PDA

View Full Version : Extensive stats: Present top 10 players at the previous 4 GS - APRIL 2010


angliru
Apr 28th, 2010, 08:13 AM
I've collected all the match statistics from each match played by a present top ten player at the last four Grand Slams (FO 2009, Wimbledon 2009, US Open 2009 and AO 2010), and I will present the combined (or cummulated) stats in this thread. The ten players are:

1 Williams, Serena
2 Wozniacki, Caroline
3 Safina, Dinara
4 Williams, Venus
5 Kuznetsova, Svetlana
6 Dementieva, Elena
7 Jankovic, Jelena
8 Radwanska, Agnieszka
9 Azarenka, Victoria
10 Stosur, Samantha

It's not my aim to conclude who's the best player (although there's no doubt that Serena has performed best at these events). The four Grand Slams are played on different surfaces at different times of the year, and not all players have performed equally well at these 4 tournaments and some of them may even have suffered from occasional injuries (ie. Safina, Venus) although all ten players did participate at all 4 events. I still find it relevant to present the stats since the results obtained at precisely these tournements have contributed highly to the present rankings!

I've only used the official match statistics - all still available online at the official tournament sites - but I'll try to present and combine these stats in new ways to give a better view of tendencies in terms of game and style. But I'll also be very cautious to draw any conclusions as I believe only watching the matches will give a real impression of what's going on (stats don't lie but don't always tell the truth either)!

Part 1 below will include misc. results statistics. I'll update the thread with these parts later:

Part 2 - Service analysis (Aces, DF, % etc.)
Part 3 - 'Rally' and points analysis (winners, UE, FE)
Part 4 - Net approaches


Part 1 - Misc. results and match statistics (@ FO 2009, Wimbledon 2009, US Open 2009 and AO 2010)


Most titles:
S. Williams 2
Kuznetsova 1


Most matches:
S. Williams 25
Safina 20
V. Williams 19
Kuznetsova 18
Wozniacki 18
Azarenka 18
Stosur 15
Radwanska 14
Dementieva 13
Jankovic 12


Winning percentage:
W L %
S. Williams 23 2 92
Kuznetsova 15 3 83
Safina 16 4 80
V. Williams 15 4 79
Wozniacki 14 4 78
Azarenka 14 4 78
Stosur 11 4 73
Radwanska 10 4 71
Dementieva 9 4 69
Jankovic 8 4 67


Sets winning percentage:
W L %
S. Williams 47 9 84
Kuznetsova 32 10 76
Safina 33 12 73
Azarenka 30 11 73
V. Williams 32 12 73
Wozniacki 28 11 72
Radwanska 22 9 71
Dementieva 20 9 69
Jankovic 19 9 68
Stosur 23 14 62


Tie Break success
Wins %
Azarenka 3 of 4 75
Jankovic 3 of 4 75
Wozniacki 2 of 3 67
S. Williams 4 of 7 57
Dementieva 1 of 2 50
Kuznetsova 2 of 5 40
Stosur 1 of 3 33
V. Williams 1 of 5 20
Radwanska 0 of 1 0
Safina 0 of 4 0


Winning % when one set down:
Wins %
Azarenka 2 of 3 67
Safina 5 of 8 63
S. Williams 3 of 5 60
V. Williams 3 of 6 50
Wozniacki 3 of 7 43
Kuznetsova 1 of 3 33
Dementieva 1 of 3 33
Stosur 1 of 5 20
Jankovic 0 of 2 0
Radwanska 0 of 4 0


Winning % when one set up:
Wins %
S. Williams 20 of 20 100
Safina 11 of 11 100
Wozniacki 11 of 11 100
Radwanska 10 of 10 100
Stosur 10 of 10 100
Kuznetsova 14 of 15 93
V. Williams 12 of 13 92
Azarenka 12 of 15 80
Dementieva 8 of 10 80
Jankovic 8 of 10 80


Bagels given:
Azarenka 6
Wozniacki 4
Safina 4
V. Williams 3
S. Williams 3
Radwanska 2
Jankovic 1
Kuznetsova 1
Dementieva 0
Stosur 0


Double bagels given:
Azarenka 1
Safina 1

Bagels received:
V. Williams 2
Safina 1
Jankovic 1

None of the ten players were Double bagelled!


Match Length:

The longest matches played by any of these top 10 players were (duration)
Radwanska vs. Peng (Wimbledon) 178 min.
Jankovic vs. Oudin (Wimbledon) 172 min.
Dementieva vs. Henin (AO) 170 min.

