Recorded history of second serve points

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
I am examining here second serve points won and second serve return points won. No data is available prior to 1991. Over time, these stats have become an increasingly important reflection of dominance. Through much of the 1990s, first serve points won was more important than it is today. First serve percentages are down from the 1990s. Service breaks are less frequent than they used to be, for whatever reason, and so defending the second serve and attacking the opponent's second serve has become the main strategy for tennis success.

Code:
YEAR    RET          SV

1991    Bruguera      Stich
1992    Agassi        Stich
1993    Agassi        Muster
1994    Agassi        Chang
1995    Agassi        Agassi*
1996    Muster        Muster*
1997    Berasategui   Rusedski
1998    Agassi        Rios
1999    Agassi        Agassi*
2000    Byron Black   Grosjean
2001    Hewitt        Roddick
2002    Gaudio        Agassi
2003    Massu         Ferrero
2004    Nalbandian    Federer
2005    Nadal         Federer
2006    Davydenko     Federer
2007    Ferrer        Federer
2008    Nadal         Nadal*
2009    Nadal         Nadal*
2010    Nadal         Nadal*
2011    Djokovic      Nadal
2012    Djokovic      Federer
2013    Ferrer        Djokovic
2014    Djokovic      Federer
2015    Djokovic      Djokovic*
2016    Djokovic      Djokovic*

Finishing ranked number one in both stats has been accomplished three times prior to 2008, by Agassi twice and Muster once. In 1995, Agassi captured the AO trophy, got to the RG QF, the semi at Wimbledon, and the final at the USO. He finished the year ranked number two and it was his greatest year up to that time. Agassi topped that in 1999, capturing RG and the USO, the Wimbledon final and the fourth round at the AO. He finished ranked number one for the season, the only time he did so. Muster's 1996 wasn't even his best season, which indicates again how much more important the second serve has become.

Nadal topped both stats from 2008-2010, and in that time won non-RG majors for the first time. In 2008, he beat Federer at Wimbledon, in 2009 at the AO, and in 2010 beat Djokovic to capture the USO. If Djokovic tops both categories again this year, it would be the second time in recorded history that the same player has done so two consecutive years, and the fifth time a player has led both stats in the past nine seasons.

Andy Murray is an interesting reversal of Agassi. Murray has no real problem with his first serve points. Those numbers are better than Djokovic and Nadal and just off the top guys like Fed. On the other hand, Murray's second serve numbers are very low. It's easy for guys to pressure that shot. Agassi defended the second serve as well as anyone, but in the 1990s there were usually 30 or more guys ahead of him in the first serve points won list. Agassi improved his first serve in his later years considerably, getting close to the top 10.

For Djokovic's dominance to end, either he will have to decline in one or both of these categories, or a young player will have to emerge excelling in both areas.
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
I am examining here second serve points won and second serve return points won. No data is available prior to 1991. Over time, these stats have become an increasingly important reflection of dominance. Through much of the 1990s, first serve points won was more important than it is today. First serve percentages are down from the 1990s. Service breaks are less frequent than they used to be, for whatever reason, and so defending the second serve and attacking the opponent's second serve has become the main strategy for tennis success.

Code:
YEAR    RET          SV

1991    Bruguera      Stich
1992    Agassi        Stich
1993    Agassi        Muster
1994    Agassi        Chang
1995    Agassi        Agassi*
1996    Muster        Muster
1997    Berasategui   Rusedski
1998    Agassi        Rios
1999    Agassi        Agassi*
2000    Byron Black   Grosjean
2001    Hewitt        Roddick
2002    Gaudio        Agassi
2003    Massu         Ferrero
2004    Nalbandian    Federer
2005    Nadal         Federer
2006    Davydenko     Federer
2007    Ferrer        Federer
2008    Nadal         Nadal*
2009    Nadal         Nadal*
2010    Nadal         Nadal*
2011    Djokovic      Nadal
2012    Djokovic      Federer
2013    Ferrer        Djokovic
2014    Djokovic      Federer
2015    Djokovic      Djokovic*
2016    Djokovic      Djokovic*

Finishing ranked number one in both stats has been accomplished twice prior to 2008, and by Agassi both times. In 1995, Agassi captured the AO trophy, got to the RG QF, the semi at Wimbledon, and the final at the USO. He finished the year ranked number two and it was his greatest year up to that time. Agassi topped that in 1999, capturing RG and the USO, the Wimbledon final and the fourth round at the AO. He finished ranked number one for the season, the only time he did so.

