Abstract
The use of technology in sport to assist umpires has been gradually introduced into several sports. This has now been extended to allow players to call upon technology to arbitrate when they disagree with the umpire's decision. Both tennis and cricket now allow the players to challenge a doubtful decision, which is reversed if the evidence shows it to be incorrect. However, the number of challenges is limited, and players must balance any possible immediate gain with the loss of a future right to challenge. With similar challenge rules expected to be introduced in other sports, this situation has been a motivation to consider challenges more widely. We use Dynamic Programming to investigate the optimal challenge strategy and obtain some general rules. In a traditional set of tennis, players should be more aggressive in challenging in the latter stages of the games and sets, and when their opponent is ahead. Optimal challenge strategy can increase a player's chance of winning an otherwise even five-set match to 59%.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnett T and Clarke SR (2002). Using Microsoft Excel to model a tennis match. In: Cohen G and Langtry T (eds). Sixth Australian Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport. University of Technology Sydney: Sydney, Australia, pp 63–68.
Barnett T, Brown A and Clarke S (2004). Optimal use of tennis resources. In: Morton H and Ganesalingam S (eds). Seventh Australasian Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport. Massey University: Palmerston Nth, New Zealand, pp 57–65.
Barnett T, Brown A and Clarke SR (2006). Developing a tennis model that reflects outcome of tennis matches. In: Hammond J and de Mestre N (eds). Eighth Conference on Mathematics and Computer Science in Sport. Coolangatta: Australia, pp 178–188.
Clarke SR (1988). Dynamic programming in one-day cricket—Optimal scoring rates. Journal of the Operational Research Society 39: 331–337.
Clarke SR and Norman JM (1999). To run or not?: Some dynamic programming models in cricket. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50: 536–545.
Croucher JS (1998). Developing strategies in tennis. In: Bennett J (ed). Statistics in Sport. Arnold: London, pp 157–170.
George SL (1973). Optimal strategy in tennis: A simple probabilistic model. Applied Statistics 22: 97–104.
Klaassen FJGM and Magnus JR (2003). Forecasting the winner of a tennis match. European Journal of Operational Research 148: 257–267.
Miles RE (1984). Symmetric sequential analysis: The efficiencies of sports scoring systems (with particular reference to those of tennis). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 46: 93–108.
Morris C (1977). The most important points in tennis. In: Ladany SP and Machol RE (eds). Optimal Strategies in Sports. North Holland: Amsterdam, pp 131–140.
Norman JM (1985). Dynamic programming in tennis: When to use a fast serve. Journal of the Operational Research Society 36: 75–77.
Norman JM (1995). Dynamic programming in sport: A survey of applications. IMA Journal of Mathematics Applied in Business and Industry 6 (December): 171–176.
Pollard G, Pollard G, Barnett T and Zeleznikow J (2010). Applying strategies to the tennis challenge system. Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis 15 (1): 12–15.
Preston I and Thomas J (2000). Batting strategy in limited overs cricket. The Statistician 49: 95–106.
Riddle LH (1988). Probability models for tennis scoring systems. Applied Statistics 37: 63–75.
Schutz RW (1970). A mathematical model for evaluating scoring systems with specific reference to tennis. Research Quarterly 41: 552–561.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clarke, S., Norman, J. Optimal challenges in tennis. J Oper Res Soc 63, 1765–1772 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.147
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.147