Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

by legendkillar Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:54 am

As said on my other thread. This is for the players who play by percentages.

Here's my 10

1) Murray
2) Nadal
3) Simon
4) Roddick
5) Ferrer
6) Tipsarevic
7) Cilic
8) Melzer
9) Ferrero
10) Djokovic

by Simple_Analyst Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:11 am

Why not just put them all under one thread?
Anyway, do you know 'percentage players' can also mean high or low risk players? This all refers to their shot selections. Perhaps another title will be appropriate.

by invisiblecoolers Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:29 am

what do u mean by percentage players LK?

by time please Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:41 am

I think very accurate players who keep their powder dry until the court opens up for a winning pass rather than players who look to attack straight away.

I'd have to put Rafa at the top of the list for being the most successful percentage player around, but I also think he is good at 'ad libbing' in clutch situations so he should score on the instinctive player one as well

Headscratch

if you're not confused by now, I certainly am!

by Simple_Analyst Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:54 am

To be fair all players can be classed as both 'percentage' and 'instinctive'. Too many things to consider when classifying them.

by Guest Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:47 am

Has this something to do with playing "safe", or something to do with defensive tennis as opposed to attacking tennis, or something to do with thinking as one prepares for a shot - "which shot is most likely to a) keep me in the point and b)" to win me the point or some combination of the above. I suppose players also think about playing shots to manoeuvre the opponent into disadvantageous positions and so forth.

by gallery play Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:07 am

Percentage play originally comes from cards games i believe (like bridge or poker) and is very often used in Golf. The percentage golf player always aims for the middle of the green and not for the pin, or aims for the middle of the fairway and not the shortest cut. In other words: a game based on avoiding mistakes.

My pick would be:
1-3: Nadal, Murray, Djoko (not much between them)
4-10 (in no particular order): Ferrer, Simon, Monfils, Roddick, Monaco, Chela, Robredo
Hewitt definitely deserves a mention in this department.

Would be interesting to do a reverse list too, i'll start
1. Blake

Wink

by Guest Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:36 am

gallery play wrote:Percentage play ...: a game based on avoiding mistakes. ...

by legendkillar Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:05 pm

gallery play wrote:Percentage play originally comes from cards games i believe (like bridge or poker) and is very often used in Golf. The percentage golf player always aims for the middle of the green and not for the pin, or aims for the middle of the fairway and not the shortest cut. In other words: a game based on avoiding mistakes.

My pick would be:
1-3: Nadal, Murray, Djoko (not much between them)
4-10 (in no particular order): Ferrer, Simon, Monfils, Roddick, Monaco, Chela, Robredo
Hewitt definitely deserves a mention in this department.

Would be interesting to do a reverse list too, i'll start
1. Blake

I put Djokovic at the bottom because he has a mix of instinct and percentages, but I think his game slightly leads more to percentages, but only just.

Murray topped my list, Nadal can and does attack when faced with lower ranked players who don't have the game to play instinctive tennis but try to and play right into his hands. Nadal against better players goes into percentage mode. Murray for me does whomever the opponent is. I real methodical thinker about how to construct points.

by Tenez Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:21 pm

I certainly understand that definition of "percentage tennis". However the first time I heard of percentage tennis was in the mid 80s when crafty players like McEnroe who had learnt tennis with a wooden racquet where overpowered by essentially Serve Volleyers helped by bigger frames whacking the ball at first opportunity.

The bigger frame gave them the opportunity to "risk" hitting the ball very hard and get them easy free points because the chance (or percentage) of hitting winners was pretty good with the bigger frames. THat's what we called "percentage tennis" then. If your chance to hit a winner is over 50% each time you take a risk, it's worth taking the risk (percentage tennis). With small wooden racquets that "percentage tennis" was simply too risky, not worth it.

Which definition is correct? I don;t know. I think the definition evolved and is now more along the lines of what GP describes.

by legendkillar Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:25 pm

Tenez GP had the definition down to a T

Very good insight with McEnroe. That summary brought a smile to my face and made me laugh "Crafty" Mac.

by Tenez Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:29 pm

legendkillar wrote:Tenez GP had the definition down to a T

What do you mean?

by legendkillar Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:34 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Tenez GP had the definition down to a T

What do you mean?

"A game based on avoiding mistakes"

I thought it was a superb definition. If their are other definitions out there, I would welcome them too.

by Tenez Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:37 pm

legendkillar wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Tenez GP had the definition down to a T

What do you mean?

"A game based on avoiding mistakes".

Yes, that's how I'd see it too but there is a case for calling percentage tennis those whacking the ball too (taking risk).

But Nadal defines it best. "Why take teh chance to hit a winner if only 60% when a few shots later that risk might be 85%"! Depressing!

by legendkillar Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:50 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Tenez GP had the definition down to a T

What do you mean?

"A game based on avoiding mistakes".

