Tennis players should challenge more calls
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
In the absence of that information, and given more than 2 in 3 challenges are overruled, it's forced to boil down to the conclusion that players should "challenge recreationally" to disprupt an opponent.
Poor maths. Worse sportsmanship.
It'd also be interesting to know how often close calls happen on important points, and how often those are challenged. My guess would be that challenges are almost always used when the point matters, and the low challenge rate is because most controversial calls happen in routine situations like 40-love.
Then everyone looks at you like you're the asshole. All of a sudden you're vilified, and home court advantage can shift over. There's little to be gained unless it was truly very close and the call went against you.
Or, to take a page from Paul Graham, which is better for a player: keeping the idea of challenging calls at every opportunity as "the one thing" in their mind constantly or concentrating on playing the best game possible?