the reason why slower courts cause less upsets is variance

[dominikk1985]

Many people don't understand why faster courts bring more upsets. people always say how novak and nadal benefit most from slower courts and that is certainly true. however the biggest effect of the slower courts is that they decrease variance.

the slower courts mean that points are more toward 50:50 and less favoring the server (still but not as much). that means that there is a large number of points deciding a match since there are many open points. the more open points there are the smaller is the variance because variance gets lower with a smaller bigger size (if you throw a coin only twice the result is more random than if you throw it 200 times).

the fast courts mean that most points will be won by the server anyway even if he is a weaker player. in this case there are only very few open points. in fact only like 4-5 rallies might decide a set because the other games are served out. and 4-5 points (sometimes even one in a tiebreaker) leave much more chance for luck that 15-20 points on a slower court.

because of that reason the slower hard courts (with clay it is a little different because that is another game) benefit the better player even if it is a fast court guy like fed (although a guy like novak is helped more of course). the number of upsets will be decreased since the weaker player has to win a lot of points (see the matches when djokovic or nadal get broken and then break back twice which would not have happened in the 90s).

Of course less variance is a good thing in general because it means the best will play each other. the tournaments want the federer nadal matches (or now novak nadal) and thus like the conditions.

however I think tennis needs some element of luck and some upsets help the game.

 

[Bartelby]

Very good analysis.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

I agree with your analysis somewhat, but I also think fast courts allow for more upsets because players that hit big can catch fire and dominate a match. Usually grinders and counterpuncher/defensive baseline players have a more even level of play, while big hitters and more aggressive players have peaks and valleys.

((( Extreme generalizations ahead ))) People that are great at slow courts use movement and build points. People that are great on fast courts use power and finesse. Fast courts usually allow technical ability to shine, while slow courts allow athleticism to shine.

Nadal and Djokovic will rarely have a day where they are moving considerably worse or building points poorly unless injured (although sometimes they will not be as on point with passing shots.)

Del Potro or another player that relies on mostly aggressive play will have days where their shots are connecting better or worse. It affects the big hitters more because of their total reliance on technique, while more athletic players can fall back on spin and speed if they are not hitting particularly well that day.

Also, I am not trying to say that Nadal and Djoko are necessarily less technically gifted or passive players. Both of those guys are the best right now because they have consistent aggressive play coupled with amazing defensive capabilities.

 

[BevelDevil]

I think an implication of OP's hypothesis is that (all else equal) there should be fewer upsets in women's tennis, which has weaker serves. Is this the case?

If OP is right, then Pete Sampras, Martina Navratilova, and Bjorn Borg, have to be given even more props for being able to avoid so many potential upsets.


I think there's another reason slower courts should reduce variance: Longer rallies give more opportunities for superior players to win points.

 

[Chanwan]

the slower courts mean that points are more toward 50:50 and less favoring the server (still but not as much). that means that there is a large number of points deciding a match since there are many open points. the more open points there are the smaller is the variance because variance gets lower with a smaller bigger size (if you throw a coin only twice the result is more random than if you throw it 200 times).

the fast courts mean that most points will be won by the server anyway even if he is a weaker player. in this case there are only very few open points. in fact only like 4-5 rallies might decide a set because the other games are served out. and 4-5 points (sometimes even one in a tiebreaker) leave much more chance for luck that 15-20 points on a slower court.

Interesting question and theory.

I will throw in an article with lots of stats and would like to know what you think of it.
Contrary to common wisdom, today's players are actually better at holding serve compared to the 90's (and vice versa, players are worse at breaking serve).
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...r-surfaces-helped-the-returner-apparently-not

According to the article "If anything, since 1995, hard courts have been harder for the returner—the same applies to grass since 2004".

And the same goes for clay, but clay courts have probably been made faster rather than slower to make the surfaces more alike.

 

[rofl_copter3]

The thing about slower courts is that it favors people who are fast and powerful, leaving much less room for those who just have one of the two attributes... With these slower courts players with pure power seem to be at the biggest disadvantage though as retrievers seem to be able to chase everything down.

Sampras' serve would be much much less successful in this era and his game would never have developed from an all-court style into serve and volley... Not saying he couldn't have had similar success just that he would have had to do it differently...