What would the top 20 look like if players only had only one attempt on each serve? Here are some estimates using second serve/return statistics.

P

PleaseBeNicer

Semi-Pro
*men's top 20

In terms of average of percentage of points won on second serve and second serve return, the year end number ones from 1998-2022 were:

Rios 1998
Agassi 1999-2000
Ferrero 2001
Agassi 2002
Ferrero 2003
Agassi 2004
Nadal 2005
Federer 2006-2007
Nadal 2008-2014
Novak 2015-2016
Nadal 2017-2019
Ruud 2021
Novak 2022

In 2023, the projected top 20 based on the same flawed method are:

END APRIL 2023 (FLAWED METHODOLOGY)

1. Novak Djokovic 57.3%
2. Yoshihito Nishioka 55.8%
3. Carlos Alcaraz 54.5%
4. Jannick Sinner 54.5%
5. P. Carreno Busta 54.4%
6. Miomir Kecmanovic 53.6%
7. R. Bautista Agut 53.6%
8. Daniil Medvedev 53.5%
9. Adrian Mannarino 53.4%
10. Rafael Nadal 52.9%
10. Sebastian Baez 52.9%

MARCH 2023 (FLAWED METHODOLOGY)

1. Novak Djokovic 56.5%
2. Yoshihito Nishioka 56.0%
3. P. Carreno Busta 54.5%
4. Carlos Alcaraz 54.4%
5. R. Bautista Agut 53.9%
6. Miomir Kecmanovic 53.5%
7. Daniil Medvedev 53.3%
7. Jannick Sinner 53.3%
9. Adrian Mannarino 53.2%
10. Rafael Nadal 52.9%
10. Holger Rune 52.9%

A few others that I calculated:

Lorenzo Musetti 52.7%
Stefanos Tsitsipas 52.6%
Taylor Fritz 52.6%
Nick Kyrgios 52.6%
Taylor Fritz 52.6%
Jack Draper 52.4%
Sebastian Baez 52.2%
Murray 52.1%
Alex Molcan 52.1%
Alex De Minaur 51.9%
Coric 51.7%
Cameron Norrie 51.6%
Fokina 51.6%

FEB 2023 (FLAWED METHODOLOGY)

1. Yoshihito Nishioka 56.7%
2. Novak Djokovic 56.1%
3. Carlos Alcaraz 54.3%
4. Miomir Kecmanovic 54.1%
5. P. Carreno Busta 53.9%
6. Rafael Nadal 53.7%
7. Andrian Mannarino 53.2%
8. Stefanos Tsitsipas 53.1%
9. Jannick Sinner 52.7%
9. Alex Molcan 52.6%
11. Nick Kyrgios 52.5%
11. Casper Ruud 52.5%
11. Jack Draper 52.5%
11. Daniil Medvedev 52.5%
15. Taylor Fritz 52.4%
15. Lorenzo Musetti 52.4%
15. Holger Rune 52.4%
18. Alex De Minaur 52.2%
19. Sebastian Baez 52.0%
20. Cameron Norrie 51.9%

A few others that I calculated:

? Murray 51.8%
? Tiafoe 51.5%
? Dimitrov 51.3%
? Emil 51.3%
? Fokina 51.2%
? Vinolas 51.1%
? Gasquet 51.0%
? Hurkacz 51.0%
? Evans 50.9%
? Shelton 50.8%
? Thiem 50.7%
? Diego 50.6%
? Tommy Paul 50.6%

Who else would be pumped to see a tournament that looks like this? What would be the effect on pro tennis as a whole if say half of the tournaments allowed only one attempt at serving on each point? (I've given my answer to this question in my comment below)

I've assumed that people would play similarly to how they currently play on second serve points and taken an average of second serve points won and second serve return points won over the last 12 months. Obviously there are flaws in this method but I think it gives us a rough idea of what the top 20 would look like if players had only one attempt on each serve. What do you think are the biggest flaws in my methodology? (Edit: I've explained what I think the biggest flaw is in a comment below.)

Unfortunately some players in the top 100 who probably have excellent second serve stats like Kubler, Moutet & Wu are missing from the Leaderboard as they only recently joined the top 100, along with players just outside the top 100 like Gaston, so I wasn't able to calculate their percentages, but I'll try to remember to come back & update this when they're added.

Sources that I used to get an average:

Leaderboard | ATP Tour | Tennis

Statistical measures of the best-performing players in three key categories in men's professional tennis.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

Leaderboard | ATP Tour | Tennis

Statistical measures of the best-performing players in three key categories in men's professional tennis.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

I'm curious what the women's top 20 would look like too but I don't think these kinds of stats are available for the women?
 
Last edited:
Great work and I like your method of assuming players would serve similar to their second serve if they only had one serve. I think players would probably train themselves to hit serves around 100ish mph with heavy kick and topspin would become the weapon of choice on the serve, resulting in many more rallies, so perhaps factor rally lengths into your methodology. On a tour where long rallies are the key to winning matches, you better expect Novak to be at the top. It would he interesting to see how Federer does via this metric in one of the years he competed at a high level while all the big 2 and Murray also were at a high level. Would he do better than Murray?
 
Herald said:
Great work and I like your method of assuming players would serve similar to their second serve if they only had one serve. I think players would probably train themselves to hit serves around 100ish mph with heavy kick and topspin would become the weapon of choice on the serve, resulting in many more rallies, so perhaps factor rally lengths into your methodology. On a tour where long rallies are the key to winning matches, you better expect Novak to be at the top. It would he interesting to see how Federer does via this metric in one of the years he competed at a high level while all the big 2 and Murray also were at a high level. Would he do better than Murray?
Click to expand...

