Match Stats/Report - Medvedev vs Opelka, Canadian Open final, 2021

[Waspsting]

Daniil Medvedev beat Reilly Opelka 6-4, 6-3 in the Canadian Open final, 2021 on hard court in Toronto

It was Medvedev’s first title at the event and he would shortly after win his first Slam at the US Open. Opelka was unseeded and to date, this remains his only Masters finals

Medvedev won 73 points, Opelka 57

Serve Stats
Medvedev...
- 1st serve percentage (26/52) 50%
- 1st serve points won (23/26) 88%
- 2nd serve points won (16/26) 62%
- Aces 6
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/52) 44%

Opelka...
- 1st serve percentage (57/78) 73%
- 1st serve points won (36/57) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (8/21) 38%
- Aces 8
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (22/78) 28%

Serve Pattern
Medvedev served...
- to FH 51%
- to BH 45%
- to Body 4%

Opelka served...
- to FH 45%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 1%

Return Stats
Medvedev made...
- 53 (23 FH, 20 BH), including 1 runaround BH
- 2 Winners (2 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 11 Forced (5 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (53/75) 71%

Opelka made...
- 24 (14 FH, 10 BH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (3 FH, 7 BH)
- 7 Forced (5 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (24/47) 51%

Break Points
Medvedev 3/7 (6 games)
Opelka 0/4 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Medvedev 10 (5 FH, 5 BH)
Opelka 14 (6 FH, 1 BH, 6 FHV, 1 OH)

Medvedev's FHs - 1 cc pass, 2 dtl (1 pass), 2 inside-out (1 pass)
- BH passes - 2 cc passes (1 return, 1 at net), 2 dtl passes (1 return, 1 at net)
- regular BH - 1 cc

Opelka's FHs - 1 cc at net, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 2 inside-in, 1 drop shot
- BH - 1 cc/inside-in

- 3 from serve-volley points (3 FHV), all first volleys

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Medvedev 16
- 6 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH)
- 10 Forced (4 FH, 6 BH)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.3

Opelka 37
- 29 Unforced (16 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)... the OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 8 Forced (3 FH, 1 BH, 2 BHV, 1 OH, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.6

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Medvedev was 5/6 (83%) at net

Opelka was...
- 11/28 (39%) at net, including...
- 5/10 (50%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 3/5 (60%) off 1st serve and...
- 2/5 (40%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 forced back

Match Report
Masterful demo from Medvedev in how to take apart a titan server on a slow court. He manages to return regularly by taking returns from well, well back, plays the wall game from the baseline afterwards and when needed, passes well

Opelka isn’t just 6’11 but powerfully built and has the game often seen with a player of such physical dimensions

Humongous serve. Slow movement. Big cut groundies. Inconsistent in keeping ball in play. Some serve-volleying and net play. He’s not a good court player but at 6’11, regularly clocking 140mph on the serve, he doesn’t have to be to keep holding. Particularly when he serves at 73%

Med breaks him 3 times and has break points in 6/10 games. Med not being broken isn’t surprising, but that’s a hell of a return game showing

How does he do it?

Returns from behind even his customary very far back position. Against a player like Opel, its not only the best way but the obvious one. Making damaging returns from that position is almost impossible, and you don’t need to damage a court player like Opel to win points. Neutralizing the imminent threat of the serve shot is far more important. Med’s modus operandi is best suited to this. He returns superbly at 71% (or keeping Opel to just 28% freebies)

Gets as good and long a look as possible at the ball, and is good enough to put them in play - great

Opel pace and direction of serve are inversely related. He serves in slot, 140mph a given. When he serves wide, he dials it down to measly 120mph region. Gets them good and wide too. And there’s the big bounce to deal with

Med’s able to handle the pace of the fastest serves. Quick enough to run - literally, run, not take steps - to reach the wider ones. His own height makes it easier for him to handle the bounce. Regularly returns from chest height. Med’s chest height would be head height for most players, who thus, wouldn’t have luxury of standing that far back; they’d have to take the return earlier to keep the ball from rising that high in first place, so some of it is down to Med’s own physical dimensions

Gist - return rate 71% against this ridiculously powerful, high bouncing serve. Can’t ask for more than that

Med’s return position invites serve-volleying. Little bit of it from Opel - 5 times off each serve, winning 50% total. Points he wins are putaway volleys. Couple of return winners from Med - he’s got time to see Opel coming and adjust accordingly. And Opel not a good volleyer, prone to missing routine volleys and certainly, anything harder than that. He gets down for volleys the way you’d expect a giant to - slowly

Rest is baseline rallies. Ground UEs - Med 6, Opel 23, with neutral UEs - Med 5, Opel 15

Speaks for itself. With a gap that vast, its bound to be due to both players quality (Med good, Opel bad), and I would more credit Med for solidity. Fair lot of sloppiness from Opel (quick errors to routine balls), but larger lot of time, rallies go on for awhile. Medium length 5-10 shots is most common and a small number extending into long rally territory. Med misses nothing, leaving Opel to

