🎾 Analysis Of Time And Game Characteristics In Top Profile Tennis¶
Giới Thiệu¶
Analysis Of Time And Game Characteristics In Top Profile Tennis — tài liệu 14 trang từ thư viện sách tennis.
Chủ đề chính: Racquet
Tóm tắt nội dung (trích từ tài liệu gốc): ANALYSIS OF TIME AND GAME CHARACTERISTICS IN TOP PROFILE TENNIS By Ales Filipcic (Professor, Faculty of Physical Education, University of Ljubiana) SUMMARY Tennis is classified among acyclic polystructural sports and sports games involving a racquet and a ball. The success of a player in a tennis match is established indirectly and directly. The analysis of men's tennis matches at the 2001 Grand Slam tournaments is presented further in the document. The focus is mainly on the variables of direct competitive successfulness of tennis players, especially as regards the differences between the due
Lưu ý: Nội dung dưới đây được trích xuất tự động từ PDF gốc tiếng Anh, giữ nguyên ngôn ngữ để bảo toàn độ chính xác kỹ thuật.
Nội Dung Gốc (Tiếng Anh)¶
ANALYSIS OF TIME AND GAME CHARACTERISTICS IN TOP PROFILE TENNIS
By Ales Filipcic (Professor, Faculty of Physical Education, University of Ljubiana)
SUMMARY
Tennis is classified among acyclic polystructural sports and sports games involving a racquet and
a ball. The success of a player in a tennis match is established indirectly and directly. The analysis
of men's tennis matches at the 2001 Grand Slam tournaments is presented further in the
document. The focus is mainly on the variables of direct competitive successfulness of tennis
players, especially as regards the differences between the duel winners and losers.
Key words: tennis, competitive successfulness, analysis of the game
INTRODUCTION
Tennis is classified among acyclic polystructural sports and sports games involving a racquet and
a ball. It is characterised by fast flight of the ball, speedy ball exchange between players and
coverage of the court. In a tennis match a player carefully monitors the ball's flight and decides
among various tactical possibilities. A player uses a wide range of strokes, which classifies tennis
among the so-called "open" sports games, since specific tactical and technical actions are never
repeated. It is difficult to divide tennis game into the defence and offence phase, but some parts of
it may be categorised as offensive and others as defensive, while both players during the match
constantly alternate in defence and offence positions. The success of a player in a tennis match is
established indirectly and directly. Indirect (prognostic) success can be determined by testing as
many factors as possible, namely those factors which influence competitive successfulness and
reflect the development level of those factors that have the strongest impact on successfulness
(e.g. motor abilities - speed, co-ordination, strength, etc.; morphological characteristics - body
height and weight, the percentage of subcutaneous fat, body somatotype; functional abilities -
maximum oxygen consumption, etc.; psychological abilities - concentration, emotional control,
motivation, etc.). Direct (competitive) success is reflected in competitive successfulness of an
individual, which is checked by statistical data (the percentage of serves won, the number of
winning strokes, faults, etc.) and also by the classification of tennis players on ranking lists, either
national, European or international.
Several interesting items of research have been carried out in the field of time and game
characteristics of tennis game, however, they covered only a small number of tennis matches
played by players of various age and quality categories. A group of German experts (Lames, Perl,
Schroder, Uthmann; 1990) presented the project of establishing the expert tennis system, called
TESSY (tennis simulation system). The TESSY system functions within the scope of three major
phases, namely: description and observation of the game and tactics, processing and
interpretation of results and the transposition of obtained results into practice. The above-
mentioned experts processed the final match of the 1989 Wimbledon tournament, played by
Becker and Edberg. The serve analysis showed that Becker was successful in long serves directed
into both corners of the service court. On the backhand side of the court mostly all serves were
straight. Contrary to Becker, Edberg had difficulties with the length and direction (accuracy) of the
serve. Most often he used the body serve (right: 17.8% and left: 12.7%) and the spin serve typical
of him. The analysis confirmed the finding about the great importance of return in matches played
on fast courts. The importance of faults in defence and offence is clearly distinguished depending
on which player has the serve. Baseline game is of no particular importance on such fast court.
