really nice video and comments below; as a club player i feel like his conclusions are not for me; if i'd have solid strokes, a 200kmh first serve and a consistent 150kmh second serve - yes, pick your spots and finish the point early: that gives you purpose, you focus more on your targets and it builds confidence; also it doesn't give the opponent any chance to neutralize a rally if you batter his ass with solid serves and powerful ground strokes; but that's for top 20 players who have perfect technique and physique; they can do this attack-focused practice routine because they've already hit 1m shots already; makes no sense to keep grinding stuff that is learnt; but for me i have to hit another 700k shots before reaching that level and in that regard i'd have to go down that pyramid and choose maybe 8 - 10 shots rallies, where i try to be consistent and attack only when i'm sure my limited technique can play a role in winning the point
Actually if you think about it, all it takes to win a 2/3 match is to break serve twice and not lose any of yours. And assuming the worst case to break is to do it in a deuce situation, you would need to win a minimum of 5 out of 8 points
Interesting information but very poor delivery. He could have said the same thing more effectively in about 1/3 of the time. From a substance standpoint, I think while he is directionally correct (e.g., about the importance of the first few shots), he overestimates some of the effects such as the baseline effect and the net effect because he does not account for something known as selection biases and endogeneity. Basically, you are more likely to come to the net when you have put your opponent in a tough position. Hence, you are also more likely to win that point, not necessarily because you came to the net but also because you put them in a tough position. Conversely, you are more likely to remain on the baseline when you are in a neutral or defensive position, which contributes to your lower observer likelihood of winning the point. A true statistician would recognize this.
@@miguelbarahona6636 well I think he virtually has it all wrong except maybe he is right that many coaches don't get the importance of the serve and return, although that is extremely hard to believe since it is so obvious even with NO stats. He is surprised that the avg hits in a rally is low and surprised that the mode is so low in a sport that is designed around those 2 issues. Somehow he decides that a low avg rally means that practice to extend rallys is nearly a waste of time. He thinks that there is only one type of error, when separating the Ue vs the Forced error is one of the few things tennis stats has gotten right over the yrs, lol. In reality, it would have been better to say there is no winner vs forced error. In both cases you have been successful in taking the point, when only the Ue is the point given to you or you gave it away. He doesn't seem to realize that in a sport that is decided normally by a very small spread, how extending point is so key and especially in terms of the all important "breaking serve" where the longer the point goes, the greater the chance of the returner's chances. He looks at averages in many cases where the key is the match-up with little to do with the past avg. So basically all the points he makes are confused and show a lack of understanding for the game, scoring and stats in general.....hope this helps
@@chtomlin I think, that you are successful if you hit a winner, force an error or the opponent makes an unforced error. You win the point. Tennis is an sport of errors. Every time you put the ball in play, you give the chance any of those 3 things to happen. I´ve not analized all that statistics Craig shows, but I know he´s the man that (analizing Djokovic´s game), told Novak to hit more forehands (even though he has the best backhand ever and even when many people think Novak´s forehand is not that good), with great success. Craig says it´s important to have consistency, and of course, break points are crucial points on matches. Maybe he knows somethig about the game. I think Djokovic wouldn´t have hired him otherwise.
Really? There is confusion about why players will normally have a losing percentage when the point ends with them standing at the baseline? This is so obvious that I actually think their is a flaw in these classifications that makes this % too high actually. But man, I have to give him credit for pointing out how getting to net can still work, even if his stats are sketchy proof.
