Data analyst Mike James: "We have to adapt to survive"
Mike James has been working as a data analyst for Iga Swiatek since the end of 2020. In an interview with tennisnet.com, the Brit talks about his job in the Pole's team, "nightmares" in tennis and his collaboration with Bidi Badu.
by Nikolaus Fink
last edit:
Aug 27, 2021, 02:35 pm
Mr. James, you are Iga Swiatek's data analyst. Can you briefly describe what exactly your tasks are?
I've been doing this full-time for five years. Before that, I was a tour coach. So I come from the trainer sector, but analytics was my passion even during this time. I took this road because I believe in it so much and it's not used enough in tennis when you compare it to other sports. It is definitely going in the right direction now. It's a good question how I am working with players. I think it's very independent of the player and his team. I like to go to tournaments whenever possible. This was of course a little more difficult due to the pandemic. I couldn't be at that many events, but I went to Wimbledon this year. Before that, I was on a training camp with Iga Swiatek in April. A normal week for me and my team would look like this: Take the week before the US Open. Everyone is there and we're basically waiting for the draw to come out. Then we see who our players are up against. We would then immediately check our database and see what information we have about the opponents. When we already have a lot, we create the scouting report. If this is not the case, we will find neat videos and code or tag the matches in order to integrate them into our database. The scouting report would then be created again. This is what a normal week looks like. If you are not there, the different time zones are a big challenge. We now have a five-hour time difference to New York. That’s okay. We have to get the job done when people get up in New York. Then we can talk to them about the opponents.
Besides Iga Swiatek, are there any other players you work for?
She is our figurehead at the moment. However, we have taken care of a large number of players in the past 18 months. We started with Stan Wawrinka and Magnus Norman, then Miomir Kecmanovic, Kyle Edmund and Qiang Wang were also there. Then of course there is Iga and a few other players who got in and out. We worked with Iga all year and it has been great. She is eighth in the world rankings and even in fifth place in the race. She's our main player.
You mentioned Wawrinka, among other players. Is there a difference between men and women when working as a data analyst?
That's a good question. From an analyst's point of view, there are definitely differences between women's and men's tennis. However, I would say that there are major differences in terms of physical constitution. Not much is said about that. When I work with John Isner, I'll have to deal with data and the style of play differently than I would with Diego Schwartzman. You have to adapt the analyzes and the scouting reports to the strengths and weaknesses of your player. I'll give an example: It doesn't make sense to want to implement the strengths of Wawrinka for Kecmanovic as well. Their playing styles and their skills are different. You have to adapt to your player! This is also the art of analytics.
If we look at Iga Swiatek: She won the French Open last year, but was eliminated in the quarter-finals this year - also due to an injury - against Maria Sakkari. Would you still say that you have improved from an analytical point of view? If so, in which areas?
If we just talk about the numbers, we see that she has jumped from 17th to seventh place. Now she is eighth. She won her first WTA 500 title in Adelaide in February and her first WTA1000 title in Rome. She is the only player who has made it into the fourth round in every Grand Slam tournament. The aim at the beginning of the year was to bring constancy. In women's tennis there have been many "one-slam-wonders" in recent years, which have disappeared again after the major victory. It was a priority for the team that Iga can be consistent and build on the past year. Her second serve was the second best on the tour until Wimbledon, her backhand down the line after serve is the best in the world. There are many areas, but I cannot reveal all of them. I know people read these articles. What is certain, however, is that it has been a great year so far in terms of consistency.
Was the aforementioned consistency also the reason why the cooperation between you and the Swiatek team came about?
Yeah, that was interesting. We started after winning the French Open. Her coach Piotr Sierzputowski - by the way, a great guy and one of the best and youngest coaches I've ever worked with - is very interested in data. He looks how he can help Iga on the practice courts. She was born in 2001 and recently turned 20. She's not finished yet. She won't peak for another three or four years. So there's a scary and exciting thing at the same time: She's not yet a complete player, even though she's already playing amazingly. But she can still work on many things on the practice courts, such as her agility and shotmaking. Through the analyzes we find these one to two percentage points within your game. I think the coaches like that.
# IMG2 #
Nevertheless, tennis is a very instinctive game. Can't you also cause damage through analysis? For example, when you give your player too much information.
I have to go into what I said before: It depends a lot on the person. You are absolutely right that tennis is very instinctive and that there are other areas - such as sports psychology - that can make a difference. But tennis is also a game in which patterns are repeated. Most of the time, these patterns are subconscious. Just remember, if you play tennis yourself, if you are under pressure, you are probably doing what you feel most comfortable with. When we feel pressure, we do things that we feel good about. We know that we will then probably make it, the ball lands in the court and we will be successful as a result. Therefore you can find this information and pass it on to your player. This works, for example, seven out of ten cases. You are absolutely right about the amount of information that is given to a player. Tennis is not a video game and you can't give a cheat sheet to beat your opponent. Some coaches only want a few video clips that last two or three minutes, while others want a full report of the upcoming opponent. But that is the job of the trainer. They know their player best and therefore also know whether to give one or four things with them on the way. For me it fits very well that there is still a buffer between the player and me. Namely the coach.
How much personal contact is there with Iga Swiatek then?
