Margin of Error Podcast: Episode Six with Brian Hrebec

A new podcast is out!

Amy and I are joined by special guest Brian Hrebec, creator of the indispensable definish.com live score app and the Android app for my Match Charting Project. We also bring you up to date with all the action in Indian Wells, from Simona Halep to Andy Murray.

You can find the podcast and subscribe with iTunes here. For other subscription methods, here’s an XML feed. Otherwise, keep an eye out for a new episode early each week, which I’ll post here on the blog.

Click here to listen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Margin of Error podcast

Margin of Error Podcast: Episode Five

A new podcast is out!

Amy and I discuss Federer’s title in Dubai, playing with injury, the outlook for Indian Wells, and the best matchups of the Big Four.

You can find the podcast and subscribe with iTunes here. For other subscription methods, here’s an XML feed. Otherwise, keep an eye out for a new episode early each week, which I’ll post here on the blog.

Click here to listen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Margin of Error podcast

Margin of Error Podcast: Episode Four

This week’s podcast is out!

Amy and I discuss the Williams sisters in Dubai, Nadal’s time violations, the surface in Sao Paulo, and the odd intersection of Ernests Gulbis and the #1 ranking.

You can find the podcast and subscribe with iTunes here. For other subscription methods, here’s an XML feed. Otherwise, keep an eye out for a new episode early each week, which I’ll post here on the blog.

Click here to listen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Margin of Error podcast

Margin of Error Podcast: Episode Three

This week’s podcast is ready for listening!

Amy and I discuss David Ferrer’s 250-level dominance, surprises in Rotterdam, the weak field in Memphis, and wrap up with a comparison of Sloane Stephens and Simona Halep.

You can find the podcast and subscribe with iTunes here. There’s also an XML feed. Otherwise, keep an eye out for a new episode early each week, which I’ll post here on the blog.

Click here to listen.

2 Comments

Filed under Margin of Error podcast

Margin of Error Podcast: Episode Two

This week’s podcast is ready for listening!

Amy’s and my guest for Episode Two is JJ of Challenger Tennis — read his blog here and follow him on twitter here.  We chat with him about how he got interested in the lower tiers of the pro game, the struggles of life on the Challenger tour, and some players to watch outside of the usual suspects.  Thanks, JJ, for joining us.

You can find the podcast and subscribe with iTunes here. Otherwise, keep an eye out for a new episode early each week, which I’ll post here on the blog.

Click here to listen.

1 Comment

Filed under Challengers, Margin of Error podcast

Margin of Error Podcast: Episode One

I’ve started a podcast!

Every week, co-host Amy Fetherolf (of The Changeover) and I will be bringing you the Margin of Error tennis podcast–an overview of news in the tennis world along with some of the analysis you’re accustomed to finding here at HeavyTopspin.com.

In our first episode, we discuss Federer’s Davis Cup commitment, Wawrinka’s Grand Slam asterisk, and more. We also feature special guest Carl Bialik, former Wall Street Journal Numbers Guy and writer for ESPN’s FiveThirtyEight.

You can find the podcast and subscribe with iTunes here. Otherwise, keep an eye out for a new episode early each week, which I’ll post here at HeavyTopspin.com.

Click here to listen.

1 Comment

Filed under Margin of Error podcast

Uncontrolled Aggression

Listen to tennis commentary–or a broadcast of any sport, really–and wait for the first mention of “consistency.” You won’t have to wait for long.

“Consistent” is good, and “inconsistent” is bad. Or so we’re told. At first blush, it makes sense. Consistency is a good thing when it comes to following through on your forehand or brushing your teeth every day. But unless you’re the very best player in the world, consistency doesn’t win you Grand Slam titles.

Think of it this way: Every player has an “average” level they are capable of playing. If average Rafael Nadal plays average anybody else on clay, average Nadal wins. If average Richard Gasquet plays average anybody-outside-the-top-fifty, average Gasquet wins. These situations, for the likes of Nadal and Gasquet, are when consistency is actually a good thing. Sure, Rafa might be able to raise him game to previously unheard-of heights, but what’s the point? It’s a matter of winning 6-1 6-0 instead of 6-3 6-2. Nadal’s main concern is avoiding an off day.

