Why returning maybe be more important than serving in a tour of big servers

Most of the top guys hold between 80-90 percent of the time. There simply isn't much better that they can serve at the top of the ATP tour. While there is a wider range of discrepancy when it comes to returning in terms of numbers. The range for the top 30 goes from 10-40 percent there is more room for differentiation in returning than there is in serving. Remember Djokovic maintained his #3 ranking for two years with the sharapovas on the serve he was in 2010 46th in hold percentage or in that range. But he finished #3 because he lead the tour in breaking that year. In short there is more of numerical spread in the return numbers at the top, and therefore that is the place where players can separate themselves in the rankings. Yes the serve is still crucial to success but if you look at the top 5 players in the world 4 of them are the top 4 returners in the world. Because frankly a great serve is important and the numbers for holding are as high as ever, but if everyone is holding there serve at 80 plus percent there simply isn't much room to out serve your opponents match in and match out. In the modern game we have seen that holding numbers have not come down contrary to popular belief, but this has resulted in returning becoming a better bell weather of success than great serving. If everyone can serve lights out, what benefit is there in being another top pro with a big serve? Meanwhile a guy like Ferrer who can get competent at serving and is a great returner seemingly can consistently get that crucial break and finish on top of guys like berdy, del po, and Tsonga who have much bigger serves but are not in his league as a returner. There just isn't much more room to improve in the serving numbers, how close to 100 percent hold percentage can you get?

A close scrutiney of the return game and service game leaders on tour bears this out. The difference between the best server and the #20 best server is just six percentage points. The difference between the best percentage returner and the #20 best returner is 13 percentage points. Returning in the modern game loaded with big servers is where a top player can differentiate himself from the tour baseline.

Socal, you happen to pick Querrey at #20 who is an out and out server to illustrate your point.

Djokovic's stats for career service games and return games won are:
84% and 31%

If you had picked Seppi at #19, it would be:
75% and 24%

So that's a difference of 9% on serve and 7% on return. Not much difference.

Had you picked Wawrinka at #17 it would be:
80% and 24%
That would be a small difference also.

Gasquet is 82% and 25%. Again, that's a 2% and 6% difference, not much.

Dimitrov is 80% (better than Seppi) and 19% on return.
To put a control in, Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo a staple top100 player:
67% and 7%

Isner is 90% and 11%
Ferrer is 77% and 32% (better than Djokovic)
Federer is 88% and 27%
Murray is 81% and 32% (again better than Djokovic on return games won)
Agassi was 84% and 32% (counting up to age 35! better than Djoko, same as Murray and Ferrer but courts were much quicker!)
Sampras was 89% and 24%
Chang was 79% and 32% (not bad eh? I told you he was good)
Lendl was 82% and 28%
Hewitt was 81% and 30%

Then you have Nadal on 85% and 33% - the best return game winner out of all the players I've looked at from Open Era.

Yes, a return is hugely important, it always was but the difference in the top 20 (besides outlier Isner) isn't as wide as you'd have us believe. Ferrer is up at 32% return games won...almost the highest and yet he has no slams and 1 Masters. It's probably having to make up for his serve at 77%.

Given these stats, clearly holding serve is key. It doesn't matter if you win the set 6-1 breaking 3 times, or 6-4 breaking once, or winning on TBs as some huge servers like Isner often do. A set win is a set win. Sampras was down at a relative lowly 24% return games won...yet we know he coasted through sets, got to 4-4 then put in the effort to break. He had a different strategy to say Agassi. So it's not the how many times you break but WHEN you break. This is why Dimitrov can have lower stats but nearly be in the top 30 still, he still knows when to break to win matches...plus his return games won is only 5% behind Sampras anyway.

In summary, I'm not sure the stats say its any more important to be a better returner now than 20 years ago. I say it's all relative because Chang, Hewitt and Murray's figures from 3 eras are almost the same.
What do you make of that particular stat socal?

