Greatest Serves of All Time

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by NonP, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    27,356
    Location:
    U.S
    @NonP :

    Pete's URS is comparable to Roddick in part because he SnVed far more. (Same applies for Goran, Krajicek, but I think to a lesser extent )

    that tends to raise the % of unreturned serves. We saw that Federer's highest unreturned serve%s were mainly when he was SnVing (2001,2003)

    Otherwise, I think Sampras' would be clearly below Roddick's, if he was staying back and returners could just get the ball back in
     
  2. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,802
    K, I'ma put this together before I hit the cinema in literally 5 min. You can save your thanks for later. Just keep in mind that the following lists are far from complete (esp Fed's - I've got close to 80-90 of his matches by now) and I will most likely keep updating this post going forward as I add more names and #s.

    Krajicek - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-24#post-11355021
    Roddick - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10535921
    Isner, Curren, Pim Pim & Noah - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10544220
    Stich - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10550026
    Federer - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10525077
    Muller - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-24#post-10623285
    Kyrgios - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10555858
    Vines & Doeg - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rves-of-all-time.306579/page-23#post-10559815

    That's only part of the whole picture. Will try to follow up later tonight.
     
  3. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Arizona
    Once upon a time, I kept track of points won on 2nd serve for a Connors vs. Courier match. They were only winning about 1/3 of those points! Many pros get their first serve in about 75% of the time, and win about 75% of the ones that go in. These results point to that it's better to risk some doubles. At their level the opponent jumps all over a non-aggressive serve.

    "Sexual degenerates"? :confused:
     
  4. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    27,356
    Location:
    U.S
    you could put a link to this list in your opening post and specify it clearly. Just a suggestion ;)

    and no thanks until there are further updates to the lists :D

    more return winners is one aspect. But that doesn't change what I said.

    Another aspect I can think of would be the use of serve to set up the volley instead of going for outright aces or service winners/forcing errors off the return. But that's more Edberg/Cash/Rafter , not Sampras/Becker/Stich/Krajicek ;)

    Higher first serves % in with poly compared to pre-poly ? That's valid , but counter-balanced by the speed/conditions of 80s/90s compared to the 2000s.
     
  5. Chanwan

    Chanwan G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Messages:
    14,058
    Cheers, will have a longer look later! Not much time today. I was under the impression that high ace rate ≈ high unreturned serves numbers. But you say Pete and Roddick are in Karlovic's league despite falling significantly short on the ace rate count?
    And yes, this thread sure seems like the most serious on the matter.
     
  6. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,802
    Was surprised at some of the missing names up there. Here are a few URS #s for Karlovic (opponent's in brackets as usual, and links to Moose's, krosero's and/or Voo de Mar's posts are included in case you wanna see the 1st/2nd-serve breakdown and other stats):

    2005 Wim 1R L Bracciali - at least 66.7% (132+/198), 51 aces, 8 DFs [??% (??/193), 33 aces, 5 DFs]
    2007 Stockholm F W T. Johansson - 60.6% (40/66), 27 aces, 1 DF [??% (??/66), 5 aces, 2 DFs]
    2015 Newport QF W Brown - 58.7% (37/63), 23 aces, 2 DFs [52.6% (30/57), 5 aces, 3 DFs]
    2015 Newport SF W Sock - 55.7% (34/61), 14 aces, 2 DFs [??% (??/72), 4 aces, 6 DFs]
    2015 Newport F L Ram - 48.1% (52/108), 19 aces, 4 DFs [47.0% (54/115), 17 aces, 2 DFs]
    2003 Wim 1R W Hewitt - 45.7% (59/129), 19 aces, 8 DFs [37.2% (42/113), 10 aces, 8 DFs]
    2013 Newport QF L Isner - 45.3% (34/75), 14 aces, 3 DFs [53.2% (41/77), 23 aces, 1 DF]
    2005 USO 2R L Agassi - 45.3% (63/139), 30 aces, 7 DFs [??% (??/115), 5 aces, 1 DF]
    2005 Queen's F L Roddick - 39.5% (32/81), 16 aces, 3 DFs [55.4% (41/74), 9 aces, 1 DF]
    2010 Delray Beach F L Gulbis - 37.7% (26?/69), 14 aces, 5 DFs [37.5% (18?/48), 6 aces, 2 DFs]

    (Question marks for the Delfray Beach match due to discrepancies between Voo's own tallies - main page vs. bmp chart.)

