Isner vs Mahut finally ends at 70-68

Isner v Mahut: Game over, Isner wins 70-68, and a lot of potatoes

It's been over 24 hours since the longest game in history finally ended.  At one point, it seemed that we might still be playing into the second week of Wimbledon, but eventually, in the 138th match of an epic set, Mahut finally conceded a game on serve, and John Isner of the USA emerged victorious, in the longest match in tennis history.

The final set was in fact almost two hours longer than the previous longest match ever played.  It would come as no surprise to you to learn that John Isner paid for his 183 game marathon, and lost 6-0, 6-3, 6-2 to Thiemo de Bakker in the second round.

Yesterday I did a post describing some of the demands of playing a match this long.  This was picked up by the Washington Post, and they contacted me last night for some comments and ideas of the physiological demand.  But rather than repost all those thoughts, below is the graphic they drew based on my eventual assumptions, which you can see in its original format here.

A whole lot of potatoes...

One of the things I realized after is that one of the most amazing things about the match is the energy expenditure involved.  A tennis player would expect to burn between 11 and 15kCal per minute.  So, if we go for the middle ground, we assume 13 kCal per minute.  In a match where serving was do dominant, this could well be a slight over-estimate, but it'll do for assumption and illustration's sake.

Therefore, in 11 hours and 5 minutes, the energy burned would be around 8500 kCal.  How much is this?  Well, if someone like Isner, who weighs 110kg, were to run a marathon, he would burn approximately 4600 kCal.  So, his 11 hour tennis match came at the cost of almost two marathons.  Sure, it was "run" over 3 days in installments, but the numbers are extra-ordinary.

To give you an idea of just how amazing, three medium sized potatoes provide about 200 kCal, and so the Isner-Mahut match "cost" about 129 potatoes per player.  Or, if they prefer Coca-Cola as a source of fuel, then you're looking at 20 liters (about 5.3 gallons) of Coke to replace the energy.

This is conceptual, of course, it's intended to highlight just how much work is done playing tennis at that level for that long!  It also shows just how important nutrition would have been to recovery, both during change of ends and after the day's play.  Like Tour de France cyclists must eat to survive, Isner and Mahut would have had to get a lot of food down to replace their glycogen reserves!

As for dehydration - I've seen a few reports saying how "dangerous" this would be - it's not.  As long as players are able to drink to thirst, they're fine.  And with change of ends every five minutes, Isner and Mahut would have had plenty of chance to drink enough to stay perfectly hydrated.  The bigger problems were energy intake, and then muscle fatigue.

Muscle damage - can't stand the shock

One final point - the biggest demand in the match is the mechanical loading of the muscles.  This is because of the nature of the game.  About 4,500 changes of direction, 500 jumps and 2000 short, sharp accelerations and decelerations put significant load on muscles, and in particular, they require eccentric contractions.  These contractions cause muscle damage - microscopic tears in muscle fibres.  This is why players lose their speed and power after about 20-20 in the fifth, and this is why they look so sluggish playing.  For Isner, this would have been a big factor affecting him playing against de Bakker today - the worst muscle soreness comes about 48 to 72 hours after the exercise bout.  So today would be perhaps the worst day!

So Isner, not surprisingly, saw his Wimbledon campaign end in three very short sets against de Bakker.  He played the equivalent of five matches just to reach the second round, but had little chance of progressing.  However, his status in history, along with that of Nicolas Mahut, will remain forever.

Ross

Mahut v Isner, 59-59: An epic for the ages

"Game Mahut.  59 games all, final set"

Update:  The marathon match finally ended, the USA's John Isner claiming an extra-ordinary 70-68 victory in the fifth and final set.  Below is a post that was written at 59-59 in the fifth, when play was halted due to light on the second day.

The match will go down as one of the truly great sporting events, and one of the most amazing tennis matches played, simply because of the sheer length of the match (11 hours), the tenacity of the players to hold serve 68 consecutive times (69 for Isner, of course), and for the mind-blowing physiological challenge it would impose.

History will document the number of records broken by the epic.  It was also show that John Isner collapsed, as predicted, in his next match against Thiemo de Bakker, losing 6-0, 6-3, 6-2.  This is hardly surprising, and would have been expected given his efforts over 183 games against Mahut.  Some of the physiology is explained below.

The longest match ever played 

It was, simply, an extra-ordinary feat of consistency, big serving and willpower, in a match that eventually concluded after 11 hours and five minutes.  The scoreboard couldn't stand the pace - the picture to the right was taken at 47-47, and at 50-50, it went blank...

Not surprisingly, the match has seen all kinds of records broken:

• Longest match in history in terms of games played at 183 .  The previous record was 112 matches between Pancho Gonzales and and Charlie Pasarell in 1969.  And that was before the introduction of the tie-break in sets 1 to 4.  Post tie-breakers, the record was Andy Roddick's 21-19 win over Younes el Aynaoui in Australia in 2003.  That match had 83 games, which means Isner-Mahut is about to double it!
• Longest match in history in terms of time played - 11 hours 5 mintues.  In fact, the fifth set in the Isner-Mahut match is longer than any match ever played!  It's taken 8 hours 11 minutes to play, and the previous longest match ever played was 6 hours, 33 minutes long (Santoro vs Clement, French Open 2004)
• Most aces ever served.  It's not surprising, but given 59 services games in the final set alone, both players have easily surpassed the aces record, which stood at 78 to Ivo Karlovic in a Davis Cup match in 2009.  As it stands, Isner is the new record holder at 112 aces, and Mahut is on 103!
• A total of 980 points has been played.  I'm not 100% sure whether this is a record, but even a match with 100 games would be unlikely to see 900 points played - I would estimate that the number of points per game is 6.  So 980 points is likely to be a record.

Looking a bit more deeply into the stats, and if you watched the second night, the set hardly really looked like ending!  There were two moments - one at 33-32 (or something, I forget, it was so long ago) when Isner had two break points on Mahut's serve.  The Frenchman saved them, and it would take another 40-odd games before the next break points - this time to Mahut.  And then in the final game of the night, Mahut dug deep again to save a fourth match point.

On both occasions, brilliant serving rescued the situation and the match continued.  Isner in particular, produced remarkable serving, only because he looked so exhausted after about the 90th game that it seemed almost inconceivable that he could continue to survive.  Between points, Isner looked more like an Ironman triathlete having the worst day of his life than a tennis player, making almost statuesque movements as he seemed to stagger from one side of the court to the other.  But with the ball in hand, he smashed down unreturnable serves one after the other, and the quality of the play, given the occasion, was quite remarkable. 

Mahut's performance is no less amazing.  In fact, in many respects, it's quite astonishing - Mahut had to qualify for Wimbledon by playing three matches - the second one went to 24-22 in the fifth set!  And then the third went to five sets as well - he won it 6-4.  So Mahut has now played three consecutive five set matches.  And the third of them, well, it's the equivalent of about about 13 fifth sets!  And yet he continued to run with energy, making some amazing shots off the ground, in addition to his ever rising ace count.

The physiological demand of 10 hours of tennis?

I'm always curious about what the physiological demands are of sport and this type of match demands that kind of question!  Using GPS, it would be quite simple to get a handle on how many times a player changes direction, stops and then accelerates again, as well as distance covered.  Unfortunately, that is not done for tennis like it is for football (as we've seen in our 2010 WC coverage).  However, a couple of estimations/assumptions may give you an idea of why this would be interesting:

• With 980 points in the match, one might assume an average rally length of 2 shots per player (serving was dominant, so rallies would be short).  Two shots means four changes of direction, because a player must run to the ball, play the shot, and then return to court position.  
• The distance covered per point might then be about 10m.  So that gives us ± 4,400 changes of direction, and 10 km of running, much of which is sideways, and most of which consists of short accelerations to the ball, followed by rapid decelerations.  Add to this the walking between points, which is at least another 15m, and the total distance covered is closer to 30km.  
• That may not seem significant (if you come from an endurance sport background), but remember that each run is ended with a sudden stop, and an acceleration to return to good court position.  And, you're not moving forward in a straight line, but sideways.  So you're looking at about 2000 lateral "sprints" making up about 10km, by my assumptions.
• The deceleration is perhaps the most demanding part - stopping, and then driving off the same leg in the other direction imposes a significant challenge, which you can easily experience by going out and doing lateral runs over 5m for even 10 minutes
• Every serve is a jump - so that's 491 jumps for Mahut and 489 jumps for Isner.  They may be small, but each jump and landing comes at a cost and I can only imagine how tired their legs will be today.  The problem with jumping is that when landing, the muscle must perform an eccentric contraction, where it decelerations the body.  This type of contraction causes microscopic damage to the muscle, and this is ultimately responsible for the failure of muscle, which was so visibly demonstrated on the second night.  Also, Isner's sluggishness during his next match, a straight-sets loss to de Bakker, could be attributed to the muscle damage and recovery from this kind of jumping, combined with multiple decelerations.
• Then there's the significant matter of having to swing a racket through the ball at least 2000 times, and the upper body fatigue that this would cause.  All in all, an incredible challenge to sustain this for 10 hours.

