Then the secret is to win the important points, not the majority, one can lose a set 6-0 and in other 7-6 and win the third set 7-6, and the loser won more points.
@@user-bs1dx2ef5z sometimes you hears on TV "oooh but he won three more points on this match ! :'( " it si just bullshit :o) a famous french football coach used to say when his team won a match 6-0 : " i prefer to win 6 matches by one to lost " :o))
@@user-bs1dx2ef5zthat’s the story of federer vs djokovic. federer leads on overall games and sets head-to-head, but djokovic has won more matches. it’s all about when and where you peak your game, according to djokovic in that one interview.
@@jeannemarddelislam1631 No, you are wrong. If 200 points were played. And I won 54.5% percent of the points. I won 109. You won 91. I won 18 more points than you.
@@verlatenwolf Nah that's not true. Nobody wins more than half of return points. Federer won 32% of first serve returns and 51% of 2nd serve returns in his career.
This has to be by far the most astonishing statistic I've ever heard on any RUclips video. That's only a small smidgen over half and these guys are legends!
It's a case of the law of large numbers: small margins in the point count create larger margins in the game count, still larger ones in the set count, yet larger ones in the match count and even larger ones in the tournament count. Add to this that the stat includes their bad years and it's even closer.
Another similar interesting statistic is that in the head-to-head between Federer and Djokovic, Roger won more points, more games and more sets. But Djokovic won more matches. So you could say that Federer was a slightly better "player" but Djokovic was a slightly better "champion", which in the end is what counts.
@molybdaenmornell123hopp5 reminiscent of early-day transocean sailors. One degree difference in direction can yield thousands of kilometers of difference between the intended destination VS the arrived destination.
@@christiannovak-zemplinski9749 I see your point. But, no you can't say that. Not at all. Djokovic is a better player because he won more matches. For example, if I can beat you 0-6, 7-6, 7-6 all the time, does that mean you are a better player than me because you won more points? Or because you had more love games? Tennis is a marathon match and you choose to push more in some points. It's part of the game to be able to win the crucial, under pressure and clutch points. So that makes you a better player too. That's what makes it a really really difficult sport, and I know cause I've been playing it since I was born.
Novak is quite possibly the best at winning the crucial points. He's won so many matches even while playing worse than the opponent. His Wimbledon wins in 2018 and 19 against Rafa and Roger are the perfect examples
This perception is flawed though. Tennis is about being consistent on all the points. Because you only need to win a few more than the opponent it may look like it's about peaking at the right moment but it's really not. All those other points get you to have the crucial b points in the first place. Consistency and 'percentage tennis' are the key. There is hardly such a thing as being a clutch player, you have some that choke at big points and just some that can stay really consistent throughout.
@@markvanderwerf8592 you are quite right , people use to talk only about BP ... Federer loool BP looser ... forgetting they did not came alone ! a game is 4 points ( or more) if you don't have the first you don't have the fourth :o)
@@markvanderwerf8592 but by this stat Moura forget to say that mainly before the semis of final, Djoko Fed or Nadal don't have to push more that necessary. they just choose the own good moment to break and win some set ..match. they are so over others that they play mainly by " sleeping"... focusing fully on just the crucial points.
@@antoinev9733 that's just not true. They just play any point like it's any other. Especially Nadal and Djokovic. Federer did have a bit more of a hand of losing concentration here and there.
@@markvanderwerf8592 yes it is ;) and that is the reason why they are superiors to others on importants points. Easy to see with Nadal , the difference beetween his " regulation " game and " extra shots ". the same for Djokovic or any player even you if you play ( and think about ) ;) if you feel confortable on a match you don't put the same attention that when you are really challenged !
