The conditions theories

I found the previous article written on this topic to be vague and probably shows may be too many yes men here. Are there no physicists or mathematicians here? I had a laugh about how simple the data was but then decided I’m getting my debating spirit back so I decided to write a piece on this topic seeing another one tried to debunk it.

To start with a little physics, the amount of time it will take two bodies to travel through any medium in this case air is reliant on various things. Let me not dwell too much on them and pin point 3. Mass, wind speed and the force behind such bodies i.e. what was powering them. If two people throw a stone of the same mass at the same time, under the same wind speed, one thing will determine which one travels faster and reaches its destination first. The force used. Cut matters short I’ll go straight to my point.

Tennis conditions can be determined by 2 main factors, the court and the balls. Everything else is excluded to make it easier. May be strings technology as well. Now for the two comparisons made, the author used Federer vs Blake and Djokovic vs Nadal. First of all, the amount of time taking per length of a rally can hardly ever determined how fast conditions are. That theory is simple wrong in every possible sense. A player who takes the ball early on the baseline will effectively counter it’s incoming speed. The ball will travel faster than the same ball from a player who takes the ball later, provided they both hit it with the same force. For the case of Nadal standing 3 meter behind the baseline, the velocity of the ball will obviously slow down. This also highlights any advantage the player standing closer to the baseline will have by taking the ball early. If for example Blake and Nadal both plays a forehand shot of the same velocity, 100km/h, the difference will be how far Nadal is standing away from the baseline and that’s assuming Blake will be closer to it.

2nd part will be the revolutions per minutes each of the balls travel. Simple physics will suggest the more RPMs on the ball, the slower it will travel through the air and this can affect the rally times too. Nadal has one of the highest ever in this regard. Blake hits too flat to even be paid attention to. This again will affect how fast the ball travels through the air therefore affect the rally time per length. Then you have to consider Federer and Djokovic.

3rd will be weather conditions especially wind speed. To even make a comparison like this, one must know the speed of the wind for both data used. It’s obvious to everyone in this case so I will not dwell on this.

My theory Is to prove the original premises regarding speed of rallies used is just totally wrong, both mathetically and scientifcal. Ignoring the obvious lack of sufficient data to draw conclusions like these conditions were x% faster, the only way for any of this to be remotely correct are;

1. The size of the balls and mass must be the same for both the USO 2006 and 2011.
2. The wind speed in the stadium that day must be equal or with little difference for both cases.
3. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Blake for all the comparison made must all hit the ball with equal force each and every time – good luck with that.
4. The players must stand exactly the same distance on the baseline.
5. The same racquets and string tension must be used.
6. Each shot produced in both data must be comparable. There is no use comparing shots where one player had to run to the corner to retrieve a ball and the other where the ball comes straight to the middle where he is standing.

All this is just impossible to prove and makes the original data produced a bit of a fantasy I’ll say.
All that could say perhaps was in 2006, we had players that were taking the ball early but in 2011 were had players taking the ball later. That’s about the only accurate information in that article.

We can all see sometimes how fast a court is no doubt about that but this article is not for that. Just to show that the original article's theory about how fast conditions by using how fast rallies per length are is inaccurate. Not even scientifically sensible enough. Using simple assumptions and ignoring the laws of science, a case could be made but there is little credibility attached to saying condition in 2006 were 20% faster etc.

I don't care about the other things like time taking between points. The only point here is the rallies theory.

The size of the balls doesn't have to be the same if that is one of the variables for conditions. Of course couldn't all this be settled by just knowing the size of the balls from the two different times and the composition of the court from both times as well. Then you could just use theory to work out how significant the difference is for a typical trajectory of the ball. I believe they've already done that for typical serves at Wimbledon for different years.

But different sizes could mean different mass then. In your case that means the ball changes at the FO for example should have no effect on the speed compared to previous years.
Even how fluffy the coat on the ball is can also make a difference.

A fairly thorough and probably accurate critique of that original article, similar to my own attempted debunking on the original article, although probably a bit more thorough, especially if you combine with mine. But Tenez did say the article was about the style or rhythm of play and not the conditions, so, although there is some grey area you have basically mis-stated his position (to be focused on conditions) and then defeated it, a rather false debating tactic (although could be accidental). EDIT: Actually, he did mention conditions as well, so I think I'm being a bit unfair although probably half right.

Also, why do a separate article: why not just add your comments to the original article? Also, I thing I am getting fatigue with this discussion a bit. We keep learning the more we discuss but it becomes less and less, sort of diminishing returns.

A shame you are such a nasty WUM at times as you're obviously capable of some intelligent thought.

The post is a little long why the need to put it as a full article. The conditions topic i find boring to be honest. If i had much interest, i'll rubbish many theories but well ....

Simple_Analyst wrote:But different sizes could mean different mass then. In your case that means the ball changes at the FO for example should have no effect on the speed compared to previous years.
Even how fluffy the coat on the ball is can also make a difference.

I take it you mean that as there are two variables, ball type and court composition, in order to test the difference in court composition you'd have to keep the balls the same. I think you have a point about it being difficult to conclude much, I would say that the only way to be sure would be just to know what the ball types and compositiions were and are. Surely that information is not unobtainable.

Yes the two main things that determines conditions are the balls and the court. The play itself, how early a player takes the ball for example is completely irrelevant. That is to an individual style of play and comfort.Yes. In a comparison like the USO 06 and 11, the ball's size and type is important and to get a more detail result, the balls must be the same. Any assumption now of conditions at the USO will be the balls are different which could not be the case.
Many of these informations are hard to get.