"If your serve is good, you can win on grass even without playing your best"

First topic message reminder :

"If your serve is good, you can win on grass even without playing your best"

I thought that was an interesting quote from Nadal after his win in Suttgart

http://www.tennis-tourtalk.com/?p=2796

I would say a lot of current tennis is reasonably well described with the phrase "endless rallies".

Ha ha, not when we have Raonic, Jerzy, Anderson, Berdych. Maybe a Monfils vs Simon or Murray?

I would suggest that Karlovic beating Berdych today with over with 40+ aces illustrates Rafa's point quite clearly

Yes, Monfils, Simon, but also near the very top - Rafa and Nole pretty much made their careers out of retrieval.

Nole is often described as having almost no weaknesses, even though he is a pretty one-dimensional player in many respects. That shows how much tennis has changed. A lot of the skills that used to be important - even critical - for tennis success are so diminished in importance that when players miss them it goes almost unnoticed.

Don't get me wrong, I find Isner and Raonic matches as boring as the next person, I just find retrieving tennis just as boring - and there is far more of it these days.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I would suggest that Karlovic beating Berdych today with over with 40+ aces illustrates Rafa's point quite clearly

He also broke Berdych twice somehow - surely not on the back of his serve?

Isn't that almost like saying the serve isn't really part of 'proper' tennis i.e. it's only groundshots that count?
Serving really well, for some players, is playing their best - nothing wrong with that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Isn't that almost like saying the serve isn't really part of 'proper' tennis i.e. it's only groundshots that count
Serving really well, for some players, is playing their best - nothing wrong with that.

Oh don't twist it JM.. that is not what Im saying and you know it.. Im talking serve dominant.
It suffice to tell you that all the time Sampras was at the top I stopped watching tennis and he was greater and better than any of the big servers you have today. AND I MIGHT ADD Im not the only one on 606v2  who has voiced a similar opinion.
However it is my opinion and as you rightly say.. that's what makes 606 so  very interesting NO??

SB, you think Rafa and Novak play retrieving tennis these days? You're shortchanging them! They have the weapons to overcome or overpower most players except maybe the big serving hard hitters. Just because they have good defending skills doesnt mean they have to play retrieving tennis all the time.

But Nadal said if your serve is good you can win on grass without playing your best.

ie the conditions make playing your best unnecessary. Wouldn't it be better to have more testing conditions? I would hazard a guess that many of Karlovics 45 aces were not even his "best" serves. They were grass assisted.

In theory it would be possible to win a match without getting off the bench during return games. It would just take a lucky (or unlucky) double fault in the tie break. But I suppose that just wouldn't be tennis

Belovedluckyboy wrote:SB, you think Rafa and Novak play retrieving tennis these days?

Well yes, that is the cornerstone of their success.  Karlovic also does not just serve - as I said, he still had to break a solid top 10 player twice - on grass - today.  But we know that without serve Karlovic would not be anywhere near where he is now.

Rafa and Novak are somewhat similar (albeit admittedly at a higher level - they are around #1 while Ivo is around #30) in that sure, they can do all kinds of things well, but what makes them what they are is their retrieval.

You miss the point, as I said, they dont need to play retrieval tennis most of the times, so whether the cornerstone of their game is retreival or not, it doesnt matter most of the time, as they could beat 90% of their opponents without doing retrievals!

I would say Fed is heavily reliant on his serve and when his serve is gone, hes oh so beatable, so for him hes more reliant on his major weapon than Novak or Rafa are reliant on their retrieval skills.

Maybe now, aged 33. 
But now that Rafa isn't attacking as well, he's dropping down the rankings.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:it doesnt matter most of the time, as they could beat 90% of their opponents without doing retrievals!

I do not see it that way. I would say that if you keep Rafa and Nole as they are except that you change their retrieval level to that of maybe an average player somewhere around #10 in the rankings, their success will be greatly diminished.

I should also add that nothing wrong with that - today's tennis rewards retrieval so good for them to utilize that. Just not my cup of tea.

summerblues wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:it doesnt matter most of the time, as they could beat 90% of their opponents without doing retrievals!

I do not see it that way.  I would say that if you keep Rafa and Nole as they are except that you change their retrieval level to that of maybe an average player somewhere around #10 in the rankings, their success will be greatly diminished.

But surely the whole point of tennis is to maximise your strengths along with getting the less strong parts of your game to the standard where they allow you to compete at the highest level. Karlovic's strength is his serve but the rest of his game has never allowed him to be a top 10 player. Nadal and Djokovic are good at defending but have a lot more in their games than that. Therefore they have been consistently at the top of the game.