Just doing your best to stay close keep it tight and make it count when it matters the most. Just had a match where I saved 8 match points because after the first 3 he mentally collapsed unfortunately the deficit was too big for me to come back, but this goes to show that had I been closer, in those key moments mentality can make a huge difference
@@Turbulencemodehe didn't collapsed completely if he got another 5 match point and converted the last one. it's always "possible" to come back in tennis even after match points, you can increase you level, opponent can start making mistakes , can find tactical solution against opponent game or win thanks to better stamina, or making opponent run more. it just takes 2 or 3 points in a row to win a decisive and disputed game, then sometimes make a second or even third break in a row. once you win the set, you have your chances
@patrickmouratoglou_official by preserving their energies and concentration for these moments? while trying to waste the other's in not important points
He's spot on. Murray is a perfect example. Technically, he's on par with the other three. During the 15+ years the big four dominated tennis, he's been in 14 odd slam finals (incl Olympics) and countless semis (with a large number going to five sets) but only won 3. Yet, look how many the other three have won. The difference has been how those crucial points were handled. Look how calm the other three have been compared to Murray constantly shouting at himself and unnecessarily expending mental and emotional energy that would have assisted him in being able to deal with those pivotal points the same way as the others. That is the difference
@@theriac.well m’y friend fédérér nadal and nole were better than murray its not Just question of mental There are better player that is they dominâted And more talented too Its not a opinion its a fact
@@theriac. no its the fact Roger novak and Nadal are superior player i think the data say that At their best They were always supérior above all in gc Dude its just they are more talented That is all 🤦♂️
54% is still way above 50 and that's a career percentage which means they had matches with much less than 50%. You can win a set while winning less points than your opponent. If your opponent wins his serve games every time after 40-0 and you are fighting every service game, but also win every single one, getting one break will be enough to win the set even though your opponent won way more points than you.
yes they had matches much less than 50% usually when they would lose. But if you consider their win percentage is like 80%+ with 1000+ matches won the point stands
@@superiorkaos You missed the "point". The point is you don't need to win 50% of the points in a match in order to win the match. In fact, you could only win 40% of all points and still win the match.
@@superiorkaos You are still missing the point, the 50% of how much you win is almost irrelevant its focus on winning the big points. Citing the big 3 is to demonstrate that 3 players who have won over 60 GS in the last 20 years have only won less than 55% of the points they play when you would think they win way way more because they dominate. You win in tennis by winning the important points.
I feel that it's the same in badminton too. A 21-15 win is considered pretty comfortable, but that's only 58% of the points that you actually won. These sports are won and lost on tiny margins and only the best of the best can do it time and time again.
One of the cooler tennis aspects. Some pts are worth significantly more: game pt., break pt., Set pt., Match pt. All those pts you won in that 7 deuce game were meaningless bc you lost all the break pts. Same for games & sets if you didn't win the set or the match.
When young there’s another factor. Players can win from technical better ones by just being fast and only “put” their racket against the ball. Playing defensive by hitting moonballs and let the attacking player make mistakes. Fortunately this advantage goes away when they get bigger, stronger and learn the skills to overcome such way of playing.
First off, the actual cited numbers for three are all over 54% (54.1, 54.5 & 54.5) so it makes zero sense to say "between 52 and 54%". Second, tennis is a zero-sum game. Any point you don't win, is won by your opponent. These 3 guys all won ~9% more points than their opponents for their careers, which is a massive difference in the long run, ESPECIALLY in the context of a match being decided on just a few points, as the guy describes.
The big 3 won total of 66 grd slams combines for the span of 18 yrs of their pick period average, say from 2004 to 2022, means they won 3.5 grand slams per year!! and remaining 0.5 grand slams a year equivalent 9 grnd slams distributed amongst other contenders players! This is not not dominations, its a dope!
its called mentality Mentality helps you play technically good in crucial moments That is why when Roger is mentally unstable his technicality fails and Novak and Nadal dominated against him That is why Goat is the person that can play under pressure = Novak in practise i am sure Roger is the Goat between big 3 but when all matters and it is 1-2 points Novak dominates 😅
what Patrick forget to say is that top players , most of the time ( before semies on a GC) just have to focus on a few points to win a set ! it's means that, out of thoses crucial points ... it can be 50/50or even less .... they don't care :) ..
Yep it's an 8% difference. People think of it as it's only 4% above 50 but obviously the opponent can only win 46% so it's an 8% swing which is quite big in the end However the general point stands. The margins in tennis are very small
they give up some point' like opponent lob or dropshot point' so they can save more energy at some deciding point' like break point' or set point' . there is no need to push yourself so hard just to achieve a love game 😂
imagine you are in confort with your own serve ( 40/15 every time on a set) you reach the early break ... you focus on your own serve ... the opponent can win further serves (40/0, game) who care ?? he will even reach 52% of the points ... you won the set in full confort :o)
This statistic would only be relevant if points started off neutral, but they don't; players serve. So when every average player wins 50% of his points, then 54% is actually an extraordinary achievement. It's 99th percentile stuff
Biggest problem with tennis is the ridiculous second serve. Tennis would be alot less boring with only 1 serve. Why do professional tennis players get a second serve? Even table tennis doesn't have a second serve.
