Deciding set tie breaks and implications on mental toughness

Mental toughness is one of my favourite topics because for me it should be associated amongst some of the qualities of any champion and questioned at times. Well i was looking at the ATP tour stats sheets and looking at the the tie break section and stats for it, suprisingly, i saw Federer ranked 1st somewhere there but not convinced, i, looked properly and realised he played an awful lot of tie breaks so hardly much to write about. Scrolled down further and saw the stats on tie breaks, deciding set and it showed what exactly i expected. Some of the mentally toughess players in the history of tennis occupying the top spot.

1. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .759 - 123-39
2. Jimmy Connors .000 - 0-0 .698 - 229-99
3. Novak Djokovic .917 - 9-0 .698 - 74-32
4. Rafael Nadal .632 - 9-4 .697 - 92-40
5. John McEnroe .000 - 0-0 .688 - 161-73
6. Pete Sampras .000 - 0-0 .681 - 188-88
7. John Newcombe .000 - 0-0 .681 - 94-44
8. Johan Kriek .000 - 0-0 .676 - 125-60
9. Boris Becker .000 - 0-0 .673 - 165-80
10. Arthur Ashe .000 - 0-0 .671 - 171-84

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Deciding-Set-Career-List.aspx


Some posters get hissy when the mental toughness of their favourite players is shown but we have seen too much proof of these. I used the 5th set deciding tie break as a point because that's where the pressure is at the most in matches and the mentally tough ones normally rise up to the occassion. Infact the ATP Index had the heading : On Pressure situation.
Wimbledon for example does not use tie breaks in the 5th set so could be a bit unfair on others who might have done well over there but the stats above pretty much confirms the facts, some players have great mental strength and others are mentally weak. I honestly don't see why some throw it out when it is pointed out some players are mentally weak when the facts show.

By the way, Federer is 32nd on the list. Can't help it

The fact that Bjorn Borg didn't compete at the Australian Open and also retired at 26 does not factor in longevity. To me that discredits the list given the names already on that list that in time will change.

maybe federer isn't so high on the list of 5th set tie brakes, but if you look at his record at tie breaks in grand slam finals it is incredible

Yes but it still gives us the big picture up to that point in his career and for the Australian Open can't be too concerned about it. We will also have to then start predicting slams he could have won there had he enter etc

You don't need to predict anything. Jimmy Connors being second is the bigger crime given that his career was twice as long as Borgs.

I could throw the stat of most career wins which would see the list a bit more 'respectable' because mental toughness is about winning. On the top 10 I doubt you would see Borg.

Mental toughness is not only about winning, more about winning in pressured situations. If you throw career wins in there, Borg tops it easily as well.

If you were to run a poll on the mentally toughest player, Connors would come out on top. A better reflection of mental toughness is players that have come back from 2 sets down in a BO5 or 1 set down on a BO3. That for me defines mental toughness.

Like I said, this doesn't factor in longevity. The king of mental toughness was Jimmy. That guy could turn any losing situation into a winning one.

Though I do like the attempt at a Roger bashing thread. Though given the amount of Nadal bashing threads I see it makes a change I guess

Lol how is this an attempt to bash player X or Y? Just a statistical fact to show the mental toughness of players past and present but Federer just happens to be bottom of the pile. Just unfortunate i'll say.

Borg's shorter career certainly seems to put him at/near the top of all the 'Pressure' lists - but then when he couldn't handle the pressure he just quit the game altogether, which puts his mental toughness into question.

Who would have thought Johan Kriek would be 8th? Sort of indicates that mental toughness isn't quite the be all and end all when in comes to measuring greatness.

Federer seems to be way down the list on 5th set record, which would drag down his position on the deciding set list compared to 3rd set deciders. Indicating a lack of stamina in 5th sets. I'm sure this is true of other players as well, so 5th set could well be a physical thing as much as a mental.

But I have to admit it was very clever to think of tie-breaks first, then dismiss it because Federer was top of the list. I suspect 'Versus Top 10' would be of no interest.

I think when you talk about mental toughness, one thing you should consider is the game style of the different players. In fact, I am sure you will agree with me in this: some players adopt a risky game style based on hitting winners and on outplaying the opponents. In this category you find: Mac, Edberg, Sampras, Federer. Others players instead adopt a more conservative game based on hitting a lot of topspin, percentage shots outlasting their opponents. The latter category (Borg, Wilander, Nadal) has a physical advantage in the 5th set and a statistical advantage in the tie break.

