Murray Becomes World Number and Wins Paris Masters

(Saturday)

Congrats to Murray who became number one today for the first time! Surely deserved after a very consistent year although he’d probably wanted to at least win his match over Raonic to get it done.

I must say it feels strange that Murray got the number one ranking after Djokovic’s strong start to the year and winning the personal slam. He did better than Murray in the big events but he can still win Paris and London.

If he does that I’d feel he deserves it a bit more but hopefully this situation will make the people who are always acting like slams are the only thing that matters take note. They can’t have it both ways.

Either they accept that there are more to tennis greatness than the number of slams you win or they don’t accept the fact that Murray is number one after Djokovic won the most slams this year.

I think there is more to tennis greatness than the number of slams you win and therefore I accept that Murray is number one. I also accept that Djokovic did something that hasn’t been done since 1969 when he won the personal slam which is why I am not constantly on his case about the fact that he is slumping.

I never really thought he would ever get over his burnout before the end of the year but, of course, as a fan, you are always hoping. Now I am convinced he won’t after what I saw in Paris.

He lost 6-4, 7-6(2) to Cilic in another shocking performance by his high standards. The defining moment was when he broke serve in the second set and served for the set at 5-4. He served two consecutive double faults to drop serve.

players: *don’t nominate djokovic for sportsmanship award*
djokovic every time: http://pic.twitter.com/SxbRaTAtCz

— Jeff Donaldson (@jddtennis) November 4, 2016

If that doesn’t smack of burnout I don’t know what does. The mojo is just completely gone. And understandably so. As a fan, you are always hoping for more but in hindsight, it is crystal clear that the French Open and personal slam took an awful lot out of him.

I’ve already written about it. Everyone should just give the guy a damn break. He was on the most dominant run in tennis history and he doesn’t own anyone anything including his own fans.

I find it quite sad that he doesn’t get the credit he deserves for winning the personal slam but that he does get all the coverage for being in a slump. Am I the only damn person in the world who appreciates the enormity of what he achieved?

Sometimes it feels that way. But that’s fine. The fact that I can appreciate it makes it that more enjoyable. For instance, I understand the slump that he is going through which is why as a fan it doesn’t bother me.

If by next year things don’t improve then it may start to bother me. I never expected him to recover before next year, to begin with, which is why everything he achieved since winning the French Open was just a bonus.

I thought he did great by winning Toronto and making the US Open final. But you wish he could just take the second half of the year off because he is not enjoying himself out there but unfortunately, that is how the tennis season is set up and why I am not so concerned with him losing the number one ranking.

I think people have short memories. I have no doubt that he or any of his fans would gladly have sacrificed the year end number one if before the French Open they were given a choice between the French Open title and the year-end number one.

I mean it’s a no-brainer.

• Murray Wins Paris Title

All right so I am back today to finish my post after Murray won the Paris title yesterday against Isner 6-3, 6-7(4), 6-4. So congrats to him once more. I’m sure he feels better now that he justified his ranking with a win as opposed to a walkover.

And Isner was playing very well this week. This means Murray end the year with one slam title and three masters titles as opposed to Djokovic’s two slam titles and four masters titles.

It seems inappropriate to me that Murray is number one but he can still win London and like I said he can have the number one ranking after what Djokovic achieved this year and last year. And I think Murray will win London too.

Djokovic is just too burned out and there is no Federer or Nadal either. Certainly, it seems the competition has weakened toward the end of the year. I’m not even sure Djokovic will pass the group stage in London.

He looks that fried. He could make semis but I definitely don’t see him getting back to number one in London. It may take a long time for him to get back to number one because he has plenty of points to defend in the first half of 2017.

But that’s fine he won’t have much to defend in the second half of the year. The main thing is to come back refreshed next year and focus on winning more slams. That is still more important than being number one.

• Highlights

Read More

Djokovic and Murray Both Make Quarterfinals in Paris

Hi, folks. I had a quick opening to do a post during my exams. Since my last post, Djokovic and Murray won both their matches to make quarterfinals in Paris. That means Murray has not gained any more ground on Djokovic in the rankings since he won Vienna.

