Steve Flink: Nole has the best return of serve in the history of tennis

[5555]

"I long believed Agassi deserved that distinction, but that is no longer the case. Djokovic has surpassed everyone on the return with his flexibility off both sides, his wide range of options, and his propensity to get so many great serves back into play. Morever, he has an uncanny sense of when to block the return back and when to become more aggressive. The blend of those two attributes is what sets him apart among the top returners ever." http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=14908

So, now even Flink - arguably the most knowlegeable tennis historian -admits what McEnroe had said.

 

[ollinger]

Like most writers, Flink tends to be a front-runner, going with the fashion. Two years ago he ranked Djokovic's return third, behind Agassi and Connors. I would agree.

 

[5555]

Like most writers, Flink tends to be a front-runner, going with the fashion.

Are you saying Flink does not believe what he says?

 

[cknobman]

Are you saying Flink does not believe what he says?

I think that what he is saying is Steve, like most other human beings on earth, tend to live and think in the present and are forgetful of the past.

It's easier for the human brain to rationalize what they are currently seeing vs trying to compare and recall from memory what happened years ago.

Sure Djokovic has a great serve return but without a real statistical analysis with facts and stats to back up the assertion "he is the greatest of all time" then saying it is kinda pointless.

 

[RF-18]

Like most writers, Flink tends to be a front-runner, going with the fashion. Two years ago he ranked Djokovic's return third, behind Agassi and Connors. I would agree.

You always improve. Like you said, that was two years ago.

 

[5555]

I think that what he is saying is Steve, like most other human beings on earth, tend to live and think in the present and are forgetful of the past.

It's easier for the human brain to rationalize what they are currently seeing vs trying to compare and recall from memory what happened years ago.

Sure Djokovic has a great serve return but without a real statistical analysis with facts and stats to back up the assertion "he is the greatest of all time" then saying it is kinda pointless.

People tend to romanticize past. Older posters here exaggerate how good Agassi was. Flink is an older man who has been following tennis since 60s.

 

[ollinger]

^^ actually, you don't always improve. I think players all reach a point where they not only don't improve but take some steps backwards. I think Novak 2011 was a more effective player than 2014, for example. He played well this week, but also benefits from the fact that some of his principal rivals have taken steps backwards.

 

[cknobman]

People tend to romantize past. Older posters here exaggerate how good Agassi was. Flink is an older man who has been following tennis since 60s.

A. romanticize

B. That is why I said there needs to be an analysis based on facts and stats.

 

[5555]

A. romanticize

B. That is why I said there needs to be an analysis based on facts and stats.

You say that people tend to romanticize present. I say that people tend to romanticize past.

 

[FreeBird]

But, is that a fact or an opinion?

 

[bjsnider]

In terms of the return game, Nadal, Murray, Ferrer, and Djokovic are the best on tour right now, and that's based on stats. If Djokovic has the best return shot, he seems to lack the return game to back it up since he isn't statistically far ahead of the other guys.

Commentators in tennis are free to make wild, unsupported statements like this because statistical analysis is not one of the sport's strong points. Tennis could also use dozens of additional stats which have not ever been kept.

 

[cknobman]

You say that people tend to romanticize present. I say that people tend to romanticize past.

Actually I say you're a troll who keeps repeating the same tripe while ignoring the actual statement I am making which is

there needs to be an analysis based on facts and stats.

 

[urban]

Agassi would be happy, if Sampras had had a second serve like Murray.

 

[tennisaddict]

Agassi would be happy, if Sampras had had a second serve like Murray.

LOL......

Mean on several levels

 

[5555]

Actually I say you're a troll who keeps repeating the same tripe while ignoring the actual statement I am making which is

there needs to be an analysis based on facts and stats.

This is what you said

most other human beings on earth, tend to live and think in the present and are forgetful of the past.

 

[HailDjokovic]

Debatable.

Novak is definitely in the question for best returner of all time and his main counterpart is Agassi.

Everyone knows that Novak tends to choke against big servers. But it is not because of not being able to return the serve, more that he struggles on breakpoints and makes unforced errors. Throughout the field though Novak returns extremely well against ANYBODY.(particularly Nadal,Murray,and Fed) His ability to stretch and get what SHOULD be aces surprises anyone. Novak is definitely less aggressive than Agassi on the return but he is a more consistent returner who can always place it deep.