The longest matches in terms of points played:
Radwanska vs. Peng (Wimbledon) 258
Kuznetsova vs. S. Williams (FO) 239
Dementieva vs. S. Williams (Wimbledon) 237


Average match length:
Elapsed time Matches Av. length
(minutes) (minutes)
Radwanska 1230 14 88
S. Williams 2251 25 90
Kuznetsova 1645 18 91
Wozniacki 1656 18 92
Safina 1865 20 93
Azarenka 1712 18 95
Dementieva 1239 13 95
V. Williams 1828 19 96
Jankovic 1195 12 100
Stosur 1517 15 101


Average point length:
Points played length (seconds)
Kuznetsova 2536 38.9
Stosur 2268 40.1
S. Williams 3360 40.2
Radwanska 1792 41.2
Safina 2692 41.6
Dementieva 1765 42.1
Wozniacki 2335 42.6
Jankovic 1683 42.6
Azarenka 2391 43.0
V. Williams 2517 43.6

(Note: The average point length includes breaks, second services, 'towel routines' etc., and may not reflect the real length of the points (typically only a few seconds). But I thought it would be interesting to see if there were any tendencies; if so-called hard-hitters played 'shorter' points than baseline oriented players.)

Part 2, 3, and 4 coming up...

angliru
Apr 28th, 2010, 05:35 PM
Part 2 - Service analysis


Most Aces:
S. Williams 197
V. Williams 82
Stosur 65
Kuznetsova 55
Safina 42
Radwanska 29
Dementieva 29
Wozniacki 24
Azarenka 22
Jankovic 18


Aces per Match:
Aces Matches Aces per match
S. Williams 197 25 7.88
Stosur 65 15 4.33
V. Williams 82 19 4.32
Kuznetsova 55 18 3.06
Dementieva 29 13 2.23
Safina 42 20 2.10
Radwanska 29 14 2.07
Jankovic 18 12 1.50
Wozniacki 24 18 1.33
Azarenka 22 18 1.22


Aces per serve (percentage):
Aces Serves Aces per serve (%)
S. Williams 197 1605 12.3
V. Williams 82 1251 6.6
Stosur 65 1173 5.5
Kuznetsova 55 1286 4.3
Dementieva 29 880 3.3
Radwanska 29 888 3.3
Safina 42 1360 3.1
Wozniacki 24 1110 2.2
Jankovic 18 839 2.1
Azarenka 22 1174 1.9


Most Double Faults:
Safina 116
Dementieva 84
V. Williams 74
Azarenka 61
S. Williams 53
Stosur 49
Kuznetsova 43
Jankovic 35
Wozniacki 32
Radwanska 19


Most Double Faults in one match:
Safina (vs. Lisicki, Wimbledon) 15
Safina (vs. Barrois, AO) 15


DF per Match:
DF Matches DF per match
Dementieva 84 13 6.46
Safina 116 20 5.80
V. Williams 74 19 3.89
Azarenka 61 18 3.39
Stosur 49 15 3.27
Jankovic 35 12 2.92
Kuznetsova 43 18 2.39
S. Williams 53 25 2.12
Wozniacki 32 18 1.78
Radwanska 19 14 1.36


DF per serve (percentage):
DF Services DF's per serve (%)
Dementieva 84 880 9.5
Safina 116 1360 8.5
V. Williams 74 1251 5.9
Azarenka 61 1174 5.2
Stosur 49 1173 4.2
Jankovic 35 839 4.2
Kuznetsova 43 1286 3.3
S. Williams 53 1605 3.3
Wozniacki 32 1110 2.9
Radwanska 19 888 2.1


Aces minus Double Faults:
S. Williams 144
Stosur 16
Kuznetsova 12
Radwanska 10
V. Williams 8
Wozniacki -8
Jankovic -17
Azarenka -39
Dementieva -55
Safina -74


Fastest Serve Speed:



Average 1st Service Speed:
[CODE] KMH MPH
V. Williams 175 109
S. Williams 171 106
Stosur 165 103
Dementieva 160 99
Safina 157 98
Kuznetsova 156 97
Jankovic 155 96
Wozniacki 153 95
Radwanska 150 93
Azarenka 149 93

(Not a true average. The result is not 'weighted', and does not take into account how many serves were served in each match. But the result is probably pretty accurate anyway).


Average 2nd Service Speed:
KMH MPH
Dementieva 145 90
Stosur 139 86
S. Williams 138 86
Safina 135 84
Jankovic 135 84
V. Williams 134 83
Azarenka 131 81
Kuznetsova 129 80
Wozniacki 124 77
Radwanska 114 71

(Not a true average. See above).


