Indian Wells, BNP Paribas Open, Masters 1000

[GameSetAndMath]

there's a difference between failure to execute and choking. I see no reason for Roger to choke in a Master Series final I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense. Let's not make anymore of this than it was

You are considering choking as taboo and so refusing to admit that that is what happened. You are saying as Roger has been in bigger and more tense moments and handled it, this moment is minor and so what happened is not a choke. That is not an explanation but an assumption.
What is the difference between "failure to execute" and "choke"? They both appear to be the same at a physical level. The difference is only a cause of why it happened at a psychological level. If you think two DFs and almost no first serve going in, in the TB is just due to "repeated failure to execute", you are just imagining things. Roger himself says in the presser, "don't ask me what happened in the TB; I would like to play it again". That essentially is admitting to choking without so much using the words.

The reason you refuse to concede is that you think of the whole concept of Roger choking as disparaging. But, it happens to everyone.
I don't think it is disrespectful to say so.

 

[Haelfix]

For what its worth, I thought Del Potro's level was higher in this pretty great final. Federer wasn't at his best, but as usual gutted out a pretty impressive performance and had some shots at winning (DP hit some amazing shots to steal the win at the end).

Regarding the choking business. I've said it before, but its pretty silly, and worse likely missing something important. To see this, imagine you play random computer tennis between two identical cpu AIs in some computer game. On average you will see a 50-50 distribution of wins vs losses if its coded properly. Sometimes, but not often they will have blow out wins and blow out losses, just based on random chance.

Now improve the stats of one player so that all his attrributes ( forehand, backhand, serve etc) are better than the other player. All of a sudden the win percents gets skewed. One guy now wins a lot more than he loses. Moreover, when he wins, it tends to be blowout victories, but when he loses it tends to be remarkably close. (Mathematically you have two gaussian curves, that are shifted relative to each other, and one analyzes the edges of the distribution to make a statement)

Sound familiar? There is a strong selection bias at play with Roger Federer and some of these 'close' defeats. Notice that in almost all of them, you would say that the overall level of the player that defeats him tends to be higher. It's not like he's losing many matches where he was consistently outplaying the adversary (those tend to have different scores).

What's happening here is that we are judging his clutchness based on a biased sample. You don't include the many matches where he runs away with it in the 3rd set. Indeed his career statistics for tiebreakers, and deciding set victories (both 3rd and 5th set) are all really excellent. But again, one tends to focus on the few matches that seem to go poorly for Federer, and of course we remember them b/c they are unusual (here you can write down a finite list, starting with the AO 2005 and so forth). In some sense, that's to be expected with a player like Federer, who does so many aspects of tennis, a little 'better' than everyone else.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger being so good in comparison to other players most often his wins are straight sets and that too blowouts. But, when the situation forces him to the end, his stats are not that good. It is well known that his five set record is not very good (actually, it is improving off late).
I have a separate thread to discuss this which I can bump up if you want.

Actually, Roger's TB record is quite good. He has a high winning percentage in TB.

However, interestingly his performance in tourney deciding TBs is just 1-7. That is actually quite bad. When Roger enters into a TB that will decide the champion, he wins it only 12.5% of time.

But, one can argue that the very reason the match went to all that distance is Roger is not playing well and/or his opponent is in a zone.
While that is an explanation, it does not change the stat.

If you are evaluating a person on how clutch he is, we have to focus only on this kind of situations. Needless to say all blowout wins will not be part of evaluating the clutchness of a player.

p.s. However, not all losses in a clutch situation should be attributed to choking. It needs to be analyzed individually on a case by case basis.

 

[Moxie]

For what its worth, I thought Del Potro's level was higher in this pretty great final. Federer wasn't at his best, but as usual gutted out a pretty impressive performance and had some shots at winning (DP hit some amazing shots to steal the win at the end).

