It Isn't All Mental

[ADS]

I propose that many of the claims of mental errors –lack of confidence, lack of focus, etc. – are the results of muscle memory related to your tennis stroke, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Let me point out that I agree that many unforced errors are mental. It is a fact that mental errors and lapses occur and cause one to lose on occasions. But… I believe…

Many unforced errors are not due to mental errors
AND
Many lost matches to inferior players, but still close in skill set, are not due to mental errors, but are actually due to lack of muscle memory, and the resulting mathematical probability.

Here is the mathematical support. To understand this, use a mathematical simulator. This was developed by a friend, Sven. He graduated with a degree in Mathematics from Humboldt University of Berlin. After that, he did years of computer programming and working with software. He now heads a team at Amazon.

To use this tool, you will need to go to his Website – http://www.jayoogee.com/mytennismatches/Login.aspx. You enter whether it takes 2 or 3 sets to win the match. You next enter the percentage of points won out of 100 points played. For example, one player wins 51% of the points. The Simulator then does calculations for 100 games using statistical probability. Results show total matches and games won and lost out of 100. Results also calculate the score for each individual match – all based on the statistical probability of one player winning 51% of 100 points. Results vary – a lot!

Start by running a simulation of Player 1 winning 51% of the points and Player 2 winning 49% of the points. Overall the better player wins about 60% of the time. This should sound intuitively reasonable.

SIMULATION RESULT
Matches Won Player 1: 59
Matches Won Player 2: 41

No. Score
1 7-5, 4-6, 6-2
2 5-7, 7-6, 7-6
3 6-3 6-3
4 7-6, 3-6, 7-5
5 4-6, 6-4, 4-6
6 6-4, 6-3
7 7-6, 6-2
8 6-2, 6-3
9 0-6, 6-3, 6-7
10 6-2, 7-6
11 1-6, 0-6
12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6
13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6
14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6
15 3-6, 4-6
16 6-7, 5-7
17 6-3, 6-4
18 7-6, 6-4
19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7
21 6-4, 6-2
22 2-6, 3-6
23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6
24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0
25 6-3, 7-5
26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6
27 4-6, 4-6
28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2
29 3-6, 3-6
30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6
31 3-6, 4-6
32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7
33 1-6, 4-6
34 6-4, 6-3
35 6-4, 6-2
36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2
37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
38 6-4, 6-0
39 5-7, 1-6
40 6-7, 2-6
41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3
42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1
43 5-7, 1-6
44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6
45 6-2, 7-5
46 6-2, 7-5
47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5
48 4-6, 3-6
49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
50 6-4, 6-4
51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7
53 7-5, 6-3
54 6-7, 3-6
55 6-3, 7-6
56 6-0, 6-3
57 7-5, 7-6
58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6
59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0
60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6
61 7-6, 6-3
62 6-3, 7-6
63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6
64 7-6, 7-6
65 6-2, 6-2
66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5
67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6
68 4-6, 2-6
69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1
70 4-6, 1-6
71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7
72 6-3, 7-5
73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6
74 1-6, 2-6
75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
76 4-6, 4-6
77 7-5, 6-3
78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6
80 6-2-6-7, 6-7
81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6
82 6-4, 6-2
83 3-6, 4-6
84 6-2, 6-1
85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
86 6-7, 1-6
87 4-6, 4-6
88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6
89 6-4, 6-3
90 6-3, 6-2
91 6-4, 6-2
92 6-4, 6-3
93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
94 5-7, 6-7
95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
96 2-6, 3-6
97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6
98 6-7, 1-6
99 6-1, 7-5
100 5-7, 6-7

So what do the numbers tell you? As noted, you are better than your opponent but not by much - you win 51% of 100 points. You will win about 60% or your matches. Let’s take the numbers 59-41 as an average representation (meaning out of 100 matches, you win 59 and your opponent wins 41).

Now review some of the losing scores. Note the lopsided losing score in some of the matches by the better player:

Match #11 is 1-6, 0-6
Match #22 is 2-6, 3-6
Match #33 is 1-6, 4-6
Match #70 is 4-6, 2-6
Match #74 is 1-6, 2-6
Match #86 is 6-7, 1-6
Match #96 is 2-6, 3-6.

Sounds bad? Is it mental? Statistically not (but mental can make it even worse) but this simulation is statistical fact. It is mathematical probability.

