Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
On 18/07/2023 8:03 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
No it didn't seem that way. Surprising stat.
Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!
Alcaraz vs DjokovicDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote:Alcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!
Alcaraz vs DjokovicDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote:Alcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!
Alcaraz vs DjokovicDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
He seems to have resorted to that tactic to battle Djoker. That's not his usual game.Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote:Alcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!
Alcaraz vs DjokovicDjoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for
most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for
most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's
basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what
he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you
think they are something else, what are they, please?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"? >>>
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very >>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for >>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me >>>> as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what
he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you
think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very >>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for >>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me >>>> as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what >> he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you
think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you
can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:> On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote: > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: > >> On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49AMUTC+10, Sawfish wrote: > >>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>>>>>> Alcaraz vs Djokovic > >>>>>>> 66
winners. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> --Sawfish > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me > >>>> as a member." --G. Marx > >>> Do you countAlcaraz is better at doing that, too! > >>>> Alcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very > >>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for > >>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's
On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"? >>>>>
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very >>>>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for >>>>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me >>>>>> as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what >>>> he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you
think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you
can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 17:41:17 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/19/23 9:27 PM, Tuan wrote:good definitions! Tuan is meaning "winners" by power forehands/backhands or volleys, even if the opponent touches the ball, kind of understandably cos they the shots people like/talk about.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:OK, I was getting a bit terse, Tuan. My apologies. But it's like this:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's >>>>>> basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what >>>>>> he does, so far as I've seen.
Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very >>>>>>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for >>>>>>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match? >>>>>>>>>>> --
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me >>>>>>>> as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you >>>>>> think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you >>>> can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any ball hit in play by your opponent that you cannot touch with your
racquet is a "winner" in tennis stats. This is objective, and not open
to interpretation; you either touched it, or not. Note that an ace is a
type of "winner". The only winner that is counted separately is a
service ace, which is a sort of subset of "winner"; racquet does not
touch the ball.
Then some judgement comes in by the statistician...
The opponent hits a ball to you and you touch it with your racquet but
it does not go into play. Maybe you've had to run all the way back
across court and just barely hit it, and it goes out.
This is can be labeled a "forced error". Note that the common term
"service winner", where you can get your racquet on the ball but not get
it back into play, is a sort of subset of a forced error.
Now the opponent his a ball that is within your normal range of court
coverage, but for whatever reason you hit it long.
This is an "unforced error".
So anyway, this is how these shots are noted in tennis stats. I'm using
this meaning for "winner" and it seems like you're using a broader
meaning, one that would not be used for stats.
Sound OK to you?
On 7/19/23 9:27 PM, Tuan wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:OK, I was getting a bit terse, Tuan. My apologies. But it's like this:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's >>>> basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what
Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match? >>>>>>>>> --
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for
most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you >>>> think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you
can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any ball hit in play by your opponent that you cannot touch with your racquet is a "winner" in tennis stats. This is objective, and not open
to interpretation; you either touched it, or not. Note that an ace is a
type of "winner". The only winner that is counted separately is a
service ace, which is a sort of subset of "winner"; racquet does not
touch the ball.
Then some judgement comes in by the statistician...
The opponent hits a ball to you and you touch it with your racquet but
it does not go into play. Maybe you've had to run all the way back
across court and just barely hit it, and it goes out.
This is can be labeled a "forced error". Note that the common term
"service winner", where you can get your racquet on the ball but not get
it back into play, is a sort of subset of a forced error.
Now the opponent his a ball that is within your normal range of court coverage, but for whatever reason you hit it long.
This is an "unforced error".
So anyway, this is how these shots are noted in tennis stats. I'm using
this meaning for "winner" and it seems like you're using a broader
meaning, one that would not be used for stats.
Sound OK to you?
On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 17:41:17 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/19/23 9:27 PM, Tuan wrote:good definitions! Tuan is meaning "winners" by power forehands/backhands or volleys, even if the opponent touches the ball, kind of understandably cos they the shots people like/talk about.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:OK, I was getting a bit terse, Tuan. My apologies. But it's like this:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's >>>>>> basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what >>>>>> he does, so far as I've seen.
Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very >>>>>>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for >>>>>>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match? >>>>>>>>>>> --
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me >>>>>>>> as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you >>>>>> think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you >>>> can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any ball hit in play by your opponent that you cannot touch with your
racquet is a "winner" in tennis stats. This is objective, and not open
to interpretation; you either touched it, or not. Note that an ace is a
type of "winner". The only winner that is counted separately is a
service ace, which is a sort of subset of "winner"; racquet does not
touch the ball.