1st Serve %:
Serves 1st serve in 1st Serve %
Azarenka 1174 896 76.3
Wozniacki 1110 783 70.5
Jankovic 839 561 66.9
Safina 1360 898 66.0
Dementieva 880 554 63.0
Radwanska 888 558 62.8
Kuznetsova 1286 807 62.8
Stosur 1173 726 61.8
S. Williams 1605 979 61.0
V. Williams 1251 734 58.7


Winning on 1st Serve (%):
1st serves 1st serves won 1st serve winning %
S. Williams 979 746 76.2
V. Williams 734 529 72.1
Stosur 726 503 69.3
Safina 898 615 68.5
Kuznetsova 807 544 67.4
Radwanska 558 374 67.0
Dementieva 554 361 65.2
Azarenka 896 573 64.0
Jankovic 561 352 62.7
Wozniacki 783 487 62.2


Winning on 2nd Serve (%):
2nd serves 2nd serves won 2nd service winning %
Radwanska 330 175 53.0
S. Williams 626 326 52.1
Kuznetsova 479 242 50.5
Wozniacki 327 162 49.5
Jankovic 278 136 48.9
V. Williams 517 243 47.0
Azarenka 278 129 46.4
Stosur 447 206 46.1
Dementieva 326 148 45.4
Safina 462 197 42.6


Winning % on 2nd Serve when serve is "In":
2nd DF 2nd serves 2nd serves 2nd serve
serves "in" won winning % when "in"

Dementieva 326 84 242 148 61.2
Azarenka 278 61 217 129 59.5
Safina 462 116 346 197 56.9
S. Williams 626 53 573 326 56.9
Radwanska 330 19 311 175 56.3
Jankovic 278 35 243 136 56.0
Kuznetsova 479 43 436 242 55.5
Wozniacki 327 32 295 162 54.9
V. Williams 517 74 443 243 54.8
Stosur 447 49 398 206 51.8


Serve broken:
Times Times being broken per match
S. Williams 41 1.64
Radwanska 32 2.29
Safina 46 2.30
V. Williams 44 2.32
Kuznetsova 47 2.61
Wozniacki 50 2.78
Azarenka 51 2.83
Stosur 43 2.87
Dementieva 42 3.23
Jankovic 41 3.42


Probability (risk) of being broken:
Games Serve games Serve games Break chance
(estimated) lost (or risk) %
S. Williams 527 264 41 16
V. Williams 388 194 44 23
Safina 402 201 46 23
Radwanska 276 138 32 23
Kuznetsova 391 196 47 24
Stosur 320 160 43 27
Wozniacki 355 178 50 28
Azarenka 362 181 51 28
Dementieva 265 133 42 32
Jankovic 252 126 41 33
Note to the table above: I don't know the exact number of sevice games from each player but since I know the total amount of games played I've simply assumed that the number of service games is half the total amount of games. In theory, though, a given player may have one more service game (or less) than her opponent in each match - depending on whether the scoreline is odd or even. Hence a player like Jankovic - in theory, at least - may have had 120 or 132 service games or anything in between (126 plus/minus one or two games is by far the most likely!).


Double Fault percentage on 2nd Serves:
2nd serves DF's %
Radwanska 330 19 5.8
S. Williams 626 53 8.5
Kuznetsova 479 43 9.0
Wozniacki 327 32 9.8
Stosur 447 49 11.0
Jankovic 278 35 12.6
V. Williams 517 74 14.3
Azarenka 278 61 21.9
Safina 462 116 25.1
Dementieva 326 84 25.8
This (table above) means, for instance, that whenever Dementieva served a 2nd serve there was a 25.8% probability of a Double Fault!

angliru
Apr 30th, 2010, 09:51 AM
Part 3 - 'Rally' and points analysis (winners, UE, FE)


Most Winners:
S. Williams 731
Kuznetsova 483
V. Williams 466
Safina 424
Stosur 421
Azarenka 378
Dementieva 259
Wozniacki 259
Radwanska 227
Jankovic 193


Winners per match (Average):
Winners Matches W per match
S. Williams 731 25 29.0
Stosur 421 15 28.1
Kuznetsova 483 18 26.8
V. Williams 466 19 24.5
Safina 424 20 21.2
Azarenka 378 18 21.0
Dementieva 259 13 19.9
Radwanska 227 14 16.2
Jankovic 193 12 16.1
Wozniacki 259 18 14.4


Winners per match (Aces excluded):
Winners Matches W per match
Kuznetsova 428 18 23.8
Stosur 356 15 23.7
S. Williams 534 25 21.4
V. Williams 384 19 20.2
Azarenka 356 18 19.8
Safina 382 20 19.1
Dementieva 230 13 17.7
Jankovic 175 12 14.6
Radwanska 198 14 14.1
Wozniacki 235 18 13.1


Most Winners in one Match (Aces included):
59 - Kuznetsova (vs. Wozniacki, UO)
57 - S. Williams (vs. Azarenka, AO)
53 - V. Williams (vs. Dushevina, UO)
47 - Stosur (vs. Tatjana Malek, GER, Wimbledon)



Most Unforced Errors:
Safina 520
S. Williams 498
Kuznetsova 471
V. Williams 439
Stosur 417
Azarenka 374
Wozniacki 337
Dementieva 297
Jankovic 262
Radwanska 208


Unforced Errors per match (Average):
UE's Matches UE/Match
Stosur 417 15 27.8
Kuznetsova 471 18 26.2
Safina 520 20 26.0
V. Williams 439 19 23.1
Dementieva 297 13 22.8
Jankovic 262 12 21.8
Azarenka 374 18 20.8
S. Williams 498 25 19.9
Wozniacki 337 18 18.7
Radwanska 208 14 14.8


