IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v19y2019i3p402-416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probability of winning and match length in Tiebreak Ten tennis

Author

Listed:
  • Peter O’Donoghue
  • Emma Simmonds

Abstract

New formats of tennis have been developed to make matches more exciting and unpredictable than the traditional format of the game. The purpose of the current investigation was to compare the probability of winning between Tiebreak Ten matches and two other formats of the game; Fast4 tennis and traditional tennis. A probabilistic model of winning Tiebreak Ten tennis matches was created and compared with existing models of Fast4 and traditional tennis matches. This analysis was done for a full range of probabilities of players winning points when they are serving. This involved 100,000 simulations for each pair of probabilities for two players serving for multiple set matches in Fast4 tennis and traditional tennis. The probability of players beating higher ranked opponents was found to be higher in Tiebreak Ten matches than in Fast4 and traditional tennis matches. This confirms the claim that Tiebreak Ten matches are less predictable and hence more exciting than Fast4 and traditional tennis matches.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter O’Donoghue & Emma Simmonds, 2019. "Probability of winning and match length in Tiebreak Ten tennis," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 402-416, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:19:y:2019:i:3:p:402-416
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1615296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2019.1615296
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2019.1615296?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rpanxx:v:19:y:2019:i:3:p:402-416. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    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.