Where is the DATA proving that Wimbledon 2019 is slower this year than other years post-2000?

[Sport]

Of course, Wimbledon post-2000 is slower than in the 1990s, as in 2001 Wimbledon converted all the courts to a 100-percent perennial rye grass, replacing the traditional mix of 70-percent rye and 30-percent creeping red fescue.

I think people are implying that Wimbledon this year is substantially slower even than other years post-2000. I see a lot of tennis personalities and tennis fans keep repeating that Wimbledon is slower this year. But many people repeats every year that the court is slower, so I am skeptic. People look like sheeps following herd, blindly repeating that Wimbledon is slower because many people say so.

To suggest that something is true only because most people say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument ad populum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

To suggest that something is true only because some experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument form authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Neither the opinion of the majority nor the opinion of the experts is an indicative of truth. Time can prove both the opinion held by the majority and the opinion held by experts to be false. In the X century, most people believed that the Earth was flat, and they were proved wrong later. In the 1960s, most scientits (the experts) believed that chimps are herbivores, but new observations proved them wrong.

Where is the DATA proving that Wimbledon is slower this year compared with other years post-2000? Is there any Court Pace Index data showing that Wimbledon is slower in 2019 than 2017? Is there any statistic indicating that Wimbledon has averaged less aces per match in 2019 than in 2017?

Without any links to data or stats, the claim that Wimbledon is subtantially slower in 2019 than other years post-2000 is not substained.

 

[TMF]

If the pro players who actually play Wimbledon have all said grass was getting slower then that's your proof.

Is there any player ever said that grass was getting faster? Hell no.

 

[Sport]

If the pro players who actually play Wimbledon have all said grass was getting slower then that's your proof.

Is there any player ever said that grass was getting faster? Hell no.

I see you didn't read my thread.

To suggest that something is true only because experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument form authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The opinion of experts is not an indicative of truth. Time can prove the opinion held by experts to be false. In the 1960s, most scientits (the experts) believed that chimps are herbivores, but new observations proved them wrong.

I have never seen real DATA (Court Pace Index, average number of aces, etc.) indicating that Wimbledon 2019 is significantly slower than other years post-2000.

 

[TheIntrovert]

Where’s the data of the opposite? The players are unanimously saying that it’s slow. Pundits like Darren Cahill, whom you were keen on putting weight on his opinion regarding the seeding debacle also said it’s slow. So it seems like it’s down you, who’s in the minority, to show that it’s not slower.

 

[tennisaddict]

I see you didn't read my thread.

You have players who have played on the court - prior years and now - confirming it is extremely slow this year.

There is not even one player saying the opposite or even saying it is same.

What else you need to know ? If you are still interested in numbers, here are some stats you can research - average length of rallies, number of aces served.

 

[Lleytonstation]

And what would you do with that knowledge? Nothing, because you wouldn't know what to do with it.

 

[True Fanerer]

Pella, Goffin, and RBA.

 

[Azure]

Where’s the data of the opposite?

To be fair to @Sport he is right here. He is not the detractor here. He is making a statement that is maintaining the status quo. When an opposing point is made, it is the onus on the person claiming it that has to prove the point. It's a bit like (although exaggerating) that I accuse you of a crime. It's not your job to prove that a crime was not committed. It is my duty to bring evidence against you. (I have no idea about the court speeds although it did feel slower than '07, but that's what he is asking - is there any data backing it?)

 

[Sport]

Where’s the data of the opposite?

Solid objection. I have no data on the opposite position, and that is the reason why I DO NOT claim that Wimbledon 2019 is equally fast than in other years post-2000.

The reality is that we cannot know whether Wimbledon 2019 is signficiantly slower than other years post-2000 without any comparison of Court Pace Index data, or average aces per match.

 

[Lleytonstation]

To be fair to @Sport he is right here. He is not the detractor here. He is making a statement that is maintaining the status quo. When an opposing point is made, it is the onus on the person claiming it that has to prove the point. It's a bit like (although exaggerating) that I accuse you of a crime. It's not your job to prove that a crime was not committed. It is my duty to bring evidence against you. (I have no idea about the court speeds although it did feel slower than '07, but that's what he is asking - is there any data backing it?)

I would say eye witness testimony as well as expert advice (tennis players) and the fact that top grass players are losing to clay courts left and right.

If this was a crime (and it is ), guilty would be the verdict.

 

[Azure]

I would say eye witness testimony as well as expert advice (tennis players) and the fact that top grass players are losing to clay courts left and right.

