{"id":3827,"date":"2020-01-04T15:10:54","date_gmt":"2020-01-04T15:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/?p=3827"},"modified":"2020-01-04T15:10:54","modified_gmt":"2020-01-04T15:10:54","slug":"wta-decisions-from-the-backhand-corner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2020\/01\/04\/wta-decisions-from-the-backhand-corner\/","title":{"rendered":"WTA Decisions From the Backhand Corner"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Earlier this week I presented a lot of data<\/a> about what happens when men face a makeable ball hit to their backhand corner. That post was itself a follow-up on a previous look at what happened when players of both genders attempted down-the-line backhands<\/a>. You don’t need to read those two articles to know what’s going on in this one, but if you’re interested in the topic, you’ll probably find them worthwhile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decision-making in the backhand corner is one of the biggest differences between pro men and women. Let me illustrate in the nerdiest way possible, with bug reports from the code I wrote to assemble these numbers. My first stab at the code to aggregate player-by-player numbers for men failed because some men never hit a topspin backhand from the backhand corner<\/em>. At least, not in any match recorded by the Match Charting Project. The offending player who generated those divide-by-zero errors was Sam Groth<\/a>. In his handful of charted matches, he relied entirely on the slice, at least in those rare cases where rallies extended beyond the return of serve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compare with the bug that slowed me down in preparing this post. The problematic player this time was Evgeniya Rodina<\/a>. In nine charted matches, she has yet to hit a forehand from the backhand corner<\/em>. If your backhand is the better shot, why would you run around it? Of the nearly 200 players with five charted matches from the 2010s, Rodina is the only one with zero forehands. But she isn’t really an outlier. 23 other women hit fewer than 10 forehands in all of their charted matches, including Timea Bacsinszky<\/a>, who opted for the forehand only four times in 32 matches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faced with a makeable ball in the backhand corner, men and women both hit a non-slice groundstroke about four-fifths of the time. But of those topspin and flat strokes, women stick with the backhand 94% of the time, compared to 82% for men. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few WTA players seek out opportunities to run around their backhands, including Sam Stosur<\/a> and Polona Hercog<\/a>, both of whom hit the forehand 20% of the time they are pushed into the backhand corner. Ashleigh Barty<\/a> also displays more Federer-like tactics than most of her peers, using the forehand 13% of the time. Yet most of the women with powerful forehands, like Serena Williams<\/a>, have equal or better backhands, making it counter-productive to run around the shot. Serena hits a forehand only 1% of the time her opponent sends a makeable ball into her backhand corner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Directional decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Backhand or forehand, let’s start by looking at which specific shot that players chose. The Match Charting Project<\/a> contains shot-by-shot logs of about 2,900 women’s matches from the 2010s, including 365,000 makeable balls hit to one player’s backhand corner. (“Makeable” is defined as a ball that either came back or resulted in an unforced error.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the frequency with which players hit backhand and forehands in different directions from their backhand corner. I’ve included the ATP numbers for comparison:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BH Direction               WTA Freq  ATP Freq  \nDown the line                 17.4%     17.4%  \nDown the middle               35.2%     29.5%  \nCross-court                   47.3%     52.9%  \n                                               \nFH Direction               WTA Freq  ATP Freq  \nDown the line (inside-in)     35.2%     35.1%  \nDown the middle               16.2%     12.8%  \nCross-court (inside-out)      48.4%     51.8%<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Once a forehand or backhand is chosen, there isn’t much difference between men and women. Women go up the middle a bit more often, which may partly be a function of using the topspin or flat backhand in defensive positions slightly more than men do. I’ve also observed that today’s top women are more likely to hit an aggressive shot down the middle than men are. The level of aggression and risk may be similar to that of a bullet aimed at a corner, but when we classify by direction, it looks a bit more conservative. That’s just a theory, however, so we’ll have to test that another day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Point probability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Things get more interesting when we look at how these choices affect the likelihood of winning the point. On average, a woman faced with a makeable ball in her backhand corner has a 47.2% chance of winning the point. (For men, it’s 47.7%.) The serve has some effect on the potency those shots toward the backhand corner. If the makeable ball was a service return–presumably weaker than the average groundstroke–the probability of winning the point is 48.2%. If the makeable ball is one shot later, an often-aggressive “serve-plus-one” shot, the chances of fighting back and winning the point are only 46.3%. It’s not a huge difference, but it is a reminder that the context of any given shot can affect these probabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The various decisions available to players each have their own effect on the probability of winning the point, at least on average. If a woman chooses to hit a down-the-line backhand, her likelihood of winning the point increases to 53.0%. If she makes<\/em> that shot, her odds rise to 68.4%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The following table shows those probabilities for every decision. The first column of percentages, “Post-Shot,” indicates the likelihood of winning after making the decision–the 53.0% I just mentioned. The second column, “In-Play,” is the chance of winning if she makes that shot, like 68.4% for the down-the-line backhand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shot      Direction  Post-Shot  In-Play  \nBackhand  (all)          48.5%    55.2%  \nBackhand  DTL            53.0%    68.4%  \nBackhand  Middle         44.6%    48.8%  \nBackhand  XC             49.9%    55.8%  \n                                         \nForehand  (all)          56.3%    56.1%  \nForehand  DTL (I-I)      61.4%    73.7%  \nForehand  Middle         45.7%    50.3%  \nForehand  XC (I-O)       56.2%    64.4%<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
