Loading statistics …
Loading statistics …
Unofficial curiosities across every match of the day — only the block model decides the final standings.
Closest match between the best-placed teams
Gancho Gang vs Smash Heroes (slot 10)
Rank 5 vs rank 4
15:17
The win nobody saw coming
Schnitzel & Stroopwafel beats Too Hot to Padel (slot 9)
Expected rank 16.5 vs 10
25:7
Expected rank = average of the rank by questionnaire strength (1 = strongest team) and the current standings rank; before a team's first result only the questionnaire counts. The upset is the win with the largest gap between the winner's and the loser's expected rank. Teams without a questionnaire are not rated.
The most wins in a row
Holy Smash, slot 2 to 16
9
wins in a row
Without your own team you only see the top 5 here.
When they lose, they lose narrowly
| Rank | Team | Avg. rallies |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gancho Gang | 12,7 |
| 2 | ERROR 404 | 12,3 |
| 3 | Duo al Dente! | 12,0 |
| 4 | T&T Double Trouble | 11,8 |
| 5 | Schrödingers Padel | 11,7 |
Losing well is a skill of its own. What counts is a team's own rallies won averaged over its losses — only from at least a third of its matches played so far as losses (at least two), otherwise a single close loss would top the list.
Who is ahead by the widest margin on average
| Rank | Team | Avg. diff. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Holy Smash | 14,4 |
| 2 | 60 seconds to Padel | 14,2 |
| 3 | Elja und Roy | 11,6 |
| 4 | Gancho Gang | 6,6 |
| 5 | Sturmflut Smashers | 5,4 |
How clearly a team came out on top — or didn't. What counts is rallies won minus rallies lost, per match, never the total, or whoever played more matches would simply win.
Who most often wins by a whisker
| Rank | Team | Share |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reach & Return Raiders | 33% |
| 2 | NYPD (NewYork PadelDepartment) | 22% |
| 2 | Holy Smash | 22% |
| 4 | Elja und Roy | 20% |
| 5 | Too Hot to Padel | 14% |
A win's a win, but some are won with white knuckles. What counts is the share of a team's own matches won by a margin of at most 15 % of the point target.
Who flattens their opponents most clearly
| Rank | Team | Avg. opp. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 seconds to Padel | 7,8 |
| 2 | Duo al Dente! | 8,3 |
| 3 | Elja und Roy | 8,5 |
| 4 | Holy Smash | 8,9 |
| 5 | Gancho Gang | 9,2 |
Not just winning, but running up the score. What counts is the opponents' rallies averaged over a team's own wins, fewest first — only from at least a third of its matches played so far as wins (at least two), otherwise a single lopsided win would top the list.
Who wins although hardly anyone backs them
| Rank | Team | Share |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smash Heroes | 59% |
| 2 | PadeLadies | 50% |
| 3 | Schlägertruppe | 48% |
| 4 | 60 seconds to Padel | 46% |
| 5 | Gancho Gang | 45% |
Share of predictions that went against this team — in matches it went on to win.
Ranking-point ratio per brand
| Rank | Brand | Players | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 seconds to napoli | 3 | 68% |
| 2 | Ruff's Burger | 8 | 55% |
| 3 | Zusje | 6 | 54% |
| 4 | Gustoso | 15 | 48% |
| 5 | NYSC | 3 | 46% |
| 6 | ciao bella | 5 | 41% |
0 players have no brand on file.
Ranking-point ratio (win 2, draw 1) per player, not per team — a team spanning two brands pays into both. Only brands with at least three players in the tournament.
Ranking-point ratio per department
| Rank | Department | Players | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Management | 5 | 66% |
| 2 | Finance | 9 | 63% |
| 3 | Operations | 12 | 54% |
| 4 | andere | 3 | 41% |
| 5 | Marketing | 9 | 35% |
| 6 | HR / IT | 3 | 14% |
0 players have no department on file.
Ranking-point ratio (win 2, draw 1) per player, not per team — a team spanning two departments pays into both. Only departments with at least three players in the tournament.
Ranking-point ratio per location
| Rank | Location | Players | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dortmund | 3 | 74% |
| 2 | Würzburg | 5 | 61% |
| 3 | Uden | 5 | 56% |
| 4 | Hamburg | 6 | 48% |
| 5 | München | 22 | 44% |
0 players have no location on file.
Ranking-point ratio (win 2, draw 1) per player, not per team — a team spanning two locations pays into both. Only locations with at least three players in the tournament.
Were the self-assessments right?
Aggregate only: mean final placement per self-assessment, across all teams — no individual teams or people.