1

Contents
INTRODUCATION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
ANALYSIS OF DATA................................................................................................................................. 3
THE PERFORMANCE ANLYSIS ON DIFFERENT SURFACE .............................................................. 4
PERFORMANCE ON GRASS SURFACE ................................................................................................. 4
PERFORMANCE ON HARD SURFACE ................................................................................................... 4
PERFORMANCE ON CLAY SURFACE ................................................................................................... 5
NOW WE HAVE TO RUN CHI SQUARE –TEST ON GRASS SURFACE ............................................. 5
Now we are going to run chi square test on hard surface ............................................................................. 6
Now we are going to run chi square test on clay surface .............................................................................. 7

Table 1 WINS AND LOSSES ON DIFFERENT COURT SURFACES OF EACH PLAYES..................................... 3

Table 2 performance of players on grass surface ....................................................................................... 4
Table 3 performance of players on hard surface ........................................................................................ 4
Table 4 performance of players on clay surface ......................................................................................... 5
Table 5 Actual value of each plays on grass surface .................................................................................. 5
Table 6 Expected l value of each plays on grass surface ............................................................................ 5
Table 7 Actual value of each player on hard surface .................................................................................. 6
Table 8 Expected l value of each player on hard surface ............................................................................ 6
Table 9 Actual value of each player on clay surface ................................................................................... 7
Table 10 Expected l value of each player on clay surface ........................................................................... 7

Figure 1 1 WINS AND LOSSES ON DIFFERENT COURT SURFACES OF EACH PLAYES 3

2
INTRODUCATION
The following data is about four different tennis players which are FEDERER, NADAL,
DJOKOVIC and MURRAY in which they played different matches at different surfaces such is
grass surface hard surface and clay surface. The given is about to know the performance of each
players at different surface so that to know that which player is better at each surface and as well
as overall performance of each player by keeping distance constants.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
In table I analysis the players performance by keeping surface constants to know that the overall
performance of each player.in which I calculate 1st grand total of all played matches and then
number of winning matches and also find the winning percentage of each player higher the
percentage better the performance of player..
Table 1 WINS AND LOSSES ON DIFFERENT COURT SURFACES OF EACH PLAYES

WINS AND LOSSES ON DIFFERENT COURT SURFACES OF EACH PLAYES

GRASS Hard clay
WIN LOSS win loss win loss TOTAL WIN wining %
Federer 94 5 427 61 185 37 809 706 87%
Nadal 50 12 254 81 283 26 706 587 83%
Djokovic 43 12 288 61 141 42 587 472 80%
Murray 45 11 243 63 76 33 471 364 77%

Figure 1 1 WINS AND LOSSES ON DIFFERENT COURT SURFACES OF EACH PLAYES

1000 Chart Title 90%

809
87%
800 706
85%
83% 587
600 471
80% 80%
400 77%
75%
200

0 70%
Federer nadal djokovic murray
total winning percentage

CONCLUSION
From the above results show that FEDERER has better performance because he has higher
winning percentage that other players.

3
THE PERFORMANCE ANLYSIS ON DIFFERENT SURFACE
The following analysis is about the winning percentage of all four player on hard surface on grass and on
clay surface in order to know surface vise performance of each players.

PERFORMANCE ON GRASS SURFACE

The following table is about the player performance on grass surface

Table 2 performance of players on grass surface

WIN% LOSSING
Federer 95% 5%
Nadal 81% 19%
Djokovic 78% 22%
Murray 80% 20%

CONCLUSION. From the above results it show that the performance of Federer which is 95% is better
than other players as well as has loss percentage which is 5% lower than other players .which show that
Federer is better on grass surface.

PERFORMANCE ON HARD SURFACE

The following table is about the player performance on hard surface

Table 3 performance of players on hard surface

WIN LOSS
Federer 88% 13%
Nadal 76% 24%
Djokovic 83% 17%
Murray 79% 21%

CONCLUSION

From the above results it show that the performance of Federer which is 88% is better than other
players as well as has loss percentage which is 13% is lower than other players .which show that
Federer is better on hard surface also.

4
PERFORMANCE ON CLAY SURFACE
The following table is about the player performance on clay surface

Table 4 performance of players on clay surface

WIN LOSS
Federer 83% 17%
Nadal 92% 8%
Djokovic 77% 23%
Murray 70% 30%

CONCLUSION. From the above results it show that the performance of Nadal which is 92% is
better than other players as well as has loss percentage which is 8% is lower than other
players .which show that Federer is better on clay surface.

NOW WE HAVE TO RUN CHI SQUARE –TEST ON GRASS

SURFACE
We are going to run chi square test of different with result keeping

HYPOTHESIS
Ho: there is no relationship of player and its outcome of grass surface
HI: there is significant relationship of player and its outcome of grass surface
Table 5 Actual value of each plays on grass surface

WIN LOSS
Federer 94 5 99
Nadal 50 12 62
Djokovic 43 12 55
Murray 45 11 56
total 232 40 272

Table 6 Expected l value of each plays on grass surface

WIN LOSS total

5
 Federer 84.44 14.55 99
Nadal 52.88 9.12 62
Djokovic 46.91 8.09 55
Murray 47.76 8.24 56
total 232 40 272
Conclusion ; from the above chi square –test the calculated P-value is 0.008358 which is less
than alfa which is (5% ) there for we reject the null hypothesis and accept H1 which means that
there is a significant between player and its outcome on grass surface,

Now we are going to run chi square test on hard surface

HYPOTHESIS
Ho: there is no relationship of player and its outcome of grass surface
HI: there is significant relationship of player and its outcome of grass surface
Table 7 Actual value of each player on hard surface

WIN LOSS total

Federer 427 61 488
Nadal 254 81 335
Djokovic 288 61 349
Murray 243 63 306
total 1212 266 1478

Table 8 Expected l value of each player on hard surface

WIN LOSS total

Federer 400.17 87.83 488
Nadal 274.70 60.30 335
Djokovic 286.18 62.82 349
Murray 250.93 55.08 306
total 1212 266 1478

Conclusion
From the above chi square –test the calculated P-value is 0.00016 which is less than alfa which is (5%)
there for we reject the null hypothesis and accept H1 which means that there is a significant between
player and its outcome and its hard surface.

6
Now we are going to run chi square test on clay surface
HYPOTHESIS
Ho: there is no relationship of player and its outcome of grass surface
HI: there is significant relationship of player and its outcome of grass surface

Table 9 Actual value of each player on clay surface

clay surface
WIN LOSS total
Federer 185 37 222
Nadal 283 26 309
Djokovic 141 42 183
Murray 76 33 109
total 685 138 823

Table 10 Expected l value of each player on clay surface

WIN LOSS total

Federer 184.78 37.22 222
Nadal 257.19 51.81 309
Djokovic 152.31 30.69 183
Murray 90.72 18.28 109
total 685 138 823

Conclusion;
From the above chi square –test the calculated P-value is 1.4E-07 which is less than alfa which is
(5%) there for we reject the null hypothesis and accept H1 which means that there is a significant
between player and its outcome on clay surface.