As someone hugely interested in tennis,  and having been very interested in and studied statistics at university level, it is probably not surprising that I am very interested in the general statistics of tennis and within particular matches.

I therefore had a look at this blog with some interest.

I have to admit that personally the general analysis being done there leaves me rather cold, it is just too much and seems to me much more about the analytical techniques ( which I am sure to some will be very interesting and they may want to know more ) than ultimately about the heart and soul of a tennis match and the players within.  Than about the fluctuating nerve and confidence levels, than about the personal history and falabilties of the players, indeed than about the weather ( which was mentioned in passing as a possible complicating issue ).

I felt it almost distances itself from the sport itself and I have doubts as to its use even for the professional coaches etc within tennis.  I say this because I am not convinced that within all the finery there is really practically much that can really ultimately be learned to improve the tennis player. To me, very much a case of risking being left unable to see the forest for the trees. I am left unclear as to the ultimate purpose of all this   Or is it all very much to do with fascination in the analysis than analysis to any ultimate purpose ?

To me, re the basic statistical analyis of how an important match has gone, I probably would like to know more than the basic say Slam stats give, but the basic info I'd say does tell a lot. if you've also seen the match with your own eyes, then little more needs added for me ( nor I feel for the players and coaches ).

Anyway, clearly some very clever analytical stuff going on there, but from the sporting point of view for me, as opposed to analytical exercises, way too much, to the extent that as I say it honestly left me cold.

All the best though with your endeavours, and thanks for pointing us to your information.