Blog

Wimbledon Men: Final Analysis 2019

Wimbledon Men: Final Analysis 2019 image

Wimbledon Final Analysis

What follows below is the analysis of Craig O’Shannessy, a member of Djokovic’s strategy team. His analysis gives all credit to Djokovic, but fails to account for Federer’s role in the outcome.

My comments are in italics. 

How Djokovic Dominated The Tie-breaks Against Federer

Craig O'Shannessy

Brain Game shows how the Serbian played the big points on his terms

What happened in the three tie-breaks was the exact opposite of what happened all around them.

Novak Djokovic defeated Roger Federer 7-6(5), 1-6, 7-6(4), 4-6, 13-12(3) in Sunday’s Wimbledon final after saving two match points with Federer serving 8-7, 40/15 in the fifth set, and then Djokovic dramatically saved two break points on his own serve at 11-11, Ad Out, just a few games later.

The match statistics were overwhelmingly dominated by Federer, except for a handful of moments when Djokovic was able to reign supreme. In all three sets Djokovic won, he controlled the tie-breaks, making Federer significantly bend to his own intentions of playing the big points on the Serbian’s terms with both players trading blows from the back of the court.

At first glance, Federer’s overall net stats look extremely impressive. But when you break down when they occurred – and more importantly when they didn’t – the first real glimpse of this big win becomes clearer.

Federer won 13/15 points serving and volleying and 51/65 points approaching the net from a baseline position. But in the 33 total points in all three tie-breaks combined, the Swiss won only one solitary point at net from just two forays forward.

[My comment: Getting to the net is, of course, an entirely different proposition depending upon whether or not a player is serving or receiving. I think almost all analysts agree that Fed was too passive on both of his match points. Deconstructing Tennis goes further to suggest that he was also too conservative in the tiebreaks, particularly when Djokovic was serving. After all, there can’t be long rallies unless the returner plays cautious returns to begin the point. As they say: “it takes two to tango.” A statistical analysis suggests that Djokovic was able to play longer rallies in the tiebreaks and that this difference was almost certainly not due to luck. See the z-test results at the end of this article.]

Check mate.

Twenty of the 33 points (61%) in the three tie-breaks were contested with both players standing at the baseline, which played perfectly into Djokovic’s masterplan. Djokovic won 16 of the baseline exchanges, while Federer accumulated only four. Of the eight rallies that reached double digits, Djokovic won six.

[My comment: By the time of the fifth set tiebreak, it was completely clear that Djokovic was winning the baseline exchanges (both his forehand and backhand winner/unforced error stats ended the match with a 35-point advantage over Fed!) Federer managed to overcome this staggering advantage by piling up a 49-point advantage with his serve and net play. There were clearly two distinct matches being played and Fed failed to stick to what was working for him. Djokovic gets some credit for this, but, as I said above: “it takes two to tango.”]

In the big moments at the end of sets one, three and five, with an illustrious Wimbledon title up for grabs, Djokovic fought the fight on his terms – and ultimately on his turf. To rub salt into the wound, Djokovic won more points at net (three) than Federer did (one) in the three tie-breaks.

Three Tie-Breaks: Points Won By Strategy

(ND = Novak Djokovic / RF = Roger Federer)

Tie-Break

Both At Baseline

Federer At Net

Djokovic At Net

Ace/ Return Error / Service Winner

Set 1 Tie-Break 7-5

ND 5 / RF 1

ND 0 / RF 0

ND 2 / RF 1

ND 0 / RF 3

Set 3 Tie-Break 7-4

ND 5 / RF 1

ND 0 / RF 1

ND 1 / RF 0

ND 1 / RF 2

Set 5 Tie- Break 7-3

ND 6 / RF 2

ND 1 / RF 0

ND 0 / RF 0

ND 0 / RF 1

W/L Totals

ND 16 / RF 4

ND 1 / RF 1

ND 3 / RF 1

ND 1 / RF 6

Percentage Played

61%

6.0%

12%

21%

The difference in rally length in sets one, three and five of all points played to the tie-break compared to what happened in the tie-beak illustrates how Djokovic extended the rallies in the clutch moments to suit his game style.

First Set: Average Rally Length
To the Tie-Break = 4.2 shots
Tie-Break = 6.4 shots

Third Set: Average Rally Length
To the Tie-Break = 4.0 shots
Tie-Break = 5.6 shots

Fifth Set: Average Rally Length
To The Tie-Break = 4.4 shots
Tie-Break = 5.6 shots

When Federer held two championship points serving at 8-7, 40/15 in the fifth set, he lost four consecutive points. Three of them were contested with both players standing at the back of the court.

The match contained 422 points, with almost half of them (46%) finishing with both players standing on their own baseline after the serve and return had successfully been hit in the court.

Throughout the match, when Djokovic kept Federer back and was able to go toe-to-toe from the trenches, he crafted a vastly superior advantage.

Baseline to Baseline Rallies: Total Points Won
Djokovic = 59% won (114/194)
Federer = 41% won (80/194)

First Serves To The Body
Serving right at the body with first serves is a forgotten tactic of yesteryear, rarely seen on the ATP Tour on any surface. Djokovic might have single-handedly revived it on Sunday at SW19. In an effort to jam up Federer’s forward-moving return strategy, Djokovic aimed right at Federer 10 times in the final, winning an impressive eight of those points.

Djokovic First Serves To The Body
Deuce Court = Won 4/4
Ad Court = Won 4/6
Total Won = 8/10

By contrast, Federer served only one first serve at Djokovic’s body in the final, winning the point. Djokovic also hit nine first serves at the body against Hubert Hurkacz in the third round, winning eight of nine. If we start seeing an uptick in body serves in the upcoming North-American hard-court swing, we might know why.

Djokovic’s fifth Wimbledon title is impressive on so many levels. Forcing [?] Federer to play the majority of tie-break points in baseline-to-baseline exchanges is as close to the bullseye of why he won as you will get.

[My comment: Fed wasn’t “forced” to play baseline points – he capitulated to it. As much as I dislike saying it, Djokovic’s nerves held up better. He executed his plan, while Fed did not. He deserves to be the Wimbledon champion.]

Editor's Note: Craig O'Shannessy is a member of Novak Djokovic's coaching team.

[My comment: One other interesting note: If we eliminate the 2nd set in which Djokovic mysteriously did not “show up”, the points are tied at 192 apiece. Yup, this was a pretty close match!]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djokovic: TB longer rallies than rest of match

  

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

  
   

 

Tiebreaks 1

All other 2

Mean

7.166667

4.806931

Known Variance

34.84

20.9

Observations

24

202

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

 

z

1.892256

 

P(Z<=z) one-tail

0.029228

 

z Critical one-tail

1.644854

 

P(Z<=z) two-tail

0.058457

 

z Critical two-tail

1.959964

 

 

Share Post
Related Posts

Comments

  • Brian Gutherman 2 years ago

    Interesting analysis! I would think Roger knew going into the match that he'd be at a disadvantage in points played from the baseline. Can you offer more insight into how a smart and talented player like Roger allowed himself to "capitulate" to his opponent's game plan?

  • schewior_tennis_973 2 years ago

    FEAR.

Post Comment