Simple math- why don't players like Karlovic do two 1st serves?

kragster

kragster

Hall of Fame
It always blows my mind why big servers with bad ground games don't do two first serves. Case in point , karlovic match with federer:

These were karlovic's stats:

1st serve % : 71%
1st serve points won: 76%
2nd serve points won: 34 %


What this means is that if karlovic had chosen to hit his 2nd serve like his 1st serve then the serve would have been in 71% of the time and of that, he would have won the point 76% of the time. Multiply the two and you get 50% points won!! Much higher than the 34% he ended up winning!
 
That's actually a good point LOL. Interesting how conventions can limit people.

Wonder if Karlovic can win a slam if he takes your advice.
 
Because then (based on those stats) 1 in 3 of his service points will be a double fault, too many free points.
 
Seany said:
Because then (based on those stats) 1 in 3 of his service points will be a double fault, too many free points.
Click to expand...

Actually it would be more like 8% of his service points would be double faults. So 1 in every 12 points.

Should add though that we can't really know how this would work because should he serve first serves every time, he would likely wear out faster and his first serve percentage would drop some, among other things.
 
Oftentimes, applied in a real world, statistics and theoritical ideas just don't apply, add up, or even remotely makes sense.
This point...seemingly logical, right?
Assuming we all play tennis, we know that there is little pressure during a first serve attempt, while lots of pressure is applied by ourselves during a second serve attempt. So a second serve attempt using a first serve would not go in 70 odd percent, but would maybe barely clear 40. Pressure is huge, if you ever play a serious tournament.
Sometimes, as in often the case during fast serve contests, the server misses his first 5 attempts, getting NO readings, and has to modify technique to get even ONE serve into the service court. This coming from observations of at least 30 guys trying to post good numbers.
And of course, Roger, on the other side of the net, is pretty certain the second serve attempt is a last straw make or break thing, and any kind of return would be adaquate. A first serve return, something somewhat aggressive is needed, as a weak return would allow Dr.Ivo to take a fair dinkum swipe at the ball. Knowing Dr.Ivo is not the most consistent groundstroker on tour, he would tend to tighten up on his second serve points.
 
He wouldn't hit the same percentage hitting his second as a first. There is increased mental pressure to get the serve in or lose the point.
 
LeeD said:
Oftentimes, applied in a real world, statistics and theoritical ideas just don't apply, add up, or even remotely makes sense.
This point...seemingly logical, right?
Assuming we all play tennis, we know that there is little pressure during a first serve attempt, while lots of pressure is applied by ourselves during a second serve attempt. So a second serve attempt using a first serve would not go in 70 odd percent, but would maybe barely clear 40. Pressure is huge, if you ever play a serious tournament.
Sometimes, as in often the case during fast serve contests, the server misses his first 5 attempts, getting NO readings, and has to modify technique to get even ONE serve into the service court. This coming from observations of at least 30 guys trying to post good numbers.
And of course, Roger, on the other side of the net, is pretty certain the second serve attempt is a last straw make or break thing, and any kind of return would be adaquate. A first serve return, something somewhat aggressive is needed, as a weak return would allow Dr.Ivo to take a fair dinkum swipe at the ball. Knowing Dr.Ivo is not the most consistent groundstroker on tour, he would tend to tighten up on his second serve points.
Click to expand...

Worked for Sampras. He averaged 115mph on his second serve against Agassi in the 2001 USO quarter final. Consider Federer averages 115mph on his first serve.

He did hit a lot of double faults, typically about 15 in a five set match, but it worked.

Didn't really work for Ivanisevic though, in 1999 he hit something like over a thousand aces and 700 double faults.

It all depends on if you can handle the pressure.

It's definitely worth trying though. Becker hit a big second serve too, not like Sampras did though.
 