    Newcombe:

    1973 USO F W Kodes (missing Newk's last 2 points; Voo's totals available only for aces/DFs) - 39.2%, 12 aces, 6 DFs [24.2%, 5 aces, 1 DF]
    1971 WIM F W Smith - 38.5% (57/148), 9 aces, 5 DFs [29.3% (44/150), 6 aces (2 on 2nd), 7 DFs]
    1975 AO F W Connors (Voo's) - 32.6% (44/135), 17 aces, 7 DFs [27.9% (39/140), 4 aces, 1 DF]
    1969 WIM F L Laver (Voo's) - 30.3% (40/132), 4 aces, 9 DFs [18.8% (24/128), 9 aces, 7 DFs]
    1970 WIM F W Rosewall - 21.5% (34/158), 6 aces (1 on 2nd), 7 DFs [21.0% (30/143), 2 aces, 11 DFs]

    Zivojinovic:

    1987 WIM 3R W Bates - 50.9% (56/110), 26 aces
    1988 DC SF L Becker - 46.2% (43/93) [57.3% (43/75)]
    1987 WIM QF L Connors - 42.1% (40/95), 25 aces, 0 DFs
    1985 AO QF W McEnroe - 40% (44/110), 13 aces, 6 DFs [37.7% (43?/114), 12 aces, 1 DF]
    1985 WIM 1R W Wilander - 38.9% (44/113), 15 aces (3 on 2nd), 12 DFs
    1986 WIM SF L Lendl - 36.8% (64/174), 18 aces (1 on 2nd), 7 DFs
    1987 USO 3R L McEnroe - 32.1% (54/168), 21 aces, 9 DFs [31.9% (53/166), 10 aces, 12 DFs]

    Tanner:

    1977 AO F W Vilas - 46.4% (39/84) [25.6% (22/86)]
    1983 WIM QF L Lendl - 43.9% (43/98), 12 aces, 7 DFs [37.1% (49/132), 11 aces (3 on 2nd), 2 DFs]
    1975 WIM SF L Connors (Voo's got his own #s) - 34.5% (30/87), 12 aces (1 on 2nd), 3 DFs [31.4% (22/70), 4 aces, 1 DF]
    1980 WIM QF L Connors (Voo's) - 33.6% (47/140), 16 aces, 6 DFs [26.4% (32/121), 4 aces, 2 DFs]
    1979 WIM F L Borg - 31.1% (52/167), 15 aces, 4 DFs [33.6% (51/152), 4 aces, 3 DFs]

    Smith:

    1971 WIM F L Newcombe - 29.3% (44/150), 6 aces (2 on 2nd), 7 DFs [38.5% (57/148), 9 aces, 5 DFs]
    1974 WIM SF L Rosewall - 26.3% (47/179), 3 aces, 8 DFs [23.3% (38/163), 0 aces, 9 DFs]
    1972 WIM F W Nastase (Voo's) - 17.9% (32/179), 1 ace, 6 DFs [21.7% (34/157), 4 aces (1 on 2nd), 5 DFs]

    And Ashe:

    1978 YEC F L McEnroe (Voo's) - 35.5% (33/93), 9 aces, 3 DFs [35.2% (43/122), 7 aces, 7 DFs]
    1975 WIM F W Connors - 32.4% (34/105), 4 aces, 2 DFs [21.4% (28/131), 1 ace, 3 DFs]
    1969 WIM SF L Laver (Voo's - since @urban's stats don't include URS I'm not sure where I got these #s) - 26.5% (31/117), 6 aces, 5 DFs [32.6% (30/92), 9 aces, 2 DFs]

    (Moose or any1 else, let me know if you can fill in the gaps for me: opponent's stats, ace/DF totals, etc.)

    Frankly thinking about yanking Smith off the list. I've been keeping him in there because of the glowing contemporary accounts of his serve and also because I'd been expecting to add to our tiny Smith collection, but given his underwhelming %s in three of his biggest matches (yes, even after grading on a curve) I find it hard to justify his ongoing inclusion when other candidates have been downgraded due to their own lack of clutchness and the near-greats with a similar track record (Ashe, Lendl, Forget, Tsonga, Kyrgios, etc.) are no longer in contention. What do you guys think?

