Did they change how the the statisticians keep track of winners? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Did they change how the the statisticians keep track of winners?

Fedex
06-05-2008, 04:38 AM
Just looking at the basic numbers, they don't add up. In today's Ferrer-Monfils match, 128 winners were hit and 60 of those came off the racquet of Ferrer, who isn't exactly a power hitter. Supposedly, Nadal hit 47 winners in 6-1 6-1 6-1 drubbing of Almagro.

So what gives here?

groundstroke
06-05-2008, 09:10 AM
They've been making mistakes for just about every single round for the FO, sometimes they don't even bother, they just make the stats up.

Chiseller
06-05-2008, 10:19 AM
RG stats are not reliable. I wonder if they modified the speedometer it does look dodgy. :lol:

Apemant
06-05-2008, 10:20 AM
My guess is that various incompetent people over there perhaps argued over what exactly is a 'winner', and seems the more stupid group won the argument.

Such high count of 'winners' is possible only if they count every unreturned serve as a 'winner', according to them being called 'service winners'.

There has been a discussion about this in the past, but let's just repeat it briefly:

A winner is a point-winning shot which the opponent didn't even touch with their racquet.

As such, 'service winners' shouldn't be counted as 'winners' - aces should. Because 'service winners' are serves touched, but not returned properly. So they don't satisfy the above condition. Aces do.

nobama
06-05-2008, 11:33 AM
My guess is that various incompetent people over there perhaps argued over what exactly is a 'winner', and seems the more stupid group won the argument.

Such high count of 'winners' is possible only if they count every unreturned serve as a 'winner', according to them being called 'service winners'.

There has been a discussion about this in the past, but let's just repeat it briefly:

A winner is a point-winning shot which the opponent didn't even touch with their racquet.

As such, 'service winners' shouldn't be counted as 'winners' - aces should. Because 'service winners' are serves touched, but not returned properly. So they don't satisfy the above condition. Aces do.Don't the stats usually say if the winners # includes service 'winners'?

Apemant
06-05-2008, 11:56 AM
Don't the stats usually say if the winners # includes service 'winners'?

No, they usually say 'winners (including aces)' which is a bit of a pleonasm, since aces and winners from the game are logically equivallent. But winners never include 'service winners' because the latter is just a misnomer, regular winners have nothing in common with service winners.

But, seeing as the overall stupidity of the world is rapidly increasing, who knows, maybe they start counting those unreturned serves as 'winners' seeing that RG is apparently doing just that.

Maybe it's to make the matches 'look' better on paper? :rolleyes: Sheesh it's not like we didn't see what was going on, inflating the number of 'winners' won't make them look prettier.

FedererSlam
06-05-2008, 12:06 PM
I thought it was weird. The first week everyone had huge minus differentials and this week everyone seems to be in huge plus differentials for winners/ue's.

I know players get better as they play into the 2nd week but not by this much. Maybe they changed the statistician or he got laid or summat.

Apemant
06-05-2008, 12:08 PM
I thought it was weird. The first week everyone had huge minus differentials and this week everyone seems to be in huge plus differentials for winners/ue's.

Not just that, those old matches stats are 'updated' :rolleyes: ('fixed' ? :mad: ) as well. Now it appears every single match this year was a spectacle with winners being fired from everywhere and from everyone.

FedererSlam
06-05-2008, 12:10 PM
Not just that, those old matches stats are 'updated' :rolleyes: ('fixed' ? :mad: ) as well. Now it appears every single match this year was a spectacle with winners being fired from everywhere and from everyone.

Yeh usually clay matches are quite low on winners too given the nature of the surface. The stat guy in the box found alot of weed?

Bernard Black
06-05-2008, 12:13 PM
My guess is that various incompetent people over there perhaps argued over what exactly is a 'winner', and seems the more stupid group won the argument.

Such high count of 'winners' is possible only if they count every unreturned serve as a 'winner', according to them being called 'service winners'.

There has been a discussion about this in the past, but let's just repeat it briefly:

A winner is a point-winning shot which the opponent didn't even touch with their racquet.

As such, 'service winners' shouldn't be counted as 'winners' - aces should. Because 'service winners' are serves touched, but not returned properly. So they don't satisfy the above condition. Aces do.

Number of aces are counted in a seperate category though, to add these to the winners count also is misleading, as the likes of Karlovic will have massive amounts of winners for each match as well as a high number of aces.

