IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/jqsprt/v14y2018i1p13-23n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the duration of professional tennis matches for varying formats

Author

Listed:
  • Kovalchik Stephanie Ann

    (Game Insight Group, Tennis Australia, Victoria, Australia)

  • Ingram Martin

    (Silverpond, Victoria, Australia)

Abstract

The duration of matches has been a common concern in professional tennis. Governing bodies have recently begun to introduce new match formats, like Fast4, to curb match lengths yet the impact of these formats on the professional game remains poorly understood. In this paper, we develop a shot-level Monte Carlo match simulation approach for estimating the duration, points played, and upset probability given a specific match format. Our model is built on validated models of the in-play and between-play time of matches using Hawk-eye tracking data and publicly available shot-level tennis statistics. When we applied our models to a variety of match formats with serve characteristics representative of current elite players, we found that Fast4 formats had an expected duration of 60 minutes, best of 3 averaged 90 minutes, and best of 5 averaged 120 minutes. Our results also showed that longer matches favor the better player and make match outcomes more predictable. Fast4 formats had a typical upset frequency of 20% compared to 13% for best of 3 matches and 10% for best of 5 matches. The modeling approach we have developed can be a useful resource for tennis governing bodies in assessing the impact of new match formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Kovalchik Stephanie Ann & Ingram Martin, 2018. "Estimating the duration of professional tennis matches for varying formats," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 13-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:14:y:2018:i:1:p:13-23:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/jqas-2017-0077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2017-0077
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jqas-2017-0077?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:14:y:2018:i:1:p:13-23:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.