Methinks Sampras was an anomoly.
He hit his first serves similar to his seconds, so had an advantage over Dr.Ivo there.
115 for a fast spin serve for Sampras is something, but not extraordinary. I'm pretty sure Sampras COULD (but didn't) flatten out his serves and go right into the lowest 150's. His normal top/slice first serves regularly went into the lower 130's, and we know he puts in TONS of spin, which could be flattened out into more ball speed.
Same for Edberg. His 110 first serve top/slices or pure tops were similar to his 85 top/slice, top, ortop/twist seconds, so he COULD and often DID hit first serves as his seconds.
But Dr.Ivo has more pronounced body control issues. Power, not precision, is that man's game. Second serves is all about precision.
 
LeeD said:
Oftentimes, applied in a real world, statistics and theoritical ideas just don't apply, add up, or even remotely makes sense.
This point...seemingly logical, right?
Assuming we all play tennis, we know that there is little pressure during a first serve attempt, while lots of pressure is applied by ourselves during a second serve attempt. So a second serve attempt using a first serve would not go in 70 odd percent, but would maybe barely clear 40. Pressure is huge, if you ever play a serious tournament.
Sometimes, as in often the case during fast serve contests, the server misses his first 5 attempts, getting NO readings, and has to modify technique to get even ONE serve into the service court. This coming from observations of at least 30 guys trying to post good numbers.
And of course, Roger, on the other side of the net, is pretty certain the second serve attempt is a last straw make or break thing, and any kind of return would be adaquate. A first serve return, something somewhat aggressive is needed, as a weak return would allow Dr.Ivo to take a fair dinkum swipe at the ball. Knowing Dr.Ivo is not the most consistent groundstroker on tour, he would tend to tighten up on his second serve points.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on! Great post. It is very likely that Ivo would not be able to hit his second serve like a "first" serve simply because the pressure of the moment will be too great. Also, remember that playing a great returner like Federer also means that Federer is able to return some of Ivo's first serves with great aplomb, so the end result might be the same (ie a defeat for poor Ivo).... :(
 
I agree that typically pressure on the 2nd serve is much higher but thats something that can be controlled - IF the player plays and practices for that kind of gameplan. And imagine the pressure the opponent feels, knowing both serves are bombs. Federer himself said vs karlovic that he was hoping/waiting for a 2nd serve

Obviously this is a high risk strategy that would spectacularly fail sometimes. But vs the best returners in the game like Fed/nadal/djokovic, what do you have to lose ?

Its like the match roddick and rafa played 2 years ago when Roddick decided to whack the ball against Nadal on every point. It worked! High probability tennis only works when you are playing someone either worse than you or just slightly better than you. When you are playing someone MUCH better, high risk is the only way to go.
 
Last edited:
roundiesee said:
Absolutely spot on! Great post. It is very likely that Ivo would not be able to hit his second serve like a "first" serve simply because the pressure of the moment will be too great. Also, remember that playing a great returner like Federer also means that Federer is able to return some of Ivo's first serves with great aplomb, so the end result might be the same (ie a defeat for poor Ivo).... :(
Click to expand...

We already know karlovic won 76% of first serve points . S more often than not karlovic is successful when he lands that first serve. That's the whole point. As good as federer is, he ( or any other top player) can do much less against the karlovic first serve than they can againts the karlovic second serve . I can almost guarantee that if you go back and look at all of karlovics matches, his 1st serve winninh % will almost always be above 70%!
 
Last edited:
What has gotten Dr.Ivo as far as he's gone?
Big first serve, almost hard to see.
Big SPIN second serve, goes in, gives himself a chance to hit another ball. He can choose to whack it 100mph, or dink a slice 50, but he CAN CHOOSE.
When given no choices, the outlook can be pretty bleak.
 
LeeD said:
Methinks Sampras was an anomoly.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Sampras was able to handle the pressure. That, as much or more than his serve, is why he has 14 majors in the trophy case and a pile of $$$$ in the bank.

I'm sure Karlovic has already considered this strategy; may have even tried it out at smaller events or Challengers and realized he couldn't pull it off.
 