Wow!! Such a beautiful insight.. he understands tennis much more deeper than most.. I am shocked with the fact that big 3 won just 50-55% of points yet dominated
The stat is true bro. I have seen some drtailed analysis of Federer's 2007 or 2006 season on a TV show when he literally won almost everything, but percentage wise he won only 55-56% of overall points.
and also that's why a small injury or handicap for a player could be a death sentence, since the other player will exploit your weakness as much as possible and you'll for sure lose.
That's impossible. Murray's match win % has barely dropped because he had such a dominant career, so it would be no different with Rafa's point percentage. He has played well over 1000 matches, and he is old and wouldn't play 15 tournaments in a year anyways, so his statistic will barely change regardless.
@@tomr6955 My guy do you know how many thousands upon thousands of points Rafa has played in his career? He would have to lose points at a drastic rate to even lose 0.1% of his total percentage. Even if he is only winning 50% of his points from here on it would take forever for his percentage to even budge.
52/54% then it shows all are above, such dumb statement, the difference between having 52% to 54% is huge. The fact the % dont look that impressive is just because they are still playing againt top players most of the times not agains beginners. having 54%+ is insane. Only fools will be shocked by this statistic.
Dont think this is true. When you win 6:26:0 first round they defently win more than 52% of the Points. So there must be losses where this is equal so the Overall is 52%. In Close Matches He is right, a few points decieds who is winning
Well... actually Patrick, since you just break your opponent 2 to 4 times in an entire match (more or less) and even sometimes losing match, it's just a normal stat for any player...
its not football or Basketball. On every point played one player will win a point. if you have a strong service game you usually only require one break of serve. so quite naturally both players will usually win more points on their serve. so unless you completely blow your opponent off the court this percentage is kind of expected i guess. they are still incredible competitors of course. probably all top players will be in the 54%-50.5% range is my guess. btw. in 2019 wimbledon final Federer won more points (218 to 204) and still lost the match
Evert won more of her matches 90 percent of all matches played over 19 years .mincredible. She did so believing she would. That at any given time she figure out how to handle a point. She believed in herself. That takes courage. Whenever she stepped on the court she acted as though she had already won the match.
Completely disagree the statistics are misinterpreted here. Winning 50-54 percent of points in a career is like playing every set to 4-4 getting a break and winning 6-4 every set you play or 7-5 for example. Winning every set averagely 6-4 or 7-5 is a major skill difference especially against top 100 players. If you are skilled you can be an amazing player without mental strength or competitiveness examples include tomic and kygrios. Skill is the number one asset in tennis, these are my thoughts after playing for 10 years and also playing division 1 tennis for two years. Lmk if you agree or disagree…
At about 5 mins the video starts to make sense. Peterson teaches clinical psychology and he's instructing a class of students who are learning the same. His videos when shared like this seem like some sort of motivational hyperbole, and that gathers a fair amount of attention of the internet. What this point as indicated in the video showcases is a teacher giving instructions for future psychotherapists to deal with a patient who is agreeable vs disagreeable. Which is based on behavioral science and his personal experience working with clients over decades. Its absolutely incorrect to treat these videos as some direct messages to individuals wanting to be alpha or sigma or some bull shit like that. It has taken me so many videos to realise this. A student in clinical psychology is not expecting political correctness or any such thing from their professor. They are building a tool kit to deal with diverse individuals.
Just today Jannik Sinner won more total points than Carlos Alcaraz in the Roland Garros 1/2 Final, but Alcaraz won the match. Just another example, like this video, of how small the margins are in elite tennis and that you can win matches by only winning the % of points played mentioned above - and those are for the all-time greats!! Or like Alcaraz today, you can win fewer than 50% of points played and win. I’m sure it’s happened many, MANY times. I wonder what is the lowest % of points won in a match victory (a- in a grand slam and b- not limited to a grand slam and c- for both men and women.) They must track that, right?
@@marykistnen6837 Not that rare to Federer - It's happened quite a bit to him. The technical term is SImpson's paradox. For me I believe it's because Fed tries for every point, and not just the important points.
It is absolutely fascinating. The number of lessons from this example. Life. Life can be like this. Fighting can be like this. Shows how hard we can be on ourselves for not being perfect. Yet, it's not perfection. It's the fight, the struggle, the perseverance, the studying, and execution. This takes faith and courage. It takes training.
