Female tennis players, not clutch

[JaredL]

A couple weeks ago, in my department there was a recruitment seminar given by a soon to be Ph.D. from Hebrew University in Israel that I thought would be of interest to some of you. He analyzed grand-slam tennis matches to determine whether men and women choke under pressure. Here is a link (pdf) to his paper.

Basically, he used data from previous years to determine objectively the importance of each point. The importance of a point is given by the effect of winning/losing it on the probability of winning the match. So a point in a game set where you're losing 5-0 isn't as important as when it's 5-4. Also, he included the players' ranks in there. So if Roger Federer is playing against me, there basically are no important points, but if he's playing someone who could beat him (ok bad exaple perhaps) then pretty much every point will be more important. One important fact is that due to the competitive nature of the game, if we are playing against each other then if a point is important for you, then it must be equally important for me.

He then looks at the difference in the percentage of points ending in unforced errors based on the importance of the point. In men, there is no difference whatsoever - they perform just as well or poorly on important points as unimportant points. Women, on the other hand, have a significantly higher percentage of unforced errors on important points. An unforced error is one where the player is able to set their feet and return it and they fail to put it back into play.

There are two plausible explanations for this:
1. Women choke on important points.
2. Women play more conservatively on important points.

If both players play more conservatively then the likelihood of an unforced error ending the point goes up. In the extreme, if we just stood in the middle and kept hitting it easy and directly to each other the point is 100% certain to end with an unforced error. There is evidence that they get more conservative on these points - their first serves are slower on average on important points than unimportant ones and they get them in a higher percentage of the time (both of these are unchanged for men).

Since the two can't fully be separated, it's impossible to say which explanation is more valid, they probably both are true to some extent.

[noggindrill]

sharapova

[fnurt]

Couldn't you determine if the play is more conservative by looking at the average number of hits?

[Colt McCoy]

I don't know anything about men choking, but in my experience all women need to eliminate gag reflex is more practice. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't you determine if the play is more conservative by looking at the average number of hits?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting idea.

It's hard to say though because if the play is more conservative and they are choking you could have more hits, less hits, or the same amount.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple weeks ago, in my department there was a recruitment seminar given by a soon to be Ph.D. from Hebrew University in Israel that I thought would be of interest to some of you. He analyzed grand-slam tennis matches to determine whether men and women choke under pressure. Here is a link (pdf) to his paper.

Basically, he used data from previous years to determine objectively the importance of each point. The importance of a point is given by the effect of winning/losing it on the probability of winning the match. So a point in a game set where you're losing 5-0 isn't as important as when it's 5-4. Also, he included the players' ranks in there. So if Roger Federer is playing against me, there basically are no important points, but if he's playing someone who could beat him (ok bad exaple perhaps) then pretty much every point will be more important. One important fact is that due to the competitive nature of the game, if we are playing against each other then if a point is important for you, then it must be equally important for me.

He then looks at the difference in the percentage of points ending in unforced errors based on the importance of the point. In men, there is no difference whatsoever - they perform just as well or poorly on important points as unimportant points. Women, on the other hand, have a significantly higher percentage of unforced errors on important points. An unforced error is one where the player is able to set their feet and return it and they fail to put it back into play.

There are two plausible explanations for this:
1. Women choke on important points.
2. Women play more conservatively on important points.

If both players play more conservatively then the likelihood of an unforced error ending the point goes up. In the extreme, if we just stood in the middle and kept hitting it easy and directly to each other the point is 100% certain to end with an unforced error. There is evidence that they get more conservative on these points - their first serves are slower on average on important points than unimportant ones and they get them in a higher percentage of the time (both of these are unchanged for men).

Since the two can't fully be separated, it's impossible to say which explanation is more valid, they probably both are true to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing you didn't post this in the politics forums. Because we all know men and women are mentally identical.

[Hoya]

This is why a woman should never be president.

[Bill Murphy]

Interesting.

And ironic, as Serena didn't bother to challenge Sharapova's winner on the last point of the penultimate game in Melbourne, which the replay did show was out. Cariilo said, "she just wants to serve this out", which she did with authority.

[Dominic]

this reminds me of when I was a young tennis player and very into watching the pros play- both male and female. The men of that era akmost always "went for it" and if they lost, so be it. McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, etc. Even the clay-courters like Vilas and Gueralitas and Dibbs were aggressive. If they lost, they either got beaten by a better player that day or they played horribly. I rarely saw one of these men "choke."

On the female side, there was only Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. They were both heads and shoulders above every one else. in pure talent. Navratilova was clearly the better athlete of the two. Every so often, A Tracy Austin or a Pam Shriver would challenge the status quo, but it was really just these two. Later of course, Steffi Graff came into the picture, but it was only after Evert had peaked.

I noticed two things on the female side: one, Chris Evert was perhaps the most mentally tough athlete that ever lived. She won on pure will 99% of the time. She never choked. Ever.

Navratilova on the other hand, while obviously a superb tennis player, choked quite often. When she'd win - and she almost always won - she'd do so in a romp. However, if the match was close and the points began meaning more and more, the tighter she got. I bet if you look at her results in Grand Slams, the majority of her final match wins would be decisive, while the majority of her final match losses would be very close.

Anyway, interesting article.

[zer0]

[ QUOTE ]
Navratilova on the other hand, while obviously a superb tennis player, choked quite often. When she'd win - and she almost always won - she'd do so in a romp. However, if the match was close and the points began meaning more and more, the tighter she got. I bet if you look at her results in Grand Slams, the majority of her final match wins would be decisive, while the majority of her final match losses would be very close.

Anyway, interesting article.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldn't the logical explanation here be that because she was so good, she would very rarely get blown out? nobody is ever going to go undefeated, the fact that she rarely gets blown out is a testament as to how good she actually was.