Yeah, once again those numbers, like 2 plus 2, doesn't always add up to 4.
Fed don't know FOR SURE, whether Dr.Ivo's first serve is going in.
Dr.Ivo has favorite spots, like all players, to place his first serves. For his second serves, he can't place it there consistently enough to make it worth his efforts. So second serve placements are more predictable.
Dr.Ivo can miss a first serve, and get another chance. This takes loads of pressure off him, allowing his natural form to take hold of his body, and get high percentages with speed and placement.
Dr.Ivo is superman at times, but is also prone to human tendencies. Second serves tend to bring pressure, and when you have such a long body, there are many miles of neurons you need to keep under control.
 
LeeD said:
Methinks Sampras was an anomoly.
He hit his first serves similar to his seconds, so had an advantage over Dr.Ivo there.
115 for a fast spin serve for Sampras is something, but not extraordinary. I'm pretty sure Sampras COULD (but didn't) flatten out his serves and go right into the lowest 150's. His normal top/slice first serves regularly went into the lower 130's, and we know he puts in TONS of spin, which could be flattened out into more ball speed.
Same for Edberg. His 110 first serve top/slices or pure tops were similar to his 85 top/slice, top, ortop/twist seconds, so he COULD and often DID hit first serves as his seconds.
But Dr.Ivo has more pronounced body control issues. Power, not precision, is that man's game. Second serves is all about precision.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's true, but Karlovic could do what Becker did and really go for his second Kick serve.

Actually, on the other hand, maybe not. I mean yeah Sampras kicked his serve in to some extent always, but on the other hand Karlovic is 6'10'', so even when he flattens it out he has the same window Sampras had with his kick serves over the net. He gets 70% of his first serves in like Sampras did.

Then again, it all comes down to mentality, Sampras could handle the pressure, Becker typically hit more double faults than aces in his Wimbledon finals, and Ivanisevic double faulted like crazy when he tried to copy Sampras. But Sampras played that way all the time on every shot, he went for insane winners on his forehand, backhand, volley etc, he made lots and lots of unforced errors, but typically when it mattered he made the shot. For the same reason typically when it mattered he made his big second serves, he finished on a 122mph second serve ace against Agassi in both the 1999 Wimbledon final and that 2001 quarter final.

So it's at least worth trying I suppose, maybe he could handle the pressure and maybe he couldn't, but at least give it a go because it just might work.
 
Something I really don't understand with Karlovic is why he spends any time at the baseline at all. He should just go straight to the net. He covers the net very well and actually has excellent volleys. He can't cover the baseline at all and loses close to 100% of the points he plays there. He should just move straight in as often as possible like McEnroe. He's so tall he could probably cover the net from no mans land.
 
LeeD said:
What has gotten Dr.Ivo as far as he's gone?
Big first serve, almost hard to see.
Big SPIN second serve, goes in, gives himself a chance to hit another ball. He can choose to whack it 100mph, or dink a slice 50, but he CAN CHOOSE.
When given no choices, the outlook can be pretty bleak.
Click to expand...

That's fine vs all the other opposition right. But vs the likes of Fedal, is there ANY way Ivo wins playing a normal game? Why not play high risk tennis especially when you take a risk in the department that you are best at. I'm not saying karlovic should start pounding his backhand. But a weapon honed and perfected over the years, why not unleash its fully fury when it's your only shot.
 
I've watched Dr.Ivo play a few doubles matches. Yes, he volleys just fine during a typical scenario.
I think he's afraid of getting hit, and his slow to recover reflexes would leave him susceptible after most stretched volleys. He would have been great in the '70's, but some newer guys seem to be able to hit some pretty hard precise passing dippers lately.
Like most strategy, when faced with a longlimbed court coverage guy, you go straight at him, negating his reach advantage. Then it's pure reflex, you against a tall, gangly guy. Who would you pick to win out?
 
