Mens Tennis Forums banner

2012 Tie-break Kings

4K views 61 replies 18 participants last post by  duong 
#1 · (Edited)
Got stats on most of the top 100 at the moment and here are the top 10 for tie-break's this year at ATP tour level:

1. G.Zemlja - Played 9 Won 77.78%
=2. I.Sijsling - Played 8 Won 75.00%
=2. D.Nalbandian- Played 12 Won 75.00%
4. R.Nadal - Played 11 Won 72.73%
5. M.Llodra - Played 14 Won 71.43%
6. N.Davydenko - Played 13 Won 69.23%
7. T.Haas - Played 16 Won 68.75%
8. A.Murray - Played 25 Won 68.00%
9. J.Isner - Played 56 Won 67.86%
=10. F.Fognini - Played 15 Won 66.67%
=10. B.Baker - Played 15 Won 66.67%

Interesting to see quite a few veterans in the top 10 - Nalbandian, Llodra, Davydenko & Haas. Also Isner played 56 tie-breaks this year!!
 
#3 ·
Federer has played 31 tie breaks this year winning 61.29% of them which puts him 18th on the list. He has dropped a few tie-breaks to people he shouldn't have this year: Ungur, Benneteau, Roddick & Bellucci. He has also dropped a couple to Raonic in there matches
 
#9 ·
Isner and Murray are the most impressive. No surprise to see the top spots occupied by people who played <15 tiebreaks, winning a high % after playing 20+ is a lot more difficult.
 
#12 ·
Ok if you refine it for the top 10 who have played at least 20 tie breaks we have:

1. A.Murray - Played 25 Won 68.00%
2. J.Isner - Played 56 Won 67.86%
3. J.Melzer - Played 20 Won 65.00%
4. J.Tipsarevic - Played 34 Won 64.71%
5. D.Ferrer - Played 31 Won 64.52%
6. R.Federer - Played 31 Won 61.29%
7. J.Tsonga - Played 36 Won 61.11%
8. S.Querrey - Played 33 Won 60.61%
9. J.Del Potro - Played 43 Won 60.47%
10. R.Stepanek - Played 20 Won 60.00%
 
#18 ·
Thanks! Good list, impressive showings from these players. Especially impressive from Isner and Melzer who are not top 10 players (though Isner was for some of this sample time period). Being the better player does give you an advantage in a breaker, which is why it's hard to determine how impressive a positive % is. It's safe to say, Murray's superiority to most of his opposition is not such that he should be expected to approach 70% W/L, very strong stats from him this year.
 
#28 ·
#33 ·
US Open Murray was insane in tiebreaks :rocker2:
 
#37 ·
The opening post is ridiculous because deprived of the best tie-break player this year - Darcis (18-4 record). Players like Zemlja and Sijsling aren't worth mentioning because they didn't play even 10 tie-breaks at the main level in 2012. Djokovic only at Wimbledon 2007 played more tie-breaks than Zemlja or Sijsling in the entire 2012 :lol:
 
#44 ·
Different dynamics among top-players :

- Djokovic has been bad in tiebreaks for 2 years after being the second best after Fed before
- Murray and Nadal have been very good in that exercise in last years, Murray was very good in 2007-2008 (76% in 2007, 70% in 2008) but was bad in 2009-2010 (54% in 2009, 40% in 2010 !), came back to better stats in last 2 years
 
#57 ·
Grega Žemlja, the mental giant :worship:

I know, he played only 9 tiebreaks, but winning most of them is still great, because he's been very inexperienced at this level. :)
 
#60 · (Edited)
I think that it's an advantage, but rather by observation of the game and intuition like you (and also because as I explained I think players with a great serve but a poor rest of the game like Karlovic should rather have a statistical disadvantage in tie-breaks ... and still Karlovic is at 50-50 ... but for instance Llodra and Mahut are at less than 50),

but you can't prove it statistically because :

1. it's not that big of an advantage : I think it's the only thing on which we can all agree because it's the only thing which stats really proove imo ;

2. other factors make it impossible to have a proper statistical referrence (that is I don't think the "% of points won on serve outside of tie-breaks" is a proper referrence because often returners let service games go)

I think Stebs would rather think it's not an advantage ;)

I disagree with him because I think he gives too much importance to irrepresentative stats. Hence why I still give a weight to my observation and intuition.
 
#61 ·
I don't think there is any structural advantage. This means, the tie-break is in no way designed such that it benefits big servers. As I said, on a case by case basis, it may be that playing more tie-breaks, which big servers tend to do, can give one more practice in that situation and a greater % of tie-breaks won than tie breaks 'expected'. I am interested Sophocles, in what intuition it is that causes you to think TB's could favour big servers. As in regular sets, the tie-break is a 50-50 combination of serving and returning. I don't even understand what the intuition is that makes some people think there is a structural advantage to the server. Sure, it's nice to have a big serve in a tie-break, but to no greater extent than it's nice to have a big serve when one is playing a tennis match.

