Thanks. Looks like a good read. I’ll let you know what it says, but then again, you must not care.a Harvard study...admit I didn't read it, but if you're into it...
fully agree so far.The hard truth is that tennis is just an extremely simple sport. Sure, it's good to know some tenancies of opponents, but at the end of the day a tennis court is really small and you need to be prepared to cover the entire court on every shot.
There's no room for a Moneyball-like revolution because it's an individual sport. There's no plugging in different players with different play styles to achieve more productive results. It's down to the individual and there's really only 2 options of play style in tennis; back of the court or coming to the net. And due to the physical technology revolution, only one of those strategies is realistic in the modern game. I guess analytics can help you figure out how often to do it, when a surprise attack can do the most damage. But again, tennis is a simple sport and most athletes can figure that out for themselves just by feeling the flow of the game.
The high tech cameras that taught us the advantages of spin rate in pitching or launch angle in hitting is also pretty irrelevant in tennis. Everyone already knows the advantages of putting as much topspin on the ball as you can, but it's easier said than done.
But they should. If, for a given player, based on serve percentage and point winning percentage, one _is_ more likely to win a point by going full out even on a second serve break point down he _should_ do it. The only reason why players do not do it is psychological one - it _feels_ somewhat less bad if you lose a point after a rally then on a double fault. But statistically speaking it is, for some players, a wrong choice to not go for it.And I'm sure there's also data out there for how you're better off flattening your shots and going for the winner early, or going big on the 2nd serve more often. But matches aren't played on paper. No player (other than an idiot like Kyrgios or Zverev) is going to try and hit 125 mph on a 2nd serve down break point because the chart says it increases your odds of winning the point.
but it is changing, isn't it? I do not have statistical data but it does seem teams go for it om fourth down more often, no?Same reason punting hasn't gone away in football.
like which one?Analytics have ruined enough sports.
well, of course. But sometimes you have two seemingly equal choices and statistics can help in those cases.I don't want tennis players to suddenly start playing like chickens with their heads cut off because they're following what the chart says instead of figuring out what's working for them that day and when to pull the trigger vs when not to.