Seany said:
Because then (based on those stats) 1 in 3 of his service points will be a double fault, too many free points.
Click to expand...

You make a very good point, but if you don't have a ground game you are out of the point anyway.

I have alway looked at serves are free throws in basketball. If you miss the first one, you don't make a radical change to your shooting motion on the second attempt. It's just a small correction. I know nerves play a major factor in tennis especially on the second serve. But if I was Ivo, I would consider dropping the hammer on my second serve.
 
LeeD said:
I've watched Dr.Ivo play a few doubles matches. Yes, he volleys just fine during a typical scenario.
I think he's afraid of getting hit, and his slow to recover reflexes would leave him susceptible after most stretched volleys. He would have been great in the '70's, but some newer guys seem to be able to hit some pretty hard precise passing dippers lately.
Like most strategy, when faced with a longlimbed court coverage guy, you go straight at him, negating his reach advantage. Then it's pure reflex, you against a tall, gangly guy. Who would you pick to win out?
Click to expand...

I agree, but he is so incredibly bad from the baseline I think he would do better at the net regardless of his weaknesses there. He can at least play the net and volley well there. I can't remember him breaking anyone in a normal service game (which he always plays from the baseline) ever. He does well to win a single point. Which is reflected in his record in tie breaks: 48% win-52% loss.
 
Takes different energy to play net consistently and well.
Baselining takes energy, of course, but everyone has that from defending against the serve.
Initiating a net game is a game onto itself, one reason few players of any level do it anymore. The need for different physical and mental skills while playing mostly net could detract from Dr.Ivo's serve.
Assuming he has coaching, I'm sure it's been tried and dumped plenty of times. Dr.Ivo doesn't have baseline speed. He certainly is not the quickest player on tour, and quickness is the key element to successful net play.
 
LeeD said:
Takes different energy to play net consistently and well.
Baselining takes energy, of course, but everyone has that from defending against the serve.
Initiating a net game is a game onto itself, one reason few players of any level do it anymore. The need for different physical and mental skills while playing mostly net could detract from Dr.Ivo's serve.
Assuming he has coaching, I'm sure it's been tried and dumped plenty of times. Dr.Ivo doesn't have baseline speed. He certainly is not the quickest player on tour, and quickness is the key element to successful net play.
Click to expand...

The taller you are the less quick you have to be. You don't have to get as close to the net to cover it , you don't have to be as fast for running back for overheads.

Rod Laver - McEnroe - Edberg - Becker

They are listed in order of both height and speed.

Ivo plays the net very very well on serve, and loses virtually all baseline points both on serve and return. He has a good slice for approaching and a powerful forehand for approaching and doesn't even have to get that close to hit his first volley because he is so ridiculously tall.
 
The blessing of tall is the reach.
The curse of tall is the lack of quickness and the inability to defend inside your body.
And if he stays a few feet inside the service line, think about how many low and half volleys he would have to face, something beyond his comfort zone.
Not sure if he can cover lobs any better than say a Stich. Dr.Ivo is much slower, and slower to react, slower first step, and crabwalking might cause clumsy to be exposed.
But you should contact him and express your ideas. He might embrace them, or he might not.
 
LeeD said:
The blessing of tall is the reach.
The curse of tall is the lack of quickness and the inability to defend inside your body.
And if he stays a few feet inside the service line, think about how many low and half volleys he would have to face, something beyond his comfort zone.
Not sure if he can cover lobs any better than say a Stich. Dr.Ivo is much slower, and slower to react, slower first step, and crabwalking might cause clumsy to be exposed.
But you should contact him and express your ideas. He might embrace them, or he might not.
Click to expand...

No I don't mean you stand further back from the net, just that you can hit your first volley further back from the net. Then they can actually get in much closer because they're harder to lob, getting in close makes it harder to dip the ball down at his feet.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic about getting in touch with him or not.
 
