Greatest Serves of All Time

[NonP]

Time for another update (3rd in the past week alone!):

1. Ivanisevic
2. Karlovic
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Krajicek
6. Arthurs
7. Roddick
8. Newcombe
9. Isner
10. Becker
11. Philippoussis
    
12. Zivojinovic
13. Raonic
14. McEnroe
15. Tanner
16. Stich
17. Curren
18. Smith
19. Federer
20. Rusedski
21. Noah

Honorary mentions:

• McLoughlin, Maurice - perhaps the first distinguished cannonball serve in tennis history
• Tilden - yet another storied power serve, which he bolstered with spin and accuracy
• Doeg, John - Ivanisevic to Vines' Sampras, a southpaw whose serve was considered one of the two or three greatest ever (along with Vines') in his heyday
• Vines - by many accounts, the best and fastest serve of the pre-WWII era
• Kramer - in addition to a formidable first delivery, perhaps the best second serve before Newcombe and Sampras
• Denton - his unusual service motion notwithstanding, an ace dispenser that could bring enormous heat
• Edberg - for his iconic kicker (any logo ring a bell?), arguably the best ever for serve-and-volley
• Johansson, Joachim - Denton of the aughts

As Moose has noted Scud has the highest % of unreturned serves (65.8%) second only to Karlovic's over 66% (precise number unavailable) among those we've come across so far, and that was against a more formidable opponent (Gonzalez) than Ivo's (Bracciali). And Mark's %s in the other six matches that we have show a consistency that was most likely intact throughout his career. So I've taken Moose's advice and moved him past Bobo and Raonic.

Also I've been looking at some of Rusedski's matches and it's almost certain that he served more freebies on average than Smith and Federer at least. One thing I've noticed in these GSOAT discussions is that claims about a player's inconsistency tend to be exaggerated, and once I have more Rusedski stats handy he'll most likely move up a couple notches. (Alas tennisabstract.com doesn't seem to have any service stats for Greg.)

And LeeD of all people brought up two old names (Dibley and Amaya) that should be familiar to any longtime readers, which means more sleuthing for us this time (as always listed by order of birth only):

• Gerald Patterson (1895)
• Bob Falkenburg (1926)
• Mike Sangster (1940)
• Colin Dibley (1944)
  
• John Feaver (1952)
• Victor Amaya (1954)

Again I'm leaning towards leaving out Pattern due to Budge's mentioning McLoughlin but not Gerald in his estimation of the two or three best servers in history, but any of these guys may well be worth an honorary mention at least. You know the drill: stats, press reports, firsthand accounts. Much obliged!

Now onto my responses....

As you well known I believe Jack Kramer is one of the top five servers ever (one of the top few players also perhaps the greatest) and is arguably the greatest server ever. Here's some descriptions of Jack Kramer's serve.

pc1, you really don't need to convince me of Kramer's place in the GSOAT pantheon, because I fully believe he belongs way up there with the likes of Vines and Gonzales. Again the main reason why I've given the old-timers mere honorable mentions is lack of visual and statistical evidence, as we've seen how all the glowing secondhand accounts can be distorted on their part or misconstrued on our part. Gonzales is one exception I've made because Braden's analysis of his serve offers something concrete (such as clocking in at over 140 mph regularly) as opposed to the usual accolades about power, accuracy and depth, and even that was with much trepidation and consideration.

Now I may well add Vines (and Kramer) eventually, but that's because krosero has provided enough statistical evidence that he was indeed one of the best servers of his time, if not the very best. But then I doubt there's anyone alive that can claim to have analyzed Vines' serve to the same extent Vic dissected Pancho's, which is why I've been more reluctant to assign Elly a particular ranking. Hope you understand.

BTW did you ever get my email asking for the list of Laver's career matches? (I forgot to ask explicitly, but I thought the purpose of the email was clear.) When you reply I was going to ask you for the page number(s) of that excerpt from the Budge memoir about Doeg's serve. Hopefully you got the email and can email back the page number without much trouble, or you can post it here if you prefer. Thanks again.

I posted that on page 15. Isner had 38% unret in that match.

Grazie, missed that one.

It is surprising, but we haven't posted any stats involving any indoor matches. I have a couple, don't think they were particularly high rates. I think krosero posted some stats on Fed vs Santoro at '08AO, maybe that was a high rate(it was a beatdown)

Another surprising thing is that beatdowns generally don't feature very high unreturned-serve %s. But it somehow makes sense, because if you're winning so comprehensively you probably don't feel the need to go all out on your serve.

I'm pretty surprised that the unret rate in the '04 W(30%) final is much lower than the '09 one(with Roddick as well), didn't seem like there was much of a difference stylistically between those matches(lots of quick points)

You know, I actually don't have Roddick's rate in the '04 final. If you have it can you point me to it or post it again?

Vic also wrote in Tennis 2000 that when he asked Kramer what surface he would choose to play Gorgo on, Kramer responded "the slowest surface in the world"....which shocked Vic, but when Vic asked him to elaborate Kramer told him that as good as Gorgo was, he had some weaknesses, and that on a slow surface Kramer could eventually make him play those weaknesses. He claimed that both Gorgo and he knew that he was more consistent, and more mentally stable, and that gave him the advantage on a slow surface.

Doesn't surprise me, because Gonzales did have some difficulty on clay throughout his career. (Of course the choice of the most important events in the chaotic pro years is somewhat subjective, but SgtJohn's oft-cited list shows no clay-court major equivalent title for Gorgo.) Just one of the many similarities Pancho shares with Sampras.

also NonP, I would put Philippoussis a lot higher than #13(certainly higher than Bobo), he has registered the 2nd highest rate of any player so far(right after Ivo) with 66% at '04 W(posted it on page 18) and that was when he was having a pretty crappy year. We also have a few others with him in the high 50s(one in 2006, when he was barely playing), wish I had more complete matches with him.

I do have that ridiculous Flipper stat already. But apart from his 57% rate against Gimelstob at '06 Newport I'm not aware of any other instances where he posted high 50s. Can you name which ones and the numbers (% and # of unreturned serves & total service points) if available?

Speaking of which that Independent article on Scud-Gonzo provides Mark's unreturned % only, so I took a gander at the official match stats and after rounding only 75 out of 114 leaves us with 66%. So 75 unreturned serves/114 total service points for Flipper.

Anyway my issue with Flipper is his inconsistency--for one thing he even had more DFs than Goran on average (hat tip to bricks). But yeah, it's likely that he earned nearly as many free points as Ivo and Goran (another tip to slice serve ace), hence his new higher ranking (11th).

BTW it's striking how much Goran's 1st-serve %s had improved in just a few years. The ATP shows a pretty noticeable increase (59% in '04 vs. 55% career for Goran) in and of itself, but his '04 Wimbledon stats are eye-popping: 76%, 68% and 65% in each corresponding round. And while getting decent pace on his serves, too. Scary to think he'd be serving above 60% regularly today.

I may get a copy of Goran-Rusedski from that event some day. There seemed to be very little coverage of that match in the press that day(was overshadowed by Fed-Peter and Henman-Martin understandably), but the commentators made it sound like Goran was in the zone though when they recapped the day, and that he was now a legit threat to go all the way.

Yeah, though Goran had "only" 22 aces that day he also won 93% and 61% of his 1st- and 2nd-serve points respectively, a pretty unbeatable combo (the former rate was even better than the 88% he had against Roddick). If you get ahold of those matches do feel free to post the stats here.

Well it sure seemed a lot higher than 59% vs Brown, since he was trying to take full swings on the returns and kept failing miserably.

The full match is up on YT:

Have only seen snippets but looks like you're right about Brown's valiant effort. And good luck on Ivo vs. Raonic.

 

[pc1]

NonP,
I sent you an attachment of Laver's matches a few days ago. If you didn't get it I'll send it again.

 

[krosero]

It is surprising, but we haven't posted any stats involving any indoor matches. I have a couple, don't think they were particularly high rates. I think krosero posted some stats on Fed vs Santoro at '08AO, maybe that was a high rate(it was a beatdown)

Federer unreturned 13/61 = 21.3%
Santoro unreturned 10/69 = 14.4%

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-89-matches-1959-2008.198319/#post-2710103

 

[Dan Lobb]

B

Thanks should go to PC1, who found the interview and posted the link last year, IIRC: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-11/sports/sp-6213_1_ellsworth-vines/5

Dan, you've allowed only two possible options here:

1) Vines either concocted the story; or
2) The story must be true

Basing the argument like this, upon someone's honesty, is not necessary, because there are other options. I don't believe Vines concocted the story either; I'm sure he was relating his memories as he recalled them. But the option of a mistaken memory is always an option in these types of historical discussions, especially when we're talking about a statement made decades after the events in question. Though there is no way to prove it, I think it is far more likely that Vines serving underhand to Budge is a mistaken memory, rather than being a fully accurate memory of a real event (I regard this possibility as slim-to-none), or intentional fabrication by Vines (a possibility I completely reject).

There is a lot that could be discussed about memory issues in general. But we know more specifically, too, that Vines, late in life, related several memories about his career that were factually incorrect. I think, Dan, that you're familiar with the interview he gave to Stan Hart in 1983; I think you've mentioned it before. It appears in Hart's book, Once a Champion: Legendary Tennis Stars Revisited (1985), on p. 229. Hart tracked down and interviewed several tennis champions, and published those interviews in his book. His interview with Vines ended up really focusing on the issues of memory, because Vines made a number of errors about some of the key moments of his tennis career; and Hart found evidence (which he left unproved) that Vines was mistaken about certain events in his golf career, as well.

I guess you've read this interview, right? Are you aware of other mistaken memories by Vines (the injury issue aside)?

Krosero, that is a very weak option...if you find a reminiscence that is unsettling, then, of course, someone must have a faulty memory...yes, that's it, a faulty memory. How convenient..perhaps a little TOO convenient. Sure, someone could forget a score or a location, but, really..an injury which caused a player to SERVE UNDERHAND ON A CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR? I'm sorry...that is a little too much to believe. Something like that sticks in the memory.

I can recall key events and plays from my own championship baseball season, from 1961, no less, when we won the "squirt" age 9-10 year old league in Toronto. I made the series-winning hit in the final of a best-of three series..you do NOT forget these things. But I could only guess now as to WHERE and against WHOM these events happened. (I still have the colour photo of our team, and the "trophy" or crest.)

 

[krosero]

B

Krosero, that is a very weak option...if you find a reminiscence that is unsettling, then, of course, someone must have a faulty memory...yes, that's it, a faulty memory. How convenient..perhaps a little TOO convenient. Sure, someone could forget a score or a location, but, really..an injury which caused a player to SERVE UNDERHAND ON A CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR? I'm sorry...that is a little too much to believe. Something like that sticks in the memory.

I can recall key events and plays from my own championship baseball season, from 1961, no less, when we won the "squirt" age 9-10 year old league in Toronto. I made the series-winning hit in the final of a best-of three series..you do NOT forget these things. But I could only guess now as to WHERE and against WHOM these events happened. (I still have the colour photo of our team, and the "trophy" or crest.)

Dan maybe I should take a step back and explain why this seems unlikely to me.

