Why is Federer’s return so underrated?

[TheFifthSet]

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/sta...ek&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false

Here OP, go nuts. Federer even in his prime in 2005 and 2006 wasnt even in top 5 returners .In 2007 wasnt even in top 10. In 2010s wasnt even in top 20, while Novak (and Nadal) are always in top spots, often No1 returners of the year.

And really, who cares about Roddick. You need to be able to return against all players, not just Andy Roddick.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/sta...er&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false

Here. On all times list, Nadal is No3, Novak is No6, and guess what rank is Federer? No 88 . But good thing he beat Roddick. That tells everything.

There's quite a bit more to it than that:

Nobody believes he has the best overall return nor the best overall groundstrokes. You're talking out of your rear.

However, given the fact that he's playing against a field that holds serve at a higher rate than any in tennis history and plays top 10 guys more than just about anybody, the 27% figure underrates him severely. Against top players he wins return games at a historically high rate.

Agassi, for instance, trounces Fed in career % of return games won, 31.7-26.9..yet look at what happens when we do a comparison against the top 10

Federer: 22.9%
Agassi: 22.3%

Top 5?

Federer: 21.1%
Agassi: 20.6%

Okay, but Agassi played against better servers, right? Possibly, but as I said, the tour-wide hold rate is far, far higher today.

This applies to many other players who are ahead of Federer in return game stats, sometimes well ahead, yet fall behind the better the competition gets (all of which is not to say Agassi has an inferior return, I am merely demonstrating the faulty logic on display.)

In fact, take a gander at where Federer's peak ELO return ranks at:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

6th all time. What about year end ELO return rankings every year, starting with 2003?

2003: 6th
2004: 2nd
2005: 3rd
2006: 1st
2007: 4th
2008: 5th
2009: 12th
2010: 3rd
2011: 4th
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
2014: 5th
2015: 4th
2016: 6th
2017: 5th
2018 so far: 5th

Not bad for somebody that also has one of the best service games of all time and unquestionably the best tiebreak game.

Any returning metric that takes competition into account ranks Federer as an all-time great returner, however said competition also bumps him down the list of % of return games won, as one would naturally expect. Pretty much every returner close to him in %'s against the field is way, way behind him in %'s against the top 20, 10, and 5. Here's another thread touching on Federer's returning brilliance:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...better-than-return-games-won-suggests.578297/

When adjusting for competition and applying metrics that actually take into account era (harder to break in the 2000s than ever before: http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsTimeline), Federer is clearly an ATG returner and 88th place does not do him justice. He is not as good as Djokovic or Murray, but is an ATG nonetheless, and also very evidently a better returner than Nadal on grass and HC.

 

[captainbryce]

You are suggesting we completely take away any gray area by only going by how many returns are put in play, thus eliminating any area where the player's overall baseline game could influence the stats. The problem is though you are not at all measuring the quality of the return now, only the fact that the return was successfully hit in play which is obviously important but only one piece of the equation.

Let me put it a different way: If you had to pick a single stat to use to determine the greatness of a return of serve as a stand alone shot, which stat do you rate as more important?

A) number of returns successfully put in play/how difficult the player is to ace

...or...

B) average quality (depth/pace) of returns successfully put in play

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Let me put it a different way: If you had to pick a single stat to use to determine the greatness of a return of serve as a stand alone shot, which stat do you rate as more important?

A) number of returns successfully put in play/how difficult the player is to ace

...or...

B) average quality (depth/pace) of returns successfully put in play

I wouldn't pick either, neither is good enough as a standalone stat. In terms of the actuality of how it plays out, usually B matters more.

Obviously the way it's been framed by you, it makes one feel like they have to pick A) because clearly it doesn't matter if you can't even get the return in play you have zero shot of winning the point.

But the reality is the difference is a couple percentage points of returns put in play; the higher quality returns probably put the returner in a better position in return points to win quite a bit more than the slight percentage less of points where they don't get the return in play as much as the other guy.