Exactly Calder.

Rafa and Novak need not rely on their retrieval skills against most in the tour; as both have much more weapons than just retrieval skills.

Calder, in some sense certainly yes, I agree with you.

But I also think that tennis itself has changed so that the retrieval is more important than it used to be. In that sense, it has played into the hands of players whose retrieval is better.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I would suggest that Karlovic beating Berdych today with over with 40+ aces illustrates Rafa's point quite clearly

Just the right example though. The opposite is well illustrated too.
If your serve is at its best, you can lose on grass if you don't have the game to back it up:

Isner lost against F Lopez in 4 sets at Wimby, despite 52 aces
Ivo lost against Bracciali in 5 sets at Wimby despite 51 aces

Ivo the service only man has 6 titles for 13 finals. Grass: 2/4, Hard 3/7, Clay 1/2

Or conversely, Rafa could say: when your service is poor, you can still win - the big 3 routinely won many matches without playing their best (service or ground strokes).

So Rafa is saying Grass is a faster surface, big news. And (edit) that HE can win without playing his best in other parts of his when his serve is clicking (because serving well is part of playing your best, oviously).

Players like Monfils, Simon and Ferrer? More so for Ferrer than say Rafa or Novak. Ferrer went as high as no.3 in thr rankings with no major weapon(s) except good footwork and speed, go stamina and fitness and also good ROS.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:MMT, Wimbledon is hard to win only when you dont have a good serve to start with!  Those who win Wimbledon multiple times are those who can serve well. There are no shortage of multiple Wimbledon winners, just like there are no shortage of multiple FO winners.

# of different FO champions in the open era = 26
# of different Wimbledon champions in the open era = 20

# of different FO champions in the last 20 years = 12
# of different Wimbledon champions in the last 20 years = 8

MMT1 wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:MMT, Wimbledon is hard to win only when you dont have a good serve to start with!  Those who win Wimbledon multiple times are those who can serve well. There are no shortage of multiple Wimbledon winners, just like there are no shortage of multiple FO winners.

# of different FO champions in the open era = 26
# of different Wimbledon champions in the open era = 20

# of different FO champions in the last 20 years = 12
# of different Wimbledon champions in the last 20 years = 8

And to stick to "multiple" champions:

# of multiple FO champions in the open era = 8
# of multiple Wimbledon champions in the open era = 11

# of multiple FO champions in the last 20 years = 2
# of multiple Wimbledon champions in the last 20 years = 4

So? That means there are more players who could win repeatedly at Wimbledon than at the FO. Doesnt that prove that its more difficult to 'hang on' to your FO title than your Wimbledon title?

I'll let MMT1 reply - I was merely completing the stats (in my opinion, proving nothing in either way)

Wimbledon has had two major dominant players in the last 20 years. The French open just 1

Belovedluckyboy wrote:So? That means there are more players who could win repeatedly at Wimbledon than at the FO. Doesnt that prove that its more difficult to 'hang on' to your FO title than your Wimbledon title?

I only wanted to contradict your contention that there was no shortage of Wimbledon champions versus FO champions - there is relatively.  And just as the universe of players who have won 250's is greater than those who have won 500's which is greater than those who have won 1000's which is greater than those who have won majors, the derived conclusion is that the harder it is to win the tournament, the smaller the universe of players who actually do it.  So, by this logic, that the universe of players who have won the FO is greater than the universe of players who have won Wimbledon would suggest that Wimbledon is harder to win.

By your logic, the 250's are the hardest to win.

MMT1 wrote:I only wanted to contradict your contention that there was no shortage of Wimbledon champions versus FO champions - there is relatively.

Well, in fairness, BLB said shortage of multiple champions and if anything the numbers confirm that assertion.

That said, I am kind of with biugo on this that it all proves nothing either way.

Raonic and Isner just lost on grass, and are big servers. A relatively big serve is no guarantee of a win on Grass. The rest of the skill set on the court also matters.

Exactly, it all proves nothing either way! Check - since day one when they started playing at FO and Wimbledon, there were more one time winners at both FO and Wimbledon than multiple time winners or two time winners. The numbers at both slams are pretty much similar. There are 4 three times winners at both slams, 1 four times winner, and there are 2 very dominant players at the FO - Borg with 6 and Rafa with 9 - vs 3 at Wimbledon - Fed and Sampras with 7 each and Borg with 5.

Somebody has to win, the fact that there are more one time winners at both slams means its tough to win them more than once, not to mention to dominate on them! Winning at the FO and at Wimbledon requires different skill sets, and the past results shown that neither of which was easy to defend.