    FYI I've been making this argument for a long time now. Like I said I do find your tennis IQ pretty high. :cool:

    Was referring to what frankly seems to be your obsession with non-cisgender identities, but let's drop it for now. :p

    I'll take those thanks now, thanks. :D

    Was actually thinking about doing just that with my OP. Will do before I hit the sack tonight.

    The strongest counterpoint I can offer is that Pete's stats on non-grass courts don't seem to drop a whole lot. Granted he still S&Ved more than Roddick on these surfaces, but then I can point to similar examples from other players, too. I'll try to elaborate tomorrow.

    It's indeed generally true that higher ace rate = higher URS %, but there are anomalies like Pete and Andy who win a disproportionate % of their service points for their height. Mind you, I still rate Ivo's serve higher as a stand-alone stroke, but considering the whole package I like Sampras over just about anybody else against a Murray or Djokovic.

    Do take your time to peruse the stuff later. I'm too beat now to reply anyway. :D
     
  7. Eggshen

    Eggshen New User

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    92
    1. Sampras with a racquet
    2. Sampras with a fly swatter
    3. Sampras with a ball point pen
    4. Sampras serving while pretending to hold a racquet
    5. Everyone else
     
  8. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    27,356
    Location:
    U.S
    @NonP :

    Ok, now you get a thanks , thank you :D

    Will wait for the factor re : Sampras vs Roddick.
     
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,050
    URS are not the only measure of serving greatness. In any event, how about Smith's numbers in the 71' U.S. Open final and the 73' WCT final in Dallas, his 2 second most important wins?
     
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,617
    You're saying that Larsen and Rosewall and Gonzales and Cooper and Laver were dummies who did not have a clue what they were talking about?
    That goes against the grain of logical thought.

    My understanding of "torque" in this context is consistent with the dictionary, I guess you have a better understanding?

    "Power" as Larsen used the term is more than just "speed"...two different concepts.

    Yes, Hoad used more spin and "torque" than Gonzales.
     
  11. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,200
    I've mentioned before that I have a ton of pre-OE boxscores, from which I've calculated many service stats. I've rarely posted them -- my data is not ideally organized to do that -- but here's a batch of them, all from one event.

    It's the Philadelphia Pro RR of 1952, won by Pancho Gonzalez. The tournament was held March 21-29; it featured 6 nights of play among 4 men, each man playing the other three twice.

    Gonzalez won the tournament with a 5-1 record, just edging out Segura.

    I got all the stats below from the boxscores published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

    These are mostly service stats but I'll also throw in the stroke counts (winners, errors), since those were in the boxscores too.

    ___________________________________________________


    Gonzalez d. Segura, first of two meetings, 6-2, 6-4


    Gonzalez won 54 points overall, Segura 41.


    Gonzalez won 34 of 48 service points (70.8%)

    Segura won 27 of 47 service points (57.4%).


    Gonzalez held in 8 of 9 service games: hold rate 88.9%

    Segura held in 5 of 9 service games: hold rate 55.6%


    Gonzalez had 7 placements, 2 aces, 1 double-fault and 11 other errors (7 nets, 4 outs).

    Segura had 4 placements, 0 aces, 2 double-faults and 14 other errors (7 nets, 7 outs).



    ___________________________________________________


    Kramer d. Kovacs, first of two meetings, 7-5, 6-0


    Kramer won 57 points overall, Kovacs 43.


    Kramer won 37 of 53 service points (69.8%)

    Kovacs won 27 of 47 service points (57.4%).


    Kramer held in 9 of 9 service games: hold rate 100.0%

    Kovacs held in 5 of 9 service games: hold rate 55.6%


    Kramer had 11 placements, 15 aces, 2 double-faults and 32 other errors (16 nets, 16 outs).

    Kovacs had 4 placements, 5 aces, 1 double-fault and 30 other errors (15 nets, 15 outs).



    ___________________________________________________


    Gonzalez d. Kovacs, first of two meetings, 6-3, 6-4


    Gonzalez won 69 points overall, Kovacs 55.