Yes, that's how I'd see it too but there is a case for calling percentage tennis those whacking the ball too (taking risk).

But Nadal defines it best. "Why take teh chance to hit a winner if only 60% when a few shots later that risk might be 85%"! Depressing!

Though I find the with higher risk taking it is about touch too. If a player feels that comfortable and has a great shot in their repertoire, I think percentage thinking goes out the window.

It is depressing when a player thinks that way, but also clever though because the concentration to maintain that disciplined mindset is to be admired even though I might add that morally isn't something that everyone respects or likes.

by Tenez Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:55 pm

legendkillar wrote:
It is depressing when a player thinks that way, but also clever though because the concentration to maintain that disciplined mindset is to be admired even though I might add that morally isn't something that everyone respects or likes.

"clever" as long as you have the stamina to run for ever. So you are as "smart" as your legs and lungs allow you to be. When faced with a player having more lungs and legs, those players don;t look very smart at all. It's a one way traffic.

by legendkillar Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:26 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
It is depressing when a player thinks that way, but also clever though because the concentration to maintain that disciplined mindset is to be admired even though I might add that morally isn't something that everyone respects or likes.

"clever" as long as you have the stamina to run for ever. So you are as "smart" as your legs and lungs allow you to be. When faced with a player having more lungs and legs, those players don;t look very smart at all. It's a one way traffic.

But I think 'knowing' your body's limit and what capacity you can perform to as much of a science as it seems is also being smart. Yes we saw one way traffic with Djokovic v Nadal in 2011, the fitness and stamina aside there were matches by where Djokovic had to take 'command' and play aggressively. I think Rome was the stand out peformance. The US Open final was an ugly affair because both players were physically spent. Nadal in the 4th looked like he had hit the wall. The crazy scheduling played a part in ensuring that the final was a 'survival of the fittest'

Nadal v Murray is the rare encounter that you see Nadal able to attack more because Murray will often than not play percentages all the way.

by banbrotam Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:56 pm

With one or two exceptions, i.e. Fed / Tsonga instead or Cilic and Roddick (a percentage player Laugh

now I've heard it all!!) give me this list any day of the week rather than the ball bashers "instinct" one Smile

I think it goes to show, that given that at least half the names are dubious on each list, that it's very hard to pigeon hole these players. I mean is Novak less of an instinct player than all those on that list?

by legendkillar Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:00 am

Well list your players!!!

Let's see your list instead of bitching like S_A

by Tenez Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:03 am

I don't see touch as being of great importance nowadays. No match is won thanks to touch. the ball comes too viloently nowadays to display touch shots too often.

Also to have "touch" one needs a very strong arm. Controlling a powerful ball and take the sting out of it to drop it delicately on th eother side of the net helps if your arm is strong enough to absorb that energy.

This is why guys like Becker and Kraji Pete and now Nadal (yes him) havea good touch around the net. Holding a tennis racquet like we hold a pingpong bat is essential.

McEnore, Nastase and Federer also had strong arms but they had on top lots of timing and feel too. That seperates them from the purely strong armed players.

by banbrotam Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:06 am

Tenez wrote:I certainly understand that definition of "percentage tennis". However the first time I heard of percentage tennis was in the mid 80s when crafty players like McEnroe who had learnt tennis with a wooden racquet where overpowered by essentially Serve Volleyers helped by bigger frames whacking the ball at first opportunity.

The bigger frame gave them the opportunity to "risk" hitting the ball very hard and get them easy free points because the chance (or percentage) of hitting winners was pretty good with the bigger frames. THat's what we called "percentage tennis" then. If your chance to hit a winner is over 50% each time you take a risk, it's worth taking the risk (percentage tennis). With small wooden racquets that "percentage tennis" was simply too risky, not worth it.

Which definition is correct? I don;t know. I think the definition evolved and is now more along the lines of what GP describes.

Tenez. You make a great point. It was the case in the 80's that percentage play was very much going for winners - now it's "instinct" so we are led to believe. But Fed (to a far lesser degree) suffers from what Mac suffered from a tendency to get outfoxed by a player just playing the percentages, so I suppose it is indeed correct to call Nadal and Murray percentage players

However, the definition has altered to such a degree to now become almost meaningless, fact is those who have a greater difference between winner and errors usually win the match. So is a, say, Tsonga 24-20 (winners to errors) match more pleasing to the eye than a Murray 20-5 one - given that the latter will have got lots of 'free points' by constructing errors of his opponent

by banbrotam Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:11 am

legendkillar wrote:Well list your players!!!

Let's see your list instead of bitching like S_A

Sorry, I am rather coming across like one of my fellow Bantam (Bradford City) fans, who always moan about what team the Manager has picked!!

I've just been a bit taken back, with what you and some others see as an instinctive player. To me Murray is also one, because he kind of smells opportunities and then acts upon them, i.e. like a hunter

by legendkillar Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:13 am

You mean your actually acknowledging evolution?

censored

I need a lie down.

