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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Perhaps you can comment on the stats LS and be a judge yourself

REPEATING POST as "lost" on bottom of previous page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Socal, those distribution stats weren't on the comparator surface of clay so lets restate those and all the other key stats on clay.
All stats below now relate to clay - with averages for the top 75 players for each year unless its distribution of service/return games won for #1 to #20.
I don't see 2nd serve points won or returned as being an important judge of returning skill - but wouldn't expect they to show any different trend to 1st serve pts.

Year ¦ Ace count ¦ % Av.1st serve pts won - % Av.Service holds (#1-20 range) ¦ % Av.1st serve return pts won - % Av. Return games won (#1-20 range)
1995 ¦ 4.2 ¦ 69.2 - 74.6 (85-78) ¦ 34.4 - 30.3 (43-33)
1996 ¦ 4.4 ¦ 69.3 - 73.8 (83-77) ¦ 33.9 - 30.1 (42-33)
1997 ¦ 4.5 ¦ 69.4 - 73.5 (86-76) ¦ 33.3 - 29.8 (39-33)
1998 ¦ 4.8 ¦ 69.9 - 74.4 (85-78) ¦ 33.1 - 29.6 (41-32)
1999 ¦ 4.2 ¦ 68.1 - 73.0 (85-76) ¦ 33.7 - 29.7 (38-33)
2000 ¦ 4.9 ¦ 69.9 - 75.2 (85-79) ¦ 33.0 - 28.6 (42-31)
2001 ¦ 4.6 ¦ 69.6 - 74.4 (94-77) ¦ 33.4 - 29.5 (40-32)
2002 ¦ 4.4 ¦ 68.6 - 74.8 (86-78) ¦ 33.7 - 29.0 (42-32)
2003 ¦ 4.3 ¦ 69.2 - 74.5 (86-78) ¦ 40.1 - 29.0 (46-32)
2004 ¦ 4.4 ¦ 68.8 - 74.4 (88-78) ¦ 33.2 - 29.0 (45-32)
2005 ¦ 4.1 ¦ 67.8 - 73.4 (88-77) ¦ 33.9 - 28.9 (46-32)
2006 ¦ 4.2 ¦ 69.0 - 75.1 (92-79) ¦ 34.0 - 29.1 (40-33)
2007 ¦ 4.5 ¦ 68.5 - 74.9 (87-79) ¦ 33.2 - 27.1 (45-29)
2008 ¦ 4.9 ¦ 69.8 - 77.2 (88-80) ¦ 33.2 - 26.8 (51-31) - Nadal >12% than #2!
2009 ¦ 4.6 ¦ 70.0 - 77.1 (90-80) ¦ 32.4 - 25.9 (43-29)
2010 ¦ 4.9 ¦ 69.0 - 76.6 (91-80) ¦ 32.4 - 25.3 (41-28)
2011 ¦ 4.4 ¦ 69.1 - 75.7 (89-80) ¦ 32.9 - 26.9 (44-31)
2012 ¦ 4.8 ¦ 69.6 - 76.5 (93-81) ¦ 32.3 - 25.4 (47-28) - Nadal >8% than #2!

1. Ace count doesn't increase - indicating similar serve speeds
2. Mirrored by no change in 1st serve pts won (...if returning was getting better wouldn't this go down?)
3. 1st serve pts won unchanged but service games won show ~2% increase - why? However, 2% isnt meaningful in real terms (maybe ~1 extra game won per tournament)
4. 1st serves returned points won unchanged but return games have a bigger downward trend than serves going up - poorer returning over time?
5. The top end of return game distribution is affected by numerous outliers where #1 returner is much bigger than the rest - it mirrors downward trend

As you can see socal, not an awful lot has actually changed when we use clay as the constant comparator given its speed hasn't changed.
I certainly don't believe there is enough to state that return domination is the way forward because we are not seeing any increase in return games being won - its going down.

Anyway, there it is warts and all - that's my stats work for 2013 done, LF hope you're proud of me for this one!
Happy to hear from anyone else on the interpretation of the above numbers.

oh dont you worry lydian I made my decision quite a while back, just admiring two v2 heavyweights slugging it out.

But usually there are a few judges at a boxing match not just one

Lydian - do you have some links explaining when the change in speed gun occurred?

socal1976 wrote:Take player A, Hold percentage 92 percent break percentage 15 percent. Where can player A advance as a player? obviously it is tougher for him to get any better and more dominant as a server. And if you put his two numbers together you see that he is winning winning only 53.5 percent of his games despite a whopping advantage in his serve.

