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.

and then he said that you said that he said that that guy who's mates with bernard said who said he was twice removed and bumfluff copped a packet at Galipoli with the Aussies -- so had Drippy and Strangely Brown.

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

Amen to that.

Lydian is on form today.

Top Ranking returners currently on tour by break percentage:

Ferrer, David(5)
Djokovic, Novak(1)
Nishikori, Kei (15)
Nadal, Rafael (4)
Murray, Andy(3)

Average ranking of a top 5 returner: 5.6

Top ranking servers in terms of Hold percentage:


Raonic, Milos(16)
Tomic, Bernard(45)
Nadal, Rafael(4)
Djokovic, Novak (1)
Llodra, Michael (65)

Average ranking of current top 5 server: 26.2

The funny thing is that the two highest ranked players in the year to date serving stats are Djokovic and Nadal who aren't even known as big servers and principally are known for their returns. If you compare the ranking of the DOMINANT RETURNERS VS. THE DOMINANT SERVERS. There isn't even a competition, it is laughable how much better the returners are doing with an average ranking of 5.6 in the world. Michael LLodra is holding 90 percent of the time and he isn't even in the top 50! The lowest ranked player in the top 5 year to date stats is Nishikori at 15 in the world.




Scoreboard the best returners in the business are trouncing the highest ranked servers in the business.

LuvSports! wrote:and then he said that you said that he said that that guy who's mates with bernard said who said he was twice removed and bumfluff copped a packet at Galipoli with the Aussies -- so had Drippy and Strangely Brown.

That about sums up the level of your intellectual contribution to this thread. Thanks for that but I didn't expect much better from what this site has become. Maybe instead of 606v2 we should change our name to OTFv2?

Henman Bill wrote: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.

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?
.


Born Slippy




And Lydian here is my proof as to why the serving is as strong as ever, since you asked me for proof I reference BS well researched points. So no evidence whatsoever that the servers were greater in the 90s, not by miles per hour and not by percentage of service games held. And Henman Bill your gut instinct is wrong based on this research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRwev8bg5mg

Born, could you also do an analysis of the top 10 and the top 30 servers and also apply a statistical analysis using standard deviations. That way we could be more certain if the stats you quote are meaningful.
Also a similar analysis of the top 10/20/30 returners would be useful.
And when you say "servers are serving quicker than ever" are you accounting for the change in the way service speeds are measured these days?

Socal, this is a nice article with some interesting thoughts. However, the main line of reasoning has a bit of an unintended statistical bias:

• Obviously, across all tennis matches, every game where a server gets broken is at the same time a game where a returner breaks. In other words, if, on average, 80% of service games are holds, then also 20% of return games must be breaks.
  
  
• However, when two unequal players are playing, the numbers will tend to tilt towards the better player. So maybe he could have a 90% chance of holding and 30% chance of breaking. For the better player, the hold probability will always be more extreme (i.e., further away from 50%) than the break probability. This is unlike in the case of two equal players, where 80% and 20% are both equally far away from 50%.
  
  
• The more extreme the probability, the less variation will there be in the actual results (which is consistent with what you observed for top players when you see less variation in server percentages).
  

The problem with your main argument is that the top players typically play their matches against weaker opponents. So, their statistics are not random statistics taken from tennis matches – they are a biased sample of statistics taken mostly from the winners (the losers are the ones that are at the bottom of the rankings). Therefore, for reasons described above, return game is bound to look the more important in their stats.

Isn't there a risk in isolating the two statistics?

For example, if my hold percentage is 90, but my break percentage is 7, then one could say I'm 3% more likely to be broken than to break in any given set, and a such, I'm more likely to lose sets than win (tie-break sets notwithstanding).

If however, my hold percentage is 85%, but my break percentage is 25%, then I'm 10% more likely to break than be broken in a given set, and as such, I much more likely to win sets than the guy who holds 90% of the time, but rarely breaks.

Very interesting topic, BTW.

summerblues wrote:Socal, this is a nice article with some interesting thoughts. However, the main line of reasoning has a bit of an unintended statistical bias:

• Obviously, across all tennis matches, every game where a server gets broken is at the same time a game where a returner breaks. In other words, if, on average, 80% of service games are holds, then also 20% of return games must be breaks.
  
  
• However, when two unequal players are playing, the numbers will tend to tilt towards the better player. So maybe he could have a 90% chance of holding and 30% chance of breaking. For the better player, the hold probability will always be more extreme (i.e., further away from 50%) than the break probability. This is unlike in the case of two equal players, where 80% and 20% are both equally far away from 50%.
  
  
• The more extreme the probability, the less variation will there be in the actual results (which is consistent with what you observed for top players when you see less variation in server percentages).
  

The problem with your main argument is that the top players typically play their matches against weaker opponents. So, their statistics are not random statistics taken from tennis matches – they are a biased sample of statistics taken mostly from the winners (the losers are the ones that are at the bottom of the rankings). Therefore, for reasons described above, return game is bound to look the more important in their stats.