Opel’s the aggressor. His FH is brutish of power and Med’s shot tolerance is tested. Passes with flying colours, but not easily. He’s strained to hold off Opel’s powerful shots and Opel doesn’t falter on the very next one either, but manages to pound 1 or 2 more before blinking (or winning the point - he wins more often than not when getting on big hitting mode), but Med’s ability to put very big groundies back in play does get him a good lot of points when he’s on back foot

Med himself doesn’t serve too well. Just 50% firs serves in and he’s got 5 double faults from just 26 second serves. Too many to be justified by Opel’s occasional big cut returns, which Med is largely able to handle same way he does power hittting in rallies

 

[Waspsting]

And Opel rallies his way to net. Lots of scope for him to - with Med’s return position, and not powerful returns (they’re not soft, but they’d have to be flame hit to begin to trouble Opel on third ball from as far back as he is)

He’s just 6/18 rallying to net. Same lot of factors behind his 50% serve-volleying success - not being a good volleyer and mover, with Med finding some great passes having bigger hand. Not easy passes either - Opel’s prone to missing routine volleys, but he places the ones he makes well. Some wonderful running passes by Med to counter - both getting first pass wide to draw a weaker volley and nailing improbable winners

7/10 Med’s winners are passes. Opel has same number of volley winners

What else? Opel’s a slow moving returner too and not good on second shot. Serving at just 50%, Med comes away with large 44% unreturneds

10/17 Opel return errors have been marked UEs. It’s a slow court, and most serves are in his vast swing zone. He often takes big cuts at the return, missing far more than he misses, but ending points when he doesn’t. Not a good hit rate, but might be good enough to win if his service games are secure

His service games aren’t secure

Med finishing with 10 winners, 6 UEs is excellent. Opel’s 29 UEs dwarf’s Med’s aggressively ended points of 18 (that’s winners + errors forced), usually a sign of the loser playing poorly being biggest factor in how things go

Its not untrue that Opel plays badly, but I’d credit Med more for how things go - his wall-like game from the back in both simple rallying and reactive/defensive situations is exceptional

Match Progression
Med’s the first one to get into trouble. 2 double faults a a FH UE sees him down 0-40 in game 4. Unreturned serves a couple of FH blinks from Opelka sees Med come through to hold for 2-2

Then he breaks. Bunch of errors from Opel - double fault, FH winner attempt, BHV serve-volleying - puts him down break point. The last one is well drawn by Med, who at last instant, rushes forward to take the return much earlier than he had been, surprising Opel and rushing him enough on the volley to miss. Med delivers a BH dtl return pass winner to seal the break

Opel’s down break points next time too, but reels off 3 successive winners - FHV, OH and a FH drop shot - before holding. 1 break is enough for Med to see out the set though

Second set is better from Med and close to masterful. He serves 23 points in it to Opel’s 46, while breaking twice

So impressive has he been returning the fat serve that it comes as a surprise when he misses what passes for a ‘regulation’ 1st return on break point in the opening game. It’s the only 1 he has in the 14 point game that Opel holds. Next time round, Med breaks in a game Opel’s at net for on all 5 live points, before double faulting on break point

Opel’s got a break point in game 6, on which he takes charge of rally. Some superb defence from Med to stay in the point before Opel misses an attempted drop shot. Med’s aggressive to hold from there - visiting net a couple times and finishing with a winning BH dtl

Point of the match in next game, where Med defends against huge FH after huge FH, until his latest get tips over the net chord, dragging Opel to net. Lob volley from Med to Opel’s get ends the point, but Opel knocks down 4 aces in 5 points to save a break point and hold

He’s broken next go around to end the match. Interesting BH cc/inside-in winner by Opel in the game. He’s not a a BH avoiding player, but does prefer banging down big FHs and its not a shot you’d expect him to play. Couple of passing winners by Med too, and on break/match point, Opel misses a powerful third ball FH inside-in

Summing up, a study in how to handle very big servers. Medvedev returns from very far back and is able to handle everything the giant Opelka can dish out on the serve from there - the brute paced ones, the less fast but wide ones, the high bouncing ones - all of it long past challenging and with high potential to overwhelm completely

Medvedev almost makes it look routine to return - and that’s three-quarters of the challenge done. For the rest, he’s in wall-mode from the back, barely misses a ball and handles Opelka’s very powerful FHs near as well when forced to defend, as he often is

Opelka is slow of foot and error prone. With serve as close to neutralized as possible, he’s not likely to be able to hang in with his opponent from back of court. He doesn’t play particularly well, but not badly either but Medvedev is too good for him on the pass and in pure baseline rallies

 

[Third Serve]

I don't think Med's return tactics are very advisable for top players but against very big servers with otherwise one-dimensional games they're helpful.

 

[tudwell]

I don't think Med's return tactics are very advisable for top players but against very big servers with otherwise one-dimensional games they're helpful.

