You are here: Homepage » Articles » WTA Point Outcome-Further Discussion
Welcome: Guest User | Sign In
Articles Panel Base
Articles Panel Base
About ProCompare Tennis
ProCompare Panel Base
WTA Point Outcome-Further Discussion

More information for tactical development
By: Peter D. McCraw

WTA Point Outcome Study 2007 - Further Discussion

Rule 2: This rule demonstrates both positive court and shot geometry working for the
player. As surface speed increased the number of forced errors decreased because
positive court geometry was working with the surface speed to enhance the
effectiveness of the Rule. As the speed of surface increased the number of winners
also increased. There was 15% more winners to forced errors made when compared
to Rule 4.

Kirilenko BackhandRule 3:
Employs negative court geometry and should be used as a tactical rule. Its
tactical use can be validated as it accounts for only 13.8% of total point outcomes
and the outcome type is surface dependent.

Rule 4: As surface speed increases more forced errors are made as players are
reaching the ball. Here negative court geometry is more of a factor than surfacespeed.
There was no more than a 2% difference in the number of winners hit on eachsurface using Rule 4. However, there were 15% fewer winners than forced errors
compared to Rule 2. Hence, if the influence of surface speed was greater than
negative court geometry, more winners would occur.

Toread the full article click here and a fully detailed PDF will open in a new window

Advertise to thousands of ProCompare members - Click for more info