Yet Another court speed thread this time with DATA ,DATA and DATA

#1
LINK : Single most coveted thing in the history : THE DATA


While this is mostly a troll thread in intent, and but this is @Lew II 's second favourite site which he cites so much. So they must be really good .


Jokes aside , this is worth giving a thought. They claim the difference in speed is extremely significant when compared to 2010. Implying gradual intentional slowdown through the years.

They also claim 2018 was slightly faster.

Now many won't be sold on their methods, but every single metric that is generally a characteristic of faster courts is without an exception down this year.



The players are right. Wimbledon’s surface–or balls, or atmosphere, or aura–has slowed down in comparison with recent years. We’ve heard comments to that effect from Roger Federer, Milos Raonic, Boris Becker, Rafael Nadal, and many others. Raonic attributes the change to the grass, and Nadal to the balls. Regardless of the reason, the numbers back up their perceptions.
Here is an overview of several surface-speed indicators for the first three rounds of singles matches at Wimbledon, 2017-19:


2017 2018 2019
Aces (Men) 8.9% 10.0% 8.5%
Aces (Women) 4.1% 4.2% 4.1%

Unret (Men) 36.0% 36.6% 33.3%
Unret (Women) 25.9% 27.6% 25.2%

<= 3 Shots (Men) 65.2% 65.6% 61.9%
<= 3 Shots (Women) 55.3% 57.9% 55.0%

Avg Rally (Men) 3.4 3.5 3.7

Avg Rally (Women) 4.0 3.8 4.1



The second set of rows, "Unret," is the percent of unreturned serves. The next set, "<=3 Shots," is the percent of points that ended in three shots or less. For all four of the stats shown, including aces and average rally length, men's numbers point to slower conditions. The women's numbers are less clear, but to the extent that they point in either direction, they concur.
Not just 2019
Aggregate numbers such as these usually give us an idea of what's going on. But we can do better. The numbers above do not control for the mix of players or the length of their matches. For instance, 2019's rates would be different if John Isner, instead of Mikhail Kukushkin, had played a third-round match. The surface speed might have affected that result, but if we're going to compare ace rate from one year to the next, we shouldn't compare Isner's ace rate with Kukushkin's ace rate.
That's where my surface speed metriccomes in. For each tournament, I control for the mix of servers and returners (yes, returners affect ace rate, too) to boil down each event to one number, representing how the tournament's ace rate compares to tour average. While there's more to surface speed than ace rate, aces are a good proxy for many of those other indicators, and more importantly, aces are one of the few stats that are available for every match.
The resulting score usually rangesbetween 0.5--50% fewer aces than average, usually on a slow clay court like Monte Carlo--and 1.5--50% more aces than average, on a fast grass or indoor hard court, like Antalya or Metz. Over the last decade, Wimbledon's conditions have drifted from the high end of that range to the middle:
Year Men Women Average
2011 1.26 1.37 1.31
2012 1.27 1.06 1.17
2013 1.29 1.04 1.17
2014 1.35 1.19 1.27
2015 1.20 1.16 1.18
2016 1.06 1.03 1.04
2017 1.03 1.07 1.05
2018 1.14 0.98 1.06
2019 1.04 0.96 1.00
The men's numbers are usually more reliable measurements, because they are based on many more aces, which means that the ace rate for any given match is less fluky. Ideally, we'd see the men's and women's speed ratings move in lockstep, but there is some noise in the calculation, and the ratings are also relative to that year's tour average, which depends in turn on the changing speeds of dozens of other surfaces.
Caveats aside, the direction of the trend is clear. There isn't a substantial difference between 2019 and the last few years, but the gap between the first and second half of the decade is dramatic.
What is less clear--and will require considerable further research--is how much it matters. In 2014, Nick Kyrgiosupset Nadal in four sets, while last week, the result was reversed. How much of that can we attribute to the surface? Would faster conditions have allowed Isner to outlast Kukushkin? Kevin Anderson to hold off Guido Pella? Jelena Ostapenko to withstand Su Wei Hsieh?
For now, those questions remain in the speculation-only file. Now that we can conclude that the grass really has gotten slower, we can focus that speculation on the fates of several grass court savants, including Federer, Raonic, and Karolina Pliskova. By the end of the fortnight, they--like Kyrgios--might be wishing it was 2014 again.
 
