Stats are one of the beautiful things of sport. Win loss records, goals per game, averages, totals. Then every so often, a statistical measure gets taken up that is misleading to such an extent that I find it amazing it isn’t scrapped. In particular – break point conversions in tennis.<br />
<br />
<a href=”http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day20/1701ms.html”>The stats from the Federer-Roddick US Open final</a> show why Roger is so good. He hit 69 winners to only 19 unforced errors – that’s a superb reflection of his quality of play. But why oh why do tennis statisticians include break point conversions? Let’s think about this…<br />
<br />
Tennis is all about winning games in the set. It doesn’t matter if you win a game to love, or after 10 deuces. You get the game on the board. That’s why some players lose despite winning more overall points (for example, <a href=”http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day16/1403ms.html”>Marat Safin vs Tommy Haas</a>) <br />
<br />
So, if you have a 0-40 on your opponent’s serve, and break on the third go, the missed break points are irrelevant. Why do we count them? Roddick was 2 of 8 in the US Open final, and Roger 6 of 16. But the interesting statistic is when a player has break points and loses the game. If they win the game on their 5th break point, who cares?<br />
<br />
If we look into the point-by-point stats of the match, Federer’s 10 missed break points (BPs) were distributed across 6 games, with 4 of those games still won by Federer and 2 that “got away”, (one with 5 missed BPs). So, in reality, although he “missed” 10 BPs, only 6 were opportunities that mattered in only 2 games. <br />
<br />
Roddick had 6 missed BPs, which were in 3 games that he eventually lost. So Federer missed fewer game opportunities (2) than Roddick (3). That’s where the match was won and lost. Tennis analysts should scrap the break points, and look at the games that got away.
Leave a Reply