Nadal_Freak
Banned
Maybe because Wimbledon is approaching a record in aces. Just heard this from bolo.
Why I think Wimbledon is not slow grass.
- Thread starter Blinkism
- Start date
Murray said it was extremely humid indoors and that slowed down his serve.
Blinkism
Legend
First Round - 1535 Aces (or 12 aces a person)
Second Round - 677 Aces (or 11 aces a person)
Third Round - 444 Aces (or 13 aces a person)
Fourth Round - 212 Aces (or 13 aces a person)
Total - 2868 Aces (or 15 aces a person, weighted over 4 rounds for repeated people)
I couldn't find a source with all the numbers added together so I spent like 20 minutes going through Wimbledon's website adding all the aces together.
Last edited:
Blinkism
Legend
To contrast, the ENTIRE Ace count from Round 1 to the Finals for the 2009 French Open was:
1822 Aces
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
The total ace count from Round 1 to the Finals for the 2009 Australian Open was:
2082 Aces
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
The total ace count from Round 1 to the Finals for the 2008 U.S. Open was:
2469 Aces
http://2008.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
______________________________________________________
So this Wimbledon already has a significant lead in the slam count of the last 4 majors, and the Quarter-finals haven't even begun yet!
No idea what the record for most aces in a slam would be, though.
1822 Aces
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
The total ace count from Round 1 to the Finals for the 2009 Australian Open was:
2082 Aces
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
The total ace count from Round 1 to the Finals for the 2008 U.S. Open was:
2469 Aces
http://2008.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/stats_ms.html
______________________________________________________
So this Wimbledon already has a significant lead in the slam count of the last 4 majors, and the Quarter-finals haven't even begun yet!
No idea what the record for most aces in a slam would be, though.
Last edited:
prosealster
Professional
nice work with the aces count.....however, just looking at the ace count might not tell the whole story, as you are much more likely to get irregular bounces compared to hard court...neverless...it does show serve is playing a huge part in the matches
Blinkism
Legend
Good point.
It doesn't paint the whole picture, but it is another piece of the puzzle.
But, how ridiculous is that ace stat for Wimbledon this year? It really is an ace-fest, and with all these tiebreaks; it feels like old Wimby, again! There's even some serve and volleying happening.
You guys, or guy, are hysterical.
It's like your trying to judge the speeds on a local section of Interstate and ignore the readings of radar guns and the expert testimony of the Troopers who work the road and actually are tested on their ability to visually estimate speed, and instead you count the number of flat tires or hubcaps by the side of the road.
Eureka!
You and N_F are like a pair of Chinese acrobats, contorting, twisting, tumbling, anything but looking at the obvious or listening to the experts, but ultimately face planting the dismount. I hope you guy(s) stretched.
You two(one) should fire e-mail(s) off to the AELTCC immediately demanding another intentional slow down of playing conditions there.
5
Last edited:
Do you read? Like, ever? I mean properly. Go read my post (and Nam's posts). Give me the hard proof that your two variables have a link. You are still assuming, and if you'd read my post, you'd have seen that in statistical science, you can never assume. Even your mate Blinkism has agreed with that.
This is brilliant. Everyone read it again.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
what good it would do? you, me, Andres, Nam at. al already showed him many scientific reasons why his theories are crap....
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
Oh god...
what was the average speed on your local highway 20 years ago? what is the average speed nowadays?
Let me see... the tarmac is now faster than it was 20 years ago? right?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
hehehe.... yeah right!...
so the surface is a variable...
In this Linear equation is it dependent or independent in your Correlation?
be informed that your simple reply to that question will show each and everyone how much you know about Methodical Stats (not Nadal freak stats...)
Independent or Dependent... what is it going to be... 50% chance to get it right...
I suppose arguing with people who know nothing about statistics and science won't work because they just don't understand... :-?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
A brilliant post, which will be brushed aside by A poster who by his own asdmission doesn't even play tennis (Dr. N_ Freakenstein.), and another two posters who believs the aformentioned poster's grossly bias statistical analysis, which is far from complete, and completely innacurate.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Can you say owned? It's not even close in the ace count. Wimbledon really needs to slow down their courts. It's getting ridiculous.
