Talk:2019 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final

Untitled
"The match is also notable for the fact that Federer lost despite statistically outplaying Djokovic in almost every category (see table below): having a better first- and second-serve percentage, more aces, fewer double-faults, more winners, more breaks of serve and a more efficient break-point conversion rate, more points won when returning serve and at a higher efficiency, and won a higher total number of points and service games. Besides the final scoreline, the only statistical categories Djokovic won were having fewer unforced errors and all the tiebreaks that occurred."

Is this fit for Wikipedia? Especially the last line. Silent Nemesis2710 (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think it fits in Wikipedia and suggest deleting it. Obviously, the number of statistics where one player or the other other is leading is not relevant if the statistics selected are not relevant for the outcome of the game. Which is proven if the "worse" player (according to those stats) wins. For example, if a player hits an ace or "only" makes a point (but it was not an ace) is absolutely irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Or if one player wins more points or games in total. Similarly, winners and unforced errors (or their ratio or difference) are in fact meaningless. I never understood why Tennis commentators focus so much on such metrics. I love statistics, but if the player lost who "statistically outplayed" the other one, something is wrong with the choice of the metrics included (or not) in the statistics. 61.8.129.103 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)