Both players had one straight-set win and one three-setter. Murray was pushed hard by Verdasco in the second round but after having two breaks points at 5-5 and 40-15 on Murray’s serve in the third set and failing to take advantage he dropped serve in the next game to lose 6-3, 6-7(5), 7-5.

Verdasco has all the talent in the world but he is mentally fragile and that cost him again against Murray. Djokovic, on the other hand, had a comfortable 6-3, 6-4 win in the second round against Muller.

It was a promising start but today he was struggling again in the first set against Dimitrov. It has to be said that Dimitrov played probably his best tennis so I will give Djokovic the benefit of the doubt after coming back to win 4-6, 6-2, 6-3.

He was playing much better in the second and third sets which hopefully bodes well for the rest of the tournament for him. As for Murray, he had a very comfortable 6-3, 6-0 victory over Pouille which was disappointing from Pouille.

But Pouille had a breakthrough year and played a lot so it is hard to criticize him.

• Looking Ahead

Going into this week I wasn’t feeling very positive about Djokovic’s chances. I didn’t think he would get over his burnout until next year and although that may still be the case I feel more positive about his form after having seen him play.

Obviously, he is not just going to give up his number one ranking like that. Burned our or not, Murray now has a real shot at passing him and Djokovic’s champions mentality will kick in.

It must, or Murray will pass him. It’s till early to predict anything but there have been some promising signs for Djokovic. He plays Cilic next who won Basel last week. Obviously, Cilic is playing well but Djokovic does lead the head-to-head 14-0.

Then Murray will play Berdych who he leads 9-6. Djokovic has the harder quarterfinal but Murray has the harder semi-final because he could play the winner of Tsonga and Raonic while Djokovic could play Sock or Isner.

In the end, Djokovic and Murray are the favorites to make the final but like I said it is still hard to make any predictions. Whatever the case may be, it is fun to follow and this number one chase makes things interesting for the end of the season.

I think tomorrow is quite a big day for Djokovic. If he makes semis then I like his chances of making the final and if he makes the final he goes to London still in the lead regardless of Murray’s result in Paris.

Looking forward to some exciting tennis this weekend!

 

Ps. My newsletter is not currently going out(at least for some people) and I am not receiving notifications by email when I receive comments. I have no idea why and I am trying to fix it. I did reply to recent comments when I saw them in case you left one and wondered why I didn’t reply.

• Highlights

Read More

How To Keep Round Robin Matches Interesting, Part Two

Earlier this week, I published a deep dive into the possible outcomes of four-player round robin groups and offered an ideal schedule that would minimize the likelihood of dead rubbers on the final day. I’ve since heard from a few readers who pointed out two things:

1. You might do better if you determined the schedule for day two after getting the results of the first two matches.
2. Major tournaments such as the ATP and WTA Tour Finals already do this, pairing the winners of the first two matches and the losers of the first two matches on day two.

This is an appealing idea. You’re guaranteed to end the second day with one undefeated (2-0) player, two competitors at 1-1, and the last at 0-2. The two participants at 1-1 have everything to play for, and depending on day three’s schedule and tiebreak factors, the 0-2 player could still be in the running as well.

Best of all, you avoid the nightmare scenario of two undefeated players and two eliminated players, in which the final two matches are nearly meaningless.

However, this “contingent schedule” approach isn’t perfect.

Surprise, surprise

We learned in my last post that, if we set the entire schedule before play begins, the likelihood of a dead rubber on the final day is 17%, and if we choose the optimal schedule, leaving #4 vs #1 and #3 vs #2 for the final day, we can drop those chances as low as 10.7%.

(These were based on a range of player skill levels equivalent to 200 points on the Elo scale. The bigger the range of player skills–for instance, the ATP finals is likely to have a group with a range well over 300–the more dramatic the differences in these numbers.)

In addition, we discovered that “dead/seed” matches–those in which one player is already eliminated and the other can only affect their semifinal seeding–are even more common. When the schedule is chosen in advance, the probability of a dead rubber or a “dead/seed” match is always near 40%.