Due to the spectacularity, the importance of aces is overestimated, since according to the total
number of points played, the aces represent relatively rare events. The final conclusion of the
researchers was that the expert system provides the opportunity for presenting expert knowledge
in a certain sports field, that such procedure can be included in the interpretation of a complex
sports achievement and that the existing intuitive rules are checked by means of the system as
well as new ones formulated.
Several studies that analysed tennis game and time characteristics were presented among
Slovenian researchers. Planinsek (1993) analysed the elements of tennis game and time
characteristics of the finals at the 1993 US Open and 1993 French Open. She processed the
gathered data using the Tennis Expert System. The goal of her research was to determine how the
court surface influenced the type of the game and what type of the game an individual player used.
The analysis of the game showed that the tennis court surface is an important factor of tennis
game, determining the game type. The results revealed that tennis game on asphalt surface was
much faster than that on clay court, the breaks between points were shorter and net playing time
represented only the fifth of total playing time on asphalt surface.
Frcej (1994) carried out a research with the aim of establishing and comparing the structure of
tennis game in matches played by tennis players of different age categories. This research
presented the analysis of the tennis game elements by means of the Tennis Expert System
statistical programme. The research covered the matches between various age categories, i.e.
senior, under 16 and under 14. The elements of the analysis were the serve, the last stroke within a
point and the result. In the case of the majority of observed elements of tennis game the results
did not show significant differences between matches played by players of different age
categories. The differences, however, were recorded in the serve location, as the serve dispersion
was lower in older players. Differences were apparent as the winners and losers were compared.
All winners won a greater percentage of points on the first serve, had a higher percentage of point-
winning strokes in the game, a lower percentage of forced errors and more points in series, they
also recorded a higher number of series, more breaks of serve and a higher number of total points
than the losers.
Cvetko (1995) established and compared the structure of tennis game in male and female matches.
He analysed matches played by fourteen-year old boys and girls. The elements of the analysis
included: serve, the last stroke within a point and the result. He established that there were no
major differences between matches played by boys and those played by girls. But a difference was
recorded in the percentage of won and lost points using the flat and rotated serve. Boys used flat
as well as spin serve, while girls seldom resorted to flat serve. All winners, among boys and girls,
reached a higher percentage of points by rotated serve, more points in series, recorded a greater
number of series, more breaks of serve and won a higher number of total points.
Ferjan (2001) compared the game characteristics of final matches at open championships
(hereinafter referred to as OC) of the USA and Australia in 2000 and 2001. He presented the
structure of tennis elements and time characteristics in men's final matches at the 2000 US OC
(Sampras - Safin) and the 2001 Australia OC (Agassi - Clement). The elements of the analysis
included: serve-return, density and position of hits of all successful strokes and the last stroke
within a point. He found that the winner achieves a higher total number of points than the loser
and also more points in series. The analysis of the number of faults and winning strokes revealed
that between the winners and losers there were differences in the ratio between the number of
faults and winning strokes, namely, the winners always recorded a better ratio. Major differences
between the winner and the loser were noted in the number of hits in the "negative" zones (5, 4),
which the losers hit considerably more often than the winners, the latter being more successful in
targeting the "positive" zones (D3, L3, D2 and L2). The analysis of time characteristics revealed
that these depend on the playing method of both competitors. Baseline players (Agassi and
Clement) played every point on average two seconds longer than the other two finalists, of which
one played serve volley (Sampras).
Pintaric (2002) analysed the elements of tennis game and time characteristics of the final matches
at the 2001 French and Wimbledon OC. He established that the game is becoming faster also on
1
clay courts - individual points are becoming shorter. The game structure analysis revealed the
differences between players who played at the French and Wimbledon OC, which perhaps points
to the fact that players are specialising in different court surfaces. Zlatoper (2002) compared the
game characteristics of the final matches at the 2002 French and US OC. He analysed the game
from the point of view of serve - return, density, the position of hits and the last stroke within a
point. He discovered that the percentage of serves hit does not have a decisive impact on the
result. It turned out that more important was the serve return (the quality of return) and the
percentage of points won after the first and second serve. As the direction of the serve, the density
and the position of hits within the court during the match were observed, it was established that
the players direct most balls to the opponent's backhand. With winners it was noticeable that they
targeted more balls to D2, L2, D3 and L3 (positive zones), while the losers directed more balls to
the negative zones 4 and 5. The winner of the match recorded a higher total number of points and
more points in series.