Nobody is saying there's any guarantee you'll win. Just that if you have a big serve you can still sneak it if you're playing badly.

Raonic is just back from an injury. Isner lost to Troicki who is also a big server.

The Raonic/Simon match and the Kei/Jerzy match, both went the distance and the winners of the two matches had to run like crazy to beat their big serving/big hitting opponents. Kei himself had to serve very well too in order to beat Jerzy. On grass, having a big serve is certainly a big advantage.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:LF, why are you talking about doubles players?  They don't play in singles do they? And not many singles players are good at volleying or S&V, and that's why many find the modern grass court game boring when just a big serve and big FH could dominate.

Singles W/L (Career)

Niminen 403-342
Lopez 378-349
Stepanek 366-282
Dodig 108-121
Groth 21-32
Karlovic 275-249

Adding Llodra 187-221

Doubles W/L (Career)

Nieminen 150-189
Lopez 146-196
Stepanek  282-171
Dodig 128-103
Groth 33-33
Karlovic 87-104

Adding Llodra 387-224

Llodra is predominately doubles players by the numbers, but others are singles players.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Sure, more grass court events may help, but that's for the future generations, as I think it's too late for the current players to learn and be proficient in acquiring the traditional grass court skill sets.

Current players are losing their ability because of homogenization, which is a yet another contentious subject on the forum.

temporary21 wrote:Nobody is saying there's any guarantee you'll win. Just that if you have a big serve you can still sneak it if you're playing badly.

But arguably if you have a big serve (and indeed serve big), you're already not playing badly.

And even for player who don't rely on their serve, how often do we talk about how much impact it has on their game. For example it could be "Murray needs to hit 70% first serve if he wants to win AO".

Serve is just a key stroke to all players - if not the most important one (along with service return - imagine you could hit a "lucky shot" alla Djoko on every return...) and faster surface means a hot serves will get hotter.

Then those who are against the S&V or serve fests could argue that Wimbledon should be played on Hard or Clay instead or just be an exhibition tournament on a surface from another age used for just a month every year (a proof that AO is indeed above Wimbledon )

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Raonic is just back from an injury.  Isner lost to Troicki who is also a big server.

Can you specify a serve speed at which a server becomes a big server? When does a player cross that threshold? Can Nadal serving at 130+ become a big server for one serve? Is it an average server speed for the player?

From my perspective, all the players in top 10 are big servers, and then there are many more outside like Isner, Karlovic and others.

How did Federer win W in 2003 against someone called Scud (Philippoussis)? They had a combined total of 35 aces in 34 games.

To me, one who can serve many aces match after match is a big server. Troicki qualifies as one.

laverfan wrote:

Can you specify a serve speed at which a server becomes a big server? When does a player cross that threshold? Can Nadal serving at 130+ become a big server for one serve? Is it an average server speed for the player?

A big server on grass may just be an average server on another surface. On grass it's not just the likes Karlovic and Isner that can rack up the ace count. In Stuttgart Nadal served 14 aces against Tomic. Grass assisted aces perhaps.

We should ban grass. Fancy letting people win by serving well. Serving isn't really part of tennis.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:To me, one who can serve many aces match after match is a big server. Troicki qualifies as one.

Is Almagro a big server?
Federer?
Tipsarevic?
Dodig?
Dolgopolov?

A guy who has success, primarily through a powerful and/or great serve, is broadly a big server. Pete was sort of a big server, as was Becker, but it wasnt their only big trait. Sam Groth is a big server, Isner is, Raonic probably is too.

I interpret the question as "If only one thing is working well, what would you pick to have the best chance?" on grass it would be the serve

The serve is also the one time you have full control of the ball, if only your return was working, it might not matter, youve always got a chance to serve to stay in a match.

Troicki I wouldt call a big server. Its not an intimidating weapon, albeit a good one, and it isnt what hes known for, hes known as a baseliner mostly

I'd say he was known for missing a drugs test :O

laverfan wrote:Raonic and Isner just lost on grass, and are big servers. A relatively big serve is no guarantee of a win on Grass. The rest of the skill set on the court also matters.

Thank you Laver fan - this is exactly my point - which as a result of my rhetorical acrobatics, I feel the point has been lost.

summerblues wrote:Well, in fairness, BLB said shortage of multiple champions and if anything the numbers confirm that assertion.