    Gonzalez won 44 of 61 service points (72.1%)

    Kovacs won 38 of 63 service points (60.3%).


    Gonzalez held in 10 of 10 service games: hold rate 100.0%

    Kovacs held in 7 of 9 service games: hold rate 77.8%


    Gonzalez had 24 placements, 10 aces, 1 double-fault and 41 other errors (20 nets, 21 outs).

    Kovacs had 10 placements, 3 aces, 1 double-fault and 34 other errors (14 nets, 20 outs).



    ___________________________________________________


    Segura d. Kramer, first of two meetings, 6-0, 15-13


    Segura won 116 points overall, Kramer 89.


    Segura won 71 of 95 service points (74.7%)

    Kramer won 65 of 110 service points (59.1%).


    Segura held in 16 of 17 service games: hold rate 94.1%

    Kramer held in 12 of 17 service games: hold rate 70.6%


    Segura had 43 placements, 3 aces, 2 double-faults and 50 other errors (21 nets, 29 outs).

    Kramer had 31 placements, 5 aces, 5 double-faults and 65 other errors (25 nets, 40 outs).




    ___________________________________________________


    Gonzalez d. Kramer, first of two meetings, 6-3, 6-4


    Gonzalez won 69 points overall, Kramer 50.


    Gonzalez won 41 of 52 service points (78.8%)

    Kramer won 39 of 67 service points (58.2%).


    Gonzalez held in 10 of 10 service games: hold rate 100.0%

    Kramer held in 7 of 9 service games: hold rate 77.8%


    Gonzalez had 33 placements, 0 aces, 0 double-faults and 35 other errors (21 nets, 14 outs).

    Kramer had 12 placements, 3 aces, 1 double-fault and 35 other errors (16 nets, 19 outs).



    ___________________________________________________


    Segura d. Kovacs, first of two meetings, 6-2, 6-2


    Segura won 64 points overall, Kovacs 41.


    Segura won 34 of 54 service points (63.0%)

    Kovacs won 21 of 51 service points (41.2%).


    Segura held in 7 of 8 service games: hold rate 87.5%

    Kovacs held in 3 of 8 service games: hold rate 37.5%


    Segura had 18 placements, 3 aces, 1 double-fault and 30 other errors (11 nets, 19 outs).

    Kovacs had 9 placements, 1 ace, 1 double-fault and 42 other errors (22 nets, 20 outs).




    ___________________________________________________


    Gonzalez d. Kramer, second of two meetings, 6-4, 6-4


    Gonzalez won 60 points overall, Kramer 50.


    Gonzalez won 38 of 60 service points (63.3%)

    Kramer won 28 of 50 service points (56.0%).


    Gonzalez held in 8 of 10 service games: hold rate 80.0%

    Kramer held in 6 of 10 service games: hold rate 60.0%


    Gonzalez had 24 placements, 2 aces, 3 double-faults and 34 other errors (17 nets, 17 outs).

    Kramer had 11 placements, 2 aces, 2 double-faults and 32 other errors (19 nets, 13 outs).




    ___________________________________________________


    Segura d. Kovacs, second of two meetings, 6-2, 6-3


    Segura won 62 points overall, Kovacs 39.


    Segura won 34 of 46 service points (73.9%)

    Kovacs won 27 of 55 service points (49.1%).


    Segura held in 8 of 8 service games: hold rate 100.0%

    Kovacs held in 5 of 9 service games: hold rate 52.9%


    Segura had 19 placements, 1 ace, 1 double-fault and 27 other errors (9 nets, 18 outs).

    Kovacs had 10 placements, 1 ace, 0 double-faults and 42 other errors (24 nets, 18 outs).




    ___________________________________________________


    Kovacs d. Gonzalez, second of two meetings, 0-6, 6-4, 6-4


    Kovacs came back from love-2 in the second.


    This was Kovacs’ only win in the event, and Gonzalez’s only loss.


    It was also the only match in which the winner won fewer points than the loser.


    And it was the only night in which any match went beyond two sets; the other match this night, between Kramer and Segura, also did so.


    Kovacs won 67 points overall, Gonzalez 77.