I agree with your point in bold though, however this shouldn't include the service.

Burrow
06-05-2008, 12:19 PM
They've been making mistakes for just about every single round for the FO, sometimes they don't even bother, they just make the stats up.

How do you know? Are you associated with them?

Apemant
06-05-2008, 01:03 PM
Number of aces are counted in a seperate category though, to add these to the winners count also is misleading, as the likes of Karlovic will have massive amounts of winners for each match as well as a high number of aces.

Aces do have a separate category, but are ALSO added to the total winners category. Anyone can easily subtract those two numbers - or just compare them - to get the idea how the match was played. So I don't think it's misleading, especially since once you go down that road, there's no end to it. If you think aces are 'too easy' to be counted as winners, then what about all the winners which result from a good serve? You know the drill, you hit a great serve, the opponent barely returns it, and you just smash it, drop volley it or whatever. In what way are those winners more deserving to be called winners, than aces?

Karlovic, on the other hand, is indeed a category of his own, because his serve is basically impossible to return if he hits the right spot. But that's an anomaly, not a rule.

Deivid23
06-05-2008, 01:28 PM
A winner is a point-winning shot which the opponent didn't even touch with their racquet.


How come a 220 km/h serve barely touched with the frame of the racket by the returner shouldn´t count as a winner? :scratch:

dragon.serbia
06-05-2008, 01:39 PM
Look at this stats :confused:

Gulbis (LAT) Djokovic (SRB)
...
Unforced Errors 60 36
...
Winners (Including Service) 82 82
...
Total Points Won 125 138
...


60+82=142>138 :devil:

Turbosupermario
06-05-2008, 01:55 PM
Look at this stats :confused:

Gulbis (LAT) Djokovic (SRB)
...
Unforced Errors 60 36
...
Winners (Including Service) 82 82
...
Total Points Won 125 138
...


60+82=142>138 :devil:

Winning % on 1st Serve 58 of 85 = 68 % 58 of 82 = 71 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 24 of 53 = 45 % 24 of 43 = 56 %

Winners (Including Service) 82 82
_______________________
Winners = points on own service, acording to IBM statistic this week:devil:
(58 + 24) = (58 +24) = 82

Almagro - nadal
Winning % on 1st Serve 13 of 25 = 52 % 36 of 44 = 82 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 14 of 40 = 35 % 11 of 21 = 52 %

Winners (Including Service) 27 47

(13 + 14) =27 & (36 + 11) = 47
_________________________________________
Safina - Svetlana (1.set

Winning % on 1st Serve 12 of 27 = 44 % 5 of 13 = 38 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 7 of 11 = 64 % 2 of 8 = 25 %

Winners (Including Service) 19 7

(12 + 7) =19 & 5+ 2 = 7
_____________________________
Stupid mistake !:mad:

NYCtennisfan
06-05-2008, 04:18 PM
Look at this stats :confused:

Gulbis (LAT) Djokovic (SRB)
...
Unforced Errors 60 36
...
Winners (Including Service) 82 82
...
Total Points Won 125 138
...


60+82=142>138 :devil:


Exactly. The stats have been completely messed up throughout the tournament. The first week had everyone at -30 abnd -40 differentials and now everyone has +30 differentials.

Merton
06-05-2008, 04:58 PM
I remember last year that the # of aces for Karlovic against Blake was less than the total # of winners. Obviously the stats here do not pass the laugh test.

GuiroNl
06-05-2008, 05:14 PM
I think I am one of the very few who really doesn't care about these statistics. Nice to see some of these stats during a match to get some sort of impression of the match (but you have to be blind if you can't figure it out for yourself), totally useless to see them after a match.

Fedex
06-06-2008, 12:08 AM
They really should have higher qualifications for statisticians. These bums don't have a fucking clue. I happen to like looking at stats, and they can be particularly useful if you didn't watch the match, but these statistics are totally unreliable. Total garbage.