To be fair, on hard courts this year he broke serve more than anyone – even guys like Djokovic, Sinner, or Alcaraz. He's one of the absolute best at returning serve on his favored surface (the best according to the ATP site's Return Leaderboard of the last 52 weeks). His strategy has its weaknesses, to be sure, but it still takes a very strong S&V/all-court/attacking showing to truly expose the holes in his return game. Djokovic, Nadal, Alcaraz, and Kyrgios are about the only guys I've seen truly capable of punishing him for his return position, especially across the length of a best-of-five-sets match.

 

[aldeayeah]

I don't think Med's return tactics are very advisable for top players but against very big servers with otherwise one-dimensional games they're helpful.

Med's return tactics coupled with his uncanny ability to return the ball deep, flat and safe are perfectly adequate against anyone who isn't good at S&V'ing (so 95% of the tour)

 

[Third Serve]

Med's return tactics coupled with his uncanny ability to return the ball deep, flat and safe are perfectly adequate against anyone who isn't good at S&V'ing (so 95% of the tour)

It’s a good return in and of itself, but I think it sacrifices too much in court positioning which hurts him against more aggressive players willing to take the initiative on the baseline (or even at net). Most big servers obviously can’t do that because they don’t have the ground game for it.

Though to be fair, there aren’t that many players today who are even capable of that—the art has declined. So I guess against this tour this would be an acceptable if somewhat flawed strategy.

 

[aldeayeah]

It’s a good return in and of itself, but I think it sacrifices too much in court positioning which hurts him against more aggressive players willing to take the initiative on the baseline (or even at net)

Not any kind of baseline aggression will do. You'll need to hit short angles off a deep, flat, midpacey return down the middle — otherwise Med will happily backboard whatever you throw at him.

Of course, someone like Fed would probably mince him, but they barely coexisted on tour.

 

[Waspsting]

I don't think Med's return tactics are very advisable for top players but against very big servers with otherwise one-dimensional games they're helpful.

To be fair, on hard courts this year he broke serve more than anyone – even guys like Djokovic, Sinner, or Alcaraz. He's one of the absolute best at returning serve on his favored surface (the best according to the ATP site's Return Leaderboard of the last 52 weeks). His strategy has its weaknesses, to be sure, but it still takes a very strong S&V/all-court/attacking showing to truly expose the holes in his return game. Djokovic, Nadal, Alcaraz, and Kyrgios are about the only guys I've seen truly capable of punishing him for his return position, especially across the length of a best-of-five-sets match.

It’s a good return in and of itself, but I think it sacrifices too much in court positioning which hurts him against more aggressive players willing to take the initiative on the baseline (or even at net). Most big servers obviously can’t do that because they don’t have the ground game for it.

The thing is... you're supposed to lose return games and return points, and your supposed to be on defensive/reactive position on them, so what has he lost by his position that others don't?

What he gains is self-evident - he gives up fewer unreturned serves than others
Do other players neutralize servers advantage with their returns more often? Or win a bigger lot of first return points when the return has actually been made?

I'm not a fan of this style, but accept it as being highly effective. Minimize freebies and take it from there. You'd need his temperament and mindset, being comfortable in reactive position to keep it up, which many players don't have

The first guy to return like this was Bjorn Borg way back when. I saw a candid piece from him about it, written at the time

He says simply I return from there to give myself longest and best look at the ball and so I can make most returns. And contrasts his way to taking returns early on the baseline, which he dismisses as macho and stupid (those aren't exact words, but I distinctly remember he said something very much like them because the candidness surprised me)

Even second serves. How many players actually attack second serves with their return? Roger Federer took them earlier than most - and he'd just push-block BH returns back in play

Would be curious to see Med's winning percentage once returns made, relative to other players. I doubt its much lower. And I'm pretty sure his return rates are on high side

 

[Rovesciarete]

Summing up, a study in how to handle very big servers. Medvedev returns from very far back and is able to handle everything the giant Opelka can dish out on the serve from there - the brute paced ones, the less fast but wide ones, the high bouncing ones - all of it long past challenging and with high potential to overwhelm completely

Medvedev almost makes it look routine to return - and that’s three-quarters of the challenge done. For the rest, he’s in wall-mode from the back, barely misses a ball and handles Opelka’s very powerful FHs near as well when forced to defend, as he often is

Opelka is slow of foot and error prone. With serve as close to neutralized as possible, he’s not likely to be able to hang in with his opponent from back of court. He doesn’t play particularly well, but not badly either but Medvedev is too good for him on the pass and in pure baseline rallies

Daniil is a brutal matchup for a big server once he is dialled in. Guys like Opelka hit very big with his FH but he lacks the angles to last in ground rallies against a player as mobile and consistent as Medvedev.

He drags you into his alley and wears you out.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The thing is... you're supposed to lose return games and return points, and your supposed to be on defensive/reactive position on them, so what has he lost by his position that others don't?

What he gains is self-evident - he gives up fewer unreturned serves than others
Do other players neutralize servers advantage with their returns more often? Or win a bigger lot of first return points when the return has actually been made?

