Is Returning Serve harder today than it used to be?

First topic message reminder :

There has been a fair amount of discussion in relation to how much easier it is to break serve in today’s tennis, given the fact the courts have slowed down. I thought I would do a bit of a comparison against the 1990 as, frankly, that does not really accord with my recollection.

I have taken the percentage service games won for the top 20 servers for the last three years and compared against the equivalent figures for 1997-1999. The average percentages of service games won for the top 20 servers in each of those years was as follows:

1997 – 83.85%
1998 – 83.2%
1999 – 83.5%

2010 – 85.7%
2011 – 85.25%
2012 – 86.45%

So there is a fairly consistent pattern, the best servers today win, on average around 2-3% more service games than their equivalents in the late 1990’s.

There is no doubt that the courts have slowed down. However, the fact that servers are serving quicker than ever seems, from the statistics, to have negated the effect of that slow down. The statistics certainly seem to suggest that returning is no easier now, if anything it seems to be more difficult to break serve. Is there another explanation that I am missing?

Thanks for the reply. I am still unsure though that there is much evidence that the 'tall players' are thriving much more than they did previously.

Calder106 wrote:Thanks for the reply. I am still unsure though that there is much evidence that the 'tall players' are thriving much more than they did previously.

Well, some evidence is that the top 20 servers area about 2cm taller on the average in 2012 than they were in 1997. In 1997 the average was 187cm and in 2012 they average 189.3cm.

What's fascinating is that within the 2012 top 20 servers ranked by winning % on serve games, average height is stratified closely to capability.

1997 heights (cm)	1997 Averages (groups)	2012 heights (cm)	2012 Averages (groups)
193		196
196		206
185		185
193		185
196	192.6 (1-5)	198	194 (1-5)
185		196
190		188
193		188
180		188
185	186.6 (6-10)	193	190.6 (6-10)
190		183
180		198
185		175
180		203
175	182 (11-15)	178	187.4 (11-15)
175		180
188		188
190		190
185		185
196	186.8 (16-20)	183	185.2 (16-20)
187 (Top 20)		189.3 (Top 20)

Fantastic stats and research Turron

Calder106 wrote:Thanks for the reply. I am still unsure though that there is much evidence that the 'tall players' are thriving much more than they did previously.

Calder my point is not about the Isners and Karlovics of the world, as Turron so astutely put it I am talking about an average over the whole tour. Remember laver was five foot 8, that was a medium height man at his time, with normal agility. Now a medium height man is 5 foot 11 and is probably just as agile and fast if not faster than laver's day. What we will see is not just players getting taller on average but we will see the agility and size mix combined. That is what I am talking about in terms of the modern supercharged athlete. It is a much more broadbased thing than picking out a couple of super tall players. It is an across the board subtle yet very significant shift. And this shift is happening at an evolutionarily break kneck and unprecedented rate in the last half life time.

Turron wrote:What's fascinating is that within the 2012 top 20 servers ranked by winning % on serve games, average height is stratified closely to capability.

1997 heights (cm)	1997 Averages (groups)	2012 heights (cm)	2012 Averages (groups)
193		196
196		206
185		185
193		185
196	192.6 (1-5)	198	194 (1-5)
185		196
190		188
193		188
180		188
185	186.6 (6-10)	193	190.6 (6-10)
190		183
180		198
185		175
180		203
175	182 (11-15)	178	187.4 (11-15)
175		180
188		188
190		190
185		185
196	186.8 (16-20)	183	185.2 (16-20)
187 (Top 20)		189.3 (Top 20)

Bravo Turron, this is epic research, it is very simple height translates to a good serve in general. Not always but in general. And physics wise it is very easy to figure out why. The taller player due to his higher strike point can hit the ball down and flat much easier without worrying about the net as much. Additonally, on kick serves his longer wingspan and higher strike point will allow him to generate more spin that kicks up to a more dizzying height. The correlation is very direct. You will never see a great male server who is 5 foot 6 for example, a good one yes, a great one never.

socal1976 wrote:

Calder106 wrote:Thanks for the reply. I am still unsure though that there is much evidence that the 'tall players' are thriving much more than they did previously.

Calder my point is not about the Isners and Karlovics of the world, as Turron so astutely put it I am talking about an average over the whole tour. Remember laver was five foot 8, that was a medium height man at his time, with normal agility. Now a medium height man is 5 foot 11 and is probably just as agile and fast if not faster than laver's day. What we will see is not just players getting taller on average but we will see the agility and size mix combined. That is what I am talking about in terms of the modern supercharged athlete. It is a much more broadbased thing than picking out a couple of super tall players. It is an across the board subtle yet very significant shift. And this shift is happening at an evolutionarily break kneck and unprecedented rate in the last half life time.