Regarding the choking business. I've said it before, but its pretty silly, and worse likely missing something important. To see this, imagine you play random computer tennis between two identical cpu AIs in some computer game. On average you will see a 50-50 distribution of wins vs losses if its coded properly. Sometimes, but not often they will have blow out wins and blow out losses, just based on random chance.

Now improve the stats of one player so that all his attrributes ( forehand, backhand, serve etc) are better than the other player. All of a sudden the win percents gets skewed. One guy now wins a lot more than he loses. Moreover, when he wins, it tends to be blowout victories, but when he loses it tends to be remarkably close. (Mathematically you have two gaussian curves, that are shifted relative to each other, and one analyzes the edges of the distribution to make a statement)

Sound familiar? There is a strong selection bias at play with Roger Federer and some of these 'close' defeats. Notice that in almost all of them, you would say that the overall level of the player that defeats him tends to be higher. It's not like he's losing many matches where he was consistently outplaying the adversary (those tend to have different scores).

What's happening here is that we are judging his clutchness based on a biased sample. You don't include the many matches where he runs away with it in the 3rd set. Indeed his career statistics for tiebreakers, and deciding set victories (both 3rd and 5th set) are all really excellent. But again, one tends to focus on the few matches that seem to go poorly for Federer, and of course we remember them b/c they are unusual (here you can write down a finite list, starting with the AO 2005 and so forth). In some sense, that's to be expected with a player like Federer, who does so many aspects of tennis, a little 'better' than everyone else.

I whole-heartedly agree with this.

You are considering choking as taboo and so refusing to admit that that is what happened. You are saying as Roger has been in bigger and more tense moments and handled it, this moment is minor and so what happened is not a choke. That is not an explanation but an assumption.
What is the difference between "failure to execute" and "choke"? They both appear to be the same at a physical level. The difference is only a cause of why it happened at a psychological level. If you think two DFs and almost no first serve going in, in the TB is just due to "repeated failure to execute", you are just imagining things. Roger himself says in the presser, "don't ask me what happened in the TB; I would like to play it again". That essentially is admitting to choking without so much using the words.

The reason you refuse to concede is that you think of the whole concept of Roger choking as disparaging. But, it happens to everyone.
I don't think it is disrespectful to say so.

I think we all would say that to accuse a player of "choking" is an insult. And there is a difference between "choking" and "failure to execute." You can have a game plan, but have it not work, better than your opponent's against you. It's fair to say that that's what happened to Federer on Sunday. In a fairly even match, closely contested, I don't think it's right to say that one player "choked" it. That tends to denigrate the player who won. It was a tight contest, and del Potro pulled it out. However poorly Fed played in the TB, he was lucky to have been in a 3rd set.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think we all would say that to accuse a player of "choking" is an insult. And there is a difference between "choking" and "failure to execute." You can have a game plan, but have it not work, better than your opponent's against you. It's fair to say that that's what happened to Federer on Sunday. In a fairly even match, closely contested, I don't think it's right to say that one player "choked" it. That tends to denigrate the player who won. It was a tight contest, and del Potro pulled it out. However poorly Fed played in the TB, he was lucky to have been in a 3rd set.

Nobody says Fed was choking the whole match. They would be insane if they say so. Choking refers to his play after he put himself in a winning position. No doubt, Fed was lucky to be in the third set to begin with.

 

[Moxie]

Nobody says Fed was choking the whole match. They would be insane if they say so. Choking refers to his play after he put himself in a winning position. No doubt, Fed was lucky to be in the third set to begin with.

Yes, but the question of "choking" at all is still on the table. He looked terrible during a lot of his match v. Coric, and most of his match v. del Potro. If he weren't Federer, would anyone have said he'd "choked?" He looked like he was on route to lose IW on Sat., and the Fed fans said as much. I'll ask again: if del Potro had lost late in the 3rd, would anyone here be saying he "choked?" Because he was the one with the match on his racquet for most of it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes, but the question of "choking" at all is still on the table. He looked terrible during a lot of his match v. Coric, and most of his match v. del Potro. If he weren't Federer, would anyone have said he'd "choked?" He looked like he was on route to lose IW on Sat., and the Fed fans said as much. I'll ask again: if del Potro had lost late in the 3rd, would anyone here be saying he "choked?" Because he was the one with the match on his racquet for most of it.

