View Single Post
Old 01-21-2013, 03:00 PM   #17
Laurie
Professional
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed_rulz View Post
I read that last link, and I found that your arguments unconvincing. With higher hold % in the 2000s, you can only deduce that players have gotten better at holding serves (IMO due to a combination of better serves and much better baseline games, despite the advances in return games). I'll give you a couple of counter examples - Nadal and Djokovic 2.0. Neither possess GOAT-like serves, but their hold %s are GOAT-esque. Also, there is not a single player in the top 10 today that has their serve as the major weapon.

which brings us to Roddick.. despite his relatively poor baseline/net game, he has surpassed Pete in hold %. what does that tell you about his serve as a stand alone shot? Put him in a situation where the conditions were faster, poorer returners and poorer baseline games (90s), and you have a more lethal version of Roddick.
Just wondering if you are sure about that?

I am not a stats person but there are guys like Greg Rusedski and Goran Ivanisevic who would be considered to have some of the greatest serves in that era of "poorer returns and poorer baseline games" and yet one player won one slam towards the end and Rusedski played in just one major final. Then Phillippoussis played two finals and lost both, whilst Krajicek and Stich only won 1 slam each.

So it seems that had Roddick played in that era his chances of winning more slams would not have been enhanced judging by players who had similar big serves.
Laurie is offline   Reply With Quote