![andy and yet it moves andy and yet it moves](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/20/590x/gogglebox-why-did-the-michael-family-leave-gogglebox-1405810.jpg)
Matches where the losing player wins more games (as opposed to points) are rarer, but still possible.
![andy and yet it moves andy and yet it moves](https://www.etonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/max_1280x720/public/images/2018-07/gettyimages-1002823342.jpg)
The match took 11 hours and 5 minutes, and was spread over three days. The longest tennis match in history was played at Wimbledon in 2010. A plaque commemorating this feat remains on Wimbledon Court 18. This match also holds the record for the longest tennis match in history: 11 hours and 5 minutes spread across three days. The final score for the match was 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68 (remember: no tie-breakers permitted in the fifth set at Wimbledon). One of the most famous examples of this phenomenon occurred in the first round of Wimbledon in 2010, when American player John Isner defeated French player Nicolas Mahut, despite Isner winning fewer points overall (Isner won 478 points and Mahut won 502). It found that about 4.5 per cent of games were won by the players with fewer overall points (so roughly 1 game in 22).
#Andy and yet it moves professional#
How often does this actually occur in professional tennis matches? A study in 2013 set out to answer this question by analysing 61,000 professional tennis matches over a 21-year timespan. This can lead to strange situations in which players can win more points than their opponents-or even more games-and yet still lose the match! This surprising result is closely related to a phenomenon in statistics called Simpson’s paradox, where looking at data in greater detail can lead to different conclusions compared with looking at data on a broad scale. Not every point scored in a tennis match affects the outcome of the match.
![andy and yet it moves andy and yet it moves](https://media.comicbook.com/2021/08/pokemon-journeys-ash-pikachu-z-move-return-1279576-1280x0.jpeg)
The same outcome occurs both times, regardless of whether or not Bob won his two points! Bob’s two points were effectively erased once Alice won the game, and have no influence whatsoever on the final outcome of the match. Alice then wins the next point, she wins the game-and the overall score for the match again sits at 1-0. If Alice wins the next point, she wins the game, and the overall score for the match sits at 1-0.īut suppose Bob manages to score the next two points instead. Alice wins the first three points, so at that stage the score is 40-0. To see how this works, consider a match between Alice and Bob in which Alice is serving the first game of the first set. One of the other key features of the tennis scoring system is that, unlike sports such as cricket or football, not every point ultimately affects the outcome of the match. For starters, tennis is one of the few games (the others being games with a similar structure like volleyball, table tennis and squash) in which the winner must win the final point of the match. It turns out that it’s not just a quirky flavour-the division of a match into points, games and sets actually affects the final results in some unexpected ways. Perhaps the most striking feature of tennis is its unique scoring system.