Of course, these are assumptions, I'd love to have real data, but sadly, tennis doesn't seem to invite that kind of research (unless I'm missing something).  Then there is the mental pressure of being in what is really 'sudden death', particularly for Mahut, who is serving second. 

To be continued...

In any event, what was interesting is that when the match was eventually suspended for darkness, it was Isner who seemed most reluctant to leave.  He seemed to be moving more and more slowly, and John McEnroe suggested that he looked "delirious".  Mahut was saying he could no longer see the ball, and the match was suspended.  It resumes at 3.30pm today, and given how these things go, it might well go another 20 matches (or more), or it could be over in 2.

It may seem like an anticlimax, and to have finished last night in the gloom would have been a fitting end.  But nothing can take away from what is surely one of the greatest tests of mental, tactical and physical strength that we have seen.

And for the winner - a match against Thiemo de Bakker, later in the same day...

Sports news: Cancellara's "motor" and Nadal's title

"Fabian's motor" and Nadal back to number 1

I have two very short comments on some sports news for today.  First, on cycling, the big story was again cheating, but this time it was not doping, but rather an allegation made against Fabian Cancellara for using an electric motor during his wins earlier this year in Paris-Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders.

Cycling:  Cancellara and the electric motor allegation

For those who haven't yet heard of this, a brief account can be read here.  And the YouTube video which then went around showing how it could work can be viewed below.



I have been in transit, traveling between the UK and SA, and generally catching up on work missed while away, so I'm going to sit out this debate and rather provide you with the following links, for those who have followed the story but who haven't delved into it more deeply.

These are posts from the blog Cosy Beehive (I have no idea where the name comes from), which is a really good read for those interested in the technical side of the sport of cycling.  The writer, Ron, is a mechanical engineer, and also is a regular reader and poster here, and he has done some in-depth analysis of the allegations and the attack in question.  Here are the links:

• The initial allegations discussed and the mechanics and operation of the motor
• The anatomy of Cancellara's attack - calculating the power output in the attack in Paris-Roubaix, asking whether it is a reasonable power output

The second post in particular is interesting.  Ron calculates that Cancellara's power output during the decisive move of the race is about 1200 Watts, which is not unreasonable.  There may be some error in the methods, but overall, it seems sound to me and I'll agree with Ron on this one.

I'm not saying that this kind of electric motor couldn't be used, and certainly, now that the awareness has been raised, it should stay elevated, but overall, I think Ron deals with the issue well...(for now!)

Tennis:  Rafael Nadal wins in Paris and ascends to number 1

On the tennis courts of Paris, Rafael Nadal did what many expected, given that all year, he has been untouchable on the clay, and won his fifth French Open title.  Last year's shock exit to Robin Soderling in the 4th round was the sub-plot of a men's final that many would have expected to bring Nadal face-to-face with Roger Federer.

However, for the second year in a row, Soderling played the pantomime villian and denied that final when he produced an amazing, uninhibited display of tennis against Federer in the quarter-final.  The Swede tried to produce the same aggressive play in the final, but was too erratic and found Nadal a much more resilient "defender".  Nadal's depth of shot, particularly when defending, prevented Soderling from closing out points and in the end, it produced another pretty lop-sided result, Nadal winning 6-4, 6-2, 6-4.

Speaking of lopsided matches, it's been a while since a men's final at Roland Garros went to even four sets - 2007 was the last time, and since then, we had Nadal's crushing win over Federer in 2008, then Federer over Soderling last year, and now this result.  The actual contest was relatively tight until about mid-way through the second set.  Soderling had a fair share of break points, and while Nadal was already in control, Soderling's failure to convert a break point early in Set 2 was the point where the match went away.  It was the manner in which Nadal defended that break point that defined the match - side to side, on the defensive, playing full-stretch squash shots, before Soderling eventually hit a smash straight at Nadal, and three shots later, Nadal won the point at the net.  Defence turned into attack, and Soderling simply couldn't stay good enough for long enough to win important points.

The end result of it is that Nadal won every clay-court tournament he played in this season.  If memory serves me, he dropped only 3 sets in the four tournaments he won, and none at all in the French Open.  Amazing dominance, and considering that coming into the clay-court season he had not won a tournament in a year, Nadal is most definitely a revitalized force.

He also assumes the top spot in the World Rankings with the win, jumping Federer for his second stint at the top.  If he can continue to build on the  aggressive style of play, then the grass-court and hard-court seasons will be doubly intriguing, because Nadal barely featured in them last year, and given that the rankings rely on "defending" points earned in previous years, Nadal may stay at the pinnacle for a while longer.

A final point on the French Open - the coverage was superb, particularly the commentary.  Our feed in South Africa had Wally Masur, Fred Stolle and Mark Woodbridge covering the men's final today, and listening to them is a pleasure and an educational experience, for a number of reasons.  They're professional, and work well off one another.  They're knowledgeable - I actually feel like I'm learning about tennis when they're on.  They're humorous, but they know when to keep quiet and when to add insight.  And most of all, they don't commentate like fans, telling us over and over that "these men are amazing" and "what a great player" (We know - that's why they're in the final of one of the biggest, most competitive tennis tournaments in the world....)

Oh, and just on the Women's tournament - Schiavone of Italy produced a major shock by winning the tournament, defeating another major shock in Samatha Stosur, in the final of the debutants.  Stosur had beaten some massive names to reach the final - Henin, Serena Williams and Jankovic, but fell short in a competitive final.  I didn't watch any of the women's tournament, so my analysis is, well, non-existent.  All I know is that on the occasion I tried to watch, the screaming was so loud (Serena Williams, Sharapova stand out as prominent) that I opted to watch something else instead.  Grunting I can accept as part of the effort and release when hitting big shots.  But screaming - not needed and definitely not appealing.  Women's tennis might be enjoyable, but when players are screaming as though shot every time they hit a ball, I'll find another sport.  In the words of Martina Navratilova:  "[It] has reached an unacceptable level. It is cheating, pure and simple. It is time for something to be done."
Bring on Wimbledon.

And the Football World Cup (though it's unlikely the commentary will be as high quality).  The Science of Soccer series starts this week!

Ross

Sports news and sports science in the news

Sports variety – tennis insights, athletics anticipation and Caster Semenya viewpoints

It’s been a frantic few weeks in the world of sport. Sadly, our schedules have prevented us from doing it justice! I am now in the UK for two weeks, and likely to have as little time, but while I had a moment on a flight, I thought I’d recap on some of the bigger sports events of late, and some sports science/management issues that struck me.

Tennis – the red clay and Nadal back on top and finally, some analysis using technology

The clay-court tennis season is building to its usual Roland Garros climax, and it has been a return to 2008 in the men’s game. Rafael Nadal had a relatively poor season in 2009. His year began unraveling in Madrid last year, where he lost convincingly to Roger Federer before going on to lose for the first time ever in Paris. This year, there was to be no repeat, as he beat Federer in straight sets to win in Madrid, becoming the first man to win three consecutive Masters Series events (having won Monte Carlo and Rome earlier this year).

What I found most interesting was an analysis shown during the final using tennis’ Hawkeye system. It showed where Nadal’s groundstrokes were landing in Federer’s half of the court, and where Federer was standing when hitting his strokes in return. This is data that is obtained from the Hawkeye system, and it is an illustration of just how powerful this technology could be if it was used to enhance the viewing experience.

Alas, this was the only time I’ve seen such an analysis, and what it showed was a comparison of Nadal’s shot depth in 2009, when he was beaten by Federer, and 2010, when he won at the same event. To sum up, in 2009, 32% of Nadal’s shots were landing inside the service box. As a result of this lack of depth to Nadal’s shots, Federer was hitting most of his shots from on or inside the baseline. Jump to 2010, and only 18% of Nadal’s shots were landing inside the service area, and Federer was playing from 1m behind the baseline, and up to 3 m behind the baseline at least a third of the time.

Was this a difference caused by Nadal’s relative fitness levels (last year his knee problem was hampering his mobility and power), or was it that Federer was either more negative or off his game on the day? Nadal has certainly worked on his game – I often felt (guided by good commentary, I must admit) that Nadal had a problem of going for too much topspin, which tended to drag the ball down short. He also fell into defensive play easily, especially in pressure situations. This year, there has been a clear effort to play more directly and maintain the depth, and perhaps this is responsible for the shift in Sunday’s final.

