Excellent comment.

Clearly ain’t clueless then

you must be a fantastic server even for your level...

The score does not reject aces and double faults so what should you ignore them when searching for the statistics that decide how matches are won or lost?

not sure what you mean, but the system described in the video rejects DFs as a zero count.... better to count everything, even if the shot misses it is still a shot....then counting every shot, you can interpret the data better as well.... @@Whisper555

Not necessarily. Two notable exceptions to your rule from the past: John McEnroe and Patrick Rafter. They used their athleticism to get to and win at net.

@@georgepalavi5060 Not as possible like it was in the past. And Mcenroe had a solid ground game and still does

are you suggesting they didn't use excellent shots to approach net?? @@georgepalavi5060

You miss the point

@@2017Fedthe point is bs

L

He´s better in Math and statistics than he admits, that´s clear.

@@miguelbarahona6636 what evidence do you have?

@@chtomlin How do you interpret his data.

@@miguelbarahona6636 well I think he virtually has it all wrong except maybe he is right that many coaches don't get the importance of the serve and return, although that is extremely hard to believe since it is so obvious even with NO stats. He is surprised that the avg hits in a rally is low and surprised that the mode is so low in a sport that is designed around those 2 issues. Somehow he decides that a low avg rally means that practice to extend rallys is nearly a waste of time. He thinks that there is only one type of error, when separating the Ue vs the Forced error is one of the few things tennis stats has gotten right over the yrs, lol. In reality, it would have been better to say there is no winner vs forced error. In both cases you have been successful in taking the point, when only the Ue is the point given to you or you gave it away. He doesn't seem to realize that in a sport that is decided normally by a very small spread, how extending point is so key and especially in terms of the all important "breaking serve" where the longer the point goes, the greater the chance of the returner's chances. He looks at averages in many cases where the key is the match-up with little to do with the past avg. So basically all the points he makes are confused and show a lack of understanding for the game, scoring and stats in general.....hope this helps

@@chtomlin I think, that you are successful if you hit a winner, force an error or the opponent makes an unforced error. You win the point. Tennis is an sport of errors. Every time you put the ball in play, you give the chance any of those 3 things to happen. I´ve not analized all that statistics Craig shows, but I know he´s the man that (analizing Djokovic´s game), told Novak to hit more forehands (even though he has the best backhand ever and even when many people think Novak´s forehand is not that good), with great success. Craig says it´s important to have consistency, and of course, break points are crucial points on matches. Maybe he knows somethig about the game. I think Djokovic wouldn´t have hired him otherwise.

yes, he only counts the shots that land in. For example, a double fault would be a zero and really tends to pull the avg down doesn't it.

Only one guy from the comments who understand the silly of that stat. Bravo brother)

It is an unreturned serve

Er is een combinatie van plezier in trainingen met de technische vaardigheden ontwikkelen. Het heeft denk ik alles te maken met welke leraar je te maken hebt. Een goede leraar maakt het verschil tussen door willen gaan met tennissen en stoppen. In vele gevallen.