Good points. I think you could be right that Novak would be at number 1 instead of Yoshi, but for a different reason than the reason you state. What my method doesn't take into account is that any time Novak currently spends practising first serves would be put into practising second serves instead. This would almost certainly give him a slight edge over Yoshi because Yoshi's second serve is quite similar to his first serve and about as good as it's going to get already. But Yoshi wouldn't certainly still be way up there. (In fact, even under the current serve rules, if Yoshi just improved his first serve return to the same level as Diego's, he would jump a lot higher in the rankings.)

However, I think my method does factor in rallying because second serve points won and second serve return points won are very closely related to how good someone is at rallying. Nishioka is the best in the world on second serve return points and number 4 in the world on second serve points because he is an absolute master at rallying, not because he has an amazing second serve or even an amazing return.

On Federer vs Murray, that's a trickier question than it might seem. Murray had a very big first serve that he probably relied on more whereas Federer probably had the better second serve, so you would expect this change would hurt Murray more than it would hurt Federer. However, Murray has been at number 4 in the world for second serve returns over the last 12 months despite metal hip so that is pretty amazing, and I don't have the stats on how good Federer was on second serve return points compared to Murray during that period. I imagine it'd have made things slightly easier for Federer against Murray during that period if I had to guess, but not a huge difference.

The big difference is that shorter guys with loads of talent like Fognini may have won some slams during the big 3 era, Lleyton may have stayed at the top for a fair bit longer, and anyone who got an injury from first serves & first serve practice would potentially not have gotten injured and stayed in the game. Men & women who we've never heard of, who never even made it to pro level due to injuries in first serve practice, could have potentially been winning slams. Ash Barty might still be playing because her shoulder injury would have been much more manageable, maybe Sharapova would have played for a lot longer, etc. If they didn't do anything to compensate for the increase in rally length, the strain on legs could potentially be worse, but I think this kind of thing is easier to compensate for by playing more aggressively to shorten points, and reducing training load, whereas there is no real getting around the need to practice big first serves under the current rules.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thing to think about, but your breakdown doesn’t adjust for competition. I think Djokovic’s figures probably tower above everyone else’s once you do.

If it were ever implemented, it would be awful IMO. The first serve is an equalizer, do away with it and parity is lost. Moreover, each match would become a grindfest and I feel like there’s enough of that already
 
TheFifthSet said:
Interesting thing to think about, but your breakdown doesn’t adjust for competition. I think Djokovic’s figures probably tower above everyone else’s once you do.
Click to expand...

You're probably right about that.

TheFifthSet said:
If it were ever implemented, it would be awful IMO. The first serve is an equalizer, do away with it and parity is lost. Moreover, each match would become a grindfest and I feel like there’s enough of that already
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "equaliser". It seems to me like it gives taller guys an even bigger advantage over shorter guys, results in a shorter average rally length, and results in more time waiting around for the point to start from each time the first serve is a fault. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "parity is lost"?

"Each match would become a grindfest and I feel like there’s enough of that already" If you mean matches are too long already, that may be true. They might have to compensate with other rule changes to prevent matches from being unreasonably draining on the body. However, even if they did those compensations, the total number of good rallies and great tennis that we'd see would go up in my opinion. Less energy spent on short but intense points, less strain on the arm, less players getting serve-related injuries, greater talent pool due to less serve-related injuries and due to average-height guys having a better chance, etc.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "equaliser". It seems to me like it gives taller guys an even bigger advantage over short guys, results in a shorter average rally length, and results in more time waiting around for the point to start from each time the first serve is a fault. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "parity is lost"?

"Each match would become a grindfest and I feel like there’s enough of that already" If you mean matches are too long already, that may be true. They might have to compensate with other rule changes to prevent matches from being unreasonably draining on the body. However, even if they did those compensations, the total number of good rallies and great tennis that we'd see would go up in my opinion. Less energy spent on short but intense points, less strain on the arm, less players getting serve-related injuries, greater talent pool due to less serve-related injuries and due to average-height guys having a better chance, etc.
Click to expand...

Fair question, I wasn’t too clear. What I mean is that you’d likely see less variance and more top-dominance if the second serve (or, functionally the first serve really) is neutered because even average serving generally allows for more randomness in outcomes and more upset potential. Even a player with a mediocre service game should hold 4 out of every 5 times on a medium-to-quick court. That’s at least somewhat of a bulwark against the “never-in-doubt” results we’d be likelier to see otherwise. As an example, picture prime Nadal in this scenario. Take the serve-return complex out of the equation and I genuinely don’t see him partaking in more than a handful of competitive matches on clay from, let’s say, 2005-2013 lol.

I think by de-prioritizing offensive serving you’d (ironically) make tennis more of a specialists sport by removing one of its key components. Less variety also just intuitively seems like a recipe for less parity. Another flawed analogy: boxing is known to be disproportionately top-heavy, whereas in MMA there’s frequent turnover at the top. I believe that’s because there are more ways to lose and more (totally disparate) forms of combat to master. If you strip MMA of grappling/kicks/clinching and turn it into boxing with 4oz gloves, you can safely bet that it becomes about as top-heavy as the sweet science within a decade. Seeing as tennis is already a very top-heavy sport, even more of that scares me.

Also, I grant you that there’s basically a straight-line correlation between height and serving prowess, but I never felt that to be particularly unfair to anyone. What taller players gain on the serve they often lose on the movement side of things. The elite movers tend to be 6’3 and below. You can see how height-related poor movement and suboptimal centre of gravity affects someone like (for instance) Isner, whose stand-still groundstrokes really aren’t that bad but he can’t hit a running forehand to save his life.