Enter 'Physical'
Julius, are you saying Sampras was physically outlasting his opponents in the 5th set?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not sure where you got that from.
By the way, it's not 5th set tie breaks on that link - it's simply deciding 5th sets.

You missed a trick there. You could have done 3rd games of 2nd sets; apparantly Federer is 236th in that. I think that proves everything.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think when you talk about mental toughness, one thing you should consider is the game style of the different players. In fact, I am sure you will agree with me in this: some players adopt a risky game style based on hitting winners and on outplaying the opponents. In this category you find: Mac, Edberg, Sampras, Federer. Others players instead adopt a more conservative game based on hitting a lot of topspin, percentage shots outlasting their opponents. The latter category (Borg, Wilander, Nadal) has a physical advantage in the 5th set and a statistical advantage in the tie break.

Indeed Jeremy! Very good observation. This is why the physical players make the top of the list in those 5 setters.

True JK & Tenez.
Just check the list for 5th sets against the one for Deciding Sets (i.e. 3rd and 5th). For the long 5 set matches, Connors, McEnroe and Sampras drop right down whereas Borg and Nadal stay at/near the top.

JuliusHMarx wrote:True JK & Tenez.
Just check the list for 5th sets against the one for Deciding Sets (i.e. 3rd and 5th). For the long 5 set matches, Connors, McEnroe and Sampras drop right down whereas Borg and Nadal stay at/near the top.

Don;t want to say but I have been saying this since the beginning of 606!

Who the heck is Ross Case - 3rd on the 5th setter list?

Julius you still haven't said why Sampras is high up those list. The list above actually shows final set tie breaks and there lie the physical McEnroe and Sampras 5th and 6th. To further rubbish physical theories, Sampras has a great clay court 5th set record and on the career 5th set list, have to confirm but more than 60 places above Federer. Shows the case of one mentally tough and the other mentally weak.

The list doesn't show final set tie-breaks - it shows deciding sets.
The only tie-break list is the one with Federer at the top.

Why is Sampras so high up - because he's an all-time great. But even he drops considerably when 5th setters come into play - a full 16 places below Ross Case. Clearly Ross was a mental fortress.

Anyone know why Kriek is so high in both lists? Was he mentally very tough?

Yes but he didn't drop down 100 places did he. I suggest you see the list again, deciding set tie break I thought I saw. you can confirm. Sampras was not physically outlasting any one but still has a good record.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yes but he didn't drop down 100 places did he. I suggest you see the list again, deciding set tie break I thought I saw. you can confirm. Sampras was not physically outlasting any one but still has a good record.

I can't see anywhere where it says tie-breaks - can you give an idea of where you saw that, so I can find it?

This is an idiot thread; how many final set tie breaks do you think players ever play in their career? You have them down playing hundreds of matches in their careers that went to the final set tie break! What a clown!!!

Considering the theme of the article is mental strength I find it hugely significant that the OP has completely misinterpreted the statistics. No surprise really, this is the same guy who announced to the forum the other day that it was impossible for a top seed to meet 3 players from the top 5 in a Slam!

"Simple Analysis" indeed! Comedy Gold more like.

Only one thing left to do.........

Doesn't have to be an idiot thread - depends where we take it. S_A isn't the only one posting.

Oh dear Boggo starting with the previous thread, my maths was simply proved right by the top 5-8 theory. Let your genius enlighten us on how each member of a top 5 can play each other 3 times. You know that's mathematically impossible in how the draw is made do you? No? Only way to rate that is 2 and half. let me guess, no.1 plays 2, 3 and 5 and no.2 playes 1, 4 and 5 again.
Then no.3 plays 1, 4 and 5? Come think. I know chances of thinking about that Is slim but try.

I asked Julius to confirm that and my error shows it's just for deciding sets which was mentioned in the orginal article so where is the rabid Federer fan rant from again? Like I said, they will throw a hissy and you never disappoint in that. Infact it is hardly even suprising a player can play 100 plus deciding tie breaks in an 8 year career like Nadal's for example. Instead of thinking, you cheer leading as usual.

Just to clarify - it is for deciding sets, regardless of score, not deciding sets only with tie-breaks. I.e any 3rd set (in a 3-setter) or any 5th set (in a 5-setter) with a score from 6-0 to 7-6. Agreed?