If this was a crime (and it is ), guilty would be the verdict.

Haha you see, you teach stats right? You need those mad Gaussian distribution graphs with ANOVA analysis and kurtosis and what not to prove your point - your eye witness stuff is now thrown out of the courtroom

 

[Sport]

To be fair to @Sport he is right here. He is not the detractor here. He is making a statement that is maintaining the status quo. When an opposing point is made, it is the onus on the person claiming it that has to prove the point. It's a bit like (although exaggerating) that I accuse you of a crime. It's not your job to prove that a crime was not committed. It is my duty to bring evidence against you. (I have no idea about the court speeds although it did feel slower than '07, but that's what he is asking - is there any data backing it?)

To be fair, Azure, I believe that ALL claims should be substained with data, even the negations. I believe the burden of proof is in both sides, in affirmations and negations. For instance, a person saying "vaccines are not good" or "there is no life outside Earth" should also proportionate data.

That is why I do not claim that Wimbledon is equally fast than in other years post-2000. I only claim that there are not reliable data indicating that Wimbledon 2019 is significantly slower than other years post-2000, and so we do not know if that is the case.

 

[TheIntrovert]

To be fair to @Sport he is right here. He is not the detractor here. He is making a statement that is maintaining the status quo. When an opposing point is made, it is the onus on the person claiming it that has to prove the point. It's a bit like (although exaggerating) that I accuse you of a crime. It's not your job to prove that a crime was not committed. It is my duty to bring evidence against you. (I have no idea about the court speeds although it did feel slower than '07, but that's what he is asking - is there any data backing it?)

There’s no arbitrary data. But when everyone who’s actually playing on the surface saying something, I’d be inclined to believe them over armchair experts

 

[Lleytonstation]

Haha you see, you teach stats right? You need those mad Gaussian distribution graphs with ANOVA analysis and kurtosis and what not to prove your point - your eye witness stuff is now thrown out of the courtroom

I do, and every stat person knows that one stat is never enough to prove anything. Also, you can take any stat and argue what you want with another stat, there is a reason why stats only give you an idea.

I would need to see the stats on rallies, then the stats on SPEED of serve compared to aces or returned serves. Then compare this to previous years.

Maybe they are hiding this? Wonder why...

 

[fundrazer]

Interesting how you're asking for data to "prove" something when you and lew have posted data that can't actually be used to prove anything.

Or do you not see the difference there?

 

[MeatTornado]

But some things can't be proven. We often don't have access to the type of data required for your burden of proof. And then what, are we not supposed to talk about them?

This is an internet message board comprised of fans. It's not a scholarly publication.

 

[TheIntrovert]

Solid objection. I have no data on the opposite position, and that is the reason why I DO NOT claim that Wimbledon 2019 is equally fast than in other years post-2000.

The reality is that we cannot know whether Wimbledon 2019 is signficiantly slower than other years post-2000 without any comparison of Court Pace Index data, or average aces per match.

Again. Who says those methods are universally agreed to be viable methods of determining court speed? When everyone who’s playing on the surface says one thing unanimously, I don’t see how you can say that’s not the case while you’re watching on your tv. When Roger Federwr says it’s slow, would you go up to him and say “well actually if you look at the average aces per match....” ? No. You’d look like a total muppet. And if you think the contrary, you show me why you think that is.

 

[Lleytonstation]

But some things can't be proven. We often don't have access to the type of data required for your burden of proof. And then what, are we not supposed to talk about them?

This is an internet message board comprised of fans. It's not a scholarly publication.

They also know that some stats are hard to find vs others. To prove that the surface is slower you would need multiple stats for this tourney and compare it to other years. Not an easy task if you can even find it.

Sorry but I don't have time for this, that is why I rely on experts like tennis professionals.

They knows this, so it's an easy out for them.

 

[Lleytonstation]

average aces per match.

My goodness. Service aces DO NOT correlate to speed. The average per match would be inconsistent as well, should be done average per set.

 

[skip1969]

Where’s the data of the opposite?

Exactly. Plus, the fact that we are having a conversation about whether the courts are "slow" or "slower" is reason enough to raise an alarm. Why are they slow AT ALL when this was always the fast Slam?

I don't care if they're slower this year or last year or 10 years ago. I don't want slow grass courts. Because, in my view, it's killing the sport. Variety of play is dying out, and it is partly due to the slowing down of fast surfaces. Obviously, there are many other factors, too. Some can be contained, others cannot. Surface speed is something you can control. And since the entire tour has devolved (as we correctly stated in another thread the other day) into an army of baselining grinders, then at least a variance in court speeds might encourage other styles of play.