Most Unforced Errors in one match:
63 - Kuznetsova (vs. Wozniacki, UO)
58 - Stosur (vs. Sugiyama, UO)
54 - V. Williams (vs. Dushevina, UO)
53 - V. Williams (vs. Na Li, AO)
52 - Kuznetsova (vs. Petrova, AO)


In the next tables I'll have a closer look at what happens in the 'rallies'; ie. at all those points which are not immediately finished with an Ace or a Double Fault. I'll call these points 'Rally points'. One can also say that 'Rally points' are all those points where the ball is touched at least once by both server and receiver.

There is no info about 'Rally points' in the official match statistics - at least not directly - but it is quite easy to extract the necessary data by subtraction (as I've done in the table below).


'Rally points':
Total Points Opponent's Opponent's 'Rally
played Aces DF Aces DF points'

S. Williams 3360 197 53 52 98 2960
Wozniacki 2335 24 32 37 47 2195
Safina 2692 42 116 36 79 2419
V. Williams 2517 82 74 33 58 2270
Kuznetsova 2536 55 43 35 61 2342
Dementieva 1765 29 84 35 54 1563
Jankovic 1683 18 35 17 43 1570
Radwanska 1792 29 19 23 37 1684
Azarenka 2391 22 61 60 48 2200
Stosur 2268 65 49 41 55 2058


As is probably well known, each rally in a tennismatch usually ends with a Winner, an Unforced Error or a Forced Error from either side. The amount of Rally points played (right column in the table above) is therefore useful, as it allows us to calculate the probability of any of these occurances (Winner, UE, or FE) in a rally! This is really interesting because it - at least on paper - gives us a much better idea of what kind of games the players are playing. (A rally can also end with a penalty point imposed by the referee for code violation, abuse, touching the net, and such, but these penalty points are rare and do not figure in the official statistics. I will therefore ignore such penalty points in my analysis).


Winners percentage per Rally:
Winners 'Rally Winners %
(Aces excluded) points per rally

Kuznetsova 428 2342 18.3
S. Williams 534 2960 18.0
Stosur 356 2058 17.3
V. Williams 384 2270 16.9
Azarenka 356 2200 16.2
Safina 382 2419 15.8
Dementieva 230 1563 14.7
Radwanska 198 1684 11.8
Jankovic 175 1570 11.1
Wozniacki 235 2195 10.7
The table above tells us for instance that Samantha Stosur hit winners in 17.3 % of her rallies.


Unforced Errors percentage per Rally:
Unforced Unforced Errors %
Errors per rally

Radwanska 208 12.4
Wozniacki 337 15.4
Jankovic 262 16.7
S. Williams 498 16.8
Azarenka 374 17.0
Dementieva 297 19.0
V. Williams 439 19.3
Kuznetsova 471 20.1
Stosur 417 20.3
Safina 520 21.5


Forced Errors percentage per Rally:
Forced Forced Errors %
Errors per rally

Safina 255 10.5
Azarenka 269 12.2
Dementieva 198 12.7
Radwanska 226 13.4
Jankovic 211 13.4
Wozniacki 305 13.9
V. Williams 332 14.6
Kuznetsova 354 15.1
Stosur 347 16.7
S. Williams 538 18.2

Forced errors are very good shots by the opponents forcing the listed players to make errors. It should be stressed that the distinction between Forced and Unforced Errors may be blurry...


'Near Winners' percentage per Rally:
'Near Winners' 'NW' per rally
Azarenka 469 21.3
Dementieva 307 19.6
Stosur 391 19.0
V. Williams 431 19.0
S. Williams 538 18.2
Safina 427 17.7
Kuznetsova 404 17.3
Radwanska 286 17.0
Jankovic 266 16.9
Wozniacki 323 14.7

'Near Winners' are very good shots by these players forcing their opponents to make errors (ie. Opponent's Forced Errors!).


Percentage of points won because of opponent's Unforced Errors:
Rallies Opp. Unforced
won Errors %

Wozniacki 1186 628 53.0
Jankovic 842 401 47.6
Radwanska 907 423 46.6
Safina 1335 526 39.4
Dementieva 862 325 37.7
V. Williams 1245 430 34.5
Kuznetsova 1263 431 34.1
Azarenka 1242 417 33.6
S. Williams 1589 517 32.5
Stosur 1057 310 29.3



Graphic illustrations showing the distribution of points won in a rally (2 selected players):

http://i40.tinypic.com/20l0d94.png

http://i44.tinypic.com/nwy342.png

angliru
Apr 30th, 2010, 12:10 PM
Part 4 - Net approaches (and misc.)