Everyone’s mileage varies but I personally think optimal height range in tennis is 6’0-6’4. Anything shorter or taller and you start getting those aforementioned serve-for-movement trade-offs. There’s a reason there have only been a few all-time great servers shorter than 6’0 (Mac, at 5’11…who else? Tanner was 6’ flat), and likewise very few all-time great movers taller than 6’4 (drawing blanks here to be honest; are there any? Admittedly the pool is much smaller).
 
Last edited:
I see. Personally I think the opposite would happen. The majority of men are shorter than 6 foot, but ALL of the top 10 are currently 6 foot or taller, and all of the number 1s (and 2s) have been above 6 foot since Lleyton. So basically what we have had since Lleyton is total dominance by the 3 most talented players above 6 foot. The most talented players below 6 foot, which is more than half of all men, just haven't been able to compete at that level due primarly due to a substantially weaker first serve. Meanwhile less than 0.1% of men are over 2 metres tall, so the talent pool there is over 500x smaller than the talent under 6 foot, so it's not surprising that there aren't any guys in the top 10 over 2 metres either. That's primarily because there are so few guys over 2 metres period. It's the same reason that there aren't any women in the top 10 over 6'2". There just aren't many women who are that tall. But all of the the top 10 women (even Ons) are at least 2 inches taller than the average woman. The majority of women in the USA are shorter than Ash Barty yet Ash was virtually the only woman that short in the top 100.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
I see. Personally I think the opposite would happen. The majority of men are shorter than 6 foot, but ALL of the top 10 are currently 6 foot or taller, and all of the number 1s (and 2s) have been above 6 foot since Lleyton. So basically what we have had since Lleyton is total dominance of the most talented 3 players above 6 foot. The most talented players below 6 foot, which is more than half of all men, just haven't been able to compete at that level due primarly due to a substantially weaker first serve. Meanwhile less than 0.1% of men are over 2 metres tall, so the talent pool there is over 500x smaller than the talent under 6 foot, so it's not surprising that there aren't any guys in the top 10 over 2 metres either. That's primarily because there are so few guys over 2 metres period.
Click to expand...

Oh I don’t doubt this, after all I do maintain 6’0-6’4 is the optimal height range, so tennis today definitely skews taller no matter what. I just think you start to see diminishing returns after 6’4ish. But you’re correct that this could be due to the smaller share of >6’4 men amongst the general population.

While your proposed ruleset would indeed make tennis more egalitarian in that regard, it does bear mentioning that there’d still be an uneven distribution because <5’10’ers would still likely be at a disadvantage, albeit less of one…optimal height helps with hitting penetrating groundstrokes and overheads, as well as increasing returning reach.

All in all, it’s a tough one to get behind because the product would suffer too much for my liking. I think banning poly may possibly achieve many of the desired effects you’re aiming for here, but without turning the game on its head.
 
Last edited:
TheFifthSet said:
Fair question, I wasn’t too clear. What I mean is that you’d likely see less variance and more top-dominance if the second serve (or, functionally the first serve really) is neutered because even average serving generally allows for more randomness in outcomes and more upset potential. Even a player with a mediocre service game should hold 4 out of every 5 times on a medium-to-quick court. That’s at least somewhat of a bulwark against the “never-in-doubt” results we’d be likelier to see otherwise. As an example, picture prime Nadal in this scenario. Take the serve-return complex out of the equation and I genuinely don’t see him partaking in more than a handful of competitive matches on clay from, let’s say, 2005-2013 lol.

I think by de-prioritizing offensive serving you’d (ironically) make tennis more of a specialists sport by removing one of its key components. Less variety also just intuitively seems like a recipe for less parity. Another flawed analogy: boxing is known to be disproportionately top-heavy, whereas in MMA there’s frequent turnover at the top. I believe that’s because there are more ways to lose and more (totally disparate) forms of combat to master. If you strip MMA of grappling/kicks/clinching and turn it into boxing with 4oz gloves, you can safely bet that it becomes about as top-heavy as the sweet science within a decade. Seeing as tennis is already a very top-heavy sport, even more of that scares me.

Also, I grant you that there’s basically a straight-line correlation between height and serving prowess, but I never felt that to be particularly unfair to anyone. What taller players gain on the serve they often lose on the movement side of things. The elite movers tend to be 6’3 and below. You can see how height-related poor movement and suboptimal centre of gravity affects someone like (for instance) Isner, whose stand-still groundstrokes really aren’t that bad but he can’t hit a running forehand to save his life.

Everyone’s mileage varies but I personally think optimal height range in tennis is 6’0-6’4. Anything shorter or taller and you start getting those aforementioned serve-for-movement trade-offs. There’s a reason there have only been a few all-time great servers shorter than 6’0 (Mac, at 5’11…who else? Tanner was 6’ flat), and likewise very few all-time great movers taller than 6’4 (drawing blanks here to be honest; are there any? Admittedly the pool is much smaller).
Click to expand...

One comment that I think you’re getting at but don’t quite state: as well as neutralizing first serve, having only one serve makes return of serve a much less important skill.
 
Changing to one serve should certainly be tested. The current attempts to shorten the game by playing 4-game sets, having a deciding point etc. is detrimental to the physical aspect of the game.
If you analyze a current normal match, you will find that a large part of the time is made up by players preparing, bouncing, missing first serve, clear out the missed ball, prepare again for second serve. A lot of dead time. Edit it out of a match and you will see what it would look like with one serve.

By having one serve, this dead time will be replaced by longer rallies, which will increase tempo (reduce rest time) and make the sport more physical.
The tall players with powerful serves will still have an advantage. Hard to say if it will be bigger or smaller than today though.