Well tie breaks are included in them ;-)

SA fighting a losing argument on his own....tell me something new! haha. On another note, Fed won very easily tonight, so those Fed doubters were wrong! Very happy with Fed although I admit I didn't see any of the match!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Oh dear Boggo starting with the previous thread, my maths was simply proved right by the top 5-8 theory. Let your genius enlighten us on how each member of a top 5 can play each other 3 times. You know that's mathematically impossible in how the draw is made do you? No? Only way to rate that is 2 and half. let me guess, no.1 plays 2, 3 and 5 and no.2 playes 1, 4 and 5 again.
Then no.3 plays 1, 4 and 5? Come think. I know chances of thinking about that Is slim but try.

I asked Julius to confirm that and my error shows it's just for deciding sets which was mentioned in the orginal article so where is the rabid Federer fan rant from again? Like I said, they will throw a hissy and you never disappoint in that. Infact it is hardly even suprising a player can play 100 plus deciding tie breaks in an 8 year career like Nadal's for example. Instead of thinking, you cheer leading as usual.

As you well know you went into print to say the #1 couldn't play 3 top 5 players. The forum jumped up and down on your head.

That said, it was a mere slip against this hideous piece of nonsense, you seem to imagine that each of these players finds themselves in final set tie-breakers hundreds of times!! I think we the viewers might have noticed!

Well to get a first laugh in, Sampras has played 522 tie breaks, want to know how many of those were in deciding sets Boggo? I'll take it easy on you.
Well no.1 could play 2 top 5 players guaranteed by draw. You can attempt to prove me wrong. You were actually the one saying top 5 could play each other 3 times, wrong!
Luciusmann, are you in for more rounds of exposure. Admin said I must take it easy on you
Small talks today again will land you where you were yesterday.

Jeez you can be dense sometimes. You even apologised on the other thread for being wrong about being able to play 3 of the top 5 - so are you saying that the apology was unfounded and you were right after all?

And here we go again

Johan Kriek, somebody say something about Johan Kriek - one of the greatest ever players in deciding sets.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well to get a first laugh in, Sampras has played 522 tie breaks, want to know how many of those were in deciding sets Boggo? I'll take it easy on you.Well no.1 could play 2 top 5 players guaranteed by draw. You can attempt to prove me wrong. You were actually the one saying top 5 could play each other 3 times, wrong!
Luciusmann, are you in for more rounds of exposure. Admin said I must take it easy on you
Small talks today again will land you where you were yesterday.

Oh wow, I'm loving this.

So you think that Jimmy Connors, who played 1622 matches, had 328 go to a final set tie break? That would be 20% of his matches. Let's look at some others:

You think Bjorn Borg played 162 final set tie breaks out of his 735 matches, so 22% of his matches went the ultimate distance.

Of course we also have to factor in the number of matches these guys played at the Australian and French Opens and Wimbledon where the final set tb doesn't exist. That raises the % of potential matches going that far much higher.

I could continue this analysis but I think you've taken enough of a beating on this.

Beware of simplistic analysis, Simple_Analyst, especially if you have low numerical reasoning capacity. Just a tip.

I remember Johan Kriek. I thought he had reached teh final or even won the AO...but after checking to my surprised he won it twice. I don't think we could quite call it a slam at that particular time but still good effort.

What do they call "deciding set"? Teh 3rd and 5th?

It could also be set 2 and 3 of a 3 setter or set 3,4,5 of a 5 setter.
But anyway, let's not get lost in trivial stats.

Yes I was right. Infact I apologized for completely writing the No.1 playing 3 off which was a seeding error but as I proved, playing 2 is guaranteed which makes me right, simple probability does not prove you saying 3 right either. Well by the way you actually had it they could all play each other 3 times same tournament.

Nope, and if I were you I'd pretend to have had my comp crash and get the Hell out of the thread - all you're doing is displaying to the rest of the board that (1) you can't understand the subject, (2) you don't read posts and (3) you forget what you wrote.

It an early morning comedy routine we barely deserve!

A deciding set tie break can be a 2nd set for the win, 3rd set in a 3 set match and 5th set match. Easily get over 100 of those over a career. Over to you Boggo, get shocked at it

Boggo you still haven't proved my top 5 playing each other 2 times guaranteed wrong. Playing each other 3 times however, I proved that wrong.