If the day two schedule is determined by day one outcomes, the overall likelihood of these “mostly meaningless” (dead or “dead/seed”) matches drops to about 30%. That’s a major step in the right direction.

Yet there is a drawback: The chances of a dead rubber increase! With the contingent day two schedule, there is a roughly 20% chance of a completely meaningless match on day three.

Our intuition should bear this out. After day two, we are guaranteed one 2-0 player and one 0-2 player. It is somewhat likely that these two have faced each other already, but there still remains a reasonable chance they will play on day three. If they do, the 0-2 player is already eliminated–there will be two 2-1 players at the end of day three. The 2-0 player has clinched a place in the semifinals, so the most that could be at stake is a semifinal seeding.

In other words, if the “winner versus winner” schedule results in a 2-0 vs 0-2 matchup on day three, the odds are that it’s meaningless. And this schedule often does just that.

The ideal contingent schedule

If the goal is to avoid dead rubbers at all costs, the contingent schedule is not for you. You can do a better job by properly arranging the schedule in advance. However, a reasonable person might prefer the contingent schedule because it completely avoids the risk of the low-probability “nightmare scenario” that I described above, of two mostly meaningless day three matches.

Within the contingent schedule, there’s still room for optimization. If the day one slate consists of matches setting #1 against #3 and #2 against #4 (sorted by ranking), the probability of a meaningless match on day three is about average. If day one features #1 vs #2 and #3 vs #4, the odds are even higher: about a 21% chance of a dead rubber and another 11% chance of a “dead/seed” match.

That leaves us with the optimal day one schedule of #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3. It lowers the probability of a dead rubber to 19% and the chances of a “dead/seed” match to 9.7%. Neither number represents a big difference, but given all the eyes on every match at major year-end events, it seems foolish not to make a small change in order to maximize the probability that both day three matches will matter.

Read More

Battle for Year End Number One Tightens as Paris Masters Comes Around

Greetings. I’m still writing exams but Murray won Vienna last week as expected while Cilic won Basel, defeating Tsonga and Nishikori in the finals respectively.

Murray also had a walkover in the semis against Ferrer which is good fortune for him as his freshness will be a big question this week in Paris in his bid to overtake Djokovic in the rankings.

For him to do that by next Monday he has to win the title and Djokovic must lose before the final of Paris or Murray must make the final and Djokovic must lose before the semis, as you can see below by clicking the image.

It’s doable but I don’t think Murray will win Paris. As for Djokovic, he is struggling with his confidence right now and I don’t think he is winning the title either. He has won it the last three years but he seems completely burned out.

He has a tough draw too with Muller who just made semis in Basel and lost in the deciding set breaker to Nishikori. Then he likely gets Dimitrov and then Cilic or Goffin. In the semis, he could get Stan or Thiem.

Murray will play Verdasco in the first round who won today and can be dangerous. He can also play Pouille in the third round which I hope for. His quarterfinal doesn’t look very challenging and in the semis, he can play Raonic os Nishikori.

He’s got a better draw than Djokovic but we will see how it goes after the week in Vienna. That walkover against Ferrer sure was fortunate to give him some much-needed rest.

This race to number one is now getting very interesting and one feels that Djokovic should clearly end the year number one after winning two slams, making the final of another, and winning four Masters titles already.

That said, Murray did have a very consistent year and won the Olympics as well. And there is still the World Tour Finals left which is another big event. Djokovic is currently struggling with his confidence which makes things tough for him but he has to somehow try to make at least semis in Paris and hope Murray loses early.

Murray has a real shot at this but he can’t afford to lose early in Paris. Neither can Djokovic. A very interesting week ahead!

To sum up: Murray still has 275 Davis Cup points that must come off before the year end so for him to end the year number one he has to make 691 points more than Djokovic at Paris and London.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Read More

How To Keep Round Robin Matches Interesting

Round robins–such as the formats used by the ATP and WTA Tour Finals–have a lot going for them. Fans are guaranteed at least three matches for every player, and competitors can recover from one (or even two) bad outings. Best of all, when compared to a knockout-style draw, it’s twice as much tennis.

