2011 Grand Slam Analysis of Matches Played by the Top Four Men: Time taken per point played.

xxx

Note at the Australian Open 2011, Nadal suffered from a physical condition that impaired his mobility - where he lost in the Quarter Final to David Ferrer. It is likely that this reduced mobility explains the difference in his play (in terms of time taken per point played) between AO 2011 and all the other 2011 slam tournaments (see the Rel% column).

Note also that Djokovic's time taken per point played is lowest (in relative terms - see the Rel% column) for the French Open, and it was only this tournament he didn't win, going out in the semi-final to Roger Federer. It seems possible that Djokovic was slightly jaded (in relative terms) following his up to that point unbeaten run.

Now if you can add in shots per rally we might be getting somewhere - my expectation is that Federer tends to play fewer shots with more early winners (and losing shots) while Rafa keeps the ball in play more. Interesting though that the differences between the tournaments is so small, and that the USO, which is perceived normally to be a fast hard court and to probably favour attacking players more than even Wimbledon at present, came out with the longest time per point (I'd have expected the FO to be clearly ahead there).

Be interesting to have the stats on today's Fed v Dr Ivo match as a contrast to the above - not many rallies that went on very long, but lots of three shot or fewer points.

Fascinating stuff, but of course the contentious issue is the time taken between points.

So what are we supposed to do with these stats? Don't know what exactly it's supposed to show.

Interesting but it woudl have been great to consider Federer's matches when ot playing Djoko and Nadal. They slow his average time by point down!

My only issue is that average of times between points is based on the total time on court, which doesn't factor in 4-5 setters the players played and that in some matches the players may have taken longer or shorter than the average time calculated.

one thing that immediately strikes me is just how uniform the surfaces have become! It takes just two seconds more to win/lose a point on clay than on grass. That's about 1.5 more strokes per point on average, which is nothing at all really (probably down to the fact the serve is still more penetrating on grass). I'm sure if you did this sort of analysis for the 90s you'd see a much bigger difference.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So what are we supposed to do with these stats? Don't know what exactly it's supposed to show.

That is a good question for which only an Advanced_Analyst can answer

I can only assess the data that is available. The time taken per point played is a combination of rally length and the time taken getting ready for the next point. If anyone wishes to provide data that breaks down the time in this way, presumably by analysis of faithfully recorded video or / and having students / helper friends attend all the relevant matches with stopwatch and note pad, then I would happily (maybe) do that analysis

Roughly you have to take the average nber of shot per rally but that is hardly provided. Having watched quite a few you may have from 4 to 7shots on average, including aces for a match with Nadal. That's about 8s to 15s per shot...which is a lot. It still gives you 30s+ between time.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So what are we supposed to do with these stats? Don't know what exactly it's supposed to show.

If we were to print them on a stiff bit of card I could volunteer a suggestion as to what you might do with them.

Yes, number of shots for each point would be useful. The other thing this time taken per point conflates is second serves and lets. That is the time taken for any given individual point will be for example:

End of previous point. Start timer: add time taken to hit the first serve (let's say it's a let) + time taken to hit the first serve again (after the let, and lets say this time it is out) + time taken to hit the second serve (let's say it is in) + time taken for the rally - rally ends someone wins the point: Stop timer. Immediately start timer for the next point.

The time taken per point (as I have calculated it) also includes the time between change of end swaps and between sets, time taken to question the point, time taken for a hawkeye review (I assume the match timer keeps going for all these aspects of the match).

However, given all this there are significant differences between the time taken per point match average between these four players. The question is what do these differences mean

Nore Staat wrote:The time taken per point (as I have calculated it) also includes the time between change of end swaps and between sets, time taken to question the point, time taken for a hawkeye review (I assume the match timer keeps going for all these aspects of the match).

Are you sure about that? I don't think so.

I will need to check then the meaning of the "match time"

So Simple_Analyst doesn't get it.

Not surprising really when the clue's there in his name. Pity though because he's tried in vain to find something in it to use against Federer

Nore Staat wrote:I will need to check then the meaning of the "match time"

For sure the MTOs are not included.

Just to confirm I calculated the time taken per point (match average) as = (total match time) / (total number of points played in match).

I'm occupied for the rest of the day but will check the precise meaning of "total match time" later. If someone already knows exactly how this is measured or can point me to an appropriate link then that would be much appreciated . So in particularly I'll be looking to see if the "changeover time between ends", Hawkeye queries etc are included in the official "match time".

Change over between games might be included (not sure) but I very much doubt the time between sets is.

I'll be able to check actually as I have them recorded on Eurosport.com/

remember reading somewhere that the ball is actually only rallied for about 25-30% of the match time. Think about time between points, change-overs, time outs, bouncing the ball, lets, hawkeye, disputes, racket throwing ...etc ..etc.

Nore Staat

In summery your stats prove that on a pound/minute basis Djokovic and Nadal represent the best value for money. Maybe they should ask to be paid an hourly rate?

As far as I can tell each set is timed from the striking of the first ball to the winning of the set. The total match time is the sum of the set times. Toilet breaks, MTO's, hawkeye queries all result in the suspension of the play and hence the "match clock". Other than that the match is deemed to be continuous play (including the change of ends).

Nadal's taking 10 seconds more each point, clearly he tries everything he can to avoid spending time with Xisca.

I'm not suggesting anything!

Nore Staat wrote:As far as I can tell each set is timed from the striking of the first ball to the winning of the set. The total match time is the sum of the set times. Toilet breaks, MTO's, hawkeye queries all result in the suspension of the play and hence the "match clock". Other than that the match is deemed to be continuous play (including the change of ends).

NS who actually stops the match clock. Is it like countdown where Nick Hewter has control or is someone else behind the scenes dictating what constitutes match time or not?

Surprising news to me as i thought the match clock just showed the total time from when they started playing.

The on-court match clock might be different to what the Umpire records (this is what I am calling the "match clock" - that which the Umpire records).

The match umpire is supposed to write down the time taken after each set. Maybe Laverfan can input her wisdom on this matter - or anyone else - has anyone here officiated at a match tournament?

I know the match begins when the first, first serve is struck. There is a two minute maximum rest period between sets - so two minutes per set is dependent on the answer to the question: Is the time period between sets included in the official "total match time". That is after the first set is won or lost, is the "timer" immediately started for the next set or only started after the first, first serve of the next set is struck.

Responded to your PM, NS.

There are some official breaks, like MTOs, toilet breaks, play suspension due to light or weather, etc. which may have to be considered during each individual match when the match clock has stopped/resumed.

If no such events occur, then the match time is the counted as the time from the time of calling 'Play' to the announcement of 'Game Set Match' for a player.

Will continue research.

Loks like I was wrong and the time between sets and game is included in the set time and match time.

Very surprised by that but that's how it is. I am still unsure how MTOs fit in.