The analytics don’t lie (this “crazy” strategy works)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 мар 2023
- Get "The New Rules Of Singles" here: bit.ly/3TEQzqo
Is your “go-to” strategy to break down your opponent’s backhand in rallies? It shouldn’t be…
New analytics show that out of all the ways you’re going to win a point during a match, forcing a backhand error in rallies will only account for 1 out of 10 points… just 10%
Not a lot.
The superior strategy is to attack your opponent's forehand within the first four shots of a rally, when you're able to rush their backswing. Counterintuitive for sure, but the analytics don't lie :-) 
Спорт
I think these statistics are misleading and presented in a way that confuses "% of points won" with strategic effectiveness. It isn't an apples to apples comparison. The only conclusion that can be made from the data presented here is that T wins more points from 0-4 FH rallies than 0-4 BH rallies; not that it is definitively better for T to attack the FH. If you look at successes vs attempts for both, it could very well be T isn't attacking the BH enough. But you can't make that determination simply based on percent of total points won.
"Tsitsipas ONLY won 10% of his TOTAL points on 5+ rallies to the BH". OK, but what percentage of his games even had 5+ stroke rallies? Of the 5+ stroke rallies what percentage of those ended in FH errors vs BH errors? You need to present these numbers before you can declare "attacking the FH is twice as effective as attacking the BH" (especially when including aces and return errors in the 0-4 bucket and not the 5+ stroke bucket), because tennis players generally look to hit more FHs, which means more TOTAL FH errors in general.
EG- If T wins 100 points in a match and 15 came from 5+ strokes to the BH that forced errors, and 30 came from FH forced errors but T only had 15 rallies that went 5+ strokes to the BH and 60 rallies that went 0-4 strokes to the FH, then T's effectiveness is much higher for the 5+ stroke rallies (100%) vs the 0-4 stroke rallies to the FH (50%).
Hi Will, what do you think about this MrCustrel comment about % and quantity of winning points ?. And, all tactics showned and the new Tennis rules promotionated videos for 67usd .. ¿Are recommended for club recreational players? Or for what minimum level? Thanks
You are right. Statistics are not meant to be interpreted like this. Its like saying Nadal should play every point at the net because he has a really high winning percentage at the net. He might only play at the net 5% of the time and most of those are easy putaways. Now, if Nadal really follows Craig's advice, how many points can he win if he serves and volleys all the time? Craig has no idea what he's talking about.
@@2cloudto2o36 Novak Djokovic begs to differ with your opinion, so there's that elephant in the room. If Craig was able to coach you personally I'm sure he could break it down quite well for you.
@@slingshotchicken4695 I don’t know how much he contributed on djokovic’s success. I can only say that based on all his presentations online, he cannot convince me with the stats he’s using and how he’s interpreting them.
I also find the coming to net stats. misleading. The reason with a higher percentage win is that players come to net when they either set up attack shot or see opponent stretched… (of course opponents can drop shot to bring you to net), basically the situations coming to net is not a neutral situation. Stats without considering the context can be misleading.
In one video these guys say if you take a backhand after your serve you win 40% of the point but if you take a forehand you win 70%. In another, they tell you to attack the forehand early (with the serve for example). In this video, they are saying going to the FH early reaps 20% vs BH 15% so we have quite a few variables to work through here.
Some things appear to be a contradiction, but if you look really closely at the nuance aggregate, I think you would be wise to listen to Craig O'Shannessy. You will have to combine that with thinking for yourself of course.
One interesting sidenote, they claim serve and volley wins 60%, so if you have a volley, you might want to add that serve and volley in there more. Personally, I think it's more individualized with each player and also the opponent factored in, the cookie-cutter approach has its limits and drawbacks.
Agree 100. I also was watching this and was starting to get confused because of what they said in a prior video. I started to understand better based on risk vs reward scenarios and individual skills.
So it seems not that many people paid attention bat the end. The Nole-Fed match was 2019.. given this, was he part of those tiebreakers? I had understood Craig had been with Nole until 2018! 😅
Nice video, but too much propaganda for too little content. Please try to balance that out.
Agreed
Warning this is a scam. I purchased a lifetime access last year and I was not given access to their videos at all and what I emailed and called them countless times without getting a response. They just want to get people’s money.
Hey I’m sorry you’re having trouble accessing the content. If you go to our website, Fuzzy Yellow Balls for com, there’s a chat box where we can get you up and running. Please let me know if that works.
Ребята, вы крутые. Очень полезный контент, молодцы 👏🏻
I ordered this a while ago. When will it be sent?
Hey if you're having trouble accessing TNRS come to Fuzzy Yellow Balls and in the bottom right corner there's a chat button - send us a message and we'll get you up and running
For me O'Shawn's concetps are like the Atkins died, I avoid them like the plague.
What is the app you are using in the video? Is it on iPad? Are we buying a physical book or an app?
It's the Fuzzy Yellow Balls App. "The New Rules Of Singles" is delivered inside the app, it's not a physical book.
i seriously thought that the NBA changed because of stef
But you're talking about pro players with very few deficiencies. The average rec player's backhand is still a weakness.
You'd be surprised how much the stats hold up at all levels of the game. Obviously, if someone has a glaring weakness, by all means target it. But if attacking the best forehands in the world is a winning strategy for the pros, imagine how effective it will be at our levels...
@@fuzzyyellowballs Be that as it may, you claim attacking the FH is a good way to go while simultaneously saying a player who takes a FH instead of a BH off the opponent's service return goes from 40% winning stat up to 70%. That stat is in a video showing the Alcaraz drop shot strategy when serving to the deuce court.
Do the statistics bear out the same way for doubles- I guess you and your partner winning 55% puts you at elite level of match success. Also, are there patterns/plays in doubles that statistical analysis indicates should be re-considered in the same way the singles patterns are challenged?
Craig and I are filming "The New Rules Of Doubles" on April 11-12 so stay tuned :-)
@@fuzzyyellowballs I will! Thank you Will!
Geez. Look, I know you need to make a buck, but this is the most pervasive amount of advertising I've seen in a video, relative to content. At first I was glad to see the channel again, but I can't sit through a bulk of advertising this massive.