C
Chadalina
Guest
Op probably needs scientific proof water is wet and the sky is blue, seeing it himself obviously isnt enough, lol
Where is the DATA proving that Wimbledon 2019 is slower this year than other years post-2000?
- Thread starter Sport
- Start date
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer had a 52 mph first serve?
It was a serve initially hit at 126 mph, but of course it slows down a lot by the it reaches the opposite baseline.
Nadal beating Kyrgios is data enough
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
@Sport suffers badly from a form of the McNamara fallacy, which should be pretty plain for all to see.
What Sport seems to believe is that the only way to have knowledge is through some quantitative data, and it doesn't seem to matter whether these data are even of high quality. I've never seen Sport ask for proof of the validity or reliability of the Court Pace metrics, and I doubt he'd find any peer-reviewed articles demonstrating this if he tried. But it has numbers and nice graphs, so this doesn't matter, it must be valid. Never mind that there are endless quantitative tools out there that are pure dog****, but it can often fool dupes because they didn't pay attention in statistics class and think that everything that is numbers-based is good.
On the flip-side, he pays no attention to qualitative observations, even when there is every reason to believe these observations are valid and meaningful. What Sport doesn't seem to realize is that qualitative observation is a perfectly widespread method in the sciences which often yields good results. So when pro players give their assessment of a surface, and their opinions appear to be fairly unanimous (something that is called inter-rater reliability in the sciences), as is the case here, then their opinions most certainly constitutes a form of evidence, even if it isn't easily plotted into nice bar charts with arbitrary numbers attached. But Sport seems to be the kind of guy that would rather trust Acuweather than his own eyes when it comes to the question of whether the sun is shining outside his door at this moment.
come on, dawg, get real
What Sport seems to believe is that the only way to have knowledge is through some quantitative data, and it doesn't seem to matter whether these data are even of high quality. I've never seen Sport ask for proof of the validity or reliability of the Court Pace metrics, and I doubt he'd find any peer-reviewed articles demonstrating this if he tried. But it has numbers and nice graphs, so this doesn't matter, it must be valid. Never mind that there are endless quantitative tools out there that are pure dog****, but it can often fool dupes because they didn't pay attention in statistics class and think that everything that is numbers-based is good.
On the flip-side, he pays no attention to qualitative observations, even when there is every reason to believe these observations are valid and meaningful. What Sport doesn't seem to realize is that qualitative observation is a perfectly widespread method in the sciences which often yields good results. So when pro players give their assessment of a surface, and their opinions appear to be fairly unanimous (something that is called inter-rater reliability in the sciences), as is the case here, then their opinions most certainly constitutes a form of evidence, even if it isn't easily plotted into nice bar charts with arbitrary numbers attached. But Sport seems to be the kind of guy that would rather trust Acuweather than his own eyes when it comes to the question of whether the sun is shining outside his door at this moment.
come on, dawg, get real
Last edited:
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, still seems like a lot.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, is the sky blue?
Technology Ruined Tennis
Hall of Fame
Sure, the bottom of the ship disappeared the further out to sea it got. But, where is the DATA that proves the earth is a sphere????
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
augustobt
Legend
Lol. I can't believe that A - Mods deleted my previous post and B - people are even engaging this gibberish debate.
1 - Pro players are saying that - including the most successful grass player of all times.
2 - OP has no clue how they calculate CPI yet he wants to use that as an argument.
3 - "Data", "statistics", "numbers" can be really vague and misleading. Not everything can be diminished to that, specially if we're talking about the practice of a sport. it's one of the most imbecile mistakes one can make. This is not e-sports.
If this was on court, judge would've dismissed because someone is full of an empty feeling of entitlement but is using wikipedia as a source. That's like coming to Las Vegas with Disney dollars.
1 - Pro players are saying that - including the most successful grass player of all times.
2 - OP has no clue how they calculate CPI yet he wants to use that as an argument.
3 - "Data", "statistics", "numbers" can be really vague and misleading. Not everything can be diminished to that, specially if we're talking about the practice of a sport. it's one of the most imbecile mistakes one can make. This is not e-sports.
If this was on court, judge would've dismissed because someone is full of an empty feeling of entitlement but is using wikipedia as a source. That's like coming to Las Vegas with Disney dollars.
Average number of aces? More aces could mean a number of things , such as the returner on average is below par. Or the server is mixing up his patterns,or the serve direction isn't readable from the type of ball toss . Pace of the court is merely 1 of many factors which determines # of aces . I can keep going , the height of the server , the amount of humidity in the air , the type of balls used (heavy or light) , wind direction/speeds .
No. What stats reveal are objective pertaining to the specific area they are conducted in (if said stats are accurately measured & implemented). Stats do not conceal anything as in they are very specific. You require a multitude of stats covering every different possible circumstance on any given situation in order to cover all bases. Which is exhausting & time consuming & vary rarely done. Think again of a computer simulation handling something like this to a great deal of accuracy.
