Deciding set tie breaks and implications on mental toughness

First topic message reminder :

Mental toughness is one of my favourite topics because for me it should be associated amongst some of the qualities of any champion and questioned at times. Well i was looking at the ATP tour stats sheets and looking at the the tie break section and stats for it, suprisingly, i saw Federer ranked 1st somewhere there but not convinced, i, looked properly and realised he played an awful lot of tie breaks so hardly much to write about. Scrolled down further and saw the stats on tie breaks, deciding set and it showed what exactly i expected. Some of the mentally toughess players in the history of tennis occupying the top spot.

1. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .759 - 123-39
2. Jimmy Connors .000 - 0-0 .698 - 229-99
3. Novak Djokovic .917 - 9-0 .698 - 74-32
4. Rafael Nadal .632 - 9-4 .697 - 92-40
5. John McEnroe .000 - 0-0 .688 - 161-73
6. Pete Sampras .000 - 0-0 .681 - 188-88
7. John Newcombe .000 - 0-0 .681 - 94-44
8. Johan Kriek .000 - 0-0 .676 - 125-60
9. Boris Becker .000 - 0-0 .673 - 165-80
10. Arthur Ashe .000 - 0-0 .671 - 171-84

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Deciding-Set-Career-List.aspx


Some posters get hissy when the mental toughness of their favourite players is shown but we have seen too much proof of these. I used the 5th set deciding tie break as a point because that's where the pressure is at the most in matches and the mentally tough ones normally rise up to the occassion. Infact the ATP Index had the heading : On Pressure situation.
Wimbledon for example does not use tie breaks in the 5th set so could be a bit unfair on others who might have done well over there but the stats above pretty much confirms the facts, some players have great mental strength and others are mentally weak. I honestly don't see why some throw it out when it is pointed out some players are mentally weak when the facts show.

By the way, Federer is 32nd on the list. Can't help it

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well I call them deciding sets. All you have to do is prove me wrong. You can't by the way.

You right. Using logic to convince you is a tall order!

And by the way - most fans of Fed (I include myself) would accept that he is a better front-runner than retriever of difficult situations.

Since I don't like attempting subjectively to try and break a player's component parts down into matters such as 'talent' 'fitness' and 'mental toughness' I don't know what to make of that beyond simply enjoying watching the guy play when he's in full flow.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well I call them deciding sets. All you have to do is prove me wrong. You can't by the way.

What are you on about?

You've posted an article declaring a statistic that you say is for TIE BREAKS in deciding sets. The statistics aren't anything to do with TIE BREAKS.

You've been told this by more than one poster and all you can do is waffle on about the definition of a decisive set.

Since you have posted a statistic it falls upon you to look to the source and find out what it is. Are you seriously trying to maintain the line that this statistic is for tie breaks in your unconventional definition of deciding sets, or are you going to accept you got it horribly wrong and your whole article is based on a hideous error?

No the stats above is inclusive of tie breaks as well. Julius pointed this out, long before you started cheer leading on what he pointed out. I simply accepted my error and said a player can actually play over a 100 deciding set tie break which yet again, you jumped on without much thought in what I meant by 'deciding set'.
Clearly the onus is on you to prove I meant 3rd or 5th set only and you can't.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Mental toughness is one of my favourite topics because for me it should be associated amongst some of the qualities of any champion and questioned at times. Well i was looking at the ATP tour stats sheets and looking at the the tie break section and stats for it, suprisingly, i saw Federer ranked 1st somewhere there but not convinced, i, looked properly and realised he played an awful lot of tie breaks so hardly much to write about. Scrolled down further and saw the stats on tie breaks, deciding set and it showed what exactly i expected. Some of the mentally toughess players in the history of tennis occupying the top spot.

...

Some posters get hissy when the mental toughness of their favourite players is shown but we have seen too much proof of these. I used the 5th set deciding tie break as a point because that's where the pressure is at the most in matches and the mentally tough ones normally rise up to the occassion. Infact the ATP Index had the heading : On Pressure situation.
Wimbledon for example does not use tie breaks in the 5th set so could be a bit unfair on others who might have done well over there but the stats above pretty much confirms the facts, some players have great mental strength and others are mentally weak. I honestly don't see why some throw it out when it is pointed out some players are mentally weak when the facts show.

By the way, Federer is 32nd on the list. Can't help it

I have added emphasis - but I think you were referring to deciding sets in the conventional sense of 3rd and 5th sets - if you weren't the fact that Wimbledon doesn't have 5th set tie-breaks would not have been worthy of a special mention because they have tie-breaks in the 3rd and 4th sets which can 'decide' matches.

Barry those stats don't point to only tie breaks only but neither do they point to with-out tie breaks either.
What I find funny is Boggo's attempt without knowing the facts.

Christ man, you have written in the title "Deciding set tie breaks and implications on mental toughness"

The statistics you present do not represent tie breaks. They are not tie break statistics. Tie breaks is not what these statistics represent. They aren't about tie breaks. They are about something different from tie breaks. Those aren't statistics for tie breaks.

Is any of this starting to penetrate yet? Are we getting this?

Seems you don't get this either. The stats are not for tie breaks which I admit
To Julius but neither are they for sets without tie breaks either.

Please, I want more of this.

So now the article should read "Deciding set not excluding those ones with tie breaks in and implications on mental toughness".

Presumably you're also reversing your definition of "deciding set" because the ATP statistics you refer to actually relate to 3rd or 5th depending on the match length.

wow, epic fail by OP

I've read amusing threads, but this tops it!

It says deciding set on the ATP site, nothing about tie breakers (it could include them) but it's not exclusively including only them. Bogbrush, your completely correct on this.

Didn't say tie breaks only which I agreed on, neither did it specify if they are without tie breaks which i'm pointing out.

Read the title of the thread. Either you change the title, or you must be confused.

luciusmann wrote:Bogbrush, your completely correct on this.

Thank you, I am!

(Sheesh, I do all the hard work and the credit goes to a toilet cleaning implement)

Haha, and you too Julius!

S_A should now consider leaving the forum and comeback with a new pseudo (what about Unbiased Educator?) and fresh ideas.

Acknowledgements to julius.

I have put my fair share of work into this too though.

True BB. and it is hard work at times!

So the article title is 'deciding set tie breaks and implications on mental toughness' yet it doesn't produce the stats of tie breaks?

The work of a true Spin Doctor.

I don't understand how you can present an argument about 'facts' when you have left them out!

Whether Federer is or isnt mentally tough in close match situations doesnt stop the guy having 16 slams next to his name! This discussion will not change the record books.

All tennis players who get to 7-8+ slams are a breed apart - that's why there are so few of them since the Open era started - just 9 guys in 43 years! What's the use of comparing one against the other? What does it change?

These type of arguments concern hair splitting in the main when the facts show all these guys stand head and shoulders above the broad base of their peers.

tbh Lydian the thread stopped being about that a while ago and became trying to explain to Simplistic that he'd misunderstood the statistics he'd found, and developed a new definition of deciding set, contrary to that used by the ATP.

Aye BB...I think the argument was lost there a while back.