I mean in the 2019 Wimbledon final that Novak won, he won 48.3% of the points. Won less points, less games, less service games, less break points, less receiving points, and less wins on serves %. Yet he won!
So everyone remembers he won, and deservedly so, even though on aggregate the statistics lowered his overall career stats.
It's a paradox that arises from the way points are counted for winning. I don't know how some tennis-loving mathematician hasn't explained it clearly yet, filling the void that chatterboxes exploit today to construct illogical conjectures.
Same concept in Presidential general elections. Many Presidents won many elections by a large margin but overall the percentage was very low, close to 50%. It's a mind blowing stat. But it's universally true.
This fact is a huge proof of how great tennis scoring system is. It creates pressure, challenges and really test each players ability to focus on playing the key turning points perfectly.
I reason by the low percentage, is that it doesn't matter how much you win as long as you win (with less effort as possible). They spend enough energy to beat the opponent..
Crazy stat a first glance, but this includes their whole career. So includes the matches where they were up and coming so would have lost more points than they won. So the stats from when they were dominating the slams must be higher for just this period alone.
First of all, 54% of points won means they won 17.4% more points than their opponents (54/46=1.1739.) Also, the big 3 reached the late stages and finals of big tournaments constantly, where they would play against other top-ranked players (often each other), so those matches would be more competitive (basically equal amounts of points won) and longer (more points). So those matches would be overrepresented in the career stats of the big 3 versus lower-ranked players who might have similar percentages of points won, but against lower rated players on average.
Like snooker. First to ten. You could score 9 x 147s, and your opponent wins 10 x 70-69, and they win even though you scored many, many times more points.
The stat is also about energy conservation. Top players know which points to fight for. They are confident enough to let a 40-0 service game go against them.
I'd be interested to re-do these statistics but only include game points, break points, set points, & match points (for & against). I'm sure the numbers for the big 3 will be miles ahead of the rest of their peers in their era.
26 Comments
I mean in the 2019 Wimbledon final that Novak won, he won 48.3% of the points. Won less points, less games, less service games, less break points, less receiving points, and less wins on serves %. Yet he won!
So everyone remembers he won, and deservedly so, even though on aggregate the statistics lowered his overall career stats.
It's a paradox that arises from the way points are counted for winning. I don't know how some tennis-loving mathematician hasn't explained it clearly yet, filling the void that chatterboxes exploit today to construct illogical conjectures.
It's true in every sport. It's who wins the clutch points. Those are the greatest champions of their sport.
It's why Bear Bryant said their will be two or three plays in any game that will decide the outcome of the game. Patrick hit the nail on the head.
Same concept in Presidential general elections. Many Presidents won many elections by a large margin but overall the percentage was very low, close to 50%. It's a mind blowing stat. But it's universally true.
son ❤❤❤
Who is he talking about lol
This fact is a huge proof of how great tennis scoring system is. It creates pressure, challenges and really test each players ability to focus on playing the key turning points perfectly.
He destroid Halep. Sut up. Mizerabil man.
I reason by the low percentage, is that it doesn't matter how much you win as long as you win (with less effort as possible). They spend enough energy to beat the opponent..
52% is already a quite decent %
Stan Wawrinka has 'only' 51%
Your oponents uforced errors win the match for you.
Crazy stat a first glance, but this includes their whole career. So includes the matches where they were up and coming so would have lost more points than they won. So the stats from when they were dominating the slams must be higher for just this period alone.
Incredible analogy for life
First of all, 54% of points won means they won 17.4% more points than their opponents (54/46=1.1739.)
Also, the big 3 reached the late stages and finals of big tournaments constantly, where they would play against other top-ranked players (often each other), so those matches would be more competitive (basically equal amounts of points won) and longer (more points). So those matches would be overrepresented in the career stats of the big 3 versus lower-ranked players who might have similar percentages of points won, but against lower rated players on average.
4% de 150k=6k. 6k is insane différence
Like snooker. First to ten. You could score 9 x 147s, and your opponent wins 10 x 70-69, and they win even though you scored many, many times more points.
Why cant a french player make french open finala in the past few years
They win the points they HAVE to win.
Mafia is the reason good players loose to horrible ones let’s be honest Patrick.
Hence why new players create boundaries in their head that the big 3 are "untouchable". And with that mindset they truly prove their point
Ok, but the real measurement should be games. 54% of points is basically a game going to 40-30 or winning after an advantage point.
Even if every game was won after advantage, which is basically 50% points won, you can still win the match 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.
The stat is also about energy conservation. Top players know which points to fight for. They are confident enough to let a 40-0 service game go against them.
That's true. You can actually win a match winning less points than your opponent.
I'd be interested to re-do these statistics but only include game points, break points, set points, & match points (for & against). I'm sure the numbers for the big 3 will be miles ahead of the rest of their peers in their era.
That's a great point.
Perfect definition to explain what the meaning and application of Clutch is.