Then some judgement comes in by the statistician...
The opponent hits a ball to you and you touch it with your racquet but
it does not go into play. Maybe you've had to run all the way back
across court and just barely hit it, and it goes out.
This is can be labeled a "forced error". Note that the common term
"service winner", where you can get your racquet on the ball but not get
it back into play, is a sort of subset of a forced error.
Now the opponent his a ball that is within your normal range of court
coverage, but for whatever reason you hit it long.
This is an "unforced error".
So anyway, this is how these shots are noted in tennis stats. I'm using
this meaning for "winner" and it seems like you're using a broader
meaning, one that would not be used for stats.
Sound OK to you?
On 7/19/23 9:27 PM, Tuan wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:OK, I was getting a bit terse, Tuan. My apologies. But it's like this:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's >>>> basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what
Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match? >>>>>>>>> --
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for
most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you >>>> think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you
can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any ball hit in play by your opponent that you cannot touch with your racquet is a "winner" in tennis stats. This is objective, and not open
to interpretation; you either touched it, or not. Note that an ace is a
type of "winner". The only winner that is counted separately is a
service ace, which is a sort of subset of "winner"; racquet does not
touch the ball.
Then some judgement comes in by the statistician...
The opponent hits a ball to you and you touch it with your racquet but
it does not go into play. Maybe you've had to run all the way back
across court and just barely hit it, and it goes out.
This is can be labeled a "forced error". Note that the common term
"service winner", where you can get your racquet on the ball but not get
it back into play, is a sort of subset of a forced error.
Now the opponent his a ball that is within your normal range of court coverage, but for whatever reason you hit it long.
This is an "unforced error".
So anyway, this is how these shots are noted in tennis stats. I'm using
this meaning for "winner" and it seems like you're using a broader
meaning, one that would not be used for stats.
Sound OK to you?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "It was public knowledge that Sawfish was a loner with strong
misanthropic tendencies: it was rare for him to even say a word to his dog." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:41:17 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:it over the net).
On 7/19/23 9:27 PM, Tuan wrote:Yes that's what I understand by winners too. But I think you meant "unreturnable shots", which include winners and shots that cause forced errors on the opponent (most of Carlos's drop shots, for example, are reached by the opponents but they can't put
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:OK, I was getting a bit terse, Tuan. My apologies. But it's like this:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's >>>>>> basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what >>>>>> he does, so far as I've seen.
Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Alcaraz vs DjokovicAlcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very >>>>>>>> aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for >>>>>>>> most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match? >>>>>>>>>>> --
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me >>>>>>>> as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you >>>>>> think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you >>>> can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind*
that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any ball hit in play by your opponent that you cannot touch with your
racquet is a "winner" in tennis stats. This is objective, and not open
to interpretation; you either touched it, or not. Note that an ace is a
type of "winner". The only winner that is counted separately is a
service ace, which is a sort of subset of "winner"; racquet does not
touch the ball.
Then some judgement comes in by the statistician...
The opponent hits a ball to you and you touch it with your racquet but
it does not go into play. Maybe you've had to run all the way back
across court and just barely hit it, and it goes out.
This is can be labeled a "forced error". Note that the common term
"service winner", where you can get your racquet on the ball but not get
it back into play, is a sort of subset of a forced error.
Now the opponent his a ball that is within your normal range of court
coverage, but for whatever reason you hit it long.
This is an "unforced error".
So anyway, this is how these shots are noted in tennis stats. I'm using
this meaning for "winner" and it seems like you're using a broader
meaning, one that would not be used for stats.
Sound OK to you?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "It was public knowledge that Sawfish was a loner with strong
misanthropic tendencies: it was rare for him to even say a word to his dog." >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Wimbledon.com, Carlos won 168 points in that final, of which 66 were winners, 40 were unforced errors from Nole, which leaves 62 forced errors from Nole. I think he would be equally happy with winners and error-forcing shots. Nole won 166points, of which 32 are winners and 45 are unforced errors from Carlos, which leaves 89 error-forcing shots.