Last edited:
JeMar
Legend
FiveO never disappoints.
Getting techy techy again, are we, Polonius?
I would think Independent, to answer your silly question.
I will just add the comment that human beings are thought to be generally born with the innate knowledge, or axiomatically obvious concept, of the possibility of function composition, a fundamental mathematical notion that otherwise would not have arisen in mathematics, and can be sumarized by saying that if x is a function of y, and y is a function of z, then x is a function of z.
More flowery descriptions of function composition can be found in the appropriate textbooks. I am sure you will like them. They are easy to find.
In our rustic case we could tentatively say:
-break percentage is a function of court speed
-court speed is a function of surface composition
-ergo, break percentage is a function of surface composition
Surface composition is of course the independent variable.
Now a question: Have you detected any trochees, dactyls or anapests in my sentences today? If so, which ones?
I am getting tired of answering silly questions by Dr Polonius, Nam Magoo, and Vlad the Impaler.
These are all assumptions once again. You CAN NOT do that in statistical science.
Your experiment isn't a good one for these reasons :
A. Historically biased researcher
B. Statistics that are not correct
C. You do not have actual surface speeds to relate your break percentages to, you only assume that the courts from top to bottom are where they are supposed to be.
D. You have yet to prove there is a correlation between break percentage and surface speeds, you only assume there is one.
There are numerous ways that your statistical analysis can be shot down, from multiple angles. You have yet to prove any of the facts that I have stated wrong.
Blinkism
Legend
What's funny is that they're arguing a whole bunch of stuff that is totally irrelevant when their original argument is Wimbledon has slowed down so that S&V is dead and it's a much slower surface.
We show that fast courters make up most of the players doing well, that Wimbledon still has a low service break percentage, and that it is by far the ace leader of the last 4 slams;
and they don't see the correlation.
Instead they bring up some quotes, which are opinions and can be biased for whatever reasons.
Statistics, especially tennis statistics with no apparent bias, are a much stronger argument.
But sure,
Mardy Fish > Statistics and common sense
Last edited:
Blinkism
Legend
LOL @ them trying to act as if they have the logical higher ground just because their post length is longer but completely full of nothing but "hot air"!
Good job, Benhur!
Greetings from Toronto, by the way! Going to see the Rogers Cup this year?
Blinkism
Legend
A. Everyone on here is biased and you are definitely not free of bias, so this is a stupid argument.
B. Why do you assume this?
C. Yes, but this a tennis forum. If you don't know that hardcourts and grass are faster than clay then you have to ask yourself; "What am I doing on a tennis forum?". Use your common sense instead of circumventing it and going on and on in your circular logic about correlations.
D.See above point
All-rounder
Legend
that comment would be vaild back in the 90's
Do you understand what the basic scientific method is? Having a researcher that is historically biased means that he/she can put their bias into the research. They can bend / twist facts to make it appear something else. That is why when proper research is done, it is done by a 3rd party who has no affiliation or connection to what is being researched.
Point B is true because FiveO proved it to be true. The statistics that Nadal_Freak used are inaccurate.
Point C is because we are debating this from a scientific point. In order to prove successfully that there is a correlation between break percentage and surface speeds, you MUST have actual surface speed numbers in order to show that there is a correlation. Since they are using statistical science to prove their points, they have to follow the rules of statistical science, otherwise their research is moot point.
Point D, please read above. In statistical science you cannot assume things exist. You must prove it.
Blinkism, I realize you are a Nadal fan, but you must understand that to be fair they must follow the rules of statistical science if they are going to use it to prove their points. It is obvious to many posters on this forum that they are not. They have yet to prove a correlation between their two factors, and they don't even have surface speed numbers in order to compare break percentages with. Plus, you cannot have a biased researcher; that just throws the whole analysis out the window. You must have the research done by a 3rd party that has no bias at all, that way the experiment is fair.
Last edited:
Blinkism
Legend
I'm sorry, but if you don't see the correlation with your own common sense logic, then I'm not discussing this anymore with you because we're going in circles.
Not because I care about the exact surface speed, but because you've lost the core of your argument.