The dynamics can easily be adjusted over time when the consequences can be seen. Courts can be made faster or slower, balls can be made faster or slower to adjust how long the matches will be.

Personally, I think I would rather watch game play than players bouncing balls and missing half of the serves.
 
helterskelter said:
As to the rankings, reducing the benefit he gets from return might make this change less advantageous to Djokovic than you’d expect. Sure, he’d probably be number one now, but if Nadal were younger, he’d benefit from the change more than would Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Probably so, though I’d expect young Djokovic to retain his overall advantage on HC, where he’s still better in neutral rally situations than Nadal IMO. But the clay court season would just be a total formality, even more so than it is now. I shudder to think about how dominant Nadal would be on clay if his ordinary serve + ordinary pure return (relatively speaking, of course) were no longer exploitable. Would probably bag an extra 3ish Wimby’s too.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Banning poly may possibly achieve many of the desired effects you’re aiming for here, but without turning the game on its head.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting suggestion. I'd support it for injury prevention alone. But I doubt it have a very big effect on making the game more entertaining or evening out the playing field between tall & short players.
 
AlecG said:
Who else would be pumped to see a tournament that looks like this? What would be the effect on pro tennis as a whole if say half of the tournaments allowed only one attempt at serving on each point? (I've given my answer to this question in my comment below)
Click to expand...
What about single fault leaderboard?

sascha-zverev-double-fault.gif
 
Hagberg said:
Changing to one serve should certainly be tested. The current attempts to shorten the game by playing 4-game sets, having a deciding point etc. is detrimental to the physical aspect of the game.
If you analyze a current normal match, you will find that a large part of the time is made up by players preparing, bouncing, missing first serve, clear out the missed ball, prepare again for second serve. A lot of dead time. Edit it out of a match and you will see what it would look like with one serve.

By having one serve, this dead time will be replaced by longer rallies, which will increase tempo (reduce rest time) and make the sport more physical.
The tall players with powerful serves will still have an advantage. Hard to say if it will be bigger or smaller than today though.

The dynamics can easily be adjusted over time when the consequences can be seen. Courts can be made faster or slower, balls can be made faster or slower to adjust how long the matches will be.

Personally, I think I would rather watch game play than players bouncing balls and missing half of the serves.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. It would be far more entertaining for those watching a match live I think, and probably better highlights too as a result of more competitive points on average.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Probably so, though I’d expect young Djokovic to retain his overall advantage on HC, where he’s still better in neutral rally situations than Nadal IMO. But the clay court season would just be a total formality, even more so than it is now. I shudder to think about how dominant Nadal would be on clay if his ordinary serve + ordinary pure return (relatively speaking, of course) were no longer exploitable. Would probably bag an extra 3ish Wimby’s too.
Click to expand...

You never know. Matches between Nadal & the other big three would have been even more dominated by Nadal, but matches between Nadal & shorter guys like Agassi, Lleyton, Fognini, Ferrer, Diego, Nishikori & Nishioka would have been more competitive on clay. I think it's quite likely that Fognini, Ferrer or Diego would have won a Slam, certainly much more likely than under the current rules, & they all got to the semis or the final at least once under the current rules.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
You never know. While matches between Nadal & the other big three would have been even more dominated by Nadal, but matches between Nadal & shorter guys like Fognini, Ferrer & Diego would have become more competitive. I think it's quite likely that Fognini, Ferrer or Diego would have won a Slam.
Click to expand...

Fognini’s return #’s are propped up pretty good by his competition. Rgw%’s against the Top 10 are 10.5/15.9/20.7 on grass/HC/clay, all pretty unspectacular. Ferrer and Diego see similar drop-offs. It might seem to encourage more parity from one angle, but what I suspect it would do is just leave the lesser player with no place to go as within the current dynamic even a big skill gap can be occasionally offset by a good/poor serving day, allowing randomness to creep in.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Fognini’s return #’s are propped up pretty good by his competition. Rgw%’s against the Top 10 are 10.5/15.9/20.7 on grass/HC/clay, all pretty unspectacular. Ferrer and Diego see similar drop-offs.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean here. I think from 20.7% it would increase markedly. Nadal's first serve is weaker than Novak's and Federer's but significantly stronger than Fognini's & Diego's, presumably was quite a big stronger than Ferrer's too.

TheFifthSet said:
It might seem to encourage more parity from one angle, but what I suspect it would do is just leave the lesser player with no place to go as within the current dynamic even a big skill gap can be occasionally offset by a good/poor serving day, allowing randomness to creep in.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how this is necessarily the case. People can have good and bad days with rallying too, and they could have a bad serving day even using a "second serve" technique, arguably more often, which would be more disastrous when you don't have a second attempt to get it right.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
I don't know what you mean here. I think from 20.7% it would increase markedly. Nadal's first serve is weaker than Novak and Federer's but significantly stronger than Fognini & Diegos, presumably was quite a big stronger than Ferrer's too.
Click to expand...

What I’m saying is that his % of return games won, against top players, is well below the elite threshold, making his overall returning numbers kind of fugazi as they portray him as a borderline elite returner.

And that 20.7% is on clay, a surface where Nadal routinely cracks 40% against the same set of players. It wouldn’t close the gap. If anything it would increase it.

I don't really see how this is necessarily the case. People can have good and bad days with rallying too, and they could have a bad serving day even using a "second serve" technique, arguably more often, which would be more disastrous when you don't have a second attempt to get it right.
Click to expand...

It’s not that there can’t be bad and good days off the ground, as there absolutely can be. It’s that tennis being service game-dominated makes it inherently friendlier to parity because it allows for more randomness when big skill gaps are present. See: clay. When the effect of the serve/first-strike tennis is blunted, Nadalian runs become possible.