But why are those top players better? Federer for example never finished at or near the top of the tour in returning but he routinely ran over weaker opponents and by lopsided margins. Same thing when you look at pete sampras he never broke serve that often and he still dominated the tour. In fact this is a rather new development as traditionally the big servers were the top dogs on tour. So I actually don't agree with you summerblues. I mean why does a nishikori break at such a high rate and he is #15? He is very good player but not a dominant force that bullies the weaker players. And you do have some players at the opposite side of the equation, Raonic is ranked about where Nish is and he is a terrible returner.


There is no inherent bias towards stronger players being able to break more regardless of the quality of their returns. You are in my opinion mistaking cause for effect. The players are stronger because they have good returns along with other weapons. They are not putting up good return numbers by virtue of simply being better players. Again take Roger, Pete, Becker etc. they were never world beating returners but reached number 1, why didn't playing weaker players simply cause them to naturally finish at the top of the return charts? Their games were serve dominant, now the top guys seem to be return dominant. I don't see the inherent bias you are discussing. I mean if you look at the all time return charts you see some players from the past who have no business at the top of any charts. Somehow in the past there was not this strong correlation between return success and ranking success. The question is why are we seeing such a stronger correlation between return success and ranking success today.

My hypothesis is that due to the fact that big server is so common and most players are serving better there is little stastical room for you to differentiate yourself by blasting big serves. If most of the top guys are holding 80-90 percent of the time it becomes a dangerous tight rope act to try to outserve every opponent. But when you see the bigger spreads and wider distributions in the return numbers that means that there is more differentiation and potential to separate yourself as a great return in an era where everyone has a pretty big and effective serve.

MMT1 wrote:Isn't there a risk in isolating the two statistics?

For example, if my hold percentage is 90, but my break percentage is 7, then one could say I'm 3% more likely to be broken than to break in any given set, and a such, I'm more likely to lose sets than win (tie-break sets notwithstanding).

If however, my hold percentage is 85%, but my break percentage is 25%, then I'm 10% more likely to break than be broken in a given set, and as such, I much more likely to win sets than the guy who holds 90% of the time, but rarely breaks.

Very interesting topic, BTW.

Not really there are only two ways to win a game, either by breaking or by holding (tiebreaks don't count in these stats) so what is the danger in isolating those two statistics. If you take a players two percentages and combine them, then divide by 2 you know exactly how many games he wins. The key here is that there is a very tight distribution in the serving numbers and wider distribution in the returning numbers. For example Ivo Karlovic breaks 4 percent of the time and is the 89 player listed in the ATP stats, Ferrer is breaking 39 percent of the time that is a gap of 35 points. Now take the top server Raonic at 92 percent and the 89 player list in the ATP stats, (the last guy listed on the chart) is pablo Andujar at 66 percent a gap of 26 points between 1 and #89 (last guy listed). Again even when comparing the very top guy with the last guy you have more room for differentiation in returning. This is because you can't really hold 100 percent of the time. It is the rule that nothing in life or the universe is 100 percent and nothing is zero. With everyone serving and pushing their hold numbers up closer to 100, that is what BS post showed the distribution and gaps between the top servers gets tighter and therefore statistically less relevant.

I don't think I made my point very well. If the question is whether returning is more important than serving, my instinct tells me that returning relative to one's ability to hold is really the issue, not simply one's returning statistics or serving statistics.

A guy who holds 92% of the time needs to break serve a lot less on average than a guy who only holds 80% of the time, and he will still be more likely to win sets. But if he only breaks 5% of the time, then he is still more likely to lose sets because he is broken more often than he breaks (on average).

So, can we really say that the break percentage, in and of itself, is more important than the hold percentage? Or is it rather the players ability to break relative to his ability to hold that matters most.

There's got to be a statistic that covers this, but I was never that good in maths.

I get what you are saying. Here is why I think returning has in recent days become more important. A guy can hold 90 percent, or 92 percent of the time but like the speed of light he can't hold 100 percent of the time. As more players move up closer to the high percentage numbers on the scale the room for differentiation becomes less and less in the serving numbers. Where in returning due to the fact that there is more margin in the numbers there is more room for differentiation. You can't keep serving at a higher and higher rate to cover up your deficiency as a returner. But look at Djoko in 2010 he finished 46th in hold percentage and because he lead the ATP tour in break percentage he managed to finish 3rd in the ATP rankings, his serve was terrible in 09 an 2010 but it didn't impact his ranking as much. Both are extremely important but as the serving hold numbers move closer to the 100 percent threshold and more guys hit those high numbers you chance for outserving everyone match in and match out becomes less and less mathematically speaking over time.

This argument has fundamental flaws.

Let me demonstrate this further by showing ATP match records for the past 20 years - 2012 to 1992.
Each year shows the highest and lowest across top 20 guys for serving and returning games won.
Where 3%+ outliers at the top or bottom occurred I have indicated them.

