{"id":1380,"date":"2013-11-05T17:46:48","date_gmt":"2013-11-05T22:46:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/heavytopspin.com\/?p=1380"},"modified":"2013-11-05T17:46:48","modified_gmt":"2013-11-05T22:46:48","slug":"roger-federer-and-the-missing-tiebreaks-updated-wtforecast","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2013\/11\/05\/roger-federer-and-the-missing-tiebreaks-updated-wtforecast\/","title":{"rendered":"Roger Federer and the Missing Tiebreaks (+Updated WTForecast)"},"content":{"rendered":"

For most of his career, Roger Federer<\/a> has been one of the very few players to play better in tiebreaks than in standard deuce games. \u00a0His career record, winning breakers at a 65% clip, illustrates his success at the business end of tight sets. \u00a0But there’s more to the story. \u00a0Even a player a good as Federer has been should not have won that many tiebreaks.<\/p>\n

As I wrote in a pair<\/a>\u00a0of posts<\/a> a year ago, there is very little evidence for any kind of tiebreak-specific skill. \u00a0Some players do well in tiebreaks, of course, but their success is almost always due to being good in general–better players win more points, and that translates into tiebreaks. \u00a0Plenty of big servers, such as Ivo Karlovic<\/a> and Milos Raonic<\/a>, don’t win any more tiebreaks that you would expect simply by looking at the rate at which they win points.<\/p>\n

However, a tiny fraction of players defy this regression to the tiebreak mean. Playing a ton of tiebreaks seems to help a bit–John Isner<\/a> always wins more than expected–and a few other cases might be explained by extreme confidence or intimidations. \u00a0These include Pete Sampras<\/a> and–you guessed it–King Roger.<\/p>\n

In the eight seasons from 2004 to 2011, Federer won almost 10% more tiebreaks than his stats say he should have. \u00a0In 2006, his outrageous 37-14 tiebreak record was a big part of his equally outrageous overall success. \u00a0But even a player as good as Roger was that year “should” have only gone 31-20. \u00a0That would still have been an impressive win rate, and let’s not forget, many of his tiebreaks were against excellent players who had already pushed him that far.<\/p>\n

As with so much else, that tiebreak magic has eluded Fed in the past two seasons. \u00a0Last year was the first season since 2003 when he failed to win more tiebreaks than expected. \u00a0He has been neutral this year and last.<\/p>\n

It’s tempting to wonder, then, how big a part the disappearance of Roger’s tiebreak magic has played in his overall decline. \u00a0If he had won tiebreaks at the “extra” rate he did throughout his peak, he would have claimed two, or possibly three more than he actually did, flipping his pedestrian 13-10 tiebreak record to a more Fed-like 15-8 or even 16-7. \u00a0(This post was written before Fed’s tiebreak win over Djokovic in London on Tuesday. \u00a0In any event, improving his record to 14-10 doesn’t drastically change anything.)<\/em><\/p>\n

How much of an impact would those bonus tiebreaks have had? \u00a0With a bit of guesswork and a handful of counterfactuals, we can put a number on it. \u00a0We’re looking at “flipping” two or three of Roger’s ten lost tiebreaks. \u00a0Of those ten, three didn’t end up mattering<\/a>, as he won the match anyway. \u00a0 The remaining seven occurred in five matches<\/a>:<\/p>\n