It just seems like a truism to conclude that, as a rule of thumb, more variables = more randomness, and removing variables = less.
 
AlecG said:
You're probably right about that.



I'm not sure what you mean by "equaliser". It seems to me like it gives taller guys an even bigger advantage over shorter guys, results in a shorter average rally length, and results in more time waiting around for the point to start from each time the first serve is a fault. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "parity is lost"?

"Each match would become a grindfest and I feel like there’s enough of that already" If you mean matches are too long already, that may be true. They might have to compensate with other rule changes to prevent matches from being unreasonably draining on the body. However, even if they did those compensations, the total number of good rallies and great tennis that we'd see would go up in my opinion. Less energy spent on short but intense points, less strain on the arm, less players getting serve-related injuries, greater talent pool due to less serve-related injuries and due to average-height guys having a better chance, etc.
Click to expand...
When and where the deuce sets were substituted by tiebreakers, matches length was reduced.

Wimbledon 2010 was an example of something ugly that could occur, and indeed occurred.

Next step to reduce match time immensely, is to eliminate the deuce, best of 3 matches would last between 45' and 1h 30'
Best of 5, max 2 and a half hr.

Now matches that are scheduled to start at 19:00, sometimes start after 23:00.

Some matches have to be postponed due to the extreme duration, adding pressure to players, public, and tournament.
 
TheFifthSet said:
What I’m saying is that his % of return games won, against top players, is well below the elite threshold....

And that 20.7% is on clay, a surface where Nadal routinely cracks 40% against the same set of players. It wouldn’t close the gap. If anything it would increase it.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could link to those stats for Federer, Fognini and Nadal? How about Diego & Ferrer?

TheFifthSet said:
It wouldn’t close the gap. If anything it would increase it.
Click to expand...

I'm almost 100% sure this is not the case. Nadal's first serve return is much stronger than Fognini's, but his second serve return is only slightly stronger than Fognini's, plus Nadal's serve is slightly stronger.


TheFifthSet said:
It’s not that there can’t be bad and good days off the ground, as there absolutely can be. It’s that tennis being service game-dominated makes it inherently friendlier to parity because it allows for more randomness when big skill gaps are present. See: clay. When the effect of the serve/first-strike tennis is blunted, Nadalian runs become possible.

It just seems like a truism to conclude that, as a rule of thumb, more variables = more randomness, and removing variables = less.
Click to expand...

Nadal grew up on clay and most other players including Federer and Djokovic didn't. & his super heavy forehand is built for clay. & yes it neutralises big serves like Federer & Nocak's (but the guys I mentioned don't have big serves). And he also has a far stronger serve than say Diego (who has insanely good return stats overall, even if they aren't quite as good as Nadal's).

But I don't see what any of this has to do with randomness. There isn't a lot of randomness on grass either with Federer dominating and then Novak dominating despite it being very serve heavy even compared to hard courts. And loads of guys with much bigger serves than Novak or Federer including Isner have never even gotten to the final of Wimbledon, so where's the randomness? I think it just takes insane talent and experience levels to dominate a surface like that, and it's easier to dominate a surface that's not hard court because most players are spending most of their time on hard courts.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
Any chance you could link to those stats for Federer, Fognini and Nadal? How about Diego & Ferrer?
Click to expand...

Here is Nadal’s TA page:


The rest are likewise accessible on there.

I'm almost 100% sure this is not the case. Nadal's first serve return is much stronger than Fognini's, but his second serve rturn is only slightly stronger than Fognini's, plus Nadal's serve is slightly stronger.
Click to expand...

The gap is statistically bigger between them on the second serve return than the first. See here:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Statistics Leaders

Tennis statistics leaders by more than 100 figures filtered by various filters
www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com
I honestly think it's am mistake to attribute Nadal's dominance to that factor alone. He grew up on clay and Federer and Djokovic didn't. & his super heavy forehand is built for clay. But he also has a far stronger serve than say Diego (who has insanely good return stats overall, even if they aren't quite as good as Nadal's).
Click to expand...
But I don’t attribute it to that factor alone. Nadal is an incredible all-around player. Merely pointing out that the dynamics of clay court tennis, where the serve is not quite as big an equalizer, made the full extent of that dominance possible. Consistently winning 63-70% of games on HC/grass just isn’t possible in todays era with poly.

Also, no, Federer and Djokovic grew up primarily playing on clay, in Europe. Federer is particularly vocal about this.

Diego (who has insanely good return stats overall, even if they aren't quite as good as Nadal's).
Click to expand...

Not when adjusting for competition. His return stats are pretty good, against top opponents, but that’s about as far as it goes.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
Any chance you could link to those stats for Federer, Fognini and Nadal? How about Diego & Ferrer?



I'm almost 100% sure this is not the case. Nadal's first serve return is much stronger than Fognini's, but his second serve return is only slightly stronger than Fognini's, plus Nadal's serve is slightly stronger.




I honestly think it's am mistake to attribute Nadal's dominance to that factor alone. He grew up on clay and Federer and Djokovic didn't. & his super heavy forehand is built for clay. And he also has a far stronger serve than say Diego (who has insanely good return stats overall, even if they aren't quite as good as Nadal's).
Click to expand...
Whatever you’re trying to say ,Djokovic did grew up on clay,
helter-skelter said:
As to the rankings, reducing the benefit he gets from return might make this change less advantageous to Djokovic than you’d expect. Sure, he’d probably be number one now, but if Nadal were younger, he’d benefit from the change more than would Djokovic.
Click to expand...
Oh look another wishful thinking ,projection pulled out well the place where sun doesn’t shine.Kids really love to play their little games
 
Quite sure any high profile player could make up for “advantages “ in their game TTW romancer cut him off.But hey don’t bother I’m mostly making fun of hypotheticals
 
TheFifthSet said:
Also, no, Federer and Djokovic grew up primarily playing on clay, in Europe. Federer is particularly vocal about this.
Click to expand...