I don't think its necessary to claim who is the best at what until both players' careers have ended. We will just have to wait and see what Novak does

 

[mightyrick]

OP, it depends on the metric(s) you use to determine what "best return of serve" means.

Here's some possibly relevant career statistics for return of serve:

Return Games Won
1) Coria - 35%
2) Nadal - 33%
3) Berasategui/Ferrer/Djokovic/Agassi - 32%

First Serve Return Points Won
1) Coria - 36%
2) Nadal/Ferrer/Murray/Berasategui - 34%
3) Djokovic/Volandri/Kucera/Davydenko/Edberg/Canas... etc - 33%

Second Serve Return Points Won
1) Vilas - 58%
2) Berasategui - 58%
3) Agassi - 56%
4) PMac/Nadal/Muster/Chang/Murray/Ferrer/Djokovic/Nabandian - 55%

Break Points Converted
1) Coria - 46%
2) Nadal/Bruguera/Muster/Djokovic - 45%
3) Lots of good players at 44%

Going by these stats, it looks like Coria is actually the greatest returner for as long as the ATP has been recording these statistics. Although I think a strong argument could be made for Connors.

So as someone said earlier... if you want to judge the greatest returner ever... you probably need some statistics to back you up. The above statistics don't point to either Djokovic (or Agassi).

 

[Edgecrusher]

Wonder why tennis_pro didn't respond yet with a "what am I reading???? Blablablablablabla ............." :lol:

 

[ultradr]

The brand of Nole and Andy's serve returns are much more aggressive than Nadal-Federer brand which is on the "safe return" side.

Nole is definitely the best returner of last 10+ years or so.

But you know, in 90's, the era of greatest servers, on truely fast surfaces, I have never seen a player,
who can actually intimidate ultra servers with returns like Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

"I long believed Agassi deserved that distinction, but that is no longer the case. Djokovic has surpassed everyone on the return with his flexibility off both sides, his wide range of options, and his propensity to get so many great serves back into play. Morever, he has an uncanny sense of when to block the return back and when to become more aggressive. The blend of those two attributes is what sets him apart among the top returners ever." http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=14908

So, now even Flink - arguably the most knowlegeable tennis historian -admits what McEnroe had said.

He may or may not be. It is just one person's opinion. His opinion doesn't prove anything or make anything factual.

I would like to add that given that Shokavish has access to modern equipment/string technology this helps shoko's return become better than it otherwise would be if he only had access to old string tech for all or most of his career like Agassi did. Thus if Shoko was in fact the best returner of all time string tech would be one of the contributing factors that helped him become that, and he would also be a better returner and better player than a 90's shokavish with the old string tech.

 

[SpinToWin]

I'd wager that Agassi has a word to say to this claim.

 

[big ted]

i think agassi himself said djokovics return is better as well.
http://sport360.com/article/tennis/4971/andre-agassi-interview-i-raised-stakes-djokovic-scale
what people usually say is:
connors was great because he got everything back
agassi was great because he made it a more agressive shot tho got aced more often
djokovic is great because hes actually able to do what both of them did

that said i think agassi could do things that djokovic cant imo like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khbD62GehvM
agassi probably had better vision (i think djokovic wears contacts), maybe better reflexes, and he used to practice with players serving to him from the service line

 

[The-Champ]

Debatable.

Novak is definitely in the question for best returner of all time and his main counterpart is Agassi.

Everyone knows that Novak tends to choke against big servers. But it is not because of not being able to return the serve, more that he struggles on breakpoints and makes unforced errors. Throughout the field though Novak returns extremely well against ANYBODY.(particularly Nadal,Murray,and Fed) His ability to stretch and get what SHOULD be aces surprises anyone. Novak is definitely less aggressive than Agassi on the return but he is a more consistent returner who can always place it deep.

I don't think its necessary to claim who is the best at what until both players' careers have ended. We will just have to wait and see what Novak does

IMO the best returner in this generation is Murray, Fed and Novak. However, only Federer has proven to be a precision returner as proven by beating net-rushers with huge serves (Pete, Krajicek, Goran). Murray and Novak can only put the ball in play, even Nadal can do that.

