Some stats for 1981 Wimbledon SF (Borg-Connors)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by krosero, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Here are the winners for this match. I didn't have the time -- at least for now -- to go through this match for the net stats. So here are just the winners, aces and doubles, and some fifth-set stats I did a few months ago.


    Borg d. Connors 0-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4

    Borg had 16 aces and 4 doubles.
    Connors had 1 ace and 2 doubles.


    Borg made 30 winners: 5 forehands, 6 backhands, 8 forehand volleys, 8 backhand volleys, and 3 smashes.

    Connors made 48 winners:
    14 forehands, 9 backhands, 9 forehand volleys, 9 backhand volleys, and 7 smashes.


    Borg's winners by set: 4, 8, 4, 8, 6.
    Connors' winners by set: 7, 14, 4, 9, 14.


    Connors leads in winners by a ratio of 1.6 to 1. That is better from Borg’s perspective than the ratio of their Forest Hills final, which was 2.8 to 1.

    Connors’ lead in ground-stroke winners, 23 to 11, again is better than the lead of 29 to 11 that Connors had at Forest Hills.

    Connors’ total falls short of the 54 he had in the Forest Hills final, which was one tiebreak longer than this Wimbledon match. But his total is still impressive – higher than the 40 he got against Newcombe on Australian grass in 1975, a match three games longer than this one.

    In each set -- even the fourth -- Connors equaled or led Borg in winners.

    Borg had one service return winner, a forehand that died off the netcord. On top of this he had 8 passing shots (3 were FH's) and no lobs.

    Connors had no service return winners. He had 12 passing shots (8 were FH's). In addition he made 2 lob winners, both off the backhand and in succession, at 1-2 in the fifth with Borg serving.


    Both men were baseliners, but each got more winners from volleys/smashes than ground strokes. At Forest Hills on clay, they had each had a slight edge in ground strokes.

    In the marathon 24-point game at 4-3 in the second set, Borg had 3 winners. Connors, who lost the game, had no aces, 1 double, and 5 winners. That compares favorably with the 34-point tiebreak from 1980, in which Borg had 3 winners and McEnroe 10.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2008
    #1
  2. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Some fifth-set stats

    BORG

    Borg served five aces and 1 double fault in the fifth set.

    He made 22 of 42 first serves (or 52%).

    He stayed back on all of his second serves and on 7 of his first serves that Connors touched; he also hit 3 aces in which he looked like he was staying back.

    He came to net a total of 19 times and won 11 of these approaches (or 58%); of these he won 2 of 4 in Connors’ service games.


    CONNORS

    Connors made 28 of 34 first serves in the fifth set (or 82%). He did not miss a first serve until falling behind love-40 for the first time.

    He made one ace – wrong footing Borg with a second serve – and no double faults.

    He followed his serve to net just once (and lost the point).

    He came to net 15 times (5 times on Borg’s serve) and won 11 of these (or 73%).
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2008
    #2
  3. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,864
    krosero, I'm going to post my match stats for the '77 W Final here(since we're the only ones who probably care about this, figured there wouldn't be a point in making another thread)

    Score:3-6 6-2 6-1 5-7 6-4

    Match time:3:12

    Commentators said it was an unusually hot day, both players took more than time than they normally do in between points.

    Connors had an injury that almost forced him out of W that year.

    Connors had 62 winners-18 in the 1st,11 in the 2nd ,2 in the 3rd,14 in the 4th,17 in the 5th

    Borg had 30 winners-5 in the 1st,7 in the 2nd,4 in the 3rd,6 in the 4th,8 in the 5th

    Borg had 8 aces, 2 doubles

    Connors had 2 aces, 2 doubles

    will post more details later.

    this is my first attempt at match stats, so there may be errors.
     
    #3
  4. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Thanks so much for those. So for a little comparison:

    Connors in 1977 -- 46 games -- 62 winners (vs. Borg at W)
    McEnroe in 1981 -- 46 games -- 65 winners (vs. Borg at W)
    Connors in 1976 -- 42 games -- 54 winners (vs. Borg on USO clay)
    Laver in 1969 -- 42 games -- 54 winners (vs. Newcombe at W)
    Connors in 1975 -- 44 games -- 40 winners (vs. Newcombe on AO grass)
    Connors in 1981 -- 41 games -- 48 winners (vs. Borg at W)
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
    #4
  5. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    MooseMalloy, I forgot -- did you include service winners as part of Connors' count? (My stats did not).
     
