Sarcasm never does make good sense to those it is directed at. Ohhhh, now I see you're adapting your theory of tiebreak and saying tiebreaks actually lowers the quality of tennis, but in addition, lowers the serve quality a bit less than the returning quality, hence creating a slight service buff. And here I was naive in thinking I could get behind the idea that pressure is what raises the level of the game. But now you're saying every player is inherently a slight choker at heart. Oh how stupid of me for not reading your mind there. But it does make sense you would favour the pessimistic route over the optimist route.
That's because the servebot might suddenly change up their service pattern and freak out the returner. Good point
Djokovic plays like a machine and he's doing okay.
Federer 2019 Wimbledon
Not necessarily. Rarely do players have high 1st serve percentage in TBs.
He’s also an all time outlier in that every match he’s played since 2011 (aside from Nadal at RG/possibly Murray on grass) he’s the better returner. And also the better baseline player. He can afford to go for less comparatively than his opponents bc he is uniquely great at returning.
You think he was the better server? Thansi at the Miami open says otherwise. When he was younger he absolutely was the terminator, but those last few years he got tight.
Great example of this is the Nadal v Djokovic RG 2022 QF TB. Novak was very passive in that TB while Rafa was much more aggressive. I'd say the perfect TB strategy is aggressive percentage play. By that I mean hit safe percentage shots but much harder than usual . Something actually Alcaraz on big points does very well.
Djokovic has nothing to do with Federer blasting sitters into net or outside the stands to be honest.
Federer's fault though.
It does actually matter. During a set, you count the number of GAMES each has won, whereas in a tie-break, you count the POINTS, so no, a point is not a point. In a tie-break, a point is a game, in a way. Never heard of mini-breaks during a game, but certainly during a tie-break.This advantage is already present in games. A point is a point, no matter if it's in a game or a tiebreak. Literally the only difference is the pressure behind the point. The exact same rules of tennis are being played just in a different order and format. But there's pressure is always there to win in tennis. So what you have to be implying is that the pressure in tiebreaks is sooooo unique that it's impossible to replicate in games, to the point where it favors the "better server." Now I wonder if we can create a different format which would magically favour the better returner?
What I'm saying is correct but you are misrepresenting what I'm saying there and spinning it to match your own meaning. I understand what you're trying to say despite that - there's on average more pressure in tiebreaks points. But that doesn't change the fact a point is a point, no matter if it's played in a game or a tiebreak. All you are emphasizing by calling a tiebreak point a game, is the difference in pressure, but that still doesn't change the rules of tennis. You still need to put one more ball on the other side of the court just like all the other points. That never changes.
Both of those things would drastically change tennis. It sounds like you misunderstood what I meant by a different format. That would totally change what a tennis point is. By differing formats I was referring to the difference in the amount of points needed to win a game or the difference in the amount of points you need to win more than your opponent in a game or whether one or both players serve. In a normal tennis game for example, one player serves, you need to win at least 4 points with at least a 2 point differential over your opponent. That's different from a tie break where both players serve and you need at least 7 points and a 2 point differential over your opponent.
You are assuming the better server's advantage over the opponent on the serve is greater than the better returner's advantage over the opponent on return. In an equal battle, there's no reason to assume that.
I'm not simplifying tiebreaks, but it's necessary to, in order to address this servers argument, to make an actual fruitful thought experiment. And that requires assuming all other factors are accounted for (i.e are constant) or are averaged out. That includes these things you have mentioned. I agree with you of course they matter, but it's not relevant to the discussion because I wasn't interested in their effect on a tiebreak.
Remember Novak's tiebreak winning streak a few years back though? He did that by suddenly playing extremely passive and making it a mission to just put every single ball back in the court, and it worked. Not that I think that's a good strategy in general, but I have a feeling the reason why it worked is because it messed with the other guy's head. He suddenly changed the way he was playing. A servebot might also have a similar ability to do this by keeping their service pattern exactly the same until the tiebreak, then bam, completely change it in a tiebreak.
Well I don't want to dispute stats. Only thing is how much of this is affected by the biases I mentioned in the OP. How do these guy's tiebreak % differ by surface/opponent/tournament ?
Not a big game change either, not like he'd been hitting winner after winner pre-TB in those matches. But when every single opponent shrinks like a mouse the moment they have something of an opportunity to win the set, that is what happens. Some goat tier tiebreak vulturing, if you may.
The tiebreak vs Dimitrov in Paris later that year is another good example. I remember one massive long point where all Djokovic did was hit back the most passive balls and Dimitrov kept blasting away and held a winning position in the point for like 30 shots until he got tired and ran in and hit a forehand to the net. After that point the damage was done. I get you never want to credit Djokovic and always view things like it was their opponent's fault they lost, but when you go on a massive winning streak, the reason behind that is more logically the player doing something right, rather than the entire field as a whole collapsing.It worked because of the weak era mug opponents
Yes I'm assuming the better server's advantage over the better returner's. Tennis is a sport in which the serve has an advantage in each point, as it gives you the initiative of the point.
It's interesting. A possible explanation, is that these serve dominant players are cruising a bit on the return until the tiebreak comes around because that's where they know they things will inevitably be decided. They put in a slightly better return performance in the tiebreaks which does two things, take their opponent off guard, and make the stats look like they are overperforming relative to earlier games.
I think OP has a pretty bad serve and he wants to be validated that he doesn’t need to work on it.
I agree and have always said it myself. If anything, then an open set could make a really close to unbreakable server more dangerous, because then he can extend the match to infinity without even having to play actual tennis. And one bad service game is the end against such a player, no matter if after 10 minutes or hours later. Mostly servebots will also make some double faults and easy errors though, so one or two lost service points in a tiebreak are not definitely the end against them.
And now it's at 61%. Shows a massive decline to downgrade that stat by 5pp when it was built up from 10 years of clutchness.
Isner might be a special case. Maybe he knows he can't sustainably put in 100% effort every game to protect his larger body from injury and due to lower stamina. So he really does play far below his potential until the tiebreak. But it sounds too farfetched to be true, considering other servebots with comparable frames are nowhere close to that level of difference.
Just my two pennies but I think this sums it up pretty well.
He's been poor in TBs vs Novak since 2018.
I'll be forever thankful for that YEC match lol.