I do not really know how to state my point much differently than the first time around, but will try. Suppose players on average win 99% service games and 1% of return games (so that on average they win exactly 50% of games). Would you then say that return games are more important just because they can improve by another 99%? But that does not work - as BB said this would be much like just saying that return games are more important because people hold more than they break. In reality, moving the needle on the 99% and 1% number would be roughly equally difficult. In fact, one could turn the argument around and say serves are more important because at 1% on return you cannot do much worse while if your serve is slipping, you could be in trouble.

Now, the above is equally true at 99% vs 1% or at 80% vs 20%. There is indeed a bit of a difference if the two numbers do not add up to 100%, say take an extreme example of a player with 99% holds and 35% breaks. In this case it is indeed true that it is probably easier to move the needle on the 35% number. While going from 99% to either 100% or say 98% will likely be quite tricky (just as going from 1% to 0% or 2% would be), going from 35% to 37% or 33% is far more conceivable.

However, the problem here is that when you look across all tennis matches, the numbers have to add up to 100%. If there are 80% holds, there must be 20% breaks. If you look at the stats for top 20 players, the numbers will tend to add up to more than 100% (such as in your example of player A) but that is because most of their matches are against inferior players. But if they want to improve, they mostly need to do better against players their own quality, and in those matches the numbers will again add up to 100% - so it will again be roughly equally hard to improve serve or return numbers.

The stats say nothing has changed, but socal isn't going to be swayed by facts.

Yep, nothing has changed.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Take player A, Hold percentage 92 percent break percentage 15 percent. Where can player A advance as a player? obviously it is tougher for him to get any better and more dominant as a server. And if you put his two numbers together you see that he is winning winning only 53.5 percent of his games despite a whopping advantage in his serve.

Now, the above is equally true at 99% vs 1% or at 80% vs 20%. There is indeed a bit of a difference if the two numbers do not add up to 100%, say take an extreme example of a player with 99% holds and 35% breaks. In this case it is indeed true that it is probably easier to move the needle on the 35% number. While going from 99% to either 100% or say 98% will likely be quite tricky (just as going from 1% to 0% or 2% would be), going from 35% to 37% or 33% is far more conceivable.

.

There you go, you agree with my analysis and disagree with the conclusion. I am not looking at all tennis matches I am looking at the results of the best servers and the best returners so your point about all of the tours breaks and serves adding up to 100 percent is really irrelevant. Of course its is easier to move the needle up in the return numbers when the top servers are holding in the high 80s and low 90s, as you concede nature abhors 0 and 100 percent probabilities. Also as we have seen there is a tighter grouping among top servers and wider range of groupings in the return numbers therefore, by the numbers it is easier to differentiate yourself on the tour baseline in the return numbers and harder to out serve people match in and match out when most of the best servers are holding in the high 80s and low 90s.

BB, have you ever agreed with any point I have ever made? If you do ever agree with me on anything you sure keep silent about it. Unfortunately, I feel that you are blinded by your desire to prove that tennis today stinks in all respect and at all costs because you prefer a different style of play and different type of player.

See Lydian you point out perceived flaws in my theory, but ignore any rebuttal that I have and also flaws in your own theories. You simultaneously want to argue that the surfaces are slower and although top players are holding more the serving is not better. Then you want to simultaneously argue that the returning is poorer as well. As I stated and you want to ignore second serve hold percentages have gone up among the best players and you keep talking about ace counts which really won't answer for this rebuttal at all.

We are going all over the place just focus on the key mathmatical concept of my theory the tighter grouping today between the top servers than in the past, and the wider grouping among top returners than in the past. And furthermore the impact that has had on the rankings and performance of the top returners.

In 2000, the top returner was lleyton hewitt at 32 percent break percentage. The 20th best returner was Albert Portas at 26 percent break percentage. A difference of just six percentage points. By the way very few of the best players in the year 2000 even make the top 20 list. Again a tight distribution at the top results in the best returners not being among the players who dominated the tour.

Now look at the list for 2011, I threw out 2012 because Nadal the top returner got injured halfway through the year and his numbers were skewed up a bit by playing mainly on clay. Novak Djokovic 39 percent break percentage is the top returner, Albert montanes a 26 percent is the 20th best returner. Again a difference among the top now of 13 percentage points MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT OF THE YEAR 2000.

Now look at the difference of quality between the rankings of 2000 list of top 20 returners and 2011 list of 2011. The top 20 returners of 2011 reads like a who who of the rankings for the most part on average. The top 20 returners reads like a whose that of the rankings with notable exceptions of course in both lists. Therefore as you can see a direct relationship between this wider distribution at the top and rankings.

