Wimbledon

[doctorhl]

If I can leave out the part about "not especially well rounded", my point was about there being very little between the top players, so if one has that tiny point and can get to it repeatedly, they can differentiate themselves. I can find the examples in other sports. Tennis seems more difficult. And the other sports I mentioned actually measure these things and share that information with fans, something tennis does not. I would not have known Harden was the fastest at stopping in the NBA if its own data didn't show that. Ditto the new NFL tests that measure how fast players can visually recognize outliers in a group of objects extremely rapidly - and that top quarterbacks measure highly at that.

But I'll play along -- type these and duck <g>caraz

McEnroe's hands/ touch at net. Exceptional. The lefty hook serve wide hook allowed him to make many of his service games all about his tear-drop volley. McEnroe used to say Donald Young had the best hands since him.

Djokovic: Return of serve. Can't find a physical attribute for that, though. Perhaps vision?

Fed: perhaps "Hand speed". Fed's more than once mentioned being gift with fast hands, so he thinks it was important.

Alcaraz: Perhaps balance. Yes, he's extraordinarily fast. But I'm amazed in photos and video how no matter how hard he's straining to reach a ball he seems centered.

Well. I tried. That's all I've got.

UPDATE: Had to come back to correct myself. My own example with Brock Purdy (from the NFL testing lab ) indicates an otherwise good but not outstanding player can differentiate himself -- here as a QB by his ability to reach coverages. That 'video game' test. That might be one that applies to tennis also. I remember Rafa coaching Fed at the Laver Cup ( can't type that one without smiling) when he was struggling against Kyrgios. Rafa said, "He sees the ball well." As a fan, I would have said "is hitting his forehand great", serve, etc. but Rafa said "sees the ball".
Abil

Great examples, Jim! Ditto on McEnroe's volley. He also had the ability to close into the net rapidly because he hit half volleys and ankle volleys without bending his knees, slowing him down. I would have to rank Fed's balance right there with Alcaraz. I don't know what Medvedev builds his game around., maybe his ability to quickly redirect incoming shots with a flat hit( ( Jimmy Connors comes to mind.). Rafa's footspeed and topspin allowed him to defend his court from all angles. Edberg had the right type serve, foot speed and hand speed to dominate the net. People have mentioned the " fast twitch" players like Krygios who can drastically increase ball speed unexpectedly.

[onielrickler]

Amid the tapestry of academic and professional pursuits https://www.personalstatementwriter.com/, your personal statement serves as a beacon, illuminating your journey, aspirations, and aspirations. Yet, weaving these threads into a compelling narrative requires more than words; it demands finesse, insight, and a profound understanding of your individuality. This is where Personal Statement Writing Help takes center stage, offering its expertise to craft your experiences into an impactful statement. Personal Statement Writing Help is not a mere service; it's a collaborative journey that delves into the tapestry of your life. With a blend of skill and empathy, these professionals create narratives that transcend the surface, capturing the essence of your dedication and potential. The true magic of a personal statement lies in its resonance with the values and objectives of the opportunity you seek, whether it's an academic pursuit or a stepping stone toward your dreams. These experts comprehend the expectations of selection committees and guide you in shaping your narrative harmoniously, ensuring your statement echoes profoundly.

[arturohernandez]

Great examples, Jim! Ditto on McEnroe's volley. He also had the ability to close into the net rapidly because he hit half volleys and ankle volleys without bending his knees, slowing him down. I would have to rank Fed's balance right there with Alcaraz. I don't know what Medvedev builds his game around., maybe his ability to quickly redirect incoming shots with a flat hit( ( Jimmy Connors comes to mind.). Rafa's footspeed and topspin allowed him to defend his court from all angles. Edberg had the right type serve, foot speed and hand speed to dominate the net. People have mentioned the " fast twitch" players like Krygios who can drastically increase ball speed unexpectedly.

I am super late to this party. It was a crazy month of August. Yes, maybe in the end there has to be something that sets people apart. In the past, this happened a lot more. There was less training and so people would find whatever their own wrinkle was and ride it all the way to the top. Remember Miloslav Mecir? Now it appears that everyone is following a formula to the top. But inevitably, those who don't are the ones who ascend.

I just watched Alcaraz come to the net repeatedly at the US Open. He did this during actually rallies. He did not win all the points but he won a lot of them.

Again, it was not just grind from the back but actually trying to find a wrinkle.

If only Shapo had a slice, and could volley. He would have been able to do a lot more damage.

Now the Canadian wave is fading quickly. Both Shapo and FAA have disappeared into the abyss of average when it looked like they might be much better than average.

[jimlosaltos]

If only Shapo had a slice, and could volley. He would have been able to do a lot more damage.

