Blackman had a very similar total number of matches (69 vs. Nolensville’s 67), making for a fair head-to-head comparison. Here’s how the two stack up:
Overall Record
| Team | Total Matches | Wins | Win % | Losses | Loss % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blackman | 69 | 42 | 60.87% | 27 | 39.13% |
| Nolensville | 67 | 43 | 64.18% | 24 | 35.82% |
- Nolensville edges out Blackman with a slightly higher win percentage (64% vs. 61%), despite fewer total matches. This suggests Nolensville was marginally more successful overall in this dataset.
Wins by Type (Percentages for Comparison)
| Type | Blackman Count (% of Wins) | Nolensville Count (% of Wins) |
|---|---|---|
| Dec | 8 (19.05%) | 7 (16.28%) |
| Fall | 17 (40.48%) | 16 (37.21%) |
| Forfeit | 2 (4.76%) | 2 (4.65%) |
| MD | 9 (21.43%) | 5 (11.63%) |
| TB-1 | 1 (2.38%) | 0 (0%) |
| TF | 5 (11.90%) | 13 (30.23%) |
- Similarities: Both teams relied heavily on falls for wins (around 37-40%), and had the same number of forfeit wins (2 each, ~5%).
- Differences: Nolensville dominated with technical falls (30% vs. Blackman’s 12%), showing more blowout victories by points. Blackman had more major decisions (21% vs. 12%), indicating wins with solid but not overwhelming point margins. Blackman had one tiebreaker win, which Nolensville lacked.
Losses by Type (Percentages for Comparison)
| Type | Blackman Count (% of Losses) | Nolensville Count (% of Losses) |
|---|---|---|
| Dec | 6 (22.22%) | 8 (33.33%) |
| Fall | 15 (55.56%) | 8 (33.33%) |
| MD | 3 (11.11%) | 5 (20.83%) |
| TF | 3 (11.11%) | 1 (4.17%) |
| Forfeit | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) |
- Similarities: Both teams saw major decisions as a notable loss type (11-21%).
- Differences: Blackman suffered far more fall losses (56% vs. Nolensville’s 33%), suggesting vulnerability to quick pins. Nolensville had more decision losses (33% vs. 22%), indicating closer matches that went the distance but didn’t go their way. Nolensville also had a couple of forfeit losses, which Blackman avoided entirely.
In summary, Nolensville appears stronger in achieving dominant point-based wins (higher TF rate) and better at avoiding pin losses, contributing to their slight edge in overall win percentage. Blackman, however, excels in major decisions for wins but struggles more with falls in losses. If this is from the same tournament (e.g., Drennan), it highlights Nolensville’s efficiency in blowouts and resilience against pins compared to Blackman.