Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some pretty close matches today in Shanghai. Some pretty close scores in terms of points won as well.

Gojowczyk won 1 more point over Fucsovics in his win (120 to 119)
Ebden won 1 more point over Thiem in his win (123 to 122)
Medvedev won 1 more point over Zhang in his win (108 to 107)
Jarry won 5 points less against Cilic in his win (90 to 95)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,047 Posts
Some pretty close matches today in Shanghai. Some pretty close scores in terms of points won as well.

Gojowczyk won 1 more point over Fucsovics in his win (120 to 119)
Ebden won 1 more point over Thiem in his win (123 to 122)
Medvedev won 1 more point over Zhang in his win (108 to 107)
Jarry won 5 points less against Cilic in his win (90 to 95)
Number of points is not a significant stat.

What worth is important points won.

I mean 0/6 7/6(8) 7/6(13) is a win anyhow.

We have seen a lot of players shining whole match but shaky when money time occured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,628 Posts
If I'm not mistaken, when commentating at the US open, Jim Courier and co said Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have won around 54% of points in their career. Murray was at 51% I believe. Given that the big 3 have dominated massively, you would expect their percentage of points won to be higher than 54%. This just shows how important it is to win the important points in tennis. You can hold serve easily, and have one poor game each set, and that is you done for the match. That is tennis for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Of course not even if playing ugly a winner is a winner.

This is an opposition sport where you should have balls to defeat your opponent not just skills to win points like in Ice Skating.
What are you trying to say? How is number of points won not significant? I'm not saying it's everything because clearly it's not. But usually the player who wins the most points during a match ends up winning it. So it's definitely significant...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
What are you trying to say? How is number of points won not significant? I'm not saying it's everything because clearly it's not. But usually the player who wins the most points during a match ends up winning it. So it's definitely significant...
It is important to win a particular point played currently, of course it is. However tennis was never about winning more points then the opponent - that is totally irrelevant, but about winning the last point (i.e more loosely interpreted winning IMPORTANT points).

So not really significant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
It is important to win a particular point played currently, of course it is. However tennis was never about winning more points then the opponent - that is totally irrelevant, but about winning the last point (i.e more loosely interpreted winning IMPORTANT points).

So not really significant.
You will never be in a position to win the important points if you don't win the non important points...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
You will never be in a position to win the important points if you don't win the non important points...
But you don't have to win more unimportant points than your opponent in order to win, or to get into position to win. :shrug:

That is what we are talking about.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,047 Posts
What are you trying to say? How is number of points won not significant? I'm not saying it's everything because clearly it's not. But usually the player who wins the most points during a match ends up winning it. So it's definitely significant...
No the only winner is the one having won match point regardless of what happens before.

And nothing to do with luck in most cases.

If you ever played a competitive opposition sport (I mean not recreational but competitive with pressure and crowd) you would know important points are drastically different with extra pressure, your heart beating, your blood pressure increasing in the side of your head, red light in your eyes....

And only people able to win points in those conditions are winners...

Today Fucsovics was 6/3 up in decider tie break and collapse because dealing pressure worse than Gojowczyk.

No matter if only one point less he is the only looser.

There were plenty of Golubev Kuznetsov or Korolev able to pile points and win first set 6/2 and then vanish as soon as pressure increase.


Another exemple a guy like Tobias Simon can pile 52 aces a match and win most of his game serve to love or 15, then winning 2 or 3 points in every opponent serve game, he will loose anyway if not dealing pressure in tie break.

And at the end, he could loose with more points won because it is not badminton or table tennis but tennis with points to zero in every new game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
But you don't have to win more unimportant points than your opponent in order to win, or to get into position to win. :shrug:

That is what we are talking about.
We are talking about whether winning the most points is significant not whether it's required for winning a match. Since winning the most points highly correlates with winning the match it's significant. Especially when talking about it in terms of a stat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
No the only winner is the one having won match point regardless of what happens before.

And nothing to do with luck in most cases.

If you ever played a competitive opposition sport (I mean not recreational but competitive with pressure and crowd) you would know important points are drastically different with extra pressure, your heart beating, your blood pressure increasing in the side of your head, red light in your eyes....

And only people able to win points in those conditios are winners...

Today Fucsovics was 6/3 up in decider tie break and collapse because dealing pressure worse than Gojowczyk.

No matter if only one point less e is a looser.

There were plenty of Golubev Kuznetsov or Korolev able to pile points and win first set 6/2 and then vanish as soon as pressure increase.
Again what are you trying to argue here? I never said that important points don't matter or even that they matter as much as unimportant points. Read my first post again...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,047 Posts
I give up I should know trying to teach a donkey how to become a racing horse would exhaust me before something happens.


If a guy can win a match having won 20 points less than his opponent or 50 points more then nobody cares about number of points won except maybe pissed off people that want to redo the match on paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
I give up I should know trying to teach a donkey how to become a racing horse would exhaust me before something happens.


If a guy can win a match having won 20 points less than his opponent or 50 points more then nobody cares about number of points won except maybe pissed off people that want to redo the match on paper.
Your statement can be said of pretty much any match summary stat...

Your claim was that "Number of points is not a significant stat". My claim is that it is. If it is not a significant stat then please tell me which stat is. "Important points won" is not really a stat because there's no agreed upon way to determine which points are important.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,047 Posts
Your statement can be said of pretty much any match summary stat...

Your claim was that "Number of points is not a significant stat". My claim is that it is. If it is not a significant stat then please tell me which stat is. "Important points won" is not really a stat because there's no agreed upon way to determine which points are important.
So explain what is important in number of points won ?

Does it allow more ATP points ?

Is a guy winning with 20 points margin has a better next round than the one winning by only one point ?

Does a game to love count more than the one coming to adv ?

I am curious to understand which bonus give a very good number of points win.

Remember Wimbledon 2014 and 2015 when your Federer was piling very good number of points won in every round compared to a struggling Djokovic, he was nevertheless destroyed in both finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
So explain what is important in number of points won ?

Does it allow more ATP points ?

Is a guy winning with 20 points margin has a better next round than the one winning by only one point ?

I am curious to understand which bonus give a very good number of points win.
What do any of these questions have to do with whether number of points won is a significant stat or not? The answer to those questions is of course no. But that's the case for ALL match stats.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,047 Posts
What do any of these questions have to do with whether number of points won is a significant stat or not? The answer to those questions is of course no. But that's the case for ALL match stats.
the other match stats %serve, aces, % return, position of return on court, 5+ shot points won can help a coach in analysing a match and sort what part of gameplan has worked and what to improve.

Number of points won can not help anybody because it piles serve points, net points, return points, long rallies, short rallies.....

It is as if you explain someone what he can cook for dinner just saying I have 20 things in my fridge without naming them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
the other match stats %serve, aces, % return, position of return on court, 5+ shot points won can help a coach in analysing a match and sort what part of gameplan has worked and what to improve.

Number of points won can not help anybody because it piles serve points, net points, return points, long rallies, short rallies.....

It is as if you explain someone what he can cook for dinner just saying I have 20 things in my fridge.
You can't do much with those stats as bare numbers alone either. What does position of return on court give you unless you also know if that player won the point or not? All these stats have to be put in a context for them to be useful for any analysis. That's the same for number of points won. Comparing how often a player loses a match when winning more points would give it context and would certainly be helpful.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top