Debunking the myth...

It is often common place from tennis fans and commentators alike to assume that serving first in the fifth set is a huge advantage. The logic is of course that the player serving first can keep his nose in front and apply more scoreboard pressure which can make a difference, especially when it gets very tight at the tail end of a set.
I've always thought that there is another side to this- the player returning first pay also keep focus more often, and have a greater intensity throughout the fifth set which negates the effect of the scoreboard pressure. I find this often the case when I play matches (although I normally play BO3 rather than BO5), that when returning first I seem less prone to mistakes and more mentally tuned.  

Now it seems that my idea that the conventional belief that serving first in the fifth set is a huge advantage is not always true has some evidence behind it. According to this book: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199355969.do which measured Wimbledon; the person serving first in the fifth set won only 48.8% of the time.

I don't think the 1.2% is a huge factor given natural variance and not a huge sample size for the number of fifth set matches, but I think to some extent it debunks the myth that serving first in the fifth set is a definite advantage.

I've always suspected that the player serving first won about 51% of the time or 55% in final sets that went beyond 6-6 but was always a gut feeling and always thought all the major networks were lazy to talk about it for all these years and never do the research. I always suspected it was exaggerated a bit.

What would be really interesting would be to look at matches in no-tiebreak final sets that went beyond either 5-5 or 6-6. it is pretty obvious it will be close to 50/50 if we factor in 6-0, 6-1 and 6-2 sets, especially if we include final sets in the women's game where about 40% of the time it is a break.

Did you read the book? Not paying £20 for it and then having to risk posting it to Chile or having someone bring it out for me. For £5 on the kindle I would get it.

A very good article

I will agree with you its a myth when generalized , for instance if you ask Rafa he would always prefer the opponent to serve first so that he gets that extra chance to break him first as the 5th set is all about breaking the serve than tie-break [unless and ofcourse its USO], but if you ask Fed he will any day take the option of serving first in the 5th set.

I am going to discuss two example both involving Fed to back this argument.

1]Roger Serving 1st in the 5th set against Rafa in Wim '08, it clearly played into Rafa's hands, he had that cushion of adding pressure on Fed by trying to break that 1 extra serve all the time, but had Fed served 2nd it might not have made too much of an impact on him but Rafa wouldn't be that comfortable.

2]Roger - Roddick in Wim '09 , Roddick clearly felt the score board pressure every time staying to stay in the match once it crossed 5-4, neither Fed would have been comfortable at that position.

The closest I can come to generalization is , "Aggressive" players like to serve first , while "defensive" players love to take the serve first.

Henman Bill wrote:I've always suspected that the player serving first won about 51% of the time or 55% in final sets that went beyond 6-6 but was always a gut feeling and always thought all the major networks were lazy to talk about it for all these years and never do the research. I always suspected it was exaggerated a bit.

What would be really interesting would be to look at matches in no-tiebreak final sets that went beyond either 5-5 or 6-6. it is pretty obvious it will be close to 50/50 if we factor in 6-0, 6-1 and 6-2 sets, especially if we include final sets in the women's game where about 40% of the time it is a break.

Maybe you're right, that after 6-6 it does become a bigger advantage. I will try and find stats on that.

As for the book, it's quite good but not necessarily the most thrilling lol. It doesn't have anything on after 6-6 final set specifically, although this would be pretty rare anyway.

invisiblecoolers wrote:A very good article

Thank-you IC

invisiblecoolers wrote:
The closest I can come to generalization is , "Aggressive" players like to serve first , while "defensive" players love to take the serve first.

Yes, I think this may be an astute observation. I think someone like Nadal would love to have a go at snatching a break quickly, while Federer would want to settle in with a easy service game starting the set and keeping his nose in front.

I've never given it much thought to be honest, but I did wonder about the advantage... Like HB said, after 6-6, you'd rather be serving first, as the pressure of having to step up and serve to stay in the game, I think, is probably too great for you to keep at it for any great length of time.

I would have thought more than 50% of players serving first in the 5th will have lost the 4th - hence are more likely to lose the 5th.

As has been said, the stat which would actually be relevant is the % won serving first once 4-4 or 5-5 have been reached.

It's player preference.

At Wimbledon, Djokovic said he thought serving first in the 5th was an advantage.

Federer said serving second didn't bother him and he didn't see it as a disadvantage.

Born Slippy wrote:I would have thought more than 50% of players serving first in the 5th will have lost the 4th - hence are more likely to lose the 5th.

Interesting point, you're saying that the last game in a set would be on serve more often than not, a player serves it out to win the set. So the loser serves first in the 5th. Could be on to something although I bet if you looked at those statistics you wouldn't see necessarily that much above 50% of the time the player winning the 4th sets gets the 5th. If they have come back from 2-0 down, maybe more likely.

I would have thought its well above 50% that the player winning the 4th wins the 5th. At a guess I would speculate at around 60% but would be intriguing to see some stats.

Serving 1st in the 5th is clearly a massive advantage. There is no chance that any player (even Rafa) would genuinely want to serve 2nd in the 5th.

Born Slippy wrote:Serving 1st in the 5th is clearly a massive advantage. There is no chance that any player (even Rafa) would genuinely want to serve 2nd in the 5th.

I don't think it's such a big advantage, but I do agree that to get a clearer picture ideally we need to find the stats for after 4-4 in the 5th set.