Most Net Approches:
V. Williams 373
Stosur 346
S. Williams 336
Kuznetsova 282
Azarenka 275
Safina 267
Radwanska 250
Wozniacki 206
Dementieva 183
Jankovic 161


Net Approches per match (average):
Net approaches Matches NA per match
Stosur 346 15 23.1
V. Williams 373 19 19.6
Radwanska 250 14 17.9
Kuznetsova 282 18 15.7
Azarenka 275 18 15.3
Dementieva 183 13 14.1
S. Williams 336 25 13.4
Jankovic 161 12 13.4
Safina 267 20 13.4
Wozniacki 206 18 11.4


Most Net approaches in one match:
88 - Stosur (vs. Tatjana Malek, GER, Wimbledon)
50 - Safina (vs. Dominguez Lino, ESP, Wimb)
46 - Stosur (vs. Sugiyma, UO)


Net Approach success:
Net Net approaches Success
approaches won %

Kuznetsova 282 204 72.3
V. Williams 373 263 70.5
Azarenka 275 193 70.2
Dementieva 183 126 68.9
S. Williams 336 227 67.6
Radwanska 250 164 65.6
Stosur 346 224 64.7
Wozniacki 206 129 62.6
Safina 267 167 62.5
Jankovic 161 93 57.8


Net Approches from opponents per match (average):
Vs. Net approaches Matches NA per match
Radwanska 329 14 23.5
Wozniacki 274 18 15.2
Jankovic 175 12 14.6
Stosur 212 15 14.1
Dementieva 169 13 13.0
Kuznetsova 221 18 12.3
Azarenka 217 18 12.1
S. Williams 294 25 11.8
Safina 226 20 11.3
V. Williams 177 19 9.3


Best Net Approach Success from Opponents:
Net Net approaches Success
Vs. approaches won %
Wozniacki 274 187 68.2
Jankovic 175 119 68.0
V. Williams 177 115 65.0
Stosur 212 136 64.2
Safina 226 142 62.8
Dementieva 169 105 62.1
S. Williams 294 181 61.6
Azarenka 217 133 61.3
Kuznetsova 221 130 58.8
Radwanska 329 190 57.8
Note to above: Lower percentage is better!


Probability of a Net approach in any rally:
Net appr. Rally points %
Stosur 346 2058 16.8
V. Williams 373 2270 16.4
Radwanska 250 1684 14.8
Azarenka 275 2200 12.5
Kuznetsova 282 2342 12.0
Dementieva 183 1563 11.7
S. Williams 336 2960 11.4
Safina 267 2419 11.0
Jankovic 161 1570 10.3
Wozniacki 206 2195 9.4


Probability that opponent will approach the net:
Vs. Net appr. Rally points %
Radwanska 329 1684 19.5
Wozniacki 274 2195 12.5
Jankovic 175 1570 11.1
Dementieva 169 1563 10.8
Stosur 212 2058 10.3
S. Williams 294 2960 9.9
Azarenka 217 2200 9.9
Kuznetsova 221 2342 9.4
Safina 226 2419 9.3
V. Williams 177 2270 7.8


Misc. other statistics:

Break Point Conversions:
Break point BP
opportunities conversions %

Kuznetsova 158 84 53.2
Azarenka 171 89 52.0
Safina 182 94 51.6
V. Williams 173 87 50.3
Stosur 120 60 50.0
Wozniacki 177 88 49.7
Dementieva 132 63 47.8
S. Williams 241 110 45.6
Radwanska 126 57 45.2
Jankovic 128 57 44.5


WTA Points earned:
S. Williams 5400
Safina 2740
Kuznetsova 2720
V. Williams 2340
Wozniacki 2120
Azarenka 1660
Stosur 1440
Dementieva 1200
Radwanska 1040
Jankovic 700

stangtennis
Apr 30th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Interestingly Radwanska has by far the slowest 2nd serve (10 km/h slower than Wozniacki on average), but yet she has the highest winning% on 2nd serve. She also has by far the lowest double fault%.

I was also surprised to see how big the double fault % when serving 2nd serve was for many players.

angliru
May 1st, 2010, 06:51 AM
Interestingly Radwanska has by far the slowest 2nd serve (10 km/h slower than Wozniacki on average), but yet she has the highest winning% on 2nd serve. She also has by far the lowest double fault%.
Yes, that is also what surprised me the most! And Dementieva has by far the fastest 2nd serve but also the highest double fault rate and almost the worst 2nd serve success! Speed and success do not go well hand in hand which is sort of surprising.

Azarenka's 1st serve % deserves special mention: 76.3 % is simply astonishing!

Håkon
May 1st, 2010, 11:08 AM
Yes, that is also what surprised me the most! And Dementieva has by far the fastest 2nd serve but also the highest double fault rate and almost the worst 2nd serve success! Speed and success do not go well hand in hand which is sort of surprising.


great work :worship:

Will just make one comment: taking out the double faults (so "rally points + aces") we get

Dementyeva 148/326
2nd serves without DF: 148-114 (56.5 %)

Radwańska 175/330
2nd serves without DF: 175-136 (56.3 %)

Serena 326/573
2nd serves without DF: 326-247 (56.9 %)

So...as long as you get it in there somewhere you've practically the same chance of winning...

