stats confirmed nothing of the sort. They showed that he struggles in the 5th set - physical issue anyone? They also shows he performs great in tie-breaks - not exactly the trait of a choker. You have to look at everything - not just the bits you like.

I want some Toblerone too.

Julius but the tie break hasn't proved it's in a pressured situation? What if 90% of those were first set tie breaks? You think that means he is not a choker? Hardly a pressured situation. We saw from the stat as soon as it got to deciding 3rd set, he dropped down the list,. A more pressured situation. Once we got to slams, the big events where there is more pressure, in the 5th set, he is almost bottom of the list. Add MP choking and it does not look good. Choke culprit well deserved.

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote: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.

He has won 16GS so has prevailed in the toughest competitions on numerous occasions. That is about as an objective a view of talent as you can get as obviously talent has a subjective element and subjective elements cannot be proven but are judged by the reasonable man test. Would the reasonable man state that it takes talent to win 16 GSs? Very likely yes.

Nore staats stats confirmed nothing of the sort. They showed that he struggles in the 5th set - physical issue anyone? They also shows he performs great in tie-breaks - not exactly the trait of a choker. You have to look at everything - not just the bits you like.

I want some Toblerone too.

So in other words, you cannot prove it and even such is limited to what you watched tv and the accompanying results, slams. So that is the evidence. How then is it different from my evidence from what i watched on tv and the accompanying result?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius but the tie break hasn't proved it's in. a pressured situation? What if 90% of those were first set tie breaks?

As previously stated, the winner of the first set usually goes on to win the match (can't remember the exact figure - about 80% of the time)
If player loses the first set, they usually lose the match. E.g. Fed and Nadal lose 60% of the matches when they lose the first set. So even first set tie-breaks are crucial to the outcome of the match and thus pressure situations.
The only reason I can think of to argue against that is that if Fed is good at something, it can't possibly be important - you wouldn't do that, would you? Surely not!

So you think a tie break in the first set has more pressure than a final set tie break? Julius!

Like i said, Federer is just a good front runner but chokes when the pressure is on.

No the deciding set is always more pressurised that the first, irrelevant of its importance.

Anyway SA, I've not really seen some hardcore evidence showing he is the MAIN culprit. You need evidence for more than one man on that.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you think a tie break in the first set has more pressure than a final set tie break? Julius!

Like i said, Federer is just a good front runner but chokes when the pressure is on.

No, silly you, that's not what I'm saying! Honestly, I don't know how you mis-interpret things so often. It's almost like you do it on purpose!
What I'm saying is that a first set tie break is a pressure situation. You're saying it isn't. The ATP agree with me, and based on the evidence which I've provided and you've ignored, the ATP seem to have got it right.

So a possible case of 90% of those tie breaks being in the 1st and will render Julius theory rather unuseful to the debate?

Julius the ATP combined everything so it looks good on paper. I'll take a bet should it only be final sets, Federer will be down on that list too.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote: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.

He has won 16GS so has prevailed in the toughest competitions on numerous occasions. That is about as an objective a view of talent as you can get as obviously talent has a subjective element and subjective elements cannot be proven but are judged by the reasonable man test. Would the reasonable man state that it takes talent to win 16 GSs? Very likely yes.

Nore staats stats confirmed nothing of the sort. They showed that he struggles in the 5th set - physical issue anyone? They also shows he performs great in tie-breaks - not exactly the trait of a choker. You have to look at everything - not just the bits you like.

I want some Toblerone too.

So in other words, you cannot prove it and even such is limited to what you watched tv and the accompanying results, slams. So that is the evidence. How then is it different from my evidence from what i watched on tv and the accompanying result?

Talent can only been proven as far as is objectively possible. You are actively ignoring relevant statistics on order to make something follow whatever agenda you have. TBH I'm not a Federer fan and couldn't really care less what you think anyway. I just think if you are going to make assertions as facts you should be able to back them up. You can't.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius the ATP combined everything so it looks good on paper. I'll take a bet should it only be final sets, Federer will be down on that list too.

Yep and if he was top of that list, you'd find anyother excuse, so it's all a bit pointless isn't it.
Basically, you'll just ignore any evidence, no matter how strong, that is contrary to your opinion - which is why debating with you is amusing for a while but in the end just gets boring. Sorry, but there it is.

But you think choking cannot be proved objectively as possible. You base your views on talent on the same evidence i based my a Federer choking on.

