Sample data for Homogenisation debate for review

Based on some posting in this article - https://www.606v2.com/t53073-homogenized-surfaces-myth-or-fact

I have started researching some information for Aces, Games, Time of Match, etc. I wanted to post sample data for any comments from the community before I went further and if additional data should be collected for analysis or not.

Here is a sample spreadsheet of the data (sample is from AO 1995 R1).



There is some unreliability in the ATP data which is derived using a URL of the form -

"http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2012&r=5&p=F401"

The ATP website calls this ATP Match Facts which is pop-up with some statistics.

Unfortunately there are two issues in such data

1. I cannot validate this against an alternative resource like ITF because they do not seem to provide this information, and,
2. The ATP data has some reliability challenges as seen in the following image



I will try to remove unreliable years and entries from my collection before I do analysis. I will focus on Slams, Masters and ATP 500s unless there is reason to approach it differently.

If there are specific tournaments that should be sampled first, I can do that as well, if suggested as such.

If you spot any issues or missing information, please let me know.

Cheers.

If that Cahill match really did take 4 minutes it would be good evidence that the courts were quicker then!

The stats I would be interested in would be aces/point and games/set. I might have some time at the weekend to look at a couple of tournaments.

It would not only prove the homogenization theory correct, it would change everything we knew about time/space!

On a serious note good thread will read at leisure

LF, I would offer you a Business Analyst Role in my firm, if you are up for grabs.   

invisiblecoolers wrote:LF, I would offer you a Business Analyst Role in my firm, if you are up for grabs.   

Can I work from home, iC? I love Tornoto/Montreal, but prefer to live in BC (say Calgary or Edmonton or Vancouver).

I love Jasper and Banff for it's pure beauty and tranquility.

Born Slippy wrote:The stats I would be interested in would be aces/point and games/set. I might have some time at the weekend to look at a couple of tournaments.

I will extract data and try to post it on Google Docs so you can take a look, rather than repeat the analysis. I have just done slams 1991-2013 so far.

I really don't see the significance of these numbers at all Laverfan. It goes nowhere to proving that Ace counts aren't a good indicator of surface speed, which by the way if measuring the same players in multiple samples they are a pretty damn good indicator.

socal1976 wrote:I really don't see the significance of these numbers at all Laverfan. It goes nowhere to proving that Ace counts aren't a good indicator of surface speed, which by the way if measuring the same players in multiple samples they are a pretty damn good indicator.

Theory:  Aces = k (Surface Speed)

Aces go up, Surface is slowed down by TD admission.

Hence

Aces != k (Surface Speed)  (Never underestimate human creativity to come up with more Aces despite Surface slowdown - Serve Better, Practice more hours, become fitter, get into an oxygen chamber/BMR/Egg chamber).

QED.

Do you have an alternative mathematical theory?

Here is a simple correlation that your own research proves.

1. The faster the court the more aces (assuming all else is equal)
2. The slower the court the less aces (assuming all else is equal)

You don't need days of research to prove this and the numbers you produced actually support this simple DIRECT CORRELATION that is intuitive with our own playing experiences as well. I play on both clay and hard court, and I hit more aces on hardcourt than clay by a long stretch and guess what the same thing exists from 99 percent of players.

socal1976 wrote:Here is a simple correlation that your own research proves.

1. The faster the court the more aces (assuming all else is equal)
2. The slower the court the less aces (assuming all else is equal)

You don't need days of research to prove this and the numbers you produced actually support this simple DIRECT CORRELATION that is intuitive with our own playing experiences as well. I play on both clay and hard court, and I hit more aces on hardcourt than clay by a long stretch and guess what the same thing exists from 99 percent of players.

You love ignoring the apparent "slowdowns" at USO and W and surface change at AO (from Grass to HC1 to HC2).

You also love ignoring the fact that the "homogenization" has nothing to do with aces or BPs. It has to do with the tour making players play the same style of Tennis with technology and other factors. (will wait for BS to repeat the same analysis for non-slam tourneys like Paris, Rotterdam, Madrid).

You also love ignoring the fact that over a period of time, the Ace graph is going up, despite surface slowdowns. So "fast" players are going the path of the dodo bird and being replaced by wars of attrition. ESPN could show AO because there was no daylight sport in the USofA. CBS is already cut matches, and with Monday USO finals, it is likely that public TV coverage of Tennis will die as these war of attritions get longer and longer.