You’d need more data to investigate this fully, but I found the analysis fascinating. I wish it were done more. I actually emailed the company Hawkeye last year to ask whether I could obtain some of the data, I offered to analyze it for them. They wrote back to say they don’t keep it. Which is clearly not true, given what they showed on Sunday. Their lack of vision of their own potential is tennis fans’ loss.

Athletics – Diamond league kicks off

On a more positive note regarding broadcast and sport, the Diamond League began in Doha last week, and the TV package was definitely improved. Shorter, fewer breaks, and very helpfully, real-time graphics showing who was in the groups of the middle-distance races made watching it more interesting. Particularly for those who don’t follow the sport, watching middle and long-distance events can be daunting, but to “personalize” the athletes, simply by flashing up graphics of where they are in the race at say 1,000m helps a great deal. It’s a simple thing, but hopefully a sign of more to come.

On the track, the action was hot. So were conditions – up above 30 degrees, but the performances didn’t seem too affected. Eliud Kipchoge produced a 12:51.21 over 5,000m, maybe the most impressive performance, given the heat. David Rudisha of Kenya continued to show impressive form, running a 1:43.00 in the 800m for men. On the other end of the distance spectrum, Asafa Powell was impressive in his heat (9.75s) and the final (9.81s with a very poor start) to win the men’s 100m. Powell was impressive, but I was struck by what I felt was a peculiar running style. He seemed to really be reaching out for the landing in front of him. Imagine a horse doing dressage and kicking out in front and you have the idea. Maybe Powell has analyzed Bolt’s 100m races, and noted that Bolt takes 41 steps while everyone else was taking 44, and he has developed a plan to increase his stride length! I’m being partly facetious here, but certainly Powell does seem to have changed something mechanically. His hamstring contraction at the end of the float phase and during the first moments of ground contact must be enormously powerful to the leg back before toe-off. Or am I alone in noticing this?

Powell’s performance was followed only 2 days later by a Tyson Gay 19.41 s world record in the rarely run 200m straight race in Manchester. Reports are that Gay ran the 100m from 50m to 150m of the race in 8.72 seconds, which is about as fast as Bolt when he broke the 150m record last year. Gay also broke 45 seconds for 400m recently, becoming the first man in history to crack 10 seconds for the 100m, 20 seconds for the 200m and 45 seconds over 400m, and he is clearly in great shape at the start of 2010.

The third member, and the most illustrious of this sprinting triumvirate, Usain Bolt, is in action tomorrow. He has already reportedly run a 8.79 s relay leg (reportedly) and so all three big guns seem ready to fire this year! Already, only a few weeks in, and 2010 is looking like a magnificent year for sprinting!

Caster Semenya – Tim Noakes’ view

On another athletics note, the Caster Semenya story is drifting slowly and mercilessly towards its own climax. First, Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, announced that results were certain to be released by the end of June (this was not news as much as it was confirmation of what has been said for a while now).

And then just this last weekend, Prof Tim Noakes, who I have the highest respect for as my PhD supervisor and now employer, was reported to have said that Semenya was the victim of an “image management campaign”, and that she should be allowed to compete since her advantage did not make her as fast as men.

He was quoted as saying “As many as eight intersex women may have been expelled from athletics in the past and I gather that they were warned that if they made a fuss, they would be exposed. So it seems it's not about athletic advantage, it's about keeping the Olympics free of unwanted complications. It sends the message that women must do what men say and if the eight athletes had to be sacrificed, so be it, which I find very disturbing,"

He goes on to say “My view is that Caster Semenya should be allowed to run. She is not running as fast as men nor is she running as fast as some other women. If she was running 1:41, then we would have a problem. There are some genetic variants allowed in sport. I would argue, for example, that Usain Bolt is genetically different. If these genetic variants are linked to gender, then so be it”.

I agree with Noakes on the image management issue and that athletes may have been threatened before. The management of the whole intersex issue has been an absolute disaster for sports authorities. There is without doubt an agenda to keep the image of the sport “clean” (whatever that means – it’s open to interpretation). Whether it is driven by male chauvinism, financial pressure, archaic thinking, I don’t know. I would say, somewhat in defence of the IAAF and IOC, that if they did not act, then they would undoubtedly face objections to Semenya’s participation, and many (possibly most) would come from women. So the IAAF, as the custodian of the sport, is in a difficult situation, where they have to act on behalf all parties, and from this perspective, it is very much about athletic advantage because that would be the basis for the challenges and complaints by others. As many would be unhappy with inaction as are currently unhappy, though for different reasons, which some will disregard as trivial.

As for the second issue, Semenya’s eligibility to compete, I have already written a great deal on this topic, in particular the argument that any genetic advantage that Semenya possesses is analogous to that possessed by an Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. To read that post, click here. My position is that the two are dissimilar because we don’t compete in categories of fast-twitch fiber or enzyme type or lung volume or foot size (or whatever you believe makes Bolt and Phelps the world record holders). We do however compete as males and females, and thus the distinction between the two should be defended. A genetic advantage that pushes an individual from one category into another is not the same as one which moves an individual up or down within the same category.

Consider basketball. People are largely born to play it, because if you’re 1.70m tall, your chances are slim. But we don’t compete in categories of height, and so within the “open population”, we accept that height is advantageous. If we had a category for under 1.70m, then the line would have be enforced, and a genetic “abnormality” causing someone to be tall would exclude them from competing at the lower level. The same goes for male and female.

So I respectfully disagree with the assertion that gender variants linked to gender are acceptable. And this is fine, because everyone is entitled to a position and I certainly don’t think that Prof Noakes is wrong. This is not a matter for which there is overwhelming proof (even the PIstorius controversy has mountains of proof compared to this). Nor is his opinion an isolated one – many will agree with it. I just don’t see the issue that way.

I also would not agree that there is no problem with her participating, just because she is running slower than 1:41 (which is the men’s record, by the way). My position here is that she runs against women, and so whether an advantage pushes her into the men’s range is irrelevant. The issue is that it pushes her out of the women’s range, and well into a higher percentile of men’s performance than women can achieve, without suspicious circumstances.

As for not running faster than some other women, if you look at the history of women’s 800m running, and you see some of the women who have run 1:54 or faster, you’ll appreciate that only women with massive amounts of testosterone (that is, dopers) get to those levels. I am sure Prof Noakes and I will debate this one in due course, and I look forward to it! We’ve discussed it before, and so I wasn’t surprised by the quotes, just as I’m sure he knows my views. This kind of debate is the fuel of research, after all. I suspect the difference in opinion is because I am coming from an athletics paradigm, where he is speaking from outside it. Nevertheless, an intriguing viewpoint.

Upcoming events

As I said upfront, I’m in London, with the SA Sevens team for the last two events of the International Rugby Board Sevens Series. At some point, when the science and sports world is a little quiet, I will look at the commercial failures of rugby to capitalize on the Sevens product, and what a shame it is that the Unions and the International body have failed to recognize that they posses rugby’s equivalent of 20-over cricket. It would revolutionize the game, but for the lack of desire and vision of those driving it forward commercially. Meanwhile, the 15-man version of rugby is suffering through a recession of interest and money, based on TV figures and financial reports, as clutter and competition detract from rugby’s following everywhere but in the UK and South Africa.

Failure to act may bring to those exactly what is deserved for inaction, but that is for another day, another post, on the management of sport.

There’s the FIFA 2010 World Cup to look forward to – 24 days to go, and much science to be discussed there. Plus, with the Diamond League now on the go, athletics will take centre stage!

Apologies again for the snippets today, but hopefully one of the three stones hits a bird!

Chat soon!

Ross

2010 crystal ball - year preview

2010 sport preview:  The Crystal Ball

We trust the second decade of this century has begun well for all of you, and that your new year's resolutions are still in tact!  So far, it has been a relatively quiet year in sport - there has already been a 2:08 marathon (Feyisa Lilesa of Kenya in China), and a few sports events have taken place around the world.  It seems as good a time as any to bring out the Science of Sport crystal ball, and also lay out what we'll be looking at covering on the site this year!

Tennis - an open season for the men, and a boost in interest for the women

Things hot up over the next few weeks - the Australian Open in Melbourne always produces great drama, and with Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and now Davydenko and Soderling all realistic title contenders, the men's tournament promises to be as hot as the weather conditions that often plagues the Aussie tournament!

Even the women's tournament holds some intrigue this year - I say "even" because in the last two or three years, women's tennis really has lost much of the excitement that comes from having big-name players challenging one another regularly with unpredictable outcomes.  The return of Kim Clijsters and now Justine Henin changes that, because you finally know that there are two, perhaps three women (if Maria Sharapova can stay injury-free) who can consistently produce world-class performances and challenge the Williams sisters over the course of a season.  It is a much needed boost for the women's game.