I dont disagree with the general claim that a lot tennis matches are decided by a small number of important points.. but I also wonder how the statistic of ~54% varies from the first round game to the finals?
wrong. its 55%. For the three of them. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Serena also. It is a number which these greats share. Mouratoglou should really know this. Bit poor from him.
No it’s not. It’s just statistics. If you flip a coin 500 times but he has a 55% chance to land on heads, then you’re very likely to flip more heads overall.
I've been lucky enough to sit court side to watch Borg, McEnroe, Conners, Agassi, Lendl, Sampras, Etc in big matches. As great as they all were, the jump in excellence when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic came on the scene. For me, all 3 have reached levels of greatness that are near impossible to imagine. Normally, it would take 5-7 years for another crop of greats to come up. With these guys, it took 20 years for an Alcaraz to emerge. They have been that great. I'm already mourning their retirements. It's only been a few years and people are starting to forget how unstoppable Fed was.
Like I’ve been saying for decades, tennis is in a category by itself. You don’t need athletic ability or natural ability to win in tennis. You need craftiness, strategy, thinking. Tennis is won by those who can out think. It’s why it’s less of a sport. It’s more a strategic game. And add the artificial equipment to the mix and this is where tennis is.
Are or is the player rhinking rhis is matxh ppint.of rhe lasr five huge compettive matxhes rhis win pr this losss meamsn. If that rhiughts then the loss asured is the game more simple than me
That's the beauty of the scoring system in tennis. This guy is full of wisdom about tennis.
Then the secret is to win the important points, not the majority, one can lose a set 6-0 and in other 7-6 and win the third set 7-6, and the loser won more points.
@@user-bs1dx2ef5z sometimes you hears on TV "oooh but he won three more points on this match ! :'( " it si just bullshit :o)
a famous french football coach used to say when his team won a match 6-0 : " i prefer to win 6 matches by one to lost " :o))
Whoever invented it was a genius
@@user-bs1dx2ef5zthat’s the story of federer vs djokovic. federer leads on overall games and sets head-to-head, but djokovic has won more matches. it’s all about when and where you peak your game, according to djokovic in that one interview.
@@aryanyenni9058 Good info, I didnt know that statistics.
Just 52-54%....that's astonishing!
Well, the 52 is nonsense since it shows them at 54.5% but still the point stands.
@@teppo9585 it's a misleading stat... 54.5% of 200 is 109, so they would be up 109-91 or +18 points.
@@00100Matt no
54.5 %/100 points= 4.5 points won more
54.5%/200 =9 points
@@jeannemarddelislam1631 No, you are wrong. If 200 points were played. And I won 54.5% percent of the points. I won 109. You won 91. I won 18 more points than you.
@@verlatenwolf Nah that's not true. Nobody wins more than half of return points. Federer won 32% of first serve returns and 51% of 2nd serve returns in his career.
This has to be by far the most astonishing statistic I've ever heard on any RUclips video. That's only a small smidgen over half and these guys are legends!
It's a case of the law of large numbers: small margins in the point count create larger margins in the game count, still larger ones in the set count, yet larger ones in the match count and even larger ones in the tournament count. Add to this that the stat includes their bad years and it's even closer.
Another similar interesting statistic is that in the head-to-head between Federer and Djokovic, Roger won more points, more games and more sets. But Djokovic won more matches. So you could say that Federer was a slightly better "player" but Djokovic was a slightly better "champion", which in the end is what counts.
@@christiannovak-zemplinski9749 Completely blows my mind. I know it's entirely possible, but to have to actually happen fascinates me
@molybdaenmornell123hopp5 reminiscent of early-day transocean sailors. One degree difference in direction can yield thousands of kilometers of difference between the intended destination VS the arrived destination.
@@christiannovak-zemplinski9749 I see your point. But, no you can't say that. Not at all. Djokovic is a better player because he won more matches. For example, if I can beat you 0-6, 7-6, 7-6 all the time, does that mean you are a better player than me because you won more points? Or because you had more love games? Tennis is a marathon match and you choose to push more in some points. It's part of the game to be able to win the crucial, under pressure and clutch points. So that makes you a better player too. That's what makes it a really really difficult sport, and I know cause I've been playing it since I was born.