Now, first, I think you know how often it is only a very small number of points won/lost that separate the top players from one another.

To summarize, you are playing against a weaker opponent, winning 51% of the points overall (6 out of 10 matches). But …..note in matches 29-33 –you lose 5 matches in a row, and from 26-33 you lost 7 out of 8 - all to an inferior player, but not by much (you also won 11 out of 12 in matches 55-66). But neither of these streaks are due to the "mental" aspect - this is strictly math. Now throw in the mental aspect, and who knows how the results will vary.

Back to my original proposals:

Many unforced errors are not due to mental errors
AND
Many lost matches to inferior players, but still close in skill set, are not due to mental errors, but are actually due to lack of muscle memory, and the resulting mathematical probability.


Important Point! The mental game is critically important. Many players will have their game break down due to mental stress, esp if they make a few errors. A few will find renewed strength when the pressure is on. However, my point is, statistical probability and variation accounts for much more of the variation than is generally appreciated.


Taken from my book (chapter 22): “Muscle Memory and Imagery: Better Tennis” (on Amazon Books)

 

[IowaGuy]

I propose that many of the claims of mental errors –lack of confidence, lack of focus, etc. – are the results of muscle memory related to your tennis stroke, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Let me point out that I agree that many unforced errors are mental. It is a fact that mental errors and lapses occur and cause one to lose on occasions. But… I believe…

Many unforced errors are not due to mental errors
AND
Many lost matches to inferior players, but still close in skill set, are not due to mental errors, but are actually due to lack of muscle memory, and the resulting mathematical probability.

Here is the mathematical support. To understand this, use a mathematical simulator. This was developed by a friend, Sven. He graduated with a degree in Mathematics from Humboldt University of Berlin. After that, he did years of computer programming and working with software. He now heads a team at Amazon.

To use this tool, you will need to go to his Website – http://www.jayoogee.com/mytennismatches/Login.aspx. You enter whether it takes 2 or 3 sets to win the match. You next enter the percentage of points won out of 100 points played. For example, one player wins 51% of the points. The Simulator then does calculations for 100 games using statistical probability. Results show total matches and games won and lost out of 100. Results also calculate the score for each individual match – all based on the statistical probability of one player winning 51% of 100 points. Results vary – a lot!

Start by running a simulation of Player 1 winning 51% of the points and Player 2 winning 49% of the points. Overall the better player wins about 60% of the time. This should sound intuitively reasonable.

SIMULATION RESULT
Matches Won Player 1: 59
Matches Won Player 2: 41

No. Score No. Score No. Score No. Score
1 7-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6
2 5-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3
3 6-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
4 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6
5 4-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7
6 6-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6
7 7-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2
8 6-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6
9 0-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1
10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6
12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6
13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6
14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3
15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2
16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2
17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3
18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7
20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6
22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6
23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6
24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5
25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 100 5-7, 6-7

So what do the numbers tell you? As noted, you are better than your opponent but not by much - you win 51% of 100 points. You will win about 60% or your matches. Let’s take the numbers 59-41 as an average representation (meaning out of 100 matches, you win 59 and your opponent wins 41).

Now review some of the losing scores. Note the lopsided losing score in some of the matches by the better player:

Match #11 is 1-6, 0-6
Match #22 is 2-6, 3-6
Match #33 is 1-6, 4-6
Match #70 is 4-6, 2-6
Match #74 is 1-6, 2-6
Match #86 is 6-7, 1-6
Match #96 is 2-6, 3-6.

Sounds bad? Is it mental? Statistically not (but mental can make it even worse) but this simulation is statistical fact. It is mathematical probability.

Now, first, I think you know how often it is only a very small number of points won/lost that separate the top players from one another.

To summarize, you are playing against a weaker opponent, winning 51% of the points overall (6 out of 10 matches). But …..note in matches 29-33 –you lose 5 matches in a row, and from 26-33 you lost 7 out of 8 - all to an inferior player, but not by much (you also won 11 out of 12 in matches 55-66). But neither of these streaks are due to the "mental" aspect - this is strictly math. Now throw in the mental aspect, and who knows how the results will vary.

Back to my original proposals:

Many unforced errors are not due to mental errors
AND
Many lost matches to inferior players, but still close in skill set, are not due to mental errors, but are actually due to lack of muscle memory, and the resulting mathematical probability.