I'm not a fan of this style, but accept it as being highly effective. Minimize freebies and take it from there. You'd need his temperament and mindset, being comfortable in reactive position to keep it up, which many players don't have

The first guy to return like this was Bjorn Borg way back when. I saw a candid piece from him about it, written at the time

He says simply I return from there to give myself longest and best look at the ball and so I can make most returns. And contrasts his way to taking returns early on the baseline, which he dismisses as macho and stupid (those aren't exact words, but I distinctly remember he said something very much like them because the candidness surprised me)

Even second serves. How many players actually attack second serves with their return? Roger Federer took them earlier than most - and he'd just push-block BH returns back in play

Would be curious to see Med's winning percentage once returns made, relative to other players. I doubt its much lower. And I'm pretty sure his return rates are on high side

Is the average depth of Medvedev's second serve return really that good? He seems to hit a lot of mild returns down the middle giving his opponents the initiative, only few are good enough to make it count.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

The thing is... you're supposed to lose return games and return points, and your supposed to be on defensive/reactive position on them, so what has he lost by his position that others don't?

would think it's a similar criticism to your pointing towards Federer or Wilander's general lack of aggression (whether willingness or capability) on return. good enough performance against field, but disproportionately falls off against top comp, especially if outmatched in certain ways in matchup or on the day

edit: would say that Alcaraz against Medvedev at Wimbledon is the clearest example of this phenomenon. even against someone who isn't an elite server, Medvedev got ripped apart because his court position gave Alcaraz way too much time to set up his +1 and way too much space to use for a volleying/baseline putaway, and his actual returns (and passing shots) didn't have enough quality to unsettle Alcaraz: 15/18 on s&v 1sts, vs 27/39 on non-s&v 1sts, and vs 8/11 on non-s&v net approaches. even true if you go to the USO match where Medvedev played the best match of his life (he was beating Alcaraz in forehand cross-court rallies!) and Alcaraz played decently at best: 27/37 on s&v 1sts, vs 38/57 on non-s&v 1sts, and vs 14/17 on non-s&v net approaches.

all following stats from TA Last 52 Match Charting (https://web.archive.org/web/2023121...om/reports/mcp_leaders_return_men_last52.html). psa: i've archived all 4 pages (serve, return, rally, tactics) for men and women so that this yearly info will continue to be available. hope i or others can keep it up

quick surface breakdowns for players' charted matches:

	Djokovic	Alcaraz	Medvedev	Sinner
outdoor hard	21	20	38	23
clay	10	21	13	9
grass	3	9	10	11
indoor hard	8	3	8	12
total	42	53	69	55

What he gains is self-evident - he gives up fewer unreturned serves than others

	Djokovic	Alcaraz	Medvedev	Sinner
1st returns in play %	65.4	67.9	72.1	66.2
2nd returns in play %	88.0	81.3	89.9	84.8

Do other players neutralize servers advantage with their returns more often? Or win a bigger lot of first return points when the return has actually been made?

Djokovic makes 65.4% of 1st returns in play and wins 49.8% when in play = 32.6% 1st return points won

Alcaraz makes 67.9%, wins 49.2% in play = 33.4% 1st RPW

Medvedev makes 72.1%, wins 46.4% in play = 33.5% 1st RPW

Sinner makes 66.2%, wins 47.3% in play = 31.3% 1st RPW

realizing now that there's either data errors or something off with 1st/2nd serve marking because i can't make the total return in play numbers align with the 1st and 2nd return in play numbers unless everyone's opponents are serving 90% first serves lol

Would be curious to see Med's winning percentage once returns made, relative to other players. I doubt its much lower.

anyway, continuing the exercise just for completeness

Djokovic makes 88.0% of 2nd returns in play and wins 57.0% when in play = 50.2% 2nd return points won

Alcaraz makes 81.3%, wins 58.1% in play = 47.2% 2nd RPW

Medvedev makes 89.9%, wins 55.7% in play = 50.1% 2nd RPW

Sinner makes 84.8%, wins 58.9% in play = 49.9% 2nd RPW

Is the average depth of Medvedev's second serve return really that good? He seems to hit a lot of mild returns down the middle giving his opponents the initiative, only few are good enough to make it count.

