Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Looking at the match statistics between Youzhny and Karlovic (attached) a little while ago, I encountered something that really puzzles me. As you can see, Karlovic had 0 "Winners (Including Service)" at the time, yet he had 4 aces. My question, thus, is: what the heck does the "Including Service" part mean? I previously assumed that it included winners in rallies as well as aces, but not service winners, because these, although called winners, are really forced errors. It seems, however, that aces are not counted, yet the "Including Service" part is still there. Does this mean that they count service winners? That makes no sense at all, because these are forced errors. Why not count forced forehand errors as well? What makes even less sense is including service winners, which are not winners, while not including aces, which clearly are. Am I getting this correctly? Does "Winners (Including Service)" measure winners in rallies plus service winners? If so, what moron came up with that metric? It makes absolutely no fucking sense. If this is the case, winners are not at all directly comparable with unforced errors, so looking at Winners/UE ratios like we all do makes little sense.
 

Attachments

·
Anathemaniac
Joined
·
41,908 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,533 Posts
Statistics are only as good as the people recording them and we don't really know who records them. Just volunteers, I think and they aren't even qualified or anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Statistics are only as good as the people recording them and we don't really know who records them. Just volunteers, I think and they aren't even qualified or anything.
Fair enough, but the question is - what is this metric even SUPPOSED to measure? Because if it is supposed to measure what I now think it is, it makes no sense, even if recorded perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,926 Posts
Must be a mistake, winners including service counts aces too normally.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
as far as i know, a "winner" is "winner" it's not an ace
altough can be hit while serving
so looking at these stats + the score , i'd say they're right
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
i didnt get the question about the metric system??
hm ??
the metric system is there cause half of the world (even more) uses the metric system incl. australia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
as far as i know, a "winner" is "winner" it's not an ace
altough can be hit while serving
so looking at these stats + the score , i'd say they're right
Umm??? HUH? The definiton of a winner is a shot tha tthe opponent does not get his racket on. The definiton of an ace is a SERVE that the opponent does not get his racket on. Thus, the winners that can be hit while serving ARE aces. What is normally called "service winners" is really forced errors. This is the only logical conclusion. Clearly, though, they don't seem to adhere to it. Retards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
i didnt get the question about the metric system??
hm ??
the metric system is there cause half of the world (even more) uses the metric system incl. australia
Is this a joke? :confused: If this is a sincere question, then your English is just lacking mate. :) I know very well what the metric system is. This is what is meant my metric in the context that I used it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
in some tournaments aces are counted as winners ,they fit the definition
but in some others they do not as they are not "regular winners"
Well, not counting aces is okay (in my view even preferable, because it makes winners more comparable to unforced errors), but then what does the "Including Service" mean? That they include service winners, which - again - are not winners, but forced errors? Including service winners and not aces makes absolutely no sense. Sure, aces are not "regular winners" as you say, but service winners are not winners at all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,071 Posts
Well, not counting aces is okay (in my view even preferable, because it makes winners more comparable to unforced errors), but then what does the "Including Service" mean? That they include service winners, which - again - are not winners, but forced errors? Including service winners and not aces makes absolutely no sense. Sure, aces are not "regular winners" as you say, but service winners are not winners at all!
yes of course, service winners are forced errors and should not be included as winners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
IBM websites are using these draws for a long time now.Maybe they recently decided not to include aces/services winner anymore so i guess they haven't updated their draws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
IBM websites are using these draws for a long time now.Maybe they recently decided not to include aces/services winner anymore so i guess they haven't updated their draws.
Let's hope that's the case, because if they are including service winners and not aces, they really need to get their heads checked.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top