Snowwy
06-06-2008, 12:32 AM
How come a 220 km/h serve barely touched with the frame of the racket by the returner shouldnīt count as a winner? :scratch:

Because thats not a winner :confused:

Deivid23
06-06-2008, 12:43 AM
Because thats not a winner :confused:

For me itīs the same kind of winner a dropshot, a fh winner, or a serve like this and I think this is as it should be, not depending on touching slightly or not, itīs about the rival not being able to answer after that stroke

Deivid23
06-06-2008, 12:44 AM
Stats are most of the times wrong, even the umpires mess them up, forgetting winners or putting bh´s instead of fh´s winners or viceversa so it´s a lost case many times

GlennMirnyi
06-06-2008, 01:12 AM
They changed the stats so Nadal and Faker can finish 3-set matches with more than 10 winners. :)

GlennMirnyi
06-06-2008, 01:14 AM
For me itīs the same kind of winner a dropshot, a fh winner, or a serve like this and I think this is as it should be, not depending on touching slightly or not, itīs about the rival not being able to answer after that stroke

That's because you know shit about tennis, never in doubt.

Apemant
06-06-2008, 10:16 AM
For me itīs the same kind of winner a dropshot, a fh winner, or a serve like this and I think this is as it should be, not depending on touching slightly or not, itīs about the rival not being able to answer after that stroke

If there weren't a clean definition of a winner, then it would be as hard to keep track of them as UEs. What exactly is an UE and what is a forced error? It's a gray area. As for winners, if you allow a shot to be called a winner even though the opponent managed to touch it, then how would you define it? What if he changed the ball's trajectory by 45 degrees? Would it still be a winner? Etc. Once you open that door you can't close it anymore.

You gotta draw a line somewhere and the most obvious one is not touching the ball at all. Even though I'd also like a separate stat of those forced errors which are obviously 'clean', I mean, which didn't even look as if they would ever be returned; unlike those forced errors which hit the tip of the net or were just a few inches wide or long etc.

Anyway, stats aren't perfect. Too bad. :)

Deivid23
06-06-2008, 10:41 AM
If there weren't a clean definition of a winner, then it would be as hard to keep track of them as UEs. What exactly is an UE and what is a forced error? It's a gray area. As for winners, if you allow a shot to be called a winner even though the opponent managed to touch it, then how would you define it? What if he changed the ball's trajectory by 45 degrees? Would it still be a winner? Etc. Once you open that door you can't close it anymore.

You gotta draw a line somewhere and the most obvious one is not touching the ball at all. Even though I'd also like a separate stat of those forced errors which are obviously 'clean', I mean, which didn't even look as if they would ever be returned; unlike those forced errors which hit the tip of the net or were just a few inches wide or long etc.

Anyway, stats aren't perfect. Too bad. :)


Itīs very simple to do it. For me to limit winners to those points where the opponent doesnīt touch the ball after your stroke and scratch the kind of points I mentioned is pretty stupid as all of them result into the same: they canīt be answered and they make you winning the point without doing nothing else

stebs
06-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Itīs very simple to do it. For me to limit winners to those points where the opponent doesnīt touch the ball after your stroke and scratch the kind of points I mentioned is pretty stupid as all of them result into the same: they canīt be answered and they make you winning the point without doing nothing else

I agree with you a certain extent, huge first serves which you get a touch on are unreturnable. However, for a serve to be totally unreturnable and yet touchable os actually pretty rare, mostly a point like this is a forced error. In points it is even rarer, when you can touch the ball, usually you could get it back in play. I think totally unreturnable shots in which the ball is still touched are rare enough that adding them to the winners count would make a very small difference to the stats.

Apemant
06-06-2008, 11:32 AM
It´s very simple to do it. For me to limit winners to those points where the opponent doesn´t touch the ball after your stroke and scratch the kind of points I mentioned is pretty stupid as all of them result into the same: they can´t be answered and they make you winning the point without doing nothing else

Did you read my reply? It would be open for impressions. How can you say for sure if it was returnable or not?

What if the ball was just grazed with the outside of the racquet frame, barely changing direction (or not changing at all)?
What if the ball hit the racquet frame and changed the direction by 45 degrees to the side?
What if it hit the frame and then wildly bounced upward, but still almost landing inside the field, like a few inches long, for example? (would you still consider it 'unreturnable', and consequentially a 'winner'?)

There are countless possible variations and you just can't draw a line anywhere, it would be anyone's subjective view. But as it stands now, it's not open for debate - it either touched or it didn't (even though strictly physically speaking, it's hard to define what 'touch' actually means).

nobama
06-06-2008, 11:49 AM
No, they usually say 'winners (including aces)' which is a bit of a pleonasm, since aces and winners from the game are logically equivallent. But winners never include 'service winners' because the latter is just a misnomer, regular winners have nothing in common with service winners.:confused: What I see on all the slam websites is: Winners (Including Service). For example:

http://i32.tinypic.com/zisjue.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/6f5s9g.jpg

Apemant
06-06-2008, 12:34 PM
:confused: What I see on all the slam websites is: Winners (Including Service). For example:

Yes, and by that '(including service)' they mean ACES, not what we usually call 'service winners'.