    Kovacs won 48 of 79 service points (60.8%)

    Gonzalez won 46 of 65 service points (70.8%).


    Kovacs held in 9 of 13 service games: hold rate 69.2%

    Gonzalez held in 10 of 13 service games: hold rate 76.9%


    Kovacs had 15 placements, 4 aces, 3 double-faults and 40 other errors (19 nets, 21 outs).

    Gonzalez had 26 placements, 8 aces, 1 double-fault and 47 other errors (22 nets, 25 outs).




    ___________________________________________________


    Kramer d. Segura, second of two meetings, 4-6, 8-6, 6-3


    Kramer won 124 points overall, Segura 115.


    Kramer won 80 of 124 service points (64.5%)

    Segura won 71 of 115 service points (61.7%).


    Kramer held in 15 of 17 service games: hold rate 87.9%

    Segura held in 13 of 16 service games: hold rate 81.3%


    Kramer had 48 placements, 8 aces, 6 double-faults and 58 other errors (29 nets, 29 outs).

    Segura had 48 placements, 3 aces, 3 double-faults and 65 other errors (25 nets, 40 outs).




    ___________________________________________________


    Gonzalez d. Segura, second of two meetings, 6-2, 6-3


    Gonzalez won 66 points overall, Segura 47.


    Gonzalez won 33 of 42 service points (78.6%)

    Segura won 38 of 71 service points (53.5%).


    Gonzalez held in 8 of 8 service games: hold rate 100.0%

    Segura held in 5 of 9 service games: hold rate 52.9%


    Gonzalez had 27 placements, 7 aces, 1 double-fault and 32 other errors (14 nets, 18 outs).

    Segura had 14 placements, 0 aces, 1 double-fault and 31 other errors (13 nets, 18 outs).





    ___________________________________________________


    Kramer d. Kovacs, second of two meetings, 8-6, 6-2


    Kramer won 84 points overall, Kovacs 62.


    Kramer won 48 of 68 service points (70.6%)

    Kovacs won 42 of 78 service points (53.8%).


    Kramer held in 10 of 11 service games: hold rate 90.0%

    Kovacs held in 7 of 11 service games: hold rate 63.6%


    Kramer had 17 placements, 14 aces, 4 double-faults and 34 other errors (16 nets, 18 outs).

    Kovacs had 19 placements, 5 aces, 1 double-fault and 52 other errors (29 nets, 23 outs).


    Kramer closed out the match with a 6-deuce hold, the longest game of the match.
     
    BobbyOne and NatF like this.
  12. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,617
    Thanks for these stats, I have always wondered about the breakdown in matches for this tournament.
    It looks like Kramer was getting into his best form towards the end of the tournament.

    Is there any indication of what the surface was for this event? Philadelphia was significant in the early fifties.
     
  13. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,802
    Let's start with the long-overdue update:
    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. McEnroe
    14. Raonic
    15. Curren
    16. Stich
    17. Tanner
    18. Rusedski
    19. Federer
    20. Muller
    And the Honorary Hall of Fame (by order of birth as usual):
    • 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, Steve - 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 I hinted last time Smith has been eliminated for failing to live up to his reputation in at least three important matches. I said last year I was going to put less stock in subjective observations and more in cold hard numbers, and this winnowing reflects my new methodology. Doesn't mean the yanked names are gone for good, though. If you come across anything for the current, former and/or future candidates, feel free to share.

    Also going forward I'll be updating my OP with links to each player's URS database (here's the primer on unreturned serves again). Will try to keep the numbers up to date as well. (Moose actually PM'ed moi some new #s and corrections earlier today. They will be incorporated shortly.)

    The list of prehistoric candidates remains the same (year of birth in parentheses):
    • Bob Falkenburg (1926)
    • Mike Sangster (1940)
    • Colin Dibley (1944)
    • John Feaver (1952)
    • Victor Amaya (1954)
    On to the replies:

    Don't think I have those. And right, #s ain't everything, but even so you can see that Newk won most of his big matches while Stan lost 2 out of 3. That's surely something, no?

