Talk About Tennis 2.0

Kostyuk is out in the 1st round - three 7-5 sets to Rebecca Peterson.
And I am happy that the tournament, the fans, and the players won't have to deal with her negative disrespect toward selected fellow players - at least not in singles.

Kalinskaya beat Parks 6-1, 6-1 in 56 minutes.
In exactly what year do you think Parks will win Wimbledon?

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:23 am As a rule of thumb, anything with a sample of less than 15 events is basically non-deterministic.

which is why we should not rely on all this in a discussion on tennis

Deuce wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:27 am

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:06 am Munar argued, to no avail, that he should've gotten the point because Wu's racquet touched the net before the ball bounced the second time. There was a problem with the replay system though. Munar was the beneficiary of a questionable call in the first set.

^ Very interesting situation...

In the end, I believe that Munar is right. If the player, his.her clothes, shoes, socks, or racquet hits the net before the point is officially over (ie before the ball bounces twice), he/she loses the point.

It is true that Munar had no chance to reach the dive volley shot - but that is irrelevant to the rule. The rule is there for a reason. In this case, it could be said that Wu could not have hit that shot without having his racquet hit the net - so this nullifies the shot.

The only question, I feel, would be whether Wu was still holding the racquet when it touched the net. If yes, he loses the point - period. If not, I don't know what the rule states about a racquet touching the net before the second bounce if the player is not holding it.
To me, this could be the only way that Wu could claim the point - if the rule states that a raquet is allowed to touch the net before the second bounce if the player is not touching a part of the racquet when it touches the net.

I will ask my umpire friends about this case when I get the chance.

I asked one of my umpire friends about this - I sent him the video, and we talked about it on the phone.
He said that it's pretty black & white - that it should have been Munar's point (and thus that the tiebreak should have continued).
He said that if the player or any part of his/her paraphernalia (racquet, clothing, wristband, hat, shoes, etc.) touches the net before the point is officially over (second bounce of the ball), that player loses the point.
He said that even if the player's vibration dampener flies into the net before the point is over, that player loses the point. The player does not have to be in physical contact with the item that touches the net, he said.

I wonder if there will be any follow-up to this situation - and if there is, I wonder if we'll hear about it. If my umpire friend is correct, I expect that the chair umpire in that match will get a talking to.
(I assume that my umpire friend is right, as he is pretty astute with the rules - but then, he is only a white badge chair umpire, and is more often on the court as a linesperson than he is in the chair ).

It all comes down to if a player or a player's piece of equipment/clothing touches the net with or without contact to them before the ball bounces on the other side of the net twice regardless if his/her opponent can retrieve that said ball. The player who touches the net or equipment touches the net loses the point and the point. Munar should have won the point.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:06 am The Infosys prediction - probability of win in each match is based on data...if our judgment beats that, it will tell us our judgment is better than data and analytics.. First up..Kenin vs Sloane..prediction is 50-50. If Kenin is fit (no clue about that) she will win..the court is too slow for Sloane. Let us see what happens.

Now the predictor says 52% Kenin!! I wonder what new intelligence it acquired in 24 hours!

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:34 pm

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:06 am The Infosys prediction - probability of win in each match is based on data...if our judgment beats that, it will tell us our judgment is better than data and analytics.. First up..Kenin vs Sloane..prediction is 50-50. If Kenin is fit (no clue about that) she will win..the court is too slow for Sloane. Let us see what happens.

Now the predictor says 52% Kenin!! I wonder what new intelligence it acquired in 24 hours!

Bets were placed on either side.
Let's say that 100 people are betting on Kenin. For example, Ashkor01 through Ashkor101 posted bets, and a considerable number of them put their money on Kenin. Those are new data, and the algorithm takes them into account. So, most likely, a few more people are betting on Kenin and now the odds are reflecting that.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:14 am

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:23 am As a rule of thumb, anything with a sample of less than 15 events is basically non-deterministic.

which is why we should not rely on all this in a discussion on tennis

Why not? It's just data. You look at it, and decide how much weight you want to put on it.
An example. At Wimby last year, Iga looked uncomfortable. And, before the Alize match, I said Iga would lose. And she did.
Hooray! Ponchi101 is a genius! No, not really. That time, I saw at some data, saw Iga playing, and felt that Alize had a better chance. I got a bit lucky.
And the day when I said that Djokovic would not win the Tour Finals, I did not become an idiot. I had my reasons. Ended up being wrong, but I tried to look at the whole picture and felt somebody would tag him.
It is just data. And, when you have so little of it, you try to do the best you can. Hey, you claimed that Iga had over 50% chance of winning the Aussie. You were wrong, but that does not make any of your analysis useless. Simply, the other 50% chance won.

This is the point in the first set that was a bit controversial and resulted in a long conversation with the chair.

I can't tell.
Can't the new hawk-eye tell if it is a double bounce?

Alicia Parks out in R1, 1 & 1.
A tough match up, but together with Kostyuk, another player that recently had success and now the wheels fell off again.

Galfi took the first set 6-4 from Collins and just broke her for a 2-1 lead in the second set. Collins is not sitting down during the changeover.

It looks like Collins woke up. She's 4-2 second set.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:10 pm Alicia Parks out in R1, 1 & 1.
A tough match up, but together with Kostyuk, another player that recently had success and now the wheels fell off again.

Parks' success seems to be almost entirely indoors. I think a tennis journalist I follow calls her the Indoor Queen or something in that vicinity (which is a stretch, but you get the idea). Those wheels were shaky the moment she left the European Indoor Tournaments. Until she figures out how to work with the elements more consistently, I think she's going to be on a cycle of impressive to not so much in the blink of an eye.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 pm Galfi took the first set 6-4 from Collins and just broke her for a 2-1 lead in the second set. Collins is not sitting down during the changeover.

That's a very regular thing for her FYI, not an indication of anything.