% SERVING & RETURNING GAMES WON
1992: 89-79 & 37-28
1993: 90-81 & 37-29
1994: 88-82 & 37-29
1995: 89-81 & 36-29
1996: 91-81 & 35-29
1997: 92-80 & 33-27
1998: 89-80 & 34-28
1999: 90-80 & 34-27
2000: 91-82 & 32-26
2001: 90-81 & 33-27
2002: 90-80 & 33-26
2003: 91-81 & 39-28 (Coria outlier by 4% - played 9 clay events)
2004: 92-82 & 37-25
2005: 93-81 & 38-26 (Nadal return outlier - emergence & played more clay events in 2005)
2006: 90-81 & 35-26
2007: 94-82 & 36-26 (Karlovic serve outlier by 3%)
2008: 91-83 & 33-25
2009: 92-82 & 34-25
2010: 91-83 & 32-24
2011: 91-82 & 39-26 (Djokovic return outlier by 4% - 2011 mega year!)
2012: 93-82 & 38-25 (Nadal return outlier - only played 1/2 year so skewed to better 1/2)

For a 20 year span its all remarkably similar - averages for each year would very close.

NOTES:
Socal, you talk about serving moving towards 100% but there is no evidence of that.
Across 2012-1992 serve holding has been maxing out around 90% +/- 2 to 3%.
Across 2012-1992 return games have been maxing out around 36% +/- 3%.
Where's the big changes you talk of?

You mention Djokovic as an example of where in 2010 he was 46th in serving yet finished 3rd ranked.
+ Federer in 2012 was ranked #1 even though 15th on the returning list. There are numerous other counter examples.
+ 5 out of the current top 10 ranked players are not in the top 10 best returners. There is no clear picture.
+ 5 of the best returners for 2012 achieved hardly anything...i.e. Berlocq, Davydenko, Simon, Monaco, etc.

Sorry but the stats show there is no trend to support your story about increased differentiation for returners to dominate.
It doesn't hold water.

Actually Lydian thank you if you study your own numbers they do prove my point. Look at the difference between 1992 and 2012? You have 4 percentage points more of a spread between the top 20 returners in 2012 and between 1992. Meanwhile you have the same tight distribution of servers in 92 and 2012 but you have the top servers holding at higher rates today than they hold in 1992. These differences aren't insignificant, as the numbers move closer to 100 percent for the top servers and more players attain numbers closer to 100 you will as a matter of mathematics have less room for differentiation among the top servers. These seemingly small differences spread over the whole tour over every match have big impacts on the rankings and what happens. I didn't say that serving is now not important or not one of the key facets of the game. But we are seeing the best returners dominate in recent years where in the past it was typically the big servers who dominated the tour.

Simon and Monaco were ranked as high or higher than big servers like Querrey, Isner, Karlovic etc. YOu say the picture is not clear but 4 of the top 5 ranked players this year and last year finished in the top 5. Even Roger while never the best returner in the world was always a very good returner and you say berdych and Del Po aren't good returners but I think that their return and their movement are very strong for players of their size and a principal reason that they have been more successful than past men of their size on tour. You seem to dismiss the outliers, but that is the whole point of the argument that you can get those bigger differences in return numbers to separate yourself from the tour baseline.

And as Born Slippy and your own research have indicated the hold numbers despite slowing conditions have moved up and up. As these numbers move up, if they continue to I think what we will see is a continued emphasis on the return, and great players on the return doing better. This is also another reason why it is harder to do a becker and all of sudden see a young slugger who blasts his way to the top. On tour where players are holding at higher percentages it becomes a less effective strategy to out serve everyone night in and night out. Some great servers will still do it, but it becomes a much bigger tight rope of a situation.

The hold numbers have moved up from 91% in 1996 to 91% in 2011. As lydian says it is very similar across all 20 years. Almost certainly no statistical difference at all.

Agree JHM, Socal is clutching at straws trying to make a trend where none exists. There is no trend to back up your theory of numbers moving up, they have always been high. Keep banging those round stats into a square argument.

Also, we all know surfaces have slowed into treacle...is it any surprise that we have 5 strong baseliners the top 5 of 2013 than say 15 years ago...1997...when the top 5 was Sampras, Rafter, Chang, Bjorkman and Kafelnikov who were all aggressive forecourt players! (and yes could ralley, but their objective was to kill the point quickly)

We know how the game has moved forward - from serve and volley, to serve and ralley...i.e. the serve and return element has always been important and always will be, it's just the volley has been replaced by the ralley! Everything else is pretty much as you were and its the best ralleyers (not necessarily returners as Fed's stats show) who will do the best. However, as I first replied...it's WHEN you break that counts, not how often. Sampras exemplified this to the hilt. That's why it makes a mockery of the return stats. Guys like Federer and Sampras, and others to a lesser degree, know when to turn the heat up on return games at end of sets.