Some science of tennis is on the cards for the tournament, particularly if it is a hot one - there is some great research on pacing strategies in tennis, looking at how the temperature affects the game, and we'll bring you that discussion during the course of the tournament. 

Given how the men's game now has eight men who could beat one another on any day, 2010 will be the most open year since Federer began winning Grand Slam titles in 2003.  Federer was a name on just about everyone's list of the top 5 sports people of the 2000s, and deservedly so.  However, I have to wonder whether we didn't see dominance in the absence of any real competition during the period from about 2003 to 2006, when Rafael Nadal (aged only 20 back then) turned his attention to hard and grass-courts to go with his clay-court dominance.  Remember, the man who Federer most often kept from winning Grand Slam titles in that 3 year stretch was Andy Roddick, and with respect, he's not a name that many would put on a list of great champions.  Was Federer great or was the game at the time in a lull outside of his high standard?  The eternal debate, I guess.

So Federer's monopoly over tennis in the first half of the 2000s was gradually challenged, though his consistency - 22 consecutive semi-finals and at least one Grand Slam win each year since 2003 - has been perhaps his greatest achievement.  Look for the former streak to end in 2010 - at some point this year, Federer will fail to reach a Grand Slam semi-final.  The competition is now too deep, and the gap, once large, is now no longer existent.  In particular, Rafael Nadal will look to 2010 as a year of redemption, especially on the clay, where his 2009 fell away.  Reports from Qatar are that Nadal has worked on flatter, more aggressive ground-strokes to go with his heavy topspin, and if he can successfully implement that more aggressive game, he'll be nearly impossible to beat.  It should be a great year.  I pick Nadal to win 2 grand slams, Djokovic one (the US Open) and the fourth - at Wimbledon, anyone's guess.

Athletics - marathons, Diamond Leagues and world records

Athletics, and road-running, are our staple diet here at the Science of Sport, and so 2010 will feature a great deal of coverage, as always.  The big 5 marathons will be the focus, as always.  Starting with the Boston Marathon on April 18th, the marathon season should produce some amazing racing.  Again, the men's competition looks deeper and stronger than ever, with last year's record of 103 sub-2:10 performances likely to be challenged again.

Wanjiru, Kebede, Gebrselassie, Kibet, and I dare say, two or three names we've not heard of yet, are likely to produce the year's fireworks.  The first shot at a fast time comes in a few weeks in Dubai, where Gebrselassie always begins his year with the Dubai Marathon, his time-trial.  He has pushed for the world record in each of the last two years, and this year should be no different, but whether his aging body (he seems ageless, but surely at some point it must begin!) can produce another sub-2:04, even a 2:05 remains to be seen.  I feel he'll fall short, and then in Berlin, where it seems (for now) that the race against Wanjiru may well happen, we'll see his swansong in the marathon.

Then Boston features the American hopefuls Meb Keflezighi and Ryan Hall against the African contingent - the field is not confirmed just yet, but we'll cover it in detail as the race approaches.  London is the week after, and that's where the fireworks really fly.  Wanjiru, Kebede, and Martin Lel should all be there, looking for a fast time in what is always a race to boot.

Another name spoken of for that race is Zersenay Tadese.  He got burned by the distance in his 2009 debut, but 2010 provides a second chance and surely, with his 10km and half-marathon credentials, he cannot fail at the marathon again.  He may be the next big name over the distance.  It would be difficult to bet against Wanjiru in London, given how he has fared in his last three marathons.  But if Lel is healthy, that will be the race of the year.  Lel is also aging, and 2010 may be his last big year.  I'll pick Lel to win London, but Wanjiru to storm back and win in Berlin.  New York and Chicago - we'll look at those later in the year!  And the world record will survive the year - mid-2:04 will top the world lists.

The athletics season, meanwhile, sees the introduction of the IAAF Diamond League, which replaces the Golden League in 2010.  More high-profile meetings is not a bad thing, provided it ensures head-to-head matchups and races, which is what the sport requires to continue its growth.  Usain Bolt has put athletics right back on the map of public interest with his astonishing performances, but it's the races that the sport needs to sustain the interest - after all, world records cannot continue to fall every race.  Hopefully, the addition of more meetings doesn't spread the talent too thinly and prevent those races.  You can see the calendar of meetings here - the action kicks off in mid-May, and peaks in July, when the meetings come two a week.

The athletics season this year is "unencumbered" by any major international meetings, with the exception of the Commonwealth Games (more on this below).  The big global games this year are the Winter Olympics, in Vancouver, in February, but for the track and field athletes, the absence of a global games means more flexibility in the training and competitive season - no qualification championships, no periods off, no heats and finals, just racing.  That usually means more aggressive approaches to record attempts, particularly in the distance events, so that should be interesting to see.

However, I feel that the cupboard is pretty bare in the distance events, with Kenenisa Bekele so dominant, but I don't think up to the challenge of running 26:15 and 12:35 for 10,000 and 5,000m respectively.  He has stated that his intention is to break the 3,000m and 5,000m records, so perhaps he'll come to the season prepared for it, but I just feel they'll be out of reach.  Those records are now more than 5 years old, and getting back down to 12:35 range after spending 4 years running in the 12:50s is a mighty difficult challenge.  So I think 2010 may well fail to produce a world record.  Maybe the exception will be the 3,000m steeplechase.

In the sprints, it's all about whether Usain Bolt can continue to shine.  There's no reason why he won't, but to continue breaking world records in a year where there is no major final may be asking a little too much.  He'll probably scare the 200m record on more than one occasion, and should produce the most exciting moments of the year, but I would be surprised if we see more than one world record, at most, from the world's most famous athlete.  What will be fascinating will be the match-ups with Tyson Gay, assuming we get them.  Gay ran 9.69 in Shanghai at the end of 2009, and spent much of the season nursing a groin injury.  If fully recovered, he may be closer to Bolt than many think, and if Bolt is not quite at 100%, Gay may well take the win at least once this year.

On the women's side, Tirunesh Dibaba has a 2009 to forget, hampered by injury and poor form, and she'll be one to watch.  I'd pick her to bag a world record in the 5,000m, and be the dominant distance runner of 2010.  In the sprints, Carmelita Jeter ended 2009 running faster than any woman since Marion Jones (we all know how that ended), and it will be interesting to see if she can replicate that in 2010, against the usual combination of Carribean islanders, particularly Shelly-Ann Fraser from Jamaica.

The Commonwealth Games - finding meaning among the "what ifs"

The other big global event of the year (aside from the Winter Olympics) is the Commonwealth Games, in Delhi, in October.  The Commonwealth Games are always a little tricky to interpret or pin down, because in the absence of the USA, South America, Asia and most of Europe, they lack the depth and quality of performance in most events.  Yet they are still one of the largest multi-sports events in the world, and for the nations competing, remain a focal point of the calendar (though for different reasons).

There are some events where the quality is equal to that of the Olympics or World Cups - Rugby Sevens, for example, has long had the Commonwealth Games as its showpiece tournament, and with New Zealand, Fiji, England, Kenya, Australia, South Africa, and Samoa all competing with their strongest teams, the Commonwealth title at rugby sevens is equal in quality to the pinnacle of the sport.  The same cannot be said for track and field, or swimming.

The absence of the USA makes sprint events much weaker, and Jamaica tends to send second-tier sprinters (not sure if this will happen in 2010).  The field events, normally dominated by European nations, are considerably weaker, and the distance events have no Ethiopian threat, and Kenya tends to send its junior, second tier athletes.  For swimming, no USA, no China, no France or Japan or eastern European nations means much the same thing.

So October is likely to produce a confusing mixture of excitement and congratulations, but an empty feeling of "what if" for many medal winners, depending on the event (if looked at objectively - those who win always disagree).

Back in 2006, I analysed the performances that won Commonwealth medals (in Melbourne, 2006), and found that they were only 85% to 90% of the level that was required to win medals in the preceding Olympic Games (Athens, 2004).  In other words, you can produce an 85% effort and be Commonwealth champion (and that's two years later).  This was true for swimming and track and field.

What the Commonwealth Games CAN be is a great platform for Olympic preparation, and provided the coaches and sports administrators understand the context of performance, they are valuable as part of the process towards 2012.  However, those who decide they are world-beaters having beaten only the second level of competition miss this chance and end up falling further behind the rest of the world in subsequent years.

That should produce some discussion at the end of the year.