I think you have misunderstood Socal's point Lydian. At no stage does he refer to Querrey. I read it (although I haven't checked) as being that he has looked at the stats for YTD service and return games won. He has then analysed the difference between number 1 on those lists (whoever that may be) and number 20 (again whoever that may be).

Fair enough BS, I hear what you're saying but I think there's a bigger picture because I don't place too much credence in YTD stats when the year is not 3 mths old yet, its too small a trend to analyse. For example, YTD Ferrer is 39% on return games but his career average is 32%. Gulbis is at 30% (purple patch) when his career average is 19%. Looking at narrow windows can skew conclusions made.

However, yes I agree top returners are always near the top of the game. But then that's always been the case. Look at guys like Agassi, Hewitt and Chang from past eras who were 30%+ on returns. 30% seems to be the threshold level for great returners.

HOWEVER - what I find particularly interesting is that Chang, Hewitt and Murray all have similar career % return games won despite surfaces slowing down considerably from late 90s to today. across that period.

We're told that today's players are amongst the best ever, more skilled athletes who incorporate more variety in their game than those before. Yet when you expect % return games won on much slower surfaces to be much higher for this generation we see Murray achieving the same level as Chang who had to return on much quicker surfaces against arguably much quicker servers. That was my counter point.

Infact - if the level of return games won in the 90s was broader similar to today doesn't that pour cold water on the need to have slowed the game down in the first place?

I would have said it makes it clear that the game needed to be slowed down to maintain the status quo. If we assume that the top returners now are on a par with those in the 90s then they should be winning a higher percentage of return games (given the slow down). The fact they are not indicates to me that the pure velocity of serve nowadays is merely being balanced by the slow down. If the courts were still as quick then the big servers would be overly dominant.

And there is no way Chang was facing much quicker servers. A large proportion of players in the 90s had comparative powder-puff serves. The very top servers might have been similar but the average player was very much slower.

Born Slippy wrote:I would have said it makes it clear that the game needed to be slowed down to maintain the status quo. If we assume that the top returners now are on a par with those in the 90s then they should be winning a higher percentage of return games (given the slow down). The fact they are not indicates to me that the pure velocity of serve nowadays is merely being balanced by the slow down. If the courts were still as quick then the big servers would be overly dominant.

Yesterday, Isner served at 143mph (v Cilic) and Berdych served at 138mph (v Falla). The Top 4 only serve around 120+ and perhaps push it to 130+ when extreme need arises. Murray may be an exception on his first serve.

Serving at 130+, the lack of accuracy is rather obvious from 1st server %ages (at least in Miami - one of the slowest HCs around) and Karlovic and his serving buddys are yet to win a slam.

PS: Contrast this with a 69mph juggernaut served by Simon @USO v Fish.

Yes LF, look at Federer rarely goes about 125-127ish and yet has the highest %hold. Its where you can place it, variety how you back it up that always counts.

I believe servers in the 90s had better variety and placement. Slower surfaces have made todays returners lazier in technique. No-one comes to the net anymore so you see safe returns made. We saw how much more easier it is to return with that Wimb infographic shown a couple of years back which clearly demonstrated the difference in height and speed coming through off Federer's serve between 2003 and 2008 ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

Also, there were great servers in the 90s, e.g.
Goran Ivanesivic
Richard Krajicek
Boris Becker
Michael Stich
Pete Sampras
Marc Rosset
Todd Martin
Mark Philippoussis
Stefan Edberg (90-91 held >90% service games)
Greg Rusedski
Guy Forget
Patrick Rafter (amazing kick serve)
David Wheaton
Wayne Arthurs
and lots of other very good servers...

Dont forget they measured serve speed over the net back then, not off the racquet. I think the average speed across the tour is on a similar par - serving technique itself hasn't changed and strings don't make much difference to speed bearing in mind Philippoussis could still serve 130+ with a wooden racquet.