On the other hand, round robins have one major drawback: They can result in meaningless matches. It’s fairly common that, after two matches, a player is guaranteed a spot in the semifinals (sometimes even a specific seed) or eliminated from contention altogether. At a high-profile event such as the Tour Finals, with sky-high ticket prices, do we really want to run the risk of dead rubbers?

I don’t claim to have the answer to that question. However, we can take a closer look at the round robin format to answer several relevant questions. What is the probability that the final day of a four-player group will include at least one dead rubber? What about the final match? And most importantly, before the event begins, can we set the schedule in such a way to minimize the likelihood of dead rubbers?

The range of possibilities

As a first step, let’s determine all of the possible outcomes of the first four matches in a four-player round robin group. For convenience, I’ll refer to the players as A, B, C, and D. The first day features two matches, A vs B and C vs D. The second day is A vs C and B vs D, leaving us with a final day of A vs D and B vs C.

Each match has four possible outcomes: the first player wins in two sets, the first player wins in three, the second wins in two, or the second wins in three. (Sets won are important because they are used as a tiebreaker when, for instance, three players win two matches apiece.) Thus, there are 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 256 possible arrangements of the group standings entering the final day of round robin play.

Of those 256 permutations, 32 of them (12.5%) include one dead rubber on the final day. In those cases, the other match is played only to decide semifinal seeding between the players who will advance. Another 32 of the 256 permutations involve one “almost-dead” match, between a player who has been eliminated and a player who is competing only to determine semifinal seeding.

In other words, one out of every four possible outcomes of the first two days results in a day three match that is either entirely or mostly meaningless. Later on, we’ll dig into the probability that these outcomes occur, which depends on the relative skill levels of the four players in the group.

Before we do that, let’s take a little detour to define our terms. Because of the importance of semifinal seeding, “dead rubber” isn’t an entirely concept. Further, it is frequently the case that one player in a match still has a shot at the semifinals and the other doesn’t. Altogether, from “live” to “dead,” there are six gradations:

1. live/live — both players are competing to determine whether they survive
2. live/seed — one player could advance or not; the other will advance, and is playing to try to earn the #1 group seed
3. live/dead — one player is trying to survive; the other is eliminated
4. seed/seed — both players will advance; the winner gets the #1 group seed
5. seed/dead — one player is in the running for the #1 seed; the other is eliminated
6. dead/dead — both players are eliminated

All else equal, the higher a match lies on that scale, the more engaging its implications for the tournament. For the remainder of this article, I’ll refer only to the “dead/dead” category as “dead rubbers,” though I will occasionally discuss the likelihood of “dead/seed” matches as well. I’ll assume that the #1 seed is always more desirable than #2 and ignore the fascinating but far-too-complex ramifications of situations in which a player might prefer the #2 spot.

The sixth match

As we’ve seen, there are many sequences of wins and losses that result in a dead rubber on day three. Once the fifth match is played, it is even more likely that the seedings have been determined, making the sixth match meaningless.

After five matches, there are 1,024 possible group standings. (256 permutations after the first four matches, multiplied by the four possible outcomes of the fifth match.) Of those, 145 (14.1%) result in a dead sixth rubber, and another 120 (11.7%) give us a “dead/seed” sixth match.

We haven’t yet determined how likely it is that we’ll arrive at the specific standings that result in dead sixth rubbers. So far, the important point is that dead rubbers on day three aren’t just flukes. In a four-player round robin, they are always a real possibility, and if there is way to minimize their likelihood, we should jump at the chance.

Real scenarios, really dead rubbers

To figure out the likelihood of dead rubbers in practical situations, like the ATP and WTA Tour Finals, I used a hypothetical group of four players with Elo ratings spread over a 200-point range.

Why 200? This year’s Singapore field was very tightly packed, within a little bit more than 100 points, implying that the best player, Angelique Kerber, had about a 65% chance of beating the weakest, Svetlana Kuznetsova. By contrast, the ATP finalists in London are likely to be spread out over a 400-point range, giving the strongest competitor, Novak Djokovic, at least a 90% edge over the weakest.