    #5
  6. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,864
    No, I didn't. Here is the breakdown.

    Borg's winners-7 forehands, 11 backhands, 9 volleys, 3 overheads

    Connors-16 forehands, 18 backhands, 22 volleys, 6 overheads

    Borg was 9 of 19 on break points.

    Connors was 6 of 14.

    In the last 2 sets Borg had 8 unreturned serves, Connors 3.

    Connors had several net-cord winners(some at very crucial stages, including a long game in which he saved several break points in the 4th & another in which he broke Borg to get to 4-4 in the 5th), Borg had none.

    Borg had 2 break points to get to 5-4 in the 4th including a 2nd serve.

    He also had BP's to go up 5-0 in the 5th. Connors hit many winners during a 4 game run in the 5th(was down 4-0) He hit his only double fault of the 5th at 4-4.

    Borg held at love in the last game of the match, making 3 1st serves. He actually pumped his fist after hitting a service winner to get to 40-0.

    do you have any nytimes articles on this match?
     
    #6
  7. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    I looked it up; I was looking particular for a stat box, but it doesn't look like they provided one that year.

    The archives are free now; try here.

    I remember a book, a collection of New York Times reports on big tennis matches throughout the 20th century, ending in 1978 with the Wimbledon final. It had the original reports on big Slam matches but also things like Lenglen-Wills, Kings-Riggs, Connors-Laver. The 1977 final is in that book too.

    I think this was it: Tennis -- The New York Times Encyclopedia of Sports, vol. 6.

    I discovered that book in my high school library when I started tennis in 1985. I spent long hours there reading about great matches. One piece of writing that has stayed in my memory since then is Danzig's report on the Tilden-Johnston final at the U.S. Championships in 1920. That is a fine piece of writing, more dramatic a style than anything you would find today, but great nonetheless.
     
    #7
  8. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,864
    1st serve %'s:

    Borg: 77 of 132, 58%

    Connors: 108 of 154, 70%

    Seems like it was a struggle for Connors to hold serve in comparison to Borg.

    By set:

    Borg was 43,68,50,53,72

    Connors was 61,79,76,73,66

    are you sure? doesn't appear to be. It says 'Home Delivery & Times Reader subscribers are entitled to monthly free archive access'
    am I looking at the right place?

    thanks, sounds like a great book, will check it out. so, how did you get to be a Borg fan? If you got into tennis in '85, he was already gone by then.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
    #8
  9. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    You know what, sorry, I was thinking that they made everything free, but some things are still paid for.

    This was the announcement in the paper:

     
    #9
  10. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Well it was the strangest thing. I got into tennis by watching the Wimbledon finals. I saw Becker win, and have been a big Becker fan ever since. But during that summer while there was very little tennis to watch until the Open, basically the only thing I had was printed material. And that book ended with Borg as the dominant player, so maybe he caught my imagination that way. And then I looked up his records and, well, it just stands out quite a bit when a name repeats itself five times in a row. An impressionable 15-year-old can look at that and just go, "Wow."

    And there was the mystique of his being gone. It felt like I was getting into a sport that had just lost someone very valuable, so I felt like I had to know who this person was.

    It was a few years before I actually saw a Borg match. During a rain delay they showed the 1980 Open final, and I loved what I saw, though I noticed instantly that the players were not retrieving balls as well, or hitting quite as smoothly, as Lendl, Becker and Wilander were doing in the late 80s.
     
    #10
  11. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    One thing this suggests is that Borg by 1981 was attacking more -- or more effectively.

    In '77 he had 18 ground stroke winners, and 12 from volleys/smashes.

    In '81 it's almost reversed: 11 ground strokes, 19 volleys/smashes.

    There's not so much difference for Connors. He's slightly ahead in ground strokes in the '77 final and slightly ahead in volleys/smashes in '81.
     
    #11
  12. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,864
    do you chalk that up to equipment or something else? there seemed to be many more players with 'unusual' technique in the 70s as opposed to 80s & I think the challenge of dealing with small, wood racquets was the main reason.

    Its pretty impressive that you are putting such effort into compiling data on Borg's matches since you never saw him live. I had assumed you saw a lot of him in his prime due to your many posts on him.
    He was before my time as well, I'm even younger than you.

    Well opponents were a factor. He probably S&Ved more in his first W final(vs Nasatase) than in any other W final. Maybe I'll do stats on that one(right now I'm looking at the '78 final)

    I also have his '73 W QF with Taylor on dvd, & 17 year old Borg was coming in on most 2nd serves as well!
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
    #12
  13. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    At the time I just didn't know, though I may have guessed that it was the change from smaller wooden racquets. I'm trying to remember if I started playing with a wood racquet, and I don't really remember -- but I will say that I have no clear memory of ever hitting with a wooden racquet.

