{"id":2296,"date":"2017-06-01T10:20:29","date_gmt":"2017-06-01T10:20:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/?p=2296"},"modified":"2017-06-01T10:20:29","modified_gmt":"2017-06-01T10:20:29","slug":"angelique-kerbers-unclutch-unforced-errors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2017\/06\/01\/angelique-kerbers-unclutch-unforced-errors\/","title":{"rendered":"Angelique Kerber’s Unclutch Unforced Errors"},"content":{"rendered":"

Italian translation at settesei.it<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

It’s been a rough year for Angelique Kerber<\/a>. Despite her No. 1 WTA ranking and place at the top of the French Open draw, she lost<\/a> her opening match on Sunday against the unseeded Ekaterina Makarova<\/a>. Adding insult to injury, the loss goes down in the record books as a lopsided-looking 6-2 6-2.<\/p>\n

Andrea Petkovic<\/a> chimed in with her diagnosis<\/a> of Kerber’s woes:<\/p>\n

She\u2019s simply playing without confidence right now. It was tight, even though\u00a0the scoreline was 2 and 2 but everyone who knows a thing about tennis knew that Angie made errors whenever it mattered because she\u2019s playing without any confidence right now \u2013 errors she didn\u2019t make last year.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is one version of a common analysis: A player lost because she crumbled on the big points. While that probably doesn’t cover all of Kerber’s issues on Sunday–Makarova won 72 points<\/a> to her 55–it is true that big points have a disproportionate effect on the end result. For every player who squanders a dozen break points<\/a> yet still wins the match, there are others who falter at crucial moments and ultimately lose.<\/p>\n

This family of theories–that a player over- or under-performed at big moments–is testable. For instance, I showed last summer that Roger Federer<\/a>\u2019s Wimbledon loss to Milos Raonic<\/a> was due in part to his weaker performance<\/a> on more important points. We can do the same with Kerber’s early exit.<\/p>\n

Here’s how it works. Once we calculate each player’s probability of winning the match before each point, we can assign each point a measure of importance–I prefer to call it\u00a0leverage<\/em>, or LEV–that quantifies how much the single point could effect the outcome of the match. At 3-0, 40-0, it’s almost zero. At 3-3, 40-AD in the deciding set, it might be over 10%. Across an entire tournament’s worth of matches, the average LEV is around 5% to 6%.<\/p>\n

If Petko is right, we’ll find that the average LEV of Kerber’s unforced errors was higher than on other points. (I’ve excluded points that ended with the serve, since neither player had a chance to commit an unforced error.) Sure enough, Kerber’s 13 groundstroke UEs (that is, excluding double faults) had an average LEV of 5.5%, compared to 3.8% on points that ended some other way. Her UE points were 45% more important than non-UE points.<\/p>\n

Let’s put that number in perspective. Among the 86 women\u00a0for whom I have point-by-point UE data for their first-round matches this week*, ten timed their errors even worse than Kerber did. Magdalena Rybarikova<\/a> was the most extreme: Her eight UEs against Coco Vandeweghe<\/a> were more than twice as important, on average, as the rest of the points in that match. Seven of the ten women with bad timing lost their matches, and two others–Agnieszka Radwanska<\/a> and Marketa Vondrousova<\/a>–committed so few errors (3 and 4, respectively), that it didn’t really matter. Only Dominika Cibulkova<\/a>, whose 15 errors were about as badly timed as Kerber’s, suffered from unclutch UEs yet managed to advance.<\/p>\n

* This data comes from the Roland Garros website. I aggregate it after each major and make it available here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Another important reference point: Unforced errors are evenly distributed across all leverage levels. Our instincts might tell us otherwise–we might disproportionately recall UEs that came under pressure—-but the numbers don’t bear it out. Thus, Kerber’s badly timed errors are just as badly timed when we compare her to tour average.<\/p>\n

They are also poorly timed when compared to her other recent performances at majors. Petkovic implied as much when she said her compatriot was making “errors she didn’t make last year.” Across her 19 matches at the previous\u00a0four Slams, her UEs occurred on points that were 11%\u00a0less<\/em> important than non-UE points.\u00a0Her errors caused her to lose\u00a0relatively more important points in only 5 of the 19 matches, and even in those matches, the ratio of UE leverage to non-UE leverage never exceeded 31%, her ratio in Melbourne this year against Tsurenko. That’s still better than her performance on Sunday.<\/p>\n

Across so many matches, a difference of 11% is substantial. Of the 30 players with point-by-point UE data for at least eight matches at the previous four majors, only three did a better job timing their unforced errors. Radwanska heads the list, at 16%, followed by Timea Bacsinszky<\/a> at 14% and Kiki Bertens<\/a> at 12%. The other 26 players committed their unforced errors at more important moments than Kerber did.<\/p>\n

As is so often the case in tennis,\u00a0it’s difficult to establish if\u00a0a\u00a0stat like this is indicative of a longer-trend trend, or if it is mostly noise. We don’t have point-by-point data for most of Kerber’s matches, so we can’t take the obvious next step of checking the rest of her 2017 matches for similarly unclutch performances. Instead, we’ll have to keep tabs on how well she limits UEs at big moments on those occasions where we have the data necessary to do so.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Italian translation at settesei.it It’s been a rough year for Angelique Kerber. Despite her No. 1 WTA ranking and place at the top of the French Open draw, she lost her opening match on Sunday against the unseeded Ekaterina Makarova. Adding insult to injury, the loss goes down in the record books as a lopsided-looking … Continue reading Angelique Kerber’s Unclutch Unforced Errors<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,41,96,123,127],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-clutch","category-french-open","category-research","category-win-probability","category-wta"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}