Federer is the best returner in this generation but Agassi is IMO, the best returner of all time.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I am completely done with undermining Novak on here, I don't even know why I do it sometimes (bitterness over WIM 14 probably).

I am repentant.

He very well could have the best return ever, I mean it's good enough to beat Fedal most of the time these days, and those guys aren't exactly club players.

Also it looks mighty impressive, better than the block return Fedrinka do (which is the only thing about them that irritates me).

So yeah, Djoker has a good claim to this.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Agassi would be happy, if Sampras had had a second serve like Murray.

ahah well said :mrgreen:

guess Mauresmo is still hitting faster 2d serves today than Muzzette

 

[5555]

Thanks for proving my point, troll Continue to ignore anything that challenges your opinion.

How did I prove your point? Explain.

Now run along and play with your GI Joes while the adults have a real conversation.

This is a personal attack. I've reported you.

OP, it depends on the metric(s) you use to determine what "best return of serve" means.

Here's some possibly relevant career statistics for return of serve:

Return Games Won
First Serve Return Points Won
Second Serve Return Points Won
Break Points Converted

It's a flawed metric because the above results depend a lot how good a player performs after the return ie after they hit ball back into the server's side of the court.

His opinion doesn't prove anything or make anything factual.

His opinion is not proof but his opinion has more weight than opinions of posters here.

 

[mightyrick]

It's a flawed metric because the above results depend a lot how good a player performs after the return ie after they hit ball back into the server's side of the court.

So you don't think that return points won, return games won, and break points converted are metrics that are greatly influenced by the actual return of serve itself?

So you are saying that Djokovic is a better returner than Coria even though he hasn't won a higher percentage of return games or return points? Which means that Coria was actually a better overall player after the point starts than Djokovic? :shock:

If there is any flawed logic, that to me seems to be highly flawed. BTW, you may actually want to check out some videos of Guillermo Coria. The guy was an absolutely sick returner of serve.

BTW, if you dismiss Coria... Djokovic still isn't next. You start to look at guys like Nadal/Agassi/Vilas/Ferrer.

So the question is: What is the metric(s) you are using to determine what a great return is?

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Actually I say you're a troll who keeps repeating the same tripe while ignoring the actual statement I am making which is

there needs to be an analysis based on facts and stats.

This is what you said

most other human beings on earth, tend to live and think in the present and are forgetful of the past.

Ladies please, you're giving me a headache reading this.....

Return Games Won
1) Coria - 35%
2) Nadal - 33%
3) Berasategui/Ferrer/Djokovic/Agassi - 32%

First Serve Return Points Won
1) Coria - 36%
2) Nadal/Ferrer/Murray/Berasategui - 34%
3) Djokovic/Volandri/Kucera/Davydenko/Edberg/Canas... etc - 33%

Second Serve Return Points Won
1) Vilas - 58%
2) Berasategui - 58%
3) Agassi - 56%
4) PMac/Nadal/Muster/Chang/Murray/Ferrer/Djokovic/Nabandian - 55%

Break Points Converted
1) Coria - 46%
2) Nadal/Bruguera/Muster/Djokovic - 45%
3) Lots of good players at 44%
.

This is a personal attack. I've reported you.

As in 'grow a pair?' Over in fruits and vegatable, aisle #4.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

OP, it depends on the metric(s) you use to determine what "best return of serve" means.

Here's some possibly relevant career statistics for return of serve:

Return Games Won
1) Coria - 35%
2) Nadal - 33%
3) Berasategui/Ferrer/Djokovic/Agassi - 32%

First Serve Return Points Won
1) Coria - 36%
2) Nadal/Ferrer/Murray/Berasategui - 34%
3) Djokovic/Volandri/Kucera/Davydenko/Edberg/Canas... etc - 33%

Second Serve Return Points Won
1) Vilas - 58%
2) Berasategui - 58%
3) Agassi - 56%
4) PMac/Nadal/Muster/Chang/Murray/Ferrer/Djokovic/Nabandian - 55%

Break Points Converted
1) Coria - 46%
2) Nadal/Bruguera/Muster/Djokovic - 45%
3) Lots of good players at 44%

Going by these stats, it looks like Coria is actually the greatest returner for as long as the ATP has been recording these statistics. Although I think a strong argument could be made for Connors.