#6
LINK : Single most coveted thing in the history : THE DATA


While this is mostly a troll thread in intent, and but this is @Lew II 's second favourite site which he cites so much. So they must be really good .


Jokes aside , this is worth giving a thought. They claim the difference in speed is extremely significant when compared to 2010. Implying gradual intentional slowdown through the years.

They also claim 2018 was slightly faster.

Now many won't be sold on their methods, but every single metric that is generally a characteristic of faster courts is without an exception down this year.



The players are right. Wimbledon’s surface–or balls, or atmosphere, or aura–has slowed down in comparison with recent years. We’ve heard comments to that effect from Roger Federer, Milos Raonic, Boris Becker, Rafael Nadal, and many others. Raonic attributes the change to the grass, and Nadal to the balls. Regardless of the reason, the numbers back up their perceptions.
Here is an overview of several surface-speed indicators for the first three rounds of singles matches at Wimbledon, 2017-19:


2017 2018 2019
Aces (Men) 8.9% 10.0% 8.5%
Aces (Women) 4.1% 4.2% 4.1%

Unret (Men) 36.0% 36.6% 33.3%
Unret (Women) 25.9% 27.6% 25.2%

<= 3 Shots (Men) 65.2% 65.6% 61.9%
<= 3 Shots (Women) 55.3% 57.9% 55.0%

Avg Rally (Men) 3.4 3.5 3.7

Avg Rally (Women) 4.0 3.8 4.1



The second set of rows, "Unret," is the percent of unreturned serves. The next set, "<=3 Shots," is the percent of points that ended in three shots or less. For all four of the stats shown, including aces and average rally length, men's numbers point to slower conditions. The women's numbers are less clear, but to the extent that they point in either direction, they concur.
Not just 2019
Aggregate numbers such as these usually give us an idea of what's going on. But we can do better. The numbers above do not control for the mix of players or the length of their matches. For instance, 2019's rates would be different if John Isner, instead of Mikhail Kukushkin, had played a third-round match. The surface speed might have affected that result, but if we're going to compare ace rate from one year to the next, we shouldn't compare Isner's ace rate with Kukushkin's ace rate.
That's where my surface speed metriccomes in. For each tournament, I control for the mix of servers and returners (yes, returners affect ace rate, too) to boil down each event to one number, representing how the tournament's ace rate compares to tour average. While there's more to surface speed than ace rate, aces are a good proxy for many of those other indicators, and more importantly, aces are one of the few stats that are available for every match.
The resulting score usually rangesbetween 0.5--50% fewer aces than average, usually on a slow clay court like Monte Carlo--and 1.5--50% more aces than average, on a fast grass or indoor hard court, like Antalya or Metz. Over the last decade, Wimbledon's conditions have drifted from the high end of that range to the middle:
Year Men Women Average
2011 1.26 1.37 1.31
2012 1.27 1.06 1.17
2013 1.29 1.04 1.17
2014 1.35 1.19 1.27
2015 1.20 1.16 1.18
2016 1.06 1.03 1.04
2017 1.03 1.07 1.05
2018 1.14 0.98 1.06
2019 1.04 0.96 1.00
The men's numbers are usually more reliable measurements, because they are based on many more aces, which means that the ace rate for any given match is less fluky. Ideally, we'd see the men's and women's speed ratings move in lockstep, but there is some noise in the calculation, and the ratings are also relative to that year's tour average, which depends in turn on the changing speeds of dozens of other surfaces.
Caveats aside, the direction of the trend is clear. There isn't a substantial difference between 2019 and the last few years, but the gap between the first and second half of the decade is dramatic.
What is less clear--and will require considerable further research--is how much it matters. In 2014, Nick Kyrgiosupset Nadal in four sets, while last week, the result was reversed. How much of that can we attribute to the surface? Would faster conditions have allowed Isner to outlast Kukushkin? Kevin Anderson to hold off Guido Pella? Jelena Ostapenko to withstand Su Wei Hsieh?
For now, those questions remain in the speculation-only file. Now that we can conclude that the grass really has gotten slower, we can focus that speculation on the fates of several grass court savants, including Federer, Raonic, and Karolina Pliskova. By the end of the fortnight, they--like Kyrgios--might be wishing it was 2014 again.
The data suggests 2011 and 2014 were the fastest editions of Wimbledon in the last 10 years. This is obviously wrong, since notorious slow court specialist (according to resident TTW experts) Novak Djokovic won both of them :cool:
 