I never found a report about the underhand serving, in press reports from '39 (or indeed in any report before 1990). Bowers never saw such a report (I asked him), and of course no one has combed through news reports of the 1930s to the degree that he has.

These pro tours, moreover, had very good coverage. As you can see from my list of Vines' serving, I've found reports of aces by Vines in almost all of the matches he played in '39. I don't rule out that he could have served underhand in one of the few matches for which I've yet to find detailed descriptions of his serving. No one can rule that out, short of going to the local time-machine shop and picking up a '57 Delorean. But the fact that a report of underhand serving by Vines is still missing, is very strange, considering how many details of these tours were publicized, not just in ALT but in all the major newspapers as well.

All the players, and Jack Harris (the tour manager), talked regularly with the press, not only about whatever local match they may have just finished playing, but also the matches they had just played before coming to town, their plans for the next few weeks, their physical condition, their injuries, the stresses of their travels, their hotel arrangements, what they ate for dinner the other night and whether it was agreeing with them, etc., etc.

The previous year ('38), there was a report of underhand serving. It happened during the Vines/Perry tour, at the stop in San Francisco. The ALT correspondent mentioned briefly that in the doubles, Berkeley Bell had resorted to "serving underhand, to no avail". That must have been performed as a joke (the overwhelmed player desperately trying anything to get a point), because Harris said that none of his players on the ’38 tour sustained any serious injuries. Bell often played to the crowd, and on these barnstorming tours the doubles matches were often light-hearted.

But ALT, I can say definitely, had no mention, in '39, of underhand serving by anyone. If it happened, it escaped the attention of that publication, despite the fact that ALT had correspondents in all areas of the country who regularly attended the matches and talked to the players/managers.

Does it seem a little strange to you that an instance of underhand serving, as a joke, made it into ALT; while there is nothing in ALT about Vines serving underhand due to injury, which would have been incomparably greater news than a mere jest in doubles? For one of the headliners to lose his greatest weapon -- to be visibly crippled -- should have made it into ALT as the lead-in story to every piece they ran.

If a report turns up in a local newspaper from '39, reporting that Vines served underhand at an obscure stop on the tour, I will concede that I was wrong on this. But it will immediately raise another question, namely why such a thing was not mentioned in ALT, when that publication covered the full length of the ’39 tour with in-depth reports. And why the thing never came to light in any other major publications, like the LA Times or New York Times.

I know you’re incredulous that, as you put it, someone could serve underhand and not remember it. But whether he would remember it is not the question. The question is whether it happened.

If you say, “that sort of thing sticks in the memory,” you’re presuming that the thing took place. If I presume, for the sake of argument, that the thing took place, then I would agree with you: if Vines served underhand, I tend to think he would not forget it. I tend to think it would remain in his memory. That does not mean, in any way, that he served underhand. Stating that he would not forget serving underhand merely begs the question of whether he served that way.

Fred Perry recalled, in his memoir, meeting Hitler personally in 1932: a meeting which almost surely did not occur. That’s a perfect example. You could say that meeting Hitler personally is something you don’t forget; something that will stick in memory; so it must be true. But that merely begs the question of whether he did meet Hitler, and it’s virtually a certain fact that he didn’t.

The question is whether it’s possible to recall something that didn’t happen.

That is most assuredly possible. The science of memory is very much in the news these days and you can find studies demonstrating such false memories, quite easily, online. I’ve posted links to some of them in my memory thread, and here's an interesting interview on the subject.

I will say again, because it’s important to be clear on this, even if I’ve said it before and most of you already know it: I have no expertise on that subject. I am nothing more than a beginning student in that field; perhaps even calling myself a student is too much. I have a personal interest in it, and that’s all.

What I can say is how I see such an issue like this injury dispute, in light of what I’ve read about memory. And I can point to false memories in tennis – ones which we know are false because they are factually incorrect.

Vines, in 1983, recalled winning the national mixed doubles title once with Elizabeth Ryan (which did happen), but he remembered an additional time winning that title, with Helen Jacobs. In fact Vines won that title only once, and never with Jacobs. He and Jacobs made the final one year; Helen went on to win it with a different partner in ’34, after Elly had turned pro. Stan Hart found no instance of Vines/Jacobs winning a major title together.

That’s a direct example, within tennis, of a memory of an event that did not occur.

In that same interview, Vines recalled beating Bunny Austin in Davis Cup in 1933; in fact he lost to Austin 6-1, 6-1, 6-4. That is a similar example, maybe not as clear-cut, because Vines did beat Austin on other occasions. Nevertheless, that Davis Cup tie was one of the key moments of Vines’ career. Vines fainted at the end of a dramatic five-setter with Fred Perry; he must have been asked about this Davis Cup tie, and about his role in the loss of the Cup for the United States, countless times throughout his life. So I would think this is a more significant memory slip than merely confusing some opponents’ names in the third round at Wimbledon or on a pro tour stop in Oklahoma. And if you’ve read the Stan Hart interview, you know that Hart himself was greatly surprised at Vines’ mistakes at that point in the interview, to the extent that he wasn’t sure how to proceed.

Within tennis, I can’t point to any instance of someone recalling a physical act (like serving underhand) which we know definitively did not happen. But there was a piece in the New York Times from someone who recalled taking a bloody injury to her foot years earlier, while her friend recalled it happening to her (the friend, not the author of the piece); so one of the two friends has a false memory about a physical injury.

But the Vines case is not even that extreme. I am not saying that the injury is a false memory. We know from many sources that he was injured during his tour with Budge. What I think is most plausible is that the memory of serving underhand is mistaken. Not the mere fact of being injured; we know that part is true.

There are other mistaken memories in an interview Vines gave to World Tennis, only a month before this LA Times interview in which he said he served underhand. He gave these interviews in late 1990, with his health failing, several months after suffering a heart attack. He was no longer playing tennis then, and barely played golf.

The details of his World Tennis interview I’ll save perhaps for another time.

 

[NonP]

Federer unreturned 13/61 = 21.3%
Santoro unreturned 10/69 = 14.4%

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-89-matches-1959-2008.198319/#post-2710103

Thanks for the stats, but just to be clear is that link for reference only or does it relate to the unreturned %s in any way? I ask because I couldn't find any info on unreturned serves in that post.

I can recall key events and plays from my own championship baseball season, from 1961, no less, when we won the "squirt" age 9-10 year old league in Toronto. I made the series-winning hit in the final of a best-of three series..you do NOT forget these things. But I could only guess now as to WHERE and against WHOM these events happened. (I still have the colour photo of our team, and the "trophy" or crest.)

Something in this reminiscence sounds familiar. I bet our dear Dan's majestic Little League trophy still stands proudly alongside his other invaluable heirlooms.

 

[krosero]

Thanks for the stats, but just to be clear is that link for reference only or does it relate to the unreturned %s in any way? I ask because I couldn't find any info on unreturned serves in that post.

oh I posted the link assuming the unreturned stats were there, I must have calculated them later.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan maybe I should take a step back and explain why this seems unlikely to me.

I never found a report about the underhand serving, in press reports from '39 (or indeed in any report before 1990). Bowers never saw such a report (I asked him), and of course no one has combed through news reports of the 1930s to the degree that he has.

These pro tours, moreover, had very good coverage. As you can see from my list of Vines' serving, I've found reports of aces by Vines in almost all of the matches he played in '39. I don't rule out that he could have served underhand in one of the few matches for which I've yet to find detailed descriptions of his serving. No one can rule that out, short of going to the local time-machine shop and picking up a '57 Delorean. But the fact that a report of underhand serving by Vines is still missing, is very strange, considering how many details of these tours were publicized, not just in ALT but in all the major newspapers as well.

All the players, and Jack Harris (the tour manager), talked regularly with the press, not only about whatever local match they may have just finished playing, but also the matches they had just played before coming to town, their plans for the next few weeks, their physical condition, their injuries, the stresses of their travels, their hotel arrangements, what they ate for dinner the other night and whether it was agreeing with them, etc., etc.

The previous year ('38), there was a report of underhand serving. It happened during the Vines/Perry tour, at the stop in San Francisco. The ALT correspondent mentioned briefly that in the doubles, Berkeley Bell had resorted to "serving underhand, to no avail". That must have been performed as a joke (the overwhelmed player desperately trying anything to get a point), because Harris said that none of his players on the ’38 tour sustained any serious injuries. Bell often played to the crowd, and on these barnstorming tours the doubles matches were often light-hearted.

But ALT, I can say definitely, had no mention, in '39, of underhand serving by anyone. If it happened, it escaped the attention of that publication, despite the fact that ALT had correspondents in all areas of the country who regularly attended the matches and talked to the players/managers.

Does it seem a little strange to you that an instance of underhand serving, as a joke, made it into ALT; while there is nothing in ALT about Vines serving underhand due to injury, which would have been incomparably greater news than a mere jest in doubles? For one of the headliners to lose his greatest weapon -- to be visibly crippled -- should have made it into ALT as the lead-in story to every piece they ran.

If a report turns up in a local newspaper from '39, reporting that Vines served underhand at an obscure stop on the tour, I will concede that I was wrong on this. But it will immediately raise another question, namely why such a thing was not mentioned in ALT, when that publication covered the full length of the ’39 tour with in-depth reports. And why the thing never came to light in any other major publications, like the LA Times or New York Times.

I know you’re incredulous that, as you put it, someone could serve underhand and not remember it. But whether he would remember it is not the question. The question is whether it happened.

If you say, “that sort of thing sticks in the memory,” you’re presuming that the thing took place. If I presume, for the sake of argument, that the thing took place, then I would agree with you: if Vines served underhand, I tend to think he would not forget it. I tend to think it would remain in his memory. That does not mean, in any way, that he served underhand. Stating that he would not forget serving underhand merely begs the question of whether he served that way.

Fred Perry recalled, in his memoir, meeting Hitler personally in 1932: a meeting which almost surely did not occur. That’s a perfect example. You could say that meeting Hitler personally is something you don’t forget; something that will stick in memory; so it must be true. But that merely begs the question of whether he did meet Hitler, and it’s virtually a certain fact that he didn’t.

The question is whether it’s possible to recall something that didn’t happen.

That is most assuredly possible. The science of memory is very much in the news these days and you can find studies demonstrating such false memories, quite easily, online. I’ve posted links to some of them in my memory thread, and here's an interesting interview on the subject.

I will say again, because it’s important to be clear on this, even if I’ve said it before and most of you already know it: I have no expertise on that subject. I am nothing more than a beginning student in that field; perhaps even calling myself a student is too much. I have a personal interest in it, and that’s all.

What I can say is how I see such an issue like this injury dispute, in light of what I’ve read about memory. And I can point to false memories in tennis – ones which we know are false because they are factually incorrect.

Vines, in 1983, recalled winning the national mixed doubles title once with Elizabeth Ryan (which did happen), but he remembered an additional time winning that title, with Helen Jacobs. In fact Vines won that title only once, and never with Jacobs. He and Jacobs made the final one year; Helen went on to win it with a different partner in ’34, after Elly had turned pro. Stan Hart found no instance of Vines/Jacobs winning a major title together.