Novak is quite possibly the best at winning the crucial points. He's won so many matches even while playing worse than the opponent. His Wimbledon wins in 2018 and 19 against Rafa and Roger are the perfect examples
This perception is flawed though. Tennis is about being consistent on all the points. Because you only need to win a few more than the opponent it may look like it's about peaking at the right moment but it's really not. All those other points get you to have the crucial b points in the first place. Consistency and 'percentage tennis' are the key. There is hardly such a thing as being a clutch player, you have some that choke at big points and just some that can stay really consistent throughout.
@@markvanderwerf8592 you are quite right ,
people use to talk only about BP ... Federer loool BP looser ... forgetting they did not came alone !
a game is 4 points ( or more) if you don't have the first you don't have the fourth :o)
@@markvanderwerf8592 but by this stat Moura forget to say that mainly before the semis of final, Djoko Fed or Nadal don't have to push more that necessary. they just choose the own good moment to break and win some set ..match. they are so over others that they play mainly by " sleeping"... focusing fully on just the crucial points.
@@antoinev9733 that's just not true. They just play any point like it's any other. Especially Nadal and Djokovic. Federer did have a bit more of a hand of losing concentration here and there.
@@markvanderwerf8592 yes it is ;)
and that is the reason why they are superiors to others on importants points.
Easy to see with Nadal , the difference beetween his " regulation " game and " extra shots ". the same for Djokovic or any player even you if you play ( and think about ) ;)
if you feel confortable on a match you don't put the same attention that when you are really challenged !
Very interesting! Gotta fight in those big points!
I would like him to elaborate on HOW we strengthen the mental part of our games!
@@sandybreen8947 adderall
Most likely have to be born with it.
How can understanding small margins help players win against superior opponents?
Just doing your best to stay close keep it tight and make it count when it matters the most. Just had a match where I saved 8 match points because after the first 3 he mentally collapsed unfortunately the deficit was too big for me to come back, but this goes to show that had I been closer, in those key moments mentality can make a huge difference
U can’t coah
@@FootballEditz-i8flol you are a 🤡
@@Turbulencemodehe didn't collapsed completely if he got another 5 match point and converted the last one. it's always "possible" to come back in tennis even after match points, you can increase you level, opponent can start making mistakes , can find tactical solution against opponent game or win thanks to better stamina, or making opponent run more. it just takes 2 or 3 points in a row to win a decisive and disputed game, then sometimes make a second or even third break in a row. once you win the set, you have your chances
@patrickmouratoglou_official by preserving their energies and concentration for these moments? while trying to waste the other's in not important points
The beauty is you don't need to be the best 24/7, you just need to be better off the opposite side of the court
It is amazing how statistically similar Nadal and Novak are...
He speaks like Guardiola
He’s French tho
@@slamdunk2270 so?
50% is really reinforced by server's advantage though.. But still a very good statistic
He's spot on. Murray is a perfect example. Technically, he's on par with the other three. During the 15+ years the big four dominated tennis, he's been in 14 odd slam finals (incl Olympics) and countless semis (with a large number going to five sets) but only won 3. Yet, look how many the other three have won. The difference has been how those crucial points were handled. Look how calm the other three have been compared to Murray constantly shouting at himself and unnecessarily expending mental and emotional energy that would have assisted him in being able to deal with those pivotal points the same way as the others. That is the difference
Murray is technically on par with Federer, Nadal or Djokovic? I disagree by a country mile.
@@user-qb1nk1ey2dThat's why the word opinion exists 👍
@@theriac.well m’y friend fédérér nadal and nole were better than murray its not Just question of mental
There are better player that is they dominâted
And more talented too
Its not a opinion its a fact
@@victorito07 That's your opinion. My belief and the belief of most other professionals and those involved with the sport say different
@@theriac. no its the fact Roger novak and Nadal are superior player i think the data say that
At their best They were always supérior above all in gc
Dude its just they are more talented
That is all 🤦♂️
54% is still way above 50 and that's a career percentage which means they had matches with much less than 50%. You can win a set while winning less points than your opponent. If your opponent wins his serve games every time after 40-0 and you are fighting every service game, but also win every single one, getting one break will be enough to win the set even though your opponent won way more points than you.
yes they had matches much less than 50% usually when they would lose.
But if you consider their win percentage is like 80%+ with 1000+ matches won the point stands
@@superiorkaos You missed the "point". The point is you don't need to win 50% of the points in a match in order to win the match. In fact, you could only win 40% of all points and still win the match.
