[Fluffy]

So I was watching Djokovic vs Nadal, and I saw a couple of statistics, they were kinda equal, for the first set, they were like:

First Serve in: 70%
First Serve point won: 73%
Second serve point won: 50%

Looking at this it looks like shooting second serve as if it was first serve would give you better chances than assuring the shoot.

I am not a big expert so maybe I am overlooking something, I could imagine that a double fault is too bad because you get tired while the other is not, and perhaps there is a psychological factor attached, but I am not really sure.


Also the percentages dropped down later on, so this could only be true for first set, or even first games of first set. But anyway, I also believe an important part of the points lost with seconds serve comes from the opponent expecting a safe shot rather than a hard one. This means a mixed strategy should kick ass, but didn't see anything close to that.

[Cyberyeti]

I can also believe that there would be a difference in these stats if you looked at serving to deuce and advantage courts. It might well be that the strategy might want to be more complicated than that, for example, you might want to do it differently serving at:

0-40
40-0
30-40
40-30

to the same court. I can believe that there are positions where you might want to just serve huge, and others where you might want to take a little bit off your first serve to try to get a serve that you win 60% of points on in 60% of the time for your first one.

[Winstonm]

Does 73% winning mean 73% of all points or only 73% of first service points? If the latter, then roughly 51% of all points are won when first serves are in.

[quiddity]

Fluffy, on 2013-June-08, 08:04, said:

First Serve in: 70%

This is high; I haven't looked at the numbers but mid-60s is probably a more reasonable expectation long-term.

Quote

Second serve point won: 50%

This is low for Djokovic, but against Nadal in the French it's probably decent. :-)

Quote

But anyway, I also believe an important part of the points lost with seconds serve comes from the opponent expecting a safe shot rather than a hard one.

Not on clay; you won't see many return winners there, even on second serves. The ball bounces too high and the opponent is unable to sneak in.

Basically, resorting to such a strategy would be conceding that the opponent is a superior player (since your expectation would be below 50%). I doubt someone like Djokovic would ever do it.

[billw55]

Yeah, 70% first serves in is above average. 73% first serve points won is about normal for high ranked players.

A mixed strategy on second serve might work a little better. And yes, I think there is a psychological downer associated with a double fault.

[gwnn]

Yes I've also thought the gap between first and second serve is too big for most players. I think it's just the same as in (American) football, they just rely too much on general wisdom. Although nobody will 'fire' a tennis player if he does unorthodox things so it's not a good comparison. But Federer and Andy Roddick sometimes hit very strong second serves I think, for example in the Wimbledon 2009 final.

off-topic: it would have been so cool to see Djokovic-Tsonga in the final, both winners would have made a great story. Nadal-Ferrer will be very boring. At least it won't last long

[billw55]

Federer and Roddick had some good matches. Life timing was bad luck for Roddick, he probably wins 4-6 slams if his career didn't overlap the Fed so heavily.

[gwnn]

The same goes for Fed and Nadal re. Roland Garros:) (except the bit about many good matches)

[1eyedjack]

billw55, on 2013-June-08, 12:44, said:

A mixed strategy on second serve might work a little better.

Agreed. And in my observation most of them do adopt a mixed strategy. Not convinced that the stats necessarily gainsay that.

[Phil]

Some of the low speeds for the 2nd serve reflect risk aversion

[y66]

It is 6-3, 3-1. Nadal is too good today.

[gwnn]

y66, on 2013-June-09, 08:20, said:

It is 6-3, 3-1. Nadal is too good today.

A quick look at Ferrer's record against the top 3 would have spared you the trouble of watching the final

edit: I meant Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, he has a respectable one vs Murray (5-7 I looked it up)