2nd return depth index is 2.35, vs 2.22, 2.31, and 2.21 from Djokovic, Alcaraz, and Sinner respectively. more skeptical of this than the previous numbers because depth is probably charted less often/consistently compared to returns going in/out and points being won/lost. also possible there's something unclear going on with how unreturned serves affect the charting and calculation.

return depth index info:

"The Match Charting Project records the depth of each return, coding each as a “7” (landing in the service box), an “8” (in back half of the court, but closer to the service line than the baseline), or a “9” (in the backmost quarter of the court). In the original formulation, RDI weights those depths 1, 2, and 4, respectively, and then calculates the average. I’ve tweaked it a bit to reflect the effectiveness of various return depths. For men, the weights are 1, 2, and 3.5"

 

[tudwell]

would think it's a similar criticism to your pointing towards Federer or Wilander's general lack of aggression (whether willingness or capability) on return. good enough performance against field, but disproportionately falls off against top comp, especially if outmatched in certain ways in matchup or on the day

all following stats from TA Last 52 Match Charting (https://web.archive.org/web/2023121...om/reports/mcp_leaders_return_men_last52.html). psa: i've archived all 4 pages (serve, return, rally, tactics) for men and women so that this yearly info will continue to be available. hope i or others can keep it up

quick surface breakdowns for players' charted matches:

	Djokovic	Alcaraz	Medvedev	Sinner
outdoor hard	21	20	38	23
clay	10	21	13	9
grass	3	9	10	11
indoor hard	8	3	8	12
total	42	53	69	55

	Djokovic	Alcaraz	Medvedev	Sinner
1st returns in play %	65.4	67.9	72.1	66.2
2nd returns in play %	88.0	81.3	89.9	84.8

Djokovic makes 65.4% of 1st returns in play and wins 49.8% when in play = 32.6% 1st return points won

Alcaraz makes 67.9%, wins 49.2% in play = 33.4% 1st RPW

Medvedev makes 72.1%, wins 46.4% in play = 33.5% 1st RPW

Sinner makes 66.2%, wins 47.3% in play = 31.3% 1st RPW

realizing now that there's either data errors or something off with 1st/2nd serve marking because i can't make the total return in play numbers align with the 1st and 2nd return in play numbers unless everyone's opponents are serving 90% first serves lol

anyway, continuing the exercise just for completeness

Djokovic makes 88.0% of 1st returns in play and wins 57.0% when in play = 50.2% 2nd return points won

Alcaraz makes 81.3%, wins 58.1% in play = 47.2% 2nd RPW

Medvedev makes 89.9%, wins 55.7% in play = 50.1% 2nd RPW

Sinner makes 84.8%, wins 58.9% in play = 49.9% 2nd RPW

2nd return depth index is 2.35, vs 2.22, 2.31, and 2.21 from Djokovic, Alcaraz, and Sinner respectively. more skeptical of this than the previous numbers because depth is probably charted less often/consistently compared to returns going in/out and points being won/lost. also possible there's something unclear going on with how unreturned serves affect the charting and calculation.

return depth index info:

"The Match Charting Project records the depth of each return, coding each as a “7” (landing in the service box), an “8” (in back half of the court, but closer to the service line than the baseline), or a “9” (in the backmost quarter of the court). In the original formulation, RDI weights those depths 1, 2, and 4, respectively, and then calculates the average. I’ve tweaked it a bit to reflect the effectiveness of various return depths. For men, the weights are 1, 2, and 3.5"

Fascinating numbers! Are these across all surfaces?

Medvedev would seem to be the inferior court player, considering he gets back more serves and (at least on the second serve) with greater depth than the other three, but doesn't win quite as much once the ball is in play. That aligns with what I would intuitively assume to be the case just watching them.

Surprised Alcaraz's depth is so high, but I guess he sacrifices consistency seeing how he misses almost 20% of second-serve returns. Seems like a HUGE opportunity for Alcaraz to improve his return game if he can just nudge that number up a few percentage points. I'm not sure why he wouldn't be able to do that, unless it's a matter of modern-day kick serves bouncing too high for his (at best) 6'0" frame – although of course there'd be some level of risk-reward trade-off (less damaging returns leading to more rallies begun without the advantage, but considering how good a player he is even from neutral positions I wouldn't think that would be a terrible trade-off, especially against lower-ranked players).

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Fascinating numbers! Are these across all surfaces?

yep

Medvedev would seem to be the inferior court player, considering he gets back more serves and (at least on the second serve) with greater depth than the other three, but doesn't win quite as much once the ball is in play. That aligns with what I would intuitively assume to be the case just watching them.

oh imo Medvedev is the best baseliner of the lot and his relatively lower win % when returns are in play is due to the inverse relationship between his returns in play % (i.e. the walliness) and the isolated quality of his return, which is borne out by the general trend with everyone else. Sinner and Alcaraz (or anyone) being higher on RIP W% is a reflection of their prioritizing higher quality returns at the cost of getting less returns in play. guys like Sinner and Nishikori show up highly in this 2nd return in play win % category and nowhere else, which imo people tend to overvalue in their eye tests of returning skills. if Medvedev was a relatively worse baseliner or was capable of abbreviating his strokes to return closer to the baseline then he would be playing suboptimally to return so defensively, but i don't think either is the case.

in other words, if i had to rank these 4 Currently, balancing walling and quality for the middle 2 categories:

general baselining (movement to ball + quality of groundstrokes): Medvedev > Djokovic > Alcaraz > Sinner

