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

[m2nk2]

It was a lot harder to return games in the late 80s and all of the 90s. Courts and balls were faster and they didn't have poly strings. If you put Djoko in the 90s and compare him then with Agassi there would be no question about it.

It's easier to be good at returns this era.

 

[5555]

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.

Read what encylopedia has said.

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

There are no metrics which I use to determine who is the best returner ever.

You dont know what a personal attack is.

The moderators have deleted the post which I've reported and therefore I know what a personal attack is.

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

But you also claim that people tend to romanticize present. I claim that people tend to romanticize past.

Those are not flawed metrics as the correlation of games won is dependent on how good you can return (if at all) the ball.

Read what encylopedia has said.

Game set and match TheNatural.

No, it's not because I did not say that Flink's opinion is the proof.

 

[Russeljones]

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.

Even then, such an analysis could not show whether Novak would have fared equally as well with the racquet/string technology on the same surfaces as those Connors and Agassi played with.

 

[SLD76]

Djoker struggles with big servers and with faster courts.

I still take Agassi for return.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

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

That is another false assertion. His opinion does not inherently carry more weight than the opinion of posters here. The strength of his position depends on what evidence he presents to support his position. You said that the objective return of serve stats that some have posted here are a flawed metric. They are an objectic metric so even if they don't conclusively prove who the best returner is, they provide better supporting evidence of who is the better returner than subjective opinions that you or Steve Fink might suggest without any objective supporting facts. Therefore the strength of your position is weak, based on subjective opinion, bias towards your favourite player, and based on what your would like to be true.

 

[jm1980]

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).

These stats are very misleading because they favor clay courters. Especially clay courters who play Mickey Mouse tournaments and face weak opposition.

For example, Berasategui's stats:

Return Games Won: 25% on hard vs 32% career
First Serve Return Points Won: 28% on hard vs 34% career
Second Serve Return Points Won: 54% on hard vs 58% career
Break Points Converted: 43% on hard vs 45% career

His HC numbers are all worse than Djokovic's, while Djokovic's clay numbers are marginally better than Berasategui's.
Difference is, Berasategui played 77% of his matches on clay. Novak is at 24%

 

[m2nk2]

These stats are very misleading because they favor clay courters. Especially clay courters who play Mickey Mouse tournaments and face weak opposition.

It also favours players who've played in the last 10-12 years because of slow balls/courts and poly strings.

 

[mightyrick]

These stats are very misleading because they favor clay courters. Especially clay courters who play Mickey Mouse tournaments and face weak opposition.

For example, Berasategui's stats:

Return Games Won: 25% on hard vs 32% career
First Serve Return Points Won: 28% on hard vs 34% career
Second Serve Return Points Won: 54% on hard vs 58% career
Break Points Converted: 43% on hard vs 45% career

His HC numbers are all worse than Djokovic's, while Djokovic's clay numbers are marginally better than Berasategui's.
Difference is, Berasategui played 77% of his matches on clay. Novak is at 24%

Yeah, I get what you're saying. This is why I was saying you really have to subdivide the return. It isn't a universal stroke. It has a different characteristic depending on the surface.

Agassi and Djokovic on HC are nearly identical. Agassi edging out Djokovic on a couple of things. Djokovic edging Agassi out on a couple of things. The same for the other surfaces.

But check out Connors return statistics on HC from 1991 to 1996 (which is all the ATP has recorded)... compared to Djokovic :

Djokovic Career Return Stats On HC
33% - 1st Serve Return Points Won
55% - 2nd Serve Return Points Won
3,838 - Break Points Opportunities
45% - Break Points Converted
5,473 - Return Games Played
32% - Return Games Won
42% - Return Points Won
54% - Total Points Won

Connors Return Stats On HC from 1991 to 1996
33% - 1st Serve Return Points Won
54% - 2nd Serve Return Points Won
465 - Break Points Opportunities
42% - Break Points Converted
639 - Return Games Played
31% - Return Games Won
41% - Return Points Won
50% - Total Points Won

Given Connors' age (39 to 44) for those stats, the racquet head size he used most of his career, the surface conditions, and the great servers he faced... he simply has to be the greatest ever.

 

[big ted]

if you look at h2h records, agassi has winning records against most all big servers except sampras. even against roddick his match record is 5-1. djokovic seems to have more trouble winning matches against big servers: roddick, isner, karlovic...

 

[ultradr]

But we're in weak serving era.

and courts are mud slow and balls are heavier and fluffier.