If we want this discussion to be instructive focus on the main mathematical point and stop bringing in ancilliary arguments about clay and ace numbers. The main point is that the wider distribution at the top allows for the players to separate themselves from the tour baseline more effectively by exceling in the return games.

I can't bring myself to say black is white on this thread just for balance. Lydian has shown in post after post that this idea of an increasingly serve dominated game doesn't exist. It isn't there. As that's the bedrock of your argument I'm afraid I can't agree.

He's also showed how Federer got to #1 last year as an also-ran in the return rankings, plus other examples of huge on contradictions to your argument.

You also conflate breaks of serve with the return. These are NOT the same thing. The return of serve is the single shot off the serve. Breaking is the whole point, or sequence of points (this is getting like that "compare the market /meerkat advert!).

I get it that if you watch Djokovic or Murray, you think "returns everything, is #1 or #2, so returning is the thing" but with nobody coming in behind a serve the return is now a shot to start the rally with. As such it's a completely different prospect from what Chang had to play. Technically, it's far easier now - not so say they aren't very good at it, but it's not decisive as t was in the 90's when so many points were won and lost on that shot. What now follows - the rally - is the key to the top guys beating the others in today's game.

Yes he has shown it except that 4 out of the top 5 players in the world for the last few years have been the best returners in the world.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=9&s=0&y=2000

Look at this "whose that" list of the top 20 returners in 2000 and the tight distribution of numbers among returners and then tell me there isn't anything to my argument.

Frankly, a number of other posters have seen value to this argument I feel like you and lydian don't want to see anything positive about today's tennis therefore you are loathe to say today's pros are better in any characteristic other than fitness, you are both very consistent in this regard. And in my not so humble opinion consistently wrong.

I see the Miami final is all about grabbing that one all-important break

You just jump around the argument, moving the debate away form wherever you've been disproven and citing opinion as fact. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, honestly.

You've also overlooked that returning is not the same as breaking.

socal1976 wrote:I am not looking at all tennis matches I am looking at the results of the best servers and the best returners

But you are looking at the stats taken mostly from matches against inferior players. For such a selection of stats, your conclusions about wider spread in return numbers would be expected to always hold - even in the world where top players are all top servers. So you cannot really use those stats to conclude anything.

Nice wrap up points BB. I have nothing further to add to this thread.

bogbrush wrote:You just jump around the argument, moving the debate away form wherever you've been disproven and citing opinion as fact. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, honestly.

You've also overlooked that returning is not the same as breaking.

No I don't because you say so and lydian agrees with you doesn't make it so. I guess the fact that two of the four best returners in the world playing in another big final somehow cuts against my point, I guess in the bizarro nostalgia world you chose to live in, but if anything it proves what I am saying. One match doesn't change the facts, mainly that players if anything, are holding at higher rate today than ever but that the best returners are doing better in the rankings. Try to twist the facts as you like but nothing changes this obvious and factually supported result not even your legendary sarcasm and knee jerk tendency to disregard anything I write.

I know the fact that the best returners in the world are dominating the rankings for the last few years doesn't prove anything, not in nostalgialand but results matter in the real world.

So 5 out of the top 10 ranked players being no where near the top of returners is not real world? Or all those below them too? I suppose Federer being ranked 15th returner in 2012 yet getting to #1 or Dimitrov being 14% return games (61st ranked returner!) in 2013 but 13th best server and racing up the rankings is not relevant either? How do you explain both these guys doing so well and climbing in Grigor's case when neither's return rank reflects their ATP rank?

Your argument rests solely on the best returners at the very top - from there you seek to generalise into the rest of the tour. So Socal, it strikes me that all you're doing is gnawing away incessantly at the very apex of the pyramid when you're neglecting to look down at the huge supporting base underneath. The game at large. I've put alot of stats work into looking across the game as a whole. However, why did I bother because the facts didnt support your argument - instead I just get called nostalgic and negative. Not really a good comeback is it. Sure, try to deflect counter points to your Djokovic-driven argument by calling me a tennis Luddite but when you take time to look at the whole pyramid it gives a completely different message. You're making the classic mistake of myopia.

That's real world for you. Real world analysis looks at the complete picture, it doesnt seek to draw a trend from 1 or 2 selective high points on the chart. Keep driving that square peg into the round hole.

As a final point - what did Murray say yesterday as he heads to clay?
"It's easier to return on clay so it's even more important to serve well.".
That's coming from a "returner".