That was why I asked my earlier question as I was unsure what was being defined as a 'tall player' and the examples of the bigger guys such as Isner (who I have no issue with) were not really backing up ant theories.

bogbrush wrote:Certainly people are much taller generally, but that would just mean more people unsuited to top level tennis unless something had happened to the tennis environment to benefit them. Many of the outcries you cite haven't yet produced tennis players, the game is still dominated by countries which have been wealthy for a long time.

If height had always been a big advantage how come we'd not ever seen the sport dominated by a massive player, who being rarer would have this advantage all to himself?

If it is all about the second serve I'd say it sounds like the strings again.

Don't get bogged down in the Iran example I only used that to show what has taken place across the entire third world. And no it isn't just in outlying countries that haven't produced tennis players. For example take south America for example. I can guarantee you if a table of avg. height and weight is made up comapring south Americans of today to those of 30 years ago you would see a massive increase in height that far outstrips what the evolutionary norm has been. This comes down to better knowledge, technology, and nutrition. The increases are also occurring in the developed world as well, just that because of earlier advancement their growth rates may not be as rapid over a 20-30 year period as the asian and latin american countries, the trend is global pretty much in every country.

If the improvement is in second serve remember that taller players also have an edge in producing better kick serves as well. The higher your strike point the higher the ball is going to bounce. Not just that technically the strike point has moved up on average much more than height has. Why is this? Because from a technical aspect players are launching into their serves and leaving their feet more than they did 20 and 25 years ago. Players are getting more airborne in the modern serve than what the classical serve technique has been. Again this favors more spin creation than pace as you use your legs for additional lift.

I know all that, i wasnt thinking it was Iran.

The next question is why tall players are thriving when once upon a time they had the movement of Bambi

Are players getting more airborne? I can see how they would want to do that if they were S&V'ing - it helps you move forward. But if the tactic is to serve and retreat, then jumping/launching (which would lead to forward movement) would be self-defeating.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Are players getting more airborne? I can see how they would want to do that if they were S&V'ing - it helps you move forward. But if the tactic is to serve and retreat, then jumping/launching (which would lead to forward movement) would be self-defeating.

Yes they are getting more airborne, the shift is more gradual when you compare it to the Sampras generation but if you compare the current serve to the 80s you can really see the difference. And who says that they are serving and retreating, Born Slippey's numbers kind of disprove that myth.

bogbrush wrote:I know all that, i wasnt thinking it was Iran.

The next question is why tall players are thriving when once upon a time they had the movement of Bambi

Take murray when exactly in the past have we had a six foot 3 inch player move like that?

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Are players getting more airborne? I can see how they would want to do that if they were S&V'ing - it helps you move forward. But if the tactic is to serve and retreat, then jumping/launching (which would lead to forward movement) would be self-defeating.

Yes they are getting more airborne, the shift is more gradual when you compare it to the Sampras generation but if you compare the current serve to the 80s you can really see the difference. And who says that they are serving and retreating, Born Slippey's numbers kind of disprove that myth.

I don't get it, do Born's (can we call him BS for short? No, perhaps not) numbers show S & V is still around as much as before? Which myth exactly? The demise of S & V isn't a myth, surely.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I know all that, i wasnt thinking it was Iran.

The next question is why tall players are thriving when once upon a time they had the movement of Bambi

Take murray when exactly in the past have we had a six foot 3 inch player move like that?

I honestly do not know, I've never seen one play in an environment like we have now or in a game played this way. He's fast for sure, whether he changes direction all that well, maybe not.

I do know his movement on clay is a liability.

BB it isn't the ball being that much slower the radar gun numbers are still shooting higher and higher, it is murray being unnusually fast for a man six foot three. I wish you guys watched basketball because it is really apparent in the NBA this supercharged modern athlete. Lebron james is Isner's height, weighs 25 pounds of solid muscle more than Isner, and I guarantee you that in a foot race with murray or djoko he would most likely beat them in a 40 yard dash. I really can't remember players as tall as murray move like that if anyone can think of a player of six three that moved that well 20 or 30 years ago I would love to hear who it was.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Are players getting more airborne? I can see how they would want to do that if they were S&V'ing - it helps you move forward. But if the tactic is to serve and retreat, then jumping/launching (which would lead to forward movement) would be self-defeating.

Yes they are getting more airborne, the shift is more gradual when you compare it to the Sampras generation but if you compare the current serve to the 80s you can really see the difference. And who says that they are serving and retreating, Born Slippey's numbers kind of disprove that myth.

I don't get it, do Born's (can we call him BS for short? No, perhaps not) numbers show S & V is still around as much as before? Which myth exactly? The demise of S & V isn't a myth, surely.

No S and V is dead a long time now. But that doesn't mean that they are serving and retreating. Players are still looking to be inside the baseline when they take the next ball. Now they just want a short forehand and not a volley.

Maybe I was just thinkng of Nadal and Murray...

socal1976 wrote:I really can't remember players as tall as murray move like that if anyone can think of a player of six three that moved that well 20 or 30 years ago I would love to hear who it was.