@@tomr6955 no i know your point but its very rare... Djokovic federer 2019 was 48- 52% nowhere near 40%
@@superiorkaos You are still missing the point, the 50% of how much you win is almost irrelevant its focus on winning the big points.
Citing the big 3 is to demonstrate that 3 players who have won over 60 GS in the last 20 years have only won less than 55% of the points they play when you would think they win way way more because they dominate. You win in tennis by winning the important points.
You're basically rephrasing the argument in the video...
So true. I saw some stats on Lendl once and he had a high winning percentage on break points against him than game points for him.
Very intersting.
I feel that it's the same in badminton too. A 21-15 win is considered pretty comfortable, but that's only 58% of the points that you actually won.
These sports are won and lost on tiny margins and only the best of the best can do it time and time again.
One of the cooler tennis aspects. Some pts are worth significantly more: game pt., break pt., Set pt., Match pt. All those pts you won in that 7 deuce game were meaningless bc you lost all the break pts. Same for games & sets if you didn't win the set or the match.
When young there’s another factor. Players can win from technical better ones by just being fast and only “put” their racket against the ball. Playing defensive by hitting moonballs and let the attacking player make mistakes. Fortunately this advantage goes away when they get bigger, stronger and learn the skills to overcome such way of playing.
not only bigger stronger, but also waymore consistent, so that pushers have less chances of winning points on unforced errors
@@geemy9675 you’re right, that’s why I mentioned the learning of skills besides more power
They beat players that might be playing better than them on a given day. But they are still the overall better players.
Doesn't make sense.
First off, the actual cited numbers for three are all over 54% (54.1, 54.5 & 54.5) so it makes zero sense to say "between 52 and 54%".
Second, tennis is a zero-sum game. Any point you don't win, is won by your opponent. These 3 guys all won ~9% more points than their opponents for their careers, which is a massive difference in the long run, ESPECIALLY in the context of a match being decided on just a few points, as the guy describes.
if he really knows the percentage why would he not give a percentage. He gives a percentage range!
The big 3 won total of 66 grd slams combines for the span of 18 yrs of their pick period average, say from 2004 to 2022, means they won 3.5 grand slams per year!! and remaining 0.5 grand slams a year equivalent 9 grnd slams distributed amongst other contenders players!
This is not not dominations, its a dope!
its called mentality
Mentality helps you play technically good in crucial moments
That is why when Roger is mentally unstable his technicality fails and Novak and Nadal dominated against him
That is why Goat is the person that can play under pressure = Novak
in practise i am sure Roger is the Goat between big 3
but when all matters and it is 1-2 points Novak dominates 😅
A Link to the full talk ? Thank you!
what Patrick forget to say is that top players , most of the time ( before semies on a GC) just have to focus on a few points to win a set !
it's means that, out of thoses crucial points ... it can be 50/50or even less .... they don't care :)
..
Can I get the full link?
Most players are at 51% or less. 54% is actually huge in terms of overall points won.
Yep it's an 8% difference. People think of it as it's only 4% above 50 but obviously the opponent can only win 46% so it's an 8% swing which is quite big in the end
However the general point stands. The margins in tennis are very small
Craig O’shaunessy mentioned similar stats. Each of the big 3’s most dominant season had them winning 55% of points. Amazing stat.
they give up some point' like opponent lob or dropshot point' so they can save more energy at some deciding point' like break point' or set point' . there is no need to push yourself so hard just to achieve a love game 😂
imagine you are in confort with your own serve ( 40/15 every time on a set)
you reach the early break ... you focus on your own serve ... the opponent can win further serves (40/0, game) who care ?? he will even reach 52% of the points ... you won the set in full confort :o)
This statistic would only be relevant if points started off neutral, but they don't; players serve. So when every average player wins 50% of his points, then 54% is actually an extraordinary achievement. It's 99th percentile stuff
Biggest problem with tennis is the ridiculous second serve. Tennis would be alot less boring with only 1 serve. Why do professional tennis players get a second serve? Even table tennis doesn't have a second serve.
I wish I knew these stats when I was younger. I was always a so hard on myself when I made errors.
Wow!! Such a beautiful insight.. he understands tennis much more deeper than most.. I am shocked with the fact that big 3 won just 50-55% of points yet dominated
I would like to think their percentages are low because of each other. 😂
Wrong. 54% is actually very high. Most others players top out at 51%.