Nadal topped both stats from 2008-2010, and in that time won non-RG majors for the first time. In 2008, he beat Federer at Wimbledon, in 2009 at the AO, and in 2010 beat Djokovic to capture the USO. If Djokovic tops both categories again this year, it would be the second time in recorded history that the same player has done so two consecutive years, and the fifth time a player has led both stats in the past nine seasons.

Andy Murray is an interesting reversal of Agassi. Murray has no real problem with his first serve points. Those numbers are better than Djokovic and Nadal and just off the top guys like Fed. On the other hand, Murray's second serve numbers are very low. It's easy for guys to pressure that shot. Agassi defended the second serve as well as anyone, but in the 1990s there were usually 30 or more guys ahead of him in the first serve points won list. Agassi improved his first serve in his later years considerably, getting close to the top 10.

For Djokovic's dominance to end, either he will have to decline in one or both of these categories, or a young player will have to emerge excelling in both areas.

Muster in 1996 as well?
 

Nonsense

Hall of Fame
I am examining here second serve points won and second serve return points won. No data is available prior to 1991. Over time, these stats have become an increasingly important reflection of dominance. Through much of the 1990s, first serve points won was more important than it is today. First serve percentages are down from the 1990s. Service breaks are less frequent than they used to be, for whatever reason, and so defending the second serve and attacking the opponent's second serve has become the main strategy for tennis success.

Code:
YEAR    RET          SV

1991    Bruguera      Stich
1992    Agassi        Stich
1993    Agassi        Muster
1994    Agassi        Chang
1995    Agassi        Agassi*
1996    Muster        Muster*
1997    Berasategui   Rusedski
1998    Agassi        Rios
1999    Agassi        Agassi*
2000    Byron Black   Grosjean
2001    Hewitt        Roddick
2002    Gaudio        Agassi
2003    Massu         Ferrero
2004    Nalbandian    Federer
2005    Nadal         Federer
2006    Davydenko     Federer
2007    Ferrer        Federer
2008    Nadal         Nadal*
2009    Nadal         Nadal*
2010    Nadal         Nadal*
2011    Djokovic      Nadal
2012    Djokovic      Federer
2013    Ferrer        Djokovic
2014    Djokovic      Federer
2015    Djokovic      Djokovic*
2016    Djokovic      Djokovic*

Finishing ranked number one in both stats has been accomplished three times prior to 2008, by Agassi twice and Muster once. In 1995, Agassi captured the AO trophy, got to the RG QF, the semi at Wimbledon, and the final at the USO. He finished the year ranked number two and it was his greatest year up to that time. Agassi topped that in 1999, capturing RG and the USO, the Wimbledon final and the fourth round at the AO. He finished ranked number one for the season, the only time he did so. Muster's 1996 wasn't even his best season, which indicates again how much more important the second serve has become.

Nadal topped both stats from 2008-2010, and in that time won non-RG majors for the first time. In 2008, he beat Federer at Wimbledon, in 2009 at the AO, and in 2010 beat Djokovic to capture the USO. If Djokovic tops both categories again this year, it would be the second time in recorded history that the same player has done so two consecutive years, and the fifth time a player has led both stats in the past nine seasons.