You may be confusing your stance on stats they way stats are most commonly used to push an agenda (humans misusing numbers which then tarnishes the view of others on said numbers). Lew II is the prime example of this. His stats are correct , yet he chooses stats which pertain to his preconceived agenda , they don't hide anything. It's the fact that he chooses to use stats that would support his beliefs in proving Player X is indeed more superior than player Y , whilst conveniently ignoring the multitude of statistics that indeed favour player Y.
Don't blame the cards , blame the way the dealer decides to shuffle them & deal them
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
No. What stats reveal are objective pertaining to the specific area they are conducted in (if said stats are accurately measured & implemented). Stats do not conceal anything as in they are very specific. You require a multitude of stats covering every different possible circumstance on any given situation in order to cover all bases. Which is exhausting & time consuming & vary rarely done. Think again of a computer simulation handling something like this to a great deal of accuracy.
You may be confusing your stance on stats they way stats are most commonly used to push an agenda (humans misusing numbers which then tarnishes the view of others on said numbers). Lew II is the prime example of this. His stats are correct , yet he chooses stats which pertain to his preconceived agenda , they don't hide anything. It's the fact that he chooses to use stats that would support his beliefs in proving Player X is indeed more superior than player Y , whilst conveniently ignoring the multitude of statistics that indeed favour player Y.
Don't blame the cards , blame the way the dealer decides to shuffle them & deal them
I do admire @Lew II for his "finding the truth" campaign as it does bring something different to the table (cant all be "eye test") and he does put a lot of effort into it. He makes you think, and you start to find either how his stats do tell a story or are narrow minded (there is some good things in there). I just think it is misguided and comes off as propaganda many times.
I have tried telling him many times, while difficult and time consuming (maybe even a bit unattainable), to use stats properly you need hundred if not thousands of statistics and even then it still just gives you an idea (a pretty good one). This is very similar to how insurance companies, businesses, and Vegas use algorithms to tell a story.
With this being said, one statistic is not useless if used correctly.
Take his serve stats chart he likes to use for the courts getting faster. The stats say the courts must be faster since there are more aces. However, in reality this logic is flawed as it does not take into account that you are hitting a object from a toss (not a shot coming at you), the technology has improved greatly in rackets to bring more pace from serve. So of course the serve will be returned less as the technology increases (would love to see KMH chart for serves over the years to see this correlation). Also it only takes into account one aspect of the game (one he does not like which I find funny).
Now a less flawed, but still flawed argument would be to use serve speed vs un-returned serves over the years, as well as look at rally length (various shots involved). Now, obviously it would be nice to see the index on these courts, but once again we do NOT have this. Why is that? Interesting...
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Haven't the tennis balls themselves also changed over the years?
This further complicates using these sorts of statistics, as how can you tell how much is due to the court speed, versus ball characteristics/speed, versus racket technology/player height/fitness, etc...
Meles
Bionic Poster
Hopefully some data comes out next week on Wimbledon.
The physics is quite simple. It has been dry and will remain dry at Wimbledon especially with the roofs. This makes the ground as firm as possible. A similar effect happens in golf on putting greens. Mow as they might they can't make a green ultra fast if is got a ton of water in it from rain. Now if its been very dry, despite watering the greens will be lightening fast. But in tennis the result is of course the opposite, the hard ground deflects more of the ball's energy vertically up into the air with a higher bounce; which makes it slower through the court.
To add insult to injury some of the newer courts (1, 2, 3, 4 and 17, now that 18 is gone) have a firmer surface and may bounce over six inches higher in a year like this. I'm not a guru on the grounds, but these courts are new over the last 25 years while the rest are original to the plans.
Visually I can say that at Queens (Meddy v Simon) and wimbledon (Meddy v Goffin) that literally these flat hitting players could not hit a winner even if they hit the line. I believe this is because the ball is just bouncing so high for these players.
If you want to talk Rye (planted in early 2000s) vs the previous grass. Wimbledon claims in fact their is no difference in bounce when the courts are in perfect condition. The difference is late in the event where the old grass would allow a lot of shots to skid through off of bad bounces lowering the overall bounce height. I'm not sure I completely buy the company line on this, but it may be that the condition of the grass is the dominant factor.
The reality is that the firmer ground and better condition grass actually makes for more consistent bounces which means higher quality of play. Its just a better event this way and frankly these are ideal conditions that better select the best player in tennis, something Wimbledon has done pretty well at over the years. SLOWER IS BETTER AT WIMBY.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Right, as in we are supposed to believe he is unaware of the pros saying it is slower? Gutter.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure, heard that had at one point. I just wish they would give us statistics on this. They used to give us court index regularly, but now they know that we think they are slowing them all down so they dont give us those.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
And when you reveal what is concealed, you learn that that the suggestive was worth more consideration.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Data is created by experts. And data is interpreted best by experts. So data is not necessarily the opposite of argument from authority.
