Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open (hard) - women

Julia Carrot · All-time great

RE: Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open (hard) - women

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

indiana wrote:
I heard Judy Murray saying on the radio that Laura was on crutches a couple of weeks or so ago.

Always grerat to know what's really going on. thanks Indy, this gives me more hope than thinking Laura just bottled it again.

adz1983 · Intermediate Club Player

Helen40 wrote:
indiana wrote:
I heard Judy Murray saying on the radio that Laura was on crutches a couple of weeks or so ago.
Always grerat to know what's really going on. thanks Indy, this gives me more hope than thinking Laura just bottled it again.

Now that Laura will be freer to play more tournaments she'll have the chance to play at this level more often. She's a good shout for direct entry to the rest of the slams this year and hopefully playing more WTA tournaments and bigger ITFs.

Maza1987 · Challenger level

SMC1809 · All-time great

Currently watching Mona v Shrieker and despite the really annoying noise, it's hard not to be impressed by Vika. I wouldn't be surprised if Heather's defeat was to the eventual tournament winner.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I'm pretty much thinking the same thing, Barthel isn't playing badly either.
I'm not sure Vika quite has enough firepower to win the whole thing, but she won't be far off.

Ratty · County player

Revisit Robson v Jankovic, and why it is so silly to read too much into scorelines.

Jankovic has just beaten Christina McHale (ranked 42) 6-2 6-0. The points tally was 65-39.

Jankovic beat Laura by the same score, with a points tally of 64-42.

What does it all mean? Not a lot, probably.

Julia Carrot · All-time great

Yes, I noticed this result too. I think it is relevant, and I think Laura could feel somewhat reassured by it.

I hope we get to see Laura v McHale sometime this year.

indiana · Tennis legend

Ratty wrote:
Revisit Robson v Jankovic, and why it is so silly to read too much into scorelines.

Jankovic has just beaten Christina McHale (ranked 42) 6-2 6-0. The points tally was 65-39.

Jankovic beat Laura by the same score, with a points tally of 64-42.

What does it all mean? Not a lot, probably.

Yes, as you were indicating before, and I agree, you certainly can't take from say a 6 - 1 6 - 0 scoreline that a player was never really in it at all, and indeed it might have a similar points ratio to a 6 - 3 6 - 4 scoreline ( example coming up smile )

Here's 4 scorelines :

Azarenka vs Watson : 6 - 1 6 - 0 ( points 56 - 31 )

Jankovic vs Robson : 6 - 2 6 - 0 ( 64 - 42 )

Jankovic vs McHale : 6 -2 6 - 0 ( 65 - 39 )

Robson vs Floris ( from Q2 ) : 6 - 3 6 - 4 ( 66 - 41 )

The first 3 look very heavy defeats, and indeed are so on games, but the opponent has got well over 2 points a game on average, indeed Robson got 3 exactly. So, maybe it indicates real focus from the winner, not letting their minds drift and seeing out game after game, getting the points to win the games and the match.

On the other hand, Laura's win had many more very decisive game wins. Indeed Floris ends up winning just over 2 points a game on average, and that obviously includes all the games she won. So, arguably it should never have been a 6 - 3 6 - 4 match, there seems ( and indeed I think was ) too much difference in ability.

But maybe the result shows how Laura can lose focus and suddenly lose games from nowhere. Particularly intertesting are the points on her serve ( 35 - 10 ), so totally dominating on serve ? Well, actually no, she lost 2 service games, which is quite a feat when you only lose 8 points in all on serve. In the end she was only one more break against from the match getting far too interesting, yet had won so many more points.

As you said before. the seeming match domination, is more with the women since the men tend mostly at least to win serve games. But even then, focus is important.

eg, Andy's match vs ERV. In the second set he won 16 out of 17 serve points on the way to a *5 - 4 lead. But the set wasn't done and the 10th game did get to 30 - 30 before he won the final 2 points and the set. In his first sevice game of the next set, there were indeed 3 deuces ( and 5 aces by Andy ! ) In truth that was actually much more from ERV reising his game, but it does still kind of show, never lose focus.

Anyway, I do think that the fact that * maybe a lot of the top players' wins by such as 6 - 1 6 - 0 may show a lot of focus ability to more ruthlessly get the job done than some talented, but less focussed lower ranked players. Some no doubt are, unlike the above examples, simple thrashings in points as well.