Important Point! The mental game is critically important. Many players will have their game break down due to mental stress, esp if they make a few errors. A few will find renewed strength when the pressure is on. However, my point is, statistical probability and variation accounts for much more of the variation than is generally appreciated.


Taken from my book (chapter 22): “Muscle Memory and Imagery: Better Tennis” (on Amazon Books)

This line of thinking reminds me somewhat of the mathematics of "streaks" or "hot hands" in basketball:

https://theconversation.com/momentu...ot-hand-with-the-mathematics-of-streaks-74786

 

[ADS]

This line of thinking reminds me somewhat of the mathematics of "streaks" or "hot hands" in basketball:

https://theconversation.com/momentu...ot-hand-with-the-mathematics-of-streaks-74786

That is a very interesting article. I was aware of articles related to the “Misperception of the Hothand in Basketball”. (I even remember thinking the 3% difference could be important and maybe should not be dismissed, but still did not check further). I was not aware of this counter to it. I shall reread and check links. Thanks!

Nevertheless, statistical variation is a more important variable than is commonly appreciated! Strangely, it has helped my mental game (Sven too). Now when we have a bad day, we shrug and think “a bad day due to random variability”. We don’t beat ourselves up, since tomorrow can be much better. Next point (and match)!

 

[KineticChain]

if you want to improve ur game and stop being a weekend hack, join us in the racket and strings sections. u need a heavy frame that is light enough to give u insane power. u need a wicked hybrid mixture of polyepsilon+goat gut string to give you ridiculous spin potential. putting lead at 2:30 oclock and 11:25 o'clock is at least 0.75NTRP boost. my arm and wrist are chronically injured, not because of bad technique (my technique is perfect), but because i haven't found that right set-up yet

 

[IowaGuy]

Now when we have a bad day, we shrug and think “a bad day due to random variability”.

With "random variability" in mind, plus minor nagging injuries etc, think how impressive Federer's 23 consecutive GS semi-finals streak was !!! (and 18 out of 19 consecutive GS finals!?!)

 

[ADS]

I so totally agree! To do the records you site is just unbelievable, both in terms of Roger not being hurt, or simply having an off day, and the all the other players not having the match of their life. Of course Roger bests 99.999...% of the other players by more than 51%. Some more stats from the Sven simulator and verbiage from my book:

Now let’s run some more simulations. On a 51% winning percentage, running 5 groups of 100 matches, your number of matches won shows the following results: 59-41, 66-34, 63-37, 51-49, and 60-40 – with the low 51-49, the high being 66-34, and the average being 61% winning.

Now let’s run some more simulations. On a 51% winning percentage, running 5 groups of 100 matches, your number of matches won shows the following results: 59-41, 66-34, 63-37, 51-49, and 60-40 – with the low 51-49, the high being 66-34, and the average being 61% winning.


Now do the same calculation for 50%, 51%, 52%, 53%, 54%, and 55% (using Player 1). The numbers are as follows for 6 simulations:

As noted, 51% is 59, 66, 63, 51, and 60 for matches won – with the low 51-49, the high being 66-34, and the average being 61% winning

• 52% is 68, 76, 77, 68, and 81 – for matches won, the low is 68-32, the high is 81-19, and the average is 74% winning
• 53% is 78, 85, 78, 77, and 76 – for matches won, the low is 76-24, the high is 85-15, and the average is 78.8% winning
• 54% is 87, 89, 81, 87, and 86 – for matches won, the low is 81-19, the high is 89-11, and the average is 86% winning
• 55% is 91, 90, 94, 84, 95 – with a low of 84, a high of 94, and an average of 90.8%

See the domination by the player who wins 54% of the points – a difference of only 8 points out of 100. It seems so hard to believe that a difference of only 8 points out of 100 will result in match domination (roughly almost 9 out of 10 matches), but that is how it is according to statistical probability.

As you point out, Federer has been som consistently above the rest of the crowd for long periods. This says so much about how much better he is than the rest. I think it is the consistency factor that propels him to be the G.O.A.T. IMO

 

[IowaGuy]

Thinking about this some more - it would be interesting if this could also simulate "no-ad" scoring. (i.e. collegiate tennis)

i.e. the fewer deuces, the more likelihood the weaker player wins.

Food for thought...