Simple_Analyst wrote:But you think choking cannot be proved objectively as possible.

I'm sure it can, you just aren't doing it very well.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you think a tie break in the first set has more pressure than a final set tie break? Julius! .

I cannot see why 53 40/15 up with 2 MPs is more of a pressure point than being in a TB in the first set not knowing which way teh set and the match is going to go. Ask any player which situation tehy woudl find less stressful and they will tell you the MPs are less stressful.

Wyse, you are really losing it I am afraid. I did try my best to save you but but you kept digging deeper.

I can't help you anymore though.

Tenez wrote:

I cannot see why 53 40/15 up with 2 MPs is more of a pressure point than being in a TB in the first set not knowing which way teh set and the match is going to go. Ask any player which situation tehy woudl find less stressful and they will tell you the MPs are less stressful.

wtf

Juliius perhaps you can find the stats and we will all see?

carrieg4 yet you still havent proved Federer is talented.

Tenez wrote:

I did try my best to save you...

I can't help you anymore though.

What's with this arrogance, you're not a superior being.

Good stats from Nore Staat, injecting something actually useful into what was not the greatest discussion. It is interesting that Federer leads on tiebreaks but is way down on 5th sets. That could mean that his 5th set losses are as much due to physical strength weakness as mental? Then again, I am not fully convinced about that. In fact, first of all, the 5th set record is a tricky one indeed since you can improve your standing in it by dropping a couple of sets to a no-hoper who you should have defeated in straight sets. Matches that went the distance between the top players, that would be of interest. Hm, wonder if I have time to look that up.

Some things go in favour of Federer's mental strength, notably:
1. Clutch serving time and again.
2. The way he played against Roddick at Wimbledon (2009). Lost the first then, 2-6 down in the tiebreak, then ..won 6 straight points. In the 5th set held serve again and again and it was finally Roddick whose nerve went.
3. His tiebreak record. (Could the fact that he is strong on serve explain this?)

In favour of him being mentally weak:
1. Losing a lot of break points in his career.
2. Tight losses in fifth set to Nadal in his career at Wimbledon, Rome and the Australian Open.
3. The two match point holding losses to Djokovic at the US Open.

I think, overall, this is hard to judge. My thought would be that Federer is very mentally confident on his own serve, but somehow less so when returning. I would also say that he is mentally stronger than the average player but (slightly) mentally weaker than the average top 4 player or average past great champion.

vs Nadal, I think Nadal is mentally tougher. Federer won very few tight matches between the two of them.

vs Djokovic, you have got to hand it to Djokovic probably, and only marginally, given that he prevailed in the 2 US Open matches, but it's hard to be sure.

vs Murray, Federer probably takes this, given that Murray beat him regularly in masters 1000s but struggled to get a set in a slam final.

vs me, well I doubt I would do as well as Federer mentally. I only mention this because it's easy to forget when we criticise a top player how you or I would feel if we were suddenly in front of a million fans for a million dollars and a piece of history. It can't be easy.

Tenez, I don't think it is fair in my opinion to say that a MP is not a huge pressure point. Maybe at 2-0 5-2 40-15 it's nothing, but at 2-2 5-4 40-30 it's as big as it gets for me. Would be interesting to see MP conversion rates for sure but I don't think those stats are publically available, or are they?

Finally, I tend to dislike the overuse of the word "choke". I think when you're serving for the match and you hit 3 double faults that's a choke, e.g. Jana Novotna (both in the one she won and the one she lost) and Ivanisevic (in the one who won) both choked in Wimbledon finals. But we shouldn't be talking about a "choke" to describe the slightest mental weakness, it should be only be for the severe stuff in my opinion.

Simple_Analyst wrote:carrieg4 yet you still havent proved Federer is talented.

I'm not the one making assertions.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Juliius perhaps you can find the stats and we will all see?

S_A I really can't be bothered - you'd need the stats for every player in the open era to do a proper comparison.
I'll do what you do - say that 90% of Fed's tie-breaks were final set ones, despite no evidence, and then say that you have to prove me wrong, otherwise I must be right.

Henman Bill wrote:Tenez, I don't think it is fair in my opinion to say that a MP is not a huge pressure point. Maybe at 2-0 5-2 40-15 it's nothing, but at 2-2 5-4 40-30 it's as big as it gets for me. Would be interesting to see MP conversion rates for sure but I don't think those stats are publically available, or are they?