Andy Murray is an interesting reversal of Agassi. Murray has no real problem with his first serve points. Those numbers are better than Djokovic and Nadal and just off the top guys like Fed. On the other hand, Murray's second serve numbers are very low. It's easy for guys to pressure that shot. Agassi defended the second serve as well as anyone, but in the 1990s there were usually 30 or more guys ahead of him in the first serve points won list. Agassi improved his first serve in his later years considerably, getting close to the top 10.

For Djokovic's dominance to end, either he will have to decline in one or both of these categories, or a young player will have to emerge excelling in both areas.

These are always very interesting. Do you have the raw numbers behind it? Have they stayed consistent for the guys at the top or is there a decline there?
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
These are always very interesting. Do you have the raw numbers behind it? Have they stayed consistent for the guys at the top or is there a decline there?
The raw numbers are on the ATP site. The leaders every year in both stats are at ~ 60%. One year, somewhere between 1992-1995 I think, Agassi led the #2 guy in return points by 4, 60-56, which is a startling gap.

What has declined over time in real numbers and importance is first serve points won. In the early 1990s that list was a who's-who of the top guys, like Sampras, Lendl, Mac, Becker et al. The past few years, there's Fed, and the serve-bots, and then a lot of guys who won't be winning majors.
 

Nonsense

Hall of Fame
The raw numbers are on the ATP site. The leaders every year in both stats are at ~ 60%. One year, somewhere between 1992-1995 I think, Agassi led the #2 guy in return points by 4, 60-56, which is a startling gap.

What has declined over time in real numbers and importance is first serve points won. In the early 1990s that list was a who's-who of the top guys, like Sampras, Lendl, Mac, Becker et al. The past few years, there's Fed, and the serve-bots, and then a lot of guys who won't be winning majors.
Would be love if you could put those numbers up in a separate column there. Maybe along with +- whatever lead they have over the one in second in brackets.

Service breaks are less frequent than they used to be, for whatever reason
This was very interesting to me as well. Since I'd have assumed the faster surfaces would help the big servers first and then the amazing returners.

Also, I disagree. The competition should be between a one handed Nadal (since he's a lefty anyway), one legged Federer (no one could hop as gracefully as the man himself) and one eyed Djokovic (that champagne cork did do its work!).
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
The raw numbers are on the ATP site. The leaders every year in both stats are at ~ 60%. One year, somewhere between 1992-1995 I think, Agassi led the #2 guy in return points by 4, 60-56, which is a startling gap.

What has declined over time in real numbers and importance is first serve points won. In the early 1990s that list was a who's-who of the top guys, like Sampras, Lendl, Mac, Becker et al. The past few years, there's Fed, and the serve-bots, and then a lot of guys who won't be winning majors.
The problem is that winning 1st serves by itself doesn't mean anything. Or winning 2nd serves. You have to win both.

As I remember Fed won a lower % of 1st serves than Sampras but a higher % of 2nd serves, yet both were very close in winning service games. And it's the same with returning. You have to have a good balance, and that's all.

Nadal has lead the #2 guy on clay by absurd amounts on clay during his peak years...
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
The problem is that winning 1st serves by itself doesn't mean anything. Or winning 2nd serves. You have to win both.

As I remember Fed won a lower % of 1st serves than Sampras but a higher % of 2nd serves, yet both were very close in winning service games. And it's the same with returning. You have to have a good balance, and that's all.

Nadal has lead the #2 guy on clay by absurd amounts on clay during his peak years...
Which is why I was surprised to not see Sampras name in second serves %.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
OK I collected stats for the standout years, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2008, 2009 and 2010

(Year, Player, Return %, Serve %, Total %)

1995, Agassi, 60, 56, 116%
1996, Muster, 58, 54, 112%
1999, Agassi, 57, 56, 113%
2008, Nadal, 55, 60, 115%
2009, Nadal, 57, 56, 114%
2010, Nadal, 55, 60, 115%
2015, Djokovic, 57, 60, 117%

Looks like Djokovic's 2015 was the best. Quoting @Gary Duane here :)
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
The problem is that winning 1st serves by itself doesn't mean anything. Or winning 2nd serves. You have to win both.