 

[cknobman]

There are no metrics which I use to determine who is the best returner ever.

No, it's not because I did not say that Flink's opinion is the proof.

Thanks!

You have admitted you have no valid argument other than "because I think so"

You have conclusively lost the argument.

Game, set, and match.

 

[5555]

That is another false assertion. His opinion does not inherently carry more weight than the opinion of posters here. The strength of his position depends on what evidence he presents to support his position. You said that the objective return of serve stats that some have posted here are a flawed metric. They are an objectic metric so even if they don't conclusively prove who the best returner is, they provide better supporting evidence of who is the better returner than subjective opinions that you or Steve Fink might suggest without any objective supporting facts. Therefore the strength of your position is weak, based on subjective opinion, bias towards your favourite player, and based on what your would like to be true.

Why when ESPN seeks opinion it rather ask people like Steve Flink than posters here?

Thanks!

You have admitted you have no valid argument other than "because I think so"

You have conclusively lost the argument.

Game, set, and match.

No, I have not lost the argument. I have not stated that in my opinion Nole is the best returner ever. That's what Flink said and I quoted his statement.

You've lost the arguments regarding your claim that I do not know what a personal attack is and regarding the issue whether people tend to romanticize past or present.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Why when ESPN seeks opinion it rather ask people like Steve Flink than posters here?

.

It is your problem to work that out.

Perhaps it is because he is an entertaining guy.

 

[5555]

It is your problem to work that out.

It's your problem because that is my argument.

Perhaps it is because he is an entertaining guy.

Perhaps it's because ESPN knows Flink is an expert and posters here are anonymous people.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

It's your problem because that is my argument.



Perhaps it's because ESPN knows Flink is an expert and posters here are anonymous people.

It is your job to provide facts to support your assertions. You are yet to do so. You have lost the arguments.

you have :
1/ lost the original argument
2/ lost the argument regarding the weight of Fink's opinion, since you made the assertion without providing facts. (see post 55)
3/ lost the argument about whose problem it it to work out why ESPN hired Fink. It is your problem since you need to provide facts to support your assertion about the weight of his opinion. Had I made the assertion it would have been my problem to provide facts about the weight of his opinion or why they hired him. Since I did not make the assertion, I have nothing to prove and I am free to speculate. If you speculate you look silly, because then your assertion is based on speculation not facts.

 

[droliver]

It also favours players who've played in the last 10-12 years because of slow balls/courts and poly strings.

Incorrect I think. Serve hold #'s are as high as ever

 

[Bud]

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%

This proves it. Federer failed to make any of these lists because he played in a weak era :shock::lol:

 

[5555]

It is your job to provide facts to support your assertions. You are yet to do so.

Your job is to refute my arguments and you have failed to do so.

1/ lost the original argument

I have not lost. I did not say that Flink's opinion is the proof.

2/ lost the argument regarding the weight of Fink's opinion, since you made the assertion without providing facts. (see post 55)

I have not lost. I'll repeat: Flink's opinion has more weight than the posters because he is an expert and the posters are anonymous people. You have not refuted this.

3/ lost the argument about whose problem it it to work out why ESPN hired Fink. It is your problem since you need to provide facts to support your assertion about the weight of his opinion. Had I made the assertion it would have been my problem to provide facts about the weight of his opinion or why they hired him. Since I did not make the assertion, I have nothing to prove and I am free to speculate. If you speculate you look silly, because then your assertion is based on speculation not facts.

I have not lost. I've explained why it makes more sense for ESPN to hire Flink than the posters here.

 

[cknobman]

I'll repeat: Flink's opinion has more weight than the posters because he is an expert and the posters are anonymous people.

An opinion has zero weight it trying to quantify something as it is an OPINION.

The only things that have real weight are things that can be quantified, such as facts and statistics.

So outside of talking out your backside, like Steve Flick, and saying "so and so is the best ever", in order give any real meaning to those words you need to quantify the statement.

So sure you're right, Steve Flink said so, but that means 2 squats without having any proof to back it up.

 

[Kobble]

It can't be compared because of surface changes over the years. Visually, I think the best are Hewitt, Djokovic and Agassi. Basically, what kind of trouble does it put the opponent in and how often. Nadal gets a lot of breaks because he schools people from the baseline, just like Federer, not because their first ball is so tough.

 

[RF-18]

I think it's safe to say that he is along with Agassi the best returner of all time. No contest IMO. I would also give him a slight edge over Agassi. Flink describes it well, what he does with the returns is outstanding.

