Coup Droit wrote:

---

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

Incomplete games at slams 1995-2004 (men)

Wimbledon 2%
Australian Open 3.1%
French 3.6%
US Open 4.3%

Definitely work to be done, admittedly old data and there are many other data sets one would want to look at but those are very significant differences between hard and grass with hard appearing to hurt the players.

---

 

Not sure that means that hard hurts the players. There are other ways of interpreting it.

After all, the Aussie Open (hard) has less retirements than the French (clay).

The peak for the US Open could be down to weather (how hot and humid it sometimes/often is in New York now).

Or to the timing in the calendar and that the US Open is the back end of the season.

Grass has the quickest matches (and usually pretty cool conditions in London) so you would expect those to be slightly 'easier' - less problems with cramping etc. 

---

The Australian Open changed from grass to hard in 1988, players were playing less tennis prior to that but again there is a significant difference in the number of incomplete matches, of course many of the confounding factors that you allude to are eliminated as for the most part, same tournament same conditions, same country, same time of year. It would also control for the other points Indi referred to in a subsequent post although given relative timing of tournaments consistent change in surface between slams to have the highest incomplete game rate (4th) after the lowest (3rd) is difficult to reconcile in any other way but that surface at GS 3 contributes to less injuries when the difference is so big and the data sets reasonably large when looked at by decade.

A smaller but again decent sized data set for 1978-1982, both Wimbledon and the Aussie Open played on gods own surface! 

wimbledon 0.2% (2.0%)

Australian 0.8%   (3.1%)

French  1.2%.     (3.6%)

US Open   2%     (4.2%)

Much more tennis is now played through out the year a significant proportion of which is on hard, others may disagree but for me when I play (and I run around a lot with little effect) I feel really beaten up in my hips, knees and ankles on hard, less so on European clay, right (as rain) on grass and could play for ever on American green clay. 

indiana wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

I know we are now halfway through R2 but I did mention that I had been tabulating the ages of the 64 players through to R2 and the results are :

18 & 19 : 3 ( Shapovalov, Fritz and Rublev )
20 to 23 : 9 ( includes two 22 yos - Cam and Kyle )
24 to 27 : 13
28 to 31: 23
32 to 35 : 15 ( includes four 35 yos )
36 : 1 ( Federer )

The 24 to 27s had a pretty late relative surge but still just over the total 23 and under, just over half of these 28 to 31 and less than these 32 to 35.

For info the year to years splits from 18 to 36 were :
1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 6, 3, 5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 1

The 9 is for age 28, which was the median age. 34 were aged 28 or less, 30 aged 29 or more.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 31st of August 2017 04:40:43 PM

---

For all some of the younger players' results the overall profile of the last 32 is probably even a bit older. Although the 32-35 group lost most of its number 3 of the remaining 5 are aged 35, the Fed group kept 100% of its number and the big 28-31 group had a good round. And the much maligned ( by me anyway ) 24-27 group dropped to 5.

Last 32:

18 to 19: 2 ( Shapovalov, Rublev )

20 to 23 : 4 ( Coric, Edmund, Pouille, Thiem )

24 to 27 : 5 ( Dzumhur, Schwartzman, Carreno-Busta, Goffin, Albot )

28 to 31 : 15 ( the rest )

32 to 35 : 5 ( Isner, Kohlschreiber, Mahut, Lorenzi, Lopez )

36 : 1 ( Federer )

 

The biggest single age block remains the 28 yos with now 5 remaining. And that means 16 aged up to and including 28 and 16 aged 29 and older.

 

The L16 are pretty much spread through the ages although the 28-31 group, while losing most of its players in R3, is still clearly the biggest. No single age retained more than the 2 players of 23, 26 , 28 and 31 yo. 28 was again the median age with 7 younger and 7 older.

18 to 19 : 2 ( Shapovalov, Rublev )

20 to 23 : 2 ( Pouille, Thiem )

24 to 27 : 3 ( Schwartzman, Carreno Busta, Goffin )

28 to 31 : 6 ( Dolgoplov, Del Potro, Querrey, M Zverev, Nadal, Anderson )

32 to 35 : 2 ( Kohlschreiber, Lorenzi )

36 : Federer

I don't see PCB as understated but again suffer a bit of BiS bias having also seen him in his decimation of the Spanish futures tour in 2013.

Admittedly he didn't have Denis's flying start as a teenager and Denis flying but that was more about getting injured and missing most of 2012 for back surgery. It took Andy 18 months to get back to his best after spinal surgery, PCB essentially started again 2013 and has shown real grit over the last couple of years grinding his way up the top 50.

Coming back before you have started implies a mental toughness likely to see you through when all things are equal. I think that sets him apart from the other 24-26 year olds. He put Kyle away with a minimum amount of fuss in the AO. In the commentary there was a suggestion that he was a bit better version of Ferrer, if so he is going to be around the top 10 for the next 5 years or so.

Schwartzman has indeed beaten Pouille and joins PCB in the last 8. Anderson disposing of Lorenzi at the moment. Hope he continues that and plays Mischa Zverev in the last 8. I think it was the Telegraph yesterday suggested That as the last 8 in the lower half and non commitally backed Schwartzman to get to the final although it may have been another paper to be frank!

I personally think its great for tennis that somebody different and not expected is going to make the final. All this talk about challenger players is a load of s**t its just that we have been spoilt with the quality of the top guys.

Let's see how the top half pans out but it's pretty exciting if you are a fan of tennis seeing the likes of Rublev, Shapovalov burst onto the scene and PCB and Thieme develop into real the deal. Much more fun that watching a procession to the top.