Where is the data pool that proves without a shadow of a doubt that the grass is slow? Who knows? And what incentive is there for any of the powers that be in the ATP or ITF to commission such research? There is none. No incentive at all, so long as the sponsors are happy and the money keeps rolling in. Why would they want data floating around that someone could use to show that, by their own intentional actions, they are killing interest in the sport?

 

[MeatTornado]

My goodness. Service aces DO NOT correlate to speed. The average per match would be inconsistent as well, should be done average per set.

That's how www.tennisabstract.com measures court speed, one of Lew's favorite sources iirc.

It's crazy.

 

[TMF]

I see you didn't read my thread.

To suggest that something is true only because experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument form authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The opinion of experts is not an indicative of truth. Time can prove the opinion held by experts to be false. In the 1960s, most scientits (the experts) believed that chimps are vegetarians, but new observations proved them wrong.

I have never seen real DATA (Court Pace Index, average number of aces, etc.) indicating that Wimbledon 2019 is significantly slower than other years post-2000.

This isn't an opinion, but base on fact that the players have played Wimbledon and they all said grass is slower. If they all said grass plays the same since 2000, then you have a point.



Also the BBC have proven that grass was drastically different from 2003 and 2008.

 

[Shaolin]

2019 Data:

Sousa d Cilic
Pella d Anderson

It's a dirt ballers paradise.

 

[Sport]

This isn't an opinion, but base on fact that the players have played Wimbledon and they all said grass is slower. If they all said grass plays the same since 2000, then you have a point.



Also the BBC have proven that grass was drastically different from 2003 and 2008.

Good. That data indicates that Wimbledon 2003 was faster than Wimbledon 2008, but does not indicate that Wimbledon 2006/2007 was faster than Wimbledon 2008.

And, importantly, that data does not indicate that Wimbledon 2019 is slower than Wimbledon 2017 or any other recent year.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Good. That data indicates that Wimbledon 2003 was faster than Wimbledon 2008, but does not indicate that Wimbledon 2006/2007 was faster than Wimbledon 2008.

And, importantly, that data does not indicate that Wimbledon 2019 is slower than Wimbledon 2017 or any other recent year.

You could be presented with the index and about 5 other speed stats and you still would (and could cause there are always stats that contradict deductions) argue that it's not faster.

 

[Tennisgods]

To be fair to @Sport he is right here. He is not the detractor here. He is making a statement that is maintaining the status quo. When an opposing point is made, it is the onus on the person claiming it that has to prove the point. It's a bit like (although exaggerating) that I accuse you of a crime. It's not your job to prove that a crime was not committed. It is my duty to bring evidence against you. (I have no idea about the court speeds although it did feel slower than '07, but that's what he is asking - is there any data backing it?)

Your court analogy is useful.

Sometimes, expert witnesses are called to testify in court. This is probably the argument form authority that old Sport was referring to. They are often used to back up forensics data in murder trials and the like.

Some data has been posted in this thread that suggests speed is slower. Some expert witnesses (players who played on the courts) have testified that speeds are slower.

That’s part of the case for the prosecution. What evidence does he have in defence?

 

[ghostofMecir]

We’ll have to wait until the end of the tournament to collate the data or we can collate the data through the first three rounds after tomorrow and run a T-test on ace% or points per game or W/UE ratios or games per set between the first three rounds in 2019 vs 2018 or whatever year you want.

I’m on my phone here so this was the quickest thing I could do: TBs played. Obviously, there can be TBs played with breaks in the set, but over the course of the TB era in men’s play, more TBs correlate with faster playing conditions.

2018 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 80/347= 23.1%
2019 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 57/340=16.8%

99.9% sure that ifnwe ran a T-test with a 95% confidence intervslmthet we’d see that there was a statistically significant difference between 2019 and 2018 not caused by chance.

2017 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 67/342= 19.6%
2016 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 66/367=18%

Lots of unusual scorelines, under 70% points won on 1st serve matches, etc., but yes, have to run the numbers to make meaningful argument.

 

[Lew II]

We’ll have to wait until the end of the tournament to collate the data or we can collate the data through the first three rounds after tomorrow and run a T-test on ace% or points per game or W/UE ratios or games per set between the first three rounds in 2019 vs 2018 or whatever year you want.

I’m on my phone here so this was the quickest thing I could do: TBs played. Obviously, there can be TBs played with breaks in the set, but over the course of the TB era in men’s play, more TBs correlate with faster playing conditions.