1st return: Alcaraz > Medvedev > Djokovic ≈ Sinner

2nd return: Sinner > Djokovic > Medvedev >> Alcaraz

overall returning (i.e. return game): Medvedev > Djokovic > Alcaraz > Sinner

at the start of the year i would have flipped Medvedev and Djokovic in the last category but Djokovic has been shockingly inconsistent on return and only maintained his 2nd place because of Alcaraz's post-Wimbledon floppage, and Medvedev has surprisingly become even better on return than before (though he's lost 1st serve potency and 2nd serve consistency so his overall level is at best stable and likely a bit lower than it was in '21). would say that Alcaraz's returning throughout Wimbledon was easily the peak return performance of the year and that was what let him beat Djokovic more than anything else

Surprised Alcaraz's depth is so high, but I guess he sacrifices consistency seeing how he misses almost 20% of second-serve returns. Seems like a HUGE opportunity for Alcaraz to improve his return game if he can just nudge that number up a few percentage points.

yeah this is the single biggest weakness of his return game. imo he can definitely address it and if and when he does, he'll be significantly harder to upset and be a clear GOAT returner candidate.

I'm not sure why he wouldn't be able to do that, unless it's a matter of modern-day kick serves bouncing too high for his (at best) 6'0" frame

don't think that's the issue - though it's not the best for cross-court trades, his backhand is well suited to being aggressive on lower pace and higher bouncing balls (part of why he's quite comfortable changing directions and approaching off that wing), and his forehand generally struggles more with absorbing pace from lower and faster balls. think it's pretty much all about tactical clarity and general level consistency

 

[tudwell]

oh imo Medvedev is the best baseliner of the lot and his relatively lower win % when returns are in play is due to the inverse relationship between his returns in play % (i.e. the walliness) and the isolated quality of his return, which is borne out by the general trend with everyone else. Sinner and Alcaraz (or anyone) being higher on RIP W% is a reflection of their prioritizing higher quality returns at the cost of getting less returns in play. guys like Sinner and Nishikori show up highly in this 2nd return in play win % category and nowhere else, which imo people tend to overvalue in their eye tests of returning skills. if Medvedev was a relatively worse baseliner or was capable of abbreviating his strokes to return closer to the baseline then he would be playing suboptimally to return so defensively, but i don't think either is the case.

That's a fair point, although given the depth of Med's second serve returns, I'm not sure how much quality he's really sacrificing? I mean, I'm sure he takes the ball much further back than Sinner and Alcaraz do on average (though sometimes Carlos likes to back way up and give himself time to rip it, especially on clay) – so even if he's hitting a return with great depth he's not necessarily stealing time from the server the way Sinner and Alcaraz would when they hit a return with great depth. Which would leave him in a relatively less favorable position as the point starts. So I see the point.

And Med probably is the best of the lot at "walling" these days – both on return and within baseline points. The other guys all have much more dynamic games with more offensive capabilities, though, so I'm not sure I'd agree he's the overall best baseliner. But he's really done a phenomenal job at maximizing his strengths and minimizing his weaknesses. Med's always been a curious one to follow, in my opinion.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

And Med probably is the best of the lot at "walling" these days – both on return and within baseline points. The other guys all have much more dynamic games with more offensive capabilities, though, so I'm not sure I'd agree he's the overall best baseliner.

my feeling is that until you get to the level of GOAT baseliners like prime Big 3 or Borg, the gears associated with offensive capabilities and dynamism are overrated and what fundamentally matters most is the neutral and defensive-neutral gears of keeping the ball in play with as much quality as possible. think the best way to drill down where people stand on this is what year they think Murray decisively surpassed the Federer in that year and beyond as a baseliner, if ever

 

[Angrybirdstar]

oh that reminds me. with all the discussion of return depth, this Tennis Abstract article suggests (to paraphrase) that against 1st serves, deep returns are best, while against 2nd serves, wide returns are best (with every return depth region in the wide lanes outperforming very deep middle returns): https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog...better-understanding-of-return-effectiveness/

 

[tudwell]

oh that reminds me. with all the discussion of return depth, this Tennis Abstract article suggests (to paraphrase) that against 1st serves, deep returns are best, while against 2nd serves, wide returns are best (with every return depth region in the wide lanes outperforming very deep middle returns): https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog...better-understanding-of-return-effectiveness/

That's cool to see. I should read more of TA's stuff beyond just the single match charts. I guess that means Medvedev's depth on second-serve returns isn't necessarily an advantage over Djokovic's and Sinner's shallower returns (although Djokovic isn't the most aggressive going for wide angles, really; depth has always seemed to me to be his primary weapon on the return so I'm still a little surprised to see him so low, at least relative to Medvedev).