    Yeah, when I look at it today I think the issue is the size of the racquet. Borg and McEnroe often hit balls just as hard as Lendl and Wilander (though not Becker), but the difference is that when such a fast-paced ball arrived at your small racquet, you might shank, or else just not put the ball back in play the way that Wilander was doing so well.

    Borg's long, loopy swing might be a factor too.
     
    #13
  14. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    When did you start watching/playing tennis?
     
    #14
  15. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,864
    Yeah, exactly. So many talk about how the equipment has allowed players to hit bigger, heavier balls, with less errors, but they seem to ignore the fact that it allows players to play defense better than ever as well. I often see players today hit a hacking, forehand slice when they are on the run to get the ball back in play. I can't imagine that shot would work even 1 out of 10 times with a wood frame.
     
    #15
  16. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,864
    I started playing tennis a lot more than watching it when I was a kid(parents played so I was kinda forced into it)

    My dad sawed the handle down on a wood racquet when I was quite young so I could play. That was the last time I played with a wood racquet until I fished a few out of the atic to hit with in high school. The ball certainly stays on the strings longer than with graphite.

    It took me a while to get to be a fan of watching tennis(must have had a short attention span)

    Becker's W wins were what got me to be a more avid watcher, but Pat Cash's W final was probably the first match I watched in its entirety.

    Its funny, I also was curious about Borg the way you were(it was unavoidable, it literally seemed like every televised match in the 80s made mention of him at some point, he really cast a spell on the tennisworld that lasted years after he retired)

    And my dad was a big Mac fan(he played S&V) & would constantly tell me that Borg was boring, overrated, etc. Mac became my favorite player as well, but I didn't quite buy what my dad said, since Mac seemed so in awe of him so many years later, how could he not be great?

    I think the first chance I got to see Borg was during a rain delay at '90 W, they replayed part of the the '80 final. And I been seeking out his matches ever since. The internet has sure made it easier.
     
    #16
  17. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Like you I was more interested in playing, like 6 hours a day. I actually thought that most tennis on TV was dull; maybe being a teenager had something to do with it. Not that I didn't enjoy the big matches, like Becker's wins -- or Cash's, which is one of the best memories I have of 80s tennis (my introduction to truly great volleys).

    You're so right about Borg's spell in the 80s. And my high school tennis partner was a McEnroe fan, so he was not under the spell. In some ways, I'm not anymore, but I remain a fan.
     
    #17
  18. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    What Forrest Hills final?
     
    #18
  19. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    I hit this shot just on Saturday night, and I knew instantly that this was not the kind of shot I ever hit when I played in the 80s and early 90s. There was some bad communication and I expected my partner at the net to take a shot which he didn't, and I sort of just lunged to the right and took that shot, and got it back in the court. That's just something I didn't do 20 years ago. Back then I couldn't just arm a ball like that back into the court.
     
    #19
  20. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    The one in '76.
     
    #20
  21. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    This was reported in the Times as a fractured right thumb.

    But how can anyone play with that injury? Did the announcers say it was in a cast, or when it happened?
     
    #21
  22. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Connors turned himself into an enemy with the Wim crowd that year 1977, when he missed the Centenary parade on the first day, to train on another court with Nastase. The thumb injury (not on the racket hand, only problem was the dh) was made a big deal by the press, but it didn't hamper Connors that much. In the final Connors started on the highest gear. Gordon Forbes in his book described it as self destructive. He couldn't hold his form, and surged back only late in the fourth. Borg then ran away with a 4-0 lead,only to have connors climbing back. Borg himself said, that a Connors double at 4 all in the fifth was the last turning point, because Connors gave away the momentum.
     
    #22
  23. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    The Washington Post:

     
    #23
  24. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    continued.....

    ETA: So again a small disrepancy. The Post has Connors serving 26 times in that long game. Sports Illustrated wrote that the game lasted 24 points. I also got 24, though I won't be sure of my number until I get the service percentages, which I think is the best way to count points.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2008
    #24
  25. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Additional stats for '81 SF

    I've gone back to get more stats; and I've made some minor corrections to my original work in the first two posts.


    Borg won 142 points overall, Connors 138.

    That’s a total of 280 points – exactly the same as their ’76 USO final, and just six points short of their ’77 W final.