2018 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 80/347= 23.1%
2019 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 57/340=16.8%

99.9% sure that ifnwe ran a T-test with a 95% confidence intervslmthet we’d see that there was a statistically significant difference between 2019 and 2018 not caused by chance.

2017 men’s Wimbledon TBs played through first two rounds: 67/342= 19.6

Lots of unusual scorelines, under 70% points won on 1st serve matches, etc., but yes, have to run the numbers to make meaningful argument.

Can you provide the number of tie-breaks for every edition?

 

[Lleytonstation]

Can you provide the number of tie-breaks for every edition?

Average rally shots...

 

[Lew II]

Average rally shots...

UO and AO have longer rallies than RG?

Where did you take this from?

 

[ghostofMecir]

Can you provide the number of tie-breaks for every edition?

Go to the draws and count them. Don’t know of any palace that lists the # of TBs.

2015 is about 22% or so on a cursory glance
2016 is 18%
2017 is 19.6%
2018 is 23.1%
2019 is 16.8%

Don’t have time to keep going, but 2019 looks like a massive, statistically significant outlier so far.

You could also go and see thrnmatches of players always in TBs (Isner, Kyrgios, Raonic, etc., and it’s even worse).

 

[Lleytonstation]

UO and AO have longer rallies than RG?

Where did you take this from?

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/rally-statistics/

 

[Lew II]

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/rally-statistics/

This was for women:

We still need a lot more data before we can make confident statements about surface speeds in 20th-century tennis. (You can help us get there by charting some matches!) But as we gather more information, we’re able to better illustrate how the surfaces have become less unique over the years.

 

[Tshooter]

 

[Lleytonstation]

This was for women:

We still need a lot more data before we can make confident statements about surface speeds in 20th-century tennis. (You can help us get there by charting some matches!) But as we gather more information, we’re able to better illustrate how the surfaces have become less unique over the years.

Play same courts, no?

Yes, I agree we need more data, but until we are presented with it the eye and word test (tennis expertise) say it's slower.

Stats needed are rally lengths, serve speed vs returned (compare years), winners, court index, and I am sure there could be another few stats as well as many graphs.

These however are hard to gather and find and compare through years. Then again they want it to be.

How hard would it be to get the speed index?

 

[Standaa]

Whether the grass in Wimbledon 2019 is slower than previous years or not is definitely testable, therefore it’s provable, therefore it’s relevant.

Props to OP for creating a relevant thread.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Of course, Wimbledon post-2000 is slower than in the 1990s, as in 2001 Wimbledon converted all the courts to a 100-percent perennial rye grass, replacing the traditional mix of 70-percent rye and 30-percent creeping red fescue.

I think people are implying that Wimbledon this year is substantially slower even than other years post-2000. I see a lot of tennis personalities and tennis fans keep repeating that Wimbledon is slower this year. But many people repeats every year that the court is slower, so I am skeptic. People look like sheeps following herd, blindly repeating that Wimbledon is slower because many people say so.

To suggest that something is true only because most people say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument ad populum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

To suggest that something is true only because some experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument form authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Neither the opinion of the majority nor the opinion of the experts is an indicative of truth. Time can prove both the opinion held by the majority and the opinion held by experts to be false. In the X century, most people believed that the Earth was flat, and they were proved wrong later. In the 1960s, most scientits (the experts) believed that chimps are herbivores, but new observations proved them wrong.

Where is the DATA proving that Wimbledon is slower this year compared with other years post-2000? Is there any Court Pace Index data showing that Wimbledon is slower in 2019 than 2017? Is there any statistic indicating that Wimbledon has averaged less aces per match in 2019 than in 2017?

Without any links to data or stats, the claim that Wimbledon is subtantially slower in 2019 than other years post-2000 is not substained.

There is none. Just butthurt fans going by "the eye test". Like you said Wimbledon has said since 2002 the courts have been the same. Certain fans just can't accept that even though their guy didn't win squat on "fast grass"

 

[Lew II]

@ghostofMecir

Tie-breaks per set % at Wimbledon:

1991 - 18.3
1992 - 17.3
1993 - 18.1
1994 - 17.2
1995 - 15.9
1996 - 18.1
1997 - 18.1
1998 -15.9
1999 - 20.4
2000 - 19.7
2001 - 19.1
2002 - 16.9
2003 - 19.3
2004 - 18.4
2005 - 19.6
2006 - 18.6
2007 - 20.9
2008 - 20.2
2009 - 18.4
2010 - 20.3
2011 - 19.5
2012 - 20.5
2013 - 21.3
2014 - 24.2
2015 - 18.7
2016 - 18.5
2017 - 19.6
2018 - 23.1

'90s average --> 17.7
'00s average --> 19.1
'10s average --> 20.6

 

[BeatlesFan]

Another repetitive and pointless thread. What's amazing is that an obsessive Nadal fan should be jumping around in mindless glee that the Wimbledon courts are slow as hell. Instead, he pointlessly attempts to debate with people who were actually alive to have watched pre-2002 Wimbledon grass. It's laughable.

