Serve statistics – Heavy Topspin

Can Learner Tien Hang With the Big Boys?

*Learner Tien at the 2024 US Open. Credit: Hameltion*

Learner Tien has done little in 2024 except win. He reeled off a 28-match streak from May to late July, collecting five titles, including his first at the Challenger level. He reached the quarter-finals at the tour event in Winston-Salem. After picking up two more Challenger crowns and another final, the young American opened his NextGen Finals campaign yesterday with a victory over top-50 player Jakub Mensik, 21st on the Elo list.

If you don’t follow prospects, you can be forgiven if you’ve only recently learned the name. Tien is only two weeks removed from his 19th birthday. He opened the year only barely inside the top 500. There were plenty of reasons to expect big things from the young man–a national 18s title at 16, two junior slam finals–but it would have been foolish to predict so much, so soon.

One reason to moderate expectations is simply age. For those not named Alcaraz or Sinner, it takes time to develop into a top player. Only one man under the age of 21–the cutoff for this week’s event in Jeddah–is ranked inside the top 40. Before Tien turned 19 this month, he was the top-ranked 18-year-old in the world, even with a triple-digit number next to his name.

The climb to the top is even more challenging for youngsters who can’t rely on pure power. Mensik, the highest-ranked teenager, is six feet, four inches tall, with weapons that make him seem bigger. Novak Djokovic recently called him “one of the best servers we have in the game.” The Czech has plenty to learn, and he will surely continue to refine his game. But to compete at the top level, he doesn’t have to.

Tien doesn’t have that luxury. He stands five inches shorter than Mensik. While he may have a bit more growth coming, five-eleven is near the bottom edge of what can be managed on the ATP tour. Only 15 members of the top 100 stand less than six feet, and even that list is skewed toward clay-court specialists. Sebastian Baez is the only five-foot-anything ranked above 45th.

The playing styles available to shorter athletes are limited, especially on hard courts. Tien has already demonstrated his mastery of many of those tactics. He can use his left-handedness to swing serve after serve wide, to a righty’s backhand. He is sturdy from the baseline, and you can take that literally: He’s unafraid of claiming territory right up to the line itself, taking advantage of both his quickness and raw speed. Fearless counterpunching has paid dividends for smaller stars from Olivier Rochus to Kei Nishikori to Alex de Minaur. As a lefty, the American has options those men didn’t.

Still, Tien’s transition from the Challenger tour to the big leagues could be rocky. Good defense and well-executed tactics are enough to clean up against top-200 competition. The combination was (just barely) sufficient against Mensik yesterday. But a full-time spot on the ATP tour requires more.

The game plan

For such a middling server, Tien wins a remarkable number of serve points. He ranks among the top quarter of Challenger tour regulars by serve points won, though his number is helped a bit by spending the entire year on hard courts. He does even better–64.6% compared to a tour norm below 62%–when aces and double faults are taken out of the equation. When the returner gets a racket on the ball, only ten players were better on hard courts.

It’s not surprising, then, that Tien excels on return. Among Challenger players with at least ten matches at the level in 2024, only two men–Dalibor Svrcina and his fellow American in Jeddah, Nishesh Basavareddy–topped Learner’s 42.5% clip. Tien is particularly effective converting second-serve return points.

He’s even better–or at least, he has been better this season–with more on the line. His rate of return points won rises to nearly 47% on break point chances, and he’s just as clutch on the other side of the ball. He saved 65.6% of the break points he faced, second at Challenger level to Mikhail Kukushkin. Here, he has already learned how to use the lefty serve, alternately forcing opponents far out wide and sticking them with uncomfortable body serves when he catches them leaning left for the slider.

The overall package is something between those of two other left-handers, Adrian Mannarino and Cam Norrie. Mannarino, also a sub-six-footer, throws the kitchen sink at opponents, keeping them off balance to compensate for his own lack of power. Norrie is considerably taller and has more firepower at his disposal. But he, too, refuses any rhythm to the man across the net. He alternates a loopy forehand with a flat backhand–except when he doesn’t, if you ever think you’ve found a groove.

Tien serves like Mannarino out of necessity. Even if he doesn’t get taller, the American will surely get stronger, so his 90-mile-per-hour first serves from this year’s US Open probably won’t tell the story of his entire career. But at the moment, he relies on angles and variety. Mannarino has overcome his limitations to the tune of a top-20 peak ranking. On the other hand, his playing style (and the comically loose string tension it relies on) is so unique he hardly provides an example to follow.

In the Las Vegas Challenger final back in September, Tien looked particularly like Norrie. Fighting the wind, he spun forehands and zinged backhands, a combination that made it impossible for the bigger-hitting Tristan Boyer to get comfortable. In other settings, though, the youngster is increasingly using his forehand as a (flatter) weapon, building points one sharp angle at a time.

The most instructive element of these comparisons, though, is the way in which the American differs from his fellow lefties. Mannarino reached Tien’s current ranking when he was 21, after more than 250 pro matches. Norrie–who ultimately peaked inside the top ten–played three years of college tennis and didn’t approach the top 100 in the world until he was 22. Tien, by contrast, is clearing all these hurdles on the first try. Deploying a brainy playing style that normally takes years to refine, the American is making it look natural.

The projection

Aside from size and serve speed, Tien’s future looks bright. The 19-year-old has won 61 of 73 matches across all levels this year. Within a few months, he is likely to crack the top 100. At Challenger level, his serve hasn’t held him back: As we’ve seen, he wins more service points than most of his peers, despite gaining fewer free points with the serve itself.

The question, then, is what effect Tien’s attributes have on career trajectory. Everyone wins fewer points at tour level than at Challengers–the competition is better, so it would be weird if it were otherwise. But the ratio isn’t uniform. Mannarino has won about 7% fewer serve points at tour level than he did in hard-court Challenger matches, while Marcos Giron (another sub-six-footer) lost less than 1% in the transition.

These Challenger-to-tour conversions offer some insight into Learner’s future. Since he has played almost all of his pro matches on hard courts, we’re going to calculate something a bit quirky. How do serve and return win rates change from hard-court Challenger matches to all tour-level matches? That’s what we want to know for the 19-year-old: He’ll need to play on all surfaces soon, probably starting in 2025. This transition he’s about to make–how did it go for other players?

The first-pass answer is that pros are able to retain something like their hard-court Challenger serve win percentage, seeing that number drop by 2%. But they lose a lot against tougher competition on return, winning 7.1% fewer return points. The following table shows those numbers (“Conv%”), along with Tien’s career record at hard-court Challengers (“Tien CH”), along with what the conversion factors suggest for his tour-level win rates (“Tien Adj”):

        Conv%  Tien CH  Tien Adj  
Serve   98.0%    63.3%     62.0%  
Return  92.9%    42.3%     39.3%

Those are awfully respectable numbers. 62% serve points is marginal for a tour regular, but combined with 39.3% return points, it’s enough. The combination is about what Francisco Cerundolo managed this year, and he’s ranked 30th in the world.

A word of caution: This type of conversion is not suggesting that Tien’s level is the same as Cerundolo’s now. The calculation involves taking each active player’s career records in tour and Challenger main-draw matches. That probably underestimates Tien’s potential, because most men play the majority of their Challenger matches after their 19th birthday. But a player’s career numbers will include their peak, which typically comes much later. At the very least, these numbers suggest Tien could reach Cerundolo’s level (or better) eventually.

The (other) adjustments

That’s just a first-pass number, because we haven’t gotten to height and handedness. Taking those into account does not help Learner’s case.

Lefties, it turns out, have a rougher transition than right-handers do. Here are the serve and return conversion factors, separated by hand:

        Lefties  Righties  
Serve     97.3%     98.1%  
Return    92.1%     93.0%

Not a huge difference, but hey, the margins in tennis are small. I suspect it is slightly harder for left-handers to move up a level for two reasons. First, the less experienced the opponent, the more valuable it is to be unusual, and lefties are certainly that, making up barely one-tenth of the player pool. At tour level, the novelty is gone: ATP regulars generally know how to handle left-handers.

Second, lefties are more likely to get by with what we might call “crafty” tennis, rather than power. (That’s related to the first reason: They’ve reached Challenger level because they’ve outsmarted inexperienced opponents thus far.) Craftiness might be enough against #180 in the world, but against, say, the Hurkacz serve, all craftiness gets you is a few more tuts of approval in the press box.

Whatever the reason, Tien’s left-handedness means we need to update our tour-level forecast:

    (L) Conv%  Tien CH  Tien Adj  
Serve   97.3%    63.3%     61.6%  
Return  92.1%    42.3%     39.0%

Not a huge hit, but ~0.4% of total points won is roughly equivalent to four places in the rankings. A small number here ultimately translates to much bigger ones when denominated by tour-level prize money.

