indiana, if you were to track every point of every Laura match you watched, and had stats for unreturned serves, winners, aggressive shots that resulted in a forced error, unforced errors, df rate as well as the total number, points won by the first groundstroke after the serve and so on, then you would have a pretty good idea of how Laura had played relative to other matches on the same surface.

Lets take a look at two recent matches. 109 points played in the match against Hantuchova. 121 points in the match against Wozniacki. Laura's first serve percentage 49% against DH and 53% against CW. Her average for this year is 54.8% prior to this event, which is down on her average for last year and worth noting that she had a much higher first serve percentage in most of the matches on grass last year (only match below 55% was against Sharapova, four matches at 65% or higher)

Daniela Hantuchova had 21 unreturned serves including aces (4 of them 2nd serves). 14 winners not including aces (7 of them on her first groundstroke after the serve) and 10 aggressive shots that resulted in forced errors (2 on the first groundstroke after the serve, 5 on the return). She made 15 unforced errors (not including unreturned 2nd serves).

Caroline Wozniacki had 13 unreturned serves (2 of them 2nd serves), 8 winners (3 of which were on her first groundstroke after the serve) and 5 aggressive shots that resulted in a forced error (one of which was a return of serve). She made 9 unforced errors (not including unreturned 2nd serves).

Laura Robson against DH had 21 unreturned serves (4 unreturned 2nd serves and 2 aces on 2nd serve), 9 winners (3 on the first groundstroke after the serve, 4 on the return) and 4 aggressive shots that resulted in a forced error (2 on the first groundstroke after the serve and one on the return). She made 15 unforced errors (not including unreturned 2nd serves)

Laura Robson against CW had 15 unreturned serves (2 of them 2nd serves), 23 winners (7 on the first groundstroke after the serve, 4 on the return) and 8 aggressive shots that resulted in a forced error (2 on the first groundstroke after the serve, 4 on the return). She made 37 unforced errors (not including unreturned 2nd serves).

So if we generously assume unreturned 2nd serves were super serves rather than terrible returns, we have the following net figures for good and bad play: DH +30 (45-15) CW +17 (26-9) LR +19 (34 - 15) LR + 9 (46 - 37).

If we harshly assume unreturned 2nd serves were return errors (I'm not counting 2nd serve aces as an error on the part of the receiver) then the figures are DH +22 CW +13 LR +11 LR +5 (given that the CW match involved 12 extra points, you would expect slightly higher positive numbers for that match since both were played on grass)

In simple terms, Daniela won the majority of her points through super serving and putting away any chance she got, whether it was on her first groundstroke after the serve or crashing return winners against Laura's 2nd serve. Caroline won the majority of her points by keeping the ball in play and waiting for Laura to make an error. Put another way, Laura's only chance against Daniela was to land her first serve and win the point before Daniela did, hoping that she might get to a tiebreak. Against Caroline, Laura was in the vast majority of the points yet on a relatively fast court, conditions that were favourable to her style of play, she simply couldn't execute.

Going through all the key moments (breaks of serve, games with bps, close games which had 15-30, 30-30, 40-40 etc) of both matches, the following patterns are obvious: Laura missed too many first serves in both matches, Daniela immediately punished her 2nd serve, Caroline didn't. In the three games in which she was broken against Wozniacki, Laura gifted Caroline the vast majority of the points. The few times that Laura put pressure on the server during a return game (Laura managed to break each opponent once), Daniela responded with super play (for example on bp 2nd serve, Laura strikes a heavy return deep, landing close to the baseline, Daniela hits an unreal shot, almost a half-volley backhand angled so it lands near the sideline that Laura just about reached but couldn't keep in play), Caroline waited for Laura to make an error on a routine groundstroke (a sensible strategy if the match was being played in slow conditions but normally rather unwise on a grass court).

Watch the matches more closely and it is clear that Laura performed better against Daniela than she did against Caroline. In neither match did she play remotely well. Her numbers for the Wozniacki match are dire compared to other matches she's played on grass during 2012-2013. This was not a match in which her opponent used drop shots to exploit Robson's movement or deployed slice to test her weakness against balls that keep low. There was almost negligible pressure in terms of aggressive returning of Laura's 2nd serve (contrast say Ana Ivanovic or Serena on the clay recently). 

