BorgTheGOAT
Legend
When I watch old Wimbledon matches with players predominantly serving and volleying I always wondered whether it was actually a reasonable tactic to come in after the second serve. Sometimes you have the impression that most players did it more because it was common and the general view was that a baseliner cannot win at Wimbledon, rather than because stats actually back it up.
For instance if you watch the 1989 Lendl vs Becker semi, Lendl gets passed left and right, Becker totally destroys Lendl's second serve with 17!! clear return winner only on the second serve. Nevertheless, Lendl is coming in relentlessly, which is quite strange given the fact that he was widely considered the better baseliner of the two. He ends up being 42% on second serve for the whole match which in the end turns out to be crucial for him loosing.
While this is only one match, I looked up stats from other Wimbledon finals or semifinals and rarely did I find matches where player serving and volleying on both serves won significantly more than 50% of their second serve points. Becker is something like 37% against Sampras in 1995, Sampras is 43% against Agassi in 1993 and even in one of his best matches, the 1999 Wimbledon final he ends up with a success rate of 49% ( with 50% on second serve return points).
I can fully understand that McEnroe played like that against Borg or Rafter against Sampras since they are considered inferior baseliners, but why the hell did Lendl stick to it against a guy like Becker? Given that he was better from the baseline and given that you start a second serve rally in a slightly advantageous position (combined with the fact that you hit fewer double faults since you don't have to take as much risk on your second serve as you had to if you play serve and volley) you would expect Lendl to go somewhere around 60% against Becker had he stayed behind all the time. Same I would expect for Sampras against guys like Henman or Rafter. The tactics coming in after your first and staying back after your second was successfully played on carpet back then, it was only in Wimbledon that players decided to come in behind both.
What is maybe an explanation is that staying back more often than not would not always have resulted in pure baseline rallies but most likely guys like Becker or Rafter would have chipped and charged or come to the net later in the rally. However even then, I can't see why there were not more players staying back on only the second serve against opponents with inferior baseline game.
For instance if you watch the 1989 Lendl vs Becker semi, Lendl gets passed left and right, Becker totally destroys Lendl's second serve with 17!! clear return winner only on the second serve. Nevertheless, Lendl is coming in relentlessly, which is quite strange given the fact that he was widely considered the better baseliner of the two. He ends up being 42% on second serve for the whole match which in the end turns out to be crucial for him loosing.
While this is only one match, I looked up stats from other Wimbledon finals or semifinals and rarely did I find matches where player serving and volleying on both serves won significantly more than 50% of their second serve points. Becker is something like 37% against Sampras in 1995, Sampras is 43% against Agassi in 1993 and even in one of his best matches, the 1999 Wimbledon final he ends up with a success rate of 49% ( with 50% on second serve return points).
I can fully understand that McEnroe played like that against Borg or Rafter against Sampras since they are considered inferior baseliners, but why the hell did Lendl stick to it against a guy like Becker? Given that he was better from the baseline and given that you start a second serve rally in a slightly advantageous position (combined with the fact that you hit fewer double faults since you don't have to take as much risk on your second serve as you had to if you play serve and volley) you would expect Lendl to go somewhere around 60% against Becker had he stayed behind all the time. Same I would expect for Sampras against guys like Henman or Rafter. The tactics coming in after your first and staying back after your second was successfully played on carpet back then, it was only in Wimbledon that players decided to come in behind both.
What is maybe an explanation is that staying back more often than not would not always have resulted in pure baseline rallies but most likely guys like Becker or Rafter would have chipped and charged or come to the net later in the rally. However even then, I can't see why there were not more players staying back on only the second serve against opponents with inferior baseline game.