Duong, we both know how often observation and intuition can lead to faulty beliefs. As for trying to find a more representative statistic, I have an idea, I'm not sure whether or not Jeff (who writes the HeavyTopspin blog) has measured it. In order to check reliability of serve in TB's vs. in non TB sets, what about measuring first serve % on its own? In this case, the disinterest of the returner on some points doesn't factor into it at all. I take it there aren't really any circumstances in which a server purposely misses first serves in a set. This could at least give an accurate test as to whether serving is + or - effected by the tie-break. The problem is, there isn't a way to test the reliability of other shots and make a comparison.

For what it's worth, here's my view. I'm pretty confident there is no structural advantage. Rather, any advantage, will be from having a game style conducive to high performance under pressure. So with the big serve, the debate is, is this conducive to high performance under pressure? The answer may even be, a highly qualified, 'yes, sometimes'. However, as you pointed out Duong, you can say for any game style whether or not it is typically easy (relative to the complete set of game styles) to perform under pressure. In this case, the lower risk game styles are usually supposed to be 'easier' (so look at Murray, Nadal, Simon but according to your 'intuition', also big servers?). This doesn't mean we should expect all players of style X to excel in TB's while all players of style Y should fail, only that there is some sense in which it is 'easier' to excel as a player of style X. Whether or not 'big server' is a style that could function as style X in this example is essentially what we have been discussing.

IMO, the best way to try and test (although this could easily be inconclusive), would be to gather large data in which players were sorted into categories of playing styles (obviously subjective but could probably be done to a reasonably effective degree). Then, using Jeff's stat 'TBOR', see if there are any generalisations to be made. TBOR = Tie Break Out-Performance Rate, which is, for any player, 'tie-breaks over expectation' divided by 'total tie-breaks played' ('tie-breaks over expectation' is derived from % of serve and return points won in the match in question). My hunch is that, should this task be completed, there would be no meaningful patterns at all. Yes, some styles are easier to play under pressure, but by such small amounts that individual differences far overshadow the influence it has. Although the sample is too small to be conclusive, this is the top 20, in order, in TBOR this season up to Shanghai, to me, this as about as random a list (in terms of game style) as can be:

Steve Darcis Jurgen Melzer Andy Murray John Isner Tommy Haas Kevin Anderson Janko Tipsarevic David Ferrer Pablo Andujar Julien Benneteau Radek Stepanek Sam Querrey Andy Roddick Jarkko Nieminen Paul Henri Mathieu Andreas Seppi Jeremy Chardy Philipp Kohlschreiber Denis Istomin
 
#62 ·
I don't think there is any structural advantage. This means, the tie-break is in no way designed such that it benefits big servers. As I said, on a case by case basis, it may be that playing more tie-breaks, which big servers tend to do, can give one more practice in that situation and a greater % of tie-breaks won than tie breaks 'expected'. I am interested Sophocles, in what intuition it is that causes you to think TB's could favour big servers. As in regular sets, the tie-break is a 50-50 combination of serving and returning. I don't even understand what the intuition is that makes some people think there is a structural advantage to the server. Sure, it's nice to have a big serve in a tie-break, but to no greater extent than it's nice to have a big serve when one is playing a tennis match.
I think the intuition Sophocles was referring to (and I as well) is about the idea that it's a good style of play to have on pressure points, as you say elsewhere in the post. But it's not the only game style which is good for that as we also agree on.

As for trying to find a more representative statistic, I have an idea, I'm not sure whether or not Jeff (who writes the HeavyTopspin blog) has measured it. In order to check reliability of serve in TB's vs. in non TB sets, what about measuring first serve % on its own?
it's a good idea :yeah: although one of the interesting questions imo (and once again, not only about tiebreaks, many of my wonders are more generally about "pressure points") is : do servers tend too much to look for aces or serve winners on big points ? that is an interesting question imo : quite often they succeed on doing that, but maybe it also has a bad consequence on their first serve % ? :shrug:

One could try to find other solutions but I think in the end all stats will have limits imo :lol: unfortunately :sad:

IMO, the best way to try and test (although this could easily be inconclusive), would be to gather large data in which players were sorted into categories of playing styles (obviously subjective but could probably be done to a reasonably effective degree). Then, using Jeff's stat 'TBOR', see if there are any generalisations to be made. TBOR = Tie Break Out-Performance Rate, which is, for any player, 'tie-breaks over expectation' divided by 'total tie-breaks played' ('tie-breaks over expectation' is derived from % of serve and return points won in the match in question). My hunch is that, should this task be completed, there would be no meaningful patterns at all. Yes, some styles are easier to play under pressure, but by such small amounts that individual differences far overshadow the influence it has. Although the sample is too small to be conclusive, this is the top 20, in order, in TBOR this season up to Shanghai, to me, this as about as random a list (in terms of game style) as can be:

Steve Darcis Jurgen Melzer Andy Murray John Isner Tommy Haas Kevin Anderson Janko Tipsarevic David Ferrer Pablo Andujar Julien Benneteau Radek Stepanek Sam Querrey Andy Roddick Jarkko Nieminen Paul Henri Mathieu Andreas Seppi Jeremy Chardy Philipp Kohlschreiber Denis Istomin
yes, one very hard factor to counter is to take into account the basic ability of a player. The fact that Fed wins more because he's just a great player or the question of "how many tie-breaks should Isner win comparing to Karlkovic just because he's a better player ?" using the % of points they generally win on serve and return is at least a good way to compare players with each other.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top