 

[Fedinkum]

I still think Agassi's aggressive returns are still the best.

 

[5555]

An opinion has zero weight it trying to quantify something as it is an OPINION.

The only things that have real weight are things that can be quantified, such as facts and statistics.

So outside of talking out your backside, like Steve Flick, and saying "so and so is the best ever", in order give any real meaning to those words you need to quantify the statement.

So sure you're right, Steve Flink said so, but that means 2 squats without having any proof to back it up.

Why does ESPN rather quote opinions of people who are known to be experts than people who are anonymous?

 

[swordtennis]

God Agassi and Sampras were my favorite players of all time. I was an Agassi hardcore fan. But lets be frank. A few of his majors were basically tailored made for him. He was an all time great but even he said Djokovic is a better version of himself in most all departments. Sure he might be better against big serves but his consistency speed and movement was not near Djokovics.

 

[jg153040]

It's hard to argue against Nole's return. His return is awesome. Not just his return shot, his return game in general.

 

[Praetorian]

Ladies, go get a room. This forum is no place for this foreplay.

 

[britam25]

Novak is my favorite player currently, but I don't think he is aggressive enough on his return of serve, especially against Murray's weak 2nd serve. Obviously, his return is still quite good, however.

 

[pc1]

Djokovic is clearly one of the best returners of all time but it's debatable whether he is the greatest. Murray is also up there with anyone today.

Flink is very knowledgeable but experts often react emotionally to certain players because the image is so clear in their minds. It's not like he is necessarily incorrect but you have to take his opinion with a grain of salt.

Some others in history noted for their great returns are Tilden, Vines, Budge, Lacoste, Nusslein, Kovacs, Riggs, Budge, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Nastase, Agassi, Chang (very comparable stats to Agassi), Coria and today Djokovic, Murray and by stats Nadal.

 

[veroniquem]

Best returner on clay is Nadal by a landslide. Djoko has been #1 in return games won on hard since 2011, only player to have dominated the return stats for 4 consecutive years. Agassi was close with 3 consecutive.
One doesn't really need stats though to be able to tell that Novak and Andre are the best returners on hard. Just watch them play.

ETA: as consistent/impressive as Chang or Murray's defense is, it is simply not as brilliant as those 2.

 

[TMF]

Best returner on clay is Nadal by a landslide. Djoko has been #1 in return games won on hard since 2011, only player to have dominated the return stats for 4 consecutive years. Agassi was close with 3 consecutive.
One doesn't really need stats though to be able to tell that Novak and Andre are the best returners on hard. Just watch them play.

ETA: as consistent/impressive as Chang or Murray's defense is, it is simply not as brilliant as those 2.

Of all surfaces, clay is the most easy to return serve because it's slow. With the high bounce, Nadal can afford to stay deep behind the baseline to return, which makes it impossible to ace. Great servers aren't reward for playing on clay but on fast, low bounce condition.

I wouldn't rate playing on clay to measure one's ability to return serve. Either choose grass or fast hard court to measure the player's ability, because it requires reflex, touch, anticipation....

 

[veroniquem]

Of all surfaces, clay is the most easy to return serve because it's slow. With the high bounce, Nadal can afford to stay deep behind the baseline to return, which makes it impossible to ace. Great servers aren't reward for playing on clay but on fast, low bounce condition.

I wouldn't rate playing on clay to measure one's ability to return serve. Either choose grass or fast hard court to measure the player's ability, because it requires reflex, touch, anticipation....

If it is that easy to return on clay, why don't more players do it? It is precisely because it's so hard (1 of the reasons at least)- it requires better movement, more endurance and more athleticism than any other surface- that no one has been able to touch Nadal on clay for the last 10 years (because even if you break him, he can break you right back).

 

[Noelan]

I tought that the tread is about return as a shot, not who won more return games by surfaces

 

[veroniquem]

I tought that the tread is about return as a shot, not who won more return games by surfaces

Well, I mean both. You have to return shots well in order to be able to break opponents often because nowadays all top guys have a relatively big serve even on 2nd and also the server will take advantage quickly if the opponent's return is weak.
So the stats do tell a story if not the whole one.

 

[Noelan]

I know what you mean here, but the thread is about return as a shot not return games as whole.
In that sence Nadal shouldn't be mentioned in this thread no matter how good is he in return games on clay.
On topic/ Novak is on top of my list here along with Andre, it's hard to say who is better/ they are different types of returner.