- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,757
- Reactions
- 5,132
- Points
- 113
A small side conversation about Federer and Ferrer with Moxie got me thinking about what exactly are the elements of winning a match? I am not going to try to describe all of the psychological, physical, and tactical components, but rather instead try to encapsulate them into a simple formula. In other words, this is admittedly an outside, analytical view - not an inside, sportsman view, which is much more nuanced and complex, and one that I wouldn't dream of trying to describe.
The discussion was based upon my assertion that David Ferrer couldn't really beat Federer as much as Federer would have to loose, with Ferrer winning by default. On one hand this sounds like typical fanboy apologism, but as I told Moxie I am more than willing to admit that when, say, Rafa or Novak beats Roger, it is usually because Rafa or Novak played well enough to beat Roger, and also simply because Novak and Rafa are better players than Roger at this point in their respective careers. But with Ferrer, Roger has such an extreme advantage in both ability and the way their skills line up (thus the now 14-0 match record, or 31-4 set advantage...yes, Ferrer has only taken 4 sets from Roger in their 14 matches!), that I simply couldn't imagine Ferrer outplaying Roger, for whatever reason. Maybe Roger's style neutralizes Ferrer's in a manner similar to how Rafa's does to Roger. Or maybe it is more psychological, Federer being by far the greatest player of his and Ferrer's generation, I don't know.
Anyhow, I came up with the idea that in any given match, there are three main elements to what determines victory.
1. Ability
2. Match-up
3. Play
The first, Ability, is just that: how good a player is, what their overall skill level is. This changes over time, but is generally consistent over any given year. If players were computer programs, then this would be the most important, perhaps even sole factor.
The second, Match-up, has to do with how the skill sets of the two players interact. An overall lesser player may have the number of the greater player simply due to the way their skills line up. Or, in the case of two overall evenly matched players like Roger and Rafa, Rafa's skill set (and perhaps now psychological edge) just neutralizes Roger's game. Also included--and perhaps the largest factor--is court type and speed and how that benefits one player or the other. So perhaps a better term for this would be Context.
The third element, Play, is how well a given player does on that day, in that match. This can include a variety of factors from actual physical injury to "Forty-five minutes before the match!" meltdowns.
So let's say that we can quantify each element with a number. When you add up the three numbers, you get the outcome. Now of course this isn't a scientific process - there's a lot of subjectivity here - but it gives us a sense of any given match.
Ability
5 - elite player (very best in the game)
4 - near elite player (top 10ish)
3 - good player (top 20-40ish)
2 - decent player (top 100)
1 - mediocre player (outside top 100)
Match-up
+3 - Huge edge
+2 - Moderate edge
+1 - slight edge
Play
5 - Playing at peak level
4 - Excellent play
3 - Solid play
2 - sub-par play
1 - terrible play
We could nit-pick the number ranges; 1-5 for Ability is, perhaps, overly simplistic. But I'd rather given a short range because we can all agree that Rafa and Novak are elite players and 5s on the scale of 1-5, but if we go 1-10 are they both 10s or is Rafa a 9.5 now and was a 10 in 2010? Etc.
So let's look at Novak and Roger at Wimbledon. At this point, Novak's a better player than Roger. I'd give Novak a 5 and Roger a 4.5 in Ability. The match-up is pretty even - Roger on grass, at Wimbledon, is pretty damn hard to beat. But Novak has had the match-up edge, so I'd say they cancel out. Finally, the Play. This can only be seen in hindsight, but the interesting thing is that with the two first elements figured out, we get a sense of how well one player needs to play in order to beat the other. All Novak had to do at Wimbledon was have as good a day as Roger or better, and his overall higher ability level would win the day - and that is pretty much what we saw. I'd say Novak's play was a 4 and Roger's was a 3.5. That gives a total of: Novak: 9, Roger: 8.
Or in the case of Grigor and Andy at Wimbledon. Andy's probably a 4.5 in Ability, Grigor a 4. The match-up is too soon to tell, so we'll call it even. Grigor played very well, a 4, while Andy played quite poorly, maybe a 2 or even 1.5. So the totals are Grigor 8, Andy 6.5 or 6.
We could create a hypothetical Rafa-Roger meet up at Roland Garros in 2015. Assuming neither declines between now and then, Rafa is a 5, Roger a 4.5. The match-up heavily favors Rafa, a +3. So going into the match, Rafa would have an 8 to 4.5 advantage, which means that Roger would have to play lights-out (5) and Rafa terribly (1). Now if we switch that to Wimbledon, the same Ability ratings apply, but the match-up is much less - Rafa maybe gets a +1. So going into the match, Rafa has the edge of 6 to 4.5, which means that Roger has more room for error, but still has to significantly out-play Rafa by two ranks to win.
In a more extreme case, Roger (4.5) has a huge edge in Ability over Polansky (1?). There isn't a known Match-up modifier, so we go into Play with a 3.5 edge, which means Polansky would have had to play the game of his life (5) and Roger absolutely terrible (1) to pull it off.
In the case of Roger vs. Ferrer, I think you've got a 4.5 to 4 edge in Ability, a +2 or +3 Match-up edge for Roger, which means going into the match Roger was up 6.5 or 7.5 to 4, which would have made it very, very difficult for Ferrer to beat him, probably similarly difficult as it would be for Roger to beat Rafa on a slow hard court.