Oops my mistake. You're right. They both just have game styles that are more suited to grass vs Nadal's, and Nadal has a game style that is more suited to clay.

If you're talking about Nadal dominating the French Open, isn't match win percentage a more important measure of randomness?

The site you linked says Nadal has a 91% match win percentage on clay, Federer has a 87% on grass, and Novak has 86% on grass. Those seem like very small differences to me. The difference in the number of Slams can easily be explained by the fact that clay is an unusual surface and Nadal has an unusual game style that is unusually well suited to clay, given that Federer and Novak absolutely dominated Wimbledon between the two of them. If there were someone with the talent of Federer and the physique of Isner and they avoided injury for long enough they could have dominated Wimbledon just as much as Nadal has. It would eliminate randomness for the same reason Nadal has at the French. On the other hand, who would have dominated Wimbledon if they allowed only one attempt at the serve? Arguably the same people or it would have been more competitive with people like Nadal, De Minaur & Evans going much deeper. Federer and Novak might have roughly the same number of slams but the matches probably would have been more interesting overall.
 
Last edited:
TheFifthSet said:
He’s probably right though, because you’d be taking away two areas where Djokovic is markedly superior to Nadal. Of course that benefits Nadal more than Djokovic. It’s like saying removing clay favours Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Also, the idea that I would seek to argue for Nadal using motivated reasoning is, well, rather bullish.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Here is Nadal’s TA page:


The rest are likewise accessible on there.



The gap is statistically bigger between them on the second serve return than the first. See here:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Statistics Leaders

Tennis statistics leaders by more than 100 figures filtered by various filters
www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

But I don’t attribute it to that factor alone. Nadal is an incredible all-around player. Merely pointing out that the dynamics of clay court tennis, where the serve is not quite as big an equalizer, made the full extent of that dominance possible. Consistently winning 63-70% of games on HC/grass just isn’t possible in todays era with poly.

Also, no, Federer and Djokovic grew up primarily playing on clay, in Europe. Federer is particularly vocal about this.



Not when adjusting for competition. His return stats are pretty good, against top opponents, but that’s about as far as it goes.
Click to expand...

I can see what you mean now in that if there is a match between Isner and Opelka, there may to be more randomness in who wins the set, but this is a side effect of the games not being competitive, so I don't see how that kind of randomness is desirable & I don't think it would leads to a greater diversity of slam winners overall. Grass & hard courts would become much more competitive with a much larger number of players below 6 foot being able to compete & I don't think Nadal's dominance would increase.
 
AlecG said:
*men's top 20

Projected top 20 based on estimated points won (method below):

1. Yoshihito Nishioka 56.7%
2. Novak Djokovic 56.1%
3. Carlos Alcaraz 54.3%
4. Miomir Kecmanovic 54.1%
5. P. Carreno Busta 53.9%
6. Rafael Nadal 53.7%
7. Andrian Mannarino 53.2%
8. Stefanos Tsitsipas 53.1%
9. Jannick Sinner 52.7%
9. Alex Molcan 52.6%
11. Nick Kyrgios 52.5%
11. Casper Ruud 52.5%
11. Jack Draper 52.5%
14. Taylor Fritz 52.4%
14. Lorenzo Musetti 52.4%
14. Holger Rune 52.4%
17. Daniil Medvedev 52.3%
18. Alex De Minaur 52.2%
19. Sebastian Baez 52.0%
20. Cameron Norrie 51.9%

Who else would be pumped to see a tournament that looks like this? What would be the effect on pro tennis as a whole if say half of the tournaments allowed only one attempt at serving on each point? (I've given my answer to this question in my comment below)

I've assumed that people would play similarly to how they currently play on second serve points and taken an average of second serve points won and second serve return points won over the last 12 months. Obviously there are flaws in this method but I think it gives us a rough idea of what the top 20 would look like if players had only one attempt on each serve. What do you think are the biggest flaws in my methodology? (Edit: I've explained what I think the biggest flaw is in a comment below.)

A few others that I calculated:

? Murray 51.8%
? Tiafoe 51.5%
? Dimitrov 51.3%
? Emil 51.3%
? Fokina 51.2%
? Vinolas 51.1%
? Gasquet 51.0%
? Hurkacz 51.0%
? Evans 50.9%
? Shelton 50.8%
? Thiem 50.7%
? Diego 50.6%
? Tommy Paul 50.6%

Unfortunately some players in the top 100 who probably have excellent second serve stats like Kubler, Moutet & Wu are missing from the Leaderboard as they only recently joined the top 100 so I wasn't able to calculate their percentages, but I'll try to remember to come back & update this when they're added.

Sources that I used to get an average:

Leaderboard | ATP Tour | Tennis

Statistical measures of the best-performing players in three key categories in men's professional tennis.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

Leaderboard | ATP Tour | Tennis

Statistical measures of the best-performing players in three key categories in men's professional tennis.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

I'm curious what the women's top 20 would look like too but I don't think these kinds of stats are available for the women?
Click to expand...
Thanks, but no, thanks.
 
Topspin_80 said:
When and where the deuce sets were substituted by tiebreakers, matches length was reduced.

Wimbledon 2010 was an example of something ugly that could occur, and indeed occurred.

Next step to reduce match time immensely, is to eliminate the deuce, best of 3 matches would last between 45' and 1h 30'
Best of 5, max 2 and a half hr.

Now matches that are scheduled to start at 19:00, sometimes start after 23:00.