You're arguing that Wimbledon is slower, right?
But what's the difference if it still plays like a fast surface? Then who cares about surface speed if players can still ace more than the other majors, serves are still difficult to break, and serve and volley is always a possibility. Look at the draw this year; Haas, Karlovic, Roddick, Federer, and Hewitt are not dirtballers or slow-court players!
Then do we care if the ball sits a little higher or bounces a little slower? Stop nit-picking, guys! Wimbledon is still the fastest major out there and it's unique. It's not slow or "green clay" and I think, not only have I proven this, but we've all conceded that's a fact.
So I've proven my point, now it's all just nitpicking.
Just use your common sense, NamRanger, and stop being so patronizing. Me being a Nadal fan has nothing to do with it, and I never even brought up who your favorite player is so lets not turn this thread into Federer vs. Nadal because that's not what it's about.
I've been watching tennis long before Nadal got on to the scene and I've been playing tennis before he was even born, so not everything I think about, tennis-wise, revolves around Nadal.
Last edited:
No, the point is that if they are going to use statistical science to prove their points, they have to follow the rules of statistical science. That is the point. If they followed it and their research actually showed the same results, I would agree with them. But the point is that THEY DID NOT.
And you assuming my favorite player is Federer is quite hilarious. He's not. He's fun to watch against certain players, but really boring against certain players too (*cough* Nadal, Canas, Murray *cough*).
And because you don't understand statistical science, you wouldn't know that you don't use common sense, because that could lead to inaccurate results. Statistical science is about proving something with numbers. They have data, but they cannot just says it shows something because "common sense says so". They have to PROVE that it does. And they haven't.
And yes you being a Nadal fan has everything to do with this. Because unconsciously you feel that the argument that grass is slower somehow belittles Nadal Wimbledon title. The ONLY (and this is a fact) people who defend the argument that grass is not slower (or not significantly slower) are Nadal fans. Everyone else here agrees that today's grass is significantly slower than the grass of the 1990s.
Every year this topic gets brought up around Wimbledon time. Every year, Nadal fans make the attempt to say that grass is the same speed as it once was. I think it is quite obvious that from 2002-2009 with multiple articles on the subject (from multiple sources) that a common person would be led to believe that indeed grass is slower. The ONLY shred of evidence that would even suggests that grass is not slower, is this break percentage theory. However, FiveO, Gorecki, me, and shade (you know, 4 different people who have no relation to one another) have all pointed out that this statistical analysis is flawed. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that Wimbledon indeed is significantly slower than the grass of the 1990s.
Unless you can prove that N_F's analysis is correct, and our evidence is wrong, I think anyone who "common sense" according to you would conclude that grass is indeed slower by a significant margin.
Last edited:
Blinkism
Legend
I actually didn't imply that you're a Fed fan, I just used Federer vs. Nadal as an example.
But not I know you're just a Canastard! LOL! I feel your pain
You're assuming I don't understand statistical science. First of all, I'm not debating the statistics. I just think they're interesting and back up my argument, but you're free to rip on their validity if you like.
I just know, by using my common sense, that the picture that the stats paint is true so I don't suspect the stats are false.
Why would I think a slow Wimbledon belittles Nadal? because somehow he would a one-dimensional player otherwise who would never win Wimbledon in the 90's?
I don't actually believe that and the progress I've seen from him early on in this year, especially at the AO, shows me he can play agressive and win on faster surfaces. Also, I could care less if all Nadal was winning was clay tourney's. The main reason he's my favorite player is because I love clay tennis and he's a lefty (as am I).
I was a Federer fan long before I was a Nadal fan and I still feel the same. Especially having seen Federer play Wimbledon before 2003, when he played the majority of his matches from the baseline. I know that famous match with Sampras he apparently played S&V most of the time (I remember watching it live, and no he did not. He played 50% of the points S&V and it was his return game that was most striking).
If you think this has to do with me being a Nadal fan than you are just prejudiced, so I don't think we should be talking bias.
It's a sad fact that most people who go with the "slow Wimbledon" theory are people who don't like Nadal and have heard this theory that existed before Nadal did well but was a fringe idea, in the large scheme of things.