That’s a direct example, within tennis, of a memory of an event that did not occur.

In that same interview, Vines recalled beating Bunny Austin in Davis Cup in 1933; in fact he lost to Austin 6-1, 6-1, 6-4. That is a similar example, maybe not as clear-cut, because Vines did beat Austin on other occasions. Nevertheless, that Davis Cup tie was one of the key moments of Vines’ career. Vines fainted at the end of a dramatic five-setter with Fred Perry; he must have been asked about this Davis Cup tie, and about his role in the loss of the Cup for the United States, countless times throughout his life. So I would think this is a more significant memory slip than merely confusing some opponents’ names in the third round at Wimbledon or on a pro tour stop in Oklahoma. And if you’ve read the Stan Hart interview, you know that Hart himself was greatly surprised at Vines’ mistakes at that point in the interview, to the extent that he wasn’t sure how to proceed.

Within tennis, I can’t point to any instance of someone recalling a physical act (like serving underhand) which we know definitively did not happen. But there was a piece in the New York Times from someone who recalled taking a bloody injury to her foot years earlier, while her friend recalled it happening to her (the friend, not the author of the piece); so one of the two friends has a false memory about a physical injury.

But the Vines case is not even that extreme. I am not saying that the injury is a false memory. We know from many sources that he was injured during his tour with Budge. What I think is most plausible is that the memory of serving underhand is mistaken. Not the mere fact of being injured; we know that part is true.

There are other mistaken memories in an interview Vines gave to World Tennis, only a month before this LA Times interview in which he said he served underhand. He gave these interviews in late 1990, with his health failing, several months after suffering a heart attack. He was no longer playing tennis then, and barely played golf.

The details of his World Tennis interview I’ll save perhaps for another time.

Why do we put weight on Vines claim? Because it is plausible...and I recall reading somewhere in the London Times that Vines indeed served either underhand or sidearm due to his injury, apparently a pulled rib muscle, which would make it almost impossible to serve normally. So it would be surprising, indeed, if he DID serve in an orthodox manner, more likely he would fudge his service motion to put less strain on the injury. That is why it is credible that he would adjust his normal service motion. So, underhand, side-arm, or some combination would be logical.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Thanks for the stats, but just to be clear is that link for reference only or does it relate to the unreturned %s in any way? I ask because I couldn't find any info on unreturned serves in that post.



Something in this reminiscence sounds familiar. I bet our dear Dan's majestic Little League trophy still stands proudly alongside his other invaluable heirlooms.

The "trophy" is a cloth crest, which I never sewed on to anything, but have kept it alone.
Incidentally, I recall the exact score of the third and deciding game, 5 to 2, it was 2 all with runners on second and third when I came to bat, determined to do something, and hit my hardest hit of the season, into left field, ran like lightning to second base, stopped cold, saw the ball still in the outfield, ran and slid into third, thought I was safe, but called out. My grandfather, my dad told me later, then stood up from his lawn chair, and walked toward the third base umpire to offer some advice, my dad intercepted him.

Enough?

 

[pc1]

The "trophy" is a cloth crest, which I never sewed on to anything, but have kept it alone.
Incidentally, I recall the exact score of the third and deciding game, 5 to 2, it was 2 all with runners on second and third when I came to bat, determined to do something, and hit my hardest hit of the season, into left field, ran like lightning to second base, stopped cold, saw the ball still in the outfield, ran and slid into third, thought I was safe, but called out. My grandfather, my dad told me later, then stood up from his lawn chair, and walked toward the third base umpire to offer some advice, my dad intercepted him.

Enough?

Dan,

Since we're in a great serves thread I read in Rosewall's book that Hoad actually had a sort of a slice serve that could curve the other way into the body. Even Rosewall found it hard to believe. I'll see if I can find the description.

 

[encylopedia]

Dan,

Since we're in a great serves thread I read in Rosewall's book that Hoad actually had a sort of a slice serve that could curve the other way into the body. Even Rosewall found it hard to believe. I'll see if I can find the description.

It wouldn't be shocking...I've heard of some players of the past using it, and have seen some modern players use it as a novelty.

 

[pc1]

Here's a quote on Lew Hoad's serve from "Play Tennis with Rosewall-The Little Master and his Method"--Until his back trouble began to spoil his game after 1958 he had a wonderful service. He had one serve in particular, a wide ball to the forehand , the like of which I have never faced from anyone else. Despite its apparent slice-- and I can assure you it carried you right outside of the court--it used to kick back into the body of the receiver. Even when you knew it was likely to come this serve was disconcerting and won him many valuable points.

 

[krosero]

Why do we put weight on Vines claim? Because it is plausible...and I recall reading somewhere in the London Times that Vines indeed served either underhand or sidearm due to his injury, apparently a pulled rib muscle, which would make it almost impossible to serve normally. So it would be surprising, indeed, if he DID serve in an orthodox manner, more likely he would fudge his service motion to put less strain on the injury. That is why it is credible that he would adjust his normal service motion. So, underhand, side-arm, or some combination would be logical.

That Vines would make some kind of adjustment when injured is certainly plausible. I know of three instances where his serve was visibly observed to be different, and the difference was attributed to injury.

However underhand serving was not mentioned in any of these instances, all of which were documented heavily by the press.

One was in '39, at Southport, where Vines lost to Nusslein. (He did not play Budge there). ALT reported that Vines had a "strained back" and was "unable to serve fast against Dan Maskell." When Vines lost to Nusslein he was "still deprived of his big service by back trouble." They said that because Vines could not use his heavy artillery, the match was played at a slow pace.

Another instance was way back in that famous '33 Davis Cup tie against England, in which Vines lost to Austin in straights and to Perry in 5. Mercer Beasely reported shortly after those losses that Vines played the tie “with his side strapped, as well as his right ankle in a bandage.” He wrote:

Then came the trouble with his side. This happened after the Austin match. His services had to be adjusted to suit, and he worked nicely with no pain from side or ankle. He was also in a good mental condition.​

An AP report shortly after that Davis Cup tie:

PARIS, July 25 (AP).—Ellsworth Vines Jr. and Bernon S. Prentice, captain of the United States Davis Cup team, today denied published reports that the ankle injury suffered by Vines in his match with Fred Perry Sunday might result in permanent injury.

Both said no specialist had examined Vines, as was reported, and the doctor who attended him after the match did not suggest that the injury was a permanent one. The report was that Vines might be forced to wear a brace and a high shoe for tennis play hereafter.​

Several months later, in his first tour with Tilden, he had trouble with his side again, as reported by ALT. In Kansas City, ALT said that he "was visibly handicapped in serving by a bad side. This did not handicap his ground strokes in the least however and the rallies were quite satisfactory." They added:

If Vines had been able to serve with his usual speed, the match would doubtless have been closer [Tilden won in four sets].​

A year later ('35) Vines recalled this injury and said "he had torn some ribs loose and was plastered with adhesive."

We know this happened again in the '39 tour. The AP reported this scene in the locker room, after the match In Buffalo:

Ellsworth Vines, whom Budge has just beaten in three sets, is carefully removing great strips of adhesive tape from his side.​

Bowers notes that around this time in the tour Vines "played with a taped mid-section, result of a pulled muscle."

However, this match in Buffalo is not one of those instances where Vines' serve was observed to be different, or slower than usual. There were many detailed reports about the match, filled with comments about the violence of Vines' strokes, and the speed of his serve. One of the doubles players said that "some of Ellie's shots nearly tore his arm off swinging at them."

That doesn't mean that Vines was not injured in Buffalo or that the injury had no effect on his serve; I'm just noting that this was not an instance where his serve was visibly observed to be slow and/or hampered.

In '34, in the tour against Tilden, both ALT and the local press observed Vines having visible trouble serving due to the injury to his side.

There were detailed reports in the local press, and even a boxscore. All that material is really too long to put here but I'll post it in my 1934 thread.

Re: the London Times, I had a look a while back, when we were debating this, and nothing like that turned up. The London Times, in '39, had only a few reports about Budge/Vines matches; they reported some of the big matches like the opener at Madison Square Garden, but certainly not with the level of detail provided in the American press.

They may have mentioned something in later decades, but I remember running as wide a search as possible and turning up nothing.

Approximately what time period would you have seen this in the Times?

Thanks for taking an open-minded attitude toward this. Encourages me that we might actually have a debate that could lead to answers about what happened, rather than a tedious I-say-yes-you-say-no sort of thing.

 

[krosero]

Incidentally I'm not quite clear on what his injuries were in '39. I think the best evidence points to a muscle strain in his stomach or side, during the US tour. Later in the year, in Europe, he had that back trouble. But some sources also mention shoulder trouble in '39. I'm not sure if that is documented in '39 but I know his shoulder problems went back as far as 1932, and that he had trouble with his shoulder throughout the 1936 season, possibly other years.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I believe that I read it from the 1939 London Times coverage of the pro tour of Europe, that his service motion was visibly altered or side-armed or underhanded...pretty clear on that.
None of your stories relates Vines' service motion being affected by his side muscle injuries, which I find very strange...like somebody didn't want to comment on it...that is my take.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan,

Since we're in a great serves thread I read in Rosewall's book that Hoad actually had a sort of a slice serve that could curve the other way into the body. Even Rosewall found it hard to believe. I'll see if I can find the description.

Yes, I think that Gonzales commented that there so many different spins on Hoad's serves that it was almost impossible to read the motion, getting the opponent wrong-footed.

 

[PeteUSA]

Pancho G. and Sampras.

 

[NonP]

oh I posted the link assuming the unreturned stats were there, I must have calculated them later.

Gotcha. Also krosero, I'm finally done with my major edit to Doeg's Wiki page (took forever to get my sources right and also the old documentation corrected), but there's one small detail I'm hoping you can help me with. Remember when you first brought up ALT's reference to Doeg as one of the great servers of his time? Was that article simply titled "Three Services"? It looks like the title of a subsection of the article, hence my Q. Thanks in advance.

The "trophy" is a cloth crest, which I never sewed on to anything, but have kept it alone.
Incidentally, I recall the exact score of the third and deciding game, 5 to 2, it was 2 all with runners on second and third when I came to bat, determined to do something, and hit my hardest hit of the season, into left field, ran like lightning to second base, stopped cold, saw the ball still in the outfield, ran and slid into third, thought I was safe, but called out. My grandfather, my dad told me later, then stood up from his lawn chair, and walked toward the third base umpire to offer some advice, my dad intercepted him.

Enough?

Yeah, but saying your hit was the 3-run HR that decided the game would've been better.

 

[krosero]

Gotcha. Also krosero, I'm finally done with my major edit to Doeg's Wiki page (took forever to get my sources right and also the old documentation corrected), but there's one small detail I'm hoping you can help me with. Remember when you first brought up ALT's reference to Doeg as one of the great servers of his time? Was that article simply titled "Three Services"? It looks like the title of a subsection of the article, hence my Q. Thanks in advance.

"Three Services" was an editorial, the last of four in that edition. The heading of the editorial section was:

American Lawn Tennis
Editorial Department
Stephen Wallis Merrihew, Editor

-- so it may have been penned by Merrihew himself, but perhaps by another editor on the staff (no other names are given).

