It’s been a while since the last Key Points Analysis, no? It occurred to me that today’s Shanghai M1000 semifinal between World No. 1 Rafael Nadal and Juan Martín del Potro might be a good opportunity to do this kind of analysis. Why? I didn’t watch the match live, but when I looked at the stats, one in particular popped up at me: Rafael Nadal ended 0 for 6 in break point chances. The match had to be closer than the 6-2, 6-4 scoreline, maybe?
In some ways, it was. And in others, it really wasn’t, as you’ll see.
In the past, I’ve limited these posts to simply creating a narrative around the data that I collected. This time, things will be different. As in recent Return of Serve Analysis posts, I’ll include all the data I collected for this post.
As for the methodology, it’s quite simple: I define Key Points as points that end games, one way or another. The two main categories are Game Points and Break Points, of course. But these two can also double as Set Points or Match Points, and we have the unusual situation of having Set Points and Match Points in tiebreakers, which can’t really be called Break Points (though you could argue that they could be Game Points).
The other thing I do is qualify each point as either an Ace, a Service Winner, a Double-Fault, a Winner, a Forced Error, or an Unforced Error. I then group all of the above, except Double-Faults and Unforced Errors, into one bundle: Point-Ending Shots. The point of this last little maneuver is to highlight just how many of these points are determined by aggressive, purposeful play, and how many are what we usually call “gifts.”
With all of that said, let’s jump into the data. I’ll include some observations along the way.
Full Match Key Points Summary
– The red highlight gives you an idea of the level of execution during this match: I’ve found that this high of a percentage of Key Points being determined by Point-Ending Shots is unusual (it’s usually in the low 60s). Both Delpo and Nadal were playing Key Points rather well.
– Here’s something interesting: the percentage of points won on Point-Ending Shots for the entire match (including all 39 Key Points) was 60% (53 UFEs from 132 total points, per TennisTV’s stats), compared with 82% for just the Key Points. We can infer that both men managed to play the big points with more aggression and precision than “regular” points.
– These last four boxes start to tell the tale of how Delpo managed to overcome Nadal today with such an emphatic scoreline. Simply put, Nadal couldn’t find ways to win Key Points on Delpo’s serve. The World No. 1 went 0-6 on Break Points, and Delpo converted 9 of 11 Game Points (including 4/4 in the 1st set).
Delpo, on the other hand, was far more successful against Nadal’s serve in these situations: he converted 3 of 11 BPs, and limited Nadal to just 6 of 11 Game Points converted.
That’s quite a difference, no?
Watching the match, it seemed to me that Nadal struggled to find consistent depth on his returns of serve (yes, I was also tempted to do a Return of Serve analysis). This translated in the following graph, which appeared during the broadcast:
Del Potro was starting rallies on his serve from a more advantageous position on the court, and his simple gameplan of aggressively hitting into the open court was aided by such beneficial court position. Also, since Delpo did a very good job returning Nadal’s serve (his 11 BPs were created in 4 different service games), he was getting good court position on return games as well.
– I like these boxes because it tell me who was more successful at extending his/her opponent’s service games. As you can see, Delpo had a clear edge here, as 5 more Key Points were played on Nadal’s serve.
Juan Martín del Potro’s Key Points Performance
-The highlighted number is astounding: over 9 out of every 10 Key Points won by Delpo were due to Point-Ending shots. That tells you two things: 1) how aggressive Del Potro played the match (and particularly the big points) and most importantly, 2) how well Juan Martín executed such aggressive shots. He barely missed any!
However, there’s another conclusion to draw after looking at that ridiculous number: look at the number of Key Points handed to Delpo via Nadal UFEs or Double-Faults: just 2. This is what Nadal meant when he said this:
Nadal: I am humble enough to admit that I didn't play a bad match and I lost 62 64. #atp
— SI Tennis (@SI_Tennis) October 12, 2013
Sure, Rafael didn’t return particularly well (though he still created at least 1 BP in 5 different return games). Sure, he struggled to find depth with his groundstrokes. But he didn’t hand over many UFEs (22 to Del Potro’s 31), particularly during the crucial moments of the match. Del Potro fully earned the win and the scoreline.
– Again, notice how few Key Points won by Delpo were due to Nadal miscues. Just one per set!
– The first arrow shows Delpo’s fantastic performance during Nadal’s service games in the first set. Notice how none of those 5 Key Points won on Nadal’s service games were due to mistakes by the Spaniard.
– The second arrow shows how aggressive and precise Delpo was on serve when dealing with Key Points in the second set. Of these 9 Key Points, 4 were BPs for Nadal, and 5 were Game Points. No matter – Delpo won them all with purposeful play.
– So very few freebies. So much aggression. So much accuracy. Delpo’s win in a nutshell.
Rafael Nadal’s Key Points Performance
– It’s interesting to note that almost a third of Nadal’s Key Points came via Del Potro UFEs.
– The red arrow just highlights something we already knew: Nadal didn’t win a single Key Point on Del Potro’s serve in the entire first set. And those included 2 Break Points and 4 Game Points.
– That highlight kind of says it all, no?
