Total Aces - Wimbledon 2010
- Thread starter Bud
- Start date
Bud
Bionic Poster
No... it's pretty insignificant since Mahut was knocked out in round 1... and Isner served zero aces in round 2. Two of the biggest servers in the competition were basically gone after round 1. Both guys should have gone a few more rounds.
There was a total ace increase of 20% over 2009
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Really good numbers. I like how three of the majors are basically all in the same ball park and then Wimbledon has a HUGE leap forward in aces, nearly doubling what the other majors have.
That's a hugely telling stat.
Wimbledon is by far still the fastest major out there. This corroborates the Wimbledon grounds crew, the players opinions, and just watching the matches with your own eyes (not accounting for a crazy bias). The matches were blazingly fast this year. There is simply no arguing this stuff. The numbers do not lie. There would not be so MANY more aces if it were not far and away the fastest surface. Look at all the intense matches this year as well.
Good info for sure.
That's a hugely telling stat.
Wimbledon is by far still the fastest major out there. This corroborates the Wimbledon grounds crew, the players opinions, and just watching the matches with your own eyes (not accounting for a crazy bias). The matches were blazingly fast this year. There is simply no arguing this stuff. The numbers do not lie. There would not be so MANY more aces if it were not far and away the fastest surface. Look at all the intense matches this year as well.
Good info for sure.
Federerx16
Rookie
I don't understand why people are so defensive about this. Even the players admit the surface has slowed.
Bud
Bionic Poster
63% more aces struck at Wimbledon than at the US Open.
Tomorrow (i.e. later today), I will calculate the break percentage(s) for all 4 GS tournaments.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Will recheck them. Did you calculate both men and women or just men?
I believe I also calculated 15.9% for 2010 Wimby men.
Here's the link to the 2009 USO stats:
http://2009.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
(quickly glancing... the 2009 USO men break% is very similar to the 2010 AO stats)
Last edited:
Bud
Bionic Poster
The women really seem to throw off the break percentage stats. I think that's because their serves are not nearly as effective on grass.
I think with the women at Wimbledon included with the men, the break% was right around 19.0%
As a man... the grass surface is much more of an advantage (more power and spin on serves)... and probably why Serena ran through the woman's draw so easily (this Wimby was a serving display by Serena). She had more than twice as many aces as the next person on the list.
Ladies' ace count Wimby 2010:
#1 Serena - 89 aces
#2 Venus - 30 aces
^^ that is simply unbelievable! Serena had 3x as many total aces as the next highest... sister Venus.
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/extrastats/aces_ws.html
Last edited:
Yes, I get 22.6 and 22.8
The USO shows an increase in break% from 2008 to 2009
This is the page for 2008, and I got 19.4 if I remember well.
http://2008.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
I don´t think there are pages going back to previous years for the Open. Changing the year on the link only works for 2008 and 2009.
NF had done calculations for previous years for the Open and he had gotten 21.5 for 1998 and 21.9 for 2007. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=207765
He got 1 percentage point lower for 2002 and 2006, but for those two years he skipped the first two rounds in the calculation, and this will normally drive the break percentage down a bit, as it will exclude many of the lower ranked players who lost in the first two rounds.
Seems pretty stable overall, and so far 2008 looks like the lowest year for the Open, but still almost 3 points above Wimbledon for that year according to NF.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Excellent... Would you list all of your results (by year and tournament) and I'll double check and compile them... or you're more than welcome to
I'd like to create a new thread concerning the break percentage at all 4 GS tournaments (if one doesn't already exist)... going back as far as possible so it can be amended annually (or post-GS tournament).
I have a feeling some of these archived pages from 08-10 will probably end up disappearing in a few years (or perhaps less).
Bud
Bionic Poster
I agree... it really skews the results.
Excellent... Would you list all of your results (by year and tournament) and I'll double check and compile them... or you're more than welcome to
I'd like to create a new thread concerning the break percentage at all 4 GS tournaments (if one doesn't already exist)... going back as far as possible so it can be amended annually (or post-GS tournament).
I have a feeling some of these archived pages from 08-10 will probably end up disappearing in a few years (or perhaps less).
Well the only thing I have is what I´ve mentioned for the last 4 slams and the 2008 USO.