Great that you've made changes at Doeg's page. I know how much work that is so please lean on me for any help you might need.

 

[NonP]

"Three Services" was an editorial, the last of four in that edition. The heading of the editorial section was:

American Lawn Tennis
Editorial Department
Stephen Wallis Merrihew, Editor

-- so it may have been penned by Merrihew himself, but perhaps by another editor on the staff (no other names are given).

Great that you've made changes at Doeg's page. I know how much work that is so please lean on me for any help you might need.

Super, so I don't need to make any changes after all. You probably know this already but Wiki's own citation guidelines apparently don't mandate the inclusion of the editor(s)'s name per se.

But you're quite right this is a lot of work! I'd meant to just add the relevant excerpts but since this was a short article I thought I'd give it a thorough makeover. Little did I know that I'd need a crash course on just about every Wiki how-to.

To name just a couple examples, since we knew Doeg's height in feet/inches only I wanted to leave the metric conversion out, but it turned out that Wiki automatically converts the player's height anyway even when the conversion code is omitted. I looked up at least a dozen articles on players past and present but couldn't find a single instance of their height not being converted, so I declared defeat in the end.

Also while we should be thankful to whoever linked to the Hungarian journal with experts' (Mayers' and Tilden's in this case) year-end top 10 rankings he/she made the mistake of using and translating the title of the journal rather than that of the article itself. Since I don't know a word of Hungarian I was going to leave that particular citation intact, but then Google came to the rescue: a világ means the world ("a" seems to be the definite article in Hungarian), legjobb tiz top ten (legjobb alone simply means best), férfi man and játékosa player(s). So "The world's top 10 male players," a fairly straightforward title given the topic. And it seems that the "parent" titles of works (those of newspapers, magazines, etc.) in Hungarian are capitalized as in English while those of shorter units/works like individual articles and works of art are rendered lowercase except for the first word as in Italian, which made my finishing touches fairly simple. (I really could've done without the editor's name and the volume, issue and page #s, but since the info was already there I left that in.) So I'm pretty sure I got this one right.

The other citations were easier if time-consuming (largely because I had to brush up on Wiki's current documentation format). Ditto the hyperlinks to other relevant Wiki articles, except that I couldn't quite figure out a way to add one for Cochet. (As you know you add two brackets at the end of each word/phrase for Wiki links, but I'd already bracketed Cochet's name to replace the generic "Frenchman" in the original passage and Wiki as expected doesn't distinguish between these different types of brackets.) And of course there were some editorial changes here and there (for example the original article had Doeg's 1929 win at Seabright after his 1930 US Championships title, so I moved the former to the forefront to make it flow better), but these were pretty minor.

So a good yeoman's work if I may say so. I'd done a few Wiki edits before (the most notable one probably about Borg's superhuman resting heart rate being a myth), but never a major one like this. My last Wiki contribution didn't turn out very well--for the article on aces I replaced Goran's incorrect total of 1449 in '96 with his actual total of 1566, along with a note about the ATP database missing many match stats for context, but apparently some genius thought not one but two Chicago Tribune articles weren't sufficient documentation!--and I was going to quit on Wiki for good if my Doeg edit was also rejected, but it looks like my reservations were unfounded this time. (A certain Wolbo added a couple more external links, but that was it.) I'm actually enjoying this and thinking about doing it more often. We'll see. And thanks for your offer to help, as always.

BTW I just started the Vines book yesterday and in the intro it was quite striking to see Ellie, the proverbial flat hitter with what we'd consider a big game, chastising the contemporary players (this was the late '70s) relying too much on the "big game" itself without having much of a backup option. In fact by "big game" he means constant net play accompanied by big serves, and he chalks the frequent upsets of the times up to this very imbalance and relatively undeveloped ground strokes on the part of most of the big game's practitioners rather than to the advancement and democratization of the sport itself (some things never change, eh?). I'll have more things to say about this after I finish the book, but it does bring up the questions we briefly touched on earlier: the danger and limitations of taking tennis terminology at face value, and how big a role personal bias plays in our evaluation of the game (as you may recall Ellie ranks Budge at the very top followed by Kramer and then Gonzales, and of course today's players tend to do the same with the more recent GOAT candidates).

To be continued....

P.S. Forgot to add this rare footage of Doeg:

Alas he hits only two serves down the T in this video so we don't get to see the infamous "egg-ball," but you can still see the guy had a smooth motion.

 

[krosero]

Super, so I don't need to make any changes after all. You probably know this already but Wiki's own citation guidelines apparently don't mandate the inclusion of the editor(s)'s name per se.

But you're quite right this is a lot of work! I'd meant to just add the relevant excerpts but since this was a short article I thought I'd give it a thorough makeover. Little did I know that I'd need a crash course on just about every Wiki how-to.

To name just a couple examples, since we knew Doeg's height in feet/inches only I wanted to leave the metric conversion out, but it turned out that Wiki automatically converts the player's height anyway even when the conversion code is omitted. I looked up at least a dozen articles on players past and present but couldn't find a single instance of their height not being converted, so I declared defeat in the end.

Also while we should be thankful to whoever linked to the Hungarian journal with experts' (Mayers' and Tilden's in this case) year-end top 10 rankings he/she made the mistake of using and translating the title of the journal rather than that of the article itself. Since I don't know a word of Hungarian I was going to leave that particular citation intact, but then Google came to the rescue: a világ means the world ("a" seems to be the definite article in Hungarian), legjobb tiz top ten (legjobb alone simply means best), férfi man and játékosa player(s). So "The world's top 10 male players," a fairly straightforward title given the topic. And it seems that the "parent" titles of works (those of newspapers, magazines, etc.) in Hungarian are capitalized as in English while those of shorter units/works like individual articles and works of art are rendered lowercase except for the first word as in Italian, which made my finishing touches fairly simple. (I really could've done without the editor's name and the volume, issue and page #s, but since the info was already there I left that in.) So I'm pretty sure I got this one right.

The other citations were easier if time-consuming (largely because I had to brush up on Wiki's current documentation format). Ditto the hyperlinks to other relevant Wiki articles, except that I couldn't quite figure out a way to add one for Cochet. (As you know you add two brackets at the end of each word/phrase for Wiki links, but I'd already bracketed Cochet's name to replace the generic "Frenchman" in the original passage and Wiki as expected doesn't distinguish between these different types of brackets.) And of course there were some editorial changes here and there (for example the original article had Doeg's 1929 win at Seabright after his 1930 US Championships title, so I moved the former to the forefront to make it flow better), but these were pretty minor.

So a good yeoman's work if I may say so. I'd done a few Wiki edits before (the most notable one probably about Borg's superhuman resting heart rate being a myth), but never a major one like this. My last Wiki contribution didn't turn out very well--for the article on aces I replaced Goran's incorrect total of 1449 in '96 with his actual total of 1566, along with a note about the ATP database missing many match stats for context, but apparently some genius thought not one but two Chicago Tribune articles weren't sufficient documentation!--and I was going to quit on Wiki for good if my Doeg edit was also rejected, but it looks like my reservations were unfounded this time. (A certain Wolbo added a couple more external links, but that was it.) I'm actually enjoying this and thinking about doing it more often. We'll see. And thanks for your offer to help, as always.

Not sure why the edit would have been reversed, even when backed up with two good sources. You might try leaving the ATP record and adding that the Chicago Tribune has a different stat, with a brief explanation of the discrepancy stating for example that the ATP has nothing before '91, etc. If that doesn't work a discussion on the talk page might help.

Seems to me that there ought to be a way to include such a stat as you gave from the Chicago Tribune, which meets all the requirements as a reliable source. It's one thing for a good source to be preferred over a questionable one, but there certainly should be room to include a source that is a perfectly good one even if it happens to conflict with another good one (the ATP).

A discrepancy of over 100 aces is not a minor one, so it's an important issue.

BTW I just started the Vines book yesterday and in the intro it was quite striking to see Ellie, the proverbial flat hitter with what we'd consider a big game, chastising the contemporary players (this was the late '70s) relying too much on the "big game" itself without having much of a backup option. In fact by "big game" he means constant net play accompanied by big serves, and he chalks the frequent upsets of the times up to this very imbalance and relatively undeveloped ground strokes on the part of most of the big game's practitioners rather than to the advancement and democratization of the sport itself (some things never change, eh?). I'll have more things to say about this after I finish the book, but it does bring up the questions we briefly touched on earlier: the danger and limitations of taking tennis terminology at face value, and how big a role personal bias plays in our evaluation of the game (as you may recall Ellie ranks Budge at the very top followed by Kramer and then Gonzales, and of course today's players tend to do the same with the more recent GOAT candidates).

To be continued....

Yes it can be startling to read that intro if you don't know exactly what he means by "big game," which is the old term for coming in on both 1st and 2nd serves constantly. Vines saw that this could be done rather mindlessly, simply out of orthodoxy, and I appreciate the way he emphasizes the importance of ground strokes, having a fully developed game, etc.

He was in a good position to make this criticism, because while he played mostly from the baseline, he knew how to SV and developed all his strokes. He attacked the net the way he's recommending in the book: intelligently, when needed, according to your own capabilities, rather than coming in all the time and mindlessly accepting the Big Game orthodoxy.

P.S. Forgot to add this rare footage of Doeg:

Alas he hits only two serves down the T in this video so we don't get to see the infamous "egg-ball," but you can still see the guy had a smooth motion.

Nice to see, thanks.

 

[NonP]

Not sure why the edit would have been reversed, even when backed up with two good sources. You might try leaving the ATP record and adding that the Chicago Tribune has a different stat, with a brief explanation of the discrepancy stating for example that the ATP has nothing before '91, etc. If that doesn't work a discussion on the talk page might help.

Seems to me that there ought to be a way to include such a stat as you gave from the Chicago Tribune, which meets all the requirements as a reliable source. It's one thing for a good source to be preferred over a questionable one, but there certainly should be room to include a source that is a perfectly good one even if it happens to conflict with another good one (the ATP).

A discrepancy of over 100 aces is not a minor one, so it's an important issue.

Well, frankly most of the Wiki editors aren't exactly experts, so they probably don't know much about the ATP database's gaps and discrepancies that we point out all the time. I was thinking about giving it another go with a more thorough explanation later, and with your encouragement hopefully the 2nd time will be the charm.

Yes it can be startling to read that intro if you don't know exactly what he means by "big game," which is the old term for coming in on both 1st and 2nd serves constantly. Vines saw that this could be done rather mindlessly, simply out of orthodoxy, and I appreciate the way he emphasizes the importance of ground strokes, having a fully developed game, etc.

He was in a good position to make this criticism, because while he played mostly from the baseline, he knew how to SV and developed all his strokes. He attacked the net the way he's recommending in the book: intelligently, when needed, according to your own capabilities, rather than coming in all the time and mindlessly accepting the Big Game orthodoxy.

Precisely. Again I'll share more of my thoughts once I finish the book.

Nice to see, thanks.