 

[user92626]

17-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6

25-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3

36-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3

47-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6

54-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7

66-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

77-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2

86-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6

90-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1

10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6

12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6

13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6

14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3

15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2

16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2

17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3

18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7

20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6

22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6

23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6

24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5

25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4100 5-7, 6-7

17-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6

25-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3

36-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3

47-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6

54-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7

66-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

77-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2

86-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6

90-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1

10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6

12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6

13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6

14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3

15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2

16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2

17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3

18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7

20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6

22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6

23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6

24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5

25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4100 5-7, 6-7
17-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6

25-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3

36-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3

47-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6

54-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7

66-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

77-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2

86-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6

90-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1

10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6

12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6

13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6

14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3

15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2

16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2

17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3

18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7

20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6

22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6

23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6

24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5

25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4100 5-7, 6-7







This looks like my scores from last year. I can totally recognize it.

 

[TagUrIt]

Sorry I hate math, I will agree that lack of skill is a serious factor when it comes to winning matches. However things like pressure and nerves weigh in very heavily at times and that’s when the game becomes mental. You could have to equally skilled players and what causes one to lose horribly over the other? That’s mental there. On the contrary you could have an inferior player that has the confidence to execute shots, take chances and get a victory. So while there is a science to it all, I still believe that you need to be more mentally strong than anything.

 

[ADS]

17-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6

25-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3

36-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3

47-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6

54-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7

66-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

77-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2

86-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6

90-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1

10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6

12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6

13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6

14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3

15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2

16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2

17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3

18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7

20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6

22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6

23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6

24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5

25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4100 5-7, 6-7

17-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6

25-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3

36-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3

47-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6

54-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7

66-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

77-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2

86-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6

90-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1

10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6

12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6

13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6

14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3

15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2

16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2

17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3

18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7

20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6

22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6

23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6

24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5

25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4100 5-7, 6-7
17-5, 4-6, 6-2 26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6 51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 76 4-6, 4-6

25-7, 7-6, 7-6 27 4-6, 4-6 52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7 77 7-5, 6-3

36-3 6-3 28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2 53 7-5, 6-3 78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3

47-6, 3-6, 7-5 29 3-6, 3-6 54 6-7, 3-6 79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6

54-6, 6-4, 4-6 30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 55 6-3, 7-6 80 6-2-6-7, 6-7

66-4, 6-3 31 3-6, 4-6 56 6-0, 6-3 81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

77-6, 6-2 32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7 57 7-5, 7-6 82 6-4, 6-2

86-2, 6-3 33 1-6, 4-6 58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 83 3-6, 4-6

90-6, 6-3, 6-7 34 6-4, 6-3 59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0 84 6-2, 6-1

10 6-2, 7-6 35 6-4, 6-2 60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6 85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

11 1-6, 0-6 36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 61 7-6, 6-3 86 6-7, 1-6

12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6 37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 62 6-3, 7-6 87 4-6, 4-6

13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6 38 6-4, 6-0 63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6 88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6

14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6 39 5-7, 1-6 64 7-6, 7-6 89 6-4, 6-3

15 3-6, 4-6 40 6-7, 2-6 65 6-2, 6-2 90 6-3, 6-2

16 6-7, 5-7 41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5 91 6-4, 6-2

17 6-3, 6-4 42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 92 6-4, 6-3

18 7-6, 6-4 43 5-7, 1-6 68 4-6, 2-6 93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3

19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6 69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 94 5-7, 6-7

20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 45 6-2, 7-5 70 4-6, 1-6 95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

21 6-4, 6-2 46 6-2, 7-5 71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7 96 2-6, 3-6

22 2-6, 3-6 47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 72 6-3, 7-5 97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6

23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 48 4-6, 3-6 73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 98 6-7, 1-6

24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0 49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 74 1-6, 2-6 99 6-1, 7-5

25 6-3, 7-5 50 6-4, 6-4 75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4100 5-7, 6-7







This looks like my scores from last year. I can totally recognize it.