And then, size. Here are the conversion factors for players in three height categories: under six feet, from six feet to six-foot-three, and above six-foot-three:

        under 6'0  6'0 to 6'3  over 6'3  
Serve       97.0%       97.9%     99.0%  
Return      92.0%       93.4%     92.6%

Again, craftiness doesn’t convert. Players under six feet tall lose the most points between hard-court Challengers and tour level. The tallest players remain almost as effective on serve, while the middle category retains the most of their return effectiveness.

Here’s the Tien update, using the sub-six-feet conversion rates:

        (< 6') Conv%  Tien CH  Tien Adj  
Serve          97.0%    63.3%     61.4%  
Return         92.0%    42.3%     38.9%

Not much of a difference from the left-handed numbers, though we keep going down. This is increasingly the profile of a clay-court specialist, and we might be outside the top 40 now.

Of course, Learner is both left-handed and (relatively) small. My mini-study of active players doesn't give us a big enough pool of data to extrapolate from the small group of small lefties. Instead, a back-of-the-envelope combination of the two factors gives us conversion factors of 96.3% for serve and 91.3% for return:

        (L&Sm) Conv%  Tien CH  Tien Adj  
Serve          96.3%    63.3%     61.0%  
Return         91.3%    42.3%     38.6%

For the first time, the adjusted versions of Tien's Challenger-level stats are underwater, summing to less than 100%. Winning 61% of service points would rate fourth-worst in the current ATP top 50, just ahead of Sebastian Baez. 38.6% on return is respectable, though not enough to consistently challenge for titles when combined with such a mediocre serve.

The exact numbers are not important: For one thing, we don't have enough recent data to know exactly how size and handedness interact. Maybe it's not quite that bad. Suffice it to say that both lefties and undersized players are more likely to struggle in the transition from Challengers to the full tour. A player who fits both categories should not expect a smooth trip up the ladder.

For Tien to beat these projections, all he has to do is improve more than the average pro does. As noted above, he already has something of an edge: He posted most of his excellent Challenger numbers as an 18-year-old. That's Alcaraz territory. At the same age, Mannarino was struggling at Futures level, and future top-tenner Norrie was headed off to college. If for some reason Tien plays a lot of Challenger matches in 2025, his stats will probably look better, and the tour-level predictions would change as well.

As Learner and his team are undoubtedly aware, those improvements need to center on the serve. The youngster probably already has what it takes to break serve once or twice a set on tour. But without a bigger first-strike weapon, he'll struggle to get those opportunities. Yesterday he withstood Jakub Mensik's event-record 24 aces, winning in a fifth-set tiebreak despite losing 14 more total points than Mensik did. The American played brilliant tennis, yet it took luck and brilliant timing to pull out the victory. For a five-foot-eleven left-hander among the giants of the professional game, it's not the last tightrope he'll have to walk.

* *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Mirra Andreeva’s Many Happy Returns

*Mirra Andreeva at the 2024 Paris Olympics.*
*Credit: Like tears in rain*

Mirra Andreeva is the best teenager on the WTA tour, and it isn’t close. She’ll finish 2024 ranked 16th on the official points table, more than one hundred places ahead of her closest teenage competitor, Maya Joint. Andreeva is a year younger than Joint, and she’s two years younger than Ella Seidel, third on the under-20 list.

Players who outpace their fellow teenagers typically go on to notable careers. Here’s the list of top teenagers at the end of each season this century:

Year  Player                    Rank  
2000  Serena Williams              6  
2001  Kim Clijsters                5  
2002  Kim Clijsters                4  
2003  Vera Zvonareva              13  
2004  Maria Sharapova              4  
2005  Maria Sharapova              4  
2006  Maria Sharapova              2  
2007  Nicole Vaidisova            12  
2008  Agnieszka Radwanska         10  
2009  Caroline Wozniacki           4  
2010  Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova    21  
2011  Christina McHale            43  
2012  Sloane Stephens             38  
2013  Eugenie Bouchard            32  
2014  Madison Keys                30  
2015  Belinda Bencic              14  
2016  Daria Kasatkina             26  
2017  Catherine Bellis            46  
2018  Dayana Yastremska           58  
2019  Bianca Andreescu             5  
2020  Iga Swiatek                 17  
2021  Emma Raducanu               19  
2022  Coco Gauff                   7  
2023  Coco Gauff                   3  
2024  Mirra Andreeva              16

There’s no such thing as a can’t-miss prospect in women’s tennis, but showing up on this list gets you pretty close. Andreeva’s case is particularly extreme, because she is still just 17 years old.

In the under-18 category, the young Russian has virtually no competition. Only three other under-18s rank among the top 200, none closer than Alina Korneeva at 176th. No woman so young has finished inside the top 20 in almost two decades, going back to Nicole Vaidisova’s top-ten showing in 2006.

Here’s another way to look at what Andreeva has accomplished. With four victories to reach the Ningbo final in October, she increased her career tour-level main-draw win count to 48. Take a look at the list of all women, post-Vaidisova, to post even 30 such wins before their 18th birthday:

Wins  Player              Last Win as 17yo  
32    Victoria Azarenka         2007-07-30  
47    Caroline Wozniacki        2008-06-23  
42    Tamira Paszek             2008-09-15  
32    Donna Vekic               2014-06-23  
33    Amanda Anisimova          2019-07-29  
64    Coco Gauff                2022-03-07  
48    Mirra Andreeva            2024-10-14

Again, good company, and think of all the stars who aren’t here. You know, everybody (besides Vekic) for a decade. In this entire time span of about 17 years, Andreeva has done more at her age than anyone except Coco Gauff. The Russian might even erase that caveat. She doesn’t turn 18 until the end of April, and this year, she had won 12 matches by that time. 17 wins–enough to surpass Gauff–is hardly out of reach.

Let’s turn now to how Andreeva is achieving so much success, and why she might soon lop a digit off of her age-defying ranking.

Returns first

Forget about all this under-18 and teenager stuff for a minute. Mirra is already one of the best returners in the game. Here are the top dozen WTA tour regulars, ranked by return points won:

This isn’t a perfect measure. For one thing, Andreeva faced one of the weaker schedules of players on this list. Her median opponent was ranked 58th, compared to 30th for Iga and 42nd for Coco. It would take considerably more work to suss out whether Andreeva’s 47.3% of return points won, against her set of opponents, is better or worse than, say, Aryna Sabalenka’s 45.3% against competition nearly as stiff as Swiatek’s.

The quibbles mean that we can’t quite proclaim the Russian a top-three returner. The point, though, is that she’s in the conversation. In fact, if we narrow our view to matches against top-20 players–limiting if not eliminating the influence of each woman’s schedule–Andreeva hangs on to her position:

(We’re not talking about Iga today, but… 47% of return points won against top-20 opponents? My word.)

Where Andreeva shines even brighter is against first serves. She won first-serve return points at a higher clip than any other woman on tour this year:

Player               1st RPW%  
Mirra Andreeva          42.6%  
Coco Gauff              42.1%  
Marketa Vondrousova     40.8%  
Iga Swiatek             40.8%  
Daria Kasatkina         40.7%  
Marta Kostyuk           40.5%  
Elina Avanesyan         40.0%  
Jasmine Paolini         40.0%  
Katerina Siniakova      39.5%  
Karolina Muchova        39.5%

Put that in perspective: Andreeva wins more first-serve return points than Barbora Krejcikova (to pick one name from several) wins all return points.

Again, the Russian’s stats are influenced by her level of competition. Against top-20 opponents, Mirra falls to third place, behind Swiatek and just back of Gauff. But you get the idea. To say, “Well, actually, she’s not quite up to Gauff’s standard” is to say we’re dealing with a special player.

Precocious patience

Andreeva’s serve is good for a 17-year-old, but as we’ve seen, it’s not the side of her game that has put her in the top 20. Her returns, and by extension, her baseline play, are responsible for that.

Among top players, Mirra is currently most similar to countrywoman Daria Kasatkina. The two Russians, according to Match Charting Project data, post average rally lengths of 4.9 strokes, more than anyone else in the top 40. Both women are effective off both wings; Andreeva’s backhand is the better of the two, while Kasatkina’s forehand scores more points. The teenager is a bit more likely to force the issue: While both rank well below average in Rally Aggression Score, Mirra is closer to the norm.

A key difference shows up in their rally breakdowns. Again based on the subset of matches logged by the Match Charting Project, here are each woman’s percent of points won at various rally length categories:

Player     1-3 W%  4-6 W%  7-9 W%  10+ W%  
Andreeva    49.8%   48.6%   51.8%   53.8%  
Kasatkina   48.0%   45.6%   51.0%   52.5%

The first thing that pops out here is that Andreeva is better in every category, something that reflects both the vagaries of the uneven tennis schedule and the non-random nature of Match Charting Project samples. However you slice it, Mirra won more points, though my Elo rankings agree with the official formula that Kasatkina was the better player.

