Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[ponchi101]

It took me a while, I got this done. After analyzing the data for retirements since 2000, this is it:

retirements.jpg

Not only there has been no increase in the number of retirements in that span, a trendline indicates that there have been fewer retirements as of late.
The WTA DATA is here.
The ATP DATA is here.

Original data from here.
https://data.world/tylerudite/wta-match-data

[Deuce]

I think we can discount 2020 - because of the effect of COVID, everything was skewed - fewer tournaments were played, lots of players missed tournaments, etc., etc., resulting in a significantly lower percentage than any other year on the chart.

WTA percentage is higher than ATP in recent years, which is not surprising.

Does the percentage take into account withdrawals between matches, or just in-match retirements? That's not clear.
I'd like to see the stats for both combined, as I feel the two are directly related.

Lastly, I'd still like to see the stats for, say, 1970 to 2000, and compare them to the above data.

[ponchi101]

I kept looking at some of these data, and found something interesting.
The percentage of RETIREMENTS, for the WTA, at Slams is significantly lower than at other tournaments. I looked at Slams Vs the top two other tiers, and Slams suffer only about half the retirements than other tournaments (ATP analysis pending). So, players seem to indeed give a bit more at the majors.
For all tiers, though, levels in the 2007-2021 window are dropping.

Tiers.jpg

[meganfernandez]

I kept looking at some of these data, and found something interesting.
The percentage of RETIREMENTS at Slams is significantly lower than at other tournaments. I looked at Slams Vs the top two other tiers, and Slams suffer only about half the retirements than other tournaments (WTA data, ATP pending). So, players seem to indeed give a bit more at the majors.
For all tiers, though, levels in the 2007-2021 window are dropping.

Tiers.jpg

Mases sense since there is more at stake at Slams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cuckoo4Coco]

Elena I think has the make up to win another slam or two. She has a terrific serve and if she can keep her unforced errors down she can win a lot of points.

The main thing is how will the other ladies on the tour progress. Will there be someone who steps up and starts to dominate the WTA tour?

[ponchi101]

Iga has been pretty dominant. We cannot go and say "Oh, she lost to Cornet at W, she sucks!". Her streak was not only a long one, it was over a span of very relevant tournaments.
The thing is: will she have a real rival? Who can step there? Suliso pointed out that we will never know how good of a rivalry we were robbed of, when Barty retired.
I say: she is above the rest right now. With a bit of a break now (her early loss) and her track record this year on hard courts, she is the favorite for the USO. The streak has been broken, she likes the surface, the ball bounces more into her comfort zone. And she is about 4,000 points above everybody (more or less). She is the target.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

Iga has been pretty dominant. We cannot go and say "Oh, she lost to Cornet at W, she sucks!". Her streak was not only a long one, it was over a span of very relevant tournaments.
The thing is: will she have a real rival? Who can step there? Suliso pointed out that we will never know how good of a rivalry we were robbed of, when Barty retired.
I say: she is above the rest right now. With a bit of a break now (her early loss) and her track record this year on hard courts, she is the favorite for the USO. The streak has been broken, she likes the surface, the ball bounces more into her comfort zone. And she is about 4,000 points above everybody (more or less). She is the target.

Iga is the heavy favorite going into the US Open for sure. I do hope someone like Emma can step up again and Coco can really make a mark at this tournament as well. Also Leylah is someone I'd like to see do well at the US Open.

[Deuce]

Over the past 30 years or so, and continuing today, some players view the non-Majors as simply tune-ups for the Majors - particularly the tournaments in the month leading up to a Major.
They'll go in with the idea that they'll give an effort up to a certain point in a non-Major, and after that point they won't effectively 'tank', but they won't give 100%, either, and are thankful for the added rest.

When a top player loses in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round of a non-Major leading up to a Major, I'm always amused when people are shocked. A lot of people think that all the top players give 100% in every match at every tournament. But that's just not true.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

Over the past 30 years or so, and continuing today, some players view the non-Majors as simply tune-ups for the Majors - particularly the tournaments in the month leading up to a Major.
They'll go in with the idea that they'll give an effort up to a certain point in a non-Major, and after that point they won't effectively 'tank', but they won't give 100%, either, and are thankful for the added rest.

When a top player loses in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round of a non-Major leading up to a Major, I'm always amused when people are shocked. A lot of people think that all the top players give 100% in every match at every tournament. But that's just not true.