    SERVICE

    Borg won 82 of 138 points on serve (59%). He won 47 of 68 on first serve (69%) and 35 of 70 on second (50%).

    Connors won 82 of 142 points on serve (58%). He won 71 of 119 on first serve (60%) and 11 of 23 on second (48%).


    Borg served at 49%, making 68 of 138 first serves.
    Connors served at 84%, making 119 of 142 first serves.

    Borg’s service percentage by set:
    10/23 (43%)
    13/30 (43%)
    13/25 (52%)
    10/18 (56%)
    22/42 (52%)

    Connors’ service percentage by set:
    16/18 (89%)
    41/48 (85%)
    19/22 (86%)
    15/20 (75%)
    28/34 (82%)

    I have Connors making 22 of 24 first serves in the marathon game in the second set, when he was broken for the first time (so SI got that one right, not the Post).


    Borg converted 7 of 22 break points, Connors 6 of 12.

    Borg got his first serve into play on 5 of 12 break points, or 42%. He was broken twice on first serve and four times on second.

    Connors got his first serve into play on 20 of 22 break points, or 91%. Every time he was broken it was on first serve.


    Borg drew 17 return errors, Connors 14. Out of all those serves I judged just one (by Borg) a service winner.


    ERRORS (forced and unforced)

    Subtracting the winners and aces from the total points won:

    Borg made 89 total errors. Of those I counted 14 return errors and 4 double-faults. That leaves him making 71 errors in exchanges with at least a successful return, ie, in rallies.

    Connors made 96 total errors. Of those I counted 17 return errors and 2 double-faults. That leaves him making 77 errors in rallies.


    And SI's report:

     
    #25
  26. Borgforever

    Borgforever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,564
    Great work krosero and Moose! Fascinating. And I always studiously read all your stat-breakdowns no matter who the match-up includes -- although you always pick cherries IMO. Now, if someone could break down the Wimby 76 F cause that would be bliss...
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2008
    #26
  27. Borgforever

    Borgforever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,564
    And check-out Connors first-serve percentage! "Weak serve", yeah, I wish I was so weak in the serve...
     
    #27
  28. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Some interesting differences between '77 and '81.

    I think I enjoyed '77 better. In '81 there are two sets in which someone is playing poorly enough to get bageled.

    In '77 Connors had 62 winners, 14 more than in '81.

    Borg had 30 winners both years, though on top of that in '81 he also had 16 aces, twice his number from '77. But his service percentage was down by 8 points.

    His aces helped him hold in '81 but he might have had faced fewer break points with a higher percentage. You gain something, you lose something: overall he was broken 6 times in both matches (though he served two more games in '77).

    I was looking for the wide serve to Connors' BH that Borg hit so well in '78 and also in '77, but I thought in '81 he was hitting it less often and less effectively.

    Connors' service percentage was 14 points higher in '81 than 'in 77 -- because he was spinning his first serve in so much. As with Borg his overall success is about the same. He got broken 7 times out of 20 service games, compared to 9 out of 23 in '77.

    Still, '77 has more winners (from Connors, whose strength was winners) and more consistency from Borg (the Swede's strength). In '81, even in the sets he won, Borg is occasionally making relatively simple errors. On a break point he earned early in the fifth set, he dumped a short ball into the tape with his FH, a stroke that misfired a few other times.

    Overall I'd rank their '77 final as their greatest match at W. It's tough for me to rank it above their '76 USO final, but that's a question for another day.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2008
    #28
  29. Borgforever

    Borgforever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,564
    I really like the 81 SF better than the 77 final -- actually because of the bagels. When did it ever happen that two players of their stature produced two bagels -- let alone that level of play especially in the fifth with such supreme quality play? I don't think neither of them played mediocre in the bagel sets either. I think (maybe completely subjective on my part?) Jimbo was little off late in the second and third set in 77 while in the 81 SF the level of play didn't dip below the very good level.

    And throw into the mix that Borg came back from 0-2 it has some major drama to it. And I love how Jimbo comes out directly in the first set knocking five-time winner Borg out of the ring like a Lee Marvin hitman. And then Borg puts on his own Lee Marvin hitman hat and the sparks fly for three hours plus. It saddened me (and I'm a Borg guy!) that Connors lost in the end after such a stunning display of grass-court mastery (albeit mostly from the baseline). Jimbo's loss here actually hurt me so much that when Connors won Wimby in 82 both my dad and I jumped up cheering from our chairs in unison with Jimbo on the TV after match-point...