1. I agree that Fed should have lost to Coric. Somehow, he miraculously managed to pull it off despite the windy conditions.

2. You are thinking that whether someone choked depends purely on losing after being in a winning position. The manner in
which they lost after being in a winning position is crucial to the determination of whether it is a choke or not. If JMDP
fought and lost any way it is not a choke. On the other hand if JMDP was overwhelmed by the occasion and could not
execute shots that he normally would execute flawlessly 99% of the time, then it is a choke. So, it is not just about
the end result.

3. Finally, whether someone is choking or not has nothing to do with the stature of a player. It is not that if JMDP choked
it is not a choke, just because his career credentials are inferior to that of Fed.

 

[Moxie]

1. I agree that Fed should have lost to Coric. Somehow, he miraculously managed to pull it off despite the windy conditions.

2. You are thinking that whether someone choked depends purely on losing after being in a winning position. The manner in
which they lost after being in a winning position is crucial to the determination of whether it is a choke or not. If JMDP
fought and lost any way it is not a choke. On the other hand if JMDP was overwhelmed by the occasion and could not
execute shots that he normally would execute flawlessly 99% of the time, then it is a choke. So, it is not just about
the end result.

3. Finally, whether someone is choking or not has nothing to do with the stature of a player. It is not that if JMDP choked
it is not a choke, just because his career credentials are inferior to that of Fed.

I'm finding it hard to believe that all of your bullet points are credible. As to the bolded above: Yes, I actually DO believe that a "choke" depends on being in a winning position. I'm stunned if you don't.

As to your #3, let's put it another way: Substitute Cilic for Federer across the weekend. Tough match v. Coric, nearly lost to JMDP in straights, then a tough late 3rd. Tell me who would be saying that Cilic "choked" it. Answer: no one. It does have to do with career credentials. I think everyone would agree with that.

Gloves off, let's face it: Roger had a pretty crappy weekend. He pulled himself out of a hole on Sat., but couldn't on Sunday. He didn't play better than del Potro, during most of the match. Just because he'd got himself into a winning position in the 3rd doesn't mean he "choked." He was outplayed during most of the weekend and lost the title because of it. End of story.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

See question on TB at 2:37 in the presser. He says "I don't know what the hell happened. I would like to play that TB again".

 

[Andy22]

I did go to far with that choke list, but as for the potro match, Federer only choked at the end of the match., he did not make any first serves and missed easy shots before that all good.

 

[Moxie]

See question on TB at 2:37 in the presser. He says "I don't know what the hell happened. I would like to play that TB again".

That's been expressed before. It doesn't address my other points.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm finding it hard to believe that all of your bullet points are credible. As to the bolded above: Yes, I actually DO believe that a "choke" depends on being in a winning position. I'm stunned if you don't.
.

You are having difficulty understanding my point. "purely" is the operative word. I do agree with you completely that a necessary condition for "choking" is losing from a winning position. However, not every loss from a winning position is a choke. It depends on whether the player exhibited inability to play shots that he routinely would do or not. Even if a player loses from a winning position that is not a choke, if the player played decently and none the less lost.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's been expressed before. It doesn't address my other points.

That was not in reply to you. Just a PSA of posting the presser.

 

[Moxie]

You are having difficulty understanding my point. "purely" is the operative word. I do agree with you completely that a necessary condition for "choking" is losing from a winning position. However, not every loss from a winning position is a choke. It depends on whether the player exhibited inability to play shots that he routinely would do or not. Even if a player loses from a winning position that is not a choke, if the player played decently and none the less lost.