Based on the findings of the previous research the purpose of the present investigation was to
analyse and compare time characteristics of men's final matches at all four Grand Slam
tournaments, to identify and compare game characteristics of individual matches and to establish
and compare the differences in the position of selected hits in individual matches.
METHODS
The variables were divided into three sets: basic data about the match: tournament, year, match
status, players - opponents, result, court type; time characteristics: no. of sets, no. of games, no.
of points, average no. of point per set, total playing time, average point duration, average rest time
between points, average rest time � changing sides, average rest time � no changing sides, ratio -
rest : game (playing time), ratio - rest : game (total time), % of points last 10 s, % of points last
10 - 25 s, % of points last 25 s; game characteristics: total no. of. points, total points won; serve -
return: 1st serve %, 2nd serve %, won on serve, won on 1st serve, successful returns after 1st serve,
successful returns after 2nd serve; last stroke within a point: no. of faults (all strokes): serve
(double fault), return, forehand & backhand, volley & smash; winners (all strokes): serve (ace),
return, forehand & backhand, volley & smash; no. of points won in series: 3 points series, 4 points
series, 5 points series, 6 points or more series; break points: break points won, break points had;
ratio - points: ratio between total no. of points and faults, ratio between winners and total no. of
points, ratio between winners and faults; position of hits in the court: total no. of serve (1st, 2nd),
no. of serve from deuce court (right) in zone 6, no. of serve from deuce court (right) in zone 7, no. of
serve from deuce court (right) in zone 8, no. of serve from ad court (left) in zone 6, no. of serve
from ad court (left) in zone 7, no. of serve from ad court (left) in zone 8, no. of hits in zone 1 � 4, no.
of hits in zone 4, no. of hits in zone 3 right, no. of hits in zone 3 left, no. of hits in zone 2 right, no.
of hits in zone 3 left, no. of hits in zone 1 (right & left), no. of hits in zone 5.
The collected data were arranged and divided by individual match. We calculated the ratio
between the total number of points, the number of faults and the number of winning strokes as
well as the ratio between the number of winning strokes and faults. Data were analysed using
expert analysis. We focused mainly on the comparison of winners and losers in individual matches
and on the comparison of individual matches, if such comparison was possible. As we analysed
the hit positions we used the zones presented in Figures 1 and 2. The zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 were
characterised as positive, while zone 5 was considered negative, i.e. the zone where players
should not direct balls very often.
The sample of observed tennis matches included the following matches:
Table 1: Basic data about individual final matches
2
Based on the observation of videos of final matches we have collected all the data necessary for
research. Time characteristics were gathered by measurements of individual parts of the match.
Data about the density and position of hits were collected using the Sch�nborn system of tennis
court division as shown in Figures 1 and 2. We have slightly adjusted the specification of serve
zones with the aim of greater differentiation of serve direction.
Figure 1: Court zones for return and other strokes (forehand, backhand, volley, smash...)
Figure 2: Court zones for serve
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data about time characteristics of individual matches are interesting, but on the other hand also
expected. While data about the number of sets, games and points have merely descriptive
meaning, the information about the average number of points within a set is interesting, as it
points to rather small differences between matches. In a point of average duration a high
correlation can be established between the speed of the court surface and the duration of a point.
On average, points last the longest at FO (French Open), somewhat less at AO (Australian Open)
and are significantly shorter at UO (US Open) and WIM (Wimbledon). The average break between
points - with the exception of FO, where also the active part of the game is the longest - is within
the applicable rules, i.e. less than 20 seconds. The ratios between the game and break are
interesting. A certain relation can be established with the speed of the court surface and the
average duration of a point. The ratios referred to above are quite similar for AO and FO, while a
considerable deviation was recorded in UO and particularly WIM. The reason for this lies in the fact
that the differences in the duration of the passive part of the game are very small, whereas the
duration of the active part varies from one match to another. Thus in WIM the active part of the
game accounts only for the fourteenth part of the total match. The data about the duration of
points show that most points are over in less than 10 seconds. At WIM none of the points exceeded
10 seconds, at AO and FO one fifth and one fourth of the points respectively lasted from 10 to 25
seconds. At UO a little more than 0.5% of points lasted more than 25 seconds, whereas such
points at AO and FO represented between 3 and 4%. In sum, it can be established that there is a
connection between the speed of the court surface and the duration of the active part of the game,
that the players use as much time for a break as permitted by tennis rules (or some more). Most of
the points are finished within 10 seconds, which denotes extremely anaerobic nature of tennis.