That said, I am kind of with biugo on this that it all proves nothing either way.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought BLB's "no shortage of multiple champions" contention was in response to my contention that Wimbledon is harder to win than other majors because you can so easily get served off the court in one match.  My further evidence that Wimbledon is harder is that there have been fewer winners of Wimbledon than say, the French Open.

Winning multiple at a particular major is no indication of how hard it is to win the major because you can win two and you are statistically on par with a winner of 7 - that's not at all probative.  But the number of different players that are able to win the same major is an indicator for the reasons I gave with the transitive analysis of the 250/500/1000/major comparison.

When you say "...this proves nothing either way..." you treat all statistics (or at least these two) as equally probative or irrelevant - but the logic I cited dispels that rather cynical view of data and (more importantly) information. After all, if data doesn't lead to analysis which doesn't lead to insight, there's no reason to keep records!

I think that 250/500/1000 comparison is not fair simply because there are 250 tournaments with all kinds of different players outthere - it is not always the same field that competes. 1000s are too many etc.

Statistics are fine, but in this case it is unclear to me whether having fewer or more distinct winners means anything.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:To me, one who can serve many aces match after match is a big server. Troicki qualifies as one.

You do not want to give any credit to the foot speed, hand-eye coordination and returning capability of the receiver when aces are served. Perhaps you have a logical reason not to.

Compare http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/rafael-nadal/N409/overview/match-stats/404/2011/K336/match-stats with today's Karlovic v Berdych statistics.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Can you specify a serve speed at which a server becomes a big server? When does a player cross that threshold? Can Nadal serving at 130+ become a big server for one serve? Is it an average server speed for the player?

A big server on grass may just be an average server on another surface. On grass it's not just the likes Karlovic and Isner that can rack up the ace count. In Stuttgart Nadal served 14 aces against Tomic. Grass assisted aces perhaps.

Please see my previous argument.

Compare http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/ivo-karlovic/K336/overview/match-stats/451/2015/D643/match-stats with today's Karlovic v Berdych statistics.

Karlovic is not serving at 155+mph on every serve, is he?

This thread reminded me of the old fashioned grass court tennis I used to enjoy.  Here is an example - Edberg vs Becker in 1988 Wimbledon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm8AP85RMCo

If you have time I suggest you watch maybe the first four games - that is enough to give you good feel for the style of play.  Not saying you should enjoy it, but this will give you a good sense of what tennis I like (and what it used to look like).  I looked at the first 6 games and:

- There were 41 points played in total
- Only one ace was served
- Not a single point was played from the baseline

That is what I enjoy - serve is not so dominant that players cannot return it yet it is not about chasing the ball along the baseline either.

summerblues wrote:I think that 250/500/1000 comparison is not fair simply because there are 250 tournaments with all kinds of different players outthere - it is not always the same field that competes.  1000s are too many etc.

Statistics are fine, but in this case it is unclear to me whether having fewer or more distinct winners means anything.

One of the reasons why 500s are harder than 250s is that the field is typically stronger, because there are more points at stake, and they are more coveted. That is precisely the point of the comparison, and transitively the comparison carries through to each level of more and more coveted titles, including comparing the majors.

Well, it is not clear to me that it carries to the comparison of slams.

MMT, that's only your opinion (ie Wimbledon is more difficult to win) but the fact is both the FO and the Wimbledon are difficult to win. Like I said, there are similar numbers of one time winners (FO 30, Wim 33), two time winners (FO 12, Wim 10) three time winners( both at 4) and four time winner(both at 1) too! There are two dominant FO winners vs three dominant Wimbledon winners, so there's no proof that one slam is more difficult to win than the other.

LF, I don't understand what you mean by 'you don't give credit to foot speed....'

We're here talking about how a big serve helps a player to win on grass, and the fact that Simon for eg had to run all over the place in order to handle Raonic's big serve proved how tough it was to beat a big server on grass, even though in the end Simon did win it. It has nothing to do with not giving credit to good foot speed etc.

I said Troicki is a big server, maybe I should say he served big instead of saying he's a 'big server' as now I see you guys define a 'big server' differently. I just loosely call Troicki a big server but that doesn't mean he's not a solid baseliner, it's not mutually exclusive but you guys seem to have distinct definition for a 'big server' and a 'baseliner'. So, sorry about the confusion. What I mean is that Troicki too can serve big with many aces so he's able to beat Isner on grass, earning cheap points with his aces on top of having a solid baseline game.

It's the same with Kei when he dispatched Jerzy. Kei had to serve well and had to run all over the place to beat Jerzy in three sets, that's how tough to beat a big serve plus big FH combination on grass.

Luvsports, please see my reply to LF.