Key Points Log – First Set
Key Points Log – Second Set
For a guy with his abilites who fights for every point it was obvious that Nadal was in trouble after losing the 1st set by 2 breaks and not just 1. On the other hand the only way Nadal was going to lose this day to Del Potro was in 2 sets and not 3. Does Nadal ever lose the 3rd set? Only Djokovic can beat him in the 3rd. 3 setters/5 setters I don’t know about 7. He’d be more likely to lose the 3rd set in a best of 6 than in 7:-)
I think its interesting that you mention the key points in this match because I always felt that that was the most important element in analyzing a Del Potro match. He provides plenty of breaking opportunities and against lesser players who he’s not particularly wary of he often provides even more than he’s wont to. Against the top players he’s more focused ofcourse but there’s usually bp’s aplenty there as well for the opponent to take advantage of. Thing is he’s used to these pressure situations serving at deuce and saving the bp’s. Thats how much confidence the guy has in his serve. A huge weapon along with his devastating forehand-the most potent forehand on hard court?. I mean it can be argued that his game lacks variety but his 1-2 punch is just so overwhelming that he’s able to compensate and get away with his weaknesses even against the top players-crazy. No matter how you look at it in terms of tennis school,style he’s the opposite of David Ferrer. What one has and tries to do the other doesn’t. Statistic-wise as well-while Ferrer is usually consistent from one tournament/season to the next the other comes as a once in a while cataclysmic event-like beating Federer in the Us Open. A turning point in history. There is that fear that his next orbit will hit target again-often very close and grazing the surface-(whole wheat fields have been incinerated in less than a moment but nothing Global). In the next series of Del Potro orbits one of them will probably hit target again. Delpo beating Nadal today and Novak tomorrow doesn’t count. Those of us who are worried and into these apocalyptic cycles wish to get it over with while others are in denial. Personally the way I’ve decided to experiment it is in bed. Which I think is very clever. Waking up as the dust settles-hehe. Anyways the Asian swing is not her/now in the space/time continuum where I’m at. Very convenient.
Nadal has been through a lot lately and can’t bring his full intensity to every tournament. Seems he doesn’t realize this-at least in the heat of the moment but imo he does know. Referring to his tweet he used the word ‘bad’-‘not bad’. What does that mean? really? for Nadal-didn’t know he had ‘ not bad’ in his vocabulary in describing himself. He would have been more humble had he tweeted saying that he didn’t play well,good,very well,great,etc. but then he wouldn’t have been honest and realistic.
He was broken at the beginning of the 2nd set-which prove enough to be fatal against Delpo who’s used to these pressure situations having to hold 4-5 straight games. Everyone has their dips in momentum even for a guy like Nadal who fights for every point-because he can. His dip often comes at the beginning of the ‘next set’ after fighting for the previous one. Ofcourse this is classic textbook but agaisnt Nadal usually you have that dip too!! But certain top players anticipate that moment like a hawk and prepare themselves. Like Novak in most of his breaks vs Nadal of 2013.
Nadal stepped it up after being a break down in the second-a bit too late against DelPo who’s an Isner-like nightmare when it comes to being broken contrary to appearances with all thoe dueces and bp’s. It was only a matter of time before Nadal would break through the DelPo wall but time ran out since you only have to win 6 games by a 2 game margin. Nadal wasn’t in sink with the good graces of destiny today, he actually didn’t deserve it since he somewhat underestimated his opponent and these days he’s not ready mentally to bring his full intensity to the court. We saw a glimpse of it in the 2nd set and Delpo was certainly feeling the pressure. Nadal was flustered in the important points. His trademark focus in such moments bringing out his very best mental and physical tennis was-well,somewhere else-maybe basking in Mallorca. They don’t always have to follow the same schedule in spite of the paper work you know.
With great respect for Juan Jose and his insight Big Data analysis, Fernando’s staff has also meticulously culled through the match and we reach this conclusion on why Slender Gaucho defeated The Humble Bull….. The match was played on a court that plays so fast that all vestiges of tactic, strategy and defense are rendered meaningless. The game that was played is not tennis. And the so called “indoor season” is even worse. In your heart, Juan Jose, you know Fernando speaks the truth, no.?
I am Fernando @vivafernando
[…] Key Points Analysis: Del Potro’s Brilliant Execution against Rafael Nadal in Shanghai – by Juan José (changeovertennis.com) […]
I agree that Rafa couldn’t bring his intensity into the match and he also underestimated his opponent, especially when both were at the net. He also started the match at a more defensive position. Just compare his position behind the baseline and that of Novak’s in the final! Also he had the wrong game plan vs Delpo, trying to rally with an on fire Delpo from the baseline is doomed to fail; when Delpo’s forehand is on, no one, yes no one, could stay with him. Novak came out with the right game plan, moving forward and attacking at the net, not giving Deplo much space to hit his shots, rushing Delpo throughout the whole set.
I would say Rafa tried to change his game plan way too late, in the second set, when Delpo wasn’t going to let him came back. Try again next time Rafa, with a better game plan, with better intensity, a better serve and better court position, and please don’t confront Delpo’s forehand head on. I also like the way Murray dealt with Delpo in the past, during 2009 when Delpo was also at the top of his game, by using his varieties and out maneuvering Delpo.