Football (or soccer, if you wish) - the World Cup comes to South Africa

And then finally, how can I not mention the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which happens right here in South Africa in June/July?  The biggest single sporting event on the planet, the World Cup will stop South Africa for a month.  Already, the buzz is huge, the country expectant and giddily optimistic.  I'm sure it will be a success - FIFA would not allow it not to be, to be honest, even if it means stage managing everything. 

Unfortunately, the global football year has gotten off to a terrible, tragic start, with the attack on a Togo team bus in Angola claiming the lives of two men linked to the team - an assistant coach and a spokesman.  The bus was traveling through Angola, where the African Cup of Nations takes place this month, when gunmen opened fire.  There were reports, now being denied, that Togo had withdrawn from the tournament (one can hardly blame them), and other teams questioning whether sport is worth that much risk.  It clearly is not, and the issue of safety in sport is going to be a big one in 2010, particularly around the Commonwealth Games, described above, in India.

Also unfortunately, many have asked questions of Africa's capabilities of hosting the World Cup as a result of this incident.  I must stress that this is a completely unrelated event, that while tragic, should have no bearing at all on South Africa's capacity to host the 2010 World Cup in June.  However, the local committee have had to respond and provide assurances as a result, and in a way, they are 'victims' of their own promotional campaign.

I heard a spokesman for the 2010 World Cup saying that he didn't understand why people were linking the events in Angola with South Africa.  The simple answer is that we've designed it that way - all the talk leading up to 2010 has been that South Africa is merely the stage, but the 2010 World Cup belongs to the African continent.  The organizing committee have been (too) quick to point out that this is Africa's time, Africa's tournament.  So, when the tragic events unfolded in Angola, it was inevitable that people would link them to South Africa - we basically told the world to do this in anticipation.  Sadly, the world listened.  Again, however, those events will have no bearing on the World Cup in SA.

The science of football - our focus

What will have a bearing, or at least, will be discussed, is the science of football performance, including the impact of altitude on football matches.  South Africa is one of the few countries in the world that can host high altitude sports events (2000m) only a few hours away from sea-level competition.  As a result, teams who play at the coast and then have a match at altitude have the eternal problem of how to adapt to the reduced air pressure and oxygen availability.

I am actually presenting on this topic at the ILSI International Conference on Nutrition and Hydration in Football, in Johannesburg in April this year.  My topic is Altitude and football, but the programme includes some well-known researchers in their fields, including Louise Burke (a reader of the site - thanks Louise - speaking on travel and performance), Ron Maughan, and Prof Tim Noakes (speaking on heat and football).  It should be very interesting and will hopefully throw up some great discussion which I'll cover here on the site.  There is a lot of science in football, ranging from injuries to performance to the physiology of elite football players, and given that the World Cup is right here, June will be a good time to cover some of that!

In closing - a very busy year

So that's only four sports to look forward to, with only their surfaces scratched.  There's also cycling, the Tour de France with Contador against Armstrong (which is much like 2009, except this year they'll race against each other, not fling accusations in the media and undermine team leadership on Twitter), plenty of doping I am sure, in all sports.

Doping is a guaranteed topic of discussion in sports, unfortunately.  Perhaps, for the first time, even in boxing, which, until Floyd Mayweather brought it up, had zero interest in doping control.  As someone who follows cycling and running, I find the argument over doing doping controls 14 days before a fight absolutely hilarious, and damaging to the sport.  Boxing should be ashamed of its policies if a request to implement WADA policies is met with such indignation, and all boxers and officials should ask how thousands of sportsmen subject themselves to testing the day of competition, in the middle of stage races, and accept it as part of the requirement to achieve clean competition.  I can only assume that clean competition has never been a concern for the sport.

In the interests of time, I'll stop there.  The crystal ball can't see that much anyway.  Tomorrow, I'll do a brief post just covering one or two ideas for series in 2010, topics of interest and science that can be applied to your training.  We're always looking to improve on our content and style of the site, and so we'll introduce some of that tomorrow.

Ross

Tennis humor: Djokovic vs Mac

Weekend tennis humor (and one thought on Semenya)

In among all this controversy over Caster Semenya, I thought I'd take a day off (well, kind of a day - I still have ONE comment to make at the bottom of this post, I promise it's one). And for the day off, here's a video I really enjoyed, of Novak Djokovic first imitating and then playing John McEnroe after his US Open victory against Radek Stepanek the other night.

I've not been a huge fan of Djokovic, mostly because he seems so petulant and has that annoying habit of reliance on his support box. But it's really great to see tennis players (any sports stars, for that matter), becoming entertainers to add value over and above what they do on court or on track.

We've seen with Usain Bolt that one man can add enormously to the entertainment value of a sport. Bolt has taken athletics to a new level of entertainment, and hopefully that persists beyond his career. He's already inspired many others to 'imitate', and then there was Berlino, and a great world Championships, and suddenly athletics seemed exciting!

So below is Djokovic, famous for his impersonations, giving a court-side interview, then an imitation of commentator John McEnroe, followed by a few rallies with the American legend. It's a good laugh, and a nice change from the somewhat heavier topics of recent times (if you're getting this in an email, click here to go to the site and view it there - it may take some download time if you're in South Africa)!



On court, the finals have been moved to Monday, thanks to a complete washout yesterday. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all still in, Nadal finding himself with the challenge of playing three matches in three days to finish, while battling abdominal injuries and doubts over a knee injury. It should produce an intriguing climax.

Caster Semenya brief thought

There is that brief thought on the Caster Semenya issue, but that is above, in a separate post!

Ross

Frence Open climax

One down, one to go for Fed

So Roger Federer made it (squeaked it) against del Potro yesterday, and now stands one match away from the title that it seemed might elude him in his glittering career.

Standing between him and that title is Robin Soderling, who rallied from an apparent slide to beat Fernando Gonzalez in his own five-set thriller. Soderling was all but buried, having led by two sets, he let slip the third and fourth and then found himself trailing 4-1 in the fifth before winning five games in a row to make his first final.

For Federer, I believe it was the best possible result. Can Soderling muster up any more great tennis, having already dismised Nadal, Davydenko and Gonzalez in such epic circumstances? I doubt it. For him, the achievement of reaching the final, by far his greatest achievement, changes the stakes. Also, I think Gonzalez had more weapons and might have beaten Federer, Soderling does not.

And so Federer has seen yet another (potentially) favourable outcome on the other side of the draw, as though the stars are lining up for him. I think, based on yesterday's match, that Federer will now feel that the worst is past, and he'll win the final comfortably...

Then again, perhaps the pressure will be too great, and he'll simply try too hard to finish what many expect, and what he wants so badly.

I gave my thoughts on the pressure in yesterday's post, so I won't do it again. I will however steer you towards another excellent piece that I read in the Times this morning... (this is the fallback plan when I find I haven't watched enough to post myself!)

One of the perks of spending the week in London is that I've been able to read some of the journalism here, which is just world-class compared to what we have in SA, sadly. OK, some of the writing is quite self-indulgent, and either overly hopeful or overly critical of English sport (depending on the occasion), but on the neutral topics, it's absolutely brilliant.

And this article, by Simon Barnes, is one such piece. It's a great read ahead of the Federer-Soderling match, and is the last word I'll leave you with before the men's match tomorrow.

The women's final

A cursory word on the women's final - I noted that earlier this week Serena Williams said that women's tennis is far more exciting than men's tennis, because of the personalities and characters involved.

Apparently, I've been watching the wrong version of the women's game, because I find women's tennis to be in something of a rut at the moment. Obviously, this is the marketing/management hat that I wear speaking, not the science, but I think women's tennis needs an injection of something to regain parity.

There was a time, perhaps 5 years ago, when it was the other way around. The men's game was completely dominated by Federer, Nadal's rise was only just beginning, and Murray, Djokovic and co were not nearly up to the challenge. We' d moved on from the Sampras-Agassi and Sampras-Courier rivalries, and the game had become a little boring.

In contrast, the women had the Williams sisters, Sharapova, two Belgians in Clijsters and Henin, Davenport and a mix of Russians who could win any tournament. Before that, diverse playing styles of Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis, Graf, Seles, and the Williams sisters created compelling viewing precisely because of the characters.

The situation is now different on both sides. While men's tennis is extra-ordinarily strong, with some of the greatest rivalries ever fuelling some of the greatest matches ever played (think Nadal-Verdasco in Aus, think Nadal-Federer in Aus and Wimbledon), there are no great rivalries in the women's game, and there seems to be a general lack of suspense.

There seems little consistency in the characters (who are the same as in previous years), because top players seem to be on a carousel of injury, recovery, retirement and loss of form. The overall hierarchy seems to have been flattened, the result being that new players can emerge, win big matches, and then disappear again. For example, name the Romanian who beat Jelena Jankovic this week in Paris? And will she feature again this year? I doubt it.