Chang had less time to return serves and had to make them count against more frequent incoming volleyers. Yet he still broke serve as often as Murray does in today's conditions when Murray has more time and the server isn't even coming into the net giving the returner much more scope for getting the ball back in play. Clearly the dynamic of the game has changed a lot, now you have serve & ralley rather than serve & volley. So perhaps the similar %'s show that todays guys are simply as adept at rallying in general as guys were at volleying in the 90s.

Born Slippy wrote:And there is no way Chang was facing much quicker servers. A large proportion of players in the 90s had comparative powder-puff serves. The very top servers might have been similar but the average player was very much slower.

Eh? Surely we're not going to say the 90's was a weak era for serving? I thought the whole premise for slowing courts down was that everything was a big serving bore fest.

Changs numbers are astonishing. I'd hazard a guess he played slightly fewer matches on clay than Nadal too, as a %. That's just my suspicion.

Laverfan and BornSlippy, I have hit it on the head all that is needed to see the premium in returning today is to look at how the best returners in the game are dominant, while the only dominant server in the top 5 is federer who also is a pretty good returner. Meanwhile the players that lead the serving numbers like Isner, Querrey, Berdych, and Tsonga while successful players in their own right struggle to up end the big returners. There simply isn't much higher than 90 percent a player can hold, I mean you can't hold 105 percent of the time. While return numbers have more of a broad distribution thus allowing for more differentiation at the top.

BS did a great analysis showing that players today are holding at a higher percentage in the past despite the slow down of surfaces, it futhers shows how great the top returners truely are, far superior to a player like Chang. And furthermore showing that there is little room for speeding up the conditions. However this isn't really the point of this thread.

Lydian makes some fair points, but does misunderstand my point. I compared the top 20 servers regardless of ranking and top 20 returners and compared the spread between a good server and great server and did the same for return numbers. What you see is that the servers are more closely bunched together, and there is a larger numerical spread among the returners. Therefore that is where the differentiation on the modern tour takes place. So what you have is thin margins separating the top servers and somewhat larger margins separating the top returners. It is this margin that allows for the discrepancy we see with the best returners holding the top rankings.

I don't understand how a player who broke more often, in a period where the courts were faster, racquet and string technology was less developed, and players came to the net making the passive return less of an option, can be far inferior to those today with poorer numbers.

Because again the serves are bigger today than they were in the 90s, the hold numbers bear it out and the radar gun bears it out as well. And the great returners are still breaking at as high a rate despite these disadvantages. Sure the guys in the 90s could serve big, but the players today are bigger, stronger, and have better technology as well. That is why despite the slowdown we have not seen holding percentage go down significantly at all. The passive return gets punished today with the short forehand, the ease of hitting the short forehand makes the risk of coming to net not worth it.

The passive return can be deep, just floated there. You couldn't do that when players came in.

In any case, speed isn't decisive. Look at Federers serve stats, and he only serves at Williams sisters speed.

How many returns does Djokovic or murray chip back, a lot fewer than the one handed backhands who dominated in the past. In fact the slow death of the one hander is another reason that volleying has died down. If you kick it wide to a one hander you will get more floated returns. I doubt Djokovic chips more than 10-20 percent of returns. Look at federer he is like the classical player protype in the modern game he chips more returns than murray, novak, and Nadal combined.

In fact, Lendl used to torture his opponents with a short cross court chip, that the volleyer could not get to till the ball dropped way beneath the net and then he would pass them on the next shot as they were forced to volley up.

I didn't say chip, I said float. I see countless returns now that are just shoved back to the backcourt.
Obviously the technology gives the returner so much more weaponry than back then, so the short or angled chip was more popular. There are more options now, just so long as you can reach the ball.

There were lots of two handers back then.

A deep central return is not passive if it is hit hard and deep, Look you can argue the point if you like the numbers bear it out despite the slower conditions both the gun numbers are up and the hold numbers are as high as ever. So where is the room for this widespread speed up that you and lydian favor?

That's a change of subject.

I'm saying Changs numbers are brilliant given the court speed, technology, and type of game played back then. You're saying he's far inferior to today's.
The deep central return is a shot Chang wasn't allowed to play.

socal1976 wrote:Because again the serves are bigger today than they were in the 90s, the hold numbers bear it out and the radar gun bears it out as well.

