In attesa che il programma odierno entri nel vivo, vi propongo l'ultimo "Brain Game" di Craig O'Shannessy, un editoriale ATP molto particolare che analizza il lato tecnico degli incontri. In questo caso, si parla di dati relativi agli US Open dello scorso anno e di percentuali di vittoria del punto a seconda della tattica adottata per concludere lo scambio.
In particolare, viene sottolineato come la percentuale di prime ripaga poco se il servizio non è incisivo (ossia, se si abbassa la velocità per mettere più prime), che la risposta risulta il colpo fondamentale, che (e qui si fa interessantissimo) solo 7 giocatori lo scorso anno avevano un record positivo (più del 50%) di punti vinti da fondo campo e che, incredibile ma vero, essere aggressivi e prendere la rete P A G A (solo 7 giocatori, in questo caso, NON avevano un record positivo negli approcci a rete su 92 di cui sono stati raccolti i dati).
E pensare che mi prendono per pazzo quando dico che l'unico modo per sfondare il tennis moderno è attaccare
BRAIN GAME: 29.000 POINTS DON'T LIE
As the 2013 US Open begins Monday in New York, an analysis of 29,038 points from men’s matches at last year’s event reveals which weapon – the serve or the return - takes the biggest bite out of the Big Apple. During last year’s Open, IBM collected data in 27 separate serve, return, rally and approach categories and the data show that the return rules supreme at Flushing Meadows.
Some of the analytics directly contradict conventional wisdom as they reveal that:
• Most baseline points are a losing proposition;
• It is actually harmful to make too many first serves if speed is compromised; and
• Approaching the net is a goldmine.
Specifically, only seven players out of 92 (for whom data was collected) had a winning record in baseline points last year, while only seven had a losing record coming forward to the net. Analytics like these help remove the guesswork and opinion from the sport and paint a clearer picture on exactly what tools are needed in today’s game to succeed.
Andy Murray defeated Novak Djokovic in a thrilling five-set final last year and both players consistently performed much better than the rest of the draw in their return and rally categories.
Returns In Play
The engine room of Murray’s first Grand Slam victory was simply getting as many returns back in play as possible, where he was ranked second for the tournament at 79 per cent (635/808). Djokovic was closely behind in fifth place at 77 per cent (475/618) and this key tactic helped both players neutralise their opponent’s serve and begin a baseline battle, where they typically held the advantage. Djokovic (15) and Murray (13) led the tournament with return winners, which added even more pressure to their opponents at the beginning of the point.
Winning Points Against Second Serve Is Key
Djokovic was also ranked third for the tournament for points won against first serves, but this statistical category seemed less critical in the bigger picture as five of the top 10 players ranked in this area all lost in the opening round. On second serve return points Djokovic (59%) and Murray (58%) were both ranked in the top five with quarter-finalists Roger Federer and Tomas Berdych not far behind at 55 per cent.
Total Break Points Matter More Than Conversion Rates
You would think that converting break points would directly equate to playing in the second week of the tournament, but all of the top 10 leading players in this area failed to even reach the third round. What was statistically more important was Return Games Won, where Djokovic finished first at 45 per cent and Murray was third at 37 per cent. The top five in this category won a combined 17 matches for the tournament. The moral of this story: It’s far better to earn 15 break points in a match and convert 33 per cent of them than it is to convert 67 per cent of break point if you only earn a handful of chances.
On Serve, Speed Tops Consistency
Popular opinion says that it’s good to get your first serve in, but six of the top seven in this area didn’t win a match - combining to hit 23 aces and 24 double faults. This data strongly suggests that there is a hidden metric at work where making the most serves means hitting it slower and removing the real strength from the most offensive shot in the game. This viewpoint gains validity when you examine serve speeds and matches won.
The top eight players who hit the fastest serves in the tournament combined to win 24 matches while no player in the bottom 16 of serve speed won a match. Another intriguing element is that six of the top seven players who made the most first serves didn’t win a match while the bottom seven in first serve percentage combined to win six matches. And remember when Rafael Nadal won the US Open in 2010? There was a dramatic increase in his service speed those two weeks.
Michael Llodra, who is drawn to play his opening round against Andy Murray this year, was the standout last year with serving and volleying, employing this aggressive tactic 60 times in his opening round match in 2012 - representing one out of two serve points he played. Llodra won 65 per cent of those points, which was more than double the groundstroke points he won (26%). Thirty-one players won more than 70% of their serve and volley points.
Baseline Play
This is where the data shed new light on match strategy as only seven players had a winning record in points won at the baseline. (Baseline play was defined as play after both a serve and return went into play.) The leaders were Kei Nishikori (57%), Novak Djokovic (54%), David Ferrer (53%), Gilles Simon (52%), Juan Monaco (52%), Alexandr Dolgopolov (51%) and James Blake (51%). Of these players only Monaco failed to reach the third round. This area also featured a notable high grouping of all last year’s eight quarter-finalists in the top 18 with the notable exception of Roger Federer who was tied for 37th in this category, winning only 45 per cent of his baseline rallies.
Approaching
Federer was far more effective with net points won, finishing tied for fourth for the tournament winning 80 per cent (102/127). Only seven players of the 92 recorded in this area failed to at least win half of their approach points. It seems amazing that players don’t venture forward more often to capitalize on the far higher winning percentage approaching offers over baseline play. It must be noted that the data does not reflect the quality of the approach shot hit before continuing to net. Some players may only choose to come to net when their opponent is in an extremely defensive position.
The average winning percentage approaching was 65.9 per cent while the average winning percentage in baseline points was 43.6 – a 51 per cent better option coming forward.
In the era of Big Data, tennis, like many industries, can learn a lot by crunching the numbers.