#16
Hmmm, interesting. I will say it is not a huge difference, so maybe weather or balls? Yet, it is enough of a difference. However, I stand by my stance that Fed actually will benefit from this SLIGHTLY slower yet low bouncing grass. His weakest areas are return and getting out rallied (yes, I get that slow surfaces would not help with rallies). With it being slightly slower he can get his footwork how he wants to hit the aggressive shots he wants. He has time to turn defense into offensive shots. You could see this verse Pouille and against Berrettini (yes, he played terrible), he was not over powered such as what Anderson did to him last year.

But once again our eyes (did you hear that @Lew II , "eye test") is real and the data backs it up.
 
#17
We knew that the final would be Djokovic vs Federer, but with this new information everything changed, it will be RBA vs Nadal now.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#19
This small difference for one edition could be just caused by a bad performance from a couple of big servers, like Isner and Anderson for example.

1 year with 0.2% difference is not a great sample size.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
It's probable that serve holds is a poor stand-in for court speed, but the question here is that the guy is using the best data available to him that he can find.

We have observational data from experts aka the players, and we have an absence of official data, so I have no problem with data that is suggestive if not conclusive.

I'm not really interested enough to argue the toss about particulars his data, but his general conclusion seems more plausible than most people's arguments on this issue:

Caveats aside, the direction of the trend is clear. There isn't a substantial difference between 2019 and the last few years, but the gap between the first and second half of the decade is dramatic.

I don't know who else does tennis analytics and makes them freely available, but the last I heard was that people were selling such to players for a goodly sum.

But if you do know any, then people should publish them here.

Means even courts we 100% know have gotten slower still have raised hold % because serve is not a good stat to use for speed of courts.
 
Last edited:
#30
It's probable that serve holds is a poor stand-in for court speed, but the question here is that the guy is using the best data available to him that he can find.

We have observational data from experts aka the players, and we have an absence of official data, so I have no problem with data that is suggestive if not conclusive.

I'm not really interested enough to argue the toss about particulars his data, but his general conclusion seems more plausible than most people's arguments on this issue:

Caveats aside, the direction of the trend is clear. There isn't a substantial difference between 2019 and the last few years, but the gap between the first and second half of the decade is dramatic.

I don't know who else does tennis analytics and makes them freely available, but the last I heard was that people were selling such to players for a goodly sum.

But if you do know any, then people should publish them here.
No, it is simply not a good stat to use. Just because you do not have the correct stats does not mean you should use incorrect ones that you do have.

The serve has increase because the racket technology has gotten much better every year. They are hitting the ball from a toss that is not moving towards them. This will cause for heavier and faster paced shots resulting in more holds and poor serve returns. Also, it only incorporates one bounce, and one bounce that you get to control (also one type of shot), which is a poor indicator.

Plus, the stats show that serves continue to rise, even after the USO was slowed down dramatically. That is direct contradiction to Lew's stats.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#32
You are talking about racquet technology developments? You are the one that is seriously misguided if you think speculation about technology is going to fly. You sound like a TW sales pitch for new racquets!

No, it is simply not a good stat to use. Just because you do not have the correct stats does not mean you should use incorrect ones that you do have.

The serve has increase because the racket technology has gotten much better every year. They are hitting the ball from a toss that is not moving towards them. This will cause for heavier and faster paced shots resulting in more holds and poor serve returns. Also, it only incorporates one bounce, and one bounce that you get to control (also one type of shot), which is a poor indicator.

Plus, the stats show that serves continue to rise, even after the USO was slowed down dramatically. That is direct contradiction to Lew's stats.
 
#33
You are talking about racquet technology developments? You are the one that is seriously misguided if you think speculation about technology is going to fly. You sound like a TW sales pitch for new racquets!
Really? You clearly don't play tennis. Every year there is an increase in the racket developments the same way it is for hockey sticks. It has helped improved location, speed, and consistency in serving. But I love how that's the only thing you focused on as it was not the only thing I mentioned...
 