Consider the same example from the perspective of Rafa’s opponent. If you’re Tomas Berdych and you play at your usual level against Nadal, you’ll lose. That’s what consistency gets you: thirteen straight losses.

Uncontrolled aggression

Very aggressive players tend to get a bad rap. The guys who always go for their shots–think Lukas Rosol or Nikolay Davydenko–rack up huge winner and unforced error counts. Sometimes it works and often it doesn’t. When it doesn’t, the conventional wisdom always seems to be that these players need to rein in their aggression. They need to be more consistent.

But they don’t. If Rosol stopped unleashing huge shots in every direction, he’d make fewer unforced errors, but he’d hit far fewer winners. He might still hover around #50 in the world, but more likely, he’d still be lurking in the Challenger ranks, looking for the breakthrough that such a passive style might never earn for him. As it is, Rosol’s go-for-broke approach got him that career-defining upset over Nadal, not to mention an ATP title in Bucharest last spring, when he beat three higher-ranked players.

Rather than the pundit’s favored phrase of “controlled aggression,” players score big upsets and major breakthroughs with uncontrolled aggression. (It only looks controlled because it’s working that day.) If you rein in an aggressive player, he may win more of the matches he’s supposed to win, but he’s much less likely to score an upset.

The balance myth

The game of tennis has so much variety–surfaces, climates, playing styles–and so much alternation–deuce/ad, serve/return–that pundits are constantly endorsing balance. Andy Murray needs to get better on clay, they say. Jerzy Janowicz needs to improve his return game. Monica Niculescu needs to learn how to hit a forehand.

It’s a tempting argument to make, because the best players in the game do have that balance. Nadal and Djokovic and Serena and Li have a wide variety of devastating shots and tactics that are effective on every surface. If you want to play like them and reap the same rewards, you need to have that same balance.

Except that, for the vast majority of players–even top-tenners–that just isn’t going to happen. I don’t care if David Ferrer hires a coaching team of Pete Sampras and Mark Philippoussis, he’ll never be much more effective on serve. John Isner could work all offseason with Andre Agassi and remain among the game’s weakest returners.

What’s keeping these players from climbing any higher in the rankings isn’t the fact that they aren’t more balanced. It’s the simple fact that they aren’t better. By definition, most people will never be a once-in-a-generation talent.

Most players are not balanced. And that’s fine. Rather than chasing the impossible dream of out-Novaking Novak, they need to take more risks to outplay their betters in one or two areas. When it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter–they would’ve lost anyway.

The cluster principle

Tennis rewards the streaky. If you only win four return points in a set, it’s much better to win them consecutively than to spread them out. It’s better to win five matches in one week and go winless for the next four weeks than win one match per week.

Whether it’s points, games, sets, matches, or even titles, it’s better to cluster your triumphs.

If you strive for a balanced game, the best players simply won’t let you go on a streak. Fabio Fognini or Sabine Lisicki might give you a few gifts, but Nadal never will. The only way to cluster your victories over Rafa is to play such aggressive tennis that even he can’t neutralize it. It usually won’t work, but for most players, it’s their only hope. There’s a reason the hyper-aggressive Davydenko is the only active player with a winning record against him.

Stan’s untold narrative

Stanislas Wawrinka probably wouldn’t have beaten a healthy Nadal over five sets on Sunday. But he was winning when Rafa’s back acted up, and he did so by unleashing every weapon in his arsenal.

Whatever the rankings say this week, Wawrinka isn’t one of the best three tennis players in the world. At least “average Stan” isn’t. But that’s the whole point. Tennis doesn’t reward players with ranking points and prize money for consistency. Consistency got Berdych into the top ten and has kept him there for so long … but it has prevented him from spending much time in the top five.

Wawrinka won’t always beat Nadal or Djokovic, and he’ll continue to suffer his share of defeats at the hands of the players ranked below him. The high-risk style of play that earned him a place in the history books won’t always pay off. That’s all part of the package. Stan didn’t get this far by being consistent.

5 Comments

Filed under Australian Open, Stanislas Wawrinka, Tactics