It's the style of play. No more serve and volley means we get to see the ball bounce more often and longer rallies.
That LOOKS slower, but in reality S&V on clay makes clay look fast, too.
The truth is that you do not understand statistical science. Any one who has taken a basic statistics class knows you cannot jump to conclusions without evidence to show a correlation between two things. You cannot simply just say "this proves this, because common sense says so". That is an elementary mistake.
And no, I am not a fan of Canas. You probably couldn't even guess who I am a fan of from this thread.
Another thing is this (part that I put in bold) shows that you indeed are biased because you are a fan of Nadal. The slow Wimbledon theory has been around since 2002, and has been a big issue before Nadal was even a blip on the radar. In 2005, Wilander criticized the grass because he felt that AELTC was not helping their players at all. Henman, Rusedski, Bjorkman, and many players criticized the grass. This has been going on for 3 years before Nadal even started making an impact at Wimbledon.
And no, I am not prejudiced, I am speaking the truth. Look through this thread and see who is defending the theory that grass is not slower or grass is not significantly slower. All Nadal fans (BenHur is a Nadal fan, whether he would like to admit to or not). The closest thing to a non-Nadal fan that defends that grass is not slower is gj011. I mean, you can take him if you want, but that doesn't make your camp look any better IMO. There has not been one non-Nadal fan (other than the outlier I listed) that states that grass is still the same speed or not significantly slower.
Style of play has nothing to do with it. Why is it every year, players consistently say that the USO is faster than Wimbledon? Everyone plays at the baseline at the USO do they not? Are you going to say these players are lying? Is Roddick a liar? What about McEnroe? Wilander? Rafter? Goran? How bout Henman? And many other players. Even Gilbert, the BIGGEST ********* on the ESPN crew states that the USO plays faster than Wimbledon's grass. It would be one thing if these players, commentators, former players, etc. were in the minority, but they are not. They are easily in the majority.
Last edited:
It would help if you explained on what you base your belief that there is no strong relation between court speed and frequency of breaks. The actual consensus on this is much much stronger than any consensus on the speed of Wimbledon. So strong in fact that it is not even considered worth mentioning most of the time. It is taken as common knowledge. Give me the name of one tennis expert or player who thinks that a break on clay means just as much as a break on a fast surface. Give me the name of one player who doesn't believe it is harder to break on faster surfaces.
Also, explain where you think the distinct correlation comes from that those statistics show, in very good general agreement with the perceived speed of the courts.
Of course there are many other factors that influence break percentage - the players, weather, the balls, and so on. But obviously these are going to cancel each other out over a large enough sample. This is a large enough sample. It is not based on some arbitrarily selected matches here and there. It is not based on the anecdotal evidence that this or that player made it to this or that round. It is based on the break results for the entire tournament.
The only variable that remains stable within each tournament year in year out, and that remains at a stable deviation from the other tournaments, IS THE SURFACE. If you know of others, name them.
If now you see that the breaking results show a steady progression according to surface, and good stability within each tournament from one year to the next - thus agreeing with what has been long known or assumed by everyone (except you), then one wonders what causes you to keep denying the relation, and one also wonders to what kind of divine force you attribute the magical arrangement of all the other random factors, which you don't even name, to keep producing these results year after year in the absence of a very strong relation between surface and breaking percentage.
The only conclusion one can reach is that you believe in pure magic. And you believe that pure magic - not the surface - is responsible for keeping MC at a certain percentage all the time, and keeping the USO 7 or 8 percentage points below MC all the time, and so on.
And you are the one talking about the "scientific method"?
Blinkism
Legend
The correlation is the the surfaces on the top of N_F's list are hardcourts and grass courts and on the bottom the surfaces are clay.
Make your own correlation and please don't insult my intelligence.
Also, the slow grass "issue" was completely a fringe issue of minor conversation until about 2005 and then it really blew up in 2006 into the mainstream when people started talking about it on ESPN and on this forums and stuff. What was the contributing factor? Rafael Nadal.
And what camp? I told, you I don't agree with their theories on Wimbledon being just as fast or faster?
A camp doesn't make a theory wrong or right. I use Nadal_Freak's stats but I disagree with him. Doesn't mean he can't make his points and we shouldn't consider them.