So as someone said earlier... if you want to judge the greatest returner ever... you probably need some statistics to back you up. The above statistics don't point to either Djokovic (or Agassi).

Statistics don't tell us everything.

Clay is the surface that negates the serve the most, and if someone is a superb clay court player then they are going to win a tremendous amount of return games and points. These stats would lead one to believe that Nadal has the edge over Djokovic in returning, which is probably not the case. I think Djokovic has a clearly better return than Nadal, but that Nadal does have a fine return indeed.

Given that Ferrer backs up his return with one of the weaker and less potent ground games of players mentioned in those statistics, perhaps he is overlooked as one of the great all-time returners.

Providing Nadal can at least get the return in play, his ability to last in the rallies is unparalleled by anyone from his time. Djokovic's ability to last is good, but not as good, and his first strike on the return is substantially better.

Many here though underrate Nadal's return and think it's only slightly above average which I think is unfair. Nadal's return is clearly very very good.

 

[mightyrick]

Statistics don't tell us everything.

Clay is the surface that negates the serve the most, and if someone is a superb clay court player then they are going to win a tremendous amount of return games and points. These stats would lead one to believe that Nadal has the edge over Djokovic in returning, which is probably not the case. I think Djokovic has a clearly better return than Nadal, but that Nadal does have a fine return indeed.

Given that Ferrer backs up his return with one of the weaker and less potent ground games of players mentioned in those statistics, perhaps he is overlooked as one of the great all-time returners.

Providing Nadal can at least get the return in play, his ability to last in the rallies is unparalleled by anyone from his time. Djokovic's ability to last is good, but not as good, and his first strike on the return is substantially better.

Many here though underrate Nadal's return and think it's only slightly above average which I think is unfair. Nadal's return is clearly very very good.

I dunno, then basically we need to subdivide return into different kinds of shots -- which I heard McEnroe do when he was classifying Djokovic's return game. I think McEnroe said that Djokovic was the best neutralizing returner in history whereas Agassi was the best offensive returner in history. I think that is probably a fair characterization.

That might open it up for Connors to be the best overall returner ever. Connors returned huge serves with old technology and extremely small racquets. He was a balance of both offensive and neutralizing.

 

[cknobman]

How did I prove your point? Explain.



This is a personal attack. I've reported you.



It's a flawed metric because the above results depend a lot how good a player performs after the return ie after they hit ball back into the server's side of the court.



His opinion is not proof but his opinion has more weight than opinions of posters here.

You dont know what a personal attack is. I made a suggestion based off your behavior. I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

You proved my point by ignoring my statement of comparing stats and facts vs opinions.

Those are not flawed metrics as the correlation of games won is dependent on how good you can return (if at all) the ball.
Are they the only metrics to consider? No
Have you provided a single fact for statistic that can back up the opinioin Djokovic is the best returner of all time? No

You see part of debating with people is being able to point and counter point. Points and counter points often need data (facts, statistics) to assert them.
You are doing neither and therefore offering nothing to the debate.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

His opinion is not proof .

Thankyou. Game set and match TheNatural.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

The stats for the recent 2015 AO semi vs Wawrinka were interesting. Shokovic's weaker forehand return was evident in that he made 80% of backhand returns for the match, but only 64% of forehand returns.

Being left footed could be a big reason why he is better moving to the backhand and hitting backhand returns.

 

[Noelan]

You don't even know to write his name

 

[Deleted member 3771]

You dont know what a personal attack is. I made a suggestion based off your behavior. I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

You proved my point by ignoring my statement of comparing stats and facts vs opinions.

Those are not flawed metrics as the correlation of games won is dependent on how good you can return (if at all) the ball.
Are they the only metrics to consider? No
Have you provided a single fact for statistic that can back up the opinioin Djokovic is the best returner of all time? No

You see part of debating with people is being able to point and counter point. Points and counter points often need data (facts, statistics) to assert them.
You are doing neither and therefore offering nothing to the debate.

He doesn't debate, he just ignores valid arguments. He also doesn't have a personal opinion on anything or any facts, he just quotes other peoples opinion. So in fact he has nothing to contribute to the argument.

 

[Gary Duane]

Best returner is vague. You will never have statistics to back this idea up.

