Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: General tennis statistics etc.


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38385
Date:
General tennis statistics etc.


Here is what Jeff had to say

Hi Jon,

I'm looking forward to checking out that documentary -- it's not available outside of the UK (as far as I know), but I'll get my hands on it somehow.

I don't think i've looked specifically at the first point of the tiebreak. The important distinction to make is that winning the first point definitely *does* increase your odds of winning the tiebreak, for the very boring reason that winning a point gets you closer to 7 than the other guy. What commentators (or whoever makes this claim) usually mean, though, is something else. Say two players are evenly matched, each one has a 50% chance of winning the tiebreak. If the server wins the first point, say his chance goes up to 55%, just based on math, because 1-0 is better than 0-1. When someone says that the first point really matters, they mean that the player's *actual* probability is greater than 55%, because of momentum, or confidence, or whatever.

I did look at something similar for the first point of games, and found that there was no special advantage (beyond the literal advantage of going up 15-0):
www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2015/09/15/how-important-is-the-first-point-of-each-game/

And another one that is somewhat related, about going into the tiebreak change of ends 4-2 instead of 3-3:
www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2015/10/16/the-dreaded-deficit-at-the-tiebreak-change-of-ends/

So, I strongly suspect the same is true for the first point of a tiebreak, though I haven't proved the specific case.

Best,
Jeff


__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38385
Date:

So, in essence, it makes no difference really - winning the first point of a tie breaker other than the obvious point that winning the first point is advantageous because youve won the first point and therefore are ahead.

It suggests that, if Jeff had run the stats on this, the person winning the first point of a tie breaker would have statistically better chances of winning the tie break

But his last comment in the article is interesting: maybe momentum is part of the answer here and how you go into the tiebreak is more important than which points you specifically win in it

Jeff wrote : "Theres nothing special about the first change of ends, and there probably isnt any other point in a tiebreak that is more crucial than the model suggests. Instead, weve discovered that underdogs have a slightly better chance of coming back than their paper probabilities indicate. I suspect were seeing the effect of front-runners getting tight and underdogs swinging more freelyan aspect of tenniss conventional wisdom that has much more to recommend itself than the idea of a magic score after the first six points of a tiebreak."

__________________


Satellite level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1434
Date:

Thank you to Strongbow, JonH and Jeff for replies.   Enjoyed reading Jeffs article - love a nerdy fact or two. So it seems more down to the mental side of tennis than tb points at certain points in the game.

 



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

I strongly suspect that Jeff is right

I did a second snapshot Sunday which is very different from the first

tb02.jpg



Attachments
__________________


Satellite level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1434
Date:

Thanks Strongbow, yes very different to the first snapshot. Reflects the need for big data?
Have been following recent matches with interest (so far n of 1), George L won first point in the tb, lost the set and then the match which ties in with Jeffs comments.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39913
Date:

Elegant Point wrote:

Thanks Strongbow, yes very different to the first snapshot. Reflects the need for big data?
Have been following recent matches with interest (so far n of 1), George L won first point in the tb, lost the set and then the match which ties in with Jeffs comments.


 Yes, interesting as a subject. But these ( and still the combined one ) are far too small samples to conclude much about anything.

Proper 'big data' would be interesting.

The momentum question Jeff raises is fascinating, and whether the particular nature of the normally pretty. crucial TB would bring different dynamics to what he has seen in his normal game 15-0 studies ( already different anyway of course in that the TB has alternating aerves ).

Does winning that first point give such momentum so as to be more likely to win the TB than just the fact that the player is 1-0 up? Or maybe the other player becomes more determined and it is actually less likely than might be expected?

The more I think about it all though, the more yes the need for really big data, such are the margins, to separate out the different factors.

Then could add in ( or maybe rather more interestingly, sepetate out ) - what if it's a 1-0 lead as the result of a mini break? 



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

t2123w25.jpgt2123w25a.jpg

Figures up to week 25 - thanks to Indy for collrcting the data.

 



Attachments
__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

Don't think wee'll see any improvement over the next 2 weeks but the women are flying. Only 360 points to gain for July and August. biggrin



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38385
Date:

Some may find this interesting

www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2023/06/29/surface-speed-convergence-revisited/

Jeff Sackmann has several times tried to analyse differences in surface speed, in the past he has used aces as a proxy for surface speed - ie grass will have more aces for any given player than , say, clay. More aces overall, but Jeff looks at it based on a given players expected ace count and how that varies on different surfaces.

Anyway, here is using rally length to see if surfaces have converged.

The evidence suggests that yes, they have, possibly but that there is probably more to it than that ie technology of racquets etc has caused a change in tennis playing style (more baseline less serve and volley) that has possibly also led to a convergence in rally length on different surfaces. SO surfaces are playing in a more homogenised fashion, suggesting surface speeds may have converged, but that this might not be the whole story to explain it - tactics due to technology is also part of it

Interesting read and Jeff has loads more general tennis stats for those interested in such stuff

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

wtop10c.jpg

Points include Wimbly qualies - Live rankings do not.



Attachments
__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

 

Given that there are no new rankings this weekend here are some graphs of the top tennis nations - and why they are there.

SNw0307a.jpg
The USA are, more or less, equal with CZE and *** until player 9.
 



-- Edited by Strongbow on Wednesday 5th of July 2023 01:36:11 PM

Attachments
__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

t2123w25b.jpg



-- Edited by Strongbow on Wednesday 5th of July 2023 01:42:17 PM

Attachments
__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

SNw0307c.jpg



-- Edited by Strongbow on Wednesday 5th of July 2023 01:53:51 PM

Attachments
__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

SNw0307d.jpg



-- Edited by Strongbow on Wednesday 5th of July 2023 01:55:41 PM

Attachments
__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6453
Date:

SNm0307a.jpg



Attachments
__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  >  Last»  | Page of 7  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard