Category: Oddities

Erasing Love-40 Three Times In a Row

During last week’s marathon fourth-rounder at Indian Wells, Daniil Medvedev tucked an unusual feat inside his 6-7, 7-6, 7-5 defeat of Alexander Zverev. Starting with the 12th game of the first set, he recovered from a 0-40 deficit in three consecutive service games.

Voo de Mar noticed:

Peter asked me if this had ever happened before, so here we are. The short answer is: I’m not sure (at least at ATP tour level), because I don’t have the point-by-point sequence for every match. However, I have the sequence for enough matches to confirm that it’s extremely rare.

Theory first

Just falling behind 0-40 is unusual. ATP-level servers win about 65% of points, so a basic model would predict that 0-40 happens in 4.3% of service games. It’s actually more frequent than that–about 5.4%–partly because the tour does not consist of identical servers, and partly because there’s probably some streakiness involved.

Back to theory: “Erasing” a 0-40 deficit means winning three service points after losing the first three. The odds of that particularly six-point sequence–again, assuming the server wins 65% of points–is 1.2%.

The historical record agrees exactly. Across 18,000 tour-level matches from 2010s, I found that the server falls to 0-40 and recovers to deuce exactly 1.2% of the time.

Three in a row is a different story entirely. If there’s a 1% probability of something occurring once, there’s a 0.0001%–literally, one in a million–chance that it will happen three times in a row. On the other hand, there are a lot of matches and a lot of service games. Using some rough assumptions for the number of games in a match and the number of matches per season, my ballpark estimate is that we should see a rarity like this about once in every 10-12 ATP seasons.

The data

Like I said, I don’t have the point-by-point sequence for every match. But I do have it for over 18,000 ATP matches between 2011 and early 2019. (Much of that data, plus equivalent data for women’s tennis, is here.) In that dataset, there was only one instance when a player apparently erased a 0-40 deficit three times in a row: 2011 Kuala Lumpur, where Mischa Zverev managed it against Philipp Petzschner.

Except… I’m not so sure. In 2011, betting sites were just starting to collect and publish point-by-point data, and some of it was approximate. For this particular match, there is a suspicious number of streaks, a sign that the data wasn’t reported precisely. For instance, in all three of the 0-40 rescues, Zverev purportedly won the next five points in a row. It’s possible, but we have to leave a question mark next to this one.

We can, however, broaden the search. 6,800 ATP qualifying matches? No one managed three 0-40 recoveries in a row. 28,000 Challenger matches? Now we’re talking–I found five occasions when a player saved three consecutive 0-40 deficits. The most recent was at the 2016 Tallahassee Challenger, where Donald Young accomplished it in a losing effort against Frances Tiafoe. He won the first two of the games, but in the third, serving to stay in the match, he fought back to deuce only to double fault on match point.

I found another five cases out of over 33,000 Futures-level matches. The most recent, a 2017 match between Altug Celikbilek and Francesco Vilardo, was notable because Celikbilek recovered from 0-40 in the 6th, 8th, and 10th games–and in the 7th game, Vilardo did as well!

It’s important to keep in mind that servers do not win as many points at the lower levels of men’s tennis. (Streakiness might also generate more 0-40 scores as well.) In my 2011-2019 data, servers fell to love-40 5.4% of the time at the ATP main draw level, 5.8% in ATP qualifying, 6.4% at Challengers, and 7.7% at Futures. However, that doesn’t end up generating many more recoveries, since servers are more likely to lose those games before evening the score.

If we dump all of these results together, we get 10 occasions (or 11, if you count the Petzschner match) when a player recovered from 0-40 three times in a row, out of approximately 86,400 total matches. That rate suggests that we should see a feat like Medvedev’s once every three or four years on tour. That’s more frequent than my initial calculation, but still quite rare.

Alexander Bublik and Return of Serve Futility

In Sunday’s Singapore final, Alexander Bublik won six return points. Not a typo. Out of Alexei Popyrin’s 52 serve points, that’s a win percentage of 11.6%. The technical term for this level of performance is… bad.

Yet somehow, Bublik concentrated four of those points in the fifth game and broke serve. (Popyrin helped–one of the four was a double fault.) Even more miraculously, it was the only break in the opening set, so the Russian won the set and got halfway to the title. Alas, he cranked the futility up another notch, winning only one return point the rest of the way, and it was Popyrin who came away with his maiden championship.

Freakish statistical feats tend to raise three questions: What are the odds? Has this ever happened before? And, can we learn anything from this nonsense?

What are the odds?

If Bublik had that exact 11.6% chance of winning each service point, his probability of breaking in any given game would be 0.26%, or about 1 in 384. In reality, it’s probably higher than that, because servers aren’t robots. Presumably Popyrin’s level dipped a bit. Still, if we take that 0.26% as the answer, Bublik’s likelihood of breaking serve at least once in the 22-game match were less than 3%.

You probably don’t need the precise numbers to recognize that, if you win six return points in the whole match, your odds of breaking serve aren’t that great.

Has this ever happened before?

The answer depends on what you mean by “this.” In our 30 years of ATP tour matches with stats on things like return points won and breaks of serve, the Singapore final was the first time that a player broke serve and won a set despite winning six or fewer return points.

It’s fairly common for a player to have a very bad return day, or face an extremely hot server. On average, there are about 30 completed tour-level matches per year in which the loser manages six or fewer return points. But of those 900-plus matches, the official stats only show seven times that the loser managed to break serve. (I emphasize “official” here because the ATP’s stats do have errors, and extreme situations like these tend to bring them out of hiding. A simple data-entry error can easily make a routine match look like a record-breaker.)

The most recent instance of six-return-points-and-a-break was in 2010, when Lukasz Kubot concentrated his efforts in a single return game of a Bucharest first-round match against Filippo Volandri. Every match on the list was a first-rounder except for a 1995 quarter-final at the Tokyo Indoors, when Alexander Volkov managed to break Michael Chang despite winning only those few return points.

Every six-pointer was a straight set loss, at least until Bublik came along.

Except… it’s possible to win six or fewer return points and win a set without breaking serve. In fact, it’s theoretically possible to win an entire match with only two return points going your way, if you deploy them in tiebreaks and remain flawless on your own deal. Reilly Opelka did exactly that (well, he won six points, not two) in Basel two years ago against Cristian Garin. Garin won all but 6 of his 69 service points but lost, 7-6(5) 7-6(10).

Bublik’s feat in the Singapore final wasn’t quite that level of oddity, but as an accomplishment amid return futility, his break-and-a-set is a close second.

Can we learn anything from this nonsense?

Bublik is a talented player, but he’s not a very good returner. This was his third career ATP final (excluding a two-game retirement in January), and his rates of return points won in those matches are 26.7%, 18.9%, and now 11.6%. It’s no surprise that he’s still looking for his first title. It turns out that underarm serving doesn’t have any secret advantages for his return game.

He has won 35.6% of his return points over the last 52 weeks–an improvement over his 34.1% mark at tour level in 2019, but still only good for 42nd out of the current ATP top 50. If he continues to serve big, that’s good enough for an Isner-like career, possibly spending considerable time in the top 20, maybe even with a brief stop in the top ten.

But to reach the next level, the Russian will need to return a lot better. Several years ago, I looked at the “minimum viable return game” necessary for an elite player. At the time, I was interested in Nick Kyrgios’s chances at a spot near the top of the rankings despite his own brand of return futility. In the 25 years between 1991 and 2015, when I wrote that piece, only four players finished a season in the top five while winning less than 37% of their return points, and two of those were within a percentage point of the threshold.

Kyrgios wasn’t close to that level then, and he still isn’t. Bublik is closer, but he’s still on the wrong side of the line. Optimists can point to the Russian’s relative youth–he turns 24 in June–and trust he’ll improve. Of course he might, but history isn’t on his side there, either. Kyrgios’s lack of progress is typical of the breed. Mediocre returners may improve their skills and tactics, but as they do so, they face more difficult opponents, keeping their numbers down.

If there is a positive take-away from the Singapore final, it’s that Bublik did manage to bunch his return points. Kyrgios outplays his numbers by saving his heroics for bigger moments. (Another way of looking at “outplaying his numbers” is “underperforming given his skills.”) Bublik shows signs of doing the same, so when he does manage to win more than six return points, he may be able to eke disproportionate gains out of them.

That’s the theory, anyway.

Hsieh, Errani, and a Match That Broke Everybody

In their third round match today at the Australian Open, Sara Errani and Su Wei Hsieh played 232 points. The fastest serve either one hit registered at 93 mph (149 kmh), Hsieh’s first serves averaged 85 mph, and Errani’s mean first serve speed was 75 mph. I use the word “mean” here as more than just a way to avoid saying “average” so many times.

The two veterans are crafty–dare I say tricky–players with an arsenal of weapons once the ball is in play. But the serve is mostly just a stumbling block to make the best of. Hsieh won 62 of her 115 return points, good for 54% of Errani’s serves. This is more impressive than it sounds–the Italian double faulted only four times today. It’s fairly common for a winner on the women’s tour to win more than half of her return points, but what makes this match so weird is that Errani did the same. She won 63 of her 117 return points, also a 54% clip.

About half of WTA losers fail to convert better than 50% of their service points. But only 2.4% of winners miss the mark. And there’s a huge gap between 50%–mediocre and survivable–and Hsieh’s 46%. A 46% rate of service points won translates to a 40% likelihood of holding. Coincidentally, that’s exactly what both players did, each hanging on to their service games in 6 of 15 tries.

I have the relevant stats for just under 25,000 tour-level, main draw women’s matches since 2010, and only about 80 winners–0.3%, or less than once per 300 contests–won service points at a lower clip than Hsieh did today.

** I say “about” because the stats I have from the early 2010s aren’t perfect. A match with 60% of return points won is a prime candidate to be a mistake. I checked these 80 for obvious errors, like matches with a small number of service breaks, but those numbers aren’t perfect either.

There’s no grand analytical insight to be gleaned from a match like this. It’s just a glorious oddity that reminds us how many different ways there are to win matches. (And to be honest, you only need to watch Hsieh for about 90 seconds to recognize that.) In that spirit, here’s some more trivia:

  • Since 2010, this is only the 12th Australian Open main draw match in which neither player won half of her service points.
  • The only AO match in which neither player won 46% of their service points was the 2018 third-rounder between Anett Kontaveit and Jelena Ostapenko. They both held about 45.5% of their points, and 68% of total games (17 of 25) were breaks.
  • There have been about 400 tour-level matches since 2010 in which neither player wins half of their service points. Before today, 21 of those involved Errani, and she won 17 of them.
  • The other players who have been involved in at least 12 such matches are Monica Niculescu (16), Alize Cornet (14), and Carla Suarez Navarro (13). Today was only Hsieh’s 5th appearance on the list.

Perhaps oddest of all, this the first time in four tries that Hsieh avoiding getting bageled by Errani. Last time they played, in Istanbul in 2017, the Italian won, 6-0 6-1, needing only 55 minutes and a total of 87 points. Errani was so on-form that day that she won a whopping 66% of her service points. Hsieh finally turned the tables, even if she still hasn’t figured out how to stop this dogged opponent from breaking her serve.

Aleksandre Metreveli’s Bad Day Wasn’t Double-Bagel Bad

Roberto Bautista Agut got his 2020 season off to a roaring start on Saturday at the ATP Cup, knocking out the No. 2 Georgian player, Aleksandre Metreveli, by the embarrassing score of 6-0 6-0. Double bagels are extremely rare on the men’s tour, with fewer than 100 recorded in the last three decades.

About one-quarter of those 6-0 6-0 results have come in Davis Cup, the most likely venue for such an uneven matchup. Davis Cup’s reverse singles, the (largely defunct) part of the competition that pits each side’s top player against the other’s second-best, generates particularly lopsided outcomes. The ATP Cup doesn’t have that, but Bautista Agut is better than many national number ones, and Metreveli is one of the handful of competitors in Australia this week who would never otherwise feature in a tour-level event.

Still, it wasn’t quite as lopsided as all that.

The match lasted 72 minutes, longer than any of the 59 ATP double bagels for which I have match stats. It was only the fourth 6-0 6-0 result to reach the one-hour mark. The previous longest double bagel was a 65-minute contest at the 2005 Rome Masters in which Guillermo Canas battered Juan Monaco. Of the 120 women’s tour-level double bagels for which I have stats, none exceeded 67 minutes.

Counting stats

Match times can be affected by player tics and crowd conditions, but the number of points played cannot. By that measure as well, Metreveli was better than his scoreline. He kept the Spaniard on court for 97 points, longer than all but three of the previous ATP double bagels. The average 6-0 6-0 men’s match lasts only 74 points. Over 150 tour-level matches last year required 97 or fewer points, including several finals and a couple of contests that included a 7-5 set.

Another way to look at the closeness of the match is to consider break points saved. The score requires that Metreveli didn’t break serve, and that Bautista Agut did so six times. But the Georgian fought hard against the Spaniard’s return assault, saving eight break points. Only four of the 59 previous double-bagel losers withstood so many break attempts.

Double bagel chances

Bautista Agut won 83% of his service points, and Metreveli won only 40%. If those rates continued without any unusual streaks of points won or lost, that would translate to a 98.9% hold percentage for the Spaniard and a 26.4% hold percentage for the Georgian. To win all twelve games, RBA needed to hold six times and break six times. Based on these hold rates, his chances of doing so were 14.8%.

Put another way, if these two players kept playing at the same levels for a large number of matches (sorry, Aleksandre!), the score would be 6-0 6-0 only about one match out of six.

Once again, Metreveli’s performance stands out as one of the strongest to result in a double bagel. Only five of the previous 59 drubbings had such a low probability of turning out 6-0 6-0. Measured by double-bagel probability, eight matches from the 2019 season were more lopsided than this one, and only one of them ended in twelve straight games. Three of the losers managed to avoid any bagels at all:

Event          Winner       Loser         Score        DB Prob  
Winston Salem  Fratangelo   Weintraub     6-0 6-0        63.5%  
Los Cabos      Granollers   Gomez         6-0 6-1        24.6%  
Us Open        Federer      Goffin        6-2 6-2 6-0    19.9%  
Estoril        Dav. Fokina  Chardy        6-1 6-2        18.5%  
Acapulco       Millman      Gojowczyk     6-0 6-2        17.2%  
Rome           Nadal        Basilashvili  6-1 6-0        16.6%  
Miami          Car. Baena   Kudla         6-1 6-2        16.6%  
Tokyo          Djokovic     Pouille       6-1 6-2        15.5%

(Yes, Metreveli fared better against RBA than Basilashvili did against Nadal last May! The Basilashvili-Nadal rematch on Saturday was a bit closer, though.)

None of this is to say that Metreveli had a good day in his ATP Cup debut. However, double bagels are so rare that they tend to grab the headlines, pushing the details to the side. Given how the Georgian played in his ATP Cup debut, he deserved a more pedestrian loss with at least a game or two in the win column.

Roger Federer, Lottery Winner

In today’s third-round match in Rome, Roger Federer posted a truly unusual stat line. He beat Borna Coric in three sets, 2-6 6-4 7-6(7), winning 95 points to Coric’s 107. That’s a total-points-won rate (TPW) 47.0%, not unheard of for a match winner, but near the lower limit of what’s possible. By Dominance Ratio (DR)–the ratio of return points won to serve points lost–Fed comes out at 0.78, where 1.0 represents an evenly-split match. He has won only 24 times in his career with a DR below 1.0, and today was the first time since 2015. These types of decisions are often referred to as “lottery matches,” because there is more luck than usual involved in the result.

Not only did Federer win the match with a TPW below 50% and a DR below 1.0, all three of his individual sets were below those numbers. He won 23 of 55 points in the first set, 31 of 64 in the second, and 41 of 83 in the third. The low total in the first set is to be expected–he lost that set badly. But often, low numbers for an entire match stem from a bad performance in a single set, like the swoon in a 7-6 1-6 7-6 contest. Coric outplayed him–narrowly, at least–in all three sets.

You might suspect that this is extremely rare, and you’d be right. Only 4.5% of ATP tour-level matches end in favor of the player who won fewer points, and 7.2% go the direction of a player with a DR below 1.0. Those numbers usually overlap, but not always. Roughly 4.0% of matches are won by a player with a TPW below 50% and a DR below 1.0. Individual sets are even more likely to be awarded to the player who won more points. Just 2.4% of sets are won by the man who lost more points. The frequency of DR < 1.0 is 7.4%, about the same as at the match level.

It turns out that there is a precedent–exactly one!–for Fed’s feat, of winning a match with TPW < 50% and DR < 1.0 in each of three sets. That’s one previous occurence in my dataset of point-by-point sequences for over 17,000 ATP tour-level matches since 2010. Inevitably, John Isner was involved. At Memphis in 2017, Isner lost his quarter-final match to Donald Young, 7-6 3-6 7-6. Young won only 46.9% of total points, and his DR was 0.66, both marks among the lowest you’ll ever see for a winner. Like Federer, Young came close in the sets he won, tallying 49.3% of all points in both the first and third set. By saving eight of nine break points and withstanding the Isner serve in the tiebreaks, Young managed to overcome a statistically superior opponent.

Federer’s victory today wasn’t particularly reliant on break point performance, though fans will be encouraged that he converted two of his four opportunities. Much has been written about Roger’s ineffectiveness in this sort of match–against his 24 wins with a sub-1.0 DR, he has 49 losses with a DR above 1.0–and break point futility is often to blame. While big servers tend to play a lot of close matches, Federer has managed to record plenty of wins without relying on the lucky ones.

With a guaranteed place in the prominent parts of the record book, Fed is making a move on the obscure pages in the back. Having repeatedly shown us that he can win matches by outplaying the guy on the other side of the net, he finally came up with a victory when the stats pointed in the other direction.

Gerald Melzer’s 28-Point Hold, and Other Interminable Deuce Games

Italian translation at settesei.it

Last week during the second round of US Open qualifying, Gerald Melzer battled through a 28-point service game–that’s eleven deuces–en route to defeating Kenny De Schepper. (Perhaps mentally exhausted, he lost the next day to Felix Auger-Aliassime.) Watching the scoreboard from a nearby court, I assumed it had malfunctioned and the match was long over.

Such marathon games are rare, but they aren’t unheard of. Yesterday, another qualifier, Lloyd Harris, needed ten deuces to hang on to one game against Gilles Simon in their first round match. Neither Melzer’s nor Harris’s tally are close to the record, which is likely still a 28-deuce game in a 1996 contest between Alberto Berasategui and Marcelo Filippini. That’s 62 points–one point more than the legendary 28-minute full match between Bernard Tomic and Jarkko Nieminen. The entire match. An even longer game, spanning 37 deuces and 80 points, took place at the non-tour-sanctioned Surrey Championships in 1975.

The odds on paper

On the ATP tour, the server wins about 63% of points. In the last year, Melzer has won roughly 64%, about the same as De Schepper’s opponents, so we’ll use the slightly higher number. With a server winning 64% of points, the odds of reaching deuce are 24.4%. After that, the chances of getting to another deuce are a bit less than half, or 46.1%. The odds of an at-least-two-deuce game are 24.4% times 46.1%, the odds of an at-least-three-deuce game are 24.4% times 46.1% times 46.1%, and so on. Melzer’s eleven-deuce game is 24.4% times (46.1% ^ 10), a little bit better than one in ten thousand. The match required 30 games, so the chances of a 28-point game (or longer) at some point–assuming the underlying numbers are the same for De Schepper’s service games–are roughly 30 times better, one in three hundred.

The Simon-Harris 26-pointer is even more likely. On the challenger tour, Harris has won nearly 65% of his service points, while Simon wins better than 40% of return points against tougher competition. Combining those numbers to account for competition is beyond the scope of this post, but let’s say Harris was expected to win 61% of his service points. (He ended up winning only half, though that overall rate is heavily influenced by the marathon game.) The odds of any individual Harris service game lasting 26 points, assuming a 61% serve win rate, is about one in three thousand.

One last example: The Berasategui-Filippini record-setter was primed for some long games, as neither player won very many serve points, and the Casablanca clay has never been speedy. But even with favorable circumstances, 28 deuces is nearly impossible. Using a service points won rate of 58% for Filippini (he won 59.6% that year, while Berasategui’s opponents won 57.7%, and I’ve rounded down a tiny bit for the surface), the odds of an individual game lasting at least 62 points are nearly one in one billion.

Delayed toilet breaks

Let’s see how well the odds predict the real-life frequency of marathon games. In my database of about 435,000 tour-level games back to 2012, 42 games reached the 28-point mark, a rate of approximately one per ten thousand–the same as the theoretical number we saw for Melzer-De Schepper. Many of the games terminated after 28 points, and none went longer than 36 points. The most recent 36-pointer was in this year’s Australian Open third round, when Kyle Edmund broke Nikoloz Basilashvili’s serve (and his spirit) to take a 2-0 lead in the fourth set.

28-pointers–and long games in general–are a bit more common on the challenger tour. I found 81 in about 600,000 games–about one per 7,500 games–including three 38-pointers. Edmund figured in one of those prolonged games, barely failing to break Grega Zemlja’s serve at the 2016 Dallas Challenger. Melzer appears in the list as well, having fought through 28 points to hold against Robin Haase in the 2015 Trnava Challenger, though he ended up losing the match.

Theory and practice also match when we look at WTA data. Using a tour-average rate of service points won of 58%, we would expect to see a 28-pointer once every 4,600 games or so. In 367,000 recorded games, I found 89 instances, or one per 4,100. The record here outstrips anything in the last few years of ATP or Challenger data: Mathilde Johansson broke Elena Vesnina on the 40th point, after 17 deuces. She consolidated the break to win the second set, but dropped the decider.

Based on the last several years of data, Berasategui’s and Filippini’s record appears to be safe. Given the efforts to speed up the game, in which tennis executives would prefer no-ad to Berasategui’s brand of 28-ad, that’s probably for the best.

Dominic Thiem played Davis Cup in Barcelona. Sort of…

This is a guest post by Peter Wetz.

Last week Dominic Thiem fought his way into the finals of the Barcelona Open by winning against Kyle Edmund, Daniel Evans, Yuichi Sugita, and Andy Murray. Three of these four players play for the same flag and Thiem won against each of them. Thiem is not exactly a champion of the current Davis Cup format–he has opted out of playing for Austria several times and has a rather poor record of 2-3 when he does compete–but in Barcelona he has, at least, shown that he can beat several players from the same country over a short amount of time. And that’s what Davis Cup is about, right?

In this post my goal is to put this statistical hiccup into some context. It is not the first time the Austrian defeated three players of the same nationality at one event: In 2016 at Buenos Aires Thiem already beat three players from Spain. However, given that Spanish players appear much more frequently in draws than Britons do, I will take a closer look.

Since 1990, there have only been three tournaments where a single player faced three players from Great Britain. And only one of these players who faced three Britons won each encounter. The following table shows the three tournaments and each of the matches where a player from Great Britain was faced by the same player. Wally Masur is the only player since 1990 who defeated three players from Great Britain in a single tournament. Thiem remains the only player who achieved this in a tournament outside of the island.

Tournament     Round Winner        Loser           Score
'93 Manchester R32   Wally Masur   Ross Matheson   6-4 6-4
'93 Manchester R16   Wally Masur   Chris Wilkinson 6-3 6-7(4) 6-3
'93 Manchester QF    Wally Masur   Jeremy Bates    6-4 6-3

'97 Nottingham R32   Karol Kucera  Martin Lee      6-1 6-1
'97 Nottingham SF    Karol Kucera  Tim Henman      6-4 2-6 6-4
'97 Nottingham F     Greg Rusedski Karol Kucera    6-4 7-5

'01 Nottingham R32   Martin Lee    Lee Childs      6-4 5-7 6-0
'01 Nottingham R16   Martin Lee    Arvind Parmar   6-4 6-3
'01 Nottingham QF    Greg Rusedski Martin Lee      6-3 6-2

Obviously, there are not many chances to face three Britons in a single tournament. And when one of those opponents is likely to be Andy Murray, a player’s chances of beating all three are even slimmer.

Let’s broaden the perspective a bit and take a look at how often a player defeated three (or more) players from the same country without looking only at Great Britain. The following table displays the results of this analysis. The first column contains the country, the second column (3W) shows how often a player defeated three players of this country, the third column (3WL) shows how often a player defeated two players of this country and then lost to a player of the same country, and so on.

Country  3W  3WL  4W  4WL  5W  5WL
USA      119 179  19  30   1   4
ESP      98  157  17  18   3   2
FRA      28  45   5   2    1   0
ARG      22  26   5   3    0   0
GER      15  18   1   1    0   0
AUS      13  9    0   0    0   0
SWE      9   16   1   0    0   0
CZE      4   5    0   0    0   0
NED      4   4    0   0    0   0
RUS      4   3    0   0    0   0
ITA      2   3    1   0    0   0
BRA      1   3    1   0    0   0
GBR      1   2    0   0    0   0
CHI      1   1    0   0    0   0
SUI      1   1    0   0    0   0

As we could have imagined, USA, ESP, and FRA come out on top here, simply, because for years they have had the highest density of players in the rankings. These are also the only countries of which a player was faced five times at a single tournament. Facing a player of the same country six or more times never happened according to the data at hand. The following table shows the most recent occasions of the entries printed in bold in the above table (5W).

Tournament    Round Winner        Loser             Score
'91 Charlotte R32   Jaime Yzaga   Chris Garner      7-6 6-3
'91 Charlotte R16   Jaime Yzaga   Jimmy Brown       6-4 6-4
'91 Charlotte QF    Jaime Yzaga   Michael Chang     7-6 6-1
'91 Charlotte SF    Jaime Yzaga   M. Washington     7-5 6-2
'91 Charlotte F     Jaime Yzaga   Jimmy Arias       6-3 7-5
                                                 
'07 Lyon      R32   Sebastien Gr. Rodolphe Cadart   6-3 6-2
'07 Lyon      R16   Sebastien Gr. Fabrice Santoro   4-6 6-1 6-2
'07 Lyon      QF    Sebastien Gr. Julien Benneteau  6-7 6-2 7-6
'07 Lyon      SF    Sebastien Gr. Jo Tsonga         6-1 6-2
'07 Lyon      F     Sebastien Gr. Marc Gicquel      7-6 6-4
                                                  
'08 Valencia  R32   David Ferrer  Ivan Navarro      6-3 6-4
'08 Valencia  R16   David Ferrer  Pablo Andujar     6-3 6-4
'08 Valencia  QF    David Ferrer  Fernando Verdasco 6-3 1-6 7-5
'08 Valencia  SF    David Ferrer  Tommy Robredo     2-6 6-2 6-3
'08 Valencia  F     David Ferrer  Nicolas Almagro   4-6 6-2 7-6

Finally, we take a look at the big four. Did they ever eliminate three or more players from the same country in a single tournament? Yes, they did. In 2014 Roger Federer beat three Czech players in Dubai. In 2005, 2008, and 2013 he beat three German players in Halle. In 2009 Andy Murray beat three Spanish players in Valencia. In 2007 Novak Djokovic beat three Spanish players in Estoril. In 2013 Rafael Nadal beat three Argentinian players both in Acapulco and Sao Paolo. In 2015 he even beat four Argentinian players in Buenos Aires. And there are many other examples where Rafa beat three of his countrymen at the same tournament.

We can see that this happens fairly often, specifically for countries where the tournament is organized, because more players of this country appear in the draw due to wild cards and qualifications. If we exclude these cases, Federer’s streak in Dubai stands out, as does Thiem’s streak in Barcelona.

—

Peter Wetz is a computer scientist interested in racket sports and data analytics based in Vienna, Austria.

Dominic Thiem and the Best Deciding-Sets Seasons in ATP History

Italian translation at settesei.it

Yesterday at the ATP World Tour Finals, Dominic Thiem won a three-set match against Gael Monfils, his 22nd deciding-set victory of 2016. Despite losing to Novak Djokovic in three sets on Sunday, Thiem is enjoying one of the best deciding-set seasons in ATP history.

The loss to Djokovic was only Thiem’s third in 25 deciding sets this year. He began the season with 14 consecutive deciding-set wins, including back-to-back third-set tiebreaks in Buenos Aires against Rafael Nadal and Nicolas Almagro. He strung together another seven straight between May and September, including a grass-court upset of Roger Federer in Stuttgart.

Among players who contested at least 20 deciding sets in a season, Thiem’s winning percentage of 88% is the fifth-best record in the ATP’s modern era. Not every player reaches the 20-decider threshold–some, like Djokovic, avoid it by winning most of their matches in straight sets–but it’s no statistical oddity. There have been nearly 1,000 player-seasons with at least 20 deciders since the 1970s, including Andy Murray’s 17-6 record in 2016.

Outstanding single-season deciding-set records don’t guarantee long-term success. Thiem appears on this list amid a mix of famous and lesser-known names, from Federer to Onny Parun:

Player           Year  Deciders  Wins  Win Perc  
Mario Ancic      2006        24    22     91.7%  
Ilie Nastase     1971        23    21     91.3%  
Tom Okker        1974        20    18     90.0%  
Roger Federer    2006        20    18     90.0%  
Dominic Thiem    2016        25    22     88.0%  
Kei Nishikori    2014        24    21     87.5%  
Stan Smith       1972        22    19     86.4%  
Joakim Nystrom   1984        22    19     86.4%  
Guillermo Vilas  1977        29    25     86.2%  
Onny Parun       1975        34    29     85.3%

Parun’s 1975 season is particularly notable, as no other player has won so many deciding sets in a single year. In 1996, Yevgeny Kafelnikov came close, winning 28. One gets the idea he was trying: He played 105 matches that year, 40 of which went the distance. In more recent years, big names have played more limited schedules, and Thiem is the only active player to win at least 22 deciding sets in a single season. Dmitry Tursunov gave it a shot in 2006, playing 37 deciders, but he won only 20.

Like so many tennis stats, this one can be fluky. For every Kei Nishikori–who has won an incredible 77% of deciding sets at tour level, including some record-setting streaks--there is a Grigor Dimitrov, who won 18 of 22 deciding sets in 2014, then barely broke even the following year, claiming only 11 of 21. Of the 27 players who have posted a 20-decider, 80% winning percentage season, not a single one managed an 80% winning percentage the following year.

For all of his talents, Thiem probably won’t follow in Nishikori’s footsteps. The Austrian won only half of his 40 deciding sets before this season. But a more modest record in these matches is hardly insurmountable. In 1996, Pete Sampras put together his best deciding-sets record, winning 83% of his 24 deciders. The following year, his record fell to a pedestrian 56%, which didn’t keep him from winning two Grand Slams and finishing the season at the top of the rankings.

If Thiem is to continue climbing the rankings, he’ll be better off taking Djokovic’s path, winning most of his deciding sets, but playing them much less frequently. In the last decade, Novak has played 20 deciding sets in a season only three times, and he has only gone the distance 10 times in 2016. Even Nishikori would have to agree: Djokovic’s method is working just fine.

Elina Svitolina and Multiple #1 Upsets

Last week in Beijing, Elina Svitolina beat new WTA #1 Angelique Kerber. It was the first time the Ukrainian defeated Kerber this season, but it wasn’t her first 2016 triumph over a player ranked #1. At the Rio Olympics in August, Svitolina upset then-top-ranked Serena Williams.

It’s unusual for a player to face two (or more) different #1-ranked opponents in the same season. Since 1985, it has happened 136 times on the WTA tour and 148 times on the ATP tour. That’s less than five times per season per tour.

Of course, it’s much less common to upset multiple #1-ranked opponents, as Svitolina did. This was only the 16th time a woman did so (again, since 1985), while it has happened on the men’s side 18 times.

Here is a full list of WTA player-seasons that featured defeats of more than one top-ranked player:

Year  Player               Upsets                      
2016  Elina Svitolina      Kerber; Serena              
2010  Samantha Stosur      Serena; Wozniacki           
2009  Venus Williams       Serena; Safina              
2008  Dinara Safina        Henin; Sharapova; Jankovic  
2006  Justine Henin        Davenport; Mauresmo         
2003  Justine Henin        Serena; Clijsters           
2002  Kim Clijsters        Serena; Venus               
2002  Serena Williams      Capriati; Venus             
2001  Lindsay Davenport    Capriati; Hingis            
1999  Amelie Mauresmo      Hingis; Davenport           
1999  Venus Williams       Davenport; Hingis           
1997  Amanda Coetzer       Hingis; Graf                
1996  Jana Novotna         Graf; Seles                 
1996  Kimiko Date Krumm    Graf; Seles                 
1991  Martina Navratilova  Graf; Seles                 
1991  Gabriela Sabatini    Graf; Seles

It’s quite an accomplished list. As we might expect, there’s a lot of overlap between the players who achieved these upsets and past and future #1-ranked players. The real standouts here are Justine Henin and Venus Williams, who managed the feat twice, and Dinara Safina, who faced three different #1s in 2008, going undefeated against them.

Here are the men who beat multiple #1s in the same season:

Year  Player                 Upsets             
2013  Juan Martin Del Potro  Nadal; Djokovic    
2012  Andy Murray            Federer; Djokovic  
2011  David Ferrer           Nadal; Djokovic    
2011  Jo Wilfried Tsonga     Nadal; Djokovic    
2010  Marcos Baghdatis       Nadal; Federer     
2009  Juan Martin Del Potro  Nadal; Federer     
2008  Andy Murray            Nadal; Federer     
2008  Gilles Simon           Nadal; Federer     
2003  Rainer Schuettler      Roddick; Agassi    
2003  Fernando Gonzalez      Hewitt; Agassi     
2001  Greg Rusedski          Safin; Kuerten     
2001  Max Mirnyi             Safin; Kuerten     
1995  Michael Chang          Agassi; Sampras    
1992  Richard Krajicek       Courier; Edberg    
1991  Guy Forget             Edberg; Becker     
1991  Andrei Cherkasov       Edberg; Becker     
1990  Boris Becker           Lendl; Edberg      
1988  Boris Becker           Wilander; Lendl

This list isn’t quite as impressive, though it does capture several very good players at their best.  It also highlights the world-beating potential of Max Mirnyi, who–despite never reaching the top 15 himself–finished the 2001 season with a 3-1 record against ATP #1s.

The rarity of facing multiple #1s in the same season–let alone beating them–stops us from drawing any meaningful conclusions about what Svitolina’s feat indicates for her future. At the very least, however, it reminds us of the Ukrainian’s potential as a future star, and puts her among some very good historical company.

Andrey Kuznetsov and Career Highs of ATP Non-Semifinalists

When following this week’s ATP 250 tournament in Winston-Salem and seeing Andrey Kuznetsov in the quarterfinals the following question arose: Will he finally make it into the first ATP semifinal of his career? As shown here Andrey – with a ranking of 42 – is currently (by far) the best-ranked player who has not reached an ATP SF. And it looks as if he will stay on top of this list for some time longer after losing to Pablo Carreno Busta 4-6 3-6 on Wednesday.

With stats of 0-10 in ATP quarterfinals, he is still pretty far away from Teymuraz Gabashvili‘s streak of 0-16. Despite having lost six more quarterfinals before winning his first QF this January against a retiring Bernard Tomic, Teymuraz climbed only to a ranking of 50. Still, we could argue that the QF losing-streak of Teymuraz is not really over after having won against a possibly injured player.

Running the numbers can answer questions such as “Who could climb up highest in the rankings without having won an ATP quarterfinal?” Doing so will put Andrey’s number 42 into perspective and will possibly reveal some other statistical trivia.

Player                Rank            Date   On
Andrei Chesnokov        30      1986.11.03    1
Yen Hsun Lu             33      2010.11.01    1
Nick Kyrgios            34      2015.04.06    1
Adrian Voinea           36      1996.04.15    1
Paul Haarhuis           36      1990.07.09    1
Jaime Yzaga             40      1986.03.03    1
Antonio Zugarelli       41      1973.08.23    1
Bernard Tomic           41      2011.11.07    1
Omar Camporese          41      1989.10.09    1
Wayne Ferreira          41      1991.12.02    1
Andrey Kuznetsov        42      2016.08.22    0
David Goffin            42      2012.10.29    1
Mischa Zverev           45      2009.06.08    1
Alexandr Dolgopolov     46      2010.06.07    1
Andrew Sznajder         46      1989.09.25    1
Lukas Rosol             46      2013.04.08    1
Ulf Stenlund            46      1986.07.07    1
Dominic Thiem           47      2014.07.21    1
Janko Tipsarevic        47      2007.07.16    1
Paul Annacone           47      1985.04.08    1
Renzo Furlan            47      1991.06.17    1
Mike Fishbach           47      1978.01.16    0
Oscar Hernandez         48      2007.10.08    1
Ronald Agenor           48      1985.11.25    1
Gary Donnelly           48      1986.11.10    0
Francisco Gonzalez      49      1978.07.12    1
Paolo Lorenzi           49      2013.03.04    1
Boris Becker            50      1985.05.06    1
Brett Steven            50      1993.02.15    1
Dominik Hrbaty          50      1997.05.19    1
Mike Leach              50      1985.02.18    1
Patrik Kuhnen           50      1988.08.01    1
Teymuraz Gabashvili     50      2015.07.20    1
Blaine Willenborg       50      1984.09.10    0

The table shows career highs (up until #50) for players before they won their first ATP QF. A 0 in the last column indicates that the player can still climb up in this table, because he did not win a QF, yet. There may also be retired players being denoted with a 0, because they never managed to get past a QF during their career.

I wonder, who had Andrei Chesnokov on the radar for this? Before winning his first ATP QF he pushed his ranking as far as 30. He later went on to have a career high of 9. Nick Kyrgios could also improve his ranking quickly without the need to go as deep as a SF. His Wimbledon 2014 QF, Roland Garros 2015 R32, and Australian Open 2015 QF runs helped him to get up until #34 without a single win at an ATP QF. Also, I particularly would like to highlight Alexandr Dolgopolov who reached #46 before having even played a single QF.

Looking only at players who are still active and able to up their ranking without an ATP SF we get the following picture:

Player                 Rank            Date
Andrey Kuznetsov         42      2016.08.22
Rui Machado              59      2011.10.03
Tatsuma Ito              60      2012.10.22
Matthew Ebden            61      2012.10.01
Kenny De Schepper        62      2014.04.07
Pere Riba                65      2011.05.16
Tim Smyczek              68      2015.04.06
Blaz Kavcic              68      2012.08.06
Alejandro Gonzalez       70      2014.06.09

Andrey seems to be relatively alone with Rui Machado being second in the list having reached his highest ranking already about five years ago. Skimming through the remainder of the table, we would be surprised if anyone soon would be able to come close to Andrey’s 42, which doesn’t mean that a sudden unexpected streak of an upcoming player would render this scenario impossible.

So what practical implications does this give us for analyzing tennis? Hardly any, I am afraid. Still, we can infer that it is possible to get well within the top-50 without winning more than two matches at a single tournament over a duration that can even range over a player’s whole career. Of course it would be interesting to see how long such players can stay in these ranking areas, guaranteeing direct acceptance into ATP tournaments and, hence, a more or less regular income from R32, R16, and QF prize money. Moreover, as the case of 2015-ish Nick Kyrgios shows, the question arises how one’s ranking points are composed: Performing well at the big stage of Masters or Grand Slams can be enough for a decent ranking while showing poor performance at ATP 250s. On the other hand, are there players whose ATP points breakdown reveals that they are willing to go for easier points at ATP 250s while never having deep runs at Masters or Grand Slams? These are questions which I would like to answer in a future post.

—

Peter Wetz is a computer scientist interested in racket sports and data analytics based in Vienna, Austria. I would like to thank Jeff for being open-minded and allowing me to post these surface-scratching lines here.