Chang and Kafelnikov were not aggressive forecourt players. They were baseliners.

Having read this thread there seems to be a fair effort by some to have their cake and eat it. It seems to be agreed that, at a minimum, servers are holding at similar levels to the 90s. It also seems to be agreed that courts are slower now. On the face of it, those two facts are plainly contradictory. The only possible explanation is that serving has improved. Trying to argue that the slower courts have made no difference cannot be right as we can see it is easier to hold serve on faster surfaces.

Kafelnikov was more than a baseliner. The guy had one of the most complete all round games I have seen.

Exactly LK, nearly half his 26 titles were carpet! Plus 3 on grass...and loads of doubles titles including slams. Is that the profile of a baseliner?
Likewise Chang won 9 carpet titles.

I remember looking at a graph last year on how service speed has changed - obviously the surface can't affect the actual measured speed, because the ball doesn't bounce.

Back in the 90s-ish the service speed between Wimby and the FO was quite marked. Now it is very similar. The homogenization of surface has led to players homogenizing their serves i.e. the same service action/style is effective on all surfaces.
So it's not so much that serving has improved as much as serving has become easier - players don't need the same range of serves that they used to.

So if serving speed was improved from the 90s into 00s to 10s you would theoretically expect more aces if conditions stayed the same right?
However, detractors will say its hard to compare because surface have slowed.

But which surfaces? As we know, hard and grass have slowed down since 2001. Clay has remained thankfully untouched - its just about been the only constant in tennis. So, given radar speed measurements have been all over the place the past 20 years what better way of judging serve speed than ace count tally's over the years on clay. To get a really comprehensive picture lets examine average aces hit per match for the top 100 ace leaders of every year between 1995 to 2012. Looking at the top 100 players for the whole year, each year, smooths out the data to give a clear picture. That should tell us how serving speed is changing over time with the backdrop of clay as the constant.

This analysis covers the 90s, the transition period and the more recent years where completely new players have emerged. So, what are the average ace count per match on clay results.

1995 4.2
1996 4.4
1997 4.5
1998 4.8
1999 4.2
2000 4.9
2001 4.6
2002 4.4
2003 4.3
2004 4.4
2005 4.1
2006 4.2
2007 4.5
2008 4.9
2009 4.6
2010 4.9
2011 4.4
2012 4.8

Do you see any clear evidence of increased aces per match, i.e. speed, going up over this large time period? I don't. This even includes the transition to new racquets and new strings for most pros from 1998-2004. There is no discernible increase in aces per match served across this period. Which frankly doesn't surprise me one iota.

Servers haven't changed across this period. We see little/no change in the serving games or return games won across this period also. Yet we know hard and grass have slowed down. So what gives?

Well, despite surfaces slowing and serving speeds staying the same, players are simply not winning any more service games, or return games.

Why? For the reason I've held and espoused for some time now. When the game moved across the transition period into the new era post-2003 a whole set of skills honed through fast conditions were abdicated in favour of RALLEYING and therefore, taking one's time to win a point.

It's clear that when servers are winning as many games today on slower surfaces despite same serving speeds, returning skills are simply not as good as the 90s because they're putting servers under less pressure. Less pressure despite having more time to return the ball in general. Having more time has made today's players lazier - they stand further back and bowl the ball back into play with 'let's get into the ralley' mentality. So, a guy like Chang won as many return games as Murray despite facing similar speed servers but on faster surfaces - his return skills were better! In contrast, today's servers get similar chances to clean up games as before due to increasingly poor returners. Ralleying skill and stamina has changed tremendously - we see that. However, that seems to be at the expense of honing return and forecourt skills.

In other words, "serve & volley" has been proportionately replaced by "serve & ralley" over time. The stats tell us the server is still getting similar level of chances to finish points quickly from the poorer returns - i.e. the FH put away - and this is probably proportional to the number of volleys/quick winners put away in the 90s. Either way its resulted in no stats change for servers or returners.

In conclusion, all surface slowing has done is reduce return/quick hand skill levels. This stands to reason. We see rallying emerge as the primary tactic on court, returners simply seek to get the ball back in play, servers are under no extra pressure than before. The so-called era of returning domination is a fallacy, lost skills (honed under previous surface speed pressure) means we're seeing dumbed down tennis, matches determined by winners/unforced errors through rallying than forecourt or short-point aggression.

The only guy who stands out like a sore thumb is Federer. Despite being 15th on return games won last 2012, he got back to #1. His service games won haven't changed, his return games won haven't changed. He simply knows when to break and uses aggressive skills appropriately in doing so. 14 other guys who won more return games were not more effective players than Federer - why, because they're not breaking at the right time in the right matches - and that's the key to tennis, always has been, always will be.