I believe the method used to measure serve speed is different now than in the '90s.

Yes, I was going to mention that but I'd only be citing lydian. When he's back he can clear it up for sure.

Obviously if they have changed then the serve speed argument is dead.

What about the hold numbers being higher today is this as a result of new Enron accounting methods as well?

socal1976 wrote:What about the hold numbers being higher today is this as a result of new Enron accounting methods as well?

No, I don't think Enron are involved, only the change in the way the radar gun measures service speed.

Radar gun does not change your hold numbers the point is that as great serving becomes more of a baseline on tour the place where you can separate yourself is in the return numbers. I mean can you hold 100 percent of the time ? No but mathematically you have more room and a wider distribution of numbers alows for differences to show

So does service speed not matter now? It did before.

You've slipped in a presumption there (as great serving becomes......) to underpin your argument. Where is the evidence? It sounds a bit circular now.

Changs numbers still look pretty great to me.

Radar speeds were measured over the net up to around 2001. Then it switched to being timed at the racquet head. It probably accounts for 10-12mph difference.

At USO 1998 Sampras was timed at 135mph - his fastest and yet in an exho last year he served at 140mph when he hardly picks up a racquet anymore and nowhere near his prime in strength and timing. Goran in an exho last year was timed at 145mph. McEnroe was timed at 127mph in an exho a few years back.

More tellingly are these stats. In that fated match between Sampras and Federer in 2001 before Wimb changed the speed methods, Sampras's average 1st set speed was 125mph. Federer's was 114mph. Given we know Federer normally averages around 125mph that's 11mph lower putting Pete up at 136mph average - imagine seeing those numbers today with the 5000rpm spin he also put on the ball. At USO 2002 when changes had occurred to measurement, Pete average 118mph 2ND serve in either the QF, SF or final (cant remember which). Nadal is happy to do that as a 1st serve.

There's a guy who measures serve speeds in the US and has done analysis on Sampras and some other guys to see what they would do today. On a forum thread somewhere...don't know where...he said that Pete would be topping out at 138-145mph today - kind of like Ljubicic - and Goran would be in the 150s.

So when you have Chang facing these and other guys on fast surfaces and still recording the same % return games won vs Murray then you have to acknowledge the skill of those guys.

Today's guys do not serve any faster. I've said that Philipoussis could serve 130+ with a wooden racquet - meaning racquets and strings count less on serve. At 5000rpm the ball only moves 4cm on the face of a racquet so a 80inch wooden racquet can still do damage. Technique-wise serving hasn't changed as there isn't much to change...guys have been serving 140s since the 70s, arguably before that even.

90s guys were fast because speed and placement on faster surfaces was more important, those guys who served better simply did better. So guys like Chang had to develop their returning skils - or rather, guys like Chang who were great returners made a huge impact in those times. Now its not the same, servers have less variety because they need less variety - they hit flatter with less spin and the returner has all day to get the ball back.

Great analysis, thanks lydian. Very informative.

Am I picking up at the end there that you think being an out and out incredible returner (a la Chang or Agassi) may actually be less of a premium value skill, whereas the baseline skills are what it's all about?

Edit: last para added after Lydians thumbs up - I may be incorrect in that conclusion.

lydian wrote:Yet when you expect % return games won on much slower surfaces to be much higher for this generation we see Murray achieving the same level as Chang who had to return on much quicker surfaces against arguably much quicker servers. That was my counter point.

Infact - if the level of return games won in the 90s was broader similar to today doesn't that pour cold water on the need to have slowed the game down in the first place?

Yeah but you get the greater benefit of returning skills when the courts are quicker, i.e. Murray's returning game is at it's most outrageous when it's a faster serve. This is simply because the faster the server the faster the instinctive returner plays it - shocking the server into errors or being on the back foot

On slower courts winning the return game could be argued to be just as hard - simply because there is no great element of surprise with the return, i.e. the server can just about re-ajust and get themselves back into the point.