    And get this: per Moose's post on the '73 USO final (Moose did you ever fill in the gap with those 2+ missing points?) Newk's eye-popping URS rate of 39.2% was largely due to Kodes returning so well John was forced to go for broke on serve. So Newk was able to counter this Agassian returning performance from his opponent with a level of serving prowess rarely seen in that era, and in one of his career-defining matches to boot. In other words Newk served like a champ, which can't be said of Stan in his own Wimby matches. Advantage Newcombe. :cool:

    Super. But... no URS stats?

    Looks more like Gorgo kicked everyone else's ar$e. Your boy could only dream about such dominance on serve.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  14. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,480
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Don't forget Newcombe didn't lose serve once against Jimmy Connors in the quarters in the 1973 US Open also! Newk, when in shape was the best serve and volleyer I have seen technically.

    When I write that I mean he had a great first serve, second serve, excellent volley on both sides and he could really get close to the net on the first volley. People have said he had the best first volley in the game. And of course he had a great overhead.

    Let's just say I thought it was tough to break his serve especially on grass.

    You could argue some may be as good overall in the serve and volley as Newcombe, Sampras for example.

    Kramer was probably every bit as good and perhaps a bit better than Newcombe because of the slightly better serve and the slight better volley.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  15. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,802
    My old post with URS stats for Isner (along with those for Curren, Pim Pim and Noah) was running out of room, and since I expect to add to John's collection in the foreseeable future I'm spinning it off here (again links are included where available - note the '10 Wimby marathon!):

    2016 Atlanta SF W Opelka - 63.6% (49/77), 22 aces, 5 DFs [38.5% (37-96), 15 aces, 4 DFs]
    2016 DC 1R W Groth - 56.6% (47/83), 20 aces, 2 DFs
    2017 Atlanta SF W Muller - 53.7% (29/54), 15 aces, 5 DFs [37.7% (23/61), 8 aces, 4 DFs]
    2013 Newport QF W Karlovic - 53.2% (41/77), 23 aces, 1 DF [45.3% (34/75), 14 aces, 3 DFs]
    2015 AO 3R L Muller - 52.2% (59/113), 30 aces, 2 DFs [47.4% (46/97), 23 aces, 3 DFs]
    2015 Washington F L Nishikori - 51.8% (44/85), 18 aces, 2 DFs [31.2% (24/77), 5 aces, 2 DFs]
    2010 WIM 1R W Mahut - 51.7% (254/491), 113 aces, 10 DFs [47.0% (230/489), 103 aces, 21 DFs]
    2010 Auckland F W Clement - 41% (41/100), 22 aces, 2 DFs [31.2% (29/93), 8 aces, 0 DFs]
    2007 Washington SF W Monfils - 39.8% (49/123), 22 aces, 5 DFs [42.2% (43/102), 25 aces, 4 DFs]
    2012 IW SF W Djokovic - 39.3% (45/112), 20 aces, 0 DFs [31.5% (35-111), 8 aces, 2 DFs]
    2009 USO 3R W Roddick - 38.7% (63/163), 38 aces, 7 DFs [40.9% (63/154), 20 aces, 2 DFs]
    2012 DC 1R W Federer - 38.2% (50/131), 14 aces, 5 DFs [37.4% (43/115), 13 aces, 1 DF] (of the 36 return errors he drew from Fed, 25 were BHs)
    2016 Paris F L Murray - 37.2% (32/86), 18 aces, 2 DFs [30.6% (30/98), 9 aces, 4 DFs]
    2012 IW F L Federer - 32.4% (23/71), 4 aces, 1 DF [32.1% (18/56), 7 aces, 2 DFs]
    2015 Miami SF L Djokovic - 28.0% (23/82), 9 aces, 1 DF [32.8% (19/58), 10 aces, 1 DF]

    And as a bonus here are some #s for Querrey:

    2016 WIM 4R W Mahut - 50% (43/86), 23 aces, 3 DFs [28.6% (30/105), 9 aces, 4 DFs]
    2012 LA F W Berankis - 44.9% (22/49), 8 aces, 2 DFs [10% (4/40), 0 aces, 2 DFs]
    2017 WIM SF L Cilic (Voo's #s differ from Moose's, but their URS totals do match) - 33.8% (51/151), 13 aces, 3 DFs [47.5% (57/120), 25 aces, 1 DF]
    2014 Winston-Salem SF L Janowicz - 28.8% (30/104), 18 aces, 6 DFs [37.9% (39/103), 7 aces, 6 DFs]
    2010 Houston F L Chela - 19.8% (20/101), 11 aces, 3 DFs [11.3% (13/115), 2 aces, 1 DF]

    Yes, all of these three had an ATG 2nd serve that gave them a tremendous leg up against their opposition. I can buy that Jack's volley was slightly better than Newk's (or Pete's for that matter), but as you noted Newk probably made up for it with his nonpareil 1st volley. The same could be said of Pete, too.
     