As I remember Fed won a lower % of 1st serves than Sampras but a higher % of 2nd serves, yet both were very close in winning service games. And it's the same with returning. You have to have a good balance, and that's all.

Nadal has lead the #2 guy on clay by absurd amounts on clay during his peak years...

Which is why I was surprised to not see Sampras name in second serves %.

Surprise, 2009's best player Federer is 15th in the list of second serve points won that year! May be it is not that important ;) His % was not bad though, over 50%.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
OK I collected stats for the standout years, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2008, 2009 and 2010

(Year, Player, Return %, Serve %, Total %)

1995, Agassi, 60, 56, 116%
1996, Muster, 58, 54, 112%
1999, Agassi, 57, 56, 113%
2008, Nadal, 55, 60, 115%
2009, Nadal, 57, 56, 114%
2010, Nadal, 55, 60, 115%

Looks like Agassi's 1995 was the best. Quoting @Gary Duane here :)
You can't add these. You are going to get nonsense.

You are doing this: a/b + c/d = (a+c)/(b+d). It's simply bad math.

You need to check % of games won, and on surface, then break down whether those games were won more on 1st or 2nd serve. If you add % this way for someone like Sampras it's going to show him as a far poorer server than he was.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
You can't add these. You are going to get nonsense.

You are doing this: a/b + c/d = (a+c)/(b+d). It's simply bad math.

You need to check % of games won, and on surface, then break down whether those games were won more on 1st or 2nd serve. If you add % this way for someone like Sampras it's going to show him as a far poorer server than he was.

I dont get you. Why do you say I am doing (a + c)/(b+d) ? I am indeed doing a/b + c/d. I am adding "% of second serve points won" + "% of second serve return points won". This is very much like you do here, for e.g. 80 + 51 = 131 where 80% is % of serve held and 51% is pc of return points won. The sum gives the cumulative effect.
 

JSZ

Rookie
Something is wrong with simply adding them, how can Agassi win 116% of the second serve points?
Even as long ago as 1995 there were only 100% of points available to be won in any category.

Suppose somebody won a golden set, 6/0, did not serve a fault, and won every point.
Serve = 12/12 = 100%.
Return = 12/12 = 100%.
Total = 200% ... no ... whoops, that isn't right ... overall = 24/24 = 100%.

If a guy served M points and won m of them and received N points and won n of them then
Serve percent = (m/M)*100.
Return percent = (n/N)*100.
Overall = 100*(m+n)/(M+N).
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Something is wrong with simply adding them, how can Agassi win 116% of the second serve points?
Even as long ago as 1995 there were only 100% of points available to be won in any category.

Suppose somebody won a golden set, 6/0, did not serve a fault, and won every point.
Serve = 12/12 = 100%.
Return = 12/12 = 100%.
Total = 200% ... no ... whoops, that isn't right ... overall = 24/24 = 100%.

If a guy served M points and won m of them and received N points and won n of them then
Serve percent = (m/M)*100.
Return percent = (n/N)*100.
Overall = 100*(m+n)/(M+N).

Thanks for the math tips, but that's not what I meant. The sum gives you cumulative effect, of effectiveness on second serves in tennis. May be my "%" in the sum column was confusing but I guess the intended point was obvious. Basically you divide the sum % I quoted by 2 and you get the % of points won on all things second serve. Go through this link: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ine-atp-matchfacts.504845/page-5#post-8923785 to get an idea.
 

daddy

Legend
Something is wrong with simply adding them, how can Agassi win 116% of the second serve points?
Even as long ago as 1995 there were only 100% of points available to be won in any category.

Not correct. 116% is actually 116 percentage points out of 200 percentage available where 200 points in 100%. Conclusion - Agassi won 60% of the 100% available points on opponents 2nd serve points and 56% out of 100% available points on his own 2nd serve. In total, assuming that he played similar qty of points on his and opponents 2nd serve, he won 58% of all the points played on 2nd serve during that year or 58 points out of 100 when the point was started with a 2nd serve ( both his and his opponents ).