If it was 'service winners' then the count would be MUCH higher because great many serves these days are service winners, esp. on HC like that AO match.


All this confusion because of that misnomer 'service winner'. In really, aces should be called 'service winners' then the terminology would be consistent. But what they call 'service winners' are actually errors forced by serve.

nobama
06-06-2008, 01:18 PM
Yes, and by that '(including service)' they mean ACES, not what we usually call 'service winners'.

If it was 'service winners' then the count would be MUCH higher because great many serves these days are service winners, esp. on HC like that AO match.


All this confusion because of that misnomer 'service winner'. In really, aces should be called 'service winners' then the terminology would be consistent. But what they call 'service winners' are actually errors forced by serve.
It's all very confusing. Where do the staticians come from anyway? Does every tournament have their own stats people and thus what's an UE vs forced error is different depending on the tournament?

Deivid23
06-06-2008, 03:37 PM
Did you read my reply? It would be open for impressions. How can you say for sure if it was returnable or not?

What if the ball was just grazed with the outside of the racquet frame, barely changing direction (or not changing at all)?
What if the ball hit the racquet frame and changed the direction by 45 degrees to the side?
What if it hit the frame and then wildly bounced upward, but still almost landing inside the field, like a few inches long, for example? (would you still consider it 'unreturnable', and consequentially a 'winner'?)

There are countless possible variations and you just can't draw a line anywhere, it would be anyone's subjective view. But as it stands now, it's not open for debate - it either touched or it didn't (even though strictly physically speaking, it's hard to define what 'touch' actually means).

Given that we human beings normally have brains to analyze, subjective views might be a more fair way to do it than sticking to a physical rule no matter you might like it or not, and that´s what I´m saying :shrug:

Deivid23
06-06-2008, 03:39 PM
It's all very confusing. Where do the staticians come from anyway? Does every tournament have their own stats people and thus what's an UE vs forced error is different depending on the tournament?

Umpires do that in many matches as far as I´ve seen

Apemant
06-06-2008, 04:35 PM
Given that we human beings normally have brains to analyze, subjective views might be a more fair way to do it than sticking to a physical rule no matter you might like it or not, and thatīs what Iīm saying :shrug:

Perhaps.

But then again, since I believe most of such semi-winners are a result of a booming serve, it would just inflate their number of winners even more - as if aces aren't enough. But I agree that there's no important difference whether you managed to graze the ball or didn't.

Henry Chinaski
06-06-2008, 04:40 PM
Given that we human beings normally have brains to analyze, subjective views might be a more fair way to do it than sticking to a physical rule no matter you might like it or not, and thatīs what Iīm saying :shrug:

these stat monkeys don't have fully functioning brains though. you need to give them black or white definitions because it's obvious they have no clue.

Deboogle!.
06-06-2008, 04:46 PM
Charlie Bricker has been ranting about the RG statisticians all tourney:

French Open "official" statistics: You can't believe them
> Posted by Charles Bricker at 11:05:20 AM

PARIS -- One of the wonderful things about tennis is that, unlike baseball and, to a lesser degree, football, the sport is not obsessed with statistics.

No one keeps track, for example, of how times a lefthander from South America commits a double-fault, on clay, at night, in the second set, against a right-handed opponent ranked in the top 20.

The statistics kept by the various tennis organizations (ATP, WTA, ITF) are relatively few and to the point. Like aces. People want to know how many aces players hit.

And last Wednesday, in a five-set match here, the 6-foot-10 Croatian Ivo Karlovic, who leads the ATP in aces, smacked a French Open record 39 of them. Or was it 35, which would not be a record?

For a couple of days, no one was certain how many he had hit because while FDE, the Paris company hired by the French Tennis Federation to keep statistics at the matches, gave Karlovic 39, the chair umpire, Louise Engzell of Sweden, recorded only 35 on her scorecard.

If FDE had given Karlovic 31 aces and Engzell had credited him with 27, no one would much care, despite the embarrassing discrepancy, and I wouldn't be wasting my time writing about this and you wouldn't be wasting your time reading it.

But there was a significant issue involved. Did Karlovic or did Karlovic not surpass Andy Roddick's French Open record of 37 aces, struck in 2001 against Michael Chang?