 

[Waspsting]

Djokovic makes 65.4% of 1st returns in play and wins 49.8% when in play = 32.6% 1st return points won

Alcaraz makes 67.9%, wins 49.2% in play = 33.4% 1st RPW

Medvedev makes 72.1%, wins 46.4% in play = 33.5% 1st RPW

Sinner makes 66.2%, wins 47.3% in play = 31.3% 1st RPW

anyway, continuing the exercise just for completeness

Djokovic makes 88.0% of 2nd returns in play and wins 57.0% when in play = 50.2% 2nd return points won

Alcaraz makes 81.3%, wins 58.1% in play = 47.2% 2nd RPW

Medvedev makes 89.9%, wins 55.7% in play = 50.1% 2nd RPW

Sinner makes 84.8%, wins 58.9% in play = 49.9% 2nd RPW

Great! - thanks for this

Med leading 1st return points won (negligibly over Alcs) and second in 2nd return points won (negligibly behind Djoko)

I don't know Alcs' game too well, but am a little surprised to see him top 1st return points. He does move very well for the return. Very impressive in his matches against Djoko
On second return points, Med equalling Djoko, a fantastic returner of 2nd serves who starts most such rallies on front foot (I expect Med does not) also surprises me a little. Says good things about Med's court game, unenteprising as it might be. He's a very difficult guy to break down

Medvedev would seem to be the inferior court player, considering he gets back more serves and (at least on the second serve) with greater depth than the other three, but doesn't win quite as much once the ball is in play.

I interpret this a bit differently

Med returning at higher rate than the others (value) at cost of not returning with much heat (that is, he starts the rally from a more defensive or reactive position)

Most apparent comparing with Djokovic, who starts a lot of second return points on front foot, with his deep-down-the-middle returns
Equalizing for starting position, is Med worse than the other guys? My guess is he'd do better than Alcs, whose shot choices are more edgy.
----------

Ok. I read the discussion going down in all and angrybirdstar has pretty much said it all

Adding on more generally regarding the return, return game, perceptions of return and return game....

...would think it's a similar criticism to your pointing towards Federer or Wilander's general lack of aggression (whether willingness or capability) on return. good enough performance against field, but disproportionately falls off against top comp, especially if outmatched in certain ways in matchup or on the day

...nowhere else, which imo people tend to overvalue in their eye tests of returning skills.

As with groundgames, return shot is about balancing
a) consistency (easy to measure by return rate)
b) strenght of shot (not easy to measure)


Eye tests are almost always biased towards b) and away from a)

But return is the most defensive shot there is. Your not going to do a ton of damage with it no matter who you are or who you play (in baseline matches, serve-volley is different). Sensible way of going about return is having a long term plan

Hypothetical, exxaggerated example. Say Andre Agassi and Mats Wilander are planning out a match. They figure they have to break 1/4 games or 2/7. Now how do they go about it?

Wilander retuns at 100%
- is in defensive position to start rally 80% of the time
- rallies go with opponent attacking, Wilander defending
- good lot of opponent winning by being attacking, a bit of him faltering while attacking, others where Wilander eventually neutralizes points (and Mats wins bulk of points from there), or Mats counter-attacking his way to a winning a few points

...long story short, Mats ends up breaking 1/4 and 2/7 games - mission accomplished, he wins

Agassi returns at 50% - so that's 50% points right there gone for him
- whatever he makes though is powerful, deep, wide
- wins few points with the return shot itself , otherwise starts good chunk of rallies from advantageous positions (from where he'll win bulk of points)

... long story short, Agasi ends up breaking 1/4 and 2/7 games - mission accomplished, he wins

Who is the better returner - Agassi or Wilander?
Who is the better court player - Agassi or Wilander?

The way I've framed the question, they're obviosly equal, but that's not my point. The point is get an eye test evaluation of all this and I'll bet overwhelming bulk of them favour Agassi and rave on about Agassi being so great, while barley acknowledging Wilander

This isn't a tennis matter, its a human perception thing. And while in my experience its people who have minimal or even 0 playing experience who most indulge (highlights watchers are another lovely group for this), they're not the only ones

How often have you seen a player straights setted and go and tell the press he was the better player, the match was on his racquet, his opponent didn't do anything, I lost the match by playing badly he didn't win it by playing well etc. Its not just the novice who see things like that. Jimmy Connors, Federer, Djokovic... I've heard all of them say things like this

There's a lovely vidoe of Nadal - a guy who most definately understands (as in, can articulate) how the game comes together, which is a quality that seems to be independent of playing ability - being asked about Gulbis' comments that Gulbis had been the better player in a pair of matches that Nadal had beaten him in at Indian Wells and Miami

Nadal shruggingly says something like "you hit every ball 120 miles an hour. whether it stays in court or not. if that's being the better player, maybe he was the better player"

Translation - he's an idiot, this isn't a video game, whatever helps you sleep at night - I'll take the win, thank you very much

...until you get to the level of GOAT baseliners like prime Big 3 or Borg, the gears associated with offensive capabilities and dynamism are overrated and what fundamentally matters most is the neutral-defensive gears of keeping the ball in play with as much quality as possible.