For precise stats we'd need exact number of points played on his 2nd serve and on all his opp's 2nd serves but it would be round about +/- 1% in total.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Murray's atrocious 2nd serve is a mystery, I don't understand it as in why he can't fix it. If it was just merely decent relative to the rest of his game, he'd have 4 or 5 slams by now imo.
 

daddy

Legend
That is exactly what you can't assume.

If I can not assume that I can try both of the opposite assumptions. Let us assume that he played :

a ) 3 times more points on his own 2nd serve than on the return of the opponents 2nd serve. The total percentage is close to 57%.
b ) if we assume that it was the other way around and that he played 3 times more points on opp's 2nd serve than on his own the total percentage is close to 59%.

Ergo as I said it is a question of =/- 1% but given that in tennis differences are not so large we can safely assume that percentage is round about 58%. Anyways I've done a lot of statistics in my life which is far from the basics we're talking about here and it is safe to say that you can relax and just trust me on this matter. Especially since you showed significant ignorance in one of the above posts where you did not understand the difference between real percentages and percentage points.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Here are some first serve points won numbers. I used 2012 as it is more representative of recent times than 2015, which looks aberrant next to the numbers from the past decade. 1996 was the second year of a trend in the direction of higher overall percentages that lasted at least several years.

Code:
2012 first serve points won

1            Milos Raonic    82%
2            Sam Querrey    80%
3            Roger Federer    78%
4            John Isner    78%
5            Tomas Berdych    77%
6            Nicolas Almagro    77%
7            Feliciano Lopez    77%
8            Jo-Wilfried Tsonga    76%
9            Novak Djokovic    75%
10            Janko Tipsarevic    75%
11            Juan Martin del Potro    75%
12            Alexandr Dolgopolov    75%
13            Kevin Anderson    75%
14            Rafael Nadal    75%
15            Tommy Haas    75%
16            Andy Murray    74%

1996 first serve points won

1            Goran Ivanisevic    85%
2            Pete Sampras    83%
3            Richard Krajicek    83%
4            Boris Becker    82%
5            Greg Rusedski    81%
6            Marc Rosset    81%
7            Mark Philippoussis    81%
8            Michael Chang    78%
9            Martin Damm    78%
10            Marc-Kevin Goellner    78%
11            Thomas Enqvist    77%
12            Yevgeny Kafelnikov    76%
13            Wayne Ferreira    76%
14            Todd Martin    76%
15            Daniel Vacek    76%
16            Guy Forget    76%

It's easy to see the large delta here. The first seven players in 1996 won over 80 percent of their first serve points. Many of those players contended for majors and the number one ranking. There aren't as many face cards in the 2012 deck, although obviously the big four are there.

I'm somewhat baffled about this. I know that the tennis establishment changed the conditions and weighed down the ball in the early 2000s, so maybe that's the explanation. Or, perhaps players just practice the serve less now than in the past.

In the OP, the first time the year end number one player appears on either column is Agassi in 1999. From then until the present, the YE#1 tops at least one of the two columns thirteen of the possible seventeen times.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I dont get you. Why do you say I am doing (a + c)/(b+d) ? I am indeed doing a/b + c/d. I am adding "% of second serve points won" + "% of second serve return points won". This is very much like you do here, for e.g. 80 + 51 = 131 where 80% is % of serve held and 51% is pc of return points won. The sum gives the cumulative effect.
I read your data wrong last night. :(

I don't know what I thought - something about 1st and 2nd serves. But if you are adding total % of service points won and total % of return points won, yes, you will be close.

There is a small error coming from the fact that the amount of games are not the same, though they are quite close. So you will be close.

To get a precise figure you need all points won on serve + all points won on return over all points played, which is a bit of a pain to calculate. You need a lot of data points.

You then get a figure which is somewhere between 50 and 60% most of the time. Your figure is double, and I have done it that way too when I did not have a calculation set up in a spread sheet...