  16. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,480
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I don't know if Sampras had a better first volley than either Kramer or Gonzalez but he often made up for it by delaying and taking the short ball on the bounce close to the net and hitting a great offensive shot. It's not quite a half volley.

    Sampras in my opinion is very similar to Kramer in style. Great first and second serves, excellent volleys, great forehands, super overheads etc.

    Both at their peaks moved very well with Sampras getting the edge there.

    Kramer did have strokes that very few players had today in his sidespin shots like his sidespin forehand which would pull a player off the court when he hit his down the line approach. Same on the backhand side. I understand that Kramer's sidespin backhand down the line drove Budge crazy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  17. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,200
    Unfortunately no, those are the rarest of all, pre-OE.
     
  18. NonP

    NonP Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,802
    Just took URS stats on the Delpo-Fed match. Here they are (the one who served first in the set is placed above the other):

    -Set 1-
    RF - 36.8% (7/19) on 1st, 18.8% (3/16) on 2nd
    DP - 52% (13/25), 14.3% (1/7)

    -Set 2-
    RF - 36.8% (7/19), 0% (0/10)
    DP - 61.5% (8/13), 10% (1/10)

    -Set 3-
    DP - 42.9% (12/28), 7.7% (1/13)
    RF - 42.9% (12/28), 0% (0/17)

    -Set 4-
    RF - 55.6% (10/18), 10% (1/10)
    DP - 78.6% (11/14), 33.3% (3/9)

    -Total-
    DP - 55% (44/80) on 1st, 15.4% (6/39) on 2nd, 42.0% (50/119) for match
    RF - 42.9% (36/84), 7.5% (4/53), 29.2% (40/137)

    (Frankly not too sure about the 2nd & 3rd sets, but if my totals are off it shouldn't be by more than 1 or 2.)

    Not one of Fed's finest serving performances. I'm guessing one of Delpo's better ones. Still neither guy did much on their 2nd serves, as you can see. Both would've had their hands more than full by a prime Sampras or Becker tonight (especially since this was an indoor match).

    A couple more observations:
    • This was a very winnable match for Roger. Delpo wasn't serving particularly well at first (his 69% on 1st serves is misleading), and as Mac (annoyingly) kept pointing out his FH surprisingly lacked bite as well, though both shots kept getting better as the match progressed. And of course there are those squandered 4 SPs in the 3rd-set TB.
    • Surprisingly Fed was more successful in 2nd-serve points won: 57% to DP's 51%. And though he had respectable success at the net (34/53 for 64%) Fed did miss some easy volleys. In short Delpo simply outplayed Fed on big points.
    • The 4th set was Delpo's masterpiece. Not only due to his stellar URS %s but also his 12 winners to only 1 UFE. Having said that Fed's return definitely let him down here.
    • Pretty sure all aces were on 1st-serves except 1 by Delpo in the 4th.
    Official stats here (y'all know these stay up only for a year, so do what you gotta do):

    http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/1502ms.html

    Yes, Pete's edge in athleticism is why I give him the nod over Jack on grass even though I tend to think among the ATGs Kramer might be the toughest for him on this surface. Would've loved to see these two duke it out myself.
     
    Moose Malloy likes this.
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,617
    Right, the guy with the greatest and most powerful serve ever, who had a lifetime hth edge over prime Gonzales on grass, was not really a good player....talk about dreams.
    You need a pillow?
     
  20. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,480
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Nice info on the match.

    Not sure if it's a huge edge in athleticism because Braden mentioned to me how athletic Kramer was before the arthritis affected him so badly. Sampras does have an advantage in athleticism over almost every player that he played. He was such an unbelievable talent.
     

Share This Page