When he appeared for some on-court coaching after the opening set, Miles told Laura she was playing well. In the first set she had landed 11/29 of her first serves. She had won 5 points on return. She had given away her serve with two dfs (despite no pressure from aggressive returning) and a woeful forehand long on bp. In the previous game she had wasted a mini opening at 30-30 with a poor crosscourt backhand error after CW had missed her first serve, then followed it with a rubbish forehand into the net. Her net score was + 1 (if unreturned 2nd serves are considered great serving) or -2 (if poor returning). I'm clearly not up to date on current use of language to describe performances. 

 

-- Edited by kundalini on Thursday 20th of June 2013 01:09:46 PM

Love the analysis, but I watched both matches live and i'm 100% certain that Laura played much better against Woz than she did against Hantuchova.

WD40 wrote:

---

Well said Phil............."stats" are useless when set against live personal observation.

---

The reason that's true of match stats is that they are (unavoidably) expressed as if the player at the other end of the court has little or no effect on them.

That means the basic serve stats (aces, dfs, 1st serve %s) are likely to show a reasonably fair picture (though a particularly good returner may make the server think they have to go for more or may get to serves that would be aces against lesser returners), but once the returner has got their racket on the ball, so much depends on them as well as on the server that it's hard to draw valid conclusions from a player's match stats against two very different opponents.

Of course, it can an interesting (if speculative) way to assess the match if you didn't see it or a way to back up your impressions if you did see it, and I quite like what kundalini was trying to achieve with his single positive or negative numbers to sum up how well each player played, but I imagine there are lots of matches where those numbers would not give a remotely accurate impression, simply because match stats themselves seldom paint anything close to a complete picture.

I'm very happy with Laura's level of play and am enjoying watching our young players progressing up the rankings. Laura at the age of 19 is the highest ranked GB women for over 25 years and this is in an era when women tend to peak in their mid 20s.

Just remembering back to my sporting days. I wasn't much good at tennis but as an attacking table tennis player I found you had a different mind set against attacking or defensive players. Against another attacker it was a case of you hit your winner before they hit theirs. We used to practice the 3 ball attack for hours on end, serve - return - kill, serve - return - kill. It didn't matter what the return was you had to kill it. Against a good defender who would get most balls back but could kill a loose ball you would try to make them predictable while they would keep messing you about varying spin, direction and pace trying to make create doubt in you mind. The attacker is always playing on a knife edge, on a good day all the attacking balls go in on a bad day they all go out.
I used to play a consistent loop attack, one player used to play a flat hit game, rather like Laura. I beat him regularly for several years but then he just got too good, he is now one of the top players in the local league.

The three ball attack style of play used to be quite common even at international levels of table tennis and you used to see a similar style at Wimbledon with the serve and volley game. Stan Smith was a particular exponent of that style with very short rallies.

-- Edited by Peter too on Friday 21st of June 2013 11:50:31 AM

One thing I do note with our players bar Andy Murray is that they go for a winner each time and the opposition of better rankings just get it returned, waiting for the unforced error. I was fortunate to sneak a view of baltacha's game and she was hitting really well but Kirilenko just got everything back and shots were won on Elena going long or into the net. I think our coaches need to work on our players to get across the importance of consistency and just getting the ball back. Djokovic does this a lot on Mens side forcing the pressure on the opposition

I am more in the Korriban camp.

Any player can be 100% consistent - I've seen it in training drills - if, by consistent, you mean simply getting the ball back into the court.

But hitting 'soft' balls backs into the court will get you nowhere. You'll stand there with the winners going past you, left and right. Even from the 'defensive' players.

Obviously it's a question of percentage tennis. If, by hitting 90% balls, you make 50% less errors and the other players can't hit winners off them, then that's a good trade.

But, as Korriban says, you need to be an excellent physical athlete if you wish to trade shots. Hitting half a dozen 90% shots is one thing. Being able to hit a dozen each rally, over a whole match, is quite another (without errors, without hitting any 50% shots).

Djokovic is about the best there is. Baltacha most certainly isn't and never will be. Laura most certainly isn't and should work hard on it but it'll probably never be her main strength. Which isn't a problem because Sharapova, by her own admission, is a pretty average athlete - she would be beaten by the majority of the other top 200 players in any battery of tests. Although, again, she's worked exceptionally hard on it, as is her wont.

Modern coaches tell their players that hitting a mid-court, mid-pace ball counts as an unforced error - yes, you might get lucky and the other one won't punish it but that's only at a low level and what's more, it takes your tennis nowhere and teaches bad habits that are difficult to break.

Well said Korriban and Coup Droit in response to what gazzpash  wrote. No need for me to comment further on it.