So sorry about that!
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
The problem is that when you add % of service games to % of return games you are dealing with roughly the same amount of games. Even this is a bit sloppy because the ratio can vary. Sometimes it is virtually the same, but generally players serve a few more games than they return. But the difference is not very great.

To get a really accurate figure you need to use a more complicated formula.

However, when dealing with % of 1st serves won and % of 2nd serves won you are not dealing with the same number of serves for both. Players don't serve 50% 1sts serves out of all the serves.

I was dealing with % of second serve return points and % of second serve points. It is pretty much what you do here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ine-atp-matchfacts.504845/page-5#post-8923785
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I was dealing with % of second serve return points and % of second serve points. It is pretty much what you do here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ine-atp-matchfacts.504845/page-5#post-8923785
The point I was making is that you can add to figures if they are two fractions with the same denoninator.

If 80% is 80/100 and 40% is 40/100 games - meaning that you played 200 games - then adding 80+40 works. You won 120 out of 200 games. That's 60% of games. If we agree to use 120 as a useful way to compare that's fine, because every computation is going to be double. If I say that Nadal was 136 in one year, we both know that we are really talking about 68% of all games.

In reality the number of games played on serve and return are seldom the same, but they are close. Usually winning players serve more games than they return. The difference tends to decrease for players who are extremely good returners.

So when you add two % figures the answer will be close to right.

To computer it properly you need all games played, then the total number of games won on serve and on return. It ends up like this:

s games won + r games won
----------------------------------
all games played.

If you are comparing other such figures (percentages) you have to make sure that in both cases the number of points played is the same or very close.

I'm no longer sure exactly what it is you are adding here. But that's the problem I was talking about...
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I was dealing with % of second serve return points and % of second serve points. It is pretty much what you do here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ine-atp-matchfacts.504845/page-5#post-8923785
Making it shorter: are both players serving the same number of 2nd serves? Or close?

It seems to me that those figures might be quite different.

Let's look at a single match. Player A wins easily and is winning far more points than player B. Player A is regularly winning games easy - lots of 40/0 and 40/15 games won with one more point.

Player B is struggling. Lots of deuce games. He's serving more in general. So he's probably hitting more 2nd serves than player A. So your two percentages are computed from a different number of total 2nd serves hit. I would think this would be so...
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
The point I was making is that you can add to figures if they are two fractions with the same denoninator.

If 80% is 80/100 and 40% is 40/100 games - meaning that you played 200 games - then adding 80+40 works. You won 120 out of 200 games. That's 60% of games. If we agree to use 120 as a useful way to compare that's fine, because every computation is going to be double. If I say that Nadal was 136 in one year, we both know that we are really talking about 68% of all games.

In reality the number of games played on serve and return are seldom the same, but they are close. Usually winning players serve more games than they return. The difference tends to decrease for players who are extremely good returners.

So when you add two % figures the answer will be close to right.

To computer it properly you need all games played, then the total number of games won on serve and on return. It ends up like this:

s games won + r games won
----------------------------------
all games played.

If you are comparing other such figures (percentages) you have to make sure that in both cases the number of points played is the same or very close.

I'm no longer sure exactly what it is you are adding here. But that's the problem I was talking about...

I see you have edited your post since then. Indeed I am adding percentages as well, so the denominator is a common 100 :) When I say Agassi has won 60% of points on his second serves and 40% on his opponent's second serves, then 100 gives an estimate of his effectiveness on all things second serves. Which is valuable. Of course the player has to play a reasonable amount of times in a year which is a safe assumption given the names in the list.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Making it shorter: are both players serving the same number of 2nd serves? Or close?

It seems to me that those figures might be quite different.

Let's look at a single match. Player A wins easily and is winning far more points than player B. Player A is regularly winning games easy - lots of 40/0 and 40/15 games won with one more point.