The good thing is lydian the commentators are now banging the drum of volleying which I mentioned last year as being a dying and dead art and yet Fleming said that today's players don't know how to volley much rather than surface preventing that shot being played. With the looping returns that today's players throw back on wide/kick serves give players ample time to come to the net for a volley. Christ they could even pick up a club sandwich on the way to the net and still be in time for a volley.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Christ they could even pick up a club sandwich on the way to the net and still be in time for a volley.

Love it! Brilliant!

socal1976 wrote: Both are extremely important but as the serving hold numbers move closer to the 100 percent threshold and more guys hit those high numbers you chance for outserving everyone match in and match out becomes less and less mathematically speaking over time.

I think I get it now, serving numbers won't vary much more, but returning numbers can and will as the game evolves to include better and better serving for worse and worse players - to distinguish oneself from the average, one will have more room to differentiate oneself on the break percentage than on the hold percentage.

That's a great point, and I have to agree with you - it would seem as technology and the size and strength of the average athlete playing tennis, increases the hold percentage, in order to get in the game, everyone will need a great serve (and high hold percentage) but the champions will distinguish themselves with better and better break percentages.

Well done!

MMT1
+ the data for service games and return games won hasn't changed since the 90s where it was already 90% (serve) and mid-30% (return) to start with.
+ the range of return games won within top 20 players hasn't changed since the 90s - given champions come from within top 20 where is future return domination coming from?
+ as serving speeds (as demonstrated) are not increasing where is the future movement to 100% holds coming from?
+ Michael Chang did as well on returns as Murray yet todays surfaces are slower indicating poorer returning skills in this era - it doesnt support future potential returning domination
+ why does better break percentages distinguish future "champions" when champion Federer is 15th on 2012 returning list? When 5 of the current top 10 are not in the top 10 returners?
+ size/strength of athletes and tennis racquets makes no difference when the hand skills on return are reducing - again, 5'9 Chang did as well as muscleman 6'3 Murray winning games on 90s surfaces

Yes everyone will need a great serve and return - but they always have, nothing has changed - in data or real terms. Its more complex than that.

MMT1 wrote:

socal1976 wrote: Both are extremely important but as the serving hold numbers move closer to the 100 percent threshold and more guys hit those high numbers you chance for outserving everyone match in and match out becomes less and less mathematically speaking over time.

I think I get it now, serving numbers won't vary much more, but returning numbers can and will as the game evolves to include better and better serving for worse and worse players - to distinguish oneself from the average, one will have more room to differentiate oneself on the break percentage than on the hold percentage.

That's a great point, and I have to agree with you - it would seem as technology and the size and strength of the average athlete playing tennis, increases the hold percentage, in order to get in the game, everyone will need a great serve (and high hold percentage) but the champions will distinguish themselves with better and better break percentages.

Well done!

Yes you get it perfectly, that is why we don't see a big server just blast his way to the top anymore and really haven't seen it since Roddick won his lone slam. The big serve keeps you on tour the return is what makes you a champion. Doesn't mean you have to be the best returner, you can be a great server and good returner like federer and be dominant on tour. But Federer's big edge against the power players like Safin and Roddick was that Federer could return their serves and the other two had a tough time returning fed's serve. It doesn't mean that the best returner in the game will dominate the tour but you have more room numerically to distinguish yourself on the return. Take ferrer he is holding 81 percent of the time and breaking at 39 percent, he is good enough at serving and extraordinary at returning and with an otherwise pretty limited firepower he has been a top 5 stalwart in recent years. Murray, Ferrer, Nadal, Djokovic all among the best returners and these guys have finished top 5 now for a number of years. While the biggest servers guys like Isner, Querrey, Karlovic, Berdy, Tsonga, and Del po are looking up in the rankings at them. Even if you look at which o the big servers are having success it are the big servers that can return better than expected like Del Po or Berdych. Of course the ideal player is one who can do both like Federer, while not dominant as a returner he was very, very effective for most of his career. This is the same now as always.

Born Slippy wrote:Chang and Kafelnikov were not aggressive forecourt players. They were baseliners.

Having read this thread there seems to be a fair effort by some to have their cake and eat it. It seems to be agreed that, at a minimum, servers are holding at similar levels to the 90s. It also seems to be agreed that courts are slower now. On the face of it, those two facts are plainly contradictory. The only possible explanation is that serving has improved. Trying to argue that the slower courts have made no difference cannot be right as we can see it is easier to hold serve on faster surfaces.

Not only that they want to have their cake and eat it to, and also have your cake and eat it to as well, the hold percentages are going up on slower surfaces and they want to claim that the serving is worse today than in the past. Additionally, Lydian and BB argue that not only are the servers worse today (although hold percentage going up) but the returners are also worse today. In short, I have found that both guys will argue despite facts to the contrary that the players of today are worse tennis players in all respects except for fitness and physicality. (Tenez is smiling somewhere online today) It is simply an argument that is not supported by any of the facts.