@@tomr6955They are "low" in a sense that we all thought they were so dominant at their peaks that they would have at least 60-70%.
55 % for Nadal, 54 % for Fed and Nole
Does this mean it's about luck or that it's about crucial moments?
I don't believe this. After turning pro, it must be at least 57% of career points. Does he really have enough stats to know exactly?
The stat is true bro. I have seen some drtailed analysis of Federer's 2007 or 2006 season on a TV show when he literally won almost everything, but percentage wise he won only 55-56% of overall points.
54% is actually huge. You can look these stats up on ATP
and also that's why a small injury or handicap for a player could be a death sentence, since the other player will exploit your weakness as much as possible and you'll for sure lose.
Muy entretenido pero no he oído una definición de felicidad...lo cual ensombrece todo en ligar de arrojar liz sobre el tema
If Nadal plays one more year year his percentage might drop below 54%
That's impossible. Murray's match win % has barely dropped because he had such a dominant career, so it would be no different with Rafa's point percentage. He has played well over 1000 matches, and he is old and wouldn't play 15 tournaments in a year anyways, so his statistic will barely change regardless.
@@IzakD8 still might drop below 54% it's a correct statement
@@tomr6955 My guy do you know how many thousands upon thousands of points Rafa has played in his career? He would have to lose points at a drastic rate to even lose 0.1% of his total percentage. Even if he is only winning 50% of his points from here on it would take forever for his percentage to even budge.
It's impossible to go bellow 54 for a few matches@@tomr6955
This is shocking to me. I thought it would have been much higher.
I don't have in mind an other sport in which you can win by scoring less points than your opponant.
52/54% then it shows all are above, such dumb statement, the difference between having 52% to 54% is huge. The fact the % dont look that impressive is just because they are still playing againt top players most of the times not agains beginners. having 54%+ is insane. Only fools will be shocked by this statistic.
And then you managed to destroy Simona's career.
That’s an incredible stat. Wow.
Dont think this is true. When you win 6:2 6:0 first round they defently win more than 52% of the Points. So there must be losses where this is equal so the Overall is 52%. In Close Matches He is right, a few points decieds who is winning
he sad the whole career
Mind blowing stat!
54% and some of them wins it against each other. What a stats
Why do I feel he is talking to a mirror... and not an interviewer
😂😂
warm water is warm... great discovery
Super video! wow!
Well... actually Patrick, since you just break your opponent 2 to 4 times in an entire match (more or less) and even sometimes losing match, it's just a normal stat for any player...
if you just look at break points and set points, their %s go up massively. Clutch.
It is not how many points you've won, it is how many last points you've won! It's all that matters - who wins the last point of the match!
He’s an overrated coach.
And swiatek on clay ?
This is perfect exsample of the individual who does not understand statistics. As matter of fact I'm not sure if he even knows basic calculus?
its not football or Basketball. On every point played one player will win a point. if you have a strong service game you usually only require one break of serve. so quite naturally both players will usually win more points on their serve. so unless you completely blow your opponent off the court this percentage is kind of expected i guess. they are still incredible competitors of course. probably all top players will be in the 54%-50.5% range is my guess.
btw. in 2019 wimbledon final Federer won more points (218 to 204) and still lost the match
Evert won more of her matches 90 percent of all matches played over 19 years .mincredible. She did so believing she would. That at any given time she figure out how to handle a point. She believed in herself. That takes courage. Whenever she stepped on the court she acted as though she had already won the match.
I've always thought that was Djokovic's best talent
That's why Djokovic dominated Federer he knows how to win the big points.
Completely disagree the statistics are misinterpreted here. Winning 50-54 percent of points in a career is like playing every set to 4-4 getting a break and winning 6-4 every set you play or 7-5 for example. Winning every set averagely 6-4 or 7-5 is a major skill difference especially against top 100 players. If you are skilled you can be an amazing player without mental strength or competitiveness examples include tomic and kygrios. Skill is the number one asset in tennis, these are my thoughts after playing for 10 years and also playing division 1 tennis for two years. Lmk if you agree or disagree…
I agree completely. 54% is huge and it's being taken out of context.
Missing the point entirely.
At about 5 mins the video starts to make sense. Peterson teaches clinical psychology and he's instructing a class of students who are learning the same. His videos when shared like this seem like some sort of motivational hyperbole, and that gathers a fair amount of attention of the internet.