I would still say that the guys who win the most games when receiving have the most right to brag about returning. Going on return games %, Nadal leads the pack, year after year, on clay. He has won 43% of his return games on clay, career.

Coria is probably 2nd, career of 40% return games on clay.

He get's overlooked because of his weak serve.

Novak has been at the top or very close to the top in this area, on HC, for quite some time.

Career % of return games, on HC:

Chang: 33
Novak, Agassi, Murray all at 32.
Edberg 31 (which may surprise you)
JMac, past peak was 31.
Hewitt, Ferrer 30

I don't have stats on older players. JMac in his prime was probably higher, which surprises me.

My point is that it doesn't matter HOW these guys break. It only matters how often.

I stopped sharing these stats because a few really nasty people criticized me for doing it.

But the fact is that when you study statistics, they are not always what we expect.

 

[President]

Statistics don't tell us everything.

Clay is the surface that negates the serve the most, and if someone is a superb clay court player then they are going to win a tremendous amount of return games and points. These stats would lead one to believe that Nadal has the edge over Djokovic in returning, which is probably not the case. I think Djokovic has a clearly better return than Nadal, but that Nadal does have a fine return indeed.

Given that Ferrer backs up his return with one of the weaker and less potent ground games of players mentioned in those statistics, perhaps he is overlooked as one of the great all-time returners.

Providing Nadal can at least get the return in play, his ability to last in the rallies is unparalleled by anyone from his time. Djokovic's ability to last is good, but not as good, and his first strike on the return is substantially better.

Many here though underrate Nadal's return and think it's only slightly above average which I think is unfair. Nadal's return is clearly very very good.

I think Nadal probably reads and anticipates the serve on the same level as Djokovic and Murray, but because of his swing mechanics/overall game style he has a very tough time taking the ball early like they do, and as a result has to hit it from well behind the baseline (and even then, he still hits it short a lot of the time).

 

[encylopedia]

I think that what he is saying is Steve, like most other human beings on earth, tend to live and think in the present and are forgetful of the past.

It's easier for the human brain to rationalize what they are currently seeing vs trying to compare and recall from memory what happened years ago.

Sure Djokovic has a great serve return but without a real statistical analysis with facts and stats to back up the assertion "he is the greatest of all time" then saying it is kinda pointless.

Well said and well thought out.

It is indeed human nature to see something phenomenal (and highly subjective), and let the immediate awe carry one away. Moreover, it makes a much better article hook than: I just saw the 3rd best return I've ever seen!

I would rank Djoko very high....so high in fact, that it's difficult for me to make a firm statement about Connors/Agassi/Djoko.

One knock against Djoko is that he has not face the same pressure Connors, or an early Agassi had - that of the first tier net rusher, constantly putting pressure on - this require a different kind of return, and a different ability to handle pressure. A sustained attack, or even the possibility of it, makes returning much more difficult - even if the guy stays back - your return may fall short then. In those milliseconds, you not only have to get the great serve back, you have to recognize that Becker, Mac, Sampras, Edberg, Newcombe, Rafter, Krajicek, etc are coming in, and you must paint the lines and/or get that ball down, with spin and/or angle down - a different set of priorities over returning if the guy stayed back - and that possibility used to make returning much more challenging. I think Djoko would do well, but the fact is, he's never faced it.

 

[encylopedia]

LOL......

Mean on several levels

+1. Funny point - and true.

 

[bjsnider]

In terms of stats, I would want to see:

- total number of serves returned for outright winners.
- total number of returns that result in an opponent error immediately.
- both of these stats broken down for strength of opponent's serve, ie. matters more if against Raonic than if vs. Nadal.
- number of 1st/2nd unreturned serves allowed.
- all of these stats broken down for fh/bh.

In addition to the stats that are publicly available already, this might provide a clear picture on who really has the best return. Keeping stats and making them public for free is not a strength of the tennis system.

 

[encylopedia]

In terms of stats, I would want to see:

- total number of serves returned for outright winners.
- total number of returns that result in an opponent error immediately.
- both of these stats broken down for strength of opponent's serve, ie. matters more if against Raonic than if vs. Nadal.
- number of 1st/2nd unreturned serves allowed.
- all of these stats broken down for fh/bh.