I agree with Lydian the changes in the numbers are modest and gradual, but applied to the whole tour over an entire season these small changes have a big impact.

lydian wrote:MMT1
+ the data for service games and return games won hasn't changed since the 90s where it was already 90% (serve) and mid-30% (return) to start with.
+ the range of return games won within top 20 players hasn't changed since the 90s - given champions come from within top 20 where is future return domination coming from?
+ as serving speeds (as demonstrated) are not increasing where is the future movement to 100% holds coming from?
+ Michael Chang did as well on returns as Murray yet todays surfaces are slower indicating poorer returning skills in this era - it doesnt support future potential returning domination
+ why does better break percentages distinguish future "champions" when champion Federer is 15th on 2012 returning list? When 5 of the current top 10 are not in the top 10 returners?
+ size/strength of athletes and tennis racquets makes no difference when the hand skills on return are reducing - again, 5'9 Chang did as well as muscleman 6'3 Murray winning games on 90s surfaces

Yes everyone will need a great serve and return - but they always have, nothing has changed - in data or real terms. Its more complex than that.

That is pretty funny, Michael Chang returning well on a fast surface makes him better returner than today's guys, did anyone watch michael chang and think he had superior hand skills to Andy murray. Serving speeds are increasing, even if you go with reducing 10-12 miles an hour for your point on the radar guns which I haven't seen a link for but I take your word for it, the record serve today 157 minus ten miles to 90s measure and that is 147 miles an hour. No one was serving 147 miles an hour in the 90s. Ivanisivic I think could touch low 140s. We don't have to support potential returning dominance, we see it in the rankings the last few years where the best returners trounce the best servers in the rankings. Even the big servers who have success like Berdy, Fed, and Del Po are all decent to very good returners in their own right.

Roscoe Tanner** 153 mph (246 km/h) 1978 Palm Springs final

Now that is insane with a wooden racket!!!

Some I believe here, others not so sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves

Yes Michael Chang was a better returner than Murray. Absolutely.
Goran has been estimated by a guy who measures speeds on ATP Seniors tour to have been 150+ in the 90s. Sampras 140+. These are max. speeds not average.
The ace post above shows speeds across the board - not 1 or 2 highest speed guys - aren't increasing.
Hold percentages are not going up.
Service speeds are not going up.
Return games are not going up.

socal, you're great at writing "I think" but low on actual data and facts to support YOUR notion. I give loads of information and you gloss over it. Remind me not to bother replying to your threads again...you just completely ignore the facts/figures and carry on with your baseless propositions regardless.

Exactly LS, big servers have been around for years.

I thiikkkk.... I thuunnkkk ..... think I.... I thiunkkk ohh forget it!
"I am about to find out that saying that word... is harder than it looks!"
rated pg 13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nXpVl9l43A

lydian wrote:Yes Michael Chang was a better returner than Murray. Absolutely.
Goran has been estimated by a guy who measures speeds on ATP Seniors tour to have been 150+ in the 90s. Sampras 140+. These are max. speeds not average.
The ace post above shows speeds across the board - not 1 or 2 highest speed guys - aren't increasing.
Hold percentages are not going up.
Service speeds are not going up.
Return games are not going up.

socal, you're great at writing "I think" but low on actual data and facts to support YOUR notion. I give loads of information and you gloss over it. Remind me not to bother replying to your threads again...you just completely ignore the facts/figures and carry on with your baseless propositions regardless.

Exactly LS, big servers have been around for years.

Lydian, I will get to your lengthy post it takes time to digest and respond to it. Remember I am sneaking off of work right now and I have a time difference. Do not take my letting your facts percolate in my mind as a sign of shirking them off. I hope you do respond to my threads we are having a good conversation and I will most certainly respond to your lengthy numbers provided. But frankly I will sign off now for a few hours because I am slammed. I have time to respond to the quick stuff, not enough time to digest the meat of what you provided, excuse the time difference and workload. The easier posts I can respond to quicker. Don't take it as an insult I love our discussions.

Fair enough socal, lol I just know you'll be thinking of ways to undermine the data/analysis to support your original argument because you wont budge an inch. If you can find comprehensive data to prove your argument then I'm all ears but everything I have showed you points in the opposite direction. You just don't want to believe it...

@Lydian, again we look at the same numbers and draw different conclusions there is a modest increase in ace numbers over the past compared to the 90s on clay. And as BS's analysis has shown there is also a modest but noticeable increase in hold numbers over the past on all surfaces. Furthermore, this is where both I and Born Slippy agree, that you want your cake and to eat it to. You want to claim that although hold numbers are up, and return numbers have stayed the same that returning quality has gone down. Your draw a conclusion that I believe is not supported by the facts.