For me Murray is a mixture of Agassi / Connors / Chang - and I think he would have been fine in their era

Getting back the point - i've always thought that having a great return was always more important that having a great serve. Few players have had prolonged Top 4 careers, where they win multiple Masters / or Slams, on having just a great serve and a moderate return. Virtually all the players who had a great return had a great career of always been at the business end of these events

This is why, for me Dimi looks the genuine article - because he's got a great return

bogbrush wrote: I see countless returns now that are just shoved back to the backcourt

But only from poor to moderate returners. I mean Berdy and Tsonga are a joke with their returns

Let's be honest here, it's no coincidence that Roger has suffered at the hands of the returning games of Djokovich, Nadal and Murray. The one true positive of Andy (when on song) is that he expects to return the ball with interest and the faster it comes at him the more he likes it

Of course, such players are going to get aced. But what happens is that they put so much doubt into the mind of the big server that suddenly they are not serving big!! So they love playing the big servers (i.e those who over depend on it) no matter what the speed

And this used to happen way back. Connors had a 17-4 winning record over Roscoe Tanner. Proportionately similar to all the Top 4 over most of the 'next door' rivals

Good point banbrotam, although these days the server doesn't come into the net meaning the returner has more levity in reply. Chang would have to return and dip it to returners feet. I'm not saying Chang is better than Murray but I'm certainly not saying he's any less a player either. Murray has some stickability that Chang had ... but I cannot put him on the same level as Agassi or Connors, I think they are an altogether different level to Andy - alltime great material. Andy is a great player, but not an alltime great IMO. He's a great competitor and counterpuncher, Andre and Jimmy were much more aggressive players - and adept on clay of course. However, what Andy does have is 6'3' of height! And he's a physical specimen these days...great mover for his size and anticipates the game extremely well.

Agreed on Dimitrov, he has very good hands/timing ... only he knows how far he could go, which is a very long way indeed. The most promising young prospect out there...he's still 21.

I actually don't think todays guys serve any faster - but I think there are more capable of serving fast

However, I have no doubt that Nadal, Nole and Murray would have had no trouble returning serve in the mid-90's

Nobodies saying otherwise. What's in contention is that Changs stats leave him far inferior in returning to Murray et al.

What we see now is guys of 6'8, 6'9, 6'10 banging down serves because at that height the net is immaterial! Why are all these guys doing well? Because the courts are so slow, giving time for these human wardrobes to get around court...these kind of guys were not seen in the 90s, not because evolution was further back but because human carthorses got found out for explosive movement back then. These guys work the modus operandi of getting to TBs and sneaking through them. They're all huge serve and huge FH but once the tour gets used to their particular serve they tend to hover around #20 mark at best.

Yep, talent is talent in any era. N, D and M would cut it in any era...although I think N and D would cut it just that little bit more

Yep BB. I'm still to hear a good argument why Murray's returning stats are no better than Chang's (or Hewitt's) considering we're on treacle covered courts now which should play into his rallying game perfectly.

lydian wrote:Good point banbrotam, although these days the server doesn't come into the net meaning the returner has more levity in reply. Chang would have to return and dip it to returners feet. I'm not saying Chang is better than Murray but I'm certainly not saying he's any less a player either. Murray has some stickability that Chang had ... but I cannot put him on the same level as Agassi or Connors, I think they are an altogether different level to Andy - alltime great material. Andy is a great player, but not an alltime great IMO. He's a great competitor and counterpuncher, Andre and Jimmy were much more aggressive players - and adept on clay of course. However, what Andy does have is 6'3' of height! And he's a physical specimen these days...great mover for his size and anticipates the game extremely well.

Agreed on Dimitrov, he has very good hands/timing ... only he knows how far he could go, which is a very long way indeed. The most promising young prospect out there...he's still 21.