Last edited:
Not sarcastic. I"ve talked to lots of pros from older days, and they seem open to suggestions, at least on the surface, and seldom give you negative feedback.
A lob attempt need only be a foot higher to clear Dr.Ivo's racket than most any other 6' net rusher. Coupled with the slow feet of Dr.Ivo, that's enough for him to lose most successful lob attempts.
Player height has nothing to do with volleys from the service line or behind. In fact, being shorter is often an advantage, as shorter players get more high volleys, and high volleys are putaway volleys for most pros. Taller players would play the same ball as a low volley, which is harder to be aggressive with.
Getting really close to the net has huge disadvantages for player's of great height and reach. Once again, they can't defend inside their reach, and their reaction times are very slow, in general, and especially compared to shorter athletes.
 
Bolt is NOT quick.
He is fast.
He will NEVER play NFL football, because he doesn't change direction well, compared to wide recievers.
His strength in the 100 is the final 20 yards. That is speed, not quickness.
Quickness is response time off the mark.
 
LeeD said:
Bolt is NOT quick.
He is fast.
He will NEVER play NFL football, because he doesn't change direction well, compared to wide recievers.
His strength in the 100 is the final 20 yards. That is speed, not quickness.
Quickness is response time off the mark.
Click to expand...

pretty sure Bolt would wipe the floor with any NFL player off the mark

but agree Bolt would struggle changing direction

also Bolt said he wants to try play soccer professionally after Olympics
 
Speed is only one asset in football.
Not only quickness, but toughness at the line of scrimmage is a requirement. NFL corners would hit him low at the snap, and disrupt his timing. His height makes his legs a huge target.
Soccer? I say, no chance. Quick feet, change of direction, bursts of speed is more important than 200 meter speed.
 
I have always wondered this as well.

I guess for one, the thing is that it isn't just math. Perhaps he will miss more second serves than first serves because of his mental pressure. On the other hand, against the top players, I think that would work. I have always thought in could work pretty well for some players if they win below 50% on second have a relatively high 1st serve % (above 65-70) and can win a lot of points with their first serve.
 
Jim Courier addressed this during the Federer-Karlovic match.

One commentator expressed that if Karlovic hit two first serves, he would win more service points.

While it might be true that he'd win more service points on average, Courier reckons the reason tennis players dont hit two first serves is because of the tennis scoring system.

The 'sample size' of a service game is too small to allow the risk of double faulting 3 times in a game. This wouldn't be true if tennis had a different scoring system, such as one like basketball.

--

Basically, if tennis had a scoring system such as a tiebreak to 100, then two first serves would be a viable tactic. But since Karlovic's lifeblood is holding his serve, he shouldn't allow the chance that he will double fault at random times and put pressure on himself.
 
doesn't karlovic hit his second serve with 115 mph or so?

ivanisevic used to hit a lot of aces with the second. but also his fair share of double faults.
 
******** said:
Jim Courier addressed this during the Federer-Karlovic match.

One commentator expressed that if Karlovic hit two first serves, he would win more service points.

While it might be true that he'd win more service points on average, Courier reckons the reason tennis players dont hit two first serves is because of the tennis scoring system.

The 'sample size' of a service game is too small to allow the risk of double faulting 3 times in a game. This wouldn't be true if tennis had a different scoring system, such as one like basketball.

--

Basically, if tennis had a scoring system such as a tiebreak to 100, then two first serves would be a viable tactic. But since Karlovic's lifeblood is holding his serve, he shouldn't allow the chance that he will double fault at random times and put pressure on himself.
Click to expand...

But for Karlovic, wouldn't the risk to have three rallies in a row be almost as bad as 3 double faults?
 
joeri888 said:
But for Karlovic, wouldn't the risk to have three rallies in a row be almost as bad as 3 double faults?
Click to expand...

Against the top guys this could be true, but his second serve is effective enough against the lower ranked guys and put him in an offensive position to start the rally.

Also, players will occasionally miss first serves in patches, so doing this and double faulting many times will not do good things to your confidence.
 