Furthermore if we go by career numbers 4 of the 10 best returners in terms of break percentage in the history of the ATP tour statistics are playing today right now. That is 40 percent of the top 10. You claim this is because of lazy returning because you feel that the returners can just hit back deep central returns and get away with it. I think you again like others in this conversation mistake cause with effect. People aren't volleying as much because of the quality of the return. I have seen people try to serve and volley Djokovic and Nadal, although there aren't many out there that do it, and typically it isn't a fruitful or a pretty sight. I harken back to the late 2000s matchups between federer and Nadal, Federer many screamed should S and V nadal more, come up to the net more and finish off points. Well when he did it he rarely had success doing it, in some matches like in Rome 05 he did have some success. But as a general rule Nadal murdered his attempts at S and V and federer didn't get the return of investment on his risk so he wouldn't do it. Now of course a big part of the reason is the new strings frankly but the new strings have made serve and volleying a thing of the past, they accelerated a trend that has seen power baseliners gaining an upper hand on S and Vers that has been going on since the advent of the graphite racquet.

Now as for the statistical information, we have seen by your numbers and BS's numbers that hold percentage has been creeping up, not dramatically but enough to be very significant. Additionally, we see that despite this overrall trend 4 of the best returners by percentage in the history of the tour (nadal,djoko, murray, and ferrer) are playing in era where hold numbers are moving up. Therefore your contention that both servers today are not better and the returners today are not better is simply not supported by the numbers, you, I, or Born slippy have produced.

Furthermore, your ace numbers fail to take into consideration the area where I feel we have seen the biggest improvement in the serving. Namely the kick serve and the second serve. Aces are not the most important aspect of serving. In fact many old pros have a saying I am sure you are familiar with "you are only as good as your second serve". With taller players, new spin producing strings this is the area where we are seeing the biggest gains in serving. It will not show up aces or miles per hour but it is equally important if not more important than aces or miles per hour on first serve.

I know you are a stat man so lets see how you take the following stats and paint these as a reflection of the inferiority of today's players. 5 of the 10 players with the highest second serve points won are playing today, 9 of the top 15 highest second serve points won are playing today. In short the biggest improvement has come in the kick serve, and the second serve and this is hugely important and explains why we are seeing the hold numbers go up. At least this is the biggest reason. And this fits in perfectly with the the fact that player are getting taller and the strings are producing more spin.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Kafelnikov was more than a baseliner. The guy had one of the most complete all round games I have seen.

He was decent at the net but his primary game was baseline. Can't believe I'm even having to debate this point to be honest. He does not fit into the category Lydian was describing at all.

BS, I editted the above lengthy post for many typos, give it a read and tell me what you think. I agree with you completely, not only that but chang was not a great forecourt player either and I find it hard to believe that people think he had superior hands and racquet skills to murray.

Deja Vu
https://www.606v2.com/t36230-is-returning-serve-harder-today-than-it-used-to-be

BS, I said they're aggressive forecourt players meaning they seek to end many points at the net. Both those players did. Do you think you win 11 carpet titles by baselining? Kafelnikov beat Federer at Wimbledon in straights via aggressive forecourt game, and he was one of the best doubles players in the 90s. Anyway, the classification doesn't change the points I was making.

Socal, I really don't know where to start with your post. Your points are all over the place and repeated in different ways. You also state or presume things I never said, something you do all the time and its really annoying.

So I show speeds haven't gone up, you then move the argument to 2nd serves & kick serves. The %s for 2nd serves won on ATP are ridiculously grouped together, yet you draw conclusions to fit your argument. Besides which, in slower times its easier to defend 2nd serves. But above all you forget why the point around 1st serve speeds came up in the first place. Instead you move the goalposts, to an area of irrelevance.

Throughout all the numbers I've put up you seem to find a trend upwards in all of them where there is none. I just wasted my time really. You keep referring to BS research too, what is it? You don't pull stats together clearly to make your case. Instead you summarise other people's data incorrectly and into the picture you want to portray.

Those other stats you raise, e.g. 4 out of top 10 return game winners are playing now means 6 out of 10 weren't, i.e. from the 90s. Laughable!
Also, if guys today are such good returners they should be leading % of 2nd serve points taken? Funny how 15 out of the top 20 come from the 90s then! For 1st serve points won by returner 14 out of top 20 come from the 90s too. Yet today's guys are better returners according to you.
Perhaps damningly, for break points converted today's returners are that good there's only 3 of them in the top 10,..the other 7 from the 90s. That's a great set of returning stats for today's guys! Not.

You then say 5 out of 10 players with highest 2nd serve points won are playing, again 5 aren't so what does that prove! Then you repeat the very same point but say its 9 out of 15...make your mind up! I also note you pick the only parameter where you can find a current player leading, then build a case around it. Ridiculous.

So in conclusion, we've suddenly moved on from returning to 2nd serves, with spurious data, and you say today's servers are better so hold easier - when the ATP data suggests no such thing! The 90s guys lead most stats, service speeds havent gone up yet you state the opposite. Amazing...