I see your point with the top players doing this that already have huge bank accounts, but this is only for those at the top of the game. Not those who don't win the huge prize money events on a regular basis which is most of the players.

For example like Elena Rybakina who is a fairly highly ranked women's player and just won a huge amount of prize money, but I don't see her going into these hard court events and after the 2nd or 3rd round tanking to get some extra rest. She is going to use these events to prepare the best she can for the US Open.

[Deuce]

I didn't say that they tank matches. I said that they don't give 100%. There is a difference...
Tanking is basically deliberately trying to lose. Not giving 100% is more like allowing your opponent to dictate and decide the outcome.
But there is some deliberate tanking happening in these situations, as well. Mostly, it's just not giving 100%, though, and being ok with losing so as to get a rest in the weeks before a Major if they've played a lot recently.

And, yes, it is mostly the top players who do this at non-Majors, as I mentioned.
Sometimes they'll lose to a local player, which makes the local fans happy and helps the ticket sales to continue.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

I didn't say that they tank matches. I said that they don't give 100%. There is a difference...
Tanking is basically deliberately trying to lose. Not giving 100% is more like allowing your opponent to dictate and decide the outcome.
But there is some deliberate tanking happening in these situations, as well. Mostly, it's just not giving 100%, though, and being ok with losing so as to get a rest in the weeks before a Major if they've played a lot recently.

And, yes, it is mostly the top players who do this at non-Majors, as I mentioned.
Sometimes they'll lose to a local player, which makes the local fans happy and helps the ticket sales to continue.

I still think that would come from the very top player who has earned quite the amount of prize money along the way. The majority of these players are not in the category though. I am not saying that a lot of regular top players are struggling financially because they are not, but they are trying to reach a higher level and to do that it means winning these matches. Players like Nadal, Djokovic, Medevdev, sure they can do that sure of thing, but I don't think it would happen as much on the women's side unless it was someone like a Simona Halep, Karolina Pliskova, Mugu (maybe), Kerber. Azarenka. I just don't see the younger players doing this.

[Deuce]

Which is what I said.

[ti-amie]

I hope people take time to notice the difference in prize money between the ATP 250's and the WTA 250's coming up next week.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

Which is what I said.

Then I agree 100% with you on that. Those type of players sure. The Brandon Nakashima's, Tommy Paul's, Amanda Anisimova's, Clara Tauson's, No way are they not giving 100% every time they go out at these smaller events.

[ponchi101]

I was too fast in saying that, based on the WTA analysis, players actually gave it a bit more at slams.
For the ATP, the data reversed:

ATP Rets.jpg

For the men's, there are actually MORE retirements at Grand Slams that at regular tournaments. There are some years in which maybe there were more retirements at lower Series (MS1000 in 2006 & 2009, MS500 in 2010 & 2020) but by and large, it is at Grand Slams that players retire the most, IN THE ATP (we saw that in the WTA it is the opposite, and without exception, although is is a smaller sample).
So. Hypothesis.
1. Women are vile, manipulative, I-could-not-care-less-about-this tournament witches that only play for the money and glory of the slams. The moment they get hiccups at, for example, Charleston, they are out. They will have bigger fish to fry at the next Slam, and they don't care about other matches.
2. Men are lazy, cowardly, good for nothing disgraceful bums. When they get to the big stage, and it gets tough, they pack it. Down one break in the first set of a slam, they simply don't have the gazongas to fight it out. Hey, I already made whatever round I made, that is enough money, and next week I can make that great paycheck at Umag, Buenos Aires or a Challenger in Albania. But putting the effort at a Slam is beyond my dignity.

And I know that men and women are different, but not that much. Alternative hypotheses can be made.
3. Women at slams, like everybody else, get a day off in between matches. That gives them time to tend to injuries and/or maladies with more care, and that allows them to stay in matches they would have to quit if they had played three days in a row. Also, because women always play Best-of-3, slams may be actually easier on their bodies, and the day of rest really helps them be ready for 7 matches over two weeks.
4. Men also get the day off, but, playing best-of-5, the chances that some injury will occur over that span increases. Injuries early in a match that could be acceptable for 1 or 2 more sets, aggravate through the rigors of 5 sets, leading to the retirement. At MS1000's and MS500's, where even some players get 1st round byes, the fewer matches played allow for more time to recover and heal.

Any other hypothesis welcomed, and ideas on how to test them too.