Cricket is going from Tests, to ODI, to T20s, and Tennis wants to go in the opposite direction.

There is WWE and MMA for those who want blood.

Look at the USO graph from from 2008-2013 carefully, and see what tinkering has been done.

A "fast" surface should stay "fast", a "slow" one should stay "slow". Recall that this data is from Slam R128 only.

If the ace graph is going up that isn't indicative of fast court players going the way of the dodo though.

Born Slippy wrote:If the ace graph is going up that isn't indicative of fast court players going the way of the dodo though.

I suggest we look at the names of players who win the matches, not the ones who have the most aces. There are very few in the last five years who serve aces and yet win tourneys.

Here are some R1 examples... (Match, AcesP1, AcesP2, Winner, GamesP1, GamesP2, Minutes, Bps Saved).

Rafael Nadal v Mario Ancic | 2 | 15 | Rafael Nadal | 20 | 19 | 184  |  11 | 14  |  11 | 16
Rafael Nadal v Vincent Spadea | 7 | 3 | Rafael Nadal | 12 | 13 | 91  |  1 | 1  |  6 | 12
Rafael Nadal v Alex Bogdanovic | 3 | 1 | Rafael Nadal | 16 | 16 | 152  |  4 | 5  |  6 | 9
Rafael Nadal v Mardy Fish | 4 | 17 | Rafael Nadal | 16 | 14 | 138  |  2 | 2  |  6 | 8
Rafael Nadal v Andreas Beck | 17 | 4 | Rafael Nadal | 16 | 16 | 141  |  0 | 0  |  7 | 9
Rafael Nadal v Kei Nishikori | 8 | 4 | Rafael Nadal | 14 | 14 | 125  |  2 | 3  |  8 | 13
Rafael Nadal v Michael Russell | 4 | 2 | Rafael Nadal | 13 | 13 | 118  |  1 | 3  |  3 | 10
Rafael Nadal v Thomaz Bellucci | 6 | 5 | Rafael Nadal | 15 | 14 | 135  |  1 | 4  |  3 | 9
Steve Darcis v Rafael Nadal | 13 | 6 | Steve Darcis | 17 | 17 | 175  |  5 | 7  |  8 | 11

Here Darcis is the only exception. Look at Mardy Fish.

Here is another example...

George Bastl v Andy Murray | 3 | 7 | Andy Murray | 13 | 13 | 100  |  7 | 12  |  0 | 0
Andy Murray v Nicolas Massu | 5 | 6 | Andy Murray | 14 | 13 | 113  |  3 | 4  |  8 | 13
Andy Murray v Fabrice Santoro | 8 | 1 | Andy Murray | 15 | 16 | 134  |  0 | 2  |  10 | 15
Andy Murray v Robert Kendrick | 20 | 18 | Andy Murray | 22 | 21 | 158  |  1 | 2  |  4 | 8
Andy Murray v Jan Hajek | 17 | 3 | Andy Murray | 14 | 13 | 101  |  2 | 3  |  5 | 11
Andy Murray v Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 13 | 2 | Andy Murray | 16 | 15 | 128  |  2 | 3  |  8 | 15
Andy Murray v Nikolay Davydenko | 10 | 4 | Andy Murray | 12 | 12 | 95  |  0 | 0  |  7 | 13
Andy Murray v Benjamin Becker | 11 | 5 | Andy Murray | 14 | 13 | 113  |  4 | 5  |  5 | 10

I agree that I am using extreme examples, and this is on a fast surface like Grass @ W.

Tennis has enough surface variety, like Cricket pitches. That variety, for example, in Cricket allows Pacers and Spinners to flourish.

The disagreement is not about "homogenization" per se, but killing the variety.

The big debate here is that S and V has been losing ground since the graphite racquet and even before the slowdown at a couple of events. The changes required to bring the variety people want would involve dialing back technology and removing a massive amount of power from shots behind the baseline and on the return. It is not a matter of slightly speeding up balls or courts this would at best provide a minor adjustment. The changes you and others suggest would completely alter the game and require radical changes, ie like imposing technology that makes it harder to hit winners from the baseline.

laverfan wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:If the ace graph is going up that isn't indicative of fast court players going the way of the dodo though.