A MP is a pressure point but it's not a huge pressure point unless it's in a decisive TB. A MP has a huge consequence and therefore carries some pressure but the pressure increases dramatically if you miss them. Before you start missing the first MPs, they are not bigger than a key BP or a first set TB which can go either way. I cannot agree with you if you think otherwise.

One thing for sure is that the MPs are probably higher pressure points for the one on the losing end than the one who has the MPs. Which clearly is very different when you are in a pressure situation which coudl tilt the match one way or another.

The pressure for Federer came as soon as he failed those MPs, mix that with the physical and mental exhaustion, then yes, it took its toll. But not at 5/3 40/15...no way. Don;t know if you read my earlier article where I posted the 8th game of Djokovic but tat was much closer to choking and huge pressure points. And it certainly felt tat way as Djoko lost his game to love!

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:carrieg4 yet you still havent proved Federer is talented.

I'm not the one making assertions.

But you are the one showing me evidence on Federer being talented on what is seen on tv. and result. The same objective evidence i provided.

If we're talking about the last US Open match, I will accept that 5-3 40-15 was not a HUGE point. It was BIG but not HUGE. But at 5-3 40-30, after the crowd reaction. That point was HUGE. It was clear already that the whole match could potentially be about to turn.

5 set records
Federer 0-0 Murray
Federer 0-2 Djokovic
Federer 2-3 Nadal
Overall Federer 2 - 5

Tiebreak records
Federer 4-1 Murray
Federer 6-5 Djokovic
Federer 9-9 Nadal

Source: ATP site head to head and manually count

Note (and edit): Given Nadal's superior record in the head to head with Federer, the 9-9 could be used in favour of Federer being mentally strong since he is winning a much higher % of TB sets versus Nadal than other sets. Provided the person making the argument accepts that Nadal is the superior player in the match up of course!

Simple_Analyst wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:carrieg4 yet you still havent proved Federer is talented.

I'm not the one making assertions.

But you are the one showing me evidence on Federer being talented on what is seen on tv. and result. The same objective evidence you provided.

My evidence is nothing whatsoever to do with what is seen on TV. Just going on a history of winning 70 singles titles. BTW a judge would have told you to stop time-wasting and put up or shut up a long time ago. You can only put up smoke-screens to disguise a poorly thought out argument for so long.

Tenez, also things have changed in this era. In the more serve and volley period (1990s), even 0-40 for a break was a big point because you knew that a big server could easily pull that back. So 40-30 5-4 in the olden days (1990s) was not quite so huge because the server held such a commanding advantage. Nowadays, with the returners game so good 40-30 5-4 MP (or 6-5) is very big because the returner is right back in it at deuce.

Here's another one worth a mention.

5th Set
Federer 1-0 Sampras

Tiebreaks
Federer 1-1 Sampras

Those days it was a more about the big points, nowadays it's more about the total points, relatively.

Only one match but you are talking about vs the reigning 7-time mentally steeled champion as a 19 year old. It was a tight game. There was one piece of clutch volleying on a break point from Federer that arguably won him the match.

Henman Bill wrote:If we're talking about the last US Open match, I will accept that 5-3 40-15 was not a HUGE point. It was BIG but not HUGE. But at 5-3 40-30, after the crowd reaction. That point was HUGE. It was clear already that the whole match could potentially be about to turn.

As you watched Fed live yourself you have noticed how relax he plays...even if it means the world. The 2nd MP was huge cause he may have remembered at that stage the 2 MPs he wasted the previous year.

But again, you notice the chokers cause they create the opportunities to take the lead but fail to do so. Coria typically, Gasquet. Or they simply fail to hold serve when they have to stay in the set or match...which was Djoko's case when serving at 4/3. But getting to MP gets you in a different postion than choking. It's more like the feeling that you won and just need to finish off. Djoko's return on that 1st MP in my view only testifies that he also believed the match was over.

Those weird occurences happen. ...to anybody.

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:carrieg4 yet you still havent proved Federer is talented.

I'm not the one making assertions.

But you are the one showing me evidence on Federer being talented on what is seen on tv. and result. The same objective evidence you provided.

My evidence is nothing whatsoever to do with what is seen on TV. Just going on a history of winning 70 singles titles. BTW a judge would have told you to stop time-wasting and put up or shut up a long time ago. You can only put up smoke-screens to disguise a poorly thought out argument for so long.