In addition to the stats that are publicly available already, this might provide a clear picture on who really has the best return. Keeping stats and making them public for free is not a strength of the tennis system.

Even if these stats were available historically (which of course they aren't), there would still be numerous problems - was the opponent serve and volleying? Does an error form them count differently if they were? Who judges if the error for baseliner or SV was "forced"? Who judges the strength of the opponent serve - especially give that the relative strength will vary for the returners as well - some will return certain people's serves better than others because they happen to read it, or like the spin/placement. You'd have to account for surface as well......in the end, EVEN WITH your detailed suggestions, and MUCH MORE data added, there won't be a good statistic(s) capturing such a varied, complex, real-world quality.

It will remain a subjective call - as it should be. It can't be properly quantified.

 

[racquetreligion]

Connors by far had the best ability to return serves, way ahead of Nole and Agassi if you consider head sizes.

Todays lack of S&V tennis is due to the bigger racquets allowing those less talented to return almost any serve on the sweet spot. The return of serve requires more accuracy from a player than serving.

Using a Tx000 of any kind even with Connors specs 4 5/8 grip size lead etc
humbles anyone very quickly when trying anything that resembles tennis.

 

[Gary Duane]

In terms of stats, I would want to see:

- total number of serves returned for outright winners.
- total number of returns that result in an opponent error immediately.
- both of these stats broken down for strength of opponent's serve, ie. matters more if against Raonic than if vs. Nadal.
- number of 1st/2nd unreturned serves allowed.
- all of these stats broken down for fh/bh.

It would be interesting, but to my mind what is important is breaking serve, not HOW it is done.

However, VERY good point, in general, about breaking vs a ground-stroker vs a S/V player.

 

[bjsnider]

Even if these stats were available historically (which of course they aren't), there would still be numerous problems - was the opponent serve and volleying? Does an error form them count differently if they were? Who judges if the error for baseliner or SV was "forced"? Who judges the strength of the opponent serve - especially give that the relative strength will vary for the returners as well - some will return certain people's serves better than others because they happen to read it, or like the spin/placement. You'd have to account for surface as well......in the end, EVEN WITH your detailed suggestions, and MUCH MORE data added, there won't be a good statistic(s) capturing such a varied, complex, real-world quality.

It will remain a subjective call - as it should be. It can't be properly quantified.

Well, I have to take issue with a couple of your points.

I asked in the second point only for errors, not forced or unforced. I thought about it and I don't think it matters. What counts is the error lost the server the point, when the server is automatically on offense.

If a player happens to read a particular serve better than his peers, great. That's not going to skew the data, it's going to help the return shot, and that's what is being discussed. Reading the serve is part of hitting the return.

I agree that I'd want stats adjusted for surface, and vs. s&v as well. My post was intended as a beginning, not a comprehensive list. There's probably a lot more that can be measured too. How about indoors vs. outdoors?

 

[encylopedia]

Well, I have to take issue with a couple of your points.

I asked in the second point only for errors, not forced or unforced. I thought about it and I don't think it matters. What counts is the error lost the server the point, when the server is automatically on offense.

I'll reply to the first couple of points - but only for the sake of dilligence - you'll see at the bottom that these arguments are moot to me.

I do not know why you want that number in particular - it is mind-boggling the variable inherent there -it's such a broad concept - the server, depending on strategy, style, and so many other factor may make an error on the 2nd shot, many of which have nothing to do with the return itself.

If a player happens to read a particular serve better than his peers, great. That's not going to skew the data, it's going to help the return shot, and that's what is being discussed. Reading the serve is part of hitting the return.

Yes, it is, but YOU were the one who wanted to rate the servers serve. This implies that this rating will then be taken into account. Thus, exactly which servers are faced will indeed be very significant. Moreover, if each person faced a sample with enough depth (multiple matches against the all the servers), then indeed he cold be compared to his peers, with the differences then blocked out by the experimental design - that isn't the case of course. It certainly will not be the case by definition when comparing between groups (generations)!

I agree that I'd want stats adjusted for surface, and vs. s&v as well. My post was intended as a beginning, not a comprehensive list. There's probably a lot more that can be measured too. How about indoors vs. outdoors?