Ok, I conceded that Wimbledon may be slower than the USO. I've always said Wimby is either the fastest or second fasted, but it is still FAST.
Wimbledon is not slow, end of my argument.
I will not deviate from that.
Make your own correlation and please don't insult my intelligence.
Also, the slow grass "issue" was completely a fringe issue of minor conversation until about 2005 and then it really blew up in 2006 into the mainstream when people started talking about it on ESPN and on this forums and stuff. What was the contributing factor? Rafael Nadal.
And what camp? I told, you I don't agree with their theories on Wimbledon being just as fast or faster?
A camp doesn't make a theory wrong or right. I use Nadal_Freak's stats but I disagree with him. Doesn't mean he can't make his points and we shouldn't consider them.
Ok, I conceded that Wimbledon may be slower than the USO. I've always said Wimby is either the fastest or second fasted, but it is still FAST.
Wimbledon is not slow, end of my argument.
I will not deviate from that.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Nam, do you have AIM or MSN messenger?
Email me to andresguazzelli@hotmail.com. Can't email you from this website.
Email me to andresguazzelli@hotmail.com. Can't email you from this website.
The-Champ
Legend
Again, Truth or falsity is independent of people's character. Everyone who has studied logic should know this. Thus, a biased person's research does not automatically entail false results.
I'm a Nadal fan and I don't care if the grass is slow or fast. If it's slower than clay, it would only mean, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, mcenroe etc. would not lift a single wimbledon trophy, had they played today (I'm being biased here). Whatever the condition of the grass is at wimbledon, does not in anyway belittle Nadal's achievement or any player of this era for that matter.
Your last sentence is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad numerum, (the most popular view does not necessarily mean it is the correct one). 500 years ago most people agreed the earth was flat, we know today that is not the case.
Nam, what exactly does N_F' statistics show you? Can you show us a more accurate one. thanks.
Last edited:
A. You have yet to prove a correlation between break percentage and surface speed. You cannot say common sense says so. That is not statistical analysis. That is you being a biased researcher. You have to prove there is an actual correlation between surface speeds and break percentage. The only thing holding your argument is "common sense says so". Except, you don't use common sense in statistical analysis. You prove there is a correlation between two different factors with numbers. Not words.
B. You do not have actual data on surface speeds themselves. You know there are multiple ways of interpreting surface speed. You have no actual numbers to compare your break percentage theory to. How can you come to the conclusion that Wimbledon, MC, etc. belong where they belong? Is break percentage semi-accurate? Yes. For pointing out extremely different surfaces, of course it's accurate. Is it accurate to the point where you can be sure that when the percent difference is not huge that you can say one tournament is faster than the other? No.
C. You yourself, and N_F are biased researchers. FiveO has pointed out that the statistics used are inaccurate. Whether or not they prove your point is irrelevant. The statistics used were inaccurate, and therefore would invalidate it. You have to use accurate statistics in order to show true results. You cannot assume that just because all the statistics are inaccurate, that everything will still fall into place. That is bullcrap.
D. What is magic is that someone so highly intelligent as yourself actually believes in the statistical analysis done by a 26 year old college dropout, who majored in Fine Arts. That is magic.
Blinkism
Legend
Thank you for being logical and mature about it.
Nice contribution and I agree, being a Nadal fan doesn't mean you're wrong about anything. I don't think we care if Wimbledon is actually slow, but I can only speak for myself. I personally like watching slower tennis with longer rallies, and nothing made me happier than to see all the S&V'ers go away (kind of miss a few, though).
It's just that, Wimbledon is not slow.
Blinkism
Legend
French Open 2009
4347 Games Played
934 Return Games Won
22% of Games were won by Returner
Australian Open 2009
4330 Games Played
995 Return Games won
22% of Games were won by Returner
US Open 2008
4573 Games Played Played
903 Return Games won
19% of Games were won by Returner
----
You can verify this if you go to the websites of the respective slams and look in their stats section or go back a page or 2 to where I posted the Aces count and click the links I provided.