Agassi at Andy's age, was still in spoilt brat mode. It was when he matured more and understood all aspects of his game, that he became better. Of course we can't rank Andy with him right now - but we might be able to do in 5/6/7 years

Certainly Andy's constant occupation of various Top 10 stats of all time - shows he's probably better than we give him credit for. It is often the case, that we only see how good a player is when he's gone - particularly is they had 'teething' troubles

lydian wrote:Yep BB. I'm still to hear a good argument why Murray's returning stats are no better than Chang's (or Hewitt's) considering we're on treacle covered courts now which should play into his rallying game perfectly.

I've given you one - which I think is reasonable. I don't think that the slower conditions mean that the instinctive returner is any better off - simply becasue the server can adjust better to the return

For me, talking about Murray, he returns better in the fastest of conditions - but it is a feast / famine success rate

First off the gun isn't the big part of the argument. Even assuming 11-12 miles that lydian states Karlovic, Roddick, and Raonic still have bigger serves than the past greats in terms of miles per hour. Born Slippy, did a great analysis proving that it is across the board harder to break today than it was in the past contrary to popular myth. Lydian I find your arguments that the guys in the past were just better at placing it and had more variety off the serve to be anectodal and not supported by much. I think in today's game the serving is as stronger or stronger than ever, meanwhile this fact has actually moved returning skills to a higher importance.

It is a matter of mathematics, as more of the tour gets closer to the 100 percent threshold as a matter of math it is harder to differentiated self from the baseline. Raonic at 92 percent hold percentage can't really get much better in his service games. If you look at the distribution of numbers that is what is important. As well as the success that players who are great returners are having. The great returner has supplanted the great server to a large extent as the dominant force on tour, different than what we saw in the Sampras era.

Karlovic isn't a great. Roscoe Tanner had an incredible serve, faster than Ivo.

I like that you tell Lydian he doesn't support his statement with fact them move effortlessly onto a sentence that is pure opinion.

The last paragraph is just so wrong I don't believe there's value in dissecting it. Just for one thing, are you saying the games never seen someone like Raonic before?

Gut feeling it was harder to break in the 90s due to faster courts (and maybe balls?). However my memory of the 90s is more focused on Wimbledon that the whole tour.

The reason Rafa leads 33% of return games won vs 32% on others could be due to the fact he has played more on clay. This lead might disappear if weighted by surface?

He doesn't he says they had more variety and placed it better what evidence has he provided. Both you guys refuse to accept that anything in today's game is better in anyway to the past other than fitness. It is your unifying belief. Despite meticulous research that born slippy did showing it is harder to break today than in the past. Simultaneously you want us to believe that both the servers and the returners of the past are better than today. Nostalgia really with no evidence.

Look at how the great returners are dominating the tour, it makes perfect sense that as hold numbers go up that the area where you can separate yourself is the return. As you get closer to 100 percent the room for differentiation becomes smaller and smaller. And the numbers bear this out completely. You see a wider distribution among top returners than you do among top servers. Just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it so

If the best guys are holding at 80-90 percent logic would dictate that it will be very tough to out serve everyone match in and match out.

It's almost impossible to compare 15-20 years ago to today, given the way the game has changed. I don't believe that there has been any great change in human evolution or potential in the last 2 decades, so any difference in today's top players vs those of 20 years ago, outside of strings, fitness, conditions etc is probably going to be very marginal.
Djoko may be a slightly better returner than Agassi or Connors, or he might not be.
Chang may be a slightly better returner than Murray, or he might not be.
It's impossible to state either way as a fact because the differences are so small that they can only be in the eye of the beholder, not empirical.

That isn't even the point of the article Julius, it was taken into the area of dull repetitive era comparison and nostalgia for dead serve and volleying, and the evil of slow conditions but that isn't the point. I don't care if you think Agassi is better at returning or Djokovic. Or if you think Sampras a better server than Isner or vice versa. The point is to explain why we see the returners dominate today's tour and why the bigger servers for the most part are not the dominant force they once were. Apparently, if you criticize the terrible slow conditions nobody gets frightened and angered and flees the website, eventhough we have heard that argument and the call for change 1000 and ten times since sunday.

Really it isn't empirical than how do you explain the tight distribution of hold percentages between the top 20 servers, and the broader distribution of the top 20 best returners? That isn't empirical, are the YTD stats off the ATP website my opinion?

My research is every bit as meticulous as BS's...and both of us more so than yourself.
Raonic is no better than Goran. You offer nothing in the way of facts to back up your assertions. The service game numbers have been around 90% for years now.

Take a look at this: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=4&s=0&y=0
Out of the top 20 of all time in service games won, inc. current players...13 are retired. 5 out of top10 are from the 90s.

On ace leaders, most are retired: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=0&s=0&y=0
Goran is far and away the leader.

I love the way you say "I think in today's game the serving is as stronger or stronger than ever" then go on to call the "I think" a fact! The returner has supplanted the server because the level of serving isn't what is was and its now a ralley based game. However, that's just a meaningless generality. Look at results.

In doing so there is a huge fly in your ointment and he's called Roger Federer. Federer has been on around 88-90% service games won for most of his career. Last year he was 92%, behind Raonic on 93%. But you say returning is the new battleground...given stats haven't changed much since 2006 how do you explain that on hard courts Roger Federer is 28th on the all time list for return games won and yet holds 9 HC slams and 6 World Tour Finals? Being amongst the leading return game winners didn't seem to be much of a necessary battleground for him.

Furthermore in 2012 when he reclaimed #1 and won a slam where was he on current players return game winners list? Top5? No. Top10? No. He was 15th. Ferrer was 4th and Nishikori 5th.

Did 93% Raonic, 90% Isner....33% Ferrer or 32% Nishikori get sniffs of a slam? No. It was the same old guys and Federer went deep across nearly events and yet was 15th on the returning list. Being near the top of these server or return game lists doesn't count, it's WHEN you break or hold that counts. Sampras was 89% service games won and 25% return games won...he wasn't top of either list, behind Raonic for serving and behind Murray for returning yet who got 14 slams?

Then finally, you say "The point is to explain why we see the returners dominate today's tour". So we should expect the return games winners list in 2012 to closely match the final ATP rankings right, ie dominating the tour. Well this was the 2012 top10 return game winners:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Novak Djokovic
3. Juan Monaco
4. David Ferrer
5. Kei Nishikori
6. Andy Murray
7. Carlos Berlocq
8. Gilles Simon
9. Richard Gasquet
10. Nikolay Davydenko

No Federer! Where's staple top10ers Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Tipsarevic? What did Carlos Berlocq, Davydenko or Nishikori win?

You're reading far too much into statistics, the wider distribution is meaningless.

We really do need to find BS's thread because it is germaine and I site that as proof that across the board it is no easier to break today than in the past. I have work to do will get to your post lydian after work. By the way when did I say Raonic is a better server than Sampras? That is another one of the famous straw men arguments that seem to be hoisted on me. In fact, I have often said Sampras has the greatest first and second serve combined of any player I have seen to this day.

Socal, forget all the comparisons for now, that's a related but different discussion. Simply please explain why you said "The point is to explain why we see the returners dominate today's tour" when the top 10 return game winners for 2012 were:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Novak Djokovic
3. Juan Monaco
4. David Ferrer
5. Kei Nishikori
6. Andy Murray
7. Carlos Berlocq
8. Gilles Simon
9. Richard Gasquet
10. Nikolay Davydenko

No Federer, Delpo, Berdych, Tsonga or Tipsaveric....ie. 5 of the top 10 for YE 2012 missing from that list.

What did Berlocq, Nishikori, Simon, Gasquet, Monaco, Ferrer and Davydenko dominate besides these meaningless stats?

All I can say is... Take a bow Lydian, take a bow!

socal1976 wrote:By the way when did I say Raonic is a better server than Sampras? That is another one of the famous straw men arguments that seem to be hoisted on me.

When did anyone claim that you said that? You've created your own strawman by claiming posters have claimed you claimed things, when they haven't claimed you claimed those things.