Simple_Analyst wrote:A deciding set tie break can be a 2nd set for the win, 3rd set in a 3 set match and 5th set match. Easily get over 100 of those over a career. Over to you Boggo, get shocked at it

So do you know that was what you were posting or are you now speculating whether the statistics you posted might mean something else, or indeed might not?

Frankly, why are we debating a topic if even the author isn't sure what the statistics he's put in the article mean?

Perhaps you could clear it up and then we could decide whether there's a point of substance worth debating. I'll leave the thread pending you clearing this up, ok?

Simplistic, I'm not allowed any more to explain to you what your problem is, but I'll give you a hint; it's not in the rules of the game.

It is clear that the statistics relate to deciding sets (i.e. 3rd or 5th sets) and not tie-breakers - there is a separate tie-breaker heading and Federer is at the top of it career-wise.

What is more interesting to me from those stats of "Pressure Situations" is that not one person has a +ve rate of winning after losing the 1st set, and many have +ve rates of winning in the 90's after winning the 1st set - Nadal is a particularly high converter of 1st set wins to match wins. You've got to get that 1st set against him.

Boggo, you keep mummering words with no substance, simply prove me wrong.
As for the tie breaks, says it all. You were creaming yourself without considering whether a 2nd, 3rd or 5th sets are counted.

barry has nailed you on this.

You don't appear to categorically know what the statistic is that you posted and made such a big deal about. Now barry has said it I'll confirm that it's actually nothing to do with tie breaks, it's deciding sets.

Honestly, I'd like to explain to you where your problem is but Admin has forbidden me from being straight about it.

I know yours, math and cheer leading. Barry said 3rd and 5th. I said 2nd, 3rd and 5th. You 2nd set can also decide a match don't you? Easy, it can.

The statistic you dragged from the ATP site is for deciding sets themselves and nothing to do with tie-breaks. Can't you see that?

The whole article is based on your massive misunderstanding of the statistics you trawled.

Please understand this, all you're doing is making the mistake more and more ridiculous.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I know yours, math and cheer leading. Barry said 3rd and 5th. I said 2nd, 3rd and 5th. You 2nd set can also decide a match don't you? Easy, it can.

Even this effort to retrieve yourself is wrong. OMG.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I know yours, math and cheer leading. Barry said 3rd and 5th. I said 2nd, 3rd and 5th. You 2nd set can also decide a match don't you? Easy, it can.

For that matter the 3rd and 4th sets can all be deciding sets in a best of 5, as can the first set in any match if someone withdraws through injury.

However, for the statistic to be within the "pressure situation" heading I would imagine it must mean that both players know it is going to be the deciding set for whoever wins it at the beginning of the set - i.e a 3rd or 5th set. There is less pressure on a player who goes into the 2nd set of a best-of-three with a 1 set lead than when they are 1 set apiece - you'd hardly describe the former situation as a pressure one for the purpose of specially gathered statistics. I think your model would end up being akin to the pure W/L statistics by equating the 'deciding' set with the 'final' set.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I know yours, math and cheer leading. Barry said 3rd and 5th. I said 2nd, 3rd and 5th. You 2nd set can also decide a match don't you? Easy, it can.

I suggested that 2,3,4 and 5 could decide a match but I am pretty sure we don't call 2 and 4 deciding sets and the ATP didn't mean to say that. You could actually say also that set 1 can decide a match. Deciding set means when there is a parity.

Anyhow...wasn;t your OP about TBs? It's clear that you got lost playing around with the stat table trying hard to find Federer's negative stats.

Well I call them deciding sets. All you have to do is prove me wrong. You can't by the way.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well I call them deciding sets. All you have to do is prove me wrong. You can't by the way.

Playground stuff - 'proof' depends upon a balanced assessment of the evidence.

The fact that the results for "Deciding Sets" do not match precisely the player's career W/L statistics suggest that for the "Deciding Sets" statistics in "On Pressure Situations" the ATP have not counted 2nd sets in best-of-three or 3rd & 4th sets in best-of-five.

That, no doubt, is good enough for any fair-minded person. Saying "well I call them deciding sets" is not to the point when the issue is working out what the ATP's statistics dept mean when they refer to "deciding sets". You really cannot expect to be taken seriously if this is your approach.