When it was pointed out to the tournament that their hired stat keepers were four aces off the chair umpire's scorecard, they initiated an investigation, of sorts, and came to the same conclusion I did -- that Engzell has a lot more credibility than some person that might have been hired off the street to keep stats.

So, no record, even though the tournament still hasn't made the correction on its website. If you look up Karlovic's stats for that match, he continues to be listed with a record 39 aces, not 35.

But that's not the end of this story, because if someone is so incompetent as to be four aces off, how many other "official" statistics kept at the French Open are inaccurate?

This isn't some Class Z tournament. This is a Grand Slam. Run it like a Grand Slam.

To get some answers, I tried to contact the person in charge of assigning volunteers to keep stats at the various matches in order to ask the following questions:

1. Who are these people and what makes them qualified to record official statistics at a Grand Slam?

2. How could anyone possibly be off by four aces?

3. If they can't get aces right, how many other statistics now in the tournament record book are wrong and how can players, reporters and coaches, who routinely depend on these statistics, trust what these official statistics report?

I spoke with a liaison to the FFT, asking her to set up an interview with Monsieur Jean Noel, who, I was told, supervises the stat volunteers. "Come back in 10 minutes," she said.

I did, and she looked quite nervous when I reappeared. "No one wants to talk about this," she said. I asked if that was Noel she had spoken with and she said, no, it was an executive with the FFT. That person had told her not to put reporters in touch with anyone who could comment on the Karlovic mess.

However, I did speak with someone who works for IBM, which does statistics at the three other Slams and which runs the radar guns here that gauge service speed. IBM has nothing to do with stats at the French Open.

"They have their own way of doing things here," said the IBM guy.

I can only conclude that the French Federation doesn't want to talk to reporters about the incompetency of their statisticians because they're pretty embarrassed by this screw-up and because, possibly, they already sense there could be statistical inaccuracies elsewhere.

In all fairness, it wouldn't be unusual to have a discrepancy of one ace between the chair umpire and the court statistician. The umpire, from a perch above the court, might see a serve glance off the tip of the racket and thus not give an ace while a statistician might not see the glance.

But a difference of four aces?

Someone isn't doing the job here. Maybe, as the IBM guy suggested, these people hired by FDE think any serve that glances off a racket is an ace.

If you go to the French Open website (rolandgarros.com) to look up statistics on a match, be forewarned. What you're reading may have no relationship to what actually happened on court.

The FFT sets a pretty plate here with its elegant on-site restaurants and mezzanine boxes on the Philippe Chatrier stadium court for the rich and famous. They pay some artist thousands just to create a logo for each tournament.

So why can't they pay attention to something as fundamental as how many aces a player hits in a match?

============================================

FFT statisticians blow it again
> Posted by Charles Bricker at 6:56:31 AM


PARIS -- It's now eight days since Ivo Karlovic was given credit by the French Federation statisticians for a bogus record 39 aces he was alleged to have hit in the first round, and STILL they haven't made the correction in their official statistics.

One can only assume that those 39 aces, which really were only 35 and not a record, will remain in their data base until tennis ceases to be played. We know it was 35, not 39, because the chair umpire's scorecard, which is far more reliable than some "statistician" picked up off the street, recorded only 35.
But wait, there's more incompetence.

I was reviewing the statistics of the match played Wednesday between Gael Monfils and David Ferrer, a four-setter in which Monfils won 112 points. There's no dispute about that.

But the FFT statisticians gave Monfils credit for 68 winners. I stared at that a moment. Sixty-eight winners out of 112 points? That's not likely. So, I added up Ferrer's errors. According to the same statistician the little Spaniard had 30 unforced errors and 41 forced. That's 71, right? Deduct 71 from 112 total points and you get 41. If Monfils hit winners on those 41 points, then why is he credited with 68 winners in the final stat sheet?

As I've indicated in a previous blog, I attempted a meeting with someone connected with the FFT who could explain where these "statisticians" come from and how are they qualified to keep numbers at a Grand Slam. I was told no one from the FFT would discuss the issue.

RogandyFan
06-06-2008, 04:51 PM
ok he staitic are messed up. I just witnessed the errors live. fed made a UE and monfil's winner +1? fed returned a serve wide and monfis winner +1 gain? not to mention they added to monfil's winner when fed is the oe who hits it. then they updated feds winner without correcting monfil's. looks like the person keeping count is not paying attention.