The men’s singles draw of the Australian Open this year has been a refreshing change from the one-sided contests we normally witness. For the first time since the French Open in 2014, a Grand Slam final will not feature either Andy Murray or Novak Djokovic. For the first time since the French open in 2004, the top two seeds have been knocked out before the quarter- finals.
External factor deciding champions?
Different players have different strategies. They have their own strengths and weaknesses. Some focus on a serve-and-volley game, some hit their opponents off the park and some like to wear their opponents down.
However, is there something that is not related to the individual’s game that is a key factor in winning the Slam? I have often heard commentators remark, “He would want to get this get over quickly and head back to the showers”, or, “He would want to end this right here and not play an extra set”. Does playing an extra few sets really matter that much? On the contrary, would you not be better prepared for a high-pressure environment such as a Grand Slam final if you have lost a set and face tense moments in the previous rounds?
How to break down the matches
I have looked at the data for the past 10 years across the four Grand Slams for the winners and runners up and tried to see if there was a relation between the number of games played by both players leading up to the final and the eventual winner.
Let me break this down further. If a player wins a match 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, he is deemed to have played 21 games (seven in all three sets). I am aggregating the number of games played (up to the final) by the runner up and winner of a tournament, and seeing if there is any relation between the eventual winner and the difference between the number of games played by the two. If the one playing lesser amount of games ends up winning the Slam, it pays off to conserve energy for the final. If not, there might be a lesson to be learnt in facing pressure points before you walk out for the final.
Two recent Slams provide interesting results
Looking at the two most recent Slams, we get evidence to support both sides of the story. In the 2016 US Open, the runner up, Novak Djokovic, had a walkover in the second round, and also had his opponents in the third round and quarter-finals retiring (in the first and third sets respectively). Stanislas Wawrinka, on the other hand, had three four-setters and one five-setter en route to the final. He played a total of 119 games and 536 minutes (four minutes short of nine hours) more. Djokovic should have been fresh as a daisy for the final, but Wawrinka took the title.
At Wimbledon last year, the two finalists were Andy Murray and Milos Raonic. The Canadian had to come through more struggles than the eventual champion, Murray. The Scotsman overcame all his opponents except for Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (a five-set quarter-final) in straight sets and only had to face one tie-breaker in all his preceding rounds. In contrast, Raonic had to play two five-setters, one four-setter and five tie-breaks en route to the final. This led to the Canadian being on court for 117 minutes more than the Brit.
Differing results post 2010
Looking at these two results in isolation, we are unable to draw any concrete conclusions. I extended the analysis to the last 10 years across all four Slams and looked at those results where the difference in the number of games played between the runner-up and the champion was at least one set or nine games (assuming that on average, there are nine games in a set).
Overall (2007-2016 results), we notice that if the eventual champion has been on court for a shorter duration, he has a better chance of defeating his opponent in the final. The difference in total number of champions between those who have spent shorter and longer times on court was 19-13. Even though in the Australian Open the results are too close to draw any conclusions, in the other Slams if you have spent less time on court, you have a better chance of being champion.
So the commentators were right after all, right? Well, not quite. The results from 2010 onward paint a very different picture. The number that was 19-13 earlier, has become 10-12 in favor of those spending longer time on court when excluding the results from 2007-09. In fact, between 2007 and 2009, out of the 12 Grand Slams played, the only time the eventual champion played a greater number of matches ended in a game widely regarded as the greatest tennis match of all time – the epic 2008 Wimbledon final in which Rafael Nadal ultimately bested Roger Federer in five sets.
R-Fed not top of one statistic
The next question that crops up is that whether there are certain players who fit the norm of winning these types of matches. Interestingly, all three of Wawrinka’s Major wins have come when he has spent more time on court than his opponent. Djokovic leads this statistic with four wins, one more than Wawrinka and Nadal, and two more than Murray. So these wins are evenly distributed across these four and there is no real outlier.
What about Federer? It is surprising to see him feature only once in this graphic, his 2011 Australian Open win against Murray, and in that Slam too he had only played nine more games. A couple of reasons for this could be because Federer’s superhuman touches allows to him play a game that concentrates on shorter rallies. The other reason could be that since we are taking results from 2007 onward, we are only taking in to account eight out of Federer’s 17 Grand Slam titles, whereas we have results from 12 of Nadal’s and Djokovic’s Major wins.
Mental fitness is as important as physical fitness
The fitness levels of all the players on the circuit is at a much higher level than several years ago. Whereas players put their bodies through immense amounts of physical strain every day, the mental side of the game can only be tested while out on a tennis court in the high-pressure environment of a Grand Slam match. The physical battles almost take care of themselves now, and it is the battle inside your head that plays a much more vital role. Hence, time on court, though important several years ago, is not a factor in deciding champions any longer.