As with both errors you quote, the relevant qualification is the phrase 'is true only'. I'm not sure anyone is saying definitively the courts are slower. So nothing here is true unconditionally.
You set up this straw man argument, and then you bring data to the rescue as the only thing that can produce uncondtional truth.
This is naive in the extreme.
As with both errors you quote, the relevant qualification is the phrase 'is true only'. I'm not sure anyone is saying definitively the courts are slower. So nothing here is true unconditionally.
You set up this straw man argument, and then you bring data to the rescue as the only thing that can produce uncondtional truth.
This is naive in the extreme.
Bold #1 Yes Lew is indeed "the gift that keeps on giving" Incredibly persistent in his life long goal here. Takes many hits & just keeps chugging along .
Bold #2 Yes you'd need statistics that cover up many other holes such as rally length based off speed/quality/depth of shot , anticipation of shot pattern (easy , you'd need a supercomputer to map the players body to find out how often they anticipated [leaned] in the correct direction of the next shot prior to the execution of the next rally ball) the illusion of making the court seem small & suffocating (as the worlds best baseliners all seem to accomplish) is partly explained here. Then we have footspeed (nike vs adidas perhaps? lol) defensive technique (to best keep the ball in play to extend rally length [not say a cheap high angled slice or dropshot that would force the rally to end a shot or 2 later). I suppose i could just keep going but i assume that everyone gets the point
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
When Federer says it's slow and the balls are slow, it might be worth it for the deaf mutes here to listen up. We don't need "data" when the greatest grass court player ever born confirms the ball and the surface are slow:
"I was also thinking during the game if it was the slowest ever. It's probably me that is moving like a snail out here (smiling)...They make this court so perfect. It actually becomes a bit too simple to play off the baseline. I do believe, and I felt for years, that the ball is not a very lively ball. It's more of a heavy ball. It doesn't really just go 'whew,' unless it's really hot, then the ball goes a bit. We are in England. It's not like we have the superheat over here unless we get the African superwave coming. I definitely think Wimbledon has not been the fastest overall.
If you look at rally length, US Open is shorter rallies on average than Wimbledon. That tells you the story a little bit."
End of thread. For those wanting "data," get a life and listen to the GOAT. The Hubris involved in thinking you know better than Fed and everyone else who has played on this court this year is mind boggling.
"I was also thinking during the game if it was the slowest ever. It's probably me that is moving like a snail out here (smiling)...They make this court so perfect. It actually becomes a bit too simple to play off the baseline. I do believe, and I felt for years, that the ball is not a very lively ball. It's more of a heavy ball. It doesn't really just go 'whew,' unless it's really hot, then the ball goes a bit. We are in England. It's not like we have the superheat over here unless we get the African superwave coming. I definitely think Wimbledon has not been the fastest overall.
If you look at rally length, US Open is shorter rallies on average than Wimbledon. That tells you the story a little bit."
End of thread. For those wanting "data," get a life and listen to the GOAT. The Hubris involved in thinking you know better than Fed and everyone else who has played on this court this year is mind boggling.
R
Robert Baratheon
Guest
Amidst all the talk of data and expert opinion and clay courters winning over grass courters (if there's such a thing alive), you are missing something very fundamental: the eye-test.
If you watch closely you can totally see that the ball isn't moving as fast as it did the last year. The players are unable to hit through their opponents and the rallies are longer as a consequence.
Watch a match or two very attentively and try to see if you can find some of these things happening or not.
PS: not implying at all that I don't approve of slow grass. Above all I like rallies on the grass and slow grass naturally provides more rallies. It's still low bouncing so that grass factor is still there. Players can still get creative with drop shots etc.
If you watch closely you can totally see that the ball isn't moving as fast as it did the last year. The players are unable to hit through their opponents and the rallies are longer as a consequence.
Watch a match or two very attentively and try to see if you can find some of these things happening or not.
PS: not implying at all that I don't approve of slow grass. Above all I like rallies on the grass and slow grass naturally provides more rallies. It's still low bouncing so that grass factor is still there. Players can still get creative with drop shots etc.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Dont love the last paragraph, but your first one is the simple part people are ignoring. It's not hard, just watch tennis (it's why we are all here) and you will see the difference immediately.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Yeah if you have brought something along, time for defence testimony
I did feel (as an expert armchair critic and a fanatic of the sport) that the speeds were slow.
Btw, I am the girl who types out court proceedings, not the jury or the lawyers on either side
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Oh dear, anyway see my above comment.
Technology Ruined Tennis
Hall of Fame
I wonder what this VB member thinks about Rafa's time between serves? Plenty of data to chew over there...