Yes...I think thought you're missing my real point. There are WAY too many variables to get any accurate metric....as I said in my post, it can't be properly quantified. Your list may have been intended as a beginning...my objections were the tip of the iceberg. I can think of dozens of other factors/problems - as you also acknowledge. I think the endeavor is folly. It would be as crazy as thinking that through black box observation, I will take stats that will allow me to determine which heavyweight boxer had the hardest punch in history - it cannot, even in theory, be done. No matter what observational data you had.

 

[bjsnider]

I'll reply to the first couple of points - but only for the sake of dilligence - you'll see at the bottom that these arguments are moot to me.

I do not know why you want that number in particular - it is mind-boggling the variable inherent there -it's such a broad concept - the server, depending on strategy, style, and so many other factor may make an error on the 2nd shot, many of which have nothing to do with the return itself.



Yes, it is, but YOU were the one who wanted to rate the servers serve. This implies that this rating will then be taken into account. Thus, exactly which servers are faced will indeed be very significant. Moreover, if each person faced a sample with enough depth (multiple matches against the all the servers), then indeed he cold be compared to his peers, with the differences then blocked out by the experimental design - that isn't the case of course. It certainly will not be the case by definition when comparing between groups (generations)!



Yes...I think thought you're missing my real point. There are WAY too many variables to get any accurate metric....as I said in my post, it can't be properly quantified. Your list may have been intended as a beginning...my objections were the tip of the iceberg. I can think of dozens of other factors/problems - as you also acknowledge. I think the endeavor is folly. It would be as crazy as thinking that through black box observation, I will take stats that will allow me to determine which heavyweight boxer had the hardest punch in history - it cannot, even in theory, be done. No matter what observational data you had.

Yes but we don't need absolute perfection, right? The basic stats provided by ATP MatchFacts is better than some guy writing a clickbait article that says "this is true because I says so", and the stats I'm asking for would be better than that, right? We don't need to be able to convince god or he'll send us to hell.

 

[mightyrick]

Okay, after someone mentioning Connors having to return S&V as well as baselining... it isn't even close. Connors is the best ever.

Guys there's just no way Djokovic or Agassi can compare.

Connors having to return serve against someone like Tanner or Edberg on four surfaces with a 65 square inch racquet and those guys coming in after every serve. And we're talking old-school grass, carpet, and hardcourt.

That is just insane.

 

[encylopedia]

Yes but we don't need absolute perfection, right? The basic stats provided by ATP MatchFacts is better than some guy writing a clickbait article that says "this is true because I says so", and the stats I'm asking for would be better than that, right? We don't need to be able to convince god or he'll send us to hell.

Yes, that is true....but as you can see here...there are people demanding "evidence" and "stats'....as if the really puny stats we have can provide proof....of course, I like stats, and I'm interested in them, but there is little value in them (really none at all with the limited data we have) to questions like the one in the OP. Levels of idiocy here:
1.stating opinion as fact
2.stating #1 as a rebuttal ie."that's your OPINION!" - wow, good one
3.stating we need "facts"
4.pretending the puny stats you have in fact "prove" that...say...Federer is the greatest

I applaud your effort to fantasize about better stats.....no problem with that....but you'd never have the stats - they can't exist even in theory - to back this premise. Even with better data - which I'm all for - I don't think you would get a convincing argument at all.....I'm not calling for absolute proof, trying to differentiate between 3 unique, but first class returners like Connors, Agassi, Djoko, across totally different opponents, will be impossible with black box statistics....to be honest, and hey, I pride myself on an astute tennis eye (lots of stories there...but I have worked with world class players)...it is probably impossible even to make a good subjective judgment. I've seen Connors and Agassi return in person....I've seen them in hundreds of TV matches....I have an opinion....but it's only an opinion and a very arguable one since we are talking about subtleties of all time greatness in an extremely varied shot under varied conditions, with varied strategies, against varied opponents.

The serve is a much more controlled, repeatable shot, orders of magnitude so.....yet I could not honestly tell you who the "greatest" server was either. I can give a trite, TW style answer....but to honestly address the question, or to try to define it statistically - impossible. Absolutely impossible. Not even close to being possible.

 

[Noleberic123]

This is nothing we haven't heard 100 times before 5555

 

[adil1972]

best return of service

connors followed by agassi and nadal