Tennis is (has become) a game where high speed of projectiles and consequently the movement of
players result in high intensity of all activities carried out in the active part of the match.
Table 2: Time characteristics of individual matches
As we analysed the data referring to game characteristics of individual final matches we were
above all interested in the differences between the winners and the losers.
Serve � return. Three winners (Agassi, Kuerten, and Hewitt) have a higher percentage of first serve,
whereas at the WIM finals Rafter, who lost the match, was in this respect better than the winner.
As established later in the document, some game characteristics recorded at the WIM finals
deviate from the other three matches, as a result of which the interpretation of results is difficult.
This was in our opinion caused by extremely equal match (winner won 4 points more then runner-
up); the characteristics of the game played by both players (serve - net) as well as very risky game
by the winner, which in the end brought him victory. The comparison of the percentage of points
won after the serve and the 1st serve shows that the winners of matches had in most cases a much
higher percentage than the losers. The fact is that in modern tennis a successful serve gives a
great advantage. This means that a player, who without difficulties wins points on his serve, saves
much energy and, in addition, can play a more risky and relaxed game to the opponent's serve.
The analysis of the results of successfully returned 1st and 2nd serves reveals that the three winners
3
(Agassi, Kuerten and Ivanisevi) recorded better results in this aspect, whereas Sampras, who lost
the UO finals, recorded a higher percentage than Hewitt. In spite of that it can be established that
a successful return is a precondition for the continuation of the game and that this stroke is
equally important as the serve. We can also discover a certain connection between the percentage
of successful returns and the speed of the court surface (the faster the surface the lower the
percentage), since the lowest percentages were recorded by the players of the WIM finals.
Last stroke within a point. Based on the comparison of the number of faults it can be established
for the total number of strokes that the winners Agassi, Kuerten and Hewitt made significantly less
faults, whereas at the WIM finals the loser was more successful in this respect. If data are
examined more closely, we can find that the highest number of faults at the AO, FO and UO result
from forehand and backhand, which are also the most common strokes on such court surfaces.
The WIM finals show a different picture, since the players made most return faults, with equal
number of faults with return. According to the number of return faults, Sampras was better than
Hewitt, but he made more volley and smash faults. The comparison of the number of winning
strokes gives a somewhat different picture, since Clement and Corretja had more winning strokes
than the winners, but at WIM and UO finals the winners were slightly successful. All winners, with
the exception of Hewitt, hit more aces. Clement and Corretja were significantly better as regards
the number of winning forehand and backhand strokes, which points to extremely offensive and
often risky game reflecting certain powerlessness. The analysis of the net play showed that Rafter
and Sampras were more successful, as they recorded more volley and smash winning strokes than
the winners.
Number of points won in series. Extremely interesting are the data about the number of points
won. In the total number of points won Agassi, Kuerten and Hewitt were considerably more
successful than the losers. At the WIM finals the players recorded the same number of points and
the game came to a tie. Equally interesting are the data about the number of points won in series,
which refers to the number of successively won points. A series consists of at least three points
won. Also in this case the winners of the AO, FO and UO finals won considerably more points in
series, while at the WIM finals Rafter was in this respect better than the winner. In any case, the
total number of points and the number of points won in series are crucial for success and point to
great importance of an individual point in tennis, where the count method is specific. Matches
where a loser wins more points than the winner are extremely rare, but those recorded are the
result of the score count method or exceptional equality of players, part of a game (set) where one
of the players played very poorly and lost heavily a set or a higher number of games.
Break points. Numbers show all break points and break point won of individual player within
particular tennis match. Results revealed that winners at AO, FO and UO had more opportunities
for break and also won more break points. In contradictions, finalists at WIM were equalized in
this element that shows again how equal the tennis match was.
Ratio - points. Data about the number of faults and winning strokes do not provide the actual
picture of the strength ratio on court, which is why we presented these data also in relation to the
total number of points played and the comparison of the number of faults and winning strokes.
The ratios were calculated so that a higher value denotes a better result. In this way we can
establish that the winners of the AO, FO and UO recorded a better ratio between the total number
of points and the number of faults. Again, the exception is the above-mentioned final match at
WIM, where Rafter was slightly better than Ivanisevi. Comparison number of winners and total
number of points show that Clement and Corretja were better than Agassi and Kuerten. Taken
together, these results provide strong evidence than on slower surfaces such AO and FO the
number of winners does not give such impact on the result than on the faster surfaces (WIM, UO).
However, if the ratios between the number of winning strokes and faults are compared, it can be
established that all winners achieved higher values, which stands also for WIM finals, where the
4
difference is very small, yet it points to the fact that in this very equal match Ivanisevi found the
right balance between risk and reliable game.
Table 3: Game characteristics and position of hits in individual final matches
Position of hits in the court. We wanted to determine the position of hits by examining videos of
matches and applying the zones to individual strokes. We are aware of the fact that the accuracy
of the estimate of hit position was subjective; however, the acquired data are interesting and,
although subjective, carry certain weight. The purpose of the analysis of the position of hits by a
serve is not to compare winners and losers, but to find potential patterns and greater frequency in
the case of serves from a particular side and in a particular direction. At the AO finals both players
often served from the right to the outer side (zone 6), while Clement frequently used the body
serve from both sides (zone 7). Considering the quality of Agassi's return, the player thus wanted
to disable offensive return. At the FO finals Kuerten from the right often served to zone 6, Corretja
used the body serve (zone 7), while from the left Kuerten served on the backhand side (zone 6) and
Corretja down the T (zone 7). At the WIM finals both players used mostly the slice serve to the
backhand of the opponent, but we have to consider the fact that Ivanisevi is left-handed.
Therefore, both players used such tactics at serving that is usual when left and right handed are
opponents. It can be observed that at the UO finals Hewitt from the right served into zone 6 and
from the left into zones 7 and 8, whereas Sampras directed serves from right side into zone 6 and
8, from left side into 7 and 8. It means both players served more often to the backhand of the
opponent, and from the right side also to the outer side (zone 6). The analysis of the position of
hits in the game (return, forehand, backhand, volley, smash, passing shot, lob, etc.) shows that
the winners of the AO and FO finals hit a considerably higher number of strokes into the positive
zones (1, 2, 3 and 4) than the losers. In the case of the other two matches (WIM and UO), the losers
made more hits in the above-mentioned zones of the court. In our opinion this was due to the
manner (serve - net) in which the three players (Ivanisevi, Rafter and Sampras) played the match.
If one or both players play serve - net, the opponent's optimal or positive targets change. In this
event the player returning the stroke often has to direct the hit to the zones 2 or 1. Moreover, in the
case of the serve - net play, a player intercepts many balls by a volley, which means that these
strokes do not hit the ground. The information about the number of hits in the negative zone 5, i.e.
directing rather short ball into the centre, on all types of courts proved to be poor, since all the
winners recorded less hits in this zone than the losers.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of time characteristics of the final matches at four Grand Slam tournaments confirms
the trend that the active part of the game is shortening, which to a high degree depends also on
the speed of the court surface. As the game characteristics were analysed, it was established that
there were certain differences between winners and losers. These are mainly reflected in the
percentage of winning points after the 1st and 2nd serve. Also the 1st serve percentage and the
percentage of successful returns in most cases distinguish the winners from losers. The winners of
the three final matches made less faults than the losers, while two winners recorded a higher
number of winning strokes. In all cases the winners recorded a better ratio between the number of
winning strokes and faults. Most winners achieved a higher number of total points and more
points in series. The analysis of the position of hits reveals that the serve and hits are more often
directed into particular zones of the court, but this in no way explains the events on the court and
the conclusions apply only to analysed matches.
In sum, it can be established that a tennis match analysis is very demanding, both from the
technological and substance point of view. Moreover, it requires that the game is studied at least
from four aspects. Firstly, a higher number of strokes (playing pattern or situation) which led a
player into a situation of certain advantage have to be taken into account, since the playing
pattern cannot be discerned from the position of one hit alone. Secondly, the positions of hits
5
resulting from individual strokes have to be examined separately, which means that the positions
of hits differ according to the tactics of a player, which are not always the same, but include
numerous variations of a similar game situation (e.g. after the serve a player moves toward the net
or after the serve a player stays at the baseline). Thirdly, the speed and rotation of played balls can
have a decisive influence on the successfulness of a player and, fourthly, the result at which a
player played a certain situation has to be considered.
The approach to a solution of this problem is undoubtedly the use of modern technologies,
especially the technology enabling automatic tracing of movement and actions of tennis players
during a tennis match based on special footage and space determination. This will provide us
numerous data about the activities of the player (information about the speed and position of
movement, the hits, etc.), time characteristics and loading of players.
REFERENCES
1. Cvetko, D. (1995). Struktura teniske igre v dvobojih igralcev razlicnih spolov. [Structure of
Tennis Game in Male and Female Matches]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport (Faculty of Sport).
2. Ferjan, R. (2001) Primerjava igralnih znacilnosti finalnih dvobojev odprtega teniskega
prvenstva ZDA in Avstralije v letih 2000 in 2001. [Comparison of Game Characteristics of the
2000 and 2001 US and Australian Open Tennis Championship]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport
(Faculty of Sport).
3. Filipcic, A. (2002). Tenis � treniranje. [Tennis - Training]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport (Faculty
of Sports).
4. Filipcic, A. (2004). Tenis � tehnika in taktika. [Tennis - Technique and Tactics]. Ljubljana:
Fakulteta za sport (Faculty of Sport).
5. Frcej, F. (1994). Struktura teniske igre v dvobojih igralcev razlicnih starostnih kategorij.
[Structure of Tennis Game in Matches Played by Tennis Players of Different Age Categories].
Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport (Faculty of Sport).
6. Lames M., J. Perl, H. J. Schroder, T. Uthmann. (1990). Tennis Expert System � TESSY.
Leistungssport 4: 49-54.
7. Pintaric, T. (2002) Analiza elementov teniske igre in casovnih kazalcev v finalnih dvobojih
Francije in Anglije v letu 2001. [Analysis of Tennis Game Elements and Time Characteristics in
Final Matches in France and England in 2001]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport (Faculty of Sport).
8. Planinsek, T. (1993) Analiza elementov teniske igre in casovnih kazalev v finalnih dvobojih na
OP Francije in ZDA v letu 1993. [Analysis of Elements of Tennis Game and Time Characteristics
of the finals at the 1993 US Open and 1993 French Open]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport (Faculty
of Sport).
9. Zlatoper, Z. (2002). Primerjava igralnih znacilnosti finalnih dvobojev odprtega teniskega
prvenstva Francije in ZDA v letu 2002. [Comparison of Game Characteristics of the Finals at the
2002 French and US Tennis Open] Ljubljana: Fakulteta za sport (Faculty of Sport).
6
Table 1: Basic data about individual final matches
Tournament Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open
Year 2001 2001 2001 2001
Match Finals Finals Finals
A. Agassi � A. G. Kuerten - A. Finals L. Hewitt - P.
Players Clement Corretja G. Ivanisevi - Sampras
P. Rafter
Result 6:4,6:2,6:2 6:7,7:5,6:2,6:0 6:3,3:6,6:3,2:6 7:6,6:1,6:1
Surface Hard court Clay ,9:7 Hard court
Grass
7
Figure 1: Court zones for return and other strokes (forehand, backhand, volley, smash...)
8
Figure 2: Court zones for serve
9
10
Table 2: Time characteristics of individual matches
Tournament Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open
G. Kuerten - A. G. Ivanisevi - P. L. Hewitt - P.
Players A. Agassi - A. Clement Corretja Rafter Sampras
No. of sets 3
No. of games 26 4 5 3
No. of points 171 39 51 27
Average no. of points per set 57 244 304 176
Total playing time (1 min.) 61 61 58
Average point duration (1 s) 104 192 181 113
Average rest time between points (1 7,3 8,2 2,7 3,8
s)
Average rest time - changing sides (1 19,06 23,1 18,7 19,9
s)
Average rest time - no changing 95,18 106,4 95,6 100,9
sides (1 s)
Ratio - rest : game (playing time) 31,41 35,9 38,1 30,4
Ratio - rest : game (total time) 01:02,6 01:02,8 01:06,9 01:05,2
% of points last 10 s 01:03,8 01:04,4 01:14,1
% of points last 10 - 25 s 76,40% 68,50% 100,00% 1:08
% of points last 25 s 20,50% 27,70% 0,00% 92,60%
2,90% 3,80% 0,00% 6,80%
0,60%
11
Table 3: Game characteristics and position of hits in individual final matches
Player A. Agassi A. Clement G. A. G. P. Rafter L. P.
Total no. of points Kuerten Corretja Ivanisevi 150 Hewitt Sampras
Total points won 171
Serve � return 244 108 304 176 76
1st Serve % 94 77 136 154 100
2nd Serve %
Won on Serve 65% 52% 59% 53% 55% 62% 64% 60%
Won on 1st Serve 80%
Successful returns after 1st Serve 96% 84% 98% 97% 68% 92% 82% 85%
Successful returns after 2nd Serve 80%
Last stroke within a point 63% 52% 69% 66% 50% 69% 71% 55%
No. of faults (all strokes) 73%
Serve (double fault) 72% 58% 53% 35% 76% 84% 63%
Return
Forehand & Backhand 68% 59% 78% 69% 41% 55% 57%
Volley & Smash
Winners (all strokes) 92% 82% 98% 91% 64% 76% 83%
Serve (ace)
Return 44 69 60 89 77 69 39 63
Forehand & Backhand
Volley & Smash 1 7 2 4 15 4 5 6
No. of points won in series
- 3 points series 12 15 7 15 38 38 17 16
- 4 points series
- 5 points series 29 47 43 69 12 14 17 20
- 6 points or more series
2 0 8 1 12 13 0 21
21 32 47 48 76 67 34 32
7 5 10 5 27 13 7 11
1 1 4 4 12 8 8 1
12 24 21 31 16 16 17 5
1 2 12 8 21 30 2 15
69 33 73 53 58 67 63 35
10 1 10 5 9 6 6 3
3 5 6 3 5 7 4 4
2 2 1 4 1 3 3 2
2 0 2 1 1 1 2 0
12
Break points 7 2 9 1 3 3 6 1
Break points won 15 6 15 7 6 6 13 2
Break points had 47 % 33 % 60 % 14 % 50 % 50 % 46 % 50 %
% of break points won
Ratio � points 3,89 2,48 4,07 2,74 3,95 4,41 4,51 2,79
Ratio between total no. of points and
faults 0,12 0,19 0,19 0,20 0,25 0,22 0,19 0,18
Ratio between winners and total no. of 0,48 0,46 0,99
points 0,78 0,54 0,97 0,87 0,51
Ratio between winners and faults 75 88 141
Position of hits in the court 121 117 144 69 96
Total no. of serve (1st, 2nd) 17 14 19
No. of serve from deuce court (right) in 22 11 34 16 18
zone 6 9 16 5
No. of serve from deuce court (right) in 17 36 15 10 8
zone 7 14 15 52
No. of serve from deuce court (right) in 17 8 25 12 30 31 10 23
zone 8 6 21 13
No. of serve from ad court (left) in zone 6 12 14 34 19 22 23 8 11
No. of serve from ad court (left) in zone 7 275 236 90
No. of serve from ad court (left) in zone 8 54 60 21 31 7 9 12 17
No. of hits in zone 1 - 4 88 81 23
No. of hits in zone 4 60 35 2 8 12 32 13 19
No. of hits in zone 3 right (R3) 49 42 16
No. of hits in zone 3 left (L3) 20 15 336 293 22 97 115 120
No. of hits in zone 2 right (R2) 4 3 10
No. of hits in zone 3 left (L2) 37 66 64 56 16 15 11 29
No. of hits in zone 1 right & left (R1 & L1)
No. of hits in zone 5 68 60 11 23 25
56 38 23 20 25
86 80 11 32 25
46 45 23 17 13
16 14 14 12 3
117 124 18 20 39
13