I give in...you win Socal

Ok lydian, people are free to draw their own conclusions from the discussion I feel like I answered your critiques but you feel like I am all over the place. Part of my argument involves the relationship between serving and returning my posts are not repetition of the same facts, I have produced statistics and examined your numbers but draw different conclusion. Sorry you were annoyed by the conversation, I don't need to proven right. But I think I made a very cogent argument and produced facts to back it up. Some posters understand the points I am making and agree with them. Unless I agree with you I am doing something wrong, two people can look at the same numbers and draw different conclusions.

socal1976 wrote:But why are those top players better? Federer for example never finished at or near the top of the tour in returning but he routinely ran over weaker opponents and by lopsided margins. Same thing when you look at pete sampras he never broke serve that often and he still dominated the tour. In fact this is a rather new development as traditionally the big servers were the top dogs on tour. So I actually don't agree with you summerblues.

I said I thought there were many interesting thoughts on this thread. For example having the best returners at the top is an interesting observation which indeed supports your argument (of course, there are valid counterarguments too, as seen on this thread).

I was having problem not with everything you said, but with one specific argument - your argument around serve percentages being too high to be able to make much difference, and about the fact that there is more variability on return percentages implying that return is more important. That argument just does not work on a rather fundamental statistical level. The numbers (with serve percentages looking too high and return percentages being more variable) are pretty much bound to look like that, and would look like that even in a world where say all the top players were top servers.

Ok Summer, I admit that at best I have a laymen's understanding of stats, I am not a stat man I did well in my college introductory statistics class and that was about my mathematical pinnacle.

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 player A is an exaggeration of the mean of what we see across the tour. Across the tour we see serve numbers moving up (albeit slowly and modestly). When those numbers go higher you start to bump against the natural speed limit of 100 percent and numbers close to 100 percent. Room for differentiation decreases. The reason being is that nature hates 100 percent and zero percent proposition. It isn't a rule of science and math but it is a general principle of the world we see around us. Think of the 100 percent threshold as the speed of light. No matter how good your serve is you can't hold 100 percent of the time or even really close to 100 percent. You are bound to miss some first serves, make some bad errors in quick sequence off the ground, or your opponent can guess right two or three times. But look at return numbers Djokovic breaking 39 percent of the time in 2011 and look at the year he had and how he dominated the tour. He was an outlier that year but that is the point, to dominate you have to be an outlier in something. You have more room numerically to be an outlier in the return game. Numerically in the serve game if the tour is going up in serve numbers you have less room to be a statistical outlier in those numbers and therefore dominate. The 100 percent threshold is the universal speed limit so to speak and getting close to that is the best you can hope for, well the top servers are already really close and probably will struggle to get any closer.

If you can be more specific on how you think my argument above is incorrect and wrong on statistical level please tell me, I am no math genius and I don't pretend to be. Additionally, you say that even in a tour dominated by big servers we would see the same relationship, that is a possibility. But I think if we had a hand ful of guys in 90s and everyone else in the low 80s we would see a tour dominated by the handful of guys in the 90s, assuming that on the return they were able to generate at least a pulse.

So returners have never win as many games as servers? Is that really what this is about?

That has nothing to do with proof of your original statement.

I spent hundreds of words detailing exactly what my theory is about an explanation of why with serve numbers creeping upwards that a premium is placed on returning ability. What do you think this about, I don't think I have been vague on my meaning.

But that's the point - service holds are not statistically creeping upwards. You make out they're near 100%, they're nowhere near. Last year was 93%, it was 92% in 1996 so where's the increase? Your argument doesn't stand up to data scrutiny Socal on all counts...serve, return, service speed.

Socal, you don't annoy me per se, lets not get too carried away. I just find it frustrating that you gloss over facts or misrepresent them. Your argument doesn't have a logical flow and you move from one aspect to another when your central point was that returning is going to be the future battleground. My stats show it isn't because it's always been important, and the numbers haven't changed to support your story. Anyone can see that the numbers I showed for serving, returning and ace counts show no trend upwards. Only you are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

If you want to restate the case then please do so in a logical manner with supportive data sets that bear scrutiny.

phew a shorter post that sums it all up thank god!

Ok lydian lets look at the numbers you produced, I am talking about today's game, very recent developments, take a look at 2011 and 2012. Look at the spread between the top returner and the #20 returner. You have in both years 13 percentage point difference between the top guy and the 20th guy. (I understand your point about Nadal and his injury halfway through the year so if you want just look at 2012.) Now compare that to the spread in return numbers between 1-20 in the first two years you listed. The spread i those years is not 13 percentage points but 8 and 9 percentage points. This wider distribution of numbers between return percentages is the key for point. Because what a player who is a champion wants to do is win more than the baseline or tour average. If you have a leaderboard more tightly packed at the top then there is less room for this differentiation and separating yourself from the rest of the tour.

This is even barred out if you look at #1 and #89 (the last player listed) in terms of difference between top server/returner and lowest listed server/returner. The gap between the top returner and worst returner is bigger than the gap between best server and worst returner. It is that wider distribution that in my opinion explains why in the last couple of years the best returners are doing so much better in the rankings.

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.

What round are we in now?

Need to go to the judges on this one!