( * I say maybe, because I have done no further analyis on this, other than these above examples which I find intersting. But a very, very small sample. I''ll leave it for others to do a full research ! )

As you say, it actually might not mean not a lot, if one looked further, but hey didn't stop me trying smile

Ratty · County player

This sort of study has been done by behavioural psychologists.

For example, it is commonly accepted that humans suffer from "loss aversion" - for example, that the pain of losing £50 hurts about twice as much as the pleasure of winning £50.

A study - quoted in Kahneman, which is ESSENTIAL READING people - has shown that loss aversion applies in golf. Pro golfers are more likely to make a putt to avoid a bogie (which would be a "loss"), than they are to make a birdie (which would be a "gain"). It is thought that golfers concentrate harder when they're threatened by a bogie.

How would this apply in tennis?

Well, I would speculate that break points will be won by the server more often than other points - obviously the comparison would need to be with the "normal" proportion of points won on serve.

And in deuce games, the better player will feel that - having got to deuce on the opponent's serve - that it will be a "loss" if he/she fails to take the opportunity to break. This would explain Indiana's point that deuce games tend to go one way - to the better player.

-- Edited by Ratty on Saturday 21st of January 2012 09:15:31 AM

Ratty · County player

Those are interesting figures, and compare two of the thrashings that Djokovic has handed out:

Mahut - game count 18-2, points count 81-37 - so the loser won 31.4% of the points

Lorenzi - game count 18-2, points count 82-41 - so the loser won 33.3% of the points

Laura won 39.6% of the points against Jankovic, and Heather won 35.6% of the points against Azarenka. So one might speculate that there is a probably a statistically significant difference between men and women: Laura won 26% more points than Mahut (although Heather won only 7% more than Lorenzi).

The match duration could be an indicator too:

Djokovic v Mahut - 74 minutes = 3.7 minutes per game
Djokovic v Lorenzi - 92 minutes = 4.6 minutes per game

Laura v Jankovic - 69 minutes = 4.9 minutes per game
Heather v Azarenka - 67 minutes = 5.2 minutes per game

So, the conclusion is I think clear -

DON'T GET TOO DOWN WHEN OUR WOMEN PLAYERS GET BEATEN "EASILY" - IT WAS PROBABLY CLOSER THAN IT LOOKS

indiana · Tennis legend

Of course, it is possible that one of our women players ( or any woman player ) losing a match a match seemingly "easily" with just one or two games won could be absolutely thrashed on points as well.

What is "clear" from these examples is that it certainly isn't necessarily the case. So, yes, don't automatically get too down on them

It is clear that the games Laura won vs Floris were won very easily in general, and I would suspect among women's matches generally. where the loser had won only one or two games, they would generally win a lesser percentage of points than the three examples above. There is probably a fair range of points perecentages.

All in all though, with the women's matches and the men's matches you point to, we are dealing with extremely small samples, so without further examples and analysis we can only really speculate a bit, mixing looking at these matches, our tennis knowledge and general common sense.

As I indicated, what really interested me in the women's matches was top players like Azarenka and Jankovic in these matches losing so few games while losing between 35% and 40% of the points.

I'd be interested ( and it would need a pretty big analysis - I wonder what if any studies have actually been done ) whether the top players could be shown to have a much better ability to convert various points differentials into generally bigger game margins than lower ranked and / or younger players. My suspicion is this may well be the case, and that that may be related to focus and just being much better match players.

jb288 · Satellite level

That makes sense Ratty - after all, we often (anecdotally) see players break point down serving aces (or in other tight spots) - which always makes me think 'well why didn't you do that at 30-0 up!'

Maza1987 · Challenger level

So I see Sharapova only managed two more games against Vika than Heather did.*coughs*

Ratty · County player

Pardon the cod psychology, but the shrieking is not intrinsically irritating. You (and many many others) allow yourself to find it irritating.

You could probably decide NOT to find it irritating. I have done so, and it means that I can enjoy watching the magnificent Victoria in action.

(Yes, of course I'm in love with her, why not?)

smile

-- Edited by Ratty on Saturday 28th of January 2012 07:13:30 PM