Now the Canadian wave is fading quickly. Both Shapo and FAA have disappeared into the abyss of average when it looked like they might be much better than average.

Yes. I'd been huge fans of both. Perhaps a slight dose of the Kyrgios flu, i.e. "I'm making enough $ already"?

[arturohernandez]

Yes. I'd been huge fans of both. Perhaps a slight dose of the Kyrgios flu, i.e. "I'm making enough $ already"?

That is true. But I also wonder if there are technical limitations to their games. Neither seems to have the adaptability of the big three. In fact, a lot of the younger generation, except for Alcaraz, seems to be adaptable.

I have been over at https://hughclarke.substack.com looking at some of his analyses. Hugh Clarke makes a bit of the issue with "noisiness" of the strokes relative to the older strokes.

It might be worth considering with Shapo who can hit incredible backhands and forehands when taking a full swing but is really unable to shorten his swing for returns.

[jimlosaltos]

That is true. But I also wonder if there are technical limitations to their games. Neither seems to have the adaptability of the big three. In fact, a lot of the younger generation, except for Alcaraz, seems to be adaptable.

I have been over at https://hughclarke.substack.com looking at some of his analyses. Hugh Clarke makes a bit of the issue with "noisiness" of the strokes relative to the older strokes.

It might be worth considering with Shapo who can hit incredible backhands and forehands when taking a full swing but is really unable to shorten his swing for returns.

Above my pay grade to analyze grips. I will say Alcaraz and Medvedev can both, in quite different ways, adapt their swings to incoming balls.

Shape doesn't seem to have that ability. And, it was the key to Ostapenko dethroning Iga.

Iga didn't have time for her big swings, and had no Plan B whatsoever that I could see. Swing, Shank. Repeat.

[jimlosaltos]

Some 30,000-foot level stats from match play over the entire singles events.

What stands out. Overall stats are very consistent across other tournaments and years to a casual check.

Return games won is considerably higher at the US Open than at Wimbledon for both genders.

Men: 21.6% at USO, vs 16.5% at Wimbledon
Women: 34.5% a USO vs 16.5 vs 29.6% at Wimbledon

Men hit more aces per set than the women. But, if you subtract aces from winners the percentage of points ended with winners off the ground is nearly the same for men and women.

A stat relative to the compensation argument: Women not only play fewer matches but they have nearly 50% more straight-set matches than the men, i.e. not just shorter but presumably, less competitive and thus potentially less entertaining. One could argue how much men's four-set matches differ from straight set wins.

The tournament posts "leaders" in stats such as aces, first serves won, return points won -- but only on total points. So, obviously this is heavily skewed by how many matches someone played. So, I took the steps of dividing event totals by matches played, where relevant. Per sets played would have been better but ... I'll leave that as an exercise for the overly ambitious reader <g>. I'm burned out. I'll reread later and hope for few typos or, heavens forbid, equations pointing errantly


Men's play
Winners were 30.0% of points
UFEs 34.4% of points
Rally Points Won on Errors: 67.4%
Return Games Won 21.6%
Aces Per Match 17.7
Aces/Set 4.9
Winners Less Aces: 26.6%
Sets Per Match Aver 3.69
% Straight Set Matches 44.9%


Women's Play
Winners were 32.6% of points
UFEs 39.7%% of points
Rally Points Won on Errors: 70.0%
Return Games Won 34.4%
Aces Per Match 5.7%
Aces/Set 2.4
Winners Less Aces: 27.0%
Set Per Match Aver 2.35
% Straight Set Matches 64.6%


Return Leaders

Again, the event's stats only had gross numbers, which are obviously distorted by the matches and sets played. So, I calculated stats per match.

First serve returns show the two mens finalists being among the leaders, but Zverev and Sinner both won more first serve return points per match than the finalists.

Second serve returns show Djokovic's and Medvedev's ranking falling significantly, with each winning fewer returns off second serves per match than the average of the top 20 players. Interpret as you will. One might be that returning first serves has a lot more importance in ATP tennis than returning second serves.

Among the women, Elise Mertens is far ahead of the other top 20 listed women in average points won against both first and second serves.

Two images of portions of my Excel spreadsheets for USO23. Sorry an attached image shows twice; I can't delete it:

filedata/fetch?id=102151&d=1694547081&type=thumb





#

[arturohernandez]

Above my pay grade to analyze grips. I will say Alcaraz and Medvedev can both, in quite different ways, adapt their swings to incoming balls.

Shape doesn't seem to have that ability. And, it was the key to Ostapenko dethroning Iga.

Iga didn't have time for her big swings, and had no Plan B whatsoever that I could see. Swing, Shank. Repeat.

Funny, how what gets you to the top doesn't always keep you there.