    Tennis is cruel but sometimes get it right...
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2008
    #29
  30. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    Didnt Connors always dictate play in their matches. Make more winners but also more errors.
     
    #30
  31. Borgforever

    Borgforever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,564
    Yes, he did! The only exception to this is their 1979 SF fight when Jimbo was very uneven -- though occasionally exceptional. One can also argue that Borg maybe played his best game ever against Connors in that semifinal. Borg was even more impressive against Connors in 1979 than the previous year and that added pressure might have stifled Jimbo's flow.

    Also very important to remember regarding their later rivalry match-ups was the fact that Borg was even faster than in their earlier confrontations. This meant that Connors, who was a groundie-winner King, had to produce a lot more winning shots since Björn would often chase down an ordinarily successful Connors winner-stroke and give it back with interest. This pressured Jimbo to hit another stunning winner. Only Borg could catch Connors' bullet-groundies so often.

    One can see a similarity here between Fed and Rafa -- El Reloj Suizo (that's what the Spanish call Fed: "The Swiss Watch" -- because of his remarkable precision and consistency) hits missiles that usually against any other player on the planet would be instant winners -- but Rafa is faster than anyone so he chases them down forcing Fed to come up with another zinger -- and another zinger -- until he makes an error. No-one can hit 10 normal super-winners in a row.

    So Borg forced Connors to miss -- with his cheetah speed. Or he would smoke a winner himself...
     
    #31
  32. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Connors usually did lead in non-service winners, except in that '79 SF (among the 7 meetings we have stats for).

    But if you count aces as winners then Connors' lead in this '81 match shrinks to 49-46.

    If you include aces at the '81 USO, Borg leads 30-22.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
    #32
  33. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Additional stats

    Success on serve in rallies of 2 or more good shots (the serve being the first shot):

    Borg 50% on first serve (21/42) and 47% on second (28/59).
    Connors 55% on first serve (58/106) and 47% on second (9/19).

    Borg is winning exactly half of the time when his 1st serve is returned, but less than half when his second serve is returned. Altogether, then, he's winning just 49% of the time when his serve is returned (49 of 101 points). Connors' overall figure is a little higher, at 54% (winning 67 of 125 points).

    Clearly what pulled Borg ahead of Connors was his service, which gave him 33 “free points” compared to 15 for Connors.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2011
    #33
  34. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Fifth-set stats

    This match obviously had wild swings from set to set. Looking at totals for the whole match doesn't tell any individual piece of the story. So let's just have a look at the last set.

    Success on serve in the fifth set (all points):

    Borg 68% on first serve (15/22) and 60% on second (12/20).
    Connors 64% on first serve (18/28 ) and 67% on second (4/6).

    And now the fifth set, counting only rallies of 2 or more good shots (the serve being the first shot):

    Borg 50% on first serve (7/14) and 61% on second (11/18 ).
    Connors 60% on first serve (15/25) and 60% on second (3/5).

    None of the figures on first serve are that much different in the fifth set, compared to the figures on 1st serve for the match as a whole.

    But the figures on second serve are pretty good, in the fifth set. It's really a little surprising, especially when the second serves were returned: both players are above 60%.

    If you think about it, neither player had an imposing second serve. They had sometimes long rallies, and yet their second serve seems to have retained its effectiveness in determining the outcome of points. And both of them were great returners. You can understand if a first serve, even returned, can throw the receiver off balance just enough for the server to end up winning the rally. But a second serve? Against a good returner? Even in rallies of some length? You would expect after 3 or 4 hits in a rally, the effectiveness of the second serve would no longer be there.

    Granted, the number of second serves in the fifth set was not that large. Connors in particular started just 5 rallies with his second serve, and he won 3, so he's up at 60%. But Borg winning 11 of 18 rallies started with his second serve seems more significant.
     
    #34
  35. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Here's a study I found some weeks ago at Jeff Sackmann's blog, Heavy Topspin. He used data from the first 3 Slams of 2011. He found that while serves, obviously, confer an advantage upon the server, the advantage dissipates in long rallies. The exception he found was on grass. At Wimbledon, the server of a rally is still more likely to win the point than the receiver even when up to 14 shots have been made in the rally.

    This is the study: http://heavytopspin.com/2011/08/17/how-long-does-the-servers-advantage-last/

    And the follow-up, dividing the data into 1st and 2nd serve: http://heavytopspin.com/2011/10/14/servers-advantage-first-and-second-serves/
     
    #35

Share This Page