🤡🤡 It's funny and wrong. Almost everything he said here. May be because he didn't like math in school and all the other listeners. If you reject all double faults and aces from that stats numbers would be absolutely different. On clay WAY fewer aces than on the hard court. So avg number of shots on clay WITHOUT aces would be way more. For example, 1 ace per 4 points with 10 shots per rally will drop % to 30% from 10 shots to 7 shots. Just one ace! Will drop the stats of shots from 10 to 7. At 30%. To work with numbers requires some knowledge to understand the meaning. Grass lowest count of shots per rally, then hard, then carpet, then clay. Other numbers make sense. But nothing surprises those who learn math more than 0 levels. On the court to win 9 or 10 matches it is not necessary to win 9 of 10 points. That's obvious. Only silly people can be surprised by those stats. "Forget unforced errors" - really? That's the only difference between ITF and ATP levels. Avg unforced-for game in ITF is about 1.5up. For an ATP level, it's 1.0up. For top players like Fed, Nad, Djok it's 0.5up!
The score does not reject aces and double faults so what should you ignore them when searching for the statistics that decide how matches are won or lost?
not sure what you mean, but the system described in the video rejects DFs as a zero count.... better to count everything, even if the shot misses it is still a shot....then counting every shot, you can interpret the data better as well.... @@Whisper555
lol try just practicing 4 ball rallys and see if u ever get better. The amount of repetition it takes to serve, return or hit off the ground at a high level is in the millions. His point about losing a lot of points is an important one though.
You dont win at the net unless you have a great ground game to set it up. It takes tons of repetition to learn to hit the 3 or 4 quality shots it takes to win points he is talking about. He doesnt seem to be very good at math or logic lol.
Not necessarily. Two notable exceptions to your rule from the past: John McEnroe and Patrick Rafter. They used their athleticism to get to and win at net.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
really nice video and comments below; as a club player i feel like his conclusions are not for me; if i'd have solid strokes, a 200kmh first serve and a consistent 150kmh second serve - yes, pick your spots and finish the point early: that gives you purpose, you focus more on your targets and it builds confidence; also it doesn't give the opponent any chance to neutralize a rally if you batter his ass with solid serves and powerful ground strokes; but that's for top 20 players who have perfect technique and physique; they can do this attack-focused practice routine because they've already hit 1m shots already; makes no sense to keep grinding stuff that is learnt; but for me i have to hit another 700k shots before reaching that level and in that regard i'd have to go down that pyramid and choose maybe 8 - 10 shots rallies, where i try to be consistent and attack only when i'm sure my limited technique can play a role in winning the point
Excellent comment.
Excellent and insightful!
Game changer!!! Awesome!!! 👍🖐😊
Brilliant
Thanks a lot
Thanks for the share 🙏
What is one rally? Is that only the serve?
yes, he only counts the shots that land in. For example, a double fault would be a zero and really tends to pull the avg down doesn't it.
Only one guy from the comments who understand the silly of that stat. Bravo brother)
It is an unreturned serve
read vic braden books the best imho
Actually if you think about it, all it takes to win a 2/3 match is to break serve twice and not lose any of yours. And assuming the worst case to break is to do it in a deuce situation, you would need to win a minimum of 5 out of 8 points
you must be a fantastic server even for your level...
Interesting information but very poor delivery. He could have said the same thing more effectively in about 1/3 of the time. From a substance standpoint, I think while he is directionally correct (e.g., about the importance of the first few shots), he overestimates some of the effects such as the baseline effect and the net effect because he does not account for something known as selection biases and endogeneity. Basically, you are more likely to come to the net when you have put your opponent in a tough position. Hence, you are also more likely to win that point, not necessarily because you came to the net but also because you put them in a tough position. Conversely, you are more likely to remain on the baseline when you are in a neutral or defensive position, which contributes to your lower observer likelihood of winning the point. A true statistician would recognize this.
He admits he isn't good in Math and almost failed Statistics, but won't let anyone tell him how poorly he interprets this data....interesting....
He´s better in Math and statistics than he admits, that´s clear.
@@miguelbarahona6636 what evidence do you have?
@@chtomlin How do you interpret his data.
