Thirty30 Versus TennisProfiler
Differences & Similarities between traditional games and games starting at 30-30
This article has been written especially by TennisProfiler for Thirty30 tennis (www.thirty30tennis.com). Here is the description of Thirst30 tennis by Mark Milne, his creator.
Thirty30 tennis is the innovational and complementary alternative scoring method that brings tennis into the 21st century producing shorter more exciting sets of tennis – every game starts at 30-30. There is an appetite within tennis for shorter format matches. A set of Thirty30 takes in general no longer than 20-25 minutes to complete. Thrity30 can reinvigorate tennis and help grow the game worldwide.
“The beauty of it, is that it is very simple and the transition between playing traditional tennis and Thirty30 tennis is seamless for players, audiences, officials, etc.” Mark Milne is trying to build a case to apply to the ITF to amend the rules of tennis and his ultimate goal is to have this complementary scoring method in Appendix V (Alternative Scoring Methods) of the ITF Rules of Tennis.
Tennis Profiler’s job was to analyze nine professional tennis matches that took place at the end of the 2017 season or in January this year and pointed out the differences & similarities between the results of the traditional score method (points of the full matches) and the Thirty30 score method (all the points from 30-30).
In the traditional game method, 3204 points were played in these nine matches. When only taken from 30-30, 560 points were played in the Thirty30 score method. Tennis Profiler made two distinct balance sheets (traditional & Thirty30) and then compared both statistic results.
The Serve's Similarities & Differences
Differences
•The First Serve Percentage: 2% higher with the Thirty30 score method (63% vs 61%)
•The First Serve Effectiveness (% of aces/service winners): 4% lower with the Thirty30 score method (33% vs 37%)
•The Second Serve Won Points: 8% lower with the Thirty30 score method (40% vs 48%)
•The Second Serve Effectiveness (% of aces/service winners): 3% lower with the Thirty30 score method (0% vs 3%)
Similarities
•The First Serve Won Points: 73% in both score methods
•The Double Faults Ratio: 11% in both score methods
Conclusions
We can clearly see that from 30-30, the players took slightly less risks with their first but also second serves. The first serve percentage rose by 2% but the effectiveness went down 4% on first serve and 3% on second serve. The results of the first & second serve won points will be discussed later in this article.
The Return's Similarities & Differences
Differences
•The Second Serve Points Won: 8% higher with the Thirty30 score method (60% vs 52%)
•The Ratio of Return Errors: 40% lower with the Thirty30 score method
•The Ratio of Return Points: 20% lower with the Thirty30 score method
Similarities
•The First Serve Return Won Points: 27% in both score methods
Conclusions
We can clearly see that from 30-30, the players took slightly less risks on the return making 40% less errors but also 20% less points with that shot. However, they got more effective on the second serve winning 8% more points than the traditional score method.
The Forehand's Similarities & Differences
Differences
•The Ratio of Forehand Points: 20% higher with the Thirty30 score method.
•The Ratio of Forehand Errors: 20% higher with the Thirty30 score method.
•The Forehand Effectiveness according to the Rally Lengths: the Thirty30 score method got more effective forehand results on the first shot after the serve or return (between 3 & 4 shots, 20% points more) than the traditional score method but this tendency reversed in the rallies over 5 shots (20% more errors). We notice than in the rallies below 5 shots, the 1-2 forehand approach worked really well. In the rallies over 5 shots, this is the forehand down the line that got the worst results (balance & low percentage of points won after a forehand in that direction).
Similarities
•The Forehand Balance (difference between points & errors): in the end both score methods got the same forehand result.
Conclusions
We can clearly see that from 30-30, the players took more risks with the forehand making more points & errors. They got more effective in the very short rallies (between 3 & 4 shots) but then started to be impatient and miss especially with the forehand down the line in the rallies over 5 shots.The increase of the points/errors ratio with the forehand can be the consequence of a lower risk taking with the serve & the return as we saw it previously.
The Backhand's Similarities & Differences
Differences
•The Ratio of Backhand Points: 30% lower with the Thirty30 score method. This is with the backhand down the line that this lack of points was the most noticed.
Similarities
•The Ratio of Backhand Errors. This is also with the backhand down the line that the ratio of errors was above the average of the ATP players.
Conclusions
We can clearly see that from 30-30, the players took slightly less risks with the backhand but still made the same amount of errors. It was especially the backhand down the line effectiveness that collapsed.
The Volley's Similarities & Differences
Differences
•The Percentage of Points Won at the Net: 3% lower with the Thirty30 score method (69% vs 72%)
•The Total Percentage of Points Won at the Net: 2% lower with the Thirty30 score method (15% vs 17%)
Similarities
•The Volley Balance (difference between points & errors).
Conclusions
We notice that the only area where the Thirty30 score method got better results than the traditional score method is with the 1-2 punch approach (on the first shot after the serve; 77% vs 73%). As seen previously, this was the first forehand after the serve that was more effective for the Thirty30 score and this first forehand was more often followed to the net (1-2 punch approach).
Final Conclusion
As we could see in that analysis of nine professional matches, from 30-30, the players tended to take slightly less risks with their serve, return, backhand & even at the net in order to try to make the difference with their forehand. It has to be said that the players who won these matches took 60% of their advantage over their rivals with the forehand. They made on average 2 times more points and 30% less errors with that shot than them.
However, if all the tennis matches had to really start at 30-30, the results could be totally different because of the psychological effect. It would be very interesting to see how the players would change their way of playing with that kind of score format. Maybe some would play much more aggressively or defensively. Or they would just more play like this research with the forehand!
SHARING!
If you read through that article and liked it, I would really appreciate if you could share it on social media (Facebook, Twitter...) or tennis forum (MensTennisForum, Talk Tennis at Tennis Warehouse or another one).
