new.livestream.com/ATP/Heilbronn2014CentreCourt

Martin takes the 1st set 6-3

Big hold from Kyle from 0-40

3-3*

Safe to say that Kyle wasn't at his best today. A few too many errors and really struggled on the return of serve. It should also be said that Martin played a very solid game and didn't give anything away.

stevemcqueen wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

stevemcqueen wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Very good set of tennis. Well done. Don't quite agree about the UEs towards the end (although the forehand dropshot was definitely poor)

But the other faults were the right ball, the right shot, and just missed by a bit. They wouldn't even count as UEs by most coaches scoring system.

Completely different from the off-balance wild swipes at the ball in the first set.

And now . . . .

---

 Yes they are UEs!  I'm not saying it was bad shot selection, but UEs all the same.

---

 

The ITF may count them as UEs; the ATP might or might not - the distinction between forced and unforced errors is subjective depending on each shot/rally.

But most top coaches think the definition is wrong. They use 'missed opportunity error' as more important. i.e. if you have an open line and a short ball and you play a good shot and miss by 6 inches, they will not put that as an unforced error (although ITF will)

However, if you have the same ball and hit a more conservative shot back in the court, there's no ITF-stlye UE but the coach will mark it as an error - a missed opportunity error (or whatever you want to call it).

So I agree they were UEs by the ITF system, I'm saying that most coaches think that system is unhelpful and don't use it and would have counted tons of UEs by James in the first set but not most of those ones towards the end int he second. After all, anyone can make no UEs,, but they'll end up making tons of Enforced errors (and watch clean winners go past).

---

 Sorry to be a pedant, but whether a player is being passive or aggressive, a point is  a point, an error is an error.  A UE is always a UE even if there are other metrics available.  A case in point is that last game

---

 

I know this is taking it way beyond most people's interest (!) but although an error is an error, an unforced error is not 'always' an unforced error. How are you defining unforced errors? As opposed to forced errors ? (Or any other type). It is a subjective assessment. A 'scorer' has to mark whether it is an unforced error based on their own assessment as to whether the player 'should' have made the shot.

IDS (stats company) working for most Grands slams and MSN are two major companies. They rarely agree, even when doing the same match. In fact, they're often out by quite a lot. Different scorers within each company will also be out with each other. Does one accept that a return of serve can never be an unforced error, as one of the scoring companies does but the other doesn't. Scoreboard operators for smaller events have even less clue, half the time.

The Wall Street Journal had a piece about it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2012/11/12/when-stats-dont-match-up/

There was also another better one that I can't find.

As Roger Federer says, the subjective nature of how to define an unforced error annoys most players as they think the markers don't know what they're doing and understand tennis. Coaches never use them (they do their own, of course, but it won;t be the same).

Women also often get marked as having more unforced errors but if you make the screen gender neutral, the scorers mark slightly differently, which is interesting.

I think an error on return of 2nd serve can most certainly be treated as unforced, but I agree it is so subjective and alot of times needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I also thought for some reason that aces and dfs were included as winners and unforced errors but apparently not.

I would like to congratulate you on what is a fantastic board, it's organisation updating etc.. are second to none (correct me if you wish ) as is the quality if discussion banter, over the last couple of yrs following it primarily as tool to monitoring Kyles progresss after bumping into him in Spain as an 18 yr old I have hardly seen any impolite or unpleasant comments generally just generous enthusiasm for the players progress regardless of their age level or potential. Love all types of sport not seen it any else. Now back to wildcards I think there is a place to award them to youngsters outside slam qualifying as they are discriminated against by process it is unusual to have 18 scoring events until you are 20-21 due to a comitment to junior slams etc... and you can't be two places at once regardless have how quick you are. How many teenagers in the top 200 in the world? rarely more than 1. The number of players in the top 100 in tge world is an irrelevant statistic to teenagers in fact there are very few under 22. Secondly slams are the pininicle of tennis and very few sports fans watch any other level of tennis, probably don't know qualifying exsists. It is essential young stars of the future are seen in their teens so the public in particularly youngsters can build a bond with them and tennis maintain its reputation as a sport that encourages youth. Stop it and there will be no young players in slams and Tennis will be what it always used tone a game for adults where children should be seen and not heard.