Thus although the number of unreturnable shots are not too dissimilar (128 Carlos to 121 Nole), Carlos put his racket on 89/(89+32) = 74% of Nole's unreturnable shots, while Nole managed to put his on only 62/(62+66) = 48% of Carlos's unreturnableshots. It gives a quite clear picture on Carlos's superior speed and reach, I think, and that's what won him the match.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:41:17 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:it over the net).
On 7/19/23 9:27 PM, Tuan wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:41:24 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:OK, I was getting a bit terse, Tuan. My apologies. But it's like this:
On 7/19/23 5:27 PM, Tuan wrote:I'm not arguing about what's a winner. But if you define a winner as any shot that wins, then that's what all tennis players try to do isn't it? :)
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:25:18 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote:Let's not forget that I asked *YOU* what I'd call all the shots you
On 7/19/23 4:10 AM, Tuan wrote:If those are all "hitting winners", then what other way of playing is there? Waiting for unforced errors?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:49:49 AM UTC+10, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 7/18/23 4:33 PM, Tuan wrote:Tuan, I'm not especially talking about the Wimbledon match--Alcaraz's >>>> basic game is about hitting winners. Any time he plays anyone, it's what
Do you count surprising the opponent with drop shot as "hitting winners"?On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:46:34 AM UTC+10, undecided wrote:Alcaraz, the way he currently plays the game, is based on hitting very
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:04:02 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:Alcaraz is better at doing that, too!
Alcaraz vs Djokovic
66 WINNERS 32
45 UNFORCED ERRORS 40
Alcaraz had 21 (w - ue) vs -8 for Djokovic.
The difference is huge, did it seem this way in the match? >>>>>>>>> --
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html >>>>>>>> Djoker's game is not predicated on winners though. It's all about maintaining depth & angles and squeezing the other player until they make a mistake.
aggressive winners. Some of them are astonishingly low percentage *for
most other pros*. But he's all about hitting winners.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Do you count feeding a wind-averse opponent with high floating balls in the wind as "hitting winners"?
Do you count driving the opponent side to side and baseline to net to exhaust him as "hitting winners"?
Do you count drop shot followed by lob as as "hitting winners"?
he does, so far as I've seen.
To answer your questions directly: yes. They are all winners. If you >>>> think they are something else, what are they, please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I only trust statistics that I have falsified, myself."
--Winston Churchill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
listed. I did my part--I said that in my view they are winners. If you >> can show me that when official stats are compiled a lob *of any kind* >> that is not touched by the opponent is called something other than a
winner, or that any other of shots off your list is called something
other than a winner, I'll modify my position.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any ball hit in play by your opponent that you cannot touch with your racquet is a "winner" in tennis stats. This is objective, and not open
to interpretation; you either touched it, or not. Note that an ace is a type of "winner". The only winner that is counted separately is a
service ace, which is a sort of subset of "winner"; racquet does not
touch the ball.
Then some judgement comes in by the statistician...
The opponent hits a ball to you and you touch it with your racquet but
it does not go into play. Maybe you've had to run all the way back
across court and just barely hit it, and it goes out.
This is can be labeled a "forced error". Note that the common term "service winner", where you can get your racquet on the ball but not get it back into play, is a sort of subset of a forced error.
Now the opponent his a ball that is within your normal range of court coverage, but for whatever reason you hit it long.
This is an "unforced error".
So anyway, this is how these shots are noted in tennis stats. I'm using this meaning for "winner" and it seems like you're using a broader meaning, one that would not be used for stats.
Sound OK to you?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yes that's what I understand by winners too. But I think you meant "unreturnable shots", which include winners and shots that cause forced errors on the opponent (most of Carlos's drop shots, for example, are reached by the opponents but they can't put
"It was public knowledge that Sawfish was a loner with strong
misanthropic tendencies: it was rare for him to even say a word to his dog."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Wimbledon.com, Carlos won 168 points in that final, of which 66 were winners, 40 were unforced errors from Nole, which leaves 62 forced errors from Nole. I think he would be equally happy with winners and error-forcing shots. Nole won 166points, of which 32 are winners and 45 are unforced errors from Carlos, which leaves 89 error-forcing shots.
Thus although the number of unreturnable shots are not too dissimilar (128 Carlos to 121 Nole), Carlos put his racket on 89/(89+32) = 74% of Nole's unreturnable shots, while Nole managed to put his on only 62/(62+66) = 48% of Carlos's unreturnableshots. It gives a quite clear picture on Carlos's superior speed and reach, I think, and that's what won him the match.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:55:59 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,854 |