Speaking of, wasn't Jankovic a world number one once? Then again, so were Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic and now Dinara Safina. As I was saying, it's something of a carousel.

Now, some may say this is a sign of strength, and in a sense, it can be viewed positively. It means that there is great parity among the top 10 players. The trouble is, it doesn't lend itself to popularity and creation of affinty among spectators for recognizable, consistent performers.

The French Open final this year will be played between Dinara Safina and Svetlana Kuznetsova, world number 1 and world number 7. In the semi-finals, two relative unknowns were knocked out - Samantha Stosur and Dominika Cibulkova. The men's final, while featuring a player who was not expected to be there, also features one of the game's great players. Even the progress of the unknown Soderling has been marked with suspense, great matches, huge interest and drama. Women's matches rarely reach the heights of the men's game - finals are routinely won in straight sets in one-sided contests, the winner barely leaving third gear.

So Serena may feel the game is more popular, but I'm afraid she's either watching the wrong men's game, or has lost sight of what is possible for the women's.

So for the women's final, my interest levels are too low to even warrant a prediction. Hopefully Safina wins, as number 1, it would at least lend some credibility to the rankings.

Bring on the men

Ross

French Open history looms

Federer's big chance

At long last! A post!

Rugby 7s triumph - dissected soon

Apologies again for the lengthy absence - the IRB Sevens Series is now a thing of the past, and so I can't even use it as an excuse for not posting this week! However, I've spent much of the last week catching up on sleep, and had a few failed attempts at posting (call it writer's block) since the final tournament in Edinburgh last weekend!

The Series was duly wrapped up, for those not following the game, and South Africa won its first World Series title! I'm not going to allow the opportunity for a post or two on it to pass, don't worry - I'm just waiting until next week when I've had time to sift through the thoughts (and emotions) of the season's victory, so that I can post something objective and meaningful to those who perhaps don't follow the Sevens game closely! So that's on the way.

Roland Garros - history looms for Roger Federer

For today though, it's less a proper post than a short comment on the big sports happening of the weekend, the French Open.

I guiltily confess that I haven't been able to watch a single shot from Roland Garros, what with the rugby and the subsequent travels. So, my "expert" opinion is based on nothing more than what I have read or heard in news reports.

Pretty much everyone will know that Roger Federer has been given the greatest opportunity he'll ever have to claim the elusive clay court Grand Slam. Before the tournament began, those standing in his way included Novak Djokovic (this year's second best clay court player), Andy Murray, Fernando Verdasco, and of course, Rafael Nadal.

Twelve days in, and not a single one remains. It was Nadal's defeat, at the hands of Robin Soderling of Sweden, that sent shockwaves through the tennis world, since it was Nadal's first loss ever in the French Open. Not much time was spent dissecting that defeat, because attention immediately turned to the Swiss champion, who has, year after year, found a Spanish street-fighter from Mallorca standing between him and the career Grand Slam.

Semi-final, final, final, final, and four defeats must have created in Federer the perception that a brick wall stood between him and the title. That wall is now gone, courtesy Soderling, and Federer has two matches left to win the title many must have thought he never would.

Standing between Fed and the title are...

He plays del Potro in the semi-final, and then one of Fernando Gonzalez (hand of stone, for his big forehand) or Soderling in the final, and both are matches you'd expect him to win. Yet this is not quite the same Federer as in years past, and he stuttered past Haas and Mathieu earlier this week before finding form against Monfils in the quarter-finals. If he is anything close to his best, he should claim this one.

The problem, however is pressure. As I mentioned, nobody gave too much attention to dissecting Nadal's loss (which, by the way, I believe is the result of playing too much tennis, because Nadal's game at 95% is not effective. He starts leaving balls short, denying himself time and giving more time to the opponent. He needs to rethink his playing schedule, in my opinion)

In any event, the focus switched entirely to Federer's quest to win the tournament now that his nemesis was gone. Federer must surely recognize the magnitude of the moment, and while he is downplaying it, he will tackle these matches knowing that this opportunity may not come around again. That's not to say he won't win it, of course, but he'll be desperate to do it now.

And pressure does funny things to people. Here, I can relate a story from the SA Sevens triumph - we went into the England tournament well clear in the overall world series, and needed only 13 points to clinch the overall title. Yet the pressure was enormous, and deny it as much as we wished, it became a factor that very realistically affected performance.

The focus among elites in such situations is to stick to the routines, focus on small targets that have formed the foundation for success for so long, and don't allow the mind to drift onto the big picture, but this is very nearly impossible. Focus on each step, the small essentials that sum to produce performance, is the goal, but under pressure, it's very difficult to achieve.

That pressure, which for Federer must be even greater, is a key factor that will influence the outcome of the matches. Not only for him, but for those he plays against, because they will enter an arena loaded with meaning that is not normally present.

Some will rise to it, and raise their games, others will be weighed down by it. If Federer encounters a challenger who rises to the occasion, and plants doubt in his mind, it might unravel very easily. If he gets on top, and stays in the moment, then he could walk it comfortably, with the perception that "destiny in on his side". Either way, it could go quickly. My very brief exposure to a similar pressure is that rather than denying it exists, it should be embraced and channeled towards making sure that performance is not compromised. Time will tell how Federer handles it!

The good news (for me, anyway), is that I'll actually be able to watch the final, and so might even comment with a little more insight than the big picture come Sunday!

Enjoy the action, and join us soon! We should be back on track now!

Ross

P.S. For an excellent piece on the tennis, check out this article by Dan Nicholl of iafrica.com. One of the funniest sports writers around, he also knows a thing or two about sport

Sports News snippets

Bolt breaks the 150m world record, Nadal loses on clay

A short post today on some sports news from the weekend.

First, and perhaps most exciting, Usain Bolt, he of three world records in Beijing, the fastest man in the world, has added the 150m world record to his 100m and 200m world records, by blasting a 14.35 secs in a specially organized street race in Manchester yesterday.

For those who did NOT see the race, here is a video of Bolt destroying the field by 0.7 seconds (note the graphic at the end of the race says 14.36s - it was rounded down to 14.35s)



Despite cool temperatures, and a reported lack of fitness thanks to a few minor injuries sustained in a car-crash about a month ago, Bolt's first big showing on the world stage in 2009 lived up to the hype (Bolt's love of speed extends beyond the track, apparently. The Jamaican taxi drivers are reported to have a nickname for him - "lead-foot").

The 150m dissected - splits and projections

Bolt's running is anything but lead-footed. He ran the first 100m in 9.90 seconds, which is an extra-ordinary time and a sign of things to come. But even more amazing, the final 100m (from 50m to the finish line) were clocked in an astonishing 8.72 seconds! That is being reported, though it's so fast I'm almost sceptical. The splits, as recorded during the race, were:

• 50m - 5.64s (this compares to 5.50s in Beijing, by the way)
• 100m - 9.90s (a split of 4.26 s. In Beijing last year, Bolt's last 50m of his 100m was 4.19s, including the infamous celebrations)
• 150 - 14.35s (split of 4.45 s)

I have tried hard to find the analysis we did on Usain Bolt's 200m win in Beijing, because I am almost certain we looked at his splits from that race, but unfortunately I can't seem to find the post in question. However, I'm pretty sure his last 100m was not as quick as 8.72 seconds (it would mean his first 100m took 10.58 seconds, which is much too slow). But the last 100m can be misleading because of the different race distances, and so to me, the first 100m in 9.90 secs is more intriguing, because few others have produced that form so early in the season.

Bolt has said he can take the record down to 9.4 seconds - it's not exactly unusual for guys (especially sprinters) to make predictions about themselves (every sprinter worth his salt knocks a tenth of his time in order to hype himself up), but Bolt certainly has a lot to live up to, with hype and attention that has rarely been given to a track and field athlete.

Comparing races - what can be read into the 150m WR? Is Bolt already in WR shape for the 200m?

Much will no doubt be made of Bolt's time and what it means. The 8.72s is spectacular, for sure, but I believe the more telling stats are the 9.90 for the 100m, and also that second 50m interval at 4.26seconds, which is slightly slower than in his 100m final in Beijing (where he celebrated to lose time). Both splits are incredibly fast, but neither is quite up to the heights he reached in Beijing.

Therefore, when fellow athletes say he is already in 19.30 s shape in May, I believe they are incorrect, or getting carried away. Bolt is in awesome shape, yes, but he is 0.2 seconds/100m off the form he had in Beijing, so one should not become too eager to project times of sub-19 for the 200m just yet!

