Thirty30 Tennis y Tenis Tradicional: Comparativa
Palabras clave:
modelo probabilístico, efecto del marcador, cambios de reglasResumen
El Thirty30 es un formato más corto de tenis en el que los juegos comienzan en el 30-30. Esto significa que una mayor proporción de puntos son puntos de juego o puntos de ruptura que en el caso del tenis tradicional. El propósito del presente trabajo es comparar la probabilidad de que jugadores de diferentes habilidades ganen juegos, sets y partidos entre el tenis Thirty30 y el tradicional. Esto se hace utilizando modelos probabilísticos de cada formato de tenis. Los resultados muestran que hay un reducido dominio del saque y una mayor probabilidad de alteraciones en el Tenis Thirty30 que en el tenis tradicional. También se experimenta con los modelos, ajustando la probabilidad de ganar puntos cuando el punto es un punto de juego o un punto de ruptura. El documento muestra que tales efectos en el marcador tienen un mayor impacto en el tenis Thirty30 que en el tenis tradicional. Esto tiene implicaciones en la preparación de los jugadores para el tenis Thirty30.
Descargas
Citas
Born, P., & Vogt, T. (2018). Video analysis and video feedback in tennis: Using mobile devices to benefit digital teaching and learning. ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review, 75, 29-30.
Brams, S.J., & Ismail, M.S. (2018). Making rules fairer. SIAM Review, 60(1), 181-202, doi: 10.1137/16M1074540
Cowden, R.G. (2016). Competitive Performance Correlates of Mental Toughness in Tennis. Perceptual and motor skills, 123(1), 341-360. doi: 1177/0031512516659902
Croucher, J.S. (1982). The effect of the tennis tie-breaker. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, 336-339.
Croucher, J.S. (1986). The conditional probability of winning games of tennis. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 57, 23-26.
Cui, Y., Gómez, M-Á., Gonçalves, B., Lui, H., & Sampaio, J. (2017). Effects of experience and relative quality in Tennis Match Performance during Four Grand Slams. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 17, 783-801. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2017.1399325
Delgado-García, G., Vanrenterghem, J., Muñoz-García, A., Ruiz-Malagón, E.J., Mañas-Bastidas, A., & Soto-Hermoso, V.M. (2019). Probabilistic structure of errors in forehand and backhand groundstrokes of advanced tennis players. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 19, 698-710. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1647733
Fernandez-Fernandez, J., Sanz-Rivas, D., & Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2009). A review of the activity profile and physiological demands of tennis match play. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 31(4), 15-26.
Fischer, G. (1980). Exercise in probability and statistics, or the probability of winning at tennis. American Journal of Physics, 48, 14-19.
Fitzpatrick, A., Stone, J.A., Choppin, S., & Kelley, J. (2019). Important performance characteristics in elite clay and grass court tennis match-play. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 19, 942-952. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1685804
Gale, D. (1971). Optimal strategy for serving in tennis. Mathematics Magazine, 5, 197-9.
Gerchak, Y., & Kilgour, D.M. (2017). Serving strategy in tennis: accuracy v power. Mathematics Magazine, 90(3), 188-196.
Gescheit, D. T., Duffield, R., Skein, M., Brydon, N., Cormack, S. J., & Reid, M. (2016). Effects of consecutive days of match play on technical performance in tennis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 1988-1994. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1244352
Kilit, B., Şenel, Ö., Arslan, E., & Can, S. (2016). Physiological Responses and Match Characteristics in Professional Tennis Players during a One-Hour Simulated Tennis Match. Journal of Human Kinetics, 51, 83-92.
Klaasen, F.J.G.M., & Magnus, J.R. (2001). Are points in tennis independent and identically distributed? Evidence from a dynamic binary panel data model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 500-509.