Anytime. As you can see both of Doeg's serves are relatively safe ones that land well inside the box, and neither of them in the ad court so it's all but certain that this clip doesn't begin to show the full potential of Doeg's "egg-ball." And I'm sure there is some remaining footage somewhere that does the Doeg serve at least some justice, as is the case with somebody like Riggs whose old videos show just how uncanny the disguise was on his drop shots. Maybe somebody at the ITHoF or British Pathe (a search on the latter website yields no results) can dig it up and make it available.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Gotcha. Also krosero, I'm finally done with my major edit to Doeg's Wiki page (took forever to get my sources right and also the old documentation corrected), but there's one small detail I'm hoping you can help me with. Remember when you first brought up ALT's reference to Doeg as one of the great servers of his time? Was that article simply titled "Three Services"? It looks like the title of a subsection of the article, hence my Q. Thanks in advance.



Yeah, but saying your hit was the 3-run HR that decided the game would've been better.

I will take it...my only experience with a championship team, and it could hardly have ended better for me, after a season of being a marginal player, and the manager picked me to start in the playoffs. And to knock in the championship-winning runs...I can still recall throwing my glove in the air when the last out was made...our pitcher went nine innings and after giving up two early runs, shut them down.

 

[Romismak]

Time for another update (3rd in the past week alone!):

1. Ivanisevic
2. Karlovic
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Krajicek
6. Arthurs
7. Roddick
8. Newcombe
9. Isner
10. Becker
11. Philippoussis
    
12. Zivojinovic
13. Raonic
14. McEnroe
15. Tanner
16. Stich
17. Curren
18. Smith
19. Federer
20. Rusedski
21. Noah

Have only seen snippets but looks like you're right about Brown's valiant effort. And good luck on Ivo vs. Raonic.

Have to ask - this updates you are doing all the time it´s based on how other posters say - rank their best servers? or what does it mean update my list all the time? thanks

btw how can be Isner No.9? i won´t argue that Isner and Karlovic should be top 2 on any list, but let´s say not top 2 still how he is 9th...

 

[NonP]

I will take it...my only experience with a championship team, and it could hardly have ended better for me, after a season of being a marginal player, and the manager picked me to start in the playoffs. And to knock in the championship-winning runs...I can still recall throwing my glove in the air when the last out was made...our pitcher went nine innings and after giving up two early runs, shut them down.

I hear ya, and your nostalgia factor must be especially high given that we're really talking about a bygone era. As you know a single pitcher seldom throws all nine innings these days.

Have to ask - this updates you are doing all the time it´s based on how other posters say - rank their best servers? or what does it mean update my list all the time? thanks

btw how can be Isner No.9? i won´t argue that Isner and Karlovic should be top 2 on any list, but let´s say not top 2 still how he is 9th...

I take into account everything, with an emphasis on stats often overlooked in these discussions. One of them is the % of serves that the returner fails to get back in play, which really is a better measure of serving prowess (hat tip to krosero) than the oft-(mis)used stat of # of aces per match, for two reasons. One, the # of total service points varies greatly depending on the match and the players (more on this in a bit). Two, there are guys like Sampras and Roddick who serve many more freebies on average than one might gather from their ace frequency.

And conversely, Isner for some reason is surprisingly mediocre (relatively speaking, of course) in % of unreturned serves, at least in matches that we have stats for so far. Most of the guys on my list tend to post some impressive numbers in this department, often hitting over 40%, sometimes 50% and in rare cases even 60% of their serves as outright freebies. In Isner's case, though, I have only one match where he scored over 50% in this stat: 53% in his '13 Newport QF against Karlovic, who as you may know isn't exactly an elite returner to say the least. In his other matches with known % of unreturned serves he doesn't even crack 40%.

Now it's true that the sample size we have for Isner is very small (currently I've got under half a dozen matches with stats for John) and it may well be that he's right up there with Goran and Karlovic in freebie %s, but I'm rather doubtful given this chart by slice serve ace:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/ivo-or-goran.509157/page-2#post-8637529

Of course aces/freebies aren't everything and as Gilbert has noted John is someone who "picks his spots," and I actually consider his 2nd serve the greatest since Sampras (over Roddick's), hence his placement over Raonic and Philippoussis. But as I take pains to point out my rankings are quite fluid and in fact have seen umpteen changes and revisions over the years (Isner actually used to be ranked even lower, if you can believe it). And I may be tooting my own horn here but you'll be hard-pressed to find another list of the all-time greatest serves that has been subjected to such thorough historical and statistical analysis. If you're really interested you can read more of my writings on this topic here (just follow the links):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...erves-of-all-time.306579/page-20#post-9524999

And here's more on how # of aces per match can be an inadequate and misleading barometer:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...erves-of-all-time.306579/page-20#post-9534377

 

[Romismak]

I hear ya, and your nostalgia factor must be especially high given that we're really talking about a bygone era. As you know a single pitcher seldom throws all nine innings these days.



I take into account everything, with an emphasis on stats often overlooked in these discussions. One of them is the % of serves that the returner fails to get back in play, which really is a better measure of serving prowess (hat tip to krosero) than the oft-(mis)used stat of # of aces per match, for two reasons. One, the # of total service points varies greatly depending on the match and the players (more on this in a bit). Two, there are guys like Sampras and Roddick who serve many more freebies on average than one might gather from their ace frequency.

And conversely, Isner for some reason is surprisingly mediocre (relatively speaking, of course) in % of unreturned serves, at least in matches that we have stats for so far. Most of the guys on my list tend to post some impressive numbers in this department, often hitting over 40%, sometimes 50% and in rare cases even 60% of their serves as outright freebies. In Isner's case, though, I have only one match where he scored over 50% in this stat: 53% in his '13 Newport QF against Karlovic, who as you may know isn't exactly an elite returner to say the least. In his other matches with known % of unreturned serves he doesn't even crack 40%.

Now it's true that the sample size we have for Isner is very small (currently I've got under half a dozen matches with stats for John) and it may well be that he's right up there with Goran and Karlovic in freebie %s, but I'm rather doubtful given this chart by slice serve ace:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/ivo-or-goran.509157/page-2#post-8637529

Of course aces/freebies aren't everything and as Gilbert has noted John is someone who "picks his spots," and I actually consider his 2nd serve the greatest since Sampras (over Roddick's), hence his placement over Raonic and Philippoussis. But as I take pains to point out my rankings are quite fluid and in fact have seen umpteen changes and revisions over the years (Isner actually used to be ranked even lower, if you can believe it). And I may be tooting my own horn here but you'll be hard-pressed to find another list of the all-time greatest serves that has been subjected to such thorough historical and statistical analysis. If you're really interested you can read more of my writings on this topic here (just follow the links):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...erves-of-all-time.306579/page-20#post-9524999

And here's more on how # of aces per match can be an inadequate and misleading barometer:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...erves-of-all-time.306579/page-20#post-9534377

Agree with you on ace-per match being very misleading statistic i have said also multiple times here and on other tennis forum why so bad it is. I personally use ace-per serve stats - but also to many factors like who are big servers facing - guys like Lopez or Rochus are easy to ace why vs Andy Murray or Monfils ace numbers are rapidly lower than normally.

Isner´s 1st serve i believe is not so great at regular basis - i mean if we look at his matches his 1st serve is not probably bigger-better than of some other big servers, but his FS% is what makes him so deadly + the fact that i believe he is hitting spots and ,,holding back,, which we can see clearly in tie-breaks when he is serving bigger than he normally does - i think one of the reasons he has such high FS% all the time is how i said he is holding back - not hitting at full velocity and implementing some spin and going for placement so than he ends up with highs 60s% in every match and virtually vs most of guys this means it´s almost impossible to break him with that great 2nd serve he has. But he can hit harder and better 1st serves if he goes for it. On my list are Isner and Karlovic clearly level above rest thanks to their height and trajectories and fact they can have high FS% - who knows how high FS% guys like Sampras or Goran would score with racquets in 2015 and how they would be doing on surfaces of 2015 but we can only work with what we get.

Also agree about your statement of freebies for guys like Roddick and others - for example guy like Ivo has probably more aces than other unreturnables, because when he hits his spots is going to be ace vs most of the guys, while some other big servers have more unreturnables serves comparing to pure aces, because other guy can touch it with their racquets - guys like Dent or Janowicz who can hit hard but have bad placements will end up with low number of aces but high number of service winners or other unreturnables - call it how you want it, while Karlovic from 50 unreturnables aces will have maybe 35-40 aces.

if we measure serves free points or unreturnable serves are good stats, but i would say much better stats would be service games hold - considering their games and skills outside of serve so it´s easy if player A has 90% of service games won and player B has 91% of service games won, but we know that player B is far superior player from baseline, with far better FH, BH - basically everything than logically we can assume that even with higher % of service games won player A is clearly superior server to player B - this is my point and if we look at number since 1990 - on ATP website we can clearly see Isner and Karlovic are best servers considering this - % of service games won but considering how good are their games outside of serve so if Isner, Karlovic, Federer and Sampras have the same numbers of service games won it´s logical to assume Isner and Karlovic are far superior servers to Roger and Pete - btw theory that Roger and Pete faces/ed tougher competition, because they go deeper facing top guys is nulified with the same seeding factors - player ,,easy,, opponents early, why Karlovic might end up playing 3 events in row top 30 players in R1 loosing all 3x matches - back than when his ranking was bad - now it´s pretty good ranking for Ivo.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/service-games-won/all/all/all/

Currently Karlovic and Isner are top 2 on ATP list since 1990 on Career Service games Won guys with worst groundgame are top 2 - that´s very clear sign that those 2 are best servers in history of the game

 

[NonP]

Isner´s 1st serve i believe is not so great at regular basis - i mean if we look at his matches his 1st serve is not probably bigger-better than of some other big servers, but his FS% is what makes him so deadly + the fact that i believe he is hitting spots and ,,holding back,, which we can see clearly in tie-breaks when he is serving bigger than he normally does - i think one of the reasons he has such high FS% all the time is how i said he is holding back - not hitting at full velocity and implementing some spin and going for placement so than he ends up with highs 60s% in every match and virtually vs most of guys this means it´s almost impossible to break him with that great 2nd serve he has. But he can hit harder and better 1st serves if he goes for it. On my list are Isner and Karlovic clearly level above rest thanks to their height and trajectories and fact they can have high FS% - who knows how high FS% guys like Sampras or Goran would score with racquets in 2015 and how they would be doing on surfaces of 2015 but we can only work with what we get.

But that's the thing, we may not know the exact %s that the older guys like Pete and Goran would average in this era but we do know more than enough for us to make educated guesses. You've mentioned Karlovic's and Isner's high %s of service games won, and I don't know if you've had a chance to read my posts on this very (sub)topic, but contrary to the talking points about today's slower courts and more powerful racquets making the game more favorable to the returner, the fact of the matter is that, on the whole, players are holding serve more frequently today than they did in the '90s and most likely than ever before. To wit the top 10 servers of this decade (2011-14) have won 87.9% of their service games so far, up from 87.1% in the '00s and from 86.0% in the 90s, a near 2% upswing in two decades. And remember, that's despite the fast carpet courts being phased out in the late '90s/early '00s (in fact Sampras' % of return games won remained above 30% in both '94 and '97 before the indoor season).