There is no way to precisely measure it because you will argue this is the result of someone like Djokovic having a better baseline game in general. But the way you suggested, while eliminating this gray area, does so at the cost of accurately measuring what's completely going on with the quality of the returns.

I think it's pretty obvious Djokovic has a better return than Federer save for some very big servers, sorry.

 

[NoleFam]

I think it's pretty obvious Djokovic has a better return than Federer save for some very big servers, sorry.

It depends on who the server is. I did a return stats composition a few months ago on Isner, Raonic, Karlovic and Roddick (they have the 4 greatest serving stats according to ATP) on faster surfaces for Murray, Federer and Djokovic. Overall, Djokovic came out on top but Federer had better return stats against Roddick and slightly better against Karlovic.

Djokovic return points won versus Isner -- 163/424 -- 38.4%
Federer " " " versus Isner -- 160/478 -- 33.5%
Murray " " versus Isner -- 163/492 -- 33.1%

Murray return points won versus Karlovic -- 178/533 -- 33.4%
Federer " " " versus Karlovic -- 185/693 -- 26.7%
Djokovic " " " versus Karlovic -- 45/182 -- 24.7%

Djokovic return points won versus Raonic -- 53/134 -- 39.6%
Murray " " " " versus Raonic -- 226/649 -- 34.8%
Federer " " " " versus Raonic -- 268/862 -- 31.1%

Federer return points won versus Roddick -- 482/1320 -- 36.5%
Murray " " " " versus Roddick -- 242/665 -- 36.4%
Djokovic " " " " versus Roddick -- 158/467 -- 33.8%

Overall
1. Djokovic 419/1207 -- 34.7%
2. Murray 809/2339 -- 34.5%
3. Federer 1095/3353 -- 32.6%

 

[Sport]

.

 

[Sport]

According to stats, Nadal is a better 2nd serve returner than Federer on any surface (hard, grass or clay). Nonetheless, Federer is a better 1st serve returner than Nadal both on hard courts and grass.

Link to stats:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsLeaders

 

[2011]

Federers return ability is actually very unknown, in his prime days he used to break opponents macimax once and twice with intensity, then he used to storm through the service game to win the set.
But it's also right that federer is very passive in return, in ur bad service days djokovic would roast u, but there is a huge chance that Fed still slice return ur puff serve.

But if u consider best returner inside or on baseline, then fed surely be one of the greatest not the greatest....

Forget about nadal even djokovic don't stand so much near baseline while returning.

 

[Sport]

It depends on who the server is. I did a return stats composition a few months ago on Isner, Raonic, Karlovic and Roddick (they have the 4 greatest serving stats according to ATP) on faster surfaces for Murray, Federer and Djokovic. Overall, Djokovic came out on top but Federer had better return stats against Roddick and slightly better against Karlovic.

Djokovic return points won versus Isner -- 163/424 -- 38.4%
Federer " " " versus Isner -- 160/478 -- 33.5%
Murray " " versus Isner -- 163/492 -- 33.1%

Murray return points won versus Karlovic -- 178/533 -- 33.4%
Federer " " " versus Karlovic -- 185/693 -- 26.7%
Djokovic " " " versus Karlovic -- 45/182 -- 24.7%

Djokovic return points won versus Raonic -- 53/134 -- 39.6%
Murray " " " " versus Raonic -- 226/649 -- 34.8%
Federer " " " " versus Raonic -- 268/862 -- 31.1%

Federer return points won versus Roddick -- 482/1320 -- 36.5%
Murray " " " " versus Roddick -- 242/665 -- 36.4%
Djokovic " " " " versus Roddick -- 158/467 -- 33.8%

Overall
1. Djokovic 419/1207 -- 34.7%
2. Murray 809/2339 -- 34.5%
3. Federer 1095/3353 -- 32.6%

The problem is that Raonic, Isner, Karlovic and Roddick are not the only players on the tour.

Andy Murray is a better 1st serve returner than Djokovic on hard courts, but Djokovic is a better 1st serve returner on grass:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsLeaders

 

[NoleFam]

The problem is that Raonic, Isner, Karlovic and Roddick are not the only players on the tour.