The down-the-line shots are risky, so the gap between the two probabilities is a big one. There is little difference between Post-Shot and In-Play for down-the-middle shots, because they almost always go in. For the forehand probabilities, keep in mind that they are skewed by the selection of players who choose to use their forehands more often. Your mileage may vary, especially if you play like Rodina does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cautious recommendations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Looking at this table, you might wonder why a player would ever make certain shot selections. The likelihood of winning the point before choosing a wing or direction is 47.2%, so why go with a backhand down the middle (44.6%) when you could hit an inside-in forehand (61.4%)? It’s not the risk of missing, because that’s baked into the numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One obvious reason is that it isn’t always possible to hit the most rewarding shot. Even the most aggressive men run around only about one-quarter of their backhands, suggesting that it would be impractical to hit a forehand on the remaining three-quarters of opportunities. That wipes out half of the choices I’ve listed. And even a backhand wizard such as Simona Halep<\/a> can’t hit lasers down the line at will. The probabilities reflect what happened when players thought the shot was the best option available to them<\/em>. Even though were occasionally wrong, this is very, very far from a randomized controlled trial in which a scientist told players to hit a down-the-line backhand no matter what the nature of the incoming shot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another complication is one that I’ve already mentioned: The success rates for rarer shots, like inside-in forehands, reflect how things turned out for players who chose to hit them<\/em>. That is, for players who consider them to be weapons. It might be amusing to watch Monica Niculescu<\/a> hit inside-out topspin forehands at every opportunity, but it almost certainly wouldn’t improve her chances of winning. You only get those rosy forehand numbers if you can hit a forehand like Stosur does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That said, the table does drive home the point that conservative shot selection has an effect on the probability of winning points. Some women are happy sending backhand after backhand up the middle of the court, and sometimes that’s all you can do. But when more options are available, the riskier choices can be more rewarding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Player probabilities<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let’s wrap up for today by taking a player-by-player look at these numbers. We established that the average player has a 47.2% chance of winning the point when a makeable shot is arcing toward her backhand corner. Even though Tsvetana Pironkova<\/a>\u2019s number is also 47.2%, no player is average. Here are the top 14 players–minimum ten charted matches, ranked by the probability of winning a point from that position. I’ve also included the frequency with which they hit non-slice backhands:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Player                     Post-Shot  BH Freq  \nKim Clijsters                  53.4%    77.6%  \nNa Li                          53.2%    87.5%  \nCamila Giorgi                  52.9%    93.8%  \nPatricia Maria Tig             52.1%    66.1%  \nSimona Halep                   52.1%    83.6%  \nBelinda Bencic                 51.5%    91.7%  \nDominika Cibulkova             51.3%    70.1%  \nVeronika Kudermetova           50.9%    73.9%  \nJessica Pegula                 50.7%    73.7%  \nSu-Wei Hsieh                   50.6%    81.8%  \nDayana Yastremska              50.6%    87.6%  \nAnna Karolina Schmiedlova      50.3%    87.4%  \nSerena Williams                49.9%    89.2%  \nSara Errani                    49.8%    70.0%<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
These numbers are from the 2010s only, so they don’t encompass the entire careers of the top two players on the list, Kim Clijsters<\/a> and Li Na<\/a>. It is particularly impressive that they make the cut, because their charted matches are not a random sample–they heavily tilt toward high-profile clashes against top opponents. The remainder of the list is a mixed bag of elites and journeywomen, backhand bashers and crafty strategists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Next are the players with the best chances of winning the point after hitting a forehand from the backhand corner. I’ve drawn the line at 100 charted forehands, a minimum that limits our pool to about 50 players:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Player                Post-Shot  FH Freq  \nMaria Sharapova           69.0%     4.1%  \nDominika Cibulkova        65.1%    10.5%  \nAna Ivanovic              64.7%    11.1%  \nYafan Wang                64.4%     8.8%  \nRebecca Peterson          63.4%    15.2%  \nSimona Halep              63.1%     6.8%  \nCarla Suarez Navarro      63.0%     7.7%  \nAndrea Petkovic           62.3%     5.3%  \nChristina McHale          61.9%    15.2%  \nAnastasija Sevastova      61.3%     4.2%  \nPetra Kvitova             60.8%     4.6%  \nCaroline Garcia           60.7%     7.5%  \nMisaki Doi                60.5%    17.0%  \nMadison Keys              59.3%     9.3%  \nElina Svitolina           59.1%     3.9%<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Maria Sharapova<\/a> is the Gilles Simon<\/a> of the WTA. (Now there’s<\/em> a sentence I never thought I’d write!) Both players usually opt for the backhand, but are extremely effective when they go for the forehand. Kudos to Sharapova for her well-judged attacks, though it could be that she’s leaving some points on the table by not running around her backhand more often.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Next<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I wrote on Thursday, we’re still just scratching the surface of what can be done with Match Charting Project data to analyze tactics such as this one. A particular area of interest is to break down backhand-corner opportunities (or chances anywhere on the court) even further. The average point probability of 47.2% surely does not hold if we look at makeable balls that started life as, say, inside-out forehands. If some players are facing more tough chances, we should view those numbers differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you’ve gotten this far, you must be interested. The Match Charting Project has accumulated shot-by-shot logs of nearly 7,000 matches. It’s a huge number, but we could always use more. Many up and coming players have only a few matches charted, and many interesting matches of the past (like most of those played by Li and Clijsters!) remain unlogged. You can help, and if you like watching and analyzing tennis, you should.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Earlier this week I presented a lot of data about what happens when men face a makeable ball hit to their backhand corner. That post was itself a follow-up on a previous look at what happened when players of both genders attempted down-the-line backhands. You don’t need to read those two articles to know what’s … Continue reading WTA Decisions From the Backhand Corner<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46,65,106,110,127],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-groundstrokes","category-match-charting","category-shot-by-shot-stats","category-tactics","category-wta"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}