So using different cases of MPs choked in losing efforts, 8 different matches in total without counting others when the rest of great players and even current players havent even choked in more than 1 match should not make a judge tell you to put up or shut up? Put you law background to use here. So how different is the evidence you provided to mine?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:carrieg4 yet you still havent proved Federer is talented.

I'm not the one making assertions.

But you are the one showing me evidence on Federer being talented on what is seen on tv. and result. The same objective evidence you provided.

My evidence is nothing whatsoever to do with what is seen on TV. Just going on a history of winning 70 singles titles. BTW a judge would have told you to stop time-wasting and put up or shut up a long time ago. You can only put up smoke-screens to disguise a poorly thought out argument for so long.

So using different cases of MPs choked in losing efforts, 8 different matches in total without counting others when the rest of great players and even current players havent even choked in more than 1 match should not make a judge tell you to put up or shut up? Put you law background to use here. So how different is the evidence you provided to mine?

You have shown MPs lost that is all. You have made no case that match lost following MPs automatically means a choke and have completely ignored all other possible explanations and relevant information provided by other posters. No case can be made on this basis and you throwing in the "Is Federer talented?" argument is an obvious smoke-screen that has no relevance to the original debate. Very transparent. Once again make your case or don't. Take your pick.

Big-4 5 set record (actually went the distance, not all best of 5)
Federer 0-0 Murray
Federer 0-2 Djokovic
Federer 2-3 Nadal
Murray 0-0 Djokovic
Murray 0-1 Nadal
Djokovic 0-0 Nadal

Total
Nadal 4-2
Djokovic 2-0
Federer 2-5
Murray 0-1

No not transparent at all. You said Federer is not a choker, i said he is. I said Federer is not talented, you said he is. You produced evidence of results and tv, i produced the same evidence yet some how mine is not correct? How is that so?

Tiebreak record
Federer 4-1 Murray
Federer 6-5 Djokovic
Federer 9-9 Nadal
Murray 3-1 Djokovic
Murray 3-6 Nadal
Djokovic 2-6 Nadal

Totals
Nadal 21-14 (best %)
Federer 19-15
Murrray 7-11
Djokovic 8-15 (worst %)

Simple_Analyst wrote:No not transparent at all. You said Federer is not a choker, i said he is. I said Federer is not talented, you said he is. You produced evidence of results and tv, i produced the same evidence yet some how mine is noy correct? How is that so?

You said ee-ther and I said eye-ther
You said po-tay-to and I said po-tah-to

Let's call the whole thing off

Not exactly Julius. Carrieg4 studied law but i wouldn't hire him unless it's free because he makes a very poor case for someone with such background. He said my use of actual results as evidence is inconclusive and dismisses it yet produces exactly the same for his case.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not exactly Julius. Carrieg4 studied law but i wouldn't hire him unless it's free because he makes a very poor case for someone with such background. He said my use of actual results as evidence is inconclusive and dismisses it yet produces exactly the same for his case.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure someone said 'potato' in there somewhere. Or maybe it was 'windshield wiper'.

I've been away for a while but are we still working on Simplistics theory that all final sets are tie breaks? Or was is all tie breaks are final sets?

Simple_Analyst wrote:No not transparent at all. You said Federer is not a choker, i said he is. I said Federer is not talented, you said he is. You produced evidence of results and tv, i produced the same evidence yet some how mine is noy correct? How is that so?

I said he had won 70 tennis competitions and the reasonable average person would be very likey to translate that as talented. You said he had lost 0.8% of his matches from MP up and called it conclusive evidence of choking. You have also disregarded all other explanations out of hand. Feel free to provide other explanations for Federers 70 wins. Also you brought the Federer talent question into this not me, not really sure why as I am not a Fed fan.

Why am I still bothering with this...........

As JHM said, I see a match lost from a winning position, you see a choke. Knock yourself out if it makes you happy, see how many takers you get for your theory among his opponents. I'm off to debate with Tenez, I may not always agree with him but he always backs up what he says with relevant information.

By the way, I am a she. The clue is in the name

So i wrap this up. Case presented. Federer main choke culprit. Backed with subtiantial evidence of MP chokings in 8 different matches.

Last efforts produced by Julius and Noore only proved further in high pressure situations a 3rd or a 5th sets especially, Federer is a notorius choker. However in less pressured situations, he is a good front runner and can play tie breakd well. However should those tie breaks be final sets, the choking will be exposed yet again.

So the conclusion is Federer is a choker and the main culprit at the AO and i don't want to see this bad habit. Now the AO begins soon. Here is to a great tournament.