Player B is struggling. Lots of deuce games. He's serving more in general. So he's probably hitting more 2nd serves than player A. So your two percentages are computed from a different number of total 2nd serves hit. I would think this would be so...

I see your point. I just dont think it makes a difference to the key information we get from the stat over a course of the year.. Equal sample size is a good idea for any stat comparison, right? Doesnt matter much if it is going to be reasonably big for interpretation.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I see your point. I just dont think it makes a difference to the key information we get from the stat over a course of the year.. Equal sample size is a good idea for any stat comparison, right? Doesnt matter much if it is going to be reasonably big for interpretation.
Can you give me an example of the figures you are using?

I'm not talking about sample size. I'm talking about total number of points served on 2nd serve by both players. If those two figures are very close to the same then there would be no problem.

If you are talking about % of 2nd serve returns by Djokovic against % 2nd serves won by Djokovic, for example, he would have to serve very close to the same number 2nd serves for a year (or career) as his opponents. To me that seems like a huge assumption without numbers to back it up.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Can you give me an example of the figures you are using?

I'm not talking about sample size. I'm talking about total number of points served on 2nd serve by both players. If those two figures are very close to the same then there would be no problem.

If you are talking about % of 2nd serve returns by Djokovic against % 2nd serves won by Djokovic, for example, he would have to serve very close to the same number 2nd serves for a year (or career) as his opponents. To me that seems like a huge assumption without numbers to back it up.

No it doesnt have to be to get a reasonable idea of their level if the sample size is big enough. I will explain what I mean by sample size.

Let's say player A served 1000 second serves in a year of which he won 600 points. He faces 500 second serves and wins 250 of those on returns.
Player B served 2000 second serves in a year and won 1000 of it. He faced 4000 second serves of which he won 1000.

So player A has % effect of 60 + 50, whereas player B has 50 + 25. What I mean is the sample size of 1000, 2000, 4000 etc are sufficiently large enough here to get a idea who was more efficient on second serves in general which is player A.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Here are some first serve points won numbers. I used 2012 as it is more representative of recent times than 2015, which looks aberrant next to the numbers from the past decade. 1996 was the second year of a trend in the direction of higher overall percentages that lasted at least several years.

Code:
2012 first serve points won

1            Milos Raonic    82%
2            Sam Querrey    80%
3            Roger Federer    78%
4            John Isner    78%
5            Tomas Berdych    77%
6            Nicolas Almagro    77%
7            Feliciano Lopez    77%
8            Jo-Wilfried Tsonga    76%
9            Novak Djokovic    75%
10            Janko Tipsarevic    75%
11            Juan Martin del Potro    75%
12            Alexandr Dolgopolov    75%
13            Kevin Anderson    75%
14            Rafael Nadal    75%
15            Tommy Haas    75%
16            Andy Murray    74%

1996 first serve points won

1            Goran Ivanisevic    85%
2            Pete Sampras    83%
3            Richard Krajicek    83%
4            Boris Becker    82%
5            Greg Rusedski    81%
6            Marc Rosset    81%
7            Mark Philippoussis    81%
8            Michael Chang    78%
9            Martin Damm    78%
10            Marc-Kevin Goellner    78%
11            Thomas Enqvist    77%
12            Yevgeny Kafelnikov    76%
13            Wayne Ferreira    76%
14            Todd Martin    76%
15            Daniel Vacek    76%
16            Guy Forget    76%

It's easy to see the large delta here. The first seven players in 1996 won over 80 percent of their first serve points. Many of those players contended for majors and the number one ranking. There aren't as many face cards in the 2012 deck, although obviously the big four are there.

I'm somewhat baffled about this. I know that the tennis establishment changed the conditions and weighed down the ball in the early 2000s, so maybe that's the explanation. Or, perhaps players just practice the serve less now than in the past.