Knight, G., & O’Donoghue, P.G. (2011). The probability of winning break points in Grand Slam men’s singles tennis. European Journal of sports Science, 12(6), 462-468. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2011.577239
Kovalchik, S.A., Sackmann, J., & Reid, M. (2017). Player, Official, or Machine?: Uses of the Challenge System in Professional Tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 17, 961-969.
Maraga, N., Duffield, R., Gescheit, D., Perri, T., & Reid, M. (2018). Playing not once, not twice but three times in a day: the effect of fatigue on performance in junior tennis players. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 18, 104-114. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1452110
McHale, I.G. (2010). Assessing the fairness of the golf handicapping system in the UK. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(10), 1033-41. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.495992
Mendez-Villanueva, A., Fernandez-Fernandez, J., Bishop, D., Fernandez-Garcia, B., & Terrados, N. (2007). Activity patterns, blood lactate concentrations and ratings of perceived exertion during a professional singles tennis tournament. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41, 296-300.
Milne, M.J. (2018). Thirty30: where every point counts. Retrived from https://thirty30tennis.com
Morris, C. (1977). The most important points in tennis. In Ladany, S.P. & Machol, R.E. (Eds.), Optimal Strategies in Sport (pp. 131-140). New York: North Holland.
Newton, P.K., & Aslam, K. (2006). Monte Carlo tennis. SIAM Review, 48, 722-742.
O’Donoghue, P. G. (2001). The most important points in Grand Slam singles tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 125-131.
O’Donoghue, P.G. (2012). Break points in Grand Slam men’s singles tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 12, 156-165. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2012.11868591
O’Donoghue, P.G. (2013). Rare events in tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 13, 535-552. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2013.11868668
O’Donoghue, P.G., & Ingram, B. (2001). A notational analysis of elite tennis strategy. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 107-115. doi: 10.1080/026404101300036299
O’Donoghue, P.G.; & Simmonds, E. (2019). Probability of winning and match length in Tiebreak Ten tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 19, 402-416. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1615296
Pollard, G.H. (1983). An analysis of classical and tie-breaker tennis. Australian Journal of Statistics, 25(3), 496-505.
Pollard, G.H. (2002). An effect of the variation of the assumption that the probability of winning a point in tennis is constant. Proceedings of the 6th Australian Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport (pp. 221-226). Sydney: University of Technology.
Pollard, G., & Barnett, T. (2018). Some new ‘Short Games’ within a set of tennis. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 17(1), 67-76. doi: 10.2478/ijcss-2018-0003
Pollard G. H., & Noble, K. (2003). Scoring to remove long matches, increase tournament fairness and reduce injuries. Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis, 8(3), 12-13.
Reid, M., Morgan, S., & Whiteside, D. (2016). Matchplay characteristics of Grand Slam tennis: implications for training and conditioning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(19), 1791-1798. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1139161
Simmonds, E., & O’Donoghue, P.G. (2018). Probabilistic models comparing Fast4 and traditional tennis. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 17(2), 141-162. doi: 10.2478/ijcss-2018-0008
Söğüt, M. (2018). Stature: does it really make a difference in match-play outcomes among professional tennis players?. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 18, 255-261. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1466259
Standard. (2016). Rains wreaks havoc at Wimbledon but ‘People’s Sunday’ still unlikely. Retrieved from https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/tennis/rain-wreaks-havoc-on-day-three-of-wimbledon-but-peoples-sunday-remains-unlikely-a3284391.html
Torres, C.R. (2014). The Bloomsburg Companion to Philosophy of Sport. London, UK: Bloomsburg Publishing.
Williams, J. (2008). Rule changes in sport and the role of notation. In Hughes, M. & Franks, I.M. (Eds.), The Essentials of Performance Analysis: an introduction (pp.226-242). London: Routledge.
Wright, B., Rodenberg, M.R., & Sackmann, J. (2013). Incentives in Best of N Contests: Quasi-Simpson’s Paradox in Tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 13(3), 790-802. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2013.11868689