You can swing for the fences and get very high. But then people realize there is a chink, and it is a spiral down a few notches.

Here serve is also funky to me. Not clean enough IMHO.

[jimlosaltos]

Funny, how what gets you to the top doesn't always keep you there.

You can swing for the fences and get very high. But then people realize there is a chink, and it is a spiral down a few notches.

Here serve is also funky to me. Not clean enough IMHO.

Yup, Iga's second serve at least is potentially attackable.

That's how Jessie Pegula beat her, tight to baseline on returns and deep serves to rush Iga. Few have tried, fewer still made it work, tho because if you don't return well, Iga's defense is tremendous - fast mover, heavy groundstrokes.

Not many on WTA can do that. It's how 19 yo, was it?, Bianca Andreescu beat Serena back to back Toronto - US Open final. Bianca just brutalized Serena's second serve.

[stotty]

Some 30,000-foot level stats from match play over the entire singles events.

What stands out. Overall stats are very consistent across other tournaments and years to a casual check.

Return games won is considerably higher at the US Open than at Wimbledon for both genders.

Men: 21.6% at USO, vs 16.5% at Wimbledon
Women: 34.5% a USO vs 16.5 vs 29.6% at Wimbledon

Men hit more aces per set than the women. But, if you subtract aces from winners the percentage of points ended with winners off the ground is nearly the same for men and women.

A stat relative to the compensation argument: Women not only play fewer matches but they have nearly 50% more straight-set matches than the men, i.e. not just shorter but presumably, less competitive and thus potentially less entertaining. One could argue how much men's four-set matches differ from straight set wins.

The tournament posts "leaders" in stats such as aces, first serves won, return points won -- but only on total points. So, obviously this is heavily skewed by how many matches someone played. So, I took the steps of dividing event totals by matches played, where relevant. Per sets played would have been better but ... I'll leave that as an exercise for the overly ambitious reader <g>. I'm burned out. I'll reread later and hope for few typos or, heavens forbid, equations pointing errantly


Men's play
Winners were 30.0% of points
UFEs 34.4% of points
Rally Points Won on Errors: 67.4%
Return Games Won 21.6%
Aces Per Match 17.7
Aces/Set 4.9
Winners Less Aces: 26.6%
Sets Per Match Aver 3.69
% Straight Set Matches 44.9%


Women's Play
Winners were 32.6% of points
UFEs 39.7%% of points
Rally Points Won on Errors: 70.0%
Return Games Won 34.4%
Aces Per Match 5.7%
Aces/Set 2.4
Winners Less Aces: 27.0%
Set Per Match Aver 2.35
% Straight Set Matches 64.6%


Return Leaders

Again, the event's stats only had gross numbers, which are obviously distorted by the matches and sets played. So, I calculated stats per match.

First serve returns show the two mens finalists being among the leaders, but Zverev and Sinner both won more first serve return points per match than the finalists.

Second serve returns show Djokovic's and Medvedev's ranking falling significantly, with each winning fewer returns off second serves per match than the average of the top 20 players. Interpret as you will. One might be that returning first serves has a lot more importance in ATP tennis than returning second serves.

Among the women, Elise Mertens is far ahead of the other top 20 listed women in average points won against both first and second serves.

Two images of portions of my Excel spreadsheets for USO23. Sorry an attached image shows twice; I can't delete it:

filedata/fetch?id=102151&d=1694547081&type=thumb





#

So, statistically, when dividing the unforced error count by the set count, women are making a lot more errors than the men? Makes sense as the women's game seems much more spin-less compared to the men. 'Give it spin to keep it in' is my motto.

The double fault ratio for women also looks pretty chronic.

[stroke]

So, statistically, when dividing the unforced error count by the set count, women are making a lot more errors than the men? Makes sense as the women's game seems much more spin-less compared to the men. 'Give it spin to keep it in' is my motto.

The double fault ratio for women also looks pretty chronic.

I very rarely check the winner to error log on women's matches, but when I do, it is often absolutely brutal. And it is not unusual that a woman can actually win the match with this brutal winner to error count.. The ATP.....well it is a bit different.

[jimlosaltos]

I'm so out of it today I'm reluctant to do any math <g>

Errors as a percent of points -- of total points played -- is higher for women than the men UNLESS you take out aces, then both are roughly the same. 70% vs 67% at USO23.

Subtracting aces is a rough attempt to get to percent of rally points played won on winners and errors. Presumably those percentages is constant across the number of sets. Subtracting aces actually understates the effect of men's serves. What we'd really want is "unreturned serves" but the Lords of Tennis deem us unworthy of receiving that stat.

I'm also trying to total "errors" and ignore UFE vs forced, because the official scoring is both subjective and appears to vary by tournament.

I'll post detail this weekend, if interested.