I’ve given our hypothetical best player a rating of 2200, followed by a field of one player at 2130, one at 2060, and one at 2000. Thus, our favorite has a 60% chance of beating the #2 seed, a 69% chance of defeating the #3 seed, and a 76% chance of besting the #4 seed.

For any random arrangement of the schedule, after the first two days of play, this group has a 17% chance of giving us a dead rubber on day three, plus a 23% chance of a “dead/seed” match on day three.

After the fifth match is contested, there is a 16% chance of that the sixth match is meaningless, with an additional 12% chance that the sixth match falls into the “dead/seed” category.

The wider the range of skill levels, the higher the probability of dead rubbers. This is intuitive: The bigger the range between the top and bottom, the more likely that the best player will win their first two matches–and the more likely they will be straight-setters. Similarly, the chances are higher that the weakest player will lose theirs. The higher the probability that players go into day three with 2-0 or 0-2 records, the less likely that day three matches have an impact on the outcome of the group.

How to schedule a round robin group

A 17% chance of a dead rubber on day three is rather sad. But there is a bright spot in my analysis: By rearranging the schedule, you can raise that probability as high as 24.7% … or drop it as low as 10.7%.

Remember that our schedule looks like this:

Day one: A vs B, C vs D

Day two: A vs C, B vs D

Day three: A vs D, B vs C

We get the lowest possible chance of a day three dead rubber if we put the players on the schedule in order from weakest to strongest: A is #4, B is #3, and so on:

Day one: #4 vs #3, #2 vs #1

Day two: #4 vs #2, #3 vs #1

Day three: #4 vs #1, #3 vs #2

There is a small drawback to our optimal arrangement: It increases the odds of a “dead/seed” match. It turns out that you can only optimize so much: No matter what the arrangement of the competitors, the probability of a “dead/dead” or “dead/seed” match on day three stays about the same, between 39.7% and 41.7%. While neither type of match is desirable, we’re stuck with a certain likelihood of one or the other, and it seems safe to assume that a “dead/seed” rubber is better than a totally meaningless one.

Given how much is at stake, I hope that tournament organizers heed this advice and schedule round robin groups in order to minimize the chances of dead rubbers. The math gets a bit hairy, but the conclusions are straightforward and dramatic enough to make it clear that scheduling can make a difference. Over the course of the season, almost every tennis match matters–it would be nice if every match at the Tour Finals did, too.

Read More

The Pointlessness of Playing the Lets

Some people always want tennis matches to be shorter. Among the many recurring proposals to accomplish that, one that has been implemented in some places is eliminating service lets. In other words, serves are treated the same way as any other shot: If the serve clips the net and lands in the box, it’s in play.

“No-let” rules have been adopted by World Team Tennis and American university tennis. In the latter case, eliminating lets has more to do with ensuring fair play in the absence of an umpire. In 2013, the ATP experimented with no lets on the Challenger tour for the first three months of the year.

With an umpire on every professional court and machines that detect service lets at tour-level events, fairness (or avoiding cheating) is not the issue here. The reason we’re talking about this is that service lets take time, and apparently time is the enemy.

How much time?

The Match Charting Project has tracked lets in most of the 2,500-plus matches it has logged. Thus, we have some real-life data on the frequency of service lets. For today, I’ve limited our view to matches since 2010, which still gives us more than 2,000 matches to work with.

The average men’s match in the database, which consists of 151 total points, had six first-serve lets and fewer than one (0.875) second-serve let. Women’s matches are similar: Of the typical 139 points, there were 4.5 first-serve lets and 0.8 second-serve lets.

Let’s estimate the extra time all those lets are taking. After a first-serve let, most players restart their preparations, so let’s say a first-serve let is an extra 20 seconds. When the second serve is a let, most players are quicker to try again, so call that 10 seconds.

For the average men’s match in the database, that’s an extra 128 seconds–just over two minutes. For women, that’s 99 extra seconds per match. In both cases, the time consumed by service lets is less than one second per point.  Just about any other rule change aimed at speeding up the game would be more effective than that.

Even at the extremes, it’s tough to argue that service lets are taking too much time. Of all the matches in the charting database, none had more than 24 service lets, and that was in the 2012 London Olympics marathon between Roger Federer and Juan Martin Del Potro. Using the estimates I gave above, those 20 first-serve and four second-serve lets accounted for just over seven minutes of the total match time of 4:26.