There are several reasons for this unexpected increase in % of service games won but the biggest one is probably the fact that players are now getting more 1st serves in than at any previous point in time since '91:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/1st-serve/all/all/all/

As you can see, apart from a few clay-court specialists who mostly rolled in their 1st serves very few players from the '90s show up among the top 50-100 in career 1st-serve %. That's no accident and can be largely attributed to the extra spin afforded by today's racquets, which allows players to get more 1st serves in without sacrificing much pace and also heavier 2nd serves as well (needless to say double-fault counts have also dropped precipitously since the '90s). Heck, Karlovic himself used to serve in the lower 60s early in his career, whereas now he routinely approaches if not exceeds high 60s in his 1st-serve %. Make no mistake: Pete, Goran and their contemporaries would likewise be posting higher 1st-serve %s and holding serve with more ease today.

Now that doesn't mean they'd be serving in the high 60s themselves. Obviously that's too much of a stretch, especially given that they're not near 7-foot giants like Karlovic and Isner. But then they don't have to be, because they themselves have particular strengths that Ivo and John don't. If you followed that last link you should've noticed that Goran had even more aces per service point (through the first four rounds) than Karlovic in arguably their best serving performance ever at Wimbledon, this despite lower 1st-serve %s. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why but the biggest reason(s) I suspect is Goran's lefty spin and virtually unreadable motion, both of which Ivo and Isner can't claim for themselves. (BTW that's also why I say that Goran's serve may well be even more dangerous against top players/returners than Karlovic's, which probably takes the crown against lower-ranked peers.)

And there's Sampras. As you may know John Yandell has compared Pete's serve to others and found that not only did it average 50% more rpm it also had 35% more topspin, which made the resulting ball significantly higher and heavier at the time of the return. That probably explains how, his relatively low ace frequency notwithstanding, he usually had such a high % of unreturned serves, very often above 40% and as high as 60+% that I've seen so far. And you mentioned Isner likely holding back to keep his 1st-serve %s high, and that's a claim often made about his and Karlovic's serve to vouch for their supremacy, but the truth of the matter is that players do this all the time, and I wager guys like Pete do it more often because they can afford to. I've made a particular case in point here (and incidentally Isner makes an appearance at the end):

It's a fair point about Ivo holding back on his serve, but you should also acknowledge that this can work both ways--that is, Ivo might as well go for more on his serve because that's where he'll get most of his points whereas players with a better ground game can and do often hold back on their own serve because they can afford to. Actually I know the latter for a fact in Sampras' case because his entire '97 summer campaign was built around the strategy of getting more 1st serves in while sacrificing his ace totals. When you watch videos of Pete from that period you can generally see a rather pronounced arc on his serve, and it shows in his 1st-serve %: 64% in '97 vs. 60% in '96. and 59% in '98 (at this point I needn't add the umpteenth disclaimer about the ATP stats). Unsurprisingly his ace counts went down as well both in totals and per service game--616 and .80 respectively in '97 as opposed to 891 and .86 in '96 and 908 and .94 in '98--but one can't say this game plan didn't work out well for him as evidenced by this mind-boggling stat: before his 4th-round match against Korda at the '97 USO (which of course turned out to be one of the year's biggest upsets) Sampras had won 232 or 97.5% of his last 238 service games (add in the first 8 service games in the Korda match and you get 240/246 at one point for 97.6%). Now that ain't 97.5% for just one tournament, but (almost) for the whole summer!

Granted Pete's overall form had something to do with his ridiculous serving streak--his 28.7% of return games won in '97 is second only to his 29.4% in '94--but that only reinforces my point that a top player like Sampras can and do hold back on his serve if he thinks it'll help him, which of course isn't a luxury enjoyed by a serve specialist like Karlovic. And it certainly helped Pete in '97 beginning at Wimbledon, where as you may well know he was broken only twice out of 118 times, less than Ivo managed at this year's Wimby even before his 4th-rounder against Murray. (I've already mentioned Pete winning 59.2% of his serves as freebies against Pioline in the '97 final, which is an exceptionally high success rate by anyone's standards. In fact I seriously doubt that anyone else has ever scored a higher % of unreturned serves by a fair margin in a major final, if at all.) Must have been pretty demoralizing for his opponents.... I mean, how in the world do you hope to compete against a machine that holds serve 98% of the time AND returns better than most?! We know some of his contemporaries have complained about how returning the Sampras serve was like trying to hit a brick/bowling bowl/fill-in-the-blank because it had so much action on the ball, and now with the added kick it must've felt like an even more thankless task.

Anyway enough about Sampras. So the margin you speak of doesn't necessarily work in Ivo's favor, because players with a better-rounded game might go for less on their serve themselves because they can. Isner himself is a great example as he's someone who "picks his spots" (per Gilbert) and again I suspect his 2nd serve compensates for a lot of his lost freebies. (Whether or not this is a smart strategy for him is another matter.)

Let me add that most one-sided matches I've seen don't have the dominant player winning that many freebies on serve against his opponent (even in that '97 Wimbledon final Pete had "only" 17 aces, though he also had a whopping 59.2% of his serves unreturned by Pioline, a generally good returner), and that again I suspect is because he can afford not to exert himself fully on serve. And since Karlovic and Isner generally don't have that luxury to the same extent as Pete and even Goran I do think this holding-back factor you speak of affects Ivo and John less than their superior predecessors.

 

[NonP]

Also agree about your statement of freebies for guys like Roddick and others - for example guy like Ivo has probably more aces than other unreturnables, because when he hits his spots is going to be ace vs most of the guys, while some other big servers have more unreturnables serves comparing to pure aces, because other guy can touch it with their racquets - guys like Dent or Janowicz who can hit hard but have bad placements will end up with low number of aces but high number of service winners or other unreturnables - call it how you want it, while Karlovic from 50 unreturnables aces will have maybe 35-40 aces.

Yes, that's a very important point often missed by those who insist on aces per match as their main criterion.

if we measure serves free points or unreturnable serves are good stats, but i would say much better stats would be service games hold - considering their games and skills outside of serve so it´s easy if player A has 90% of service games won and player B has 91% of service games won, but we know that player B is far superior player from baseline, with far better FH, BH - basically everything than logically we can assume that even with higher % of service games won player A is clearly superior server to player B - this is my point and if we look at number since 1990 - on ATP website we can clearly see Isner and Karlovic are best servers considering this - % of service games won but considering how good are their games outside of serve so if Isner, Karlovic, Federer and Sampras have the same numbers of service games won it´s logical to assume Isner and Karlovic are far superior servers to Roger and Pete - btw theory that Roger and Pete faces/ed tougher competition, because they go deeper facing top guys is nulified with the same seeding factors - player ,,easy,, opponents early, why Karlovic might end up playing 3 events in row top 30 players in R1 loosing all 3x matches - back than when his ranking was bad - now it´s pretty good ranking for Ivo.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/service-games-won/all/all/all/

Currently Karlovic and Isner are top 2 on ATP list since 1990 on Career Service games Won guys with worst groundgame are top 2 - that´s very clear sign that those 2 are best servers in history of the game

That's the usual argument put forth, that since Karlovic and Isner are at or near the top in service stats despite having a worse overall game than most they must be the best servers ever, but reality isn't quite that simple. You said the tougher competition faced by the likes of Pete and Fed is nullified by the frequently tough 1st- or 2nd-rounders that Ivo and John play due to their lower rankings, but that's like saying there are bad apples on both sides--it assumes a false equivalence that may not be born out by the facts that we do have. And in this case we know there's no comparison: per the ATP Ivo and John have played their top 10 peers 71 and 57 times out of 547 and 448 respectively, or in 13.0% and 12.7% of their career matches, while Pete and Fed (have) played 195 and 292 out of their 984 and 1275 matches against the top 10, or 19.8% and 22.9%. (For the record Pete's numbers may not be exact as '90s stats are often incomplete or incorrect for reasons I won't get into here, but whatever discrepancy should be fairly minor.) And while tennisabstract.com's stats are less complete than the ATP's a cursory look at them also shows that Karlovic and Isner faced the top 20 less frequently than Pete and Fed:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=IvoKarlovic&f=ACareerqqITop_20qqs00&view=h2h
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=JohnIsner&f=ACareerqqITop_20qqs00&view=h2h
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=PeteSampras&f=ACareerqqITop_20qqs00&view=h2h
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RogerFederer&f=ACareerqqITop_20qqs00&view=h2h

Also notice how even Karlovic's and Isner's %s of service points won often suffer against some of these top opponents with presumably elite returns (in fact John's numbers seem to drop sharply compared to those vs. lower-ranked opponents). In short it's almost certain that their %s are inflated compared to those of their rivals with a better overall game and that against the same competition they wouldn't enjoy what seems to be such an obvious statistical edge.

And we haven't even gotten into other factors, like the effect of S&V on the service stats of guys like Pete, Krajicek and Goran (after all it doesn't matter how well you serve if you get passed at the net). Long story short just about every talking point about the best serves and servers and their place in history is wrong or only half true. Plenty of evidence is there to refute it, though you do need to dig deeper, and I daresay I'm one of the few who have done the digging. Again if you're really interested you can read my previous dissertations on these extensive topics. While I'm glad to share my thoughts and research it's practically impossible for me to provide a summary every time I'm asked.

 

[NonP]

Somewhat off topic, but just noticed this:

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/13770406/tennis-players-risk-defeat-going-safe-second-serves

Some of you might remember me insisting that today's players play it too safe on their 2nd serves, and while my own claim was with respect to their increasingly less DF frequency a similar logic applies here as well. In fact Karlovic himself was clearly DFing more than usual at this year's Wimbledon, and despite what most people would think (according to them, fewer DFs = better serving) it worked out quite well for him:

True, Ivo does have a lower DF rate than Goran or many other monster servers on average (I suppose you've seen this already, but other posters might find it useful):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...serves-of-all-time.306579/page-9#post-5266573

But while this is impressive on his part there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, today's racquets allow more spin on 2nd serves, which would naturally lead to fewer DFs, and vice versa. And this chart largely confirms the expected trend, as most of the players with lower DF counts hail from the '10s rather than the '90s. Put the latter group in this era and their DF rates would likely come down.

And second (and perhaps more importantly), these lower rates also may well be a result of the holding back you just talked about. I've already posted Ivo's DF counts from this year's Wimbledon, for a total of 21. And I see that he played 564 service points in total, which means he had 3.72 DFs per 100 service points. So clearly above his 2.23 average from the chart, which supports my observation that he was going for more on his 2nd serves (like I said his 119 mph against Murray is the highest I ever recall seeing from him on 2nds).

Now given his serving milestone at this very event I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that his bigger 2nd serves backfired on him, but normally that's not what you hear from the wannabe experts that like to tell us more DFs = worse serving. The truth is often quite the opposite (up to a certain point, of course), and this is why I say that today's players play it too safe on their 2nd serves and that guys like Ivo and Murray should be DFing more, not less.

So I definitely think Ivo did the right thing and should be doing it more often. And obviously I also think your ace/DF equation doesn't quite reflect the effectiveness of a player's serve. (I once had a lengthy discussion on a related topic with krosero and concluded that, contrary to the common wisdom about returners like Agassi, taking more risks on return probably pays off better than getting more serves back in play.)