Some matches have to be postponed due to the extreme duration, adding pressure to players, public, and tournament.
Click to expand...

I think there are a number of better ways to reduce match length, but I'm not 100% certain it'd be necessary. Faults on first serves must add a good 20-30 seconds or so each game on average? I think rallies could be twice as long on average as they are now without adding much more than 20-30 seconds to each game.
 
AlecG said:
I think there are a number of better ways to reduce match length, but I'm not 100% certain it'd be necessary. Faults on first serves must add a good 20-30 seconds or so each game on average? I think rallies could be twice as long on average as they are now without adding much more than 20-30 seconds to each game.
Click to expand...
So what are you trying to say? That there should be no faults on first serves?

If faults on 1st serve could reduce 20-30 seconds, and rallies add 20-30 seconds we are back to square 1. There's
no reduction. One offsets the other.
 
Topspin_80 said:
So what are you trying to say? That there should be no faults on first serves?

If faults on 1st serve could reduce 20-30 seconds, and rallies add 20-30 seconds we are back to square 1. There's
no reduction. One offsets the other.
Click to expand...

Right, so it wouldn't necessarily make matches length any longer, which is a good thing, because the point of such a change would not be primarily to change total match length. The point of such a change would to make the sport more entertaining, so that that more of that match time is rallies and less of that match time is watching someone hit a fault and then setting up for their second serve, and to reduce serve related injuries, and to increase the talent pool by allowing men under 6'1" (and men who would otherwise injury their arms) to have a better chance of making a good income or even getting to no 1, etc.

If the goal is to reduce match length, there are other better ways to do that in my opinion. I think three set matches are a pretty sensible length already. It's really only the men's slam matches that are insanely long. The problem with the three set matches is not the total length but the boredom of waiting around for people to land a serve so the point can start, or waiting around for a serve that actually gets returned so that a rally can potentially start. In fact, even at the Slams people would probably enjoy 3-4 sets without first serves more than than 5 sets with first serves. I'd be happy if it were best of 5 sets for the final only, and best of 3 (or 4 with a tiebreak) for all the other rounds. But for all of the non-Slam tournaments the match length is usually pretty good for viewers already and would probably still be about the same with only one attempt per serve.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
Right, so it wouldn't necessarily make matches length any longer, which is a good thing, because the point of such a change would not be primarily to change total match length. The point of such a change would to make the sport more entertaining, so that that more of that match time is rallies and less of that match time is watching someone hit a fault and then setting up for their second serve, and to reduce serve related injuries, and to increase the talent pool by allowing men under 6'1" (and men who would otherwise injury their arms) to have a better chance of making a good income or even getting to no 1, etc.

If the goal is to reduce match length, there are other better ways to do that in my opinion. I think three set matches are a pretty sensible length already. It's really only the men's slam matches that are insanely long. The problem with the three set matches is not the total length but the boredom of waiting around for people to land a serve so the point can start, or waiting around for a serve that actually gets returned so that a rally can potentially start. In fact, even at the Slams people would probably enjoy 3-4 sets without first serves more than than 5 sets with first serves. I'd be happy if it were best of 5 sets for the final only, and best of 3 (or 4 with a tiebreak) for all the other rounds. But for all of the non-Slam tournaments the match length is usually pretty good for viewers already and would probably still be about the same with only one attempt per serve.
Click to expand...
Playing best of 3 is not a solution, there are matches that last 1 hr, and others that last 4 hr.
 
AlecG said:
increase the talent pool by allowing men under 6'1" (and men who would otherwise injury their arms) to have a better chance of making a good income or even getting to no 1, etc.
Click to expand...
Since you posted earlier that you play with a 28 inch racquet, I am guessing that you are well under 6’ yourself and the real objective of your proposed rule change is to prevent the advantage that tall players have on serves in general and first serves in particular.

Consider me exactly the opposite as I find the current balance between big servers and good returners just about perfect - not too many servebots dominating and not too many short guys relying only on speed as neither of those entertains me. There are enough long rallies particularly on clay and apart from the occasional fast, indoor tournament where almost every set goes to a TB due to big serves, the point patterns are fine. Even those few tournaments can probably be fixed with heavy Dunlop balls that fluff up instantly like the ones they used at the AO which will slow down the game.

Even when I play rec tennis, I get the most pleasure from hitting aces and service winners as it is the most aggressive way to end a point almost even before it starts! I am 6’1” and like using my serve as a weapon a lot.
 
Topspin_80 said:
Playing best of 3 is not a solution, there are matches that last 1 hr, and others that last 4 hr.
Click to expand...
I don't really see how that's necessarily a bad thing. If someone loses two sets 6-0 6-0 in 1 hour, do you really want to sit around & watch more? Probably not. If it takes them three hours to finish the first two sets & it's 6-7 7-6 do you want to sit around and watch more? Quite likely, yes. I'd generally want to watch more. I actually see that as an advantage of tennis. In some other sports you have to sit around until the time runs out even when there's basically no chance of the losing team making a comeback.
 
Last edited:
AlecG said:
Right, so it wouldn't necessarily make matches length any longer, which is a good thing, because the point of such a change would not be primarily to change total match length. The point of such a change would to make the sport more entertaining, so that that more of that match time is rallies and less of that match time is watching someone hit a fault and then setting up for their second serve, and to reduce serve related injuries, and to increase the talent pool by allowing men under 6'1" (and men who would otherwise injury their arms) to have a better chance of making a good income or even getting to no 1, etc.
Click to expand...
This would make injuries worse. It would lengthen the rallies (which is where most of the wear and tear, and injuries happen) as there would be very few free points. It would also increase the importance of the kick serve, which is the most strenuous serve to hit

This would greatly benefit players with a crap first serve, though. If you are a fan of players like that, getting rid of the two servers is one idea to get behind
 
Last edited:
socallefty said:
Since you posted earlier that you play with a 28 inch racquet, I am guessing that you are well under 6’ yourself and the real objective of your proposed rule change is to prevent the advantage that tall players have on serves in general and first serves in particular.
Click to expand...

