Differences in competition statistics between winners and losers in male and female tennis players in Olympic Games

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine differences in the performance indicators between winners and losers in male and female high-level tennis players. One hundred twenty-eight tennis singles matches played on grass court surface of London 2012 Olympic Games were analyzed. Data were collected from the official website of the Olympics and the following groups of variables were analyzed: serve variables (n=7), serve return variables (n=3) and game related variables (n=5). The results showed that winners had greater (p<0.05) values of second serve (%), aces, first and second serve points won (%), points won on first and second serve return (%), break points played and break points won (%). Furthermore, they get more, winners with both groundstrokes and net points won (%) than losers in both sexes. Furthermore, losers committed more doubles faults than winners, and in male category more unforced errors, whereas female winners get higher serve maximum speed (p<0.05). Performance indicators according to the result of the match predicted that break points won, first serve points won (%) and first serve return points won (%) are the most relevant variables in males (SC = .434; SC = .340; SC = .327), whereas it was the break points won (SC =-.372) in females. Therefore, coaches should consider the variation of the competition statistics by gender if they want enhance the chances of success of their players.

Notational analysis in female grand slam tennis competitions

“…server name, player on the court, score, and point outcome) stored in a file (Whiteside & Reid, 2017). In addition, some studies have calculated the reliability of the data by comparing them with expert observations with high accuracy validity (Cui, et al, 2017(Cui, et al, , 2018Fernández-García, Blanca-Torres, Nikolaidis, & Torres-Luque, 2019). Following these investigations, the reliability of the data was confirmed.…”

“…Moreover, data showed that, in all the Grand Slams, the winners achieved a significantly higher percentage of receiving points than the losers, probably because the winner players played more aggressive when returning the opponents' serves (Fernández-García, et al, 2019), so they had a higher number of break points played and break points won.…”

“…Furthermore, the results showed that the winner players had a significantly higher number of winner shots and a lower number of unforced errors in all the Grand Slam tournaments. This could be due to better tactical decisions and technical performance of the winners (Fernández-García, et al, 2019).…”

Análisis de las variables técnico-tácticas relacionas con el último golpe del punto en el tenis de alto rendimiento

“…Si a los porcentajes obtenidos por Fitzpatrick et al (2019) para los golpes ganadores se les elimina la parte correspondiente a los saques directos, los resultados son prácticamente idénticos a los nuestros (13,0% en los ganadores Vs 11,4% de los perdedores). Por tanto y en consenso con los datos obtenidos por otros estudios (Cui et al, 2017;Fernández-García et al, 2019;, se pone de manifiesto que los ganadores son más eficaces en el último golpe del punto, ya que consiguen una mayor cantidad de golpes ganadores y cometen menos errores.…”

“…Por otro lado, los estudios de Martínez-Gallego et al (2013 y 2017) concluyen que los ganadores de los partidos pasan más tiempo en zonas ofensivas que los perdedores y que estos últimos recorren una mayor distancia y a más velocidad que los ganadores, lo que indica que habitualmente los ganadores adoptan tácticas más ofensivas y llevan a sus rivales a jugar en zonas más alejadas y en posiciones más forzadas, razón que probablemente está asociada al hecho de que éstos comentan más errores (Pollard et al, 2006) y finalicen menos puntos en la red. Con respecto a esto último, no sólo parece que los jugadores que pierden suben menos a la red, sino que además, cuando lo hacen obtienen una menor eficacia (67-71% ganadores Vs 61-64% perdedores), tal y como concluyen trabajos anteriormente mencionados (Fernández-García et al, 2019;Fitzpatrick et al, 2019).…”