"Purely" in the sense of being in a winning position? I still say "yes." You have to be in a winning position to "choke." You don't "choke" from behind. As to the rest, that's a lot of palaver and what we`ve all said. There are losses from winning positions that aren't chokes. Federberg and I have been trying to make the argument that a player as exalted as Roger doesn't really "choke." He occasionally fails to execute. And gets out-played. Which I think is more fair, and correct. It's the "god-forbid" that he gets out-played that folks dislike. Am I wrong? Otherwise, why the insistence that he "choked?"

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As to your #3, let's put it another way: Substitute Cilic for Federer across the weekend. Tough match v. Coric, nearly lost to JMDP in straights, then a tough late 3rd. Tell me who would be saying that Cilic "choked" it. Answer: no one. It does have to do with career credentials. I think everyone would agree with that.

Whether somebody choked or not has nothing to do with whether the match is a tough loss or not. Also, it has nothing to do with the stature of the player. It has all to do with whether the loss was due to inability to execute shots that they routinely would do.

p.s. One small caveat about the stature of player is this. The higher the stature of a player, they would be having several shots that they would routinely make. So, if they cannot make it, it would be a choke. On the other hand, the lower the stature of a player, they would have very few shots that they will make with high percentage. So, in that sense less of their misses would qualify as a choke. But, this is only an indirect thing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

"Purely" in the sense of being in a winning position? I still say "yes." You have to be in a winning position to "choke." "

I almost feel like I am communicating with someone who speaks a different language. What I am saying is that losing from a winning position is a necessary condition for choke (I think both of us agree on it, the argument is due to lack of understanding) and not a sufficient condition. Not every loss from a winning positon is a choke.

 

[Moxie]

You are having difficulty understanding my point. "purely" is the operative word. I do agree with you completely that a necessary condition for "choking" is losing from a winning position. However, not every loss from a winning position is a choke. It depends on whether the player exhibited inability to play shots that he routinely would do or not. Even if a player loses from a winning position that is not a choke, if the player played decently and none the less lost.

One little detail I will argue with: the bolded above is where you protect your argument. All of those UFEs, or Roger's inability to inpose his game on JMDP. You think you can call a "yahtzee" because Roger wasn't able to hit his shots. Is that it? Even if JMDP wouldn't let him? If that's you're argument, about Roger "choking," I think you presume too much.

We both and all, it seems, agree that not every loss from a winning position is a "choke." And I think we're agreeing that Roger wasn't, for the most part, in a winning position for much of that match. Or, indeed, the weekend.

 

[Moxie]

I almost feel like I am communicating with someone who speaks a different language. What I am saying is that losing from a winning position is a necessary condition for choke (I think both of us agree on it, the argument is due to lack of understanding) and not a sufficient condition. Not every loss from a winning positon is a choke.

If this comment hadn't been so ambiguous: "2. You are thinking that whether someone choked depends purely on losing after being in a winning position," you wouldn't be acting like we speak different languages. Let's be honest. Everything else you're saying has been said before. You're just walking back your position. I'd like to go back to my own point: Roger had a terrible weekend. He barely made it out of the SFs v. Coric. Did he really "choke?" Or was he outplayed all weekend, and it finally caught up to him?

 

[Moxie]

Whether somebody choked or not has nothing to do with whether the match is a tough loss or not.

This, since we're trying to define "choke," I completely disagree with. If the match is close, well-played, I don't think "choking" is involved. One player pushes the other, they force errors on the other. No one choked. One was out-played. And even perhaps a bit psyched-out by the end. But that's part of a tight match.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This, since we're trying to define "choke," I completely disagree with. If the match is close, well-played, I don't think "choking" is involved. One player pushes the other, they force errors on the other. No one choked. One was out-played. And even perhaps a bit psyched-out by the end. But that's part of a tight match.

My bad. What I meant to say was "Whether somebody choked or not has nothing to do solely or purely with whether the match is a tough loss or not" The bolded words are new additions that I should have put in my original post.