Andy Murray is a better 1st serve returner than Djokovic on hard courts, but Djokovic is a better 1st serve returner on grass:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsLeaders

But they are the biggest servers and the return against the biggest servers was in question.

This does not tell the complete story though. I prefer to use the ATP site for this stat because it breaks down not only 1st serve return stats but also 2nd serve return stats and return games. Overall when all these are considered, Murray is ahead of Djokovic in returning on grass and Djokovic is ahead of everyone on hardcourt.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/sta...ek&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false

 

[Sport]

But they are the biggest servers and the return against the biggest servers was in question.

This does not tell the complete story though. I prefer to use the ATP site for this stat because it breaks down not only 1st serve return stats but also 2nd serve return stats and return games. Overall when all these are considered, Murray is ahead of Djokovic in returning on grass and Djokovic is ahead of everyone on hardcourt.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/sta...ek&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false

Thanks for the link!

According to the ATP stats, when taking into account both 1st return and 2nd return overall, Nadal is a better returner than Federer both on hard courts and clay while Federer is a better returner on grass than Nadal. And Murray is a better returner on grass (but not on hard courts) than Djokovic.

 

[NoleFam]

Thanks for the link!

According to the ATP stats, when taking into account both 1st return and 2nd return overall, Nadal is a better returner than Federer both on hard courts and clay while Federer is a better returner on grass than Nadal. And Murray is a better returner on grass (but not on hard courts) than Djokovic.

If you want to use ultimatetennisstats though, it's best to open a separate tab and pull up the stats separately for each player. Then you can compare who is better more thoroughly. You also can click the adv tab and change the date and see who was better at their peak, etc. To his credit, Federer was a better returner at his peak (2003-2007) on grass than Murray (2012-2016) or Djokovic (2011-2015). Djokovic is the leader on hard at their peaks.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=3819
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4920
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4913

 

[Sport]

If you want to use ultimatetennisstats though, it's best to open a separate tab and pull up the stats separately for each player. Then you can compare who is better more thoroughly. You also can click the adv tab and change the date and see who was better at their peak, etc. To his credit, Federer was a better returner at his peak (2003-2007) on grass than Murray (2012-2016) or Djokovic (2011-2015). Djokovic is the leader on hard at their peaks.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=3819
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4920
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4913

Personally, I prefer to take into account the overall career stats rather than the "peak" stats, because there is sometimes debate on the precise delimitation of players' peak. Some may argue that player A was at his peak in Y years, while others may argue that player A was at his peak in Z years. The whole notion of peak (while real) is a little bit subjective or difficult to delimitate.

But if you want to take the peak factor into account, fine!

 

[NoleFam]

Personally, I prefer to take into account the overall career stats rather than the "peak" stats, because there is sometimes debate on the precise delimitation of players' peak. Some may argue that player X was at his peak in Y years, while others may argue that player X was at his peak in Z years. The whole notion of peak (while real) is a little bit subjective or difficult to delimitate.

But if you want to take the peak factor into account, fine!

Well I like both peak stats and overall stats, and both are useful in different ways.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It depends on who the server is. I did a return stats composition a few months ago on Isner, Raonic, Karlovic and Roddick (they have the 4 greatest serving stats according to ATP) on faster surfaces for Murray, Federer and Djokovic. Overall, Djokovic came out on top but Federer had better return stats against Roddick and slightly better against Karlovic.