#36
You are talking about racquet technology developments? You are the one that is seriously misguided if you think speculation about technology is going to fly. You sound like a TW sales pitch for new racquets!
Look at the stats Lew provided...
Service games won at Wimbledon:

'90s - 79.9%
'00s - 81.7%
'10s - 83.4%

This shows a very slight increase over the years, yet it does show a constant increase. Why? Not the courts speeding up very slightly every year, but because over a decade the racket technology has increased.

I would say it accounts for about 2-3% if not more over 10 years. Oh, what do you know. These serve stats show this increase...
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#40
I don't believe it. Every decade or two there may be a significant development, but every year? Absolutely not.

Really? You clearly don't play tennis. Every year there is an increase in the racket developments the same way it is for hockey sticks. It has helped improved location, speed, and consistency in serving. But I love how that's the only thing you focused on as it was not the only thing I mentioned...
 
#41
I don't believe it. Every decade or two there may be a significant development, but every year? Absolutely not.
The serve stats don't show an increase from year to year. It fluctuates. But if you say go by 5 years there is an increase. Go another 10 years and there is further increase.

Slight increase in racket technology, slight increase in serve stats. Big racket advancements, big increase in serve stats.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#42
Slight increases can be explained by court conditions fluctuating. It's only the long term trends that count.

The serve stats don't show an increase from year to year. It fluctuates. But if you say go by 5 years there is an increase. Go another 10 years and there is further increase.

Slight increase in racket technology, slight increase in serve stats. Big racket advancements, big increase in serve stats.
 
#44
Excellent thread. I already had seen those DATA.

According to the surface speed metrics, Wkmbledon 2017 is THE SLOWEST WIMBLEDON EVER with 1.03. It means Roger Federer won the slowest Wimbledon ever. The second slowest Wimbledon ever was Wimbleodn 2019 with 1.05 of surface speed metrics, which is close to 2017

So in conclusion, according to the surface speed metrics, Wimbledon speed has dramatically declined from 2016 onwards. Now, it is false that Wimbledon 2019 is the slowest Wimbledon ever. Wimbledon 2017 is the slowest Wimbledon ever
 
#45
And with service being at its highest domination ever you want faster surfaces? o_O

Ao since 2016 has had a very high CPI, higher than Wimbledon.


Exactly how many servebots reached the Sfs?

Cincinnati and Shanghai , Paris,Dubai are usually called the fastest ATP tournaments, exactly how many servebots have gotten to SFs since 2014 ?


And how exactly serving skills is an evil thing?

It is a skill, if a player can't serve well, it's his fault. Servebots are usually unable to move well, so should we take away there only advantage

Tennis tour should test every skills of a player. We have surfaces (Slow HC, Clay) that test physicality and point construction.There are almost 90% of journey dedicated to that.


How many tournaments now test Serving ability, net play and instantaneous shot making ?

A tennis tour should test every player , in every way. Every kind of player should have one surface to help his game.


90s may have been too fast centric, 2010s have been too slow centric.

A balance of distribution provided new challenges and gives unique character to each slam and season swing.
 
#46
Excellent thread. I already had seen those DATA.

According to the surface speed metrics, Wkmbledon 2017 is THE SLOWEST WIMBLEDON EVER with 1.03. It means Roger Federer won the slowest Wimbledon ever. The second slowest Wimbledon ever was Wimbleodn 2019 with 1.05 of surface speed metrics, which is close to 2017

So in conclusion, according to the surface speed metrics, Wimbledon speed has dramatically declined from 2016 onwards. Now, it is false that Wimbledon 2019 is the slowest Wimbledon ever. Wimbledon 2017 is the slowest Wimbledon ever
2019 has 1.04 and not 1.05.

So, it's .01 in difference. That really changed my world. Not only that on an avg, including women 2019, is slowest.


Now please don't tell me you going to hang on that .01 difference.
 
#48
2019 has 1.04 and not 1.05.

So, it's .01 in difference. That really changed my world. Not only that on an avg, including women 2019, is slowest.


Now please don't tell me you going to hang on that .01 difference.
Can we agree, then, that Wimbledon 2019 has essentially the same speed than in 2017? It means Wimbledon 2019 is tied with Wimbledon 2017 as the slowest Wimbledon ever.

Don't you agree?
 
Top