OMG. That looks awful. It looked great when I first did it. Here is this and I will try to edit the original post too. Sorry about that (esp your scores - still better than mine)
No. Score
1 7-5, 4-6, 6-2
2 5-7, 7-6, 7-6
3 6-3 6-3
4 7-6, 3-6, 7-5
5 4-6, 6-4, 4-6
6 6-4, 6-3
7 7-6, 6-2
8 6-2, 6-3
9 0-6, 6-3, 6-7
10 6-2, 7-6
11 1-6, 0-6
12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6
13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6
14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6
15 3-6, 4-6
16 6-7, 5-7
17 6-3, 6-4
18 7-6, 6-4
19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7
21 6-4, 6-2
22 2-6, 3-6
23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6
24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0
25 6-3, 7-5
26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6
27 4-6, 4-6
28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2
29 3-6, 3-6
30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6
31 3-6, 4-6
32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7
33 1-6, 4-6
34 6-4, 6-3
35 6-4, 6-2
36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2
37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
38 6-4, 6-0
39 5-7, 1-6
40 6-7, 2-6
41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3
42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1
43 5-7, 1-6
44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6
45 6-2, 7-5
46 6-2, 7-5
47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5
48 4-6, 3-6
49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
50 6-4, 6-4
51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7
53 7-5, 6-3
54 6-7, 3-6
55 6-3, 7-6
56 6-0, 6-3
57 7-5, 7-6
58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6
59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0
60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6
61 7-6, 6-3
62 6-3, 7-6
63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6
64 7-6, 7-6
65 6-2, 6-2
66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5
67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6
68 4-6, 2-6
69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1
70 4-6, 1-6
71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7
72 6-3, 7-5
73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6
74 1-6, 2-6
75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
76 4-6, 4-6
77 7-5, 6-3
78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6
80 6-2-6-7, 6-7
81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6
82 6-4, 6-2
83 3-6, 4-6
84 6-2, 6-1
85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
86 6-7, 1-6
87 4-6, 4-6
88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6
89 6-4, 6-3
90 6-3, 6-2
91 6-4, 6-2
92 6-4, 6-3
93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
94 5-7, 6-7
95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
96 2-6, 3-6
97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6
98 6-7, 1-6
99 6-1, 7-5
100 5-7, 6-7

 

[ADS]

Sorry I hate math, I will agree that lack of skill is a serious factor when it comes to wining matches. However things like pressure and nerves weigh in very heavily at times and that when the game becomes mental. You could have to equally skilled players and what causes one to lose horribly over the other? That’s mental there. On the contrary you could have an inferior player that has the confidence to execute shots, take chances and get a victory. So while there is a science to it all, I still believe that you need to be more mentally strong than anything.

SO agree, esp in a third set tiebreak in an important league match with everyone watching (been there). However, the point is, even without the 'nerves' factoring in, you still will have runs of wins and losses. Then throw in the nerves, and who knows what. But sometimes it is not nerves, esp during the bulk of the match. The statistics can account for a lot of variation in your game, even without nerves. So I guess another point is, do not be so hard on yourself. Your game will vary, and may vary in streaks. So meditate or whatever to improve your mental game, but also try to get your game (technique and practice) to where you win the points 53% of the time against the player where you used to only win 51% of the points. By improving your game just a little bit, the results can improve a lot!!

Shameless plug - My practice method has helped me more than anything else - see book "Muscle Memory and Imagery: Better Tennis" - see Amazon Books. Note the second part of the book is about the mind - Imagery. So I do think really important. Note I priced rather cheaply. It is more about spreading info on something I researched thoroughly, and helped me when nothing else was working. I believe in the method, and hope it also helps others (consider I only make $2.20 per paperback copy - Although I admit to being happy to make enough to buy some cans of tennis balls).

 

[ADS]

Thinking about this some more - it would be interesting if this could also simulate "no-ad" scoring. (i.e. collegiate tennis)

i.e. the fewer deuces, the more likelihood the weaker player wins.

Food for thought...

That is a very good suggestion! I will pass along to Sven

Some more about his Simulator

• Sven commented to me that his simulator is able to perform more complex simulations than the “simple” one above. You can also enter the service advantage, and he recommends doing some simulations that take serve advantage into consideration. The way you do this is, for example, setting the player 1 to 59%, and player 2 to 55%. This way both players have 5% advantage when they serve and a 4% difference. It is also explained in the blue information icons on the web site.

Sven also recommends investigating how the simulations differ between best of 5 sets and best of 3 sets.

 

[ADS]

That is a very good suggestion! I will pass along to Sven

Some more about his Simulator

• Sven commented to me that his simulator is able to perform more complex simulations than the “simple” one above. You can also enter the service advantage, and he recommends doing some simulations that take serve advantage into consideration. The way you do this is, for example, setting the player 1 to 59%, and player 2 to 55%. This way both players have 5% advantage when they serve and a 4% difference. It is also explained in the blue information icons on the web site.

