Skimming briefly, it looks like a lot of the missing score are some combo of 6-0 and then 0-6. Which makes sense. It's highly unlikely for a set to to be that unbalanced, and then be so unbalanced the other way.
Adding some math: assume player 1 has a probability of p of winning a game, and therefore, player 2 having a probability of 1-p.
Then, the probability of player 1 winning a set 6-0 is p⁶; the probability of player 2 doing that is (1-p)⁶.
Let’s assume a fairly evenly matched game, where p=0.6. Then, those probabilities are about 4.7% and 0.4%. Combined, that’s about 1 in 5,000, or 1:2500 to get either of 6:0;0:6 or 0:6;6:0.
Doesn’t sound too bad but in real life, that number will be a lot lower because of the server advantage in tennis. Especially in men’s tennis, the server has a big advantage, making even single set 6-0 scores highly unlikely.
> And if the first set is 6-0, that indicates one side has exceptionally better skills.
In the model I proposed, it doesn’t. Even if the players are perfectly balanced, there’s a 1:64 probability of getting 6-0 and a 1:64 probability of getting 0-6. Combined, that’s a 3% chance of getting a bagel.
But as I said, there’s a huge server’s advantage in men’s tennis. That makes ‘bagels’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel_(tennis)) less likely there, and means a player winning a set 6:0 indeed statistically is much better than their opponent.
They’re fairly common in women’s tennis, though, even ones with the side losing that set winning the match.
Then, the probability of player 1 winning a set 6-0 is p⁶; the probability of player 2 doing that is (1-p)⁶.
Let’s assume a fairly evenly matched game, where p=0.6. Then, those probabilities are about 4.7% and 0.4%. Combined, that’s about 1 in 5,000, or 1:2500 to get either of 6:0;0:6 or 0:6;6:0.
Doesn’t sound too bad but in real life, that number will be a lot lower because of the server advantage in tennis. Especially in men’s tennis, the server has a big advantage, making even single set 6-0 scores highly unlikely.