And another table (combining two really)


Times Broken per match Points (Pct) serve Theoretical break chance
S. Williams 41 1.64 1072 (66.8) 14.3
Radwanska 32 2.29 549 (61.8) 22.8
Safina 46 2.30 812 (59.7) 27.0
V. Williams 44 2.32 772 (61.7) 23.0
Kuznetsova 47 2.61 786 (61.1) 24.2
Wozniacki 50 2.78 649 (58.5) 29.6
Azarenka 51 2.83 702 (59.7) 27.1
Stosur 43 2.87 709 (60.4) 25.6
Dementieva 42 3.23 509 (57.8) 31.2
Jankovic 41 3.42 488 (58.2) 30.3


The 'theoretical break chance' is the chance of breaking someone if the chance of winning a point in a game is exactly the same every game (which it isn't, different opposition and so on)

Now, I don't know how many games each player served, but on average you serve a little more than 10 games per match (6-3 6-4 = 19 games - 9.5 games per server, but there are some 3-setters as well so it's slightly higher)? So that seems to work out pretty well with my theoretical probability, perhaps except for Safina getting broken less than you'd expect when you consider all her points.

stangtennis
May 1st, 2010, 03:50 PM
Azarenka's 1st serve % deserves special mention: 76.3 % is simply astonishing!
But she also has the softest 1st serve of all the top 10 players, so that has something to do with having the highest 1st serve%.

Looks like something went wrong with your formatting, the columns are not properly alingend in any of the tables if you watch them in Internet Explorer. But in Firefox they all look fine.
Did you use tab instead of spaces? Using tab often goes wrong with tables like this? The easiets is to edit the tables in Notepad or similar text-only editor using only spaces and no tabs and then copy/paste the cables into code brackets in the forum posts.

angliru
May 1st, 2010, 04:15 PM
Looks like something went wrong with your formatting, the columns are not properly alingend in any of the tables if you watch them in Internet Explorer. But in Firefox they all look fine.
Did you use tab instead of spaces? Using tab often goes wrong with tables like this? The easiets is to edit the tables in Notepad or similar text-only editor using only spaces and no tabs and then copy/paste the cables into code brackets in the forum posts.
Oh, I'm sorry about that. I've only checked it in Firefox where it looked fine so I assumed it would in other browsers as well since I used the "Code" formatting. I've used tabs, but I will change it to spaces when I get the time. Thanks!

@SamR03A:
Interesting suggestions. I have the necessary data in the spreadsheet and will post the two tables when I've got time to do the proper formatting. (Actually I don't have data about how many games each player has served, but I have data about how many games are won/lost by each player and therefore also the total amount of games. The amount of service games is approximately half the total amount, of course).

Just Do It
May 1st, 2010, 04:42 PM
Nice stats.
Jelena :bowdown: Pathetic year.

angliru
May 2nd, 2010, 10:23 AM
I've made the formatting Internet Explorer-Friendly and I've adde two tables based on the suggestions from SamR03A (Thanks!):


Winning % on 2nd Serve when serve is "In":
2nd DF 2nd serves 2nd serves 2nd serve
serves "in" won winning % when "in"

Dementieva 326 84 242 148 61.2
Azarenka 278 61 217 129 59.5
Safina 462 116 346 197 56.9
S. Williams 626 53 573 326 56.9
Radwanska 330 19 311 175 56.3
Jankovic 278 35 243 136 56.0
Kuznetsova 479 43 436 242 55.5
Wozniacki 327 32 295 162 54.9
V. Williams 517 74 443 243 54.8
Stosur 447 49 398 206 51.8



Probability (risk) of being broken:
Games Serve games Serve games Break chance
(estimated) lost (or risk) %
S. Williams 527 264 41 19
Safina 402 201 46 25
Kuznetsova 391 196 47 26
V. Williams 388 194 44 26
Azarenka 362 181 51 28
Wozniacki 355 178 50 28
Stosur 320 160 43 31
Radwanska 276 138 32 36
Dementieva 265 133 42 38
Jankovic 252 126 41 40
Note to the table above: I don't know the exact number of sevice games for each player but since I know the total amount of games played I've simply assumed that the number of service games is half the total amount of games. In theory, though, a given player may have one more service game (or less) than her opponent in each match - depending on whether the scoreline is odd or even. Hence a player like Jankovic - in theory, at least - may have had 120 or 132 service games or anything in between (126 plus/minus one or two games is by far the most likely!).