******** said:
Against the top guys this could be true, but his second serve is effective enough against the lower ranked guys and put him in an offensive position to start the rally.

Also, players will occasionally miss first serves in patches, so doing this and double faulting many times will not do good things to your confidence.
Click to expand...

Well, that last thing I acknowledge. Whether you can do it mentally is a different story. But the sample of a service game might be big enough to take the risk if your chances are bigger. After a first serve you just need to ask yourself what the bigger chance to win the point is. Hitting another first, with the chance of a double, or going for a little less. Against the top guys, if you can mentally do it, you can completely take their tennis game away and it can certainly help I think.
 
Ivo should hit more first serves on 2nd serve - but he should also hit more second serves on first serve. Serving is like pitching, and no pitcher would always throw a first pitch fastball and 2nd pitch curve. Opponents guess on Dr. Ivo's serve. If he mixed his first serve up more, both speed and placement, it would be more effective, and opponents would have to guess on both speed and placement.
 
******** said:
Jim Courier addressed this during the Federer-Karlovic match.

One commentator expressed that if Karlovic hit two first serves, he would win more service points.

While it might be true that he'd win more service points on average, Courier reckons the reason tennis players dont hit two first serves is because of the tennis scoring system.

The 'sample size' of a service game is too small to allow the risk of double faulting 3 times in a game. This wouldn't be true if tennis had a different scoring system, such as one like basketball.

--

Basically, if tennis had a scoring system such as a tiebreak to 100, then two first serves would be a viable tactic. But since Karlovic's lifeblood is holding his serve, he shouldn't allow the chance that he will double fault at random times and put pressure on himself.
Click to expand...

This line of thinking only really seems reasonable if you focus only on the risk of going for the 2nd serve (like a 1st) and ignore the risk of continuing to do what you have been doing (normal 2nd serve).

If it's the 2nd or 3rd set and Karlovic has been paying attention, he should be able to know that if he keeps doing what he's been doing, he has about a 1 in 3 chance of winning the point given that he knows he has to hit a 2nd serve, and he keeps hitting the same kind of 2nd serve he has been. That is actually a pretty huge risk to be taking, even if he is taking it by being passive.

Going for a 2nd first serve obviously carries a higher risk of double fault, but the risk must be balanced against the knowledge that even when he double faults, he would have lost the point 2/3rds of the time had he served a normal 2nd serve anyways.

I understand that with the increased pressure maybe Karlovic' serve % would drop, but even if his serve % dropped to 60% on 2nd serves (hit like 1st serves), and he won 70% of the points when he got it in, he still would have a higher chance of winning the point than what he was achieving with his normal 2nd serve (42% vs. 34%).

Of course, against most opponents I'm sure Karlovic wins a much higher % of 2nd serve points (probably 50+% at least), so in those cases it wouldn't make sense to go for 2nd serves like 1st serves, even mathematically. But in this specific case and others like it I do think the idea has merit.
 
Last edited:
Most players take an aggressive mindset when receiving a 2nd serve..think how mentally crushing it would be to have 2 of Ivo's 1st serves coming at you; the game wouldn't be on your racket anymore but on Ivo's
 
This idea is well known. Plenty of people have told Ivo and Isner they should serve more first serves. But they don't take the advice. Why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Karlovic tactics
Replies
13
Views
2K
decades
D
T
Nadal has better first serve than Federer/Sampras! And Karlovic...
Replies
23
Views
3K
Alexrb
Alexrb
T
  • Poll Poll
Why Karlovic and Isner serve are a better server than Sampras
2 3
Replies
130
Views
16K
70後
70後
manny pacquiao P4P king
why do people think federer has a better serve than roddick???
2
Replies
71
Views
7K
BounceHitBounceHit
BounceHitBounceHit
NatF
Federer/Nadal improvement and decline: ATP Matchfacts
3 4 5
Replies
235
Views
20K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
Back
Top