2 ms·

Tennis players should challenge more calls

12 points by cwan 16y ago

thisisnotmyname 16y ago
It's too bad the article doesn't include more numbers on accuracy - it would be interesting to see if there's a big difference between the ruling of the on-court judges and the camera system. It'd also be interesting to know how often close calls happen on important points, and how often those are challenged. My guess would be that challenges are almost always used when the point matters, and the low challenge rate is because most controversial calls happen in routine situations like 40-love.
hristov 16y ago
Sigh, let us think about this: could it be that players just don't see any more challenge-able balls? I mean if someone already averages about 30% per challenge for their existing challenges, it is unlikely that any additional challenges will be worthy at all.
healthyhippo 16y ago
The psychological impact of being wrong is big enough to do it very often. Everyone going "oooooh... AHH" when they show the slow-motion ball cam, and most of the time its out. Then everyone looks at you like you're the asshole. All of a sudden you're vilified, and home court advantage can shift over. There's little to be gained unless it was truly very close and the call went against you.
JacobAldridge 16y ago
This article would have been better argued had it provided stats on close calls which SHOULD have been challenged, by players with challenges remaining, but were not (for whatever reason). In the absence of that information, and given more than 2 in 3 challenges are overruled, it's forced to boil down to the conclusion that players should "challenge recreationally" to disprupt an opponent. Poor maths. Worse sportsmanship.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
This is a silly and unrealistic article. Making more challenges is not a zero cost proposition. It interrupts the flow of play, it can affect the morale of the player, it can be a distraction to think about challenges all the time, etc. Or, to take a page from Paul Graham, which is better for a player: keeping the idea of challenging calls at every opportunity as "the one thing" in their mind constantly or concentrating on playing the best game possible?

12 points by cwan 16y ago

It's too bad the article doesn't include more numbers on accuracy - it would be interesting to see if there's a big difference between the ruling of the on-court judges and the camera system. It'd also be interesting to know how often close calls happen on important points, and how often those are challenged. My guess would be that challenges are almost always used when the point matters, and the low challenge rate is because most controversial calls happen in routine situations like 40-love.

hristov 16y ago

Sigh, let us think about this: could it be that players just don't see any more challenge-able balls? I mean if someone already averages about 30% per challenge for their existing challenges, it is unlikely that any additional challenges will be worthy at all.

healthyhippo 16y ago

The psychological impact of being wrong is big enough to do it very often. Everyone going "oooooh... AHH" when they show the slow-motion ball cam, and most of the time its out. Then everyone looks at you like you're the asshole. All of a sudden you're vilified, and home court advantage can shift over. There's little to be gained unless it was truly very close and the call went against you.

JacobAldridge 16y ago

This article would have been better argued had it provided stats on close calls which SHOULD have been challenged, by players with challenges remaining, but were not (for whatever reason). In the absence of that information, and given more than 2 in 3 challenges are overruled, it's forced to boil down to the conclusion that players should "challenge recreationally" to disprupt an opponent. Poor maths. Worse sportsmanship.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

This is a silly and unrealistic article. Making more challenges is not a zero cost proposition. It interrupts the flow of play, it can affect the morale of the player, it can be a distraction to think about challenges all the time, etc. Or, to take a page from Paul Graham, which is better for a player: keeping the idea of challenging calls at every opportunity as "the one thing" in their mind constantly or concentrating on playing the best game possible?