Håkon
May 2nd, 2010, 10:33 AM
Probability (risk) of being broken:
Games Serve games Serve games Break chance
(estimated) lost (or risk) %
S. Williams 527 264 41 19
Safina 402 201 46 25
Kuznetsova 391 196 47 26
V. Williams 388 194 44 26
Azarenka 362 181 51 28
Wozniacki 355 178 50 28
Stosur 320 160 43 31
Radwanska 276 138 32 36
Dementieva 265 133 42 38
Jankovic 252 126 41 40

No problem :)

The arithmetic in this column seems weird...41 / 264 = 15.5 %, no?

(No better myself, muddled Dementyeva's percentage of 2nd serves in won)

angliru
May 2nd, 2010, 11:34 AM
Yes, you're right! 41 / 264 IS 15.5 %!

I copied the tables from the spreadsheet, but I had made a terrible blunder in the function (or equation) I used: The last column equation refers to a fixed cell for Serve games lost (with the value 50) instead of variable cells! Hence 50/264 = 19% and so forth. Nice catch!

This is the correct table (I've also posted a correct table in my post #2 in the thread):

Break possibility
Games Serve games Serve games Break chance
(estimated) lost (or risk) %
S. Williams 527 264 41 16
V. Williams 388 194 44 23
Safina 402 201 46 23
Radwanska 276 138 32 23
Kuznetsova 391 196 47 24
Stosur 320 160 43 27
Wozniacki 355 178 50 28
Azarenka 362 181 51 28
Dementieva 265 133 42 32
Jankovic 252 126 41 33

It's not very far from your estimate. Well done :yeah:

n1_and_uh_noone
Jun 18th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Wow, this is amazing stuff! This is exactly what I love about this forum! Especially liked the 'probability of being broken', of serving double faults and the graphic of winners/UEs/FEs. I seriously think though that 'unforced errors' against someone like Wozniacki are really forced, but that is my opinion :)

Vikapower
Jun 29th, 2010, 02:00 AM
That thread is great. :yeah:

cellardoor
Jul 17th, 2010, 12:34 AM
fantastic thread. work greatly appreciated.

cellardoor
Jul 18th, 2010, 11:32 PM
I took this data and made cluster analysis, which basically tells you the similarities between players. a lot of this probably isn't ground breaking but it's still interesting.

you can see the similarities in the dendograms. for those who don't know how to interpret dendograms, the linkage ( -+--+ ) that is closest to 0 (in the 0 to 25 scale) indicates more similarities. so, for example, in the first graph, venus and stosur are similar because they're linked very early on. if you look at serena, she is linked to the rest of the group only at the 25 mark, which means that in this test, she's very different to all other players.

to help read the graph, put players in perspective. serena is regarded as the best server (helps her win matches), so being far from her is not positive, although not necessarily that negative. venus and stosur also known for relying on their serves, so that's another focus point.

the first dendogram tests the similarities in serve, specifically the variables aces per serve games, double faults per serve games, % on 1st serve, win % on 1st, % on 2nd, win % on 2nd, % of broken serve and probability of having your serve broken.


similarities in serve

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

venus 2 -+-----+
stosur 7 -+ +---------+
kuznetsova 4 -+-----+ |
radwanska 8 -+ |
safina 3 -----------------+-------------------------------+
wozniacki 5 -+-------------+ | |
azarenka 6 -+ +-+ |
dementieva 9 ---------+-----+ |
jankovic 10 ---------+ |
serena 1 -------------------------------------------------+



serve speed
variables: 1st serve speed, 2nd serve speed


C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

safina 3 -+-------+
jankovic 10 -+ +---------------------------+
kuznetsova 4 ---+-+ | |
wozniacki 5 ---+ +---+ +-----------+
azarenka 6 -----+ | |
radwanska 8 -------------------------------------+ |
serena 1 -+-------+ |
stosur 7 -+ +-------------+ |
venus 2 ---------+ +-------------------------+
dementieva 9 -----------------------+


serena, sam and venus (close by) have similar serve speeds. nothing new there. radwanska doesn't link to anyone immediately, and that's because she's by far the slowest server.


performance in points
variables: average winners, average winners minus aces, average UE, % of winners in rallies, % of UE in rallies, % of FE in rallies, near winners (forced errors by opponents).


C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

kuznetsova 4 -+---+
stosur 7 -+ +-----+
venus 2 -----+ +-----------+
serena 1 -----------+ +-------------------------+
azarenka 6 -+-----------+ | |
dementieva 9 -+ +---------+ |
safina 3 -------------+ |
wozniacki 5 ---+-----+ |
jankovic 10 ---+ +---------------------------------------+
radwanska 8 ---------+

interesting to see jj being partnered with woz. I thought she had a more agressive game.


player at the net
variables: average of net approaches, net approach success, probability of approaching the net during a rally


C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

serena 1 -+---+
dementieva 9 -+ +---------------------+
kuznetsova 4 -+---+ |
azarenka 6 -+ +---------------------+
safina 3 ---+---+ | |
wozniacki 5 ---+ +-------------------+ |
jankovic 10 -------+ |
venus 2 ---------+-----+ |
radwanska 8 ---------+ +---------------------------------+
stosur 7 ---------------+

perspective: sam is the player that approaches the net more, but doesn't have the highest success level. serena doesn't go to the net often and has one of the lowest success rates.