Just another textbook case of how statistics can mislead when unaccompanied by a critical understanding of the issue at hand.

 

[beltsman]

You really need to do serve per height. That's what makes Sampras and Roddick so special.

 

[pc1]

You really need to do serve per height. That's what makes Sampras and Roddick so special.

I think that defeats the purpose of the thread which is to find the most effective serves. Do we deduct points from Isner because he's tall and serves so well? Do we add points to Justine Henin because she was shorter than average and was an excellent server? I don't think so.

Sampras and Roddick have great serves no matter what their height is.

 

[Ciaron]

Anyone ever heard of a Brit named John Feaver. I remember seeing a Wimbledon documentary and he was in it . Known for a big serve etc . Here's a quote from Wikipedia
For over 20 years (1976 to 1997), Feaver held the record for serving the most aces in a single Wimbledonmatch, 42, achieved against John Newcombe (although Feaver still lost the match)

 

[krosero]

Somewhat off topic, but just noticed this:

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/13770406/tennis-players-risk-defeat-going-safe-second-serves

Some of you might remember me insisting that today's players play it too safe on their 2nd serves, and while my own claim was with respect to their increasingly less DF frequency a similar logic applies here as well. In fact Karlovic himself was clearly DFing more than usual at this year's Wimbledon, and despite what most people would think (according to them, fewer DFs = better serving) it worked out quite well for him:



Just another textbook case of how statistics can mislead when unaccompanied by a critical understanding of the issue at hand.

It's a good point. Someone who's making a low number of double-faults is not necessarily serving well, if he's spinning it in more softly than he needs to. The same would be true for a high first-serve percentage.

Simply counting up the number of double-faults, or aces, shows you how those points ended, but it doesn't show what's happening on the other points, specifically what's happening as result of the server's strategy.

I've noticed how in the lists of most-aces-in-a-match, the top performances are often from servers who lost the match. I wonder if the same might be going on with df's, ie, the servers with the greatest numbers of df's in a match actually winning the match.

Vines won a match in which he served 23 double-faults (a five-set final against Perry, 1931 Pacific Southwest).

 

[Moose Malloy]

NonP, I came across another member of the 60% club, Wayne Arthurs. 63% to be exact.

2005 Scotsdale Final, d Ancic 7-5, 6-3

63 % Arthurs – 33 of 52
35 % Ancic – 23 of 65
At age of 33 years & 11 months, Arthurs [99] became the oldest maiden champion in history, competing in his 128th main level event (Arthurs overcame Tom Gullikson’s record from 1985, Arthurs’ record will be overcome by 34-year-old Victor Estrella in Quito 2015). The Australian had been broken in his first set of the tournament, then was serving like a machine, approaching to his own unofficial record of serving holds – 109 (including qualies he held 111 times in a row in 1999). After Scottsdale he remained unbroken playing another nine sets (including four sets of qualies to Indian Wells). “I felt that I couldn’t miss my serve no matter how hard I hit it… It feels really, really good, really satisfying,” Arthurs said. “Especially now that I’m older, it’s probably even more satisfying to win a tournament this late in my career. I’m going to savour every moment of it, that’s for sure.” “It was unbelievably difficult,” Ancic [29] said. “I knew he was serving big and I’d have a really tough time, but the way he returned was impressive. I didn’t really expect that. I was expecting many more free points, and he was not giving me any.”
Arthurs’ astonishing detailed serving stats of the final (58% first serves in, 218 kph fastest serve):
1st set: 18 of 26 serves won directly (5 aces, 13 service winners); dropped 3 points in six games
2nd set: 15 of 26 serves won directly (4 aces, 11 service winners); dropped 5 points in five games

http://voodemar.com/?attachment_id=19355

That guy has a lot of stats. Compared his stats to some of the matches we did, and they match up.

I've been clicking through a lot of his Fed and Isner matches(that we didn't have anything on) can't find anything above 40%.

Found another 50% for Roddick('07 Queens Final) and 55% for Goran(95 Grand Slam Cup Final)
Also found 47% for Larsson(94 Grand Slam Cup Final)
97 Queens Final - Goran 45%, Rusedski 47%

also thought the '00 Paris Indoor final had interesting stats. Safin won in 5, but only had 34%, while Philippoussis had 46%. Usually its closer when 2 big servers play each other.

 

[NonP]

I think that defeats the purpose of the thread which is to find the most effective serves. Do we deduct points from Isner because he's tall and serves so well? Do we add points to Justine Henin because she was shorter than average and was an excellent server? I don't think so.

Sampras and Roddick have great serves no matter what their height is.

Right, this thread isn't about inch-for-inch comparisons, and frankly such a pursuit would be silly. That's like saying Nadal's FH wouldn't be so great if he weren't a lefty.

Anyone ever heard of a Brit named John Feaver. I remember seeing a Wimbledon documentary and he was in it . Known for a big serve etc . Here's a quote from Wikipedia
For over 20 years (1976 to 1997), Feaver held the record for serving the most aces in a single Wimbledonmatch, 42, achieved against John Newcombe (although Feaver still lost the match)

As you may have noticed I've had Feaver in my list of potential candidates for a long time and would love for anyone to provide us with some useful info on his serve.

It's a good point. Someone who's making a low number of double-faults is not necessarily serving well, if he's spinning it in more softly than he needs to. The same would be true for a high first-serve percentage.

Simply counting up the number of double-faults, or aces, shows you how those points ended, but it doesn't show what's happening on the other points, specifically what's happening as result of the server's strategy.

I've noticed how in the lists of most-aces-in-a-match, the top performances are often from servers who lost the match. I wonder if the same might be going on with df's, ie, the servers with the greatest numbers of df's in a match actually winning the match.

Vines won a match in which he served 23 double-faults (a five-set final against Perry, 1931 Pacific Southwest).

Yes, it's true that most of the times a player serves a historically high # of aces he usually proceeds to lose the match, but I'm somewhat doubtful the reverse is true in terms of DFs, mainly because 1) proportionally speaking players often post a lot more aces than DFs and 2) if you fail to serve an ace you still have a good chance of winning the point, whereas when you DF the point is lost for good.

Speaking of which I remember watching Verdasco throw one DF after another in his '10 AO 4th-rounder against Davydenko and wondering if he'd top Goran's 20 DFs in the '98 Wimby final. He went on to tie but not exceed Goran's total, and of course the player in both cases lost the match.

As with just about everything in life there's a sweet spot between two extremes here. Obviously 50% or lower is a poor 1st-serve % but if you're serving nearly 80% you probably can afford to be more adventurous. Likewise 0-2 DFs per match (which I must add isn't actually all that rare today) is perhaps a little too conservative but 20 or more DFs is likely pushing it in the other direction. The trick is finding that balance between the two all-or-nothing options, and its precise whereabouts depend on numerous factors including opponent, surface, health/condition, weather, etc.

NonP, I came across another member of the 60% club, Wayne Arthurs. 63% to be exact.

2005 Scotsdale Final, d Ancic 7-5, 6-3



http://voodemar.com/?attachment_id=19355

That guy has a lot of stats. Compared his stats to some of the matches we did, and they match up.

I've been clicking through a lot of his Fed and Isner matches(that we didn't have anything on) can't find anything above 40%.

Found another 50% for Roddick('07 Queens Final) and 55% for Goran(95 Grand Slam Cup Final)
Also found 47% for Larsson(94 Grand Slam Cup Final)
97 Queens Final - Goran 45%, Rusedski 47%

also thought the '00 Paris Indoor final had interesting stats. Safin won in 5, but only had 34%, while Philippoussis had 46%. Usually its closer when 2 big servers play each other.

Hey Moose, thanks a lot for that link. That guy's got quite a collection! I wish he had all his stat-filled posts under a separate heading but his site will definitely be among the primary starting points for my future research.

And it's interesting to see Arthurs had 1 fewer ace than Ancic but thumped him in unreturned-serve %. Yet another case in point we shouldn't rely too much on ace counts to judge a player's serving efficiency.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Right, this thread isn't about inch-for-inch comparisons, and frankly such a pursuit would be silly. That's like saying Nadal's FH wouldn't be so great if he weren't a lefty.



As you may have noticed I've had Feaver in my list of potential candidates for a long time and would love for anyone to provide us with some useful info on his serve.



Yes, it's true that most of the times a player serves a historically high # of aces he usually proceeds to lose the match, but I'm somewhat doubtful the reverse is true in terms of DFs, mainly because 1) proportionally speaking players often post a lot more aces than DFs and 2) if you fail to serve an ace you still have a good chance of winning the point, whereas when you DF the point is lost for good.

Speaking of which I remember watching Verdasco throw one DF after another in his '10 AO 4th-rounder against Davydenko and wondering if he'd top Goran's 20 DFs in the '98 Wimby final. He went on to tie but not exceed Goran's total, and of course the player in both cases lost the match.

As with just about everything in life there's a sweet spot between two extremes here. Obviously 50% or lower is a poor 1st-serve % but if you're serving nearly 80% you probably can afford to be more adventurous. Likewise 0-2 DFs per match (which I must add isn't actually all that rare today) is perhaps a little too conservative but 20 or more DFs is likely pushing it in the other direction. The trick is finding that balance between the two all-or-nothing options, and its precise whereabouts depend on numerous factors including opponent, surface, health/condition, weather, etc.



Hey Moose, thanks a lot for that link. That guy's got quite a collection! I wish he had all his stat-filled posts under a separate heading but his site will definitely be among the primary starting points for my future research.

And it's interesting to see Arthurs had 1 fewer ace than Ancic but thumped him in unreturned-serve %. Yet another case in point we shouldn't rely too much on ace counts to judge a player's serving efficiency.

Serving efficiency should probably be defined as success in holding serve, period. Some low velocity servers such as Rosewall could defend their serves from attack by accuracy and volleying efficiency. Gonzales always rated the "deceptive" server ahead of the merely fast server, much like the baseball pitchers with "movement" on their pitches are more difficult to hit than those with relatively straight trajectories on their fastballs, no matter how fast.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Came across articles about Arthurs-Dent 02 Wimbledon that say he had 32 aces and 79 unreturned serves. If aces are included in the 79, it makes 49% unreturned serves; if it doesn't, it makes it 70% unreturned. Arthurs served 159 points and lost 37 points on serve. If the 70% is correct, that means Dent got 48 returns in play and won 37 of them. I dunno if that is plausible, for Arthurs to be so dominant on serve, but not do that well when the return was put in play. Also as far as high double faults in a winning effort, the first match that comes to mind was Rosset d Courier in Davis Cup(15)

 

[NonP]

Serving efficiency should probably be defined as success in holding serve, period. Some low velocity servers such as Rosewall could defend their serves from attack by accuracy and volleying efficiency. Gonzales always rated the "deceptive" server ahead of the merely fast server, much like the baseball pitchers with "movement" on their pitches are more difficult to hit than those with relatively straight trajectories on their fastballs, no matter how fast.

You obviously haven't been paying much attention. I and others have addressed this point a zillion times. Yes, holding serve means a lot, but not everything when you're talking about serves as stand-alone shots. If you're really interested to learn start with my last two responses to Romismak and go from there.