 

[Lleytonstation]

@ghostofMecir

Tie-breaks per set % at Wimbledon:

1991 - 18.3
1992 - 17.3
1993 - 18.1
1994 - 17.2
1995 - 15.9
1996 - 18.1
1997 - 18.1
1998 -15.9
1999 - 20.4
2000 - 19.7
2001 - 19.1
2002 - 16.9
2003 - 19.3
2004 - 18.4
2005 - 19.6
2006 - 18.6
2007 - 20.9
2008 - 20.2
2009 - 18.4
2010 - 20.3
2011 - 19.5
2012 - 20.5
2013 - 21.3
2014 - 24.2
2015 - 18.7
2016 - 18.5
2017 - 19.6
2018 - 23.1

'90s average --> 1.77
'00s average --> 1.91
'10s average --> 2.06

Once again, this backs your theory of more holds and less breaks (better serving and worst ROS). Yet, serve has more to do with technology advancements and less on court surface. The serve is hit much harder.

When serving the ball starts with you tossing it, not someone hitting it at you. Let's see the rally numbers?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Another repetitive and pointless thread. What's amazing is that an obsessive Nadal fan should be jumping around in mindless glee that the Wimbledon courts are slow as hell. Instead, he pointlessly attempts to debate with people who were actually alive to have watched pre-2002 Wimbledon grass. It's laughable.

He seems to have some sort of personality disorder tbh. And I don't throw that term around. Like he just can't handle the narrative on this forum not being to his liking and those negative emotions force him to constantly make these threads.

He also doesn't seem to understand that his ability to influence anyone's perspective is nonexistent. But I'm sure these threads are just venting more than anything.

 

[Lew II]

Once again, this backs your theory of more holds and less breaks (better serving and worst ROS). Yet, serve has more to do with technology advancements and less on court surface. The serve is hit much harder.

When serving the ball starts with you tossing it, not someone hitting it at you. Let's see the rally numbers?

So your criteria is correct and mine is not? How convenient.

I doubt that stat is correct by the way. 2011-16 AO/UO were much faster than RG, yet in those stat the rally were longer at AO/UO.

Average ace percentage:

2011-16 AO --> 8.5
2011-16 UO --> 8.0
2011-16 RG --> 5.8

It's don't think Federer skipped fast Slams and Nadal skipped slow Slams LOL

 

[Lleytonstation]

So your criteria is correct and mine is not? How convenient.

I doubt that stat is correct by the way. 2011-16 AO/UO were much faster than RG, yet in those stat the rally were longer at AO/UO.

Average ace percentage:

2011-16 AO --> 8.5
2011-16 UO --> 8.0
2011-16 RG --> 5.8

It's don't think Federer skipped fast Slams and Nadal skipped slow Slams LOL

My criteria is not correct as any stat has a flaw (mine just isn't as big of a flaw), and how many times do I have to tell you it is about MANY stats not just one or two?

Your serve stats are irrelevant when talking court surface speed. Put serve speed next to serve numbers through out the years and you would see a correlation.

 

[Backspin1183]

This isn't an opinion, but base on fact that the players have played Wimbledon and they all said grass is slower. If they all said grass plays the same since 2000, then you have a point.



Also the BBC have proven that grass was drastically different from 2003 and 2008.

Federer had a 52 mph first serve?

 

[Lleytonstation]

Federer had a 52 mph first serve?

At the base line after the bounce?

 

[True Fanerer]

Federer had a 52 mph first serve?

That had to be a 2nd serve lol.

 

[BlueB]

Slow grass conspiracy is mostly garbage. We here year after year "This is the slowest that Wimbledon has ever played...". If that was true, it would mean continuous slowing of the surface. At that rate, it should play slower then RG, by now

After all, its soil and grass, you can't really do much to it. Temperature and humidity play a role, but it's mostly not man controlled...

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[I Am Finnish]

That had to be a 2nd serve lol.

 

[True Fanerer]

Things like this thread happen, when taxi drivers talk about tennis.

Uber.