general game play
variables: all of the above


C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

venus 2 -+-------+
stosur 7 -+ +---------------+
kuznetsova 4 ---------+ +-------------------+
safina 3 -------+-------+ | |
dementieva 9 -------+ +---------+ +---+
azarenka 6 ---------------+ | |
serena 1 ---------------------------------------------+ |
wozniacki 5 -+-----------------+ |
jankovic 10 -+ +-----------------------------+
radwanska 8 -------------------+

LudwigDvorak
Jul 24th, 2010, 04:55 PM
Requesting update please.

angliru
Jul 25th, 2010, 11:25 AM
First of all I'd like to apologize for not replying or updating the thread on a regular basis but it was a bit time consuming doing this, and I've been too busy with other stuff lately. But I'm glad for the interest from all of you, and I appreciate your comments!

One of reasons I made this thread was to show just how much data it is possible to extract from the normal Grand slam match statistics sheets. And I've not even explored all possibilities yet (winning points when receiving vs. serving could be interesting to look at to name just one unexplored set of data)! But I have to admit that it's too time consuming to collect all the data needed for these analyses so I'm not going to make a complete update anytime soon. Some of the stats are probably a bit useless anyway? Maybe I'll make an update of selected parts of these stats after US Open 2010 (with FO 2010 and Wimbledon 2010 match stats added). Perhaps I'll add one or two new players in the lot (at the expense of someone else). We'll see...

The thread title is a bit misleading, of course, as it does no represent the present top 10 players but players who were the top 10 at the given time (and it's no longer the 4 previous GS either!). Any suggestions for a better thread title?

Thanks for the dendrograms! The cluster analysis is a really interesting way to look at similarities, but I'll just have to stress the fact that the set of data analyzed is relatively small (as I'm sure you've realized yourself): It's just 4 tournaments in a timespan of 8 months, which means that any shifts in forms of the players or any slight injuries in this 8 months period may (probably) have a large impact on the resulting stats.

angliru
Jul 25th, 2010, 11:46 AM
I seriously think though that 'unforced errors' against someone like Wozniacki are really forced, but that is my opinion :)
I partly agree. Forced vs. Unforced can at times be really difficult to distinguish but I'm just presenting the data as they appear in the official stats (forced errors actually don't appear directly but they are easy to calculate by subtraction). Btw., I've had a new look at how Stosur and Wozniacki have won their points at the 2 most recent grand slams (FO 2010 + Wimbledon 2010) and compered these with the old chats (also presented on the first page in the thread). In my former analysis these two players were the 2 extremes, but now they are actually not too far apart:

Distribution of points won in a rally:

Wozniacki - FO2009 + Wimbledon 2009 + UO 2009 + AO2010 (old chart):
http://i40.tinypic.com/20l0d94.png

Stosur - FO2009 + Wimbledon 2009 + UO 2009 + AO2010 (old chart):
http://i44.tinypic.com/nwy342.png

The two new charts:
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/6497/wozniackipie2010.png

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/360/stosurpie2010.png

cellardoor
Jul 25th, 2010, 01:28 PM
...

The thread title is a bit misleading, of course, as it does no represent the present top 10 players but players who were the top 10 at the given time (and it's no longer the 4 previous GS either!). Any suggestions for a better thread title?


Extensive stats: The present top 10 players at the previous 4 GS! APRIL 2010

Thanks for the dendrograms! The cluster analysis is a really interesting way to look at similarities, but I'll just have to stress the fact that the set of data analyzed is relatively small (as I'm sure you've realized yourself): It's just 4 tournaments in a timespan of 8 months, which means that any shifts in forms of the players or any slight injuries in this 8 months period may (probably) have a large impact on the resulting stats.

sure, but you work with what you can. outside of grand slams, you can't find such detailed stats on the matches, which is a shame - a bigger and better sample would keep some of us stat nerds busy for weeks.

angliru
Jul 25th, 2010, 10:08 PM
Thread title changed! Thanks :yeah:

Extensive stats: The present top 10 players at the previous 4 GS! APRIL 2010sure, but you work with what you can. outside of grand slams, you can't find such detailed stats on the matches, which is a shame - a bigger and better sample would keep some of us stat nerds busy for weeks.

Of course. As mentioned in my previous post I might have a go at another set of stats after US Open. Maybe I can present combined match stats from 8 consecutive grand slams (all slams since AO 2009). I'm not sure my next attempt will have 10 players; maybe there will be just 8 players or so but I may throw in some new ones like Schiavone, Sharapova, Zvonareva, or Na Li, or whoever seems interesting at that time (ranking being the most obvious criteria, but not necessarily the only one). I'm quite sure the stats won't be as extensive as in this thread.

All suggestions are welcome.