[Dispeker]

Originally Posted by kadiHH

Thanks Dispeker, for the great analysis of this match: a picture that is worth a thousand words. I've always wondered to what extent this sort of analysis plays in the post-match evaluation a player such as Julia has with her coach. I have to say that if the whole match chart were an electrocardiogram reading, this patient is in vfib with cardiac arrest imminent!

Nice comparison Well, there's actually not much to say about it. During the whole match she was hitting a lot more UEs than W and FEs. That means she was unable to play her aggressive style of play effectively for most parts of the match. Especially in the beginning it was an abysmal performance, as you can see. It got better immediately after Nensel told her at 1-4 to move better. Unfortunately Julia couldn't sustain that level of play and consequently lost the set.
In the 2nd she was able to raise her game a bit and it was enough to win this set. During the 3rd then her level of play alternated between good/solid (when serving) and really bad (when receiving). Why was that? An explanation could be that the average rally length during Errani's service games got longer in the last set. It's striking how Julia struggled to cope with her in those longer rallies*. She lost 70% of these (30/43). Errani actually didn't do much here, just kept hitting the ball on Julia's backhand side and waited until she got impatient and hit the UE..

Well, we know she can play much better than that. Let's hope she can show that again in her next tournaments.



*I defined it as a rally with more than 6 shots.

[KatjaS]

Thanks for the statistics. That 2-3 game in the 3rd set (AM: -1) was when she decided to attack Errani's serve and dominated a return game, even though she ultimately didn't break her. I still don't understand why she didn't try that again after that.

[kadiHH]

Originally Posted by KatjaS

Thanks for the statistics. That 2-3 game in the 3rd set (AM: -1) was when she decided to attack Errani's serve and dominated a return game, even though she ultimately didn't break her. I still don't understand why she didn't try that again after that.

Right--which again begs the question: does she do a post-match analysis with Nensel reviewing the statistics and point by point review of the video? Now this is a question I would like to hear a journalist ask Julia instead of the same-old questions about which tennis player first inspired her, blah, blah, blah. Is she suddenly going to reveal that it was someone other than Martina Hingis?

Data crunching plays a crucial role in improving one's game because it reveals patterns--bad habits and also what works successfully. It's always so difficult to watch her implode during a match knowing that you've seen this train wreck before.

[KatjaS]

Nensel doesn't really strike me as the kind of coach that would be into that, but that's just my uninformed opinion. We don't really know all that much about him or how he works.

[Dispeker]

Originally Posted by KatjaS

Thanks for the statistics. That 2-3 game in the 3rd set (AM: -1) was when she decided to attack Errani's serve and dominated a return game, even though she ultimately didn't break her. I still don't understand why she didn't try that again after that.

Did she decide it herself or did Nensel told her to do it? Couldn't see whether he talked to her again. But yeah, this game could have been the turning point. She had 3 or 4 chances to break but wasted all of them. Eventually her level dropped again and she gifted Errani that game by hitting two UEs in a row.
Don't know either why she didn't attack her serve more often, especially her 2nd serve.

Originally Posted by kadiHH

Right--which again begs the question: does she do a post-match analysis with Nensel reviewing the statistics and point by point review of the video? Now this is a question I would like to hear a journalist ask Julia instead of the same-old questions about which tennis player first inspired her, blah, blah, blah. Is she suddenly going to reveal that it was someone other than Martina Hingis?

I remember an interview where she was asked whether she does a pre-match analysis of her next opponent. Think she said that they (her team) do this. Don't know though how much time they invest in that. I can't really imagine though that she and Nensel are reviewing (whole) matches. But maybe I'm wrong. It would really be interesting to know.

Originally Posted by kadiHH

Data crunching plays a crucial role in improving one's game because it reveals patterns--bad habits and also what works successfully. It's always so difficult to watch her implode during a match knowing that you've seen this train wreck before.

That's the most important thing imho. But for that, a pretty large number of matches would have to be analyzed.

[KatjaS]

Originally Posted by Dispeker

Did she decide it herself or did Nensel told her to do it?

I don't think she asked for him again after that moment in set 1 where she stood up and left while he was still talking, but I could be wrong.

[joy division]

Thanks Dispeker for the analyze, great effort.

It could be helpful to face her with the hard facts of such point-for-point diagrams which is showing her extreme inconsistency.

I remember that Nensel asked her in a break something like why "she doesn`t do what they were talking about and what they were practicing in the preparation for this match" (to beat Errani).
After that she was a little more determined and clear in the execution of the gameplan for some games.
Your analyze confirms it. That means that she knew and could keep up the strategy and presence of mind for some time but later on "lost" it again.
Why did she loose it and why there is always such a thin line between positive aggressive play and overdoing things on the other side ?
This is of course not just a question of her physical weaknesses.
Once again it`s all about speculation but imo at that stage of her career it is not enough to simply use her talents and work hard to get further.
It`s also needed to refine and make her play more efficient and less vulnerable by some kind of deeper knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses.
A precise preparation and a hard-edged and clear follow-up of a match could be a part in this process and the character of this kind of work then could find expression on the court one day.