Also, it's not quite the same comparing this 150m race to a normal 200m race - distance counts a great deal at this speed - adding 33% to the race distance impacts on how it is paced. Also, bear in mind that this 150m time was achieved on a straight, without the hindrance of the bend, so any translation UP to 200m is slightly flawed (apart from the obvious distance increase). Finally, I must confess that I'm not 100% convinced about the track surface - remember this track was set up in the city especially for the race and I can't vouch for how it compares to a standard tartan track.

All these factors impact on the performance, and so I would caution against getting too carried away with the actual time in a rarely run event. However, Bolt is clearly carrying some awesome form into the season, and it augurs well for what might be a spectacular season.

So Bolt is back, his off-season antics and growing status as a off-track superstar clearly not slowing him down too much. Whatever your opinion of Bolt - his partying, his celebrations prior to finishing Olympic finals, his general approach to the sport - there is no doubt that he is very, very good for track and field. It has been a long time, perhaps never, that we've had an athlete who is able to garner so much attention OUTSIDE the sport's enthusiasts. Bolt transcends the sport, he is its biggest promotional tool, and hopefully, his on track form can continue to support his off-track persona!

Now, we just need Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay to step forward and turn this one-man entertainment vehicle into a great sporting rivalry, and then athletics will be the winner!

Nadal on clay - a rare defeat

Speaking of great rivalries, Roger Federer managed to turn around a losing streak of note against his great rival, Rafael Nadal, by winning the Madrid Masters Series event. For Federer to beat Nadal is rare enough - he'd lost their previous five finals. But to do so on clay is an enormous achievement for him.

However, before fans start to claim that the tide has turned and that Federer has regained his status as the man to beat, it must be pointed out that the last time Nadal lost a final on clay, it was to Federer, in Hamburg, and only a few weeks later, he went on to beat Federer in the final of the French Open. I suspect that the same may happen this year, only I'm not even sure that Federer will be the man to be beaten in that final.

I'd say the big favourite for the French Open remains Nadal - he's been beaten once all year on clay, but has played more matches than any other player. He played every single match of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and Madrid, and in the end, was a victim of his own schedule. Many are pointing to the epic semi-final he played against Djokovic on Saturday as the reason for the loss, but I think it can be traced to the whole season, not just one match.

Nadal looked tired, sluggish, and lacking his usual sharpness. He made more errors in each of his last four matches than he has made in some tournaments in the past, and generally was well below his best. I'd put him at about 70%. And in the last three matches in Madrid, he was, to be blunt, poor (by his standards). He plays too often, given his game, and if he wants to be around and winning two Grand Slams a year in five years' time, I think he'd be wise to curtail his other tournament appearances.

I think a week off, then the itinerary of matches in Paris, with a day off between matches, will see him much more difficult to beat, and I think he'll win the French Open comfortably.

The second favourite is not Federer, but Novak Djokovic, who I think would beat Federer 7 times out of 10 on clay. Second to Nadal twice this year, I think Djokovic is the form player, playing even better than Nadal (it's just that Nadal off form on clay still beats everyone on form). Then the third favourite, jointly, would be Verdasco and Federer. In fact, I'd even give it to Verdasco, because he is a left-hander and his natural top-spin forehand plays on the Federer-single-handed backhand.

So in my opinion, the battle for Paris will be fought between Nadal, Djokovic and Verdasco. Obviously, the draw makes a huge impact, because if Federer ends up on the same side of the draw as Djokovic and Verdasco, then there's very little chance he'll win it. If it's Nadal, then maybe, just maybe, they'll push the Spaniard hard enough that he finds Federer a challenge. I doubt it though...

That's it for today, just a news-type post, some opinion. Hope you enjoyed the video of Bolt, and we'll see how it sets up the rest of his season.

Ross

Australian Open Final analysis

Miracle in Melbourne: Epic victory for Nadal

Well, considering that I've now looked at tennis in my last two posts, it seemed appropriate to complete the analysis by discussing the Men's final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. So that was my plan all along, and then came the final...after witnessing the greatest Australian Open match between Nadal and Verdasco the other day, it was fitting that Australia would see its greatest final ever as well.

An epic, gigantic match between the game's two dominant players, and in the end it was Rafael Nadal who came out on top, though there were times during the match where he was hanging on by a tennis racquet string.

It took 4 hours and 23 minutes. It took Nadal's game-time over a 48 hour period to an astonishing 9 hours 37 minutes, but he took his first Grand Slam title on hard-courts and has now beaten Federer in their last three Grand Slam finals - the murder of Roland Garros, the epic "greatest game ever at Wimbledon", and now this. A bitter pill for Federer, but more on that later...

The warrior's main weapon in his mind

Much is made of Nadal's power, his speed, his dogged defence, his fighting spirit. And when you're playing your second five set match in three days, you need all that. But what commentators don't speak about is Nadal's intelligence.

Nadal is the world number one. There's no doubt about it, not anymore. And all those characteristics that you associate with Nadal are important to him. But in my opinion, the thing that makes him number one, the key, indispensable ingredient in his game is his intelligence and thought.

The following is quote from his coach and uncle, Toni, take from a Time Magazine article:

"Federer is too good. Rafael must play like himself, but better, less spin, quicker points." But how can federer be too good when Rafael is ranked No. 1? "There is a difference between who is better and who knows more," says Toni. "Better now is Rafael, he is No. 1 in the ranking. But who has the best game? Federer."

I find that an amazing quote, because it reveals a little about the thinking and planning that has gone into how a player with "inferior" ability has climbed to surpass the apparently better player. And yes, there's gamesmanship and there's the meaningless rhetoric we often hear from sports people, but this seems to me a genuine quote that implies that Nadal has worked out his strengths, Federer's weakness and he's gone about working out the game specifically to win. And that's intelligence.

Reading between the lines, what it says is that Federer is not as smart, and has not figured out how his superior game can be turned into a winning one. And then I remembered that way back in June of 2007, I did an analysis of the French Open Final where Nadal beat Federer for the second time.

It was quite clear back then that Federer hadn't really worked out a plan for Nadal back then. The big problem he has, of course, is that Nadal's bread and butter shot is the heavily topspun forehand which zones in on Federer's backhand. Federer has always tried hard to topspin it back, which is an incredibly difficult shot when the ball is often kicking up to at least shoulder height. Little has changed, and the dominating, posturing Federer who blew Del Potro and Roddick off the court was nowhere to be seen in this final, subdued by Nadal's smarter, heavier hitting and never-say-die attitude.

In today's final, it was interesting to notice that for the first two sets Nadal used the same tactic, and I'd estimate that 75% of his shots were hit to Federer's backhand. Federer actually coped remarkably well with it, though he was forced into fairly regular errors. Unfortunately, the official match statistics don't provide any clarity on this because they don't report how many of Federer's errors were off the backhand side. I'd estimate that Nadal earned himself about 40 points this way. Nadal won the first set with a break in the 12th game, and looked in total control at the start of the second set. But Federer is too good to just be blown away and he came back with his most dominant set of the match. At this stage, it was still Nadal's forehand vs Federer's backhand.

This was the pattern until about mid-way through the third set, which is when Nadal's body started to give him problems. He called for the trainer twice, for massages during changeovers, and said afterwards that he was starting to tighten up. The tournament organizers hopefully have received the message that you can't schedule the two semi-finals on different days - Nadal came into this match with 5 hours of tennis only 48 hours early. Federer had 72 hours to recover from a 3 set match. It was a crazy inequality, and only Nadal's fitness and a change in tactics midway through the third set saw him stay in the game until the end. Let's hope common sense changes the programme next year.

A change in tactics - beware the wounded

Mid-way through the third set, there was a noticeable change in the game, as Nadal started going for shots far more. It was a long-awaited shift in attitude, because Nadal had previously been sitting back and defending for his life. There was one game in particular, at 1-1 in the third set, where Nadal started to break the shackles of his own defensive mindedness. He was 40-0 down on Federer's serve, and the next two points, he really went for broke, winning both with winners. He still lost the game, but it was a defining moment, in my view, because it represented the emergence of Nadal's offensive side.

From that point, Nadal was far more aggressive. He went closer to the lines, his backhand cross-court was incredible, flat and direct, and it won him dozens of points either directly through winners or by forcing Federer about 4 m off court. It was that shot alone that kept him in the match, especially in that third set, which he won in a tie-break having been hanging on for dear life all the way through it. How Nadal won the set is beyond me - he saw off about 10 break points, and was surviving until the very last.

The fourth set went Federer's way in what was a wildly swinging match where the bookies' odds changed almost hourly, as though the two men were on opposite ends of a see-saw.

The fifth set - a one-sided anticlimax

Then came the fifth, and the most lopsided set of the whole match. I don't know whether perhaps Federer's resistance was finally broken, the result of Nadal's relentless hammering away at him. But he fell apart in the fifth, making 14 unforced errors, including a whole cluster of them in the fifth, sixth and eighth games. Those errors, especially on the forehand side, gave the victory to Nadal.

