The Golden Bagel Award

I'd never heard of this but some of the results surprised me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Bagel_Award

Novak has dished out the most bagels over the last 3 years. Not bad for a so-called "defensive" player!

But check out who won it in 2007 and 2010! Now that I didn't expect!

wow feds with just 1 in 2005, good find Bruce!

Ferrer?... What the f....

Do bagels have anything to do with whether a player is defensive or offensive at all?

I second CJ's question. Not really clear that offensive players should be handing out more bagels than defensive ones.

I'd say bagels can be taken as a mark of a good attacker. I don't think it is realistic to think that at least 12 points in 3 games against your opponent's serve can be won by being defensive. At least not with the regularity shown in these figures.

I think the thing these players have in common is a good return of serve.

I agree having a good return of serve can only help, but I am not convinced by the overall argument. I think one can just as easily turn it around:

Holding own serve is expected, so the more critical component in getting bagels is the ability to break the opponent. However, since the server starts every point from the attacking position, one has to be able to absorb that attack well, i.e., to defend well, in order to break often.

Anyway, in the end I am not sure the stat says much about the player's style of play.

I think it's the old debate about the distinction being good at defending and being defensive.

To win a point either your opponent has to make a mistake or you have to hit a winning shot.

Bagel sets can obviously occur because an opponent makes a load of unforced errors but I don't think that can account for the number of bagels needed to top this list. So it seems more likely to me that the player is hitting a lot of winning shots.

So (and I don't disbelieve this, but everyone else seems to love saying he wins through raw defence), the fact that Rafa has won the award 3 times and has a tonne of "fries" with that means despite popular opinion he is an attacking player?

CJ, I agree with you. I'm firmly of the belief that both Rafa and Novak are attacking players and too frequently their excellent defensive skills cause them to be labelled defensive players.

Ferrer was the surprise in that list but, objectively, he is actually pretty offensive against anyone not named Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. His game (and mind) just appears to be blunted against those players.

Ferret has a huge forehand by anyone's measurement... Good return as well, Id expect him to hand out his for share of bagels on any surface that allows him to run around the backhand.

ferrer and huge dont go together

HM Murdoch wrote:I think it's the old debate about the distinction being good at defending and being defensive.

To win a point either your opponent has to make a mistake or you have to hit a winning shot.

Bagel sets can obviously occur because an opponent makes a load of unforced errors but I don't think that can account for the number of bagels needed to top this list. So it seems more likely to me that the player is hitting a lot of winning shots.

A few more points on this from my end:

1. "but I don't think that can account...". But why not? It is almost as if you are saying that to be really successful, you cannot be a defensive player. But surely, at least in principle, a defensive player can be very successful? And if they are, then why not dish out a lot of bagels?

2. On top of that, I do not quite subscribe to the distinction you seem to be implicitly making - that a defensive player will win most of their points through unforced errors. To me, a player that often chooses to first soak up a lot of pressure before going for the kill is still mostly a defensive player. This is similar to a lot of soccer back in the 80s which was often played defensively. Say Italian teams were able to be successful through being mostly defensive. But of course, they still needed to score more goals than their opponents. That did not make them offensive though.

3. I often find that the "defensive" label is viewed as something to be ashamed of. But why? The point of the game is to win, not to attack. While I agree that Rafa and Nole are not quite as defensive as often described, I think it is pretty clear that a lot of especially Rafa's success is rooted in his defense. But so what? There is nothing wrong with that. Does not make it worth any less than being successful via offence.

SB:
1) I was thinking statistically. To win a bagel either a) the opponent makes a lot of errors, b) the player hits a lot of winning shots or c) some combination of the two. If the same player wins a lot of bagels, I think it more likely to be mostly due the variable the player controls i.e. their own shots, as opposed to that which they don't control i.e. the opponent's mistakes.

So let me sum up point 1 in this way: if a player wins a lot of bagels, I consider it likely that they have hit a lot of winning shots. I do not consider hitting lots of winning shots to be the hallmark of a player with a defensive approach.

2) The football analogy is a good one. I agree that a team that regularly wins 1-0 would be considered defensive, despite always scoring more than the opposition.

But I wouldn't equate a bagel to winning 1-0. It's more akin to winning 3-0 or better.

If there were a team that regularly won 4-0, you wouldn't think "they don't concede many goals, they must be a defensive team". You would think "they regularly thrash their opponents,  they must be an attacking team". The good defence enables them to win games. But winning by a big margin comes from having good attack.

Similarly in tennis, if a player often hammers his opponents 6-0, I conclude his offence was probably very good.

3) I personally don't view "defensive" as an insult. I love seeing great defence. It's clear as day that Rafa and Novak would not be the players they are without their defensive ability. Arguably it's their ability in defence that separates them from the pack.
But I'm not keen on labelling them defensive because their success also flows from their attacking ability. Both have attacking shots (Rafa's FH, Novak's BH) that stand out as among the best of their era.

It's a bit like the Chelsea team of 04/05. They only conceded 15 goals in the whole season. But to label them defensive would be wrong because they also scored more goals than any other team except Arsenal. They won 4-0 or 4-1 pretty frequently.

As a general principle in sport, I'd say that a defensive approach can bring victories but it does not produce thrashings. Therefore I do not view regularly winning sets 6-0 as a sign of a defensive approach.

Wow, the one thing that strikes me in this discussion is, it is really a slow news day!

Rather a curiosity to see Federer on 12 in 2004, 1 in 2005, and 18 in 2006. Hard to explain that. Is Rog's greatly reduced number of bagels since 2006 an argument against the believe that he was just as good in 2009-2012? I think it is. I remember the long running discussion we used to have about that.

Ferrer winning it in 2007 - perhaps he played more lowly clay tournos than others and so had more opportunities to play weaker players on a more bagel-favouring surface.

LuvSports! wrote:ferrer and huge dont go together

Ferrer has a huge losing streak against Federer