The point of all this isn't to geek out on nerdy numbers (well, partially it is!), but to differentiate these elements when discussing matches. These three elements--Ability, Match-up, and Play--are probably the simplest way of reducing all factors of a given match (as long as we include context and court type into match-up). But the point is, it is never so simple that it is Ability vs. Ability; the way the two different styles line up (Match-up) is crucial, and of course how a player does on a given day ends up deciding it.
The discussion was based upon my assertion that David Ferrer couldn't really beat Federer as much as Federer would have to loose, with Ferrer winning by default. On one hand this sounds like typical fanboy apologism, but as I told Moxie I am more than willing to admit that when, say, Rafa or Novak beats Roger, it is usually because Rafa or Novak played well enough to beat Roger, and also simply because Novak and Rafa are better players than Roger at this point in their respective careers. But with Ferrer, Roger has such an extreme advantage in both ability and the way their skills line up (thus the now 14-0 match record, or 31-4 set advantage...yes, Ferrer has only taken 4 sets from Roger in their 14 matches!), that I simply couldn't imagine Ferrer outplaying Roger, for whatever reason. Maybe Roger's style neutralizes Ferrer's in a manner similar to how Rafa's does to Roger. Or maybe it is more psychological, Federer being by far the greatest player of his and Ferrer's generation, I don't know.
Anyhow, I came up with the idea that in any given match, there are three main elements to what determines victory.
1. Ability
2. Match-up
3. Play
The first, Ability, is just that: how good a player is, what their overall skill level is. This changes over time, but is generally consistent over any given year. If players were computer programs, then this would be the most important, perhaps even sole factor.
The second, Match-up, has to do with how the skill sets of the two players interact. An overall lesser player may have the number of the greater player simply due to the way their skills line up. Or, in the case of two overall evenly matched players like Roger and Rafa, Rafa's skill set (and perhaps now psychological edge) just neutralizes Roger's game. Also included--and perhaps the largest factor--is court type and speed and how that benefits one player or the other. So perhaps a better term for this would be Context.
The third element, Play, is how well a given player does on that day, in that match. This can include a variety of factors from actual physical injury to "Forty-five minutes before the match!" meltdowns.
So let's say that we can quantify each element with a number. When you add up the three numbers, you get the outcome. Now of course this isn't a scientific process - there's a lot of subjectivity here - but it gives us a sense of any given match.
Ability
5 - elite player (very best in the game)
4 - near elite player (top 10ish)
3 - good player (top 20-40ish)
2 - decent player (top 100)
1 - mediocre player (outside top 100)
Match-up
+3 - Huge edge
+2 - Moderate edge
+1 - slight edge
Play
5 - Playing at peak level
4 - Excellent play
3 - Solid play
2 - sub-par play
1 - terrible play
We could nit-pick the number ranges; 1-5 for Ability is, perhaps, overly simplistic. But I'd rather given a short range because we can all agree that Rafa and Novak are elite players and 5s on the scale of 1-5, but if we go 1-10 are they both 10s or is Rafa a 9.5 now and was a 10 in 2010? Etc.
So let's look at Novak and Roger at Wimbledon. At this point, Novak's a better player than Roger. I'd give Novak a 5 and Roger a 4.5 in Ability. The match-up is pretty even - Roger on grass, at Wimbledon, is pretty damn hard to beat. But Novak has had the match-up edge, so I'd say they cancel out. Finally, the Play. This can only be seen in hindsight, but the interesting thing is that with the two first elements figured out, we get a sense of how well one player needs to play in order to beat the other. All Novak had to do at Wimbledon was have as good a day as Roger or better, and his overall higher ability level would win the day - and that is pretty much what we saw. I'd say Novak's play was a 4 and Roger's was a 3.5. That gives a total of: Novak: 9, Roger: 8.
Or in the case of Grigor and Andy at Wimbledon. Andy's probably a 4.5 in Ability, Grigor a 4. The match-up is too soon to tell, so we'll call it even. Grigor played very well, a 4, while Andy played quite poorly, maybe a 2 or even 1.5. So the totals are Grigor 8, Andy 6.5 or 6.
We could create a hypothetical Rafa-Roger meet up at Roland Garros in 2015. Assuming neither declines between now and then, Rafa is a 5, Roger a 4.5. The match-up heavily favors Rafa, a +3. So going into the match, Rafa would have an 8 to 4.5 advantage, which means that Roger would have to play lights-out (5) and Rafa terribly (1). Now if we switch that to Wimbledon, the same Ability ratings apply, but the match-up is much less - Rafa maybe gets a +1. So going into the match, Rafa has the edge of 6 to 4.5, which means that Roger has more room for error, but still has to significantly out-play Rafa by two ranks to win.
In a more extreme case, Roger (4.5) has a huge edge in Ability over Polansky (1?). There isn't a known Match-up modifier, so we go into Play with a 3.5 edge, which means Polansky would have had to play the game of his life (5) and Roger absolutely terrible (1) to pull it off.
In the case of Roger vs. Ferrer, I think you've got a 4.5 to 4 edge in Ability, a +2 or +3 Match-up edge for Roger, which means going into the match Roger was up 6.5 or 7.5 to 4, which would have made it very, very difficult for Ferrer to beat him, probably similarly difficult as it would be for Roger to beat Rafa on a slow hard court.
The point of all this isn't to geek out on nerdy numbers (well, partially it is!), but to differentiate these elements when discussing matches. These three elements--Ability, Match-up, and Play--are probably the simplest way of reducing all factors of a given match (as long as we include context and court type into match-up). But the point is, it is never so simple that it is Ability vs. Ability; the way the two different styles line up (Match-up) is crucial, and of course how a player does on a given day ends up deciding it.