It was, ultimately, an anticlimax in the final set. Nadal won 16 out of 19 points on his own serve, Federer won 11 out of 24 on his. It was a set that stood out in this match where everything else had been so tight.

On victory (off a Federer forehand error), Nadal collapsed to the ground as he won his first hardcourt title. I still don't think he's figured out his best game on this surface - he needs to be more aggressive, cut angles down and flatten his own shots out more often, but he's improving all the time and now that he has one Slam, he looks a good bet to win more. He and coach Toni are reportedly working on this flatter, more aggressive game, and so it can only get better for Nadal.

As for Federer, anyone who saw the post-match presentations will know just what this defeat meant. It was astonishing to see such a "hardened" and experienced professional break down and this defeat will have hurt Federer like no other.

However, this is pro sport, where you earn victory and sympathy is in short-supply. And I just don't think that Federer has thought his game through and most especially, Nadal's. He may believe he didn't serve well enough (which is true), we may like to attribute the result to Nadal's fighting spirit, but ultimately, I believe this win comes down to mental strength, both in terms of Nadal's belief, but also his ability to change the game, to apply his skills, and to out-think (and out-execute) Roger Federer.

Unfortunately, it doesn't get better for Federer, because next up is the French Open, and Nadal's game needs no changing at all for the red clay - it's already perfect.

Ross

Tennis statistics and fandom

The epic semi-final: 5 hours 14 minutes, and a tale of the tape

Our mission here at The Science of Sport is to provide some level of insight and analysis into sports performance - an extra-ordinary view of "ordinary" sports action, if you will. But despite our efforts to remain impartial, distanced and objective when we analyse those sports, the content we cover is still inspired by the fact that we're fans - that's why running and cycling have received the bulk of our attention. I'm sure that motorsport is full of science, for example, but that's neither of our passion, so we let it slide!

But every once in a while, I'll allow myself the indulgence of a "fan post", which is to say, a post inspired more by enjoyment and less by science (though I try, if might be so presumptious as to suggest it, to write more than an adoring tribute to the athletes).

Last year in July, I almost did such a post, the day after Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer to win Wimbledon in what was without a doubt my highlight of the sporting year (beating even the Beijing Olympics and Bolt's 100m race), and one of the greatest sports moments I've ever seen. On that occasion, I resisted, mostly because I didn't have anything but an empty fan's opinion. Tonight, I decided to go ahead anyway...! Seriously though, there are some very interesting questions that arise when you dig a little deeper behind the stats and start asking questions about the result, which is partly what this post is about.

Rafael Nadal 6-7, 6-4, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4 in 314 minutes

The second men's semi-final in Australia was a classic - the longest match in Australian Open history at 5 hours 14 minutes, and the fourth longest Grand Slam match ever, it saw Rafael Nadal (eventually) defeat a swinging Fernando Verdasco to book a place in the final against Nadal. It was epic, full of excitement, some of the best rallies you'll ever see (two in particular stand out, both won by Nadal with outrageous shots). And it's certainly worth something of a deeper look, a look at the match statistics.

A statistical overview - what numbers tell us

A total of 385 points were played - Nadal won 193 of them, Verdasco won 192. The amazing stats don't stop there: Verdasco hit an incredible 95 clean winners compared to only 52 for Nadal. But, testament to the pattern of the game, Verdasco also made 76 unforced errors compared to only 25 for Nadal. The difference was therefore + 19 for Verdasco and + 27 for Nadal, which I guess could be argued was the difference between the two.

The number of winners and unforced errors is a pretty reliable indicator of who is making the play and how the points are developing. Given nothing more than those two numbers, it is usually possible to guess what transpired. To a certain extent, that was true of the Nadal-Verdasco clash.

For long periods, Nadal was ploughing a trench about 3 m behind the baseline, as he raced from side to side chasing down Verdasco's strokes. The high risk game of Verdasco inevitably resulted in frequent errors, and Nadal was able to survive for long periods thanks to brilliant defense and the occasional slip up from Verdasco.

Would Verdasco have been more successful had he adopted a slightly more cautious approach? That's the question. I suspect not, though the temptation exists to say that a player like Federer will not miss some of the crucial shots that Verdasco did, and will put Nadal away. But then again, Federer might never get into those situations to begin with - has Nadal ever conceded 95 clean winners in a match?

Where do players win their points? What the numbers miss

However, there has to be more to it than winners and unforced errors. If you do the math, you'll work out that for Nadal, 128 of his 193 points came thanks to those winners and unforced errors (52 and 76, respectively). That leaves 65 points unaccounted for. Four of them came from double faults (the aces are included as winners, by the way). That still leaves 61 points not measured in the official statistics.

It's similar for Verdasco. He won 192 points, with 95 of them coming from his winners, 25 from Nadal's errors, and 3 from Nadal double faults. That means that he's "missing" 69 points.

Those points, of course, come from "forced errors", and that's one thing the official match stats don't capture. They don't tell you that Nadal won 61 points by forcing errors from Verdasco through his heavily weighted topspin shots, or that Verdasco won 69 points that came off forced Nadal errors and were often strokes that other players would not have reached, such is the ability of Nadal to cover the court and defend.

The importance of timing - stats need to prioritize big points

But more than this, what stats don't say is how players respond in pressure situations. The most telling fact of all in the Nadal-Verdasco match, in my opinion, is the enormous difference between the two in terms of break points created. Nadal had 20 break points in the match, Verdasco had only 4.

Nadal managed to convert on only 4 out of 20 (20%), and that was the reason for the epic match. Had Verdasco not performed so well on the major points, the match would have been over far far sooner. Nadal was, for much of the match, in control, and particularly in the fourth and fifth set, he never looked in trouble on his own serve, but put all the pressure on Verdasco.

In the match stats, you can tell this because Verdasco made 212 serves, Nadal 173. That means that 39 more points were played on the Verdasco serve than Nadal's, and this is symptomatic of who was under pressure while serving. In the fifth set alone, Nadal created 8 break point chances, while Verdasco did not see a single one. Watching the game was exciting, but I did not ever really get the feeling that Nadal was behind - he couldn't close it out, but he "felt" in control, and this was the reason.

The important, and missing statistic then, is decision-making and execution on decisive points. It would be great to see a stat of rally lengths on break-point, because then you'd see that Verdasco survived thanks to a host of two stroke rallies - his serve and an error from Nadal in response.

Tennis misses a trick

Unfortunately, tennis doesn't seem to provide those stats. The other stats I'd really like to see are game analysis statistics. In sports like soccer and rugby, performance analysis is now commonplace, and teams analyse opponents' strength and weaknesses. I'm sure the same happens in tennis, but tennis seems such a great candidate for more in-depth analysis for TV coverage. For example, I'd love to see a graphic of where Nadal is on the court when he hits the ball. You'll find that 80% of the time, he's about 3m behind the baseline. Verdasco was probably 1 m INSIDE it.

And that was a telling strategic difference - Nadal was hanging on, defending for his life, and only his ability to defend pulled him through. He needs to be more aggressive, gain the ascendancy earlier in the rally and take the initiative if he is to beat Federer. Nadal looks vulnerable every time he plays a big hitter, because he camps behind the baseline, drops too many balls short, and all it takes is a consistent performance by the opponent and he struggles, as he did last year against Andy Murray and Gilles Simon.

I've actually just emailed Hawkeye (the company that provide a lot of these graphics and stats) and asked them how I might obtain some of this information, because it would make a fascinating analysis. Where do players stand when receiving? What is the average speed of their shots, and where do they tend to hit them? Tennis really does lend itself to this, I'm very surprised that no one is jumping on it to help explain the game for TV viewers...

Looking ahead to the final

So the final will be a rematch of the Wimbledon epic. I must confess that unless Nadal changes his strategy and steps forward into the court more, he's going to lose to Federer - you can't run around 3 m behind the baseline and win all your matches. Also, Nadal has one fewer day to recover from a 5 hour marathon than Federer, who played in a 3 hour semi-final. It's actually ridiculous that they don't play the semi-finals on the same day, like at Wimbledon...

In Nadal's favour is that his forehand tends to pick out Federer's backhand (it's easier to hit cross-court, both mechanically and because it's usually over the lower part of the net), and with the spin, that works in his favour. Federer also does not seem the type to play the kind of match Verdasco did today. So the final should be a different type of match. Nadal will need it to be - he can't keep sitting back and defending his way to victory...

Enjoy

Ross

P.S. For our American readers who don't follow tennis (well done for reading this far!), I hope you enjoy the SuperBowl!