Djokovic return points won versus Isner -- 163/424 -- 38.4%
Federer " " " versus Isner -- 160/478 -- 33.5%
Murray " " versus Isner -- 163/492 -- 33.1%

Murray return points won versus Karlovic -- 178/533 -- 33.4%
Federer " " " versus Karlovic -- 185/693 -- 26.7%
Djokovic " " " versus Karlovic -- 45/182 -- 24.7%

Djokovic return points won versus Raonic -- 53/134 -- 39.6%
Murray " " " " versus Raonic -- 226/649 -- 34.8%
Federer " " " " versus Raonic -- 268/862 -- 31.1%

Federer return points won versus Roddick -- 482/1320 -- 36.5%
Murray " " " " versus Roddick -- 242/665 -- 36.4%
Djokovic " " " " versus Roddick -- 158/467 -- 33.8%

Overall
1. Djokovic 419/1207 -- 34.7%
2. Murray 809/2339 -- 34.5%
3. Federer 1095/3353 -- 32.6%

Excellent work, my friend

 

[captainbryce]

I wouldn't pick either, neither is good enough as a standalone stat.

And perhaps that is the rationale the ATP uses for not including either of those in their return stats too, I don’t know. But I disagree with the premise. I think they are the two MOST important stats, with one being clearly more indicative of being a great returner.

In terms of the actuality of how it plays out, usually B matters more.

What does that even mean? How what plays out? We are talking about a single shot, not a whole match, or even a rally. I’m only judging the ability of a player to return serves. How often they win return points or return games is dependent on many outside factors.

Obviously the way it's been framed by you, it makes one feel like they have to pick A) because clearly it doesn't matter if you can't even get the return in play you have zero shot of winning the point.

Exactly! Because statistically, if you have a greater chance of winning a point (by getting a return in play) than you do NOT getting the return in play, that would seem to suggest that getting returns in play is the most important return stat! And that does not diminish the importance of other stats.

But the reality is the difference is a couple percentage points of returns put in play; the higher quality returns probably put the returner in a better position in return points to win quite a bit more than the slight percentage less of points where they don't get the return in play as much as the other guy.

There is no way to precisely measure it because you will argue this is the result of someone like Djokovic having a better baseline game in general. But the way you suggested, while eliminating this gray area, does so at the cost of accurately measuring what's completely going on with the quality of the returns.

Possibly, but that is still too dependent on way too many assumptions. In other words, your example may work when you compare Djokovic to Federer. But what about when you compare Djokovic to Agassi? In that case, I think many people would argue that Agassi generally had better quality returns than Djokovic (and probably any other player). But most nowadays consider Djokovic the greatest returner because Agassi didn’t get nearly as many back as Djokovic does. It is both the quantity and the quality of Djokovic’s return (combined) that makes him the greatest returner in the game. And it is also his overall game (outside of the shot itself) that enables him to break serve as often as he does. Take away those skills, does Djokovic end up having the most breaks, or more return games won? Probably not. And that’s a lot of variables that your paradigm seems to ignore.

For example, if you remove the known traits/abilities of these established players, and apply the question to two random club players, it yields a very different answer. If you assume nothing about these two random players (other than they are both equally good servers), then logically the person who can put more returns in play is a “better” returner of serve. Who ultimately wins more return points is dependent on other factors (that we don’t know in this case), making it irrelevant.

I think it's pretty obvious Djokovic has a better return than Federer save for some very big servers, sorry.

You don’t have to be sorry; you’re entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree, and I don’t think you’ve made a compelling argument to back up your opinion. I think Djokovic has better return statistics than Federer because they measure things not related to the quantity or quality of the shot itself. And the fact that Djokovic has more trouble with big servers that Federer seems to handle easily to me is proof enough that as a stand alone shot, Federer’s is superior. In other words, if I had to face a player with a big serve, I’d rather have Federer’s return technique and eye hand coordination than Djokovic’s. Especially if I could combine that with Djokovic’s speed, flexibility, and tenacity in return games - although that’s not the question.

 

[captainbryce]

It depends on who the server is. I did a return stats composition a few months ago on Isner, Raonic, Karlovic and Roddick (they have the 4 greatest serving stats according to ATP) on faster surfaces for Murray, Federer and Djokovic. Overall, Djokovic came out on top but Federer had better return stats against Roddick and slightly better against Karlovic.