What this point as indicated in the video showcases is a teacher giving instructions for future psychotherapists to deal with a patient who is agreeable vs disagreeable. Which is based on behavioral science and his personal experience working with clients over decades.
Its absolutely incorrect to treat these videos as some direct messages to individuals wanting to be alpha or sigma or some bull shit like that.
It has taken me so many videos to realise this. A student in clinical psychology is not expecting political correctness or any such thing from their professor. They are building a tool kit to deal with diverse individuals.
Just today Jannik Sinner won more total points than Carlos Alcaraz in the Roland Garros 1/2 Final, but Alcaraz won the match.
Just another example, like this video, of how small the margins are in elite tennis and that you can win matches by only winning the % of points played mentioned above - and those are for the all-time greats!!
Or like Alcaraz today, you can win fewer than 50% of points played and win. I’m sure it’s happened many, MANY times.
I wonder what is the lowest % of points won in a match victory (a- in a grand slam and b- not limited to a grand slam and c- for both men and women.)
They must track that, right?
same with djokovic federer wimb 2019 final, nole won less points than roger but still took the win
The points won by each player in that match was widely spoken about, because it was very rare.
@@marykistnen6837 Not that rare to Federer - It's happened quite a bit to him. The technical term is SImpson's paradox.
For me I believe it's because Fed tries for every point, and not just the important points.
Patrick, that bracelet is for ladies, please remove it or give it back to your daughter. Thanks
Crazy stat !
Yeah but you have to look at how many serve points are played also. Im sure the big 3 are serving less than the people they are playing??
It is absolutely fascinating. The number of lessons from this example. Life. Life can be like this. Fighting can be like this. Shows how hard we can be on ourselves for not being perfect. Yet, it's not perfection. It's the fight, the struggle, the perseverance, the studying, and execution. This takes faith and courage. It takes training.
Yes, as Big Servers know, you can hold at Love over and over but, still lose the match.🤔
I dont disagree with the general claim that a lot tennis matches are decided by a small number of important points.. but I also wonder how the statistic of ~54% varies from the first round game to the finals?
I love listening to whatever he says about tennis!
wrong. its 55%. For the three of them. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Serena also. It is a number which these greats share. Mouratoglou should really know this. Bit poor from him.
I don't understand the statistic, someone could explain it to me?
When Novak can't win the crucial points, he just retires the match or takes a medical timeout
Simpson's Paradox.
This is very misleading. I want to see the percentage in matches they've won.
Keine uberzetzung😮👎varum??
It’s all about how you handle the big moments
No it’s not. It’s just statistics. If you flip a coin 500 times but he has a 55% chance to land on heads, then you’re very likely to flip more heads overall.
this guy. Zzzz
Apen
Really? Obviously Rune who is coached by him is stupid enough not to learn from him...
I've been lucky enough to sit court side to watch Borg, McEnroe, Conners, Agassi, Lendl, Sampras, Etc in big matches. As great as they all were, the jump in excellence when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic came on the scene. For me, all 3 have reached levels of greatness that are near impossible to imagine. Normally, it would take 5-7 years for another crop of greats to come up. With these guys, it took 20 years for an Alcaraz to emerge. They have been that great. I'm already mourning their retirements. It's only been a few years and people are starting to forget how unstoppable Fed was.
Je n'y crois pas
Like I’ve been saying for decades, tennis is in a category by itself. You don’t need athletic ability or natural ability to win in tennis. You need craftiness, strategy, thinking. Tennis is won by those who can out think. It’s why it’s less of a sport. It’s more a strategic game. And add the artificial equipment to the mix and this is where tennis is.
54 vs 52 is a huge difference. That’s why they win so much.
Who are you?
Bla bla bla bla
Wow
Bullshit lol
Enunciate man.
Mouratoglou is a scam
Are or is the player rhinking rhis is matxh ppint.of rhe lasr five huge compettive matxhes rhis win pr this losss meamsn. If that rhiughts then the loss asured is the game more simple than me
This guy thinks he is a tennis guru
Is it true you gave steroids to Serena her entire career?
useless coach
explain please genius
@@jems6481of course he's better than the coach of professional players, he definitely knows more.
What's your tennis academy called and let us know the grand slam champions you have coached to victories on the tour. We're all waiting to know...
@@sofianpatel486uhhh he is a coach of professional players like serena Williams bruh
@@emmyelijah7395so it seems like you don’t know who this man is. He was Serena Williams’ coach, so he has some insight, okay