The stats for Wimbledon are currently unavailable as the only come out after the tournament is completed, but I'll take a guess now and say when they do come out- Wimbledon will place second or first on the list in terms of lowest number.
4347 Games Played
934 Return Games Won
22% of Games were won by Returner
Australian Open 2009
4330 Games Played
995 Return Games won
22% of Games were won by Returner
US Open 2008
4573 Games Played Played
903 Return Games won
19% of Games were won by Returner
----
You can verify this if you go to the websites of the respective slams and look in their stats section or go back a page or 2 to where I posted the Aces count and click the links I provided.
The stats for Wimbledon are currently unavailable as the only come out after the tournament is completed, but I'll take a guess now and say when they do come out- Wimbledon will place second or first on the list in terms of lowest number.
Last edited:
I was there in 07 and had a great time hanging around the practice courts.
I am not sure I will make it this year, unless I find a cheap ticket from California.
ksbh
Banned
I'd like to echo The-Champ's superb post. Like him, I don't care if the grass is slower or not. Nadal beat Federer, a supposed grass master, fair & square. It's the same surface that Federer won his 5 straight titles on. But the Federer fans had nothing to say about the surface back then.
In my opinion, Nadal's victory over Federer shattered the Federer fans illusion that Federer was unbeatable at Wimbledon, especially in the final. It's a bitter fact they find hard to accept. Deal with it & move on!
In my opinion, Nadal's victory over Federer shattered the Federer fans illusion that Federer was unbeatable at Wimbledon, especially in the final. It's a bitter fact they find hard to accept. Deal with it & move on!
Nadal_Freak
Banned
They are saying the grass changed to allow Nadal to beat Federer. How ridiculous is that? Especially since Fed in the most popular player in the world. I actually think Wimbledon was faster in 2008 than 2007.
galactico
Banned
hard to tell, maybe if it was hotter outside
Useful links. I wish they kept those tournament statistics in some kind of archive, instead of tossing them after one year. And they should also calculate this percentage, as it seems more useful than other things like: "percentage of break points converted" the great significance of which I never quite got.
One thing to remark about those results is that the break percentages seem to be dropping in all three of those slams- and they also seem to be converging. This is consistent with the notion that the different surfaces are playing more similarly now (at least at the majors). It is inconsistent with the notion that the are playing slower.
I am very curious to see what the break percentage will be this year at W.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
all that crap on trying to make look bad by using complex English to a non English Native speaker ends up making you look like a complete Dumba$$ - do you want to discuss this in my Language?
but you still managed to make the wrong choice even with a 50% odd!
In your assumtion, the stated Variable... according to your own points is DEPENDENT...
because you say it yourself in a simplistic way: the Serve break depends on the surface with one iteration: the court speed!
that co-correlation is not proven if A: the first one is not proven to significantly correlated and b: the second iteration is not proven to be significant correlated.
was this techky techky enough now? or should i drop in a few Krombach's alpha considerations on the factorial grouping of the surface speeds by serve breaks percentage?
see you next time!
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't understand. You're still using common sense. As if anybody with common sense couldn't see that break percentages seemed to form a great correlation with surface speed. But posters before me have given you numerous examples which have shown how in statistics, common sense cannot be used. Hence, your reliance on common sense and refusal to accept that you need proof by numbers in statistics can only give me the conclusion that you do not understand statistics. If you do not even understand such a basic, fundamental concept of statistical science, then I really have no more to talk to you about.
Hey Nam, how many times have we actually said it? I know I've at least made 4 or so posts about this, and you've done so many more times than I have... Difficult huh?
Btw, you should see what Andreas told me about N_F's break percentages. They are all wrong.
ksbh
Banned
NF ... I'm an optimist. I prefer to see the bright side. Look at this way: slowing down the grass (assuming that's what really happened) allowed us to witness history being made. We got to see the current world No. 2 win 5 straight, something that had never been done on green clay, ever! LOL!
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Nadal made history happen. Nothing changed with the grass.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
zagor
Bionic Poster
NamRanger,Gorecki and Andres aren't Fed fans in the slightest so that theory doesn't hold water.They would just like the grass to the way it was pre 2002,the way it was during the whole tennis history.
Similar threads
- Poll