Djokovic return points won versus Isner -- 163/424 -- 38.4%
Federer " " " versus Isner -- 160/478 -- 33.5%
Murray " " versus Isner -- 163/492 -- 33.1%

Murray return points won versus Karlovic -- 178/533 -- 33.4%
Federer " " " versus Karlovic -- 185/693 -- 26.7%
Djokovic " " " versus Karlovic -- 45/182 -- 24.7%

Djokovic return points won versus Raonic -- 53/134 -- 39.6%
Murray " " " " versus Raonic -- 226/649 -- 34.8%
Federer " " " " versus Raonic -- 268/862 -- 31.1%

Federer return points won versus Roddick -- 482/1320 -- 36.5%
Murray " " " " versus Roddick -- 242/665 -- 36.4%
Djokovic " " " " versus Roddick -- 158/467 -- 33.8%

Overall
1. Djokovic 419/1207 -- 34.7%
2. Murray 809/2339 -- 34.5%
3. Federer 1095/3353 -- 32.6%

Great job!

Now can you tell us what the serve stats were for each of the servers? Were they having a good serving day, or a mediocre serving day? How about what percentage of those return points won were in fact “first serves”? And while you’re at it, how long was each of those matches, and in what sets did the breaks occur? Were all of them best 2-3 set matches that lasted an hour, or were they best 3-5 set matches where most of the winning return points came after both players had been playing for over 3 hours? And can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “faster surfaces”? I assume you mean hardcourts or grass. But are we talking US Open 2005 fast, or US Open 2017 “fast”? Australian Open 2012 “fast”, or Australian Open 2018 fast? Do the stats actually go into that level of depth ever?

 

[abmk]

There's quite a bit more to it than that:





When adjusting for competition and applying metrics that actually take into account era (harder to break in the 2000s than ever before: http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsTimeline), Federer is clearly an ATG returner and 88th place does not do him justice. He is not as good as Djokovic or Murray, but is an ATG nonetheless, and also very evidently a better returner than Nadal on grass and HC.

Yeah, those stats against top 10/top 20 are pretty revealing.
Not sold on ELO for tennis. But these rankings do seem closer to actual quality of the return games than what many people misleadingly interpret at face value.

ELO return rankings - are you going to player profile and checking under ranking ?

Was just curious and searched around by player profile
It has Coria at #1 in 2004 and #2 in 2005.
Nalby as #1 in 2005.

 

[Rafa Aficionado]

Nadal served and volleyed ONCE in the entire match - when he serving for the match too.

LOL

Ugh, what?

So why would you conclude from that data that Nadal served better in the first place?

Have you heard of sample size?

That data would never conclude that Nadal served better. You're pretty dumb, man.

 

[tennis_pro]

Ugh, what?

So why would you conclude from that data that Nadal served better in the first place?

Have you heard of sample size?

That data would never conclude that Nadal served better. You're pretty dumb, man.

Please finish elementary school before getting into any discussion, please.

 

[Rafa Aficionado]

Please finish elementary school before getting into any discussion, please.

"stats show Nadal on huge volume is a good volleyer, but in the 08 WB he was 100% and that shows stats suck!" -loltennis_pro, keep it up mister "as proved".

 

[tennis_pro]

"stats show Nadal on huge volume is a good volleyer, but in the 08 WB he was 100% and that shows stats suck!" -loltennis_pro, keep it up mister "as proved".

SERVE AND VOLLEY, dumbass

 

[NoleFam]

Excellent work, my friend

Thanks mate.

 

[Rafa Aficionado]

SERVE AND VOLLEY, dumbass

So? This doesn't help your retardation lol, especially considering you mentioned volleying only in your opening "argument"

 

[NoleFam]

Great job!

Now can you tell us what the serve stats were for each of the servers? Were they having a good serving day, or a mediocre serving day? How about what percentage of those return points won were in fact “first serves”? And while you’re at it, how long was each of those matches, and in what sets did the breaks occur? Were all of them best 2-3 set matches that lasted an hour, or were they best 3-5 set matches where most of the winning return points came after both players had been playing for over 3 hours? And can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “faster surfaces”? I assume you mean hardcourts or grass. But are we talking US Open 2005 fast, or US Open 2017 “fast”? Australian Open 2012 “fast”, or Australian Open 2018 fast? Do the stats actually go into that level of depth ever?

Thanks.

Well if you are interested in that much depth on each server/returner then ultimate tennis stats site would be what you need. There you can break down every match like that and see how many breaks there were, the length of the match, etc. Faster surfaces means everything except AO before 2017, IW, Miami and clay. For example, they all have 5 matches against Isner that they played on these surfaces which include Shanghai, USO, Olympics (grass), Cincinnati, Wimbledon, San Jose, Beijing, Davis Cup and Paris Masters.

 

[tennis_pro]

So? This doesn't help your retardation lol, especially considering you mentioned volleying only in your opening "argument"

 

[TheFifthSet]

Let me put it a different way: If you had to pick a single stat to use to determine the greatness of a return of serve as a stand alone shot, which stat do you rate as more important?

A) number of returns successfully put in play/how difficult the player is to ace

...or...

B) average quality (depth/pace) of returns successfully put in play

Clearly #1

However, the difference between Federer and Djokovic in #1 is not massive.

Here are their career ace rates against:

Djokovic: 6.2%
Federer: 5.8%

Ace rates against on grass, lest you think there is a significant clay slew like there is with Nadal:

Djokovic: 7.4%
Federer: 7.1%

And now, on HC:

Djokovic: 6.6%
Federer: 6.0%

To be sure, Federer has an edge, but the quantifiable difference is 4 aces every 1000 returns. Their % of serves returned, in the hundreds of matches charted for both of them on the TA match charting project, is even closer. There are 348 Federer matches and 228 Djokovic matches (19% of matches contested on clay for Djokovic, 17% for Federer), and they both register at 73% of serves returned. Identical.

Conversely, despite being less important, the gap between Federer and Djokovic in #2 is by all accounts comparatively bigger. Here are their % of “deep” and “very deep” return depths, tracked in that very same project:

Djokovic, 81% deep, 34% very deep
Federer, 76% deep, 26% very deep

Against 1st serves:

Djokovic, 78/34
Federer, 74/26

Against second serves:

Djokovic, 84/36, 6% UFE rate
Federer, 79/26, 10% UFE rate

No doubt that Federer’s brilliant slice and chip/block returns bring down his deep-v deep %, but they are also likely to reduce UFE %’s off the second serve (where Novak is still ahead).

And while those returns are great at drawing lumbering servebots to the net, I always thought he over-used them against limber players that could punish mid-court balls, like Novak and Rafa.

I readily concede that these are not ideal sample sizes, but they are doubtlessly better than nothing, and they all reveal Djokovic to be a far more aggressive returner despite getting a similar % of balls in play. A cursory investigation also shows that their win %’s in the matches charted appear to be close to equal, so there isn’t an over-sampling of matches where one guy won or lost.

I can say with a degree of confidence that there may not be anybody on this entire earth that has spent more time singing Federer’s praises as a returner...but this is a bridge too far. Djokovic is the better all-around returner. As defensive returners they are almost equal, with Federer perhaps getting the nod.


Links to the match-charting project, fwiw:

http://tennisabstract.com/charting/meta.html

Feel free to make a deep-dive of that page if you’d like to examine what I have missed.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Great job!

Now can you tell us what the serve stats were for each of the servers? Were they having a good serving day, or a mediocre serving day? How about what percentage of those return points won were in fact “first serves”? And while you’re at it, how long was each of those matches, and in what sets did the breaks occur? Were all of them best 2-3 set matches that lasted an hour, or were they best 3-5 set matches where most of the winning return points came after both players had been playing for over 3 hours? And can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “faster surfaces”? I assume you mean hardcourts or grass. But are we talking US Open 2005 fast, or US Open 2017 “fast”? Australian Open 2012 “fast”, or Australian Open 2018 fast? Do the stats actually go into that level of depth ever?

And the fact that Djokovic has more trouble with big servers that Federer seems to handle easily to me is proof enough that as a stand alone shot, Federer’s is superior. In other words, if I had to face a player with a big serve, I’d rather have Federer’s return technique and eye hand coordination than Djokovic’s. Especially if I could combine that with Djokovic’s speed, flexibility, and tenacity in return games - although that’s not the question.

Why do you demand nuance in the first post I quote, but largely discard it in the second?

One of the chief reasons Federer does so well against big servers is because he is far superior at the other half of tennis, the service game.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Possibly, but that is still too dependent on way too many assumptions. In other words, your example may work when you compare Djokovic to Federer. But what about when you compare Djokovic to Agassi? In that case, I think many people would argue that Agassi generally had better quality returns than Djokovic (and probably any other player). But most nowadays consider Djokovic the greatest returner because Agassi didn’t get nearly as many back as Djokovic does.

In light of what I have shown you, that is not an apt comparison, because Federer and Djokovic put a similar amount of balls back in play. Agassi and Djokovic do not. Agassi’s ace% against was 3.1% higher than Djokovic’s, 3.3% higher on HC and 3.6% higher on grass...despite the fact that ace rates were consistently 1-3% lower in Agassi’s day:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsTimeline


(there are only 61 matches charted for Agassi and are rife with matches against Sampras, Becker and Goran, so I won’t put too much stock into his unreturned %’s there).


In sum, yes, there isn’t much separating their overall return quality and Agassi’s second serve return was the best of all time, but the comparison is still not analogous.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yeah, those stats against top 10/top 20 are pretty revealing.
Not sold on ELO for tennis. But these rankings do seem closer to actual quality of the return games than what many people misleadingly interpret at face value.

ELO return rankings - are you going to player profile and checking under ranking ?

Was just curious and searched around by player profile
It has Coria at #1 in 2004 and #2 in 2005.
Nalby as #1 in 2005.

Here you can find the year-by-year, year-end return Elo rankings

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/rankingsTable

 

[captainbryce]

In light of what I have shown you, that is not an apt comparison, because Federer and Djokovic put a similar amount of balls back in play. Agassi and Djokovic do not. Agassi’s ace% against was 3.1% higher than Djokovic’s, 3.3% higher on HC and 3.6% higher on grass...despite the fact that ace rates were consistently 1-3% lower in Agassi’s day:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsTimeline


(there are only 61 matches charted for Agassi and are rife with matches against Sampras, Becker and Goran, so I won’t put too much stock into his unreturned %’s there.)


In sum, yes, there isn’t much separating their overall return quality and Agassi’s second serve return was the best of all time, but the comparison is still not analogous.

You do realize that there is a difference between “aces” and “unreturned serves” right? If Djokovic is able to touch the ball to his racket, it doesn’t count as an ace (even if the server wins the point outright). But that stat is not tracked or even considered when judging returners. So again, the stats are misleading.

 

[TheFifthSet]

You do realize that there is a difference between “aces” and “unreturned serves” right? If Djokovic is able to touch the ball to his racket, it doesn’t count as an ace (even if the server wins the point outright). But that stat is not tracked or even considered when judging returners. So again, the stats are misleading.

It’s not as if I separated the two in my first post addressed to you, right?

No, we do not have as comprehensive a data set for Agassi, so ace %’s are most of what we have to go on by now, statistically. What little else we do have are the matches charted; Djokovic has almost 4x as many as Agassi, who is at 61. A cursory glance at these matches reveal that Agassi is more frequently above 40-50% returns missed against big servers, even in a less service game dominated era.

We know that there is a very strong correlation between aces and unreturned %’s. Where you see high ace %’s you tend to see high unreturned %’s. It is not an airtight correlation and does not in itself imply causation, but it is strong. When you couple this with intuition, it is pretty safe to surmise that Djokovic gets many more balls back, as 50% less aces against in a more ace-friendly era is no small difference.

This does not mean that Agassi cannot make up the difference with his own, more aggressive brand of returning, but there is quite clearly a difference.