I suggest we look at the names of players who win the matches, not the ones who have the most aces. There are very few in the last five years who serve aces and yet win tourneys.

Here are some R1 examples... (Match, AcesP1, AcesP2, Winner, GamesP1, GamesP2, Minutes, Bps Saved).

Rafael Nadal v Mario Ancic | 2 | 15 | Rafael Nadal | 20 | 19 | 184  |  11 | 14  |  11 | 16
Rafael Nadal v Vincent Spadea | 7 | 3 | Rafael Nadal | 12 | 13 | 91  |  1 | 1  |  6 | 12
Rafael Nadal v Alex Bogdanovic | 3 | 1 | Rafael Nadal | 16 | 16 | 152  |  4 | 5  |  6 | 9
Rafael Nadal v Mardy Fish | 4 | 17 | Rafael Nadal | 16 | 14 | 138  |  2 | 2  |  6 | 8
Rafael Nadal v Andreas Beck | 17 | 4 | Rafael Nadal | 16 | 16 | 141  |  0 | 0  |  7 | 9
Rafael Nadal v Kei Nishikori | 8 | 4 | Rafael Nadal | 14 | 14 | 125  |  2 | 3  |  8 | 13
Rafael Nadal v Michael Russell | 4 | 2 | Rafael Nadal | 13 | 13 | 118  |  1 | 3  |  3 | 10
Rafael Nadal v Thomaz Bellucci | 6 | 5 | Rafael Nadal | 15 | 14 | 135  |  1 | 4  |  3 | 9
Steve Darcis v Rafael Nadal | 13 | 6 | Steve Darcis | 17 | 17 | 175  |  5 | 7  |  8 | 11

Here Darcis is the only exception. Look at Mardy Fish.

Here is another example...

George Bastl v Andy Murray | 3 | 7 | Andy Murray | 13 | 13 | 100  |  7 | 12  |  0 | 0
Andy Murray v Nicolas Massu | 5 | 6 | Andy Murray | 14 | 13 | 113  |  3 | 4  |  8 | 13
Andy Murray v Fabrice Santoro | 8 | 1 | Andy Murray | 15 | 16 | 134  |  0 | 2  |  10 | 15
Andy Murray v Robert Kendrick | 20 | 18 | Andy Murray | 22 | 21 | 158  |  1 | 2  |  4 | 8
Andy Murray v Jan Hajek | 17 | 3 | Andy Murray | 14 | 13 | 101  |  2 | 3  |  5 | 11
Andy Murray v Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 13 | 2 | Andy Murray | 16 | 15 | 128  |  2 | 3  |  8 | 15
Andy Murray v Nikolay Davydenko | 10 | 4 | Andy Murray | 12 | 12 | 95  |  0 | 0  |  7 | 13
Andy Murray v Benjamin Becker | 11 | 5 | Andy Murray | 14 | 13 | 113  |  4 | 5  |  5 | 10

I agree that I am using extreme examples, and this is on a fast surface like Grass @ W.

Tennis has enough surface variety, like Cricket pitches. That variety, for example, in Cricket allows Pacers and Spinners to flourish.

The disagreement is not about "homogenization" per se, but killing the variety.

If I'm reading these stats correctly, doesn't the player who serves the most aces win in 14/17 matches?

Born Slippy wrote:If I'm reading these stats correctly, doesn't the player who serves the most aces win in 14/17 matches?

Yes, that is correct and this data is from W, a fast surface.

This is the updated draw input, containing games won/lost by set...

 
   RG|9|K336|Karlovic, Ivo
   RG|10|F444|Falla, Alejandro |3|7|7|5|6|6|6(4)|6(6)|7|4
   RG|11|B747|Benneteau, Julien |6|6|3|3|6|4|4|6|6|3
   RG|12|S544|Spadea, Vincent


I am not stripping the TB points for the loser yet.

@BS...

Can you take a look at the linked image and let me know what additional information you want extracted for analysis?



I can remove redundant columns (which I had for validation purposes).

Good job laverfan while I disagree with your conclusions one can not doubt the depth of your research. By the way I totally disagree with your conclusions and analysis of the raw numbers but thank you for providing data honestly that basicall Lu proves what I have been saying. Only a finely tuned analytical mind like mine with a deep understanding of tennis could accurately dissect this raw data