In the OP, the first time the year end number one player appears on either column is Agassi in 1999. From then until the present, the YE#1 tops at least one of the two columns thirteen of the possible seventeen times.
The game has shifted more towards the return for sure. Slower courts and balls have a lot to do with it for sure although improved string tech has helped consistency on the serve (particularly on the second) and has enabled top players to more consistently win service games. So even though serves are worse, service games are better.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
The game has shifted more towards the return for sure. Slower courts and balls have a lot to do with it for sure although improved string tech has helped consistency on the serve (particularly on the second) and has enabled top players to more consistently win service games. So even though serves are worse, service games are better.
Well, the high-powered racquets and control string used these days should make first serves more accurate, and thus more devastating, than in the past. It should be easier for everybody to win first serve points, because unlike the return, the first serve is an offensive shot, with the serving player in control of the point from the start. And yet, the opposite is the case, and I don't know why.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
No it doesnt have to be to get a reasonable idea of their level if the sample size is big enough. I will explain what I mean by sample size.

Let's say player A served 1000 second serves in a year of which he won 600 points. He faces 500 second serves and wins 250 of those on returns.
Player B served 2000 second serves in a year and won 1000 of it. He faced 4000 second serves of which he won 1000.

So player A has % effect of 60 + 50, whereas player B has 50 + 25. What I mean is the sample size of 1000, 2000, 4000 etc are sufficiently large enough here to get a idea who was more efficient on second serves in general which is player A.
There is actually a pretty big difference between the number of 2nd serves and the number of 2nd serve returns.

This year Novak has served 645 2nd serves but has faced 811 2nd serves. Adding the two percentages is sloppy math, but it mostly works because both percentages are not terribly far away from 50%. So for a quick and dirty comparison it seems to be OK. ;)
 

JSZ

Rookie
Maybe my "%" in the sum column was confusing ...

Yes, that is what I was objecting to, the "%" label on the total. Sorry for being a nitpicker, I didn't mean to be annoying.

56 percentage points plus 60 percentage points = 116 percentage points out of 200 percentage points.
Expressed as a percentage that is 100 * 116 / 200 = 58%.
Same number as averaging the two.

And the post above "Novak has served 645 2nd serves but has faced 811 2nd serves" ... maybe it shows what a good receive game Novak has, he is forcing his opponents to play longer games on their serve?
 
Last edited:

JSZ

Rookie
Well, the high-powered racquets and control string used these days should make first serves more accurate, and thus more devastating, than in the past. It should be easier for everybody to win first serve points, because unlike the return, the first serve is an offensive shot, with the serving player in control of the point from the start. And yet, the opposite is the case, and I don't know why.

I think players could serve just as fast with the old wooden racquets. Didn't they do a test with Mark Philippoussis and he did that? I have seen 140 mph serve speed quoted from wooden racquet days.

The new racquets and poly strings make it easier to return serve and also make it easier to pass a net rusher.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
I think players could serve just as fast with the old wooden racquets. Didn't they do a test with Mark Philippoussis and he did that? I have seen 140 mph serve speed quoted from wooden racquet days.

The new racquets and poly strings make it easier to return serve and also make it easier to pass a net rusher.
I believe Sampras said his serve is harder with RPM Blast. Then, there's the action/spin and placement effect. Hard to believe string that adds control and spin to every groundstroke would have no effect on the serve.
 

JSZ

Rookie
Let us assume that he played :
a ) 3 times more points on his own 2nd serve than on the return of the opponents 2nd serve. The total percentage is close to 57%.
b ) if we assume that it was the other way around and that he played 3 times more points on opp's 2nd serve than on his own the total percentage is close to 59%.

That is interesting, I worked it through and you are right. I would have thought the assumption made a bigger difference.

Cheers.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
You can't add these. You are going to get nonsense.

You are doing this: a/b + c/d = (a+c)/(b+d). It's simply bad math.

You need to check % of games won, and on surface, then break down whether those games were won more on 1st or 2nd serve. If you add % this way for someone like Sampras it's going to show him as a far poorer server than he was.

Correction, Djokovic's 2015 is the best year so far, not Agassi 1995. Updated my post.
 
Top