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Wimbledon robbed Tomic of his prize money due a purely subjective assessment of what constitues a profesional standard.
Tsonga thinks they are wrong and thinks also they are insulting him by implying that he did not win the match through superior play.
Not the slightest reference to data here, and here ... if anywhere ... there should be data as you are affecting a player's financial interests quite severely.
Tsonga thinks they are wrong and thinks also they are insulting him by implying that he did not win the match through superior play.
Not the slightest reference to data here, and here ... if anywhere ... there should be data as you are affecting a player's financial interests quite severely.
fundrazer
G.O.A.T.
The best was when we had IBM (I think) still doing the stats for the slam matches, and in one of the Novak vs Nadal matchups they had time between points as "keys to the match." Their data had both guys going well over the limit on average.
I actually lol'd quite a bit when I saw it.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Time between serves depends on defining when the clock starts and even when it stops, as the definitions make all the difference between reining in time wasting and legalising it.
The main device is to simply increase duration, which is what everyone now does, so 25 seconds becomes the new norm.
The main device is to simply increase duration, which is what everyone now does, so 25 seconds becomes the new norm.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
Irrelevant discussion. As if OP would accept any data that don't suit his/her agenda.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Always win when I have the right stats.
Wait? That's wrong.
It's, I always win even if I don't play.
Pandora Mikado
Semi-Pro
Without getting into the how and why of why people on the internet enjoy bickering about things they seemingly care about, the above portion is interesting.
To further craft yours and other people’s internet arguments, here is an additional resource:
https://listverse.com/2012/11/08/15...urce=more&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=direct
Enjoy it!
Lew seeking the truth and Sport looking for objective data sounds like a trailer for the new Twilight zone special. Biggest agenda pushers on this site with no tool whatsoever to interpret their cherry-picked irrelevant stats. Waste of time and space.
The only grassy thing about this court is the low bounce. Slice is actually a viable shot, and dropshots are a weapon. Net rushing is still not a winning strategy but can be used on occasion. It's still a grass tennis disaster and an insult to Becker/Edberg/Sampras days, but it is what it is.
In any case, it'll be over soon enough and then it's back to the exact same thing but with slightly higher bounce. Hip hip...
Actually, my wife says it's really not.
The only grassy thing about this court is the low bounce. Slice is actually a viable shot, and dropshots are a weapon. Net rushing is still not a winning strategy but can be used on occasion. It's still a grass tennis disaster and an insult to Becker/Edberg/Sampras days, but it is what it is.
In any case, it'll be over soon enough and then it's back to the exact same thing but with slightly higher bounce. Hip hip...
Actually, my wife says it's really not.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
There must be a relevant one but I cannot find it. No case can be made against so many independent eye tests PLUS the first-hand experience of the players themselves.
I don't care if it's the balls, the grass, the soil, or any other component. The tennis is regulation hard court stuff with only occasions reminders of where it is being played.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
I am not arguing for or against the notion of court speeds. I was merely stating that @Sport 's original post was not rubbish. @Lleytonstation clarified that there are eye witness testimonials of sorts which work in the opposition's favour. After that it was as usual mere banter from my end and I did state that I accept that and now it was @Sport 's turn to come up with a rebuttal. That is all. I actually have very little say in this matter.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
You are one of the rare breaths of fresh air on this forum. Loved the linkWithout getting into the how and why of why people on the internet enjoy bickering about things they seemingly care about, the above portion is interesting.
To further craft yours and other people’s internet arguments, here is an additional resource:
https://listverse.com/2012/11/08/15...urce=more&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=direct
Enjoy it!
Incognito
Legend
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.
Nice picture!! Same temperature, same wind velocity, both flat/spinny serves?
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
They didn't believe him when he said RLA was playing slower this year and they won't believe him now.
powerplayer
New User
it
If someone you know claimed 'it is raining outside' would you automatically disbelieve them because there was no data to prove it
Unless you can verify any 'data' given by Wimbledon authorities, its just a case of accepting the data being given, which is essentially accepting knowledge from an authority, which is ironic given that you've pointed out the fallacy. That's not to say that this information can't be challenged, at least in principle, but in fact, it isn't.
Actually the earth has rarely thought to be flat, the modern misunderstanding of this and belief in that misunderstanding itself might well be an example of an argument from populism, but in the opposite way to the one you have asserted.
Experts may have been wrong about chimps being herbivores, but that's because the empirical data might have been skewed through limitations in observation, this wasn't in deference to authority so much as there being limited data . It might well make sense to believe all swans are white if you have never seen a black swan, or that gravity is always attractive if you have no example to the contrary. Knowledge is provisional, and observation can't see everything at once.
droliver
Professional
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.
When you combine the men and women data, that trend from the men’s data becomes statistically insignificant at Wimbledon
Similar threads