A lot is already happening with the coach. For example, when they sit in the players room, I get a message from Piotr that Iga would like to know something. She is very curious and intelligent. I like that. I would also describe her as a next-gen player. She grew up with technology, social media, and the internet. The previous generation with Rafa, Roger and Andy didn't have smartphones when they were young. People forget that. I think the analytics will be of greater benefit to players Iga's age and they will use this area even more than the previous generation.
When we look at other sports such as football, it feels like there have been analyzes for ages. It's rather new in tennis. How big can this influence be?
Honestly, I think detailed analysis will have a massive impact. Right now we're still scratching the surface in tennis. We still have different data providers at the top of the game. There are therefore different metrics for different tournaments. What does that mean? This means that there is not one large database of consistent information. Maybe that's why I have a job. People come to me and want the information gathered. For me, that might be an advantage. We are not only inconsistent with the data, but also with the interpretation. What is an unforced error, what is forced error? I also think we will be including data more on the court itself over the next five years. You can see that at the Next Gen Finals - there the players already have iPads, headphones and the opportunity to communicate with the coaches. You can also view the data in real time. That was also the case with the ATP Cup. There is the Strategy Room there. Not this year because of Corona, but I remember 2020 when Thomas Muster and the Austrian team - including Dominic and Wolfgang Thiem - analyzed the data in this room. I think tennis will go into this area more and more. In my opinion, that makes the whole thing more exciting for the fans. The last aspect is "wearable technology". At some point we will measure the heart rate - as is currently the case in football - and get even more information about fatigue, sweat and all these things. We are on this wave in tennis . That is exciting.
Now we know that tennis is a very traditional sport. In your opinion, are the fans ready for this change?
I would say we have to try these things out to get younger viewers excited. The next-gen format, in which there is the best-of-five format, only four games won per set and the deciding point, is a more attractive format for younger fans. The matches do not last longer than 90 minutes. We and the broadcasters have the problem in tennis that you have no idea when a game is going to take place. If Novak is said to be third on, it could take two, four or eight hours. It is a nightmare for broadcasters to promote it. And it's a nightmare for the fans too if they don't know when the best players are on the court. It's different in football: You can plan the day around a game and know that the game will last 90 minutes - perfect! I think tennis has to try that. I am also a traditionalist. I love white Wimbledon and the best-of-five format. However, we have to adapt to survive. It would be great to create more of this next-gen format.
You write on your website that you pay attention to more than 30 different aspects in your analysis. Can you give us a few examples?
We track everything when it comes to the serve and divide the service box into four different areas. We also look at where a service ends up if it is out. That might seem trivial, but on TV you only see the serves that are in the field. But also the surcharges which are out are of great value. We also look at the areas "Serve plus one" and "Return plus one". There you can see whether a player is offensive, neutral or defensive and what his position on the court is like with these shots. You can also see the tactical intention in this way. Much of the analysis deals with how a point is built. The style of play and the path that a player normally goes should thus be shown. Of course there is no such thing as one hundred percent security, but I think it gives the coaches and the players confidence to rely on when they are under pressure. At 4:4, 30:30 you have more self-confidence for a positive outcome.
# IMG3 #
So when Iga Swiatek has a big match, do you analyze her game and that of your opponent?
With Iga, we only look to her side of the net. We decided that at the beginning of the year. We're not scouting any opponents this year. That will probably only happen when she has established herself in the top ten and plays against Sabalenka, Osaka or Andreescu week after week. Right now we feel that she is developing her game and that it is more important to focus on her side of the net. To be honest, she's already world class with her skill set. If she plays well and does what she's supposed to do, she wins nine out of ten matches. If we look at men's tennis, Rafa, Roger, Andy, Novak and Stan influenced each other's careers. Novak has lost to Roger and Rafa in at least ten Grand Slam finals. Let's imagine if they didn't exist - he would have already won 30 Grand Slam tournaments. Andy Murray has won three major titles but has been in more than ten finals. If it hadn't been for Roger, Rafa and Novak, he too could have won ten or eleven titles. They have influenced each other's careers. So it has been incredibly important to their legacy to get into analysis and scouting for how to beat the others. It was a little different with the women. Now it seems that Ash Barty is a clear number one, followed by Osaka, Sabalenka, Iga and other players. There are the clear top five and behind them numerous players who are fighting for these positions.
So identifying the weaknesses of the players will become more and more important for Iga Swiatek in the course of her career?
Absolutely.
In addition to your work as an analyst, you also work with Bidi Badu. What is the aim of this collaboration?
Bidi Badu is a great brand. I love the clothes and think it's a very modern brand of tennis. For me, the goal is to work with a brand that embodies the next generation in tennis. We do Instagram takeovers and want to show what I'm doing. That was exciting during Wimbledon, for example, and then I'll be doing some cool, analytical blog posts for your website. For me it's a great collaboration. They are the most future-oriented tennis brand. I am happy and proud to be part of the Bidi Badu team.
How did the collaboration start?
I came to the team through a mutual friend. Before that, I worked for a well-known Italian brand. But I felt that Bidi Badu was going in the right direction. It's about how tennis and the future of tennis fans are seen. This is very important to me.
Thank you for the interview.