2008 USO: 19.4
2009 USO: 22.6
2010 AO: 22.8
2010 FO: 22.5
2010 W: 15.9
Previous years (some of them) were compiled for various tournaments by NF a couple of years ago and appear in various posts on that thread, like this one below:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=207765
Lyon (Indoor Carpet) 2007 13.57%
Halle 2008 14.35%
Artois Championships (Queens) 2007 15.76% 2008 16.75%
Wimbledon Breaking Percentage 1998 19.78% 2001 19.01% 2002 19.21% 2003 19.55% 2006 (3rd-Final) 17.9% 2007 (Total) 17.34% 2008 16.77%
Cincinnati 2007 19.22% 2008 16.45%
Madrid 2007 (Total) 18.02%
Paris 2006 19.89% 2007 (Indoors) 20.08%
Dubai 2007-2008 21.10%
Montreal 2005 20.76% 2007 21.12%
Miami Breaking Percentage 2007 22.32% 2008 21.70%
US Open Breaking Percentage 1998 21.53% 2002 (3rd round-Final) 2006 (3rd round-Final) 20.74% 2007 21.87%
Indian Wells Breaking Percentage 2007 21.93% 2008 22.97%
Aussie Open Breaking Percentage 2008 (Total) 23.18%
Rome Breaking Percentage (Total) 2007 23.34% 2008 23.25%
Toronto Breaking Percentage 2004 18.33% 2006 23.53% 2008 21.03%
Roland Garros Breaking Percentage 2007 24.13% 2008 23.68%
Hamburg Breaking Percentage (Total) 2006-2008 27.78% 2008 27.23%
Monte Carlo Breaking Percentage 2005 30.55% 2007-2008 29.20%
More Stats here to add to back up my breaking percentage idea. All slams are 3rd Round-Final only.
First Serve Points Won Cincinnati 2008 75.78%
Aces per First Serve Cincinnati 2008 18.94%
First Serve Points Won Wimbledon 2006 73.85% 2007 73.94% 2008 74.64%
Aces Per First Serve Wimbledon 2006 14.61% 2007 13.4% 2008 15.34%
First Serve Points Won US Open 2002 71.75% 2006 71.78% 2007 70.42%
Aces Per First Serve US Open 2002 14.66% 2006 12.63% 2007 11.94%
First Serve Points Won French Open 2008 68.71%
Aces Per First Serve French Open 2008 9.78%
First Serve Points Won Rome 2008 67.8%
Aces Per First Serve Rome 2008 8.18%
First Serve Points Won Hamburg 2008 66.76%
Aces Per First Serve Hamburg 2008 8.22%
Bud
Bionic Poster
The threshold seems to be somewhere right around 20%. Higher than 20%... tend to play slower. Lower than 20%, faster. Interesting how far below the 20% threshold that 2010 Wimby fell.
This Wimby (2010) appears to have the quickest surface of all Wimbys for which we have stats.
It also appears that every Wimbledon surface since 2006 is faster than the previous year.
Last edited:
I wouldn´t go as far as suggesting that any year to year variation within the same tournament represents a change in the surface. These variations can be caused by other factors, most notoriously the characteristics of the balls and weather conditions, if they change a lot from one year to the next. My argument is much more modest in scope. These numbers are useful because in the first place they confirm without a shadow of a doubt something that was already known: namely, that a clear difference in court speed carries a signal into break percentages. All you have to do is look at the numbers for places like Lyon, Halle, Queen´s, and at the bottom of the list places like Hamburg and Monte Carlo. The signal not only shows what is known about these surfaces -- its screams it loud and clear: players break twice as often in the slowest surfaces than in the fastest ones. There is roughly a 125% increase in break frequency between Lyon and Monte Carlo, and this goes on year after year. By comparison, the increase between Wimbledon 2008 and USO 2008 is in the order of 15%. The increase between Wimbledon and RG that year is around 42%.
My argument is that IF there was such a radical change in the speed of the Wimbledon courts after 2001, or in later years, there would have to be some signal pointing in that direction with these numbers. Instead, not only there is no such signal, but after around 2006 the signal points in the opposite sense. This is very bizarre. It could be that other factors were also changed that we don´t know about, for example different balls. At any rate, the avalanche of posts wailing theatrically about ¨clay-like¨ grass that come up every year are an exercise in idiocy. The height of the bounce does seem a bit higher overall today, but even this is much less obvious because you need to compare similar shots to similar shots. If you pick up a match from the past showing to s&v players charging the net after chipping the ball, of course you are not going to get the bounces you get today with players hitting topspin from the baseline. As I said in another post, the perceived speed of a court is highly dependent on the style of the players, and it is very hard to compare. A heavy shot with a lot of work on it landing near the old baseline, would still bounce high. Another thing that seems to be different is the frequency of bad bounces, which was one of the reasons for the change. Wimbledon still produces more bad bounces than the other majors, but less than in the past. In any case, the radical, scandalous slowdown is largely a myth.
Bud
Bionic Poster
I wasn't suggesting that.
The biggest factor between annual court speed differences is primarily the weather.
I was just stating there seems to be a certain threshold right around 20% where perceived court speed is playing fast or slow.
The 2007 Lyon carpet at 13.57% is unbelievable.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Wow, so it was actually faster. Makes sense why Berdych, Soderling, Murray did so well.
A lot of people don't understand that one of Nadal's specialties are low bouncing balls. There is a reason that Nadal could not capture the AO major when it was slower and higher bouncing.
A lot of people don't understand that one of Nadal's specialties are low bouncing balls. There is a reason that Nadal could not capture the AO major when it was slower and higher bouncing.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LMAO !!! yes, clay is very LOW bouncing. ha ha ha ...
he can handle low bounces, but he'd any day, any time take high bounces
yes, he wasn't good enough that time, hence lost to hewitt and got killed by gonzo... BTW in 2008, when the new surface ( plexicushion ) was first introduced, he got killed by tsonga in straights ....
Similar threads