[HowardH]

Originally Posted by Dispeker

Finally found the time to analyze the match against Errani (Dubai 2013).

- AM/game = red line

- Julia's service game = yellow background




1 set:

W = 11
FE = 6
UE = 27
AM = -10



2nd set:

W = 14
FE = 7
UE = 26
AM = -5



3rd set:

W = 22
FE = 4
UE = 33
AM = -7



Whole match:

W = 47
FE = 17
UE = 86
AM = -22

I'll comment on that later.

Very interesting. Thanks for that.

I think it would be informative to see her service games and return games separated out.

It looks like her serve games were a bit unstable in the first half, but more stable in the second half.

On the other hand it seems her return games are regularly quite bad. But separated out it would be easier to see for sure.

[Dispeker]

Originally Posted by HowardH

Very interesting. Thanks for that.

I think it would be informative to see her service games and return games separated out.

It looks like her serve games were a bit unstable in the first half, but more stable in the second half.

On the other hand it seems her return games are regularly quite bad. But separated out it would be easier to see for sure.

Good idea, Howard. I'll do that. And also for the following one. It's the Wimbledon 2012 3rd match against Ivanovic. As the stats and the chart show, it was a pretty good match from both players. Julia played fantastic in the 1st set but wasn't able to keep her level in the following sets. You can see that the fluctuations in her game increased during the course of the match (with the exception of the middle of 2nd set). Ana, on the other hand, put on a smoother performance especially in the 1st two sets. In the end, she deservedly won.




Julia's AM/game = red graph

Ana's AM/game = blue graph


Julia's service game = yellow background

Ana's service game = white background




1st set

Julia:

W = 8
FE = 14
UE = 13
AM = 9

Ana:

W = 6
FE = 8
UE = 11
AM = 3




2nd set

Julia:

W = 15
FE = 10
UE = 19
AM = 6

Ana:

W = 9
FE = 12
UE = 8
AM = 13



3rd set

Julia:

W = 8
FE = 13
UE = 19
AM = 2

Ana:

W = 9
FE = 8
UE = 9
AM = 8



Whole match:

Julia:

W = 31
FE = 37
UE = 51
AM = 17

Ana:

W = 24
FE = 28
UE = 28
AM = 24

[Iwasbored2013]

Aye.

I thought it might be interesting to get a more detailed view of Julia's performance and where it goes right
and where it goes wrong, so I thought I'd do some stats on her match. I wanted to debut it in her match against
Wozniacki but alas Gools didn't make it. So I took it for a test ride yesterday in her doubles match, even
though that is of course a flawed exercise given the nature of doubles, but frick it, I made the sheet so
I'm gonna use it. I will think about doing visual representations in the future, but for the time being here
is just the raw data. I limited it to points where I felt Julia was the active player:

Set 1

Serve
Aces 0
Service Winners 4
Double Faults 0


Julia wins the point by

Winners
Forehand 5
Backhand 1

Forced Errors
Forehand 4
Backhand 3

Unforced Erros
Double Faults 0
Rally 4


Julia loses the point by

Winners 5

Forced Errors
Forehand 2
Backhand 2

Unforced Errors
Forehand 6
Backhand 1

Return Errors
Forehand 3
Backhand 1


Set 2

Serve
Aces 0
Service Winners 2
Double Faults 0


Julia wins the point by

Winners
Forehand 0
Backhand 2

Forced Errors
Forehand 1
Backhand 2

Unforced Erros
Double Faults 0
Rally 0


Julia loses the point by

Winners 1

Forced Errors
Forehand 3
Backhand 0

Unforced Errors
Forehand 2
Backhand 2

Return Errors
Forehand 3
Backhand 1


Match Tiebreaker

Serve
Aces 0
Service Winners 0
Double Faults 0


Julia wins the point by

Winners
Forehand 1
Backhand 0

Forced Errors
Forehand 0
Backhand 0

Unforced Erros
Double Faults 0
Rally 0


Julia loses the point by

Winners 2

Forced Errors
Forehand 0
Backhand 0

Unforced Errors
Forehand 2
Backhand 3

Return Errors
Forehand 0
Backhand 0


AM as used by Dispeker (do you count return errors as UE? I didn't here.)

Set 1: +10
Set 2: +3
Match Tiebreaker: -4

Again, this is of limited use in a doubles match, but it's not my damn fault she can't beat Voegele.

[Iwasbored2013]

Also if you have suggestions for added statistics or think this is not sophisticated enough for the real statistics thread just shoot, I'm not sensitive.

[Iwasbored2013]

Here is what a statistic like this looks like when Gools plays really well, first set against Shahar Peer in Paris 2012:



Also my first attempt at a visual presentation.

[KatjaS]

The more statistics the better, I'd say. But I'm not really a numbers person to be honest. Also it looks like she almost singlehandedly lost that match tiebreak in her doubles match.

[Iwasbored2013]

She did not play her finest tennis in the latter stages of the doubles match, no.

[Dispeker]

Thanks Iwasbored I agree with Katja, the more statistics the better, so keep 'em coming