Someone fan me quick.

by Guest Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:33 am

[quote="legendkillar"][quote="Tenez"]

legendkillar wrote: ... The US Open final was an ugly affair because both players were physically spent. Nadal in the 4th looked like he had hit the wall. The crazy scheduling played a part in ensuring that the final was a 'survival of the fittest' ...

Except at the US Open in 2011 they held the final on a Monday and the players had a full days rest after having played their semi-finals on the Saturday.

Those who view the increased "physical" element of the game as "spoiling" tennis, might argue that Djokovic and Nadal were "physically spent" because of their over reliance on this physical element. They might say that it was "unfortunate" that players such as Federer were unable to capitalise. They might say that this was due to the extra "recovery time" afforded to these more "physical" players (increased time between points and MTOs), which allows them to prolong their style of physical play, before completely collapsing. The "survival of the fittest" aspect of the US Open final would then be just "reaping what they had sowed".

by legendkillar Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:59 pm

[quote="Nore Staat"][quote="legendkillar"]

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote: ... The US Open final was an ugly affair because both players were physically spent. Nadal in the 4th looked like he had hit the wall. The crazy scheduling played a part in ensuring that the final was a 'survival of the fittest' ...
Except at the US Open in 2011 they held the final on a Monday and the players had a full days rest after having played their semi-finals on the Saturday.

Those who view the increased "physical" element of the game as "spoiling" tennis, might argue that Djokovic and Nadal were "physically spent" because of their over reliance on this physical element. They might say that it was "unfortunate" that players such as Federer were unable to capitalise. They might say that this was due to the extra "recovery time" afforded to these more "physical" players (increased time between points and MTOs), which allows them to prolong their style of physical play, before completely collapsing. The "survival of the fittest" aspect of the US Open final would then be just "reaping what they had sowed".

Indeed the Final finished on a Monday, but Nadal played on the 8th, 9th and 10th which was 3 matches over 3 days best of 5 and Djokovic played on the 7th and 8th which was 2 matches best of 5 over 2 days. Not making excuses for the guys, but that is a tall order for any player let alone Nadal and Djokovic. Despite the extra day they were granted and rightfully so, I think physically they would've been feeling it.

I would add that I am not so much complaining about the 'fitness' or 'stamina' side of it, but I think it is a real show of character when you are able to grind a result out when your body must be hurting after playing as many matches in quick succession.

by Tenez Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:09 pm

But Nadal's matches werequite easy up to the final. And Nadal had played very little matches since Wimbledon so he had plenty of rest compared to Djoko.

Nadal started the final in very fine form in fact and his exhaustion in that final was essentially down to the absurd running and hard hitting those 2 were inflicting to each other.

by legendkillar Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:15 pm

Aye indeed. The average strokes per rally in that final was 6.9.

The final wasn't a pretty affair. It was literally 2 players trying to bludgeon the other into submission.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:04 pm

Well I would leap Simon straight in at the top, followed by Benneteau/Ferrer.
As much as Murray is defensive he would always be the one to fire first against the 3 mentionede players.

by Tenez Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:08 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
As much as Murray is defensive he would always be the one to fire first against the 3 mentionede players.

Strange comment! And not true. Simon is pretty attacking. His shots are pretty flat and his FH is one of the flattest shot on the tour.

by legendkillar Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:13 pm

Simon of 2008 was devastating. Even Federer and Nadal found it a struggle against him. Injuries and just lack of desire have absolutely killed his game. He used to be able to switch defence to attack much quicker in rallies than a Murray or Nadal. Not so much of his game was emphasis on fitness as he was able to find the tramlines with ease.

by gallery play Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:31 pm

Simon has a devastating forehand but the crux of his game is unpredictability. Before every counterpunch he hits a couple (and a lot if he has to) of very safe shots. In percentages (survival per cent): he rallies at 90% and than goes for a 30-50% shot. Simon is a patient guy.

Looking at Djoko: his strength is that his "90%" shot is still pretty hard to attack, which is the reason he's the number 1. Murray hasn't found the balance yet, his safety shots are too easy to attack. I guess Lendl has something to say about that Smile

by Tenez Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:13 pm

gallery play wrote:Simon has a devastating forehand but the crux of his game is unpredictability. Before every counterpunch he hits a couple (and a lot if he has to) of very safe shots. In percentages (survival per cent): he rallies at 90% and than goes for a 30-50% shot. Simon is a patient guy.

Looking at Djoko: his strength is that his "90%" shot is still pretty hard to attack, which is the reason he's the number 1. Murray hasn't found the balance yet, his safety shots are too easy to attack. I guess Lendl has something to say about that

Spot on again!

by Sponsored content

Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages

Re: Current Top 10 Players Who Play by Percentages