In no specific order (take this list with a grain of salt - the heights are in ft-inch)

Players as quoted by historians... Trabert (6'1), Budge (6'2"), Tilden (6'2")

Players that I can recall... Fraser (6'1"), Newcombe (6'), Ashe (6'1"), Stan Smith (6'4"), Teacher (6'3"), Becker (6'3"), Lendl (6'2"), Edberg (6'2"), Sampras (6'1"), Safin (6'4"), Ferrero (6'), Pancho Gonzales (~6'3").

These are the slam winners I can recall. Special mention for Mecir (6'3").

I have left the current Top 4 out.

Safin and Becker stand out

Lendl wasn't slow at 6' 2".

socal, the speed guns work off the racquet not off the court, as you know, and if the balls are bigger and hitting scruffy courts then by the time they reach the opponent they'll not be fast.
This is what I suspected is causing guys like Isner to be able to stay in rallies; that, and strings which allow a shot to be played off anything you can get the racquet to (whereas a while back you'd not be able to play a shot unless you got a good set to the ball).

It then follows that if you let big, immobile guys to look like movers then they get to stay at the upper reaces of the game and the serves of the top 20/40 whatever will be tougher because extra height obviously encourages big serving.

This talley's with my oft-made points BB....that technology is helping players you would expect to struggle more stay at the top...that is a) older players, and b) taller players (>6'5) are benefitting. So an aging guy like Karlovic fits right in!

How Murray moves as he does at 6'3' I dont know...the difference between the movement on his 6'3 frame from his brother Jamie's at 6'3' is ridiculous. How has this been achieved?

Llike Mecir, these big guys are not meant to move like that and I suspect will pay the penalty later on with back issues and other strain injuries. The crazy thing is that some of the huge guys are even playing with extended racquets too so they're almost impossible to pass now. Like others, I'm suspicious of what's propping their game up when you have 6'6+ guys able to cut it and win from the baseline like never before.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I really can't remember players as tall as murray move like that if anyone can think of a player of six three that moved that well 20 or 30 years ago I would love to hear who it was.

In no specific order (take this list with a grain of salt - the heights are in ft-inch)

Players as quoted by historians... Trabert (6'1), Budge (6'2"), Tilden (6'2")

Players that I can recall... Fraser (6'1"), Newcombe (6'), Ashe (6'1"), Stan Smith (6'4"), Teacher (6'3"), Becker (6'3"), Lendl (6'2"), Edberg (6'2"), Sampras (6'1"), Safin (6'4"), Ferrero (6'), Pancho Gonzales (~6'3").

These are the slam winners I can recall. Special mention for Mecir (6'3").

I have left the current Top 4 out.

None of the players you mentioned that I have watched are as big as murray or if they are move anywhere nearly as well as murray. Becker please I could beat him in a foot race, Lendl moved well for a big man but not like murray. Again this proves my point it isn't just the size and height it is combining that with the speed and movement we see combined with the size.

BB the ball slowing down is not that much of a difference the ball is a total 8 percent bigger just therefore it would lose momentum at most a few percentage points. So a ball hit 150 miles an hour with an 8 percent bigger ball doesn't all of a sudden become the equivalent of 120 mile an hour ball hit with a smaller ball, in terms of losing speed especially over a very short distance like on a tennis court. Plus the bigger ball has shown to help serving accuracy which could more than make up for the tendency to lose speed a little more.

In short we haven't seen big guys move like this and as tennis becomes more involved we will see bigger players who move better and better. Like Lebron james in basketball six foot 8 inches tall 265 pounds of muscle, and probably runs a 4.5 second 40 yard dash. I'd really like to see Djoko, Murray, and lebron james in a 40 yard dash. I'd ha my money on james or djoko.

Are there any references to demonstrate the effect of increased ball size on speed?
Also we have to consider 'fluffiness' and surface abrasion.
And on top of that, the effect of strings on retrieval quality.

I'm not saying some of these guys aren't great or their size, but I can see how they'd be badly exposed by lower bouncing, faster balls. I also know what trouble Djokovic has been given by the short slice

For the most part Djokovic used to have problems against short slice, I am not saying if executed well it can't give him problems it can to any player. But he is a much different player than 2 or 3 years ago in many areas. Certainly the strings and the abrasiveness of the surface can play a role no denying. However despite all of these things the height and speed combination of murray, djoko, and even del po is very unique. That is why del po has been able to win a slam and do so well at that size in most matches he loses it isn't because of poor movement or below par movement. I watched tennis as we all did and my gut instinct of having watched both murray and lendl (who was a good tall mover) is that murray despite these advantages in raw speed is much faster. Djokovic as well is the same size as lendl no way lendl or any guys that tall have ever moved that way. I mean these guys get compared to Borg for movement not lendl really. And borg was at least 3 or 4 inches shorter and probably gives up 25 pounds of weight to murray. I personally think borg is faster than murray but Murray is a much, much bigger man to even be competitive with a guy like Borg in speed would be an accomplishment.