You got it, exactly

Keeping the bloody ball in play. So simple, so basic that the ability to do it better than others being so important becomes the elusive obvious
Baseline tennis is basically a simple matter - hit one more ball than your opponent

We all assess players quickly and same way. Hit with a guy for 10 minutes and end of it, we have a take on his game "good FH, weak BH" - whatever

These assessments, broken down means "hits it hard" or doesn't. Some extent, how good the shot looks

But by about a factor of 10, consistency is more important - and that doesn't come through in 10 minutes

1 of the best examples I can give you is Stefan Edberg's FH. I've statted 86 of his matches - and can count on 1 hand the number where the commentators don't mention his "weak FH"

His FH has match low UEs probably more often than any shot by anybody (and not because his BH is hugely error prone), and is one of the most secure shots I know. Its not a powerful or damaging shot though, ergo eye test take is its weak

Sampras and Becker can spray FHs all over the place in a given match (and did often), no one will ever find fault with their FH generally (at most, they'll say they had a bad day, but the shot is strong) - and if they go onto win the match (on back of things other than FH), probably not even that little criticism

Edberg? He can go 4 sets with 3 UEs - the next lowest groudie having something like 15, and these commentators will babble about his weak FH

 

[tudwell]

I don't know Alcs' game too well, but am a little surprised to see him top 1st return points. He does move very well for the return. Very impressive in his matches against Djoko

You should check out some more of his matches! He's actually quite possibly the best 1st serve returner on tour at the moment. Extraordinarily hard to ace – one of the toughest ever, probably, at least since players started blasting the serve as hard as they do now. (Looking at UTS's ace-against-% list, there's only one top player I see above Alcaraz who played the bulk of his career in the last 20 years – Monfils. There's a couple slightly lesser players too: Fucsovics and Cerundolo. But that's it.)

I interpret this a bit differently

Med returning at higher rate than the others (value) at cost of not returning with much heat (that is, he starts the rally from a more defensive or reactive position)

Most apparent comparing with Djokovic, who starts a lot of second return points on front foot, with his deep-down-the-middle returns
Equalizing for starting position, is Med worse than the other guys? My guess is he'd do better than Alcs, whose shot choices are more edgy.

A fair point. It's always risk vs. reward. But I'd caveat your final conclusion (Med > Alcs in play) and say that Med's steadiness may give him the edge on medium- to fast-paced hard courts, where Alcaraz is more easily rushed and his attacking blunted, but on clay, grass, and even slow, gritty hard I think Alcaraz just has too many tools, even with the dodgy shot selection at times. Med doesn't have the power to reliably hit through slower surfaces, his ball doesn't skid through the court as much so it's more easily attacked, etc. The risk-reward calculus changes and the streakier Alcaraz, in my estimation, comes out on top. (Alcaraz both broke and held serve at a superior clip on both clay and grass, compared to Medvedev this year. Surely that wouldn't be the case if he were the inferior court player?)

Hypothetical, exxaggerated example. Say Andre Agassi and Mats Wilander are planning out a match. They figure they have to break 1/4 games or 2/7. Now how do they go about it?

Wilander retuns at 100%
- is in defensive position to start rally 80% of the time
- rallies go with opponent attacking, Wilander defending
- good lot of opponent winning by being attacking, a bit of him faltering while attacking, others where Wilander eventually neutralizes points (and Mats wins bulk of points from there), or Mats counter-attacking his way to a winning a few points

...long story short, Mats ends up breaking 1/4 and 2/7 games - mission accomplished, he wins

Agassi returns at 50% - so that's 50% points right there gone for him
- whatever he makes though is powerful, deep, wide
- wins few points with the return shot itself , otherwise starts good chunk of rallies from advantageous positions (from where he'll win bulk of points)

... long story short, Agasi ends up breaking 1/4 and 2/7 games - mission accomplished, he wins

Who is the better returner - Agassi or Wilander?
Who is the better court player - Agassi or Wilander?

I suppose I'll play devil's advocate here.

If Wilander wins the majority of rallies from neutral and even a sizable lot from defensive positions...
...and Agassi has to have the initiative to win the bulk of rallies...
...then isn't it fair to say Wilander is the superior court player, in this hypothetical?

And if Wilander is the superior court player but they break serve at the same rate, isn't there a sense in which it's fair to say Agassi has the better return? Not return game, which would be equal overall, but the return as a standalone shot. If their returns were equal in quality, you'd expect Wilander to break more since he's going to win more points after the ball is in play. Agassi has to do more with the return in order to win the same amount (even if that means missing more of them).

I agree with the larger point that steadiness is often overlooked, though. I don't think I'm doing that here with Medvedev – as steady as his game is from behind the baseline, he does have a legitimate weakness, compared to most other top players, at ending points offensively. It doesn't matter how few errors you make – at some point you also have to proactively end points. Some days he's pretty good at it, many many days he's reticent to try in the first place, and still others he spews errors attempting. On surfaces where his opponents have the power to hit through the court and he doesn't, he starts to suffer, no matter how few unforced errors he makes.

 

[tudwell]

By the way, I'll just say this is easily the most interesting and nuanced conversation I've seen here or participated in during the off-season.