@@miguelbarahona6636 well I think he virtually has it all wrong except maybe he is right that many coaches don't get the importance of the serve and return, although that is extremely hard to believe since it is so obvious even with NO stats. He is surprised that the avg hits in a rally is low and surprised that the mode is so low in a sport that is designed around those 2 issues. Somehow he decides that a low avg rally means that practice to extend rallys is nearly a waste of time. He thinks that there is only one type of error, when separating the Ue vs the Forced error is one of the few things tennis stats has gotten right over the yrs, lol. In reality, it would have been better to say there is no winner vs forced error. In both cases you have been successful in taking the point, when only the Ue is the point given to you or you gave it away. He doesn't seem to realize that in a sport that is decided normally by a very small spread, how extending point is so key and especially in terms of the all important "breaking serve" where the longer the point goes, the greater the chance of the returner's chances. He looks at averages in many cases where the key is the match-up with little to do with the past avg. So basically all the points he makes are confused and show a lack of understanding for the game, scoring and stats in general.....hope this helps
@@chtomlin I think, that you are successful if you hit a winner, force an error or the opponent makes an unforced error. You win the point. Tennis is an sport of errors. Every time you put the ball in play, you give the chance any of those 3 things to happen. I´ve not analized all that statistics Craig shows, but I know he´s the man that (analizing Djokovic´s game), told Novak to hit more forehands (even though he has the best backhand ever and even when many people think Novak´s forehand is not that good), with great success. Craig says it´s important to have consistency, and of course, break points are crucial points on matches. Maybe he knows somethig about the game. I think Djokovic wouldn´t have hired him otherwise.
Really? There is confusion about why players will normally have a losing percentage when the point ends with them standing at the baseline? This is so obvious that I actually think their is a flaw in these classifications that makes this % too high actually. But man, I have to give him credit for pointing out how getting to net can still work, even if his stats are sketchy proof.
L
They made all the surfaces the same… kinda boring actually. This is why the big all of a sudden three people broke Sampras’s grand slam record .
🤡🤡 It's funny and wrong. Almost everything he said here. May be because he didn't like math in school and all the other listeners. If you reject all double faults and aces from that stats numbers would be absolutely different. On clay WAY fewer aces than on the hard court. So avg number of shots on clay WITHOUT aces would be way more. For example, 1 ace per 4 points with 10 shots per rally will drop % to 30% from 10 shots to 7 shots. Just one ace! Will drop the stats of shots from 10 to 7. At 30%. To work with numbers requires some knowledge to understand the meaning. Grass lowest count of shots per rally, then hard, then carpet, then clay.
Other numbers make sense. But nothing surprises those who learn math more than 0 levels. On the court to win 9 or 10 matches it is not necessary to win 9 of 10 points. That's obvious. Only silly people can be surprised by those stats.
"Forget unforced errors" - really? That's the only difference between ITF and ATP levels. Avg unforced-for game in ITF is about 1.5up. For an ATP level, it's 1.0up. For top players like Fed, Nad, Djok it's 0.5up!
The score does not reject aces and double faults so what should you ignore them when searching for the statistics that decide how matches are won or lost?
not sure what you mean, but the system described in the video rejects DFs as a zero count.... better to count everything, even if the shot misses it is still a shot....then counting every shot, you can interpret the data better as well....
@@Whisper555
lol try just practicing 4 ball rallys and see if u ever get better. The amount of repetition it takes to serve, return or hit off the ground at a high level is in the millions. His point about losing a lot of points is an important one though.
You miss the point
@@2017Fedthe point is bs
You dont win at the net unless you have a great ground game to set it up. It takes tons of repetition to learn to hit the 3 or 4 quality shots it takes to win points he is talking about. He doesnt seem to be very good at math or logic lol.
Not necessarily. Two notable exceptions to your rule from the past: John McEnroe and Patrick Rafter. They used their athleticism to get to and win at net.
@@georgepalavi5060 Not as possible like it was in the past. And Mcenroe had a solid ground game and still does
are you suggesting they didn't use excellent shots to approach net?? @@georgepalavi5060
This guy is clueless. Pretty much everything is based on flawed logic...how does he get to be in the same room as Novak?
Clearly ain’t clueless then