To get a better idea of what we’re looking at, let’s normalize each woman’s rally-category splits as if they won exactly half of their overall points:

Player     1-3 W%  4-6 W%  7-9 W%  10+ W%  
Andreeva    49.5%   48.3%   51.5%   53.5%  
Kasatkina   49.6%   47.1%   52.7%   54.2%

The teenager holds the edge in the 4-6-stroke category, while Kasatkina looks better in the longer rallies.

That 4-6-shot category tells us more than it lets on. Andreeva’s 48.3% (or the un-normalized 48.6%) doesn’t look very impressive. Points in this group account for one quarter of all the points she plays, and she loses more than half.

But consider her playing style. Medium-short rallies are often determined by the lingering influence of the serve: The returner might withstand a plus-one attack, only to leave a sitter for the server to put away. Or a strong return doesn’t finish the point, but the returner’s next shot–the fourth stroke of the rally–does the job. 4-6-shot rallies go disproportionately to big hitters: Aryna Sabalenka led the category this year.

For someone like Andreeva or Kasatkina, the task is to limit the damage. Get the serve back, try to neutralize the point. Place serves where aggressive returners won’t do too much damage. If a big return comes back, play the same defense that works against the serve. Kasatkina has all of those skills, but there is only so much she can do. Mirra, with her flatter strokes and somewhat bigger weapons, can keep opponents from running away with these medium-short points. She’ll lose sometimes to the likes of Sabalenka, but unless they catch her on an off day, she won’t be blown off the court.

Growth potential

If Andreeva could be characterized as a younger, somewhat more aggressive Kasatkina, that would be a pretty good compliment for a 17-year-old. But the teenager promises to become much more.

One of my favorite bits of counterintuitive tennis wisdom is that return stats rarely improve. Returning is based on a set of skills–anticipation, quickness, speed–that, on net, decline with age. Whatever tactical savvy a player picks up as she ages will, at best, cancel out the age-related decline. This isn’t an iron law, but it’s surprising how often players reach their peak return effectiveness very early in their careers.

The same is not true for the serve. 17-year-olds (or, hey, 23-year-olds) have the capacity to get stronger. Footspeed and reaction time don’t figure into the serve, so with better coaching or targeted practice (think late-career Djokovic), serve stats can improve even as the rest of a player’s game declines. A couple of examples: Maria Sakkari steadily improved her first-serve win rate from the 13th percentile to the 93rd percentile in five years. Simona Halep’s first-serve was in the top quarter of tour regulars in 2014; two years earlier, it had been one of the WTA’s worst.

The implications for Andreeva are clear. We don’t need to wishcast an improvement in her return game: She’s already one of the best returners in the game. Instead, the road to the top ten and beyond goes through her serve. Her results so far are adequate. She won 58.4% of her serve points in 2024, compared to a top-50 average of 58.7%. When we consider how much she played on clay, that number looks a bit better. On hard courts, she won more serve points than average.

Mirra, then, doesn’t face the same uphill struggle that Sakkari and Halep overcame. Her potential trajectory is more like, say, Victoria Azarenka’s. Vika arrived on the scene as a killer returner with a good-enough serve. In 2009 and 2010, she won nearly half of her return points against 58% to 59% of her service points. That combination earned her two top-ten finishes. (She was a few years older than Andreeva at that point, yet another reminder of how unique the Russian’s early success has been.)

Two years later, Azarenka boosted her rate of serve points won to 61%. Combined with the same results on return that had gotten her into the top ten, the bigger serve earned her six titles–including her first major–and the year-end number one ranking. 59% to 61% may not sound like much, but for an elite returner, that’s all it takes.

If Andreeva did the same, lifting her 58.4% serve-point win rate to 61%, she’d be the ninth-best server on tour. Remember how she’s just a tick behind Coco Gauff on return? A Vika-like serve boost would put her ahead of the American in that category, outweighing Coco’s narrow edge on return. Shorter version: She’d be a top-three player, maybe more.

None of this is guaranteed. It may not–it probably won’t!–happen right away. For every Azarenka, there’s a Nicole Vaidisova or, worse, an injury victim like Catherine Bellis. Still, few paths to the top are marked so clearly. For Mirra Andreeva, a modest, achievable set of improvements are all that stand between her and the top.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

How Does Jannik Sinner’s Season Stack Up?

Jannik Sinner just wrapped up a season for the ages. He won both hard-court majors, three Masters 1000s, and the Tour Finals. He led Team Italy to a Davis Cup championship and ended his campaign on a 26-set winning streak.

By November, the Italian was no longer competing against the field: He was gunning for a place in the record books. He went undefeated against players outside the top 20. Not a single player straight-setted him: He won at least one set in each of his 79 matches. Only Roger Federer, in 2005, had ever managed that.

After Sinner won the Australian Open, I wrote that Yes, Jannik Sinner Really Is This Good. Since then, he got even better. In the seven-month span ending in Melbourne, the Italian held 91.1% of his service games, a mark that not only led the tour but put him in the company of some of the greatest servers of all time. For the entire 2024 season, he upped that figure to 91.5%–including thirteen matches on clay.

He also defied the most powerful force in all of sport, regression to the mean. Sinner’s hold percentage was aided by some sterling work saving break points. He won tons of service points, of course, but he was even better facing break point. The average top-50 player is worse: Good returners generate more break points, so it’s a tough trend to defy.

In the 52 weeks ending in Melbourne, Sinner had won three percentage points more break points than overall service points. I wrote then: “I can tell you what usually happens after a season of break-point overperformance: It doesn’t last.” In the Italian’s case, though, it did. In 2024 as a whole, he won 71.1% of service points, and 73.6% of break points. He would have enjoyed a productive season without repeating his break-point overperformance, but those two-and-a-half percentage points explain much of the gap between very good and historically great.

Clubbable

Most players who serve so effectively are middling returners. The Italian has bucked that trend as well.

Late in 2023 I wrote about tennis most exclusive clubs–Alex Gruskin’s method for identifying standout players by their rankings in the hold and break percentage categories. It’s rare for anyone to crack the top ten in both. In 2023, Sinner signaled what was coming by finishing in both top fives. He ranked fifth by hold percentage and fourth by break percentage. Most seasons, that would have been enough for a year-end number one, but Novak Djokovic was even better, finishing in the top three on both sides of the ball.

Sinner, as we’ve seen, served even better this year. His 91.5% hold percentage was well clear of the pack, even with the resurgence of countryman Matteo Berrettini and increased time on tour from rocket men Ben Shelton and Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard. Last season, Djokovic led the tour by holding 88.9% of his service games. That’s impressive, especially for a guy known for other parts of his game, but it wouldn’t have cracked the 2024 top three. The Italian set a new standard.

At the same time, his return barely flagged. He fell out of the the top five by the narrowest of margins, winning nearly as many return games as he did in 2023 but falling to sixth place. Still, a “top-six club” showing is plenty rare. The only players who have posted one since 1991 (when these stats became available) are Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and Andre Agassi. Federer only managed it once. Sinner has now done it twice.

The Italian’s return skills are even more impressive when we compare him the other season-best servers of the last thirty-plus years. The following table shows the hold-percentage leader for each year, along with his break percentage and his rank (among the ATP top 50) in that category:

Year  Player             Hold%   Brk%  Rank  
1991  Pete Sampras       87.3%  25.4%    40  
1992  Goran Ivanisevic   88.8%  20.4%    48  
1993  Pete Sampras       89.6%  27.7%    19  
1994  Pete Sampras       88.4%  29.3%    19  
1995  Pete Sampras       89.0%  26.0%    25  
1996  Pete Sampras       90.8%  20.8%    43  
1997  Greg Rusedski      91.6%  16.7%    50  
1998  Richard Krajicek   89.2%  21.4%    41  
1999  Pete Sampras       89.7%  21.7%    44  
2000  Pete Sampras       91.7%  18.4%    49  
2001  Andy Roddick       90.4%  19.7%    45  
2002  Greg Rusedski      88.5%  17.6%    48

Year  Player             Hold%   Brk%  Rank    
2003  Andy Roddick       91.5%  20.9%    43  
2004  Joachim Johansson  91.9%  14.5%    48  
2005  Andy Roddick       92.5%  20.8%    45  
2006  Andy Roddick       90.5%  22.4%    43  
2007  Ivo Karlovic       94.5%   9.8%    50  
2008  Andy Roddick       91.2%  19.2%    40  
2009  Ivo Karlovic       92.2%  10.3%    50  
2010  Andy Roddick       91.1%  17.6%    47  
2011  John Isner         90.7%  12.9%    50  
2012  Milos Raonic       92.7%  15.1%    49  
2013  Milos Raonic       91.4%  15.7%    49  
2014  John Isner         93.1%   9.3%    49  

Year  Player             Hold%   Brk%  Rank  
2015  Ivo Karlovic       95.5%   9.6%    50  
2016  John Isner         93.4%  10.9%    49  
2017  John Isner         92.9%   9.6%    50  
2018  John Isner         93.8%   9.4%    50  
2019  John Isner         94.1%   9.7%    49  
2020  Milos Raonic       93.9%  18.0%    44  
2021  John Isner         91.1%   8.8%    50  
2022  Nick Kyrgios       92.9%  19.3%    40  
2023  Novak Djokovic     88.9%  28.8%     3  
2024  Jannik Sinner      91.5%  28.3%     6

If it hadn’t been for Djokovic’s appearance at the top of last year’s list, Sinner’s 2024 campaign would be hardly recognizable. Even Pete Sampras struggled to hold on to a spot in the break-percentage top 20. Circuit-best servers simply aren’t supposed to win so many return games, yet Sinner threatens to make it the new normal.