Only one of the 1,000 women’s matches in the database featured more than 17 service lets or more than five let-attributable minutes: Petra Cetkovska‘s three-set upset of Angelique Kerber at the 2014 Italian Open. That outlier included 22 lets, which we would estimate at a cost of just under seven minutes.

Playing service lets wouldn’t destroy the very fabric of tennis as we know it, but it also wouldn’t substantially shorten matches. By changing the let rule, tennis executives would needlessly annoy players and fans for no noticeable benefit.

Read More

Djokovic Continues to Struggle as the Tennis Season Winds Down

Hi, folks. Sorry for the lack of posts recently. I have been writing exams so it’s been a bit crazy around here. I did, however, follow Shanghai which Murray won and where Djokovic lost 6-4, 6-4 in the semis to Bautista Agut.

Murray also won Beijing where Djokovic withdrew due to injury. That means Murray is currently only 915 points behind Djokovic in the race and he is making a run for the year-end number one because he is playing the ATP 500 event in Vienna next week as well.

The struggle for Djokovic is real and it reminds me a lot of the end of 2011 where he was also burned out and without confidence. In Shanghai Djokovic was already struggling in the quarterfinals against Micha Zverev winning 3-6, 7-6(4), 6-3.

So I guess it wasn’t all that surprising that he then lost to Bautista Agut. What was surprising was the scoreline and how poorly he played. There was a distinct lack of confidence and hesitation in the big moments.

This is, however, not all that surprising given the scope and duration of his dominance. It was always going to catch up with him, especially after winning the French Open. Ideally, he would have taken the year off after that but in tennis that is too complicated.

Actually, skipping slams is going a bit far so ideally he would have rested during the fall season but there are important things to play for like the year-end number one and a sixth World Tour Finals title.

Judging from his current form winning the World Tour Finals will be very difficult but he should still get the year-end number one with decent showings in Paris and London. I don’t know the exact scenario but that will currently be the focus for Djokovic.

I think Murray must basically win or make the final of all three events he is playing and that is going to be hard to do given his titles in Beijing and Shanghai. I think he will lose early in Vienna or Paris but it will be an interesting race between him and Djokovic.

• Djokovic’s Changed Outlook

As you know Djokovic recently said that he doesn’t want to think about number one or titles and that he wants to get his enjoyment of tennis back. I don’t think that has worked out so well for him in Shanghai because losing is never fun no matter how you look at it.

I understand where he is coming from, though. I have felt the same with this blog. Ever since I embraced Djokovic as Federer’s successor and gave him the credit I thought he deserved some Fedfans became bitter and it is like blogging almost became a competition between me and them.

As a result, I have lost my passion and enjoyment for blogging and have blogged less in recent times. I think that is how Djokovic feels to a certain extent after his dominance. There were so many expectations and hype that he didn’t enjoy the process anymore.

It was all about winning and breaking records and he lost sight of having fun out there. I feel like that with my blogging because I won the ‘competition’ with the Fedfans but lost my enjoyment of blogging along the way.

I just don’t feel the passion and enthusiasm I used to. And I’ve never seen this as a job so if I don’t feel like blogging I won’t. I am currently writing exams though which makes it hard to blog.

Maybe, like Djokovic, I need some time before I find my enthusiasm for blogging again. I don’t see him recovering his confidence and enjoyment before the end of the year but we will see. Maybe he finds some form in Paris and London.

I also don’t think he is declining like so many critics would like to believe. The burnout is normal. It happened in 2011 too and he came back just fine. I think he will find his mojo in Australia again next year but this has already been another very successful year for him.

Winning the French Open was the main thing. Anything else was going to be a bonus. I think he did well to win Toronto and to make the US Open final. Tying Federer’s six World Tour Finals titles this year will be difficult but ending the year as number one will be the main objective.

It would seem illogical that he won more slams and Masters than Murray and still doesn’t finish number one. Whatever the case may be the indoor season will be interesting to follow with that all-important race to number one!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Read More