It's a bit paranoid to think that's my "real" objective as if I'm lying about finding rallies more fun to watch than faults, unreturned serves & people setting up to serve, and as if I claimed that was the only reason I support this. It'd make it easier for me to compete against bigger guys for sure, but I'd still be an amateur so it's not like I actually gain anything from that. The bigger difference is that I'd enjoy my matches a lot more (even if losing my first serve is a disadvantage against opponents with weaker serves, which happens a lot at my level) because there would be far more rallies & the chances of injuring myself (again) would be much lower. I do enjoy hitting serves as hard as I can too but I can do that in my own time. The advantage of having an opponent there as an amateur is to have fun rallying with them, otherwise you may as well just go and practice serves on your own. When I'm playing against someone much weaker than me I often don't even bother trying to hit a big first serve because I can attempt that type of serve in my own time & I'd rather just have a rally because that's something I need an opponent for.

But no, that's not my "real" objective as that's only a small benefit & (for me) it's not all about me as a player. I wouldn't bother fantasising about a change like this if that were the only benefit. It'd probably make a bigger difference to me as a viewer than as a player. But I wouldn't propose it just for that reason either. I think overall, the extra pleasure & money that a few big servers get out of hitting unreturned first serves is something that only a minority of people benefit from. The majority of people that would be affected (viewers, players & potential players) would enjoy the game more & benefit from the game more overall if there were only one serve attempt & the number of talented people who give up on the sport or don't even attempt it because of their height would decrease. I wouldn't propose a big change to a sport unless I think most people would benefit & it won't increase the number of people who are really unfairly disadvantaged.
 
jm1980 said:
This would make injuries worse. It would lengthen the rallies (which is where most of the wear and tear, and injuries happen) as there would be very few free points. It would also increase the importance of the kick serve, which is the most strenuous serve to hit
Click to expand...

True, it would make some injuries worse IF there were no compensation in terms of the number of games in a match. It could also make some injuries less common. Some injuries are primarily caused by rallies & some are primarily caused by serving. Nadal's & Alcaraz's abdominal injuries & Korda's wrist injury for example are serving related along with most shoulder injuries. & Nadal's second serve didn't change much as a result of his injury. The biggest difference was that he had to reduce the pace on the first serve. The biggest kick serves are often hit as first serves. Second serve "kick" is generally much more conservative. So I don't believe second serves are currently more strenuous on average, certainly not when players are still developing. I spent hours at a time practicing top spin second serves last year & it was always the few minutes of hitting it as hard as I can that actually hurt.

jm1980 said:
This would greatly benefit players with a crap first serve, though. If you are a fan of players like that, getting rid of the two servers is one idea to get behind
Click to expand...

That's like saying two serves greatly benefits those with crap groundstrokes, crap returns and crap movement. It'd reduce the disadvantage of being average height or shorter. & yeah I love those players. I've seen both Nishoka & Cressy live, and although I like Cressy, Nishioka is roughly 10x more fun to watch. Nishioka's rallying skills are insane & it's mostly his height & first serve return holding him back.

Every pro on tour has a good serve for their height. The differences are almost entirely due to height. Isner & Opelka win more points on first serve than Kyrgios because they're taller. It's free points for being tall. There's at least one exception (Jenson Brooksby) who is tall & has a weaker serve for his height, but every top 100 player shorter than 6'2" has a good serve for their height or they wouldn't survive. But they don't get many free points just because they aren't extremely tall. Technique & muscle mass index are also factors in number of aces per match but they are both much smaller factors than height among pros. So in practice two serves at the pro level is free points for being tall. Yet I'm not even saying to get rid of it all together! I'd just like to see at least one 250 where they allow only one attempt on serve, as would most tennis fans, if only for the novelty at first.
 
Last edited:
I've updated it for March 2023.

Novak has moved up to number 1. Medvedev & Rune have entered the top 10.

I guess Alcaraz, Medvedev, Sinner & Rune will move up the rankings by the end of the year.
 
threehandedbackhand said:
What about single fault leaderboard?

sascha-zverev-double-fault.gif
Click to expand...

Already exists! Just arrange the ATP Leaderboard by First Serve Percentage. Interesting that you chose a GIF of Zverev faulting, as he's been the second most consistent on tour for getting his first serve in over the last year.

Lowest rate of first serve faults:
1. Baez
2. Zverev
3. Ymer
4. Diego
5. Isner
6. Sonego
7. Kyrgios
8. Coria
9. Lajovic
10. Nishihoka
11. Alcaraz

Highest rate of first serve faults:
1. Otte
2. Stan
3. Basilashvili
4. Sinner
5. Goffin
6. Tiafoe
7. Gasquet
8. De Minaur
9. Fognini
 
BauerAlmeida said:
Mmmmm

I find it really hard to believe that Nishioka would be #1, regardless of this statistic.
Click to expand...
So do I, but it all depends how the rule change would affect his mental game and the mental game of his opponents. He had a great run from September up until the loss to Korda in Adelaide, but he doesn't do that well at big tournaments and plays a lot of 250s, so the stats are distorted by that, and he's no longer at no. 1 on these stats regardless. He is often very negative on the court & I think that's gotten worse since the Korda match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rovesciarete
Fighting without serving, rallying against the odds.
Replies
10
Views
628
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
Back
Top