BTW here's another thread you might find interesting:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...orite-memorable-concerts-performances.544305/

I'm guessing you've got a couple anecdotes you might wanna share. Just don't go overboard with all things Hoad, 'cause this is a general-interest thread. (Speaking of which I need to start updating that one myself.)

Came across articles about Arthurs-Dent 02 Wimbledon that say he had 32 aces and 79 unreturned serves. If aces are included in the 79, it makes 49% unreturned serves; if it doesn't, it makes it 70% unreturned. Arthurs served 159 points and lost 37 points on serve. If the 70% is correct, that means Dent got 48 returns in play and won 37 of them. I dunno if that is plausible, for Arthurs to be so dominant on serve, but not do that well when the return was put in play.

It does seem like 49% to me as well. As you know we have yet to see 70% from anyone, unless we assume that Llodra was able to maintain his ridiculous 71% against Isner three years ago after the 1st set (which you yourself cited) or that Karlovic was able to exceed his 66.7% against Bracciali in their '05 Wimby 1st-rounder by over 3%. And while Arthurs is closer to Ivo and Isner than to Pete and Fed in overall game I find it hard to believe that while he was so zoned in on serve he also managed to lose nearly 80% of his ground exchanges with Dent, who wasn't exactly a world-beater in his own right.

Also as far as high double faults in a winning effort, the first match that comes to mind was Rosset d Courier in Davis Cup(15)

And Pete himself had 13 DFs against Agassi in his very last match. Can't imagine anyone who saw it thinking Pete's 2nd serve let him down that day. As expected he was going for 2nd-serve aces against arguably the greatest returner of all time on the grandest stage, and as was his wont quite often succeeded. But if we were to listen to the wannabe experts we should accept that Sampras' overrated 2nd serve would take a backseat to that of Karlovic and Isner in the same situation, when we know that Ivo actually tried the same thing against Murray but largely failed at this year's Wimbledon, and in an earlier round and on grass to boot despite ending up with a record # of aces (per match) for the tournament, and that John's % of 2nd-serve points won often sees a steep decline against the top 10-20. But hey, we should try to be "objective." The numbers are our best recourse!

 

[Dan Lobb]

The point is, judging a serve only makes sense not as a stand-alone shot, but as part of winning a point or holding a serve. Thus, a "deceptive" or spun serve, while slower than a cannonball, may be just as effective in winning a point.

 

[NonP]

Far-too-overdue update (I'd actually planned to post this before the AO, but work/life is a pesky thing). Let's start as usual with the ranking:

1. Ivanisevic
2. Karlovic
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Krajicek
6. Arthurs
7. Roddick
8. Newcombe
9. Isner
10. Becker
11. Philippoussis
    
12. Zivojinovic
13. Raonic
14. McEnroe
15. Tanner
16. Stich
17. Curren
18. Smith
19. Federer
20. Rusedski
21. Noah

No change this time. But there's a new inductee into the Honorary Hall of Fame:

• McLoughlin, Maurice - perhaps the first distinguished cannonball serve in tennis history
• Tilden - yet another storied power serve, which he bolstered with spin and accuracy
• Doeg, John - Ivanisevic to Vines' Sampras, a southpaw whose serve was considered one of the two or three greatest ever (along with Vines') in his heyday
• Stoefen, Lester - one of the first giants with a feared high-rise rocket launcher
  
• Vines - by many accounts, the best and fastest serve of the pre-WWII era
• Kramer - in addition to a formidable first delivery, perhaps the best second serve before Newcombe and Sampras
• Denton - his unusual service motion notwithstanding, an ace dispenser that could bring enormous heat
• Edberg - for his iconic kicker (any logo ring a bell?), arguably the best ever for serve-and-volley
• Johansson, Joachim - Denton of the aughts

@krosero has compiled a trove of data on Stoefen and I refer those interested to his posts and the preceding video/picture. I'm confident most of you will second Lester's induction here.

Of course our work is still far from complete. Here are some of the names that warrant our investigation (listed by order of birth only, like the HFoF roll):

• Gerald Patterson (1895)
• Bob Falkenburg (1926)
• Mike Sangster (1940)
• Colin Dibley (1944)
  
• John Feaver (1952)
• Victor Amaya (1954)

As I've been saying (or should I say threatening?) I'm leaning towards leaving out Patterson because Budge for one mentions McLoughlin but not Gerald in his estimation of the two or three best servers in history, but feel free to voice your objections/nominations, preferably with stats, press reports and/or firsthand accounts.

Now there's one more thing I wanted to call your attention to. As all of you know by now I'm the world's foremost expert on the increasing %s of service games won by the top servers (c'mon, you know it!), and as such I update/add to my collection of related stats quite regularly. And while updating my spreadsheet with last year's numbers I noticed something truly extraordinary: 2015 was the first year since the '90s in which the top 10 servers as a whole won 90% or more of their service games. OK, so I added the service stats from Fed's two DC rubbers, but even without them we still have 90% when rounding it up: 89.97% or 7691 out of 8548 service games (vs. 7719/8576 with Fed's numbers).

In fact this momentous development feels even more so when you take a gander at this:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/service-games-won/2015/all/all/

That's four players who won well over 90% of his service games. Now we've seen something similar before (for the record '04 and '14 are the other two years with four 90+% players, and there are more years that came close though less so in the '90s), but never by such a clear margin. To put these numbers in context, even Karlovic could manage "only" a then career-best 94.5% in '07, and against inferior competition at that (no Challengers in '15), while Fed had never cracked 92% in any of his previous years, certainly not during his peak/prime ('04-'09) and not even in his later years where he'd beefed up his serve to compensate for his decline. Hell, not even Sampras ever managed to top 92%, and if anything he probably won a lesser overall % overall than Fed (the inclusion of his missing stats especially from before '91 might bring it up a bit, though I rather doubt it).

So if these numbers are accurate (and we have no reason to assume otherwise, unless the ATP made a mess again that's even worse than the complete botch they made of the '90s), we're led to believe that today's players are indeed holding serve more often despite the courts playing slower and despite their peers returning better than ever. Oh, and that the current version of Fed had a stronger service game than his peak self ever did and for that matter Pete freakin' Sampras in his absolute prime, the latter again despite the clearly faster surfaces (and they were clearly faster, just ask any of the self-anointed experts) he had the benefit of playing on. Or maybe, just maybe, there's something else at work here. I'll let you decide which explanation sounds more plausible.

And that concludes NonP's lesson #19345454887 on his favorite topic. Don't say I didn't warn you!

 

[pc1]

Lots of great work as usual.

 

[DMP]

I'm not sure if you have considered them, but two names from the 60s are Sangster and Graebner. Sangster was known for his serve speed, Graebner had much better results.

 

[pc1]

By the way NonP, Kramer's considered to have a superior second serve even to Newcombe's great second serve. I didn't see Arthur Ashe.

 

[NonP]

Lots of great work as usual.

As always.

I'm not sure if you have considered them, but two names from the 60s are Sangster and Graebner. Sangster was known for his serve speed, Graebner had much better results.

Ahem:

Of course our work is still far from complete. Here are some of the names that warrant our investigation (listed by order of birth only, like the HFoF roll):

• Gerald Patterson (1895)
• Bob Falkenburg (1926)
• Mike Sangster (1940)
• Colin Dibley (1944)
  
• John Feaver (1952)
• Victor Amaya (1954)

Graebner has also been mentioned, but it's been so long I don't even remember why he was eventually rejected. Think it was just lack of input. Of course you're welcome to make a more detailed case for him.

By the way NonP, Kramer's considered to have a superior second serve even to Newcombe's great second serve. I didn't see Arthur Ashe.

I'm pretty sure that's the case about Kramer. Out of all ATG servers Jack is probably the only guy that could seriously challenge Pete on the 2nd serve (equalizing for conditions, of course). Again the only reason why Kramer and the other old-timers are mere honorary inductees rather than active placeholders is the lack of sufficient visual and analytical evidence we have. As you may recall even Gonzales had a hard time getting in, and even now I'm somewhat ambivalent about his inclusion among the more recent guys.

And of course Ashe has been considered many times. From what I've seen and read, though, Ashe is about in the same boat as the likes of Forget, Tsonga and Anderson: nearly great, but not quite there. Remember, we're talking about the best of the best. If we included every merely elite server from his era this list would get bloated quickly.

 

[Dan Lobb]

As always.



Ahem:



Graebner has also been mentioned, but it's been so long I don't even remember why he was eventually rejected. Think it was just lack of input. Of course you're welcome to make a more detailed case for him.



I'm pretty sure that's the case about Kramer. Out of all ATG servers Jack is probably the only guy that could seriously challenge Pete on the 2nd serve (equalizing for conditions, of course). Again the only reason why Kramer and the other old-timers are mere honorary inductees rather than active placeholders is the lack of sufficient visual and analytical evidence we have. As you may recall even Gonzales had a hard time getting in, and even now I'm somewhat ambivalent about his inclusion among the more recent guys.

And of course Ashe has been considered many times. From what I've seen and read, though, Ashe is about in the same boat as the likes of Forget, Tsonga and Anderson: nearly great, but not quite there. Remember, we're talking about the best of the best. If we included every merely elite server from his era this list would get bloated quickly.

Keep on goin', man!

 

[pc1]

Keep on goin', man!

Yes keep up the great work.

And of course Ashe has been considered many times. From what I've seen and read, though, Ashe is about in the same boat as the likes of Forget, Tsonga and Anderson: nearly great, but not quite there. Remember, we're talking about the best of the best. If we included every merely elite server from his era this list would get bloated quickly.

Understandable.

 

[DMP]

As always.



Ahem:



Graebner has also been mentioned, but it's been so long I don't even remember why he was eventually rejected. Think it was just lack of input. Of course you're welcome to make a more detailed case for him.

Yup, sorry about Sangster. I missed his name on the first run through and just noticed it now before getting to your reply!

I read the thread in its early days so I've missed a bit. I can't add any more about Graebner (I'm a watcher more than a statistician) except to highly recommend Levels of the Game.

 

[ZirkusAffe]

ohh, cmon you guys.. i know that speed isnt everything, but combo speed+persentage in andys case, it's a huge thing..

so putting andy into 9th place, thats just ridicolous..just look at 09wimby..he mainly served his way out in sooooo many cases..espspecially in the 5th.. so yeah, 2 croats, sampras are better, i agree..but theres no way that stich and krajicek are better..

I think you meant 'Roddicolous'.. jk.

 

[DMP]

I've had a little search and found this

http://www.tennis.com/your-game/2015/01/1967-steely-performance/53575/#.Vrkab0MjF5c

Interesting article about the T-2000, which also mentions that Graebner hit 25 aces against Emerson in the quarters of the 1967 US Nationals.

 

[krosero]

And while updating my spreadsheet with last year's numbers I noticed something truly extraordinary: 2015 was the first year since the '90s in which the top 10 servers as a whole won 90% or more of their service games.

Great update, and very interesting milestone here, to say the least. Looks like the uptick in service stats that you've been tracking is continuing.