Sven also recommends investigating how the simulations differ between best of 5 sets and best of 3 sets.

Here is Sven’s reply (he liked your article, as did I):

“Very interesting. It is a good reminder that statistical modeling has to be done very carefully before conclusions can be made. The no-ad simulator is a good idea. Given the concept of games, the percentage of won matches should still be higher than the point winning percentage, but it should be less extreme than we have seen for games with ad.”

I’m pretty sure he will come up with something but right now his life is very busy

Thanks for your interest!

 

[dominikk1985]

As yogi berra said: 90% is mental, the other half is physical.

 

[ADS]

As yogi berra said: 90% is mental, the other half is physical.

So true .... so true! I love Yogi!!!!

 

[user92626]

OMG. That looks awful. It looked great when I first did it. Here is this and I will try to edit the original post too. Sorry about that (esp your scores - still better than mine)
No. Score
1 7-5, 4-6, 6-2
2 5-7, 7-6, 7-6
3 6-3 6-3
4 7-6, 3-6, 7-5
5 4-6, 6-4, 4-6
6 6-4, 6-3
7 7-6, 6-2
8 6-2, 6-3
9 0-6, 6-3, 6-7
10 6-2, 7-6
11 1-6, 0-6
12 2-6, 6-3, 7-6
13 3-6, 6-2, 7-6
14 1-6, 7-5, 3-6
15 3-6, 4-6
16 6-7, 5-7
17 6-3, 6-4
18 7-6, 6-4
19 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
20 4-6, 6-4, 6-7
21 6-4, 6-2
22 2-6, 3-6
23 6-2, 6-7, 1-6
24 7-6, 5-7, 6-0
25 6-3, 7-5
26 5-7, 6-4, 3-6
27 4-6, 4-6
28 1-6, 6-2, 6-2
29 3-6, 3-6
30 7-5, 4-6, 4-6
31 3-6, 4-6
32 5-7, 6-2, 5-7
33 1-6, 4-6
34 6-4, 6-3
35 6-4, 6-2
36 6-3, 5-7, 6-2
37 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
38 6-4, 6-0
39 5-7, 1-6
40 6-7, 2-6
41 6-3, 3-6, 6-3
42 4-6, 6-2, 6-1
43 5-7, 1-6
44 6-3, 4-6, 2-6
45 6-2, 7-5
46 6-2, 7-5
47 4-6, 6-2, 7-5
48 4-6, 3-6
49 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
50 6-4, 6-4
51 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
52 6-4, 2-6, 5-7
53 7-5, 6-3
54 6-7, 3-6
55 6-3, 7-6
56 6-0, 6-3
57 7-5, 7-6
58 6-4, 6-7, 7-6
59 1-6, 6-1, 6-0
60 4-6, 6-0, 3-6
61 7-6, 6-3
62 6-3, 7-6
63 3-6, 6-1, 7-6
64 7-6, 7-6
65 6-2, 6-2
66 6-0, 3-6, 7-5
67 4-6, 6-2, 4-6
68 4-6, 2-6
69 7-5, 6-7, 6-1
70 4-6, 1-6
71 6-4, 6-7, 5-7
72 6-3, 7-5
73 3-6, 6-3, 7-6
74 1-6, 2-6
75 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
76 4-6, 4-6
77 7-5, 6-3
78 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
79 3-6, 6-3, 4-6
80 6-2-6-7, 6-7
81 6-3, 3-6, 4-6
82 6-4, 6-2
83 3-6, 4-6
84 6-2, 6-1
85 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
86 6-7, 1-6
87 4-6, 4-6
88 6-4, 4-6, 2-6
89 6-4, 6-3
90 6-3, 6-2
91 6-4, 6-2
92 6-4, 6-3
93 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
94 5-7, 6-7
95 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
96 2-6, 3-6
97 6-3, 4-6, 7-6
98 6-7, 1-6
99 6-1, 7-5
100 5-7, 6-7

I ...don't...know....what...to...say..!!!

Good job, bud.

 

[Crocodile]

It's better to crystallise things and look at it this way:
1. Each of us to take responsibility for our own performance and therefore:
A/ we improve our strokes
B/ we improve our tactical choices
C/ we improve our mental competence
D: we improve our fitness and nutrition
And we organise our lives so we can be most effective in our behaviour.