Carrot yElo

The Italian’s 73 wins, including 18 against the top ten, took his Elo rating to new heights. He began the year with a career-high rating of 2,197, second on the circuit to Djokovic. He quickly took over the top spot, ultimately clearing the 2,300 mark with his victory at the Tour Finals.

Elo is not a perfect measure to compare players from different eras, but in my opinion, it’s the best we’ve got. It’s the basis of my Tennis 128, which Sinner will join as soon as I get around to updating the calculations. 2,300 is rarefied air: In the last half-century, he is only the twelfth player to reach that mark. With three singles victories to secure the Davis Cup, he nudged his rating up to 2,309, surpassing Mats Wilander and establishing the eleventh-highest peak since the formation of the ATP.

A stratospheric Elo is an indication of an outstanding player at the top of his game, but the metric is not designed to rate seasons. The alternative is yElo, a variation I devised for exactly this purpose. yElo works the same way as Elo does, adding or subtracting points based on wins, losses, and the quality of opposition. But unlike the more traditional measure, each player starts the season with a clean slate.

By regular Elo, Sinner holds a 150-point lead over second-place Carlos Alcaraz. By yElo, with its narrower focus, the Italian is even more dominant:

(The won-loss records are a bit different from official figures because my Elo and yElo calculations exclude matches that ended in retirement.)

The two-hundred-point gap between Sinner and Djokovic is one of the largest ever. Again going back to 1973, it ranks fourth. Only 2004 and 2006 Federer (over Lleyton Hewitt and Nadal, respectively) and 1984 John McEnroe (over Wilander) outpaced the competition by such a substantial margin.

By raw yElo, Sinner’s 2024 isn’t quite so historic. It’s the 26th best of the last half-century: An impressive feat, but not as close to the top of the list as some of the other trivia suggests. Here’s the list:

Year  Player              W-L  yElo  
1979  Bjorn Borg         84-5  2499  
1984  John McEnroe       82-3  2476  
2015  Novak Djokovic     82-6  2458  
1985  Ivan Lendl         82-7  2440  
2016  Andy Murray        78-9  2416  
2013  Novak Djokovic     74-9  2408  
1976  Jimmy Connors      97-7  2406  
1977  Bjorn Borg         78-6  2403  
1977  Guillermo Vilas  133-13  2401  
2006  Roger Federer      91-5  2399  
1980  Bjorn Borg         70-5  2395  
1981  Ivan Lendl        96-12  2383  
1987  Ivan Lendl         73-7  2381  
1982  Ivan Lendl        105-9  2380  
1978  Jimmy Connors      66-5  2379  

Year  Player              W-L  yElo  
2013  Rafael Nadal       74-7  2373  
1986  Ivan Lendl         74-6  2369  
2011  Novak Djokovic     63-4  2367  
2005  Roger Federer      80-4  2364  
2014  Novak Djokovic     61-8  2363  
2012  Novak Djokovic    73-12  2360  
1978  Bjorn Borg         79-6  2359  
2008  Rafael Nadal      81-10  2352  
1986  Boris Becker      69-13  2347  
1982  John McEnroe       71-9  2341  
2024  Jannik Sinner      72-6  2339  
1983  Mats Wilander     80-11  2338  
1974  Jimmy Connors      94-5  2332  
1989  Boris Becker       64-8  2329  
2015  Roger Federer     62-11  2329

One factor holding back Jannik’s 2024 is the number of matches played. Elo, in part, reflects the confidence we have in a rating. Winning 90% of 100 matches (or almost 150, in the case of Vilas) gives us more confidence in an assessment than 90% of 80 matches.

Another issue is that Elo has opinions about strong and weak eras. Going 70-5 in 1980 doesn’t look much different than 72-6 today, but Elo considers Bjorn Borg’s peers to have been stronger than Sinner’s. If Sinner and Alcaraz continue to improve and a couple of their peers emerge as superstars in their own right, then a 72-6 season might rank much higher.

The asphalt jungle

A couple of months ago, pundits started mulling where Sinner’s 2024 stood among the greatest hard-court seasons of all time. Since then, he piled on so many more wins that the qualifier wasn’t needed. Yet it remains a valid question.

The Italian’s highlights came almost entirely on hard courts. He won 53 of 56 matches, 42 of them in straight sets. He’s plenty skilled on natural surfaces, but given a predictable bounce and conditions that emphasize his power and penetration, opponents don’t stand a chance.

I don’t publish surface-specific yElo ratings, because they have limited usefulness for much of the year. For our purposes, though, hard-court yElo–same algorithm, limited to matches on one surface–is just the ticket. By this measure, Sinner’s 2024 is the eighth-best of all time:

Year  Player          Hard W-L  Hard yElo  
2015  Novak Djokovic      59-5       2426  
2013  Novak Djokovic      53-5       2413  
2012  Novak Djokovic      48-5       2377  
2005  Roger Federer       49-1       2374  
2006  Roger Federer       59-2       2373  
1995  Andre Agassi        52-3       2370  
2016  Andy Murray         48-6       2363  
2024  Jannik Sinner       52-3       2353  
2010  Roger Federer       45-7       2338  
2014  Novak Djokovic      40-6       2334 

Year  Player          Hard W-L  Hard yElo   
2014  Roger Federer       56-7       2333  
1985  Ivan Lendl          29-3       2332  
1987  Ivan Lendl          33-2       2325  
1996  Pete Sampras        46-4       2319  
2015  Roger Federer       38-6       2318  
1981  Ivan Lendl          41-3       2317  
2011  Roger Federer       45-7       2314  
2009  Novak Djokovic     53-10       2309  
1985  John McEnroe        25-1       2309  
1986  Ivan Lendl          30-2       2298

So, um, peak Djokovic was pretty good, huh?

Even though Elo doesn’t hold the rest of the 2024 field in particularly high regard, Sinner’s season was so dominant that he does well by this measure. A year that would rate as Djokovic’s fourth-best, Federer’s third, or Agassi’s second, is truly something worth celebrating.

The Italian still has some ground to cover before he challenges Novak, Roger, and the rest for all-time hard-court dominance. But he has already upped the standard for the 2020s and posted one of the most remarkable two-year spans in the game’s history. Sinner has built an enormous gap between himself and the field, and it is increasingly difficult to see how his peers will close it.

* *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Jasmine Paolini’s High-Wire Act

*Jasmine Paolini at the 2022 Transylvania Open. Credit: Nuta Lucian*

There are unorthodox aging curves, and then there’s whatever the hell Jasmine Paolini is doing right now. The best women tennis players tend to make their presence known in their late teens. I wrote earlier this year about the “improbable rise” of 22-year-old Emma Navarro.

Paolini is 28.

When Paolini was the age that Coco Gauff is now, she was ranked just inside the top 300, fresh off a first-round loss at an ITF $25K in Bulgaria. When she was the age that Iga Swiatek is now, she had finally cracked the top 150, about to head to Wimbledon qualifying. (She lost in the first round there, too.) When she was the age that Aryna Sabalenka is now, she had just stumbled through a four-match losing streak to the likes of Jil Teichmann and Irina-Camelia Begu that knocked her out of the top 50.

Just 16 months ago, Paolini was once again outside the top 50. For a five-foot, four-inch counterpuncher with no obvious weapons, she had achieved a great deal. There was little reason, though, to think she could climb much higher. Her peers were getting bigger, the game was becoming ever more aggressive, and she was reaching the age at which WTA stars begin to think about what else life might hold for them.

Then she started winning.

Since leaving Wimbledon last year, the Italian has won 66 of 99 matches, including two major semi-finals and five top-ten scalps. She picked up her first 1000-level title and made four other finals. Yesterday, she led Team Italy to a Billie Jean King Cup crown, starring in both singles and doubles en route to the championship. Her ranking is up to an astonishing 4th in the world. As if that weren’t enough, she’s in the top ten in doubles.

None of this was supposed to happen. Paolini’s late-2023 surge to the top 30 was one thing; what has happened since simply defies belief. How has she managed it? Is it a fluke, or will we see the Italian at the 2025 year-end championships as well?

Opportunistic effects

First, a bit of a caveat. Paolini, like Taylor Fritz, has played the official ranking system like a Stradivarius. She reached only three finals in 2024, yet two of them were slams. The other was a 1000. She earned huge chunks of points for a semi-final defeat of Mirra Andreeva at Roland Garros, a semi-final squeaker against Donna Vekic at Wimbledon, and a Dubai title that didn’t require her to face a top-ten opponent.

None of this is meant to take away from Paolini’s accomplishment. She beat the players in front of her, and in the case of Andreeva, she did so in emphatic fashion. The point is that her top-four finish has more to do with good timing than consistently dominant play.

My Elo ratings offer a second opinion, using an algorithm based on the quality of her opponents, rather than the venue and round of each match. By Elo, she stands in 9th place, just ahead of Madison Keys and Diana Shnaider, well back of Jessica Pegula and Elena Rybakina. Still a very good season, if a bit less astounding.

Even more revisionist is the total-points-won leaderboard. Going into the BJK Cup Finals, Paolini had won 51.8% of her total points this season. That’s a respectable rate, especially for someone who hovered in the 50% range for most of her tour-level career. But it is not typically top-five, or even top-ten material:

By this metric, the Italian stands in 19th place among the WTA top 50, behind a handful of players who didn’t even crack the official top 20. That doesn’t really mean she’s the 19th best player on tour: She faced one of the toughest schedules of anyone. Much as I love both Yulia Putintseva and counterintuitive arguments, I’m not going to try to convince you that Putintseva had the better season.

Still, Paolini’s position on the TPW list tells us something about how she won her matches. She didn’t lose many blowouts, but she didn’t win many, either. (She certainly didn’t get in the habit of spanking opponents like Swiatek and Sabalenka do.) Ten of her wins required a third set. Two victories–including the Wimbledon semi-final–came despite losing more points than she won.

The margins were not so narrow that we can ascribe the Italian’s breakout to luck. (Though the Vekic match could have gone either way, to say the least.) But this is the high-wire act that took Paolini to the top. She doesn’t have the tools to bludgeon her opponents. She has done a lot of things right to win 42 matches this year. To keep winning at a two-of-three clip, she’ll need to continue executing the new game plan to near-perfection.

The new game plan

It’s a bit tricky to isolate the key changes in Paolini’s approach, because–like Qinwen Zheng–she’s doing almost everything better than she did before the surge. That said, a few things stand out.

Check out the Italian’s breakdown of points won by rally length (in Match Charting Project-logged matches) before this season, compared with her performance this year:

Span     1-3 W%  4-6 W%  7-9 W%  10+ W%  
2016-23   49.1%   46.5%   51.0%   49.4%  
2024      49.8%   54.3%   56.6%   49.1%

Paolini’s improvement in 7- to 9-stroke rallies is significant, and her gain in the 4- to 6-shot category is enormous. In very short points and very long ones, little has changed.

Especially in the categories of shorter points, we need to keep in mind what these win rates measure. It’s tempting to think of a prototypical short point, then imagine Paolini, instead of her opponent, winning it. But the length of a given point is not handed down to us by God. When someone like Paolini starts winning more shorter points, it’s because she is ending them before they become long points, and/or she is preventing her opponents from ending points quickly.

The Italian can hardly stack up one-shot points (unreturned serves), and she can’t even reliably put away plus-ones–though she is doing that more than she used to. Instead, like the expert doubles player she has become, she can structure points that inch closer and closer to a point-ending opportunity. Call it plus-two tennis, aggressive point construction for undersized counterpunchers.

The plus-two forehand

Tactics are one thing; Paolini is a top-ten player because she has executed them so well. Her forehand is a big reason why.

She is ending points with her forehand at a much better clip than she did before the calendar flipped to 2024, and her inside-out forehand has seen particular improvement:

Span     FH Wnr%  DTL Wnr%  IO Wnr%  FHP/100  
2016-23    11.7%     17.7%     6.2%      2.9  
2024       17.5%     25.2%    13.3%     10.2

Here, “winners” refer to both clean winners and shots that induce forced errors. Through 2023, Paolini’s forehand winner/forced error rate of less than 12% put her in the bottom quarter of tour regulars. 17.5% moves her to the top third, not far behind Swiatek and Keys. The same stat for inside-out forehands (IO Wnr%) doesn’t put her in quite the same company, but it is an even better reflection of the tactical shift. Before, the Italian rarely used that shot as an offensive weapon; now it is a regular part of the arsenal.

The bottom line is reflected in the Forehand Potency (FHP/100) numbers. The number of points Paolini earns with her forehand more than tripled from previous seasons to 2024. That doesn’t quite account for the entire shift from a top-50 player to a top-fiver, but it explains a whole lot.

And the no-fearhand

One side effect of the Italian’s forehand-centered strategy is that she is less afraid of other players’ forehands.

Again, Paolini is doing just about everything better. For instance, 22% of her first serves went unreturned in 2024, compared with 20% in the past. Nice little boost, but not something you would notice by watching a couple of matches. A bigger shift is where she puts the first serves:

Span     1st Unret%  <=3 W%  RiP W%  D Wide%  A Wide%  
2016-23       20.2%   28.1%   48.3%    25.0%    45.7%  
2024          21.8%   34.8%   53.4%    37.4%    44.8%

Check out the rate at which she is hitting deuce-court first serves wide (D Wide%). 25% to 37% is a massive change, and one that would be dangerous for a different sort of player. In the deuce court, the down-the-tee serve is the conservative one: It goes to the backhand of a right-handed returner, and since it lands in the middle of the court, the returner doesn't have any sharp angles to exploit. The wide serve is the opposite, feeding forehands to opponents like Sabalenka, Rybakina, or Zheng along with the angles necessary to turn them into winners.

What Paolini knows--again, like a savvy doubles player--is that most players will fail to convert the majority of those opportunities, even if they occasionally smack a highlight-reel return winner. The Italian didn't crack the top five by running the table against the elite. Most of her 42 wins came against the next rung of competitors, women who are often held back by inconsistency. Paolini pushed them off the court, giving the choice of either going big (and frequently missing), or sending back a shot that she could handle with her own (improved!) forehand.

All those deuce-court wide serves explain how Paolini picked up so many more plus-one winners (the <=3 W% column) and converted so many in-play returns overall (RiP W%). Every individual wide serve is a gamble, but the Italian has discovered that, on net, they pay off.

The way forward

I'm a bit surprised to find myself concluding that, yes, Paolini might just maintain this level. The odds are heavily against another top-five finish. That was a quirk of her draws and well-timed (probably accidental!) peaks. But 52% of total points? A single-digit year-end ranking? Maybe!

Once I began thinking of the Italian's singles play in terms of doubles strategy, it all clicked. Her anticipation is outstanding--and like everything else, it is better than it was last year. She often wins points without working particularly hard. She's in the right place to end the point on the fifth or sixth shot of the rally. (That place is increasingly at the net. She came to net more in 2024, and she won more of those points than before, too.) Anticipation isn't a skill that will deteriorate with age, nor is it one that opponents can neutralize.

Paolini's new point-shortening, forehand-smacking, deuce-court-serving tactics aren't going to earn her many big upsets, just as they haven't so far. The strongest players--not coincidentally, often the ones with the most fearsome forehands--are the ones in the best position to take advantage the wide deuce-court serves and force the Italian both to move off the baseline and rely more on the backhand.

But a top-ten season doesn't require a pile of top-ten victories. Paolini was 3-6 against that group this year, and that included one win against a fading Ons Jabeur and another in Riyadh against a rusty Rybakina. The Italian's finish owed much more to her 38-15 record against everyone else. Despite the improbability of a top-ten debut at age 28, Paolini has built a game capable of repeating the feat in 2025.

* *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

The Riddle of the Ruud-Rublev Reversal

The story of the the 2024 ATP Tour Finals was the dominance of Jannik Sinner. I’ll refer you to what I wrote after the Australian Open: Yes, Jannik Sinner Really Is This Good. He just passed the 2,300 Elo threshold, becoming only the 12th man since Rod Laver to do so. When I update the Tennis 128 in a few weeks, he’ll be on it.

For all that, I’m preoccupied with something else. On the final day of round robin play, Casper Ruud beat Andrey Rublev to secure a place in the semi-finals. It was their eighth meeting and the Norwegian’s third victory:

Notice anything odd? Take away the unfinished Australian Open tilt, and the head-to-head breaks down precisely on surface lines. Rublev has won all four encounters on clay, while Ruud has run the table on hard courts. Not just any hard courts: indoors, at the Tour Finals.

We can look to external factors to explain some of the individual results. Casper had more at stake on Friday than the Russian did, with a chance to qualify for the final four. Rublev is older and broke through correspondingly earlier, so he was the natural favorite in their early meetings. Injuries and illness may have influenced another outcome or two, even aside from the retirement in Melbourne.

Still: 0-3 in completed matches for the ball-basher on hard courts, and 0-4 for the Roland Garros finalist on clay. Something’s going on here.

Not so fast

Rublev, to be fair, is hardly a fast-court specialist. His first tour-level title came on dirt in Umag, and he picked up a Masters crown last year in Monte Carlo, on one of the circuit’s slowest surfaces. The Russian’s forehand is a weapon in any conditions, and slow courts can disguise some of his weaknesses.

On the other hand, however much Rublev likes the dirt, Ruud likes it more. Earlier this year, I quantified the notion of “surface sensitivity,” the degree to which a player’s results are influenced by court speed. Rublev scored at -2.2, indicating that he does better on slower surfaces, a bit more so than the typical tour regular. Casper was considerably further down the list, at -5.0. The rating tells us that he’s more receptive to slow courts than Pablo Carreno Busta or Jaume Munar. He’s grades about the same as Diego Schwartzman.

Maybe the oddball head-to-head is a quirk of when the pair have met? Not all hard courts play fast, and not all clay behaves like the crushed brick at Roland Garros. Here are the venues for the seven completed meetings, along with my ace-based surface speed rating for each. Ratings above 1 are faster than average, below 1 are slower:

Year  Tournament   Winner  Speed  
2024  Tour Finals  Ruud     1.36  
2023  Bastad       Rublev   0.86  
2022  Tour Finals  Ruud     1.50  
2021  Tour Finals  Ruud     1.51  
2021  Monte Carlo  Rublev   0.54  
2020  Hamburg      Rublev   0.52  
2019  Hamburg      Rublev   0.74

Hypothesis denied! The 2021 and 2022 Tour Finals were the fastest conditions of their respective years, while Monte Carlo was the slowest of the entire 2021 season. Last year’s Bastad surface was fairly neutral for a clay court, but the rest of the Ruud-Rublev showdowns took place on fast hard courts or slow clay.

We could always mark down a string of seven surface-confounding results to luck, especially when both players are capable in all conditions. But it would be far more satisfying to find an explanation that tells us something about the players and their particular skills.

Stoppable

We don’t have to look far. Here are Casper’s win rates on first and second serve points against Rublev, separated by surface:

Surface  1st W%  2nd W%  
Clay      56.8%   48.4%  
Hard      72.7%   50.7%

Everybody wins fewer first serve points on clay than on hard courts, but not like this. The average gap for top-50 players in 2024 is four percentage points–not sixteen. At tour level against the entire field, Ruud has shown an even smaller difference, winning 73.1% of hard-court first-serve points against 71.2% of those on clay.

Rublev is not a brilliant returner. He’s a serviceable one with tactics to match. He often struggles to get first serves back in play. On second serve, he’s unafraid to unleash his weapons, accepting some errors in exchange for tilting other points in his favor. On clay, he’s able to turn a few more first serves into rally openers. In 2024, his gap between clay and hard-court first-serve return points won was bigger than average. But not nearly as wide as it is against Casper.

When it works…

Ruud, like many men who have developed into strong clay-courters, doesn’t have a monster serve. He can place it, he can disguise it, and he knows how to play behind it. On a fast hard court, those skills–combined with a bit more risk-taking–can result in numbers that look more like those of a big server. Against Rublev last week, he won just shy of 80% of his serve points, supported by 15 aces.

When the Norwegian is hitting corners and the ball is skimming off a court like the speedy one in Turin, Rublev is helpless. Over his career, according to the nearly 200 matches logged by the Match Charting Project, he puts 58% of first serves back in play. Against Casper on Friday, he didn’t manage 50%–a repeat of his performance on the same court two years earlier.

Rublev’s first-serve-return struggles on hard court contrast with how he feasts on Ruud’s serve on clay. The next table shows the rate at which the Russian puts Casper’s first serves in play, as well as his win percentage when he does so:

Match                Result  1st: RiP%  RiP W%  
2024 Tour Finals RR       L      46.9%   43.3%  
2023 Bastad F             W      64.6%   61.3%  
2022 Tour Finals SF       L      45.7%   50.0%  
2021 Tour Finals RR       L      67.5%   51.9%  
2021 Monte Carlo SF       W      84.4%   59.3%  
2020 Hamburg SF           W      91.4%   59.4%

The exception to the rule here is the 2021 Tour Finals match, which ended in a third-set tiebreak. It was the closest either man has come to securing one of the matches he “should” have won. Rublev won 52.9% of total points, but Ruud served his way out of just enough jams to come through.

On the very slow Monte Carlo and Hamburg courts, Rublev’s ability to handle the Norwegian’s first serve meant that Ruud was left with no edge whatsoever. Casper might be the superior baseliner, but he started too many points at a disadvantage. The picture might look different if they played on slow clay today, since Ruud is stronger and tactically savvier on serve. But I imagine it would still be a struggle, one in which few of Casper’s service games would sail by quickly.

Pundits like to say that tennis is a game of matchups. They often overstate their case: The better player (by ranking, or Elo rating, or whatever) usually wins. When they don’t, it isn’t always because of some quirk in the head-to-head. With Rublev and Ruud, though, such a quirk dictates the results. Few men are able to erase Rublev’s advantage on a hard court as much as the Norwegian can. Casper’s first serve is rarely so ineffectual as when the Russian is waiting for it on dirt. Ruud is set for another big European clay swing next year–so long as his buddy Andrey lands in the other half of the draw.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Qinwen Zheng’s Rising Tide

Since a first-round exit to Lulu Sun at Wimbledon this year, Qinwen Zheng has transformed herself from a rising prospect to a force at the top of the women’s game. The 22-year-old has won 30 of 35 matches, picking up three titles including an Olympic gold. In her first appearance at the tour finals this week, she has defeated two top-five players and earned a place in the semi-finals.

Zheng currently sits at 7th in the official rankings, equal to her career best. Her performance in Riyadh will move her up to at least sixth. Elo, a leading indicator as usual, already considers her the third-best player in the world, behind only Aryna Sabalenka and Iga Swiatek. The Chinese player is riding an astonishing 30-2 streak against everyone not named Sabalenka, so it’s hard to argue.

What has changed? Zheng has long been ticketed for big things. Her January run to the the Australian Open final indicated that she was reaching her potential. But she made only two quarter-finals in the next ten events, losing both. There were clear weaknesses in her game then. Has Qinwen 2.0 plugged those gaps?

Lifting all metrics

When I last wrote about Zheng, I referred to her serve as “under construction.” Her first serves were (and are) among the very best in the game. But she missed often, and her second serve was below average for a top-50 player.

I proposed an admittedly theoretical solution, that she could play somewhat more conservatively on the first serve, still winning plenty of points. Then she could go (relatively) bigger on seconds, trading a few more double faults for better results. The bottom line, at least according to the algorithm, was that the shift would increase her serve points won from a good 60.1% to a great 61.7%.

She hasn’t done any of that. Yet since leaving Wimbledon, she has won 63.3% of service points. That’s better than the full-season mark of anyone except Swiatek.

Qinwen found a blunter solution: She just got better at everything. Here’s an overview of her serve and return results for the two halves of 2024–up to and after Wimbledon–as well as her hard court results in 2023:

Time Span        W-L  1stIn%  1stW%  2ndW%    SPW    RPW  
2023 Hard      26-12   51.9%  74.3%  45.7%  60.5%  43.6%  
2024 1st half  19-12   51.5%  74.9%  45.5%  60.6%  42.9%  
2024 2nd half   30-5   53.8%  76.5%  47.9%  63.3%  45.9%

First serves in? Up two percentage points. First serves won? Two points. Second serves won? Two points. Return points won? Three points from the first half of 2024 to the second, even though the average surface is faster.

These are enormous shifts. 54% of first serves in still leaves her near the bottom of the table, but moving from 60.6% to 63.3% serve points won is the difference between the edge of the top ten and, as noted, number two. Key to the move is the rate of second serves won, which improved from the bottom third of tour players to the top half. On return, 42.9% to 45.9% is a jump from the bottom quartile of tour regulars to the top.

In short, Zheng went from having weaknesses to not having weaknesses. It’s never easy to divvy up the credit between player and coach, but if Pere Riba doesn’t win coach of the year, we might as well quit giving out the award.

Ratioing the tour

One of the goals of my research is to help us be more specific when we analyze players. Zheng’s various points-won rates give us a clearer view than just going goggle-eyed at a 30-5 record. But it’s tough to pinpoint a player’s improvement when she suddenly does everything better.

Qinwen’s rates of winners and unforced errors leave us in the same conundrum: She’s just gotten better by every conceivable metric. Still, I have to share. Sometimes it’s worth going goggle-eyed.

I have winner and unforced error stats for a limited subset of matches–77, in Zheng’s case–from a combination of grand slam data and the Match Charting Project. For the 58 matches through the loss at Wimbledon, she hit winners on 16.9% of points, versus UFEs on 19.2%. That works out to a ratio of 0.88, which is quite good. Commentators like to point to a 1:1 ratio as a goal, but that’s relatively rare on the women’s tour. 0.85 is usually sufficient to win a match.

Since July, the Chinese player’s W/UFE rates have basically flipped. In 18 matches worth of data, she’s hit winners on 19.3% of points, against a 17.0% unforced error rate. Those numbers are good for a ratio of 1.14. Here’s a complete list of the women who have posted better ratios this year:

1. Aryna Sabalenka

That’s it. With more complete data, it’s possible that Zheng would outscore Sabalenka, too. We have W/UFE for four of Qinwen’s five second-half losses, but only 14 of 30 wins. The sample is probably a bit biased against her.

The backhand complement

When I wrote about Zheng in January, her forehand–assessed by my Forehand Potency (FHP) metric–already ranked in the top ten among tour regulars. Her backhand remained a question mark.

If there are any specifics we can glean about the 22-year-old’s improvement, it is here. Until the beginning of this season, her backhand was, more or less, a neutral shot. The Backhand Potency (BHP) stat measures how often a shot ends the point for or against the player, as well as how often it sets up a point-ending shot shortly thereafter. In 2024, Qinwen’s backhand has been five times more effective that it was before:

Time Span  BHP/100  Negative Matches  
2021-23        1.2          13 of 32  
2024           6.3           6 of 34

In the past, the Zheng backhand cost her points–that is, it rated a negative BHP–nearly half the time, in 13 of 32 charted matches. This year, it has rarely done so. While BHP per 100 backhands (BHP/100) can’t be directly converted to a number of points per match, it’s safe to estimate that her backhand is now worth at least two or three points per match that she wasn’t winning before.

A few points per contest are enough to separate a good player from a great one. The backhand alone accounts for a big chunk of the gap between early Qinwen and the current unbeatable model.

We can even see the connection between BHP and return points won. This year, Zheng has gotten more returns in play: about one percentage point more, despite the fact that she has played Sabalenka so many times. Often, pros increase that metric by playing more conservatively. They send more balls back but do so weakly, losing most of those points. The Chinese woman, on the other hand, has also improved her win rate when she puts the return in play. That number–at least in the sample of charted matches–has risen from 53.8% to 56.8%.

Return stats aren’t all about the backhand, but when someone has as dangerous of a forehand as Zheng does, opponents make the return as much about the backhand as they can. No longer anything resembling a servebot, Qinwen threatens in more and more return games. Last year, she earned a break point in 43% of (charted) return games; this year, she is up to 49%.

Up and to the right

At the risk of repeating myself: Every trendline for the 22-year-old is headed in the right direction.

Zheng has never beaten Sabalenka, but after losing 6-1, 6-2 at the US Open, she pushed the Belarusian to three tough sets in Wuhan. She had lost five straight to Swiatek, then straight-setted her on the Parisian clay at the Olympics. Last fall, Qinwen salvaged just three games against Elena Rybakina in Beijing. This week she beat her. Zheng needed three sets to get past Jasmine Paolini last month; yesterday she allowed the Italian a measly 37 points.

The only player left in the Riyadh field that the Chinese woman hasn’t defeated is Coco Gauff. They’ve met just once, in Rome this season. Zheng won just 44% of points that day, landing an abysmal 41% of first serves. Should the pair meet to decide the season-ending championship, Gauff may still have enough of an edge to come out on top. But if we’ve learned anything from Qinwen’s four-month surge, it’s that she’s going to play a whole lot better this time.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Does Mpetshi Perricard’s Backhand Even Matter?

*Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard in Basel, playing a longer rally than usual*.
*Credit: Skyscraper2010*

The story of last week’s tournament in Basel was the blistering service performance of Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard. The six-foot, eight-inch Frenchman racked up 109 aces in five matches, including more than one-third of his service points in Sunday’s final against Ben Shelton.

Mpetshi Perricard is a big server straight out of central casting. He can nail the corners at 150 miles per hour; on Sunday he hit one second serve at 146. He puts plenty of mustard on his groundstrokes as well. He often plays a high-risk brand of baseline tennis, recognizing that with a serve like his, he only needs to break once or twice–or just pick off a couple of return points in the tiebreak.

The Frenchman’s rapid rise through the ranks also fits his style. For a big server, wins can come in batches, when conditions–or, simply, tiebreak luck–are on his side. After an unexpected breakthrough on clay in Lyon, Mpetshi Perricard upset Sebastian Korda (in four tiebreaks!) and reached the second week at Wimbledon. Basel played faster than any tour event this year, and he took advantage. In between, he suffered through a 1-7 stretch in which he lost five straight tiebreaks and saw his double-fault rate balloon into double digits.

Much of Mpetshi Perricard’s future success will depend on his ability to handle these ups and downs. So far, he has struggled a bit to avoid the bad patches that spell doom for one-dimensional players. In his limited tour-level action, he has won more service points (70.2%) than anyone except Jannik Sinner. Yet five men hold more reliably than the Frenchman does, even after an unbroken week in Basel. The successes of Milos Raonic and John Isner–and even Shelton last year–come from playing better than usual under pressure, something Mpetshi Perricard has yet to consistently demonstrate.

I do love talking about servebots serving service aces. But while everybody raves about the GMP serve, I keep thinking about the backhand.

On the one hand

Mpetshi Perricard is now the fourth-highest ranked man with a one-handed backhand. His shot is nothing like the graceful, big-backswing, Federer- and Gasquet-inspired strokes of Grigor Dimitrov and Lorenzo Musetti. He often does little more than set up the racket to block the ball back. Strong as he is, the resulting flat shot can be much more than a mere defensive maneuver.

A few generations ago, it was standard to see big servers with one-handers. Think Richard Krajicek or Greg Rusedski; you might even put Pete Sampras in that category. More recently, Ivo Karlovic sported a one-handed backhand, though he mostly hit slices. Christopher Eubanks fits a broadly similar mold. Now, though, one-handers are dying breed, with just nine representatives in the top 100 of the ATP rankings.

Unlike Musetti or Stefanos Tsitsipas, Mpetshi Perricard isn’t likely to inspire the next generation of one-handed stars. No one is going to call this guy a throwback. On a good serving day, the Frenchman’s highlight reel features barely any groundstrokes at all.

What, then, do the numbers say? Is the Mpetshi Perricard backhand any good? Would he be better off with a two-hander like Raonic’s, Isner’s, or Reilly Opelka’s? Or, to return to the question I started with: For someone who specializes in ending rallies before they begin, does his backhand even matter?

Safely hidden

When the Frenchman’s game plan is working, his backhand is tucked away, out of sight. No backhands are necessary when the serve doesn’t come back, and when he controls the point, he prefers the forehand. Setting aside service returns, few players avoid their backhands as scrupulously as Mpetshi Perricard does.

The average ATPer hits 44% of their groundstrokes from the backhand side. Here are the most backhand-shy men with at least 15 matches in the Match Charting Project database, along with some other big servers of note:

Player                      BH/GS  
Ivo Karlovic                30.1%  
Jack Draper                 32.5%  
Ryan Harrison               35.2%  
Thiago Monteiro             35.5%  
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard  35.5%  
Jaume Munar                 36.1%  
Vasek Pospisil              36.4%  
Alejandro Tabilo            37.1%  
Alexei Popyrin              37.3%  
Guido Pella                 37.4%  
Ben Shelton                 37.6%  
Maxime Cressy               37.9%  
…                                  
Christopher Eubanks         38.9%  
Matteo Berrettini           41.1%  
Milos Raonic                42.9%  
-- Average                  44.0%  
John Isner                  44.3%  
Reilly Opelka               45.6%  
Greg Rusedski               46.2%  
Nick Kyrgios                46.8%  
Pete Sampras                47.7%  
Richard Krajicek            48.3%  
Goran Ivanisevic            51.1%  
Mark Philippoussis          52.1%

Backhands per groundstroke is not the easiest stat to parse, because it is the product of so many different factors. Nearly everyone would like to keep their number low, so it’s partly a function of footwork and anticipation. (And sheer willingness to hit forehands from outlandish positions.) But it is also influenced by opponents, who will work more or less hard to find the backhand. Mpetshi Perricard’s place on this list, then, could be telling us various things. He hits his forehand when he can, and his movement is good enough to make it happen. Opponents might not be trying as hard as they could to force a backhand.

Yet another factor is how comfortable the player is with their slice. GMP hits his quite a bit, meaning that he unleashes the flat one-hander that much more rarely. The typical tour player hits their flat or top-spin backhand on 35% of groundstrokes. The Frenchman comes in at 25%, not as often as his most extreme peers, but in line with other big servers:

Player                      not-slice-BH/GS  
Ivo Karlovic                           6.1%  
Daniel Evans                          11.6%  
Milos Raonic                          20.2%  
Maxime Cressy                         20.4%  
Matteo Berrettini                     21.3%  
Grigor Dimitrov                       22.7%  
Corentin Moutet                       23.3%  
Christopher Eubanks                   23.6%  
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard            25.2%  
Alexei Popyrin                        26.3%  
...
Bernard Tomic                         27.9%  
John Isner                            28.0%  
Ben Shelton                           28.5%  
Reilly Opelka                         31.5%  
-- Average                            34.7%

All of this is to say: Mpetshi Perricard hardly leans on the flat backhand. His serve keeps point short, and his preferences are for other shots. In the 138 points of the Basel final, he hit only 28 flat backhands, six of them on service returns.

Backhand impact

When the Frenchman is forced to hit a backhand (or chooses to–anything’s possible, I guess), the results aren’t great. When he goes for the flat backhand, he wins 43% of points, compared to a tour average of 49%. He takes more risks than his peers, but not overwhelmingly so: 9% of his one-handers end in a winner or forced error, while 12% are unforced errors. (Tour norms are 8% and 9%, respectively.)

These outcomes aren’t as extreme as his preferences. Of about 200 players with as many non-slice backhands in the MCP database, Mpetshi Perricard’s 43% comes in 21st from the bottom. Compared to other big servers, that win rate is positively respectable:

Player                      W/FE%   UFE%  inPointsWon%  
John Isner                   6.9%  12.8%         35.8%  
Milos Raonic                 7.3%  12.5%         40.4%  
Matteo Berrettini            4.8%  10.4%         42.5%  
Andy Roddick                 5.5%   7.8%         42.6%  
Felix Auger-Aliassime        6.0%   9.9%         43.4%  
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard   8.9%  12.6%         43.5%  
Ben Shelton                  6.2%  11.1%         43.8%  
Nick Kyrgios                 7.9%  10.7%         43.9%  
Kevin Anderson               7.6%  11.0%         44.1%  
Hubert Hurkacz               6.2%  10.0%         45.6%  
-- Average                   7.3%   9.0%         48.6%  
Jack Draper                  6.5%   5.7%         49.1%

Against this group, the Frenchman’s winner (and forced error) rate really stands out. Given the outcomes when he doesn’t go for it, it’s possible he should be even more aggressive than he already is. Master tactician Milos Raonic took a similar tack, piling up as many unforced errors as GMP does, but without quite as many winners.

The picture is less rosy when we look at slice backhands. As noted, Mpetshi Perricard hits a lot of them–close to one-third of his groundstrokes from that wing. When he does, he wins 33% of points, compared to 42% for his peers. Only a handful of players have posted such low slice-backhand win rates, and they are mostly the names you would expect:

Player                      W/FE%   UFE%  inPointsWon%  
John Isner                   1.5%  11.1%         27.3%  
Christopher Eubanks          1.6%  10.7%         30.2%  
Kevin Anderson               3.2%   6.5%         31.4%  
Nicolas Jarry                4.0%  13.2%         32.7%  
Ivo Karlovic                 3.5%  12.0%         32.8%  
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard   3.1%   3.9%         33.1%  
Ben Shelton                  2.0%   7.1%         33.3%  
...
Nick Kyrgios                 4.2%   6.1%         35.6%  
Felix Auger-Aliassime        3.6%   8.2%         38.1%  
Hubert Hurkacz               2.7%   3.9%         38.1%  
Milos Raonic                 4.7%   9.4%         40.3%  
Matteo Berrettini            2.8%   9.0%         41.5%  
-- Average                   3.3%   5.4%         41.6%

The Frenchman doesn’t miss much. Why just keep the ball in play, though, if you’re likely to lose the point anyway? By hitting so many slices, Mpetshi Perricard makes his flat-backhand numbers look better, but he probably doesn’t pick up any points by making the trade. Prolonging the point is a good strategy if you’re Casper Ruud–or, really, about 80% of the guys on tour. But if you play like GMP, it’s better to go big.

This is one way in which the one-hander may cost him. The two-handed backhand is particularly valuable in its ability to block overpowering shots without retreating to a fully defensive mode. While players with one-handers try to achieve the same thing with a slice, the stats tell us that it’s a poor imitation. The Frenchman’s in particular isn’t doing him any favors.

So, does it even matter?

Mpetshi Perricard doesn’t hit that many backhands, and he isn’t that much worse than average when he does. But, the margins in tennis are small, and the margins for big servers are smaller still. In 26 tour-level matches this year through the Basel final, GMP won exactly 50% of his points. (Not 50.1%, not 49.9%–50% on the dot.) Five players in the top 20 win 50.8% or less. That’s how close the Frenchman is to an even bigger breakthrough.

My backhand potency (BHP) stat quantifies the impact that each player’s (non-slice) backhands have on their broader results. The stat measures how often a shot ends the point in either direction, as well as what happens on the shot after that. Based on the matches we’ve charted this year, GMP’s BHP per 100 backhands stands at -4.3, one of the lower numbers on tour for players with at least 10 charted matches from the last 52 weeks:

Player                      BHP/100  
Nicolas Jarry                  -6.9  
Felix Auger Aliassime          -4.6  
Tallon Griekspoor              -4.6  
Flavio Cobolli                 -4.3  
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard     -4.3  
Alexei Popyrin                 -4.2  
Dominic Thiem                  -4.1  
Botic Van De Zandschulp        -3.5  
Matteo Berrettini              -3.1  
Ben Shelton                    -2.4  
Stefanos Tsitsipas             -2.4

What does this mean for the bottom line? -4.3 BHP is equivalent to about -3 points per 100 backhands. Since he doesn’t hit many backhands, that’s about -1.1 per 100 points.

My best estimate, then, is that if we magically replaced the Frenchman’s backhand with a neutral one–say, that of Arthur Fils–he’d pick up 1.1 more points per 100. Instead of winning 50% of points at tour level, he’d win 51.1%. That isn’t good enough to crack the top 10, but it would probably get him into the top 20.

Quantifying the impact of slices is tougher, because the more conservative shot is less likely to end the point immediately, or even on the next shot. If we figure that Mpetshi Perricard’s slice is roughly the same distance below average as his flat backhand, that’s another 0.5 or 0.6 points per 100 he could gain by acquiring a tour-average shot. Daniil Medvedev has hung in the top five in the ATP rankings while winning 51.9% of points. Stringing all of these assumptions together, we can start to see how a capably-backhanded GMP could reach that level.

The bad news for the Frenchman is that climbing the ranks is hard. Mpetshi Perricard is the worst returner in the top 50, and it isn’t even close. He breaks in about 10% of his return games; no one else is below 14%. Earlier this year, I wrote about the similar challenges facing Ben Shelton: Historically, a lot of players have arrived on tour with big serves, huge potential, and tons of hype. Few of them have been able to shore up their weak points enough to crack the top ten, let alone achieve greater feats.

The good news: There is so much room for improvement. Even without polishing the strokes themselves, it’s possible that a more aggressive set of tactics could win him a few more points on return. In yesterday’s loss to Karen Khachanov, the Frenchman won the first set despite picking off just two of 37 return points. One-dimensional servebot or not, he can learn to do better than that.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Matteo Berrettini and the Pursuit of Expected Value

*Matteo Berrettini hitting a forehand that will probably end the point*

A few weeks ago, Agustin Lebron made a broad claim:

Most strategic improvements in sports have been in the direction of increasing variance and living with the (better EV) results:
Baseball: more extra base hits, no more bunting.
Football: more passing game, going for it on 4th.
Golf: driver ball speed increases.
Bball: 3 pointer
Tennis: bigger serves/groundstrokes.
Snooker: cannoning the pack to extend breaks.
Chess: sub-optimal but niche exploitive lines.

“EV” means expected value or, roughly speaking, probability of success. Thanks to baseball’s sabermetric revolution and its influence on other sports, we better understand how players and teams win. Competitors, knowingly or not, are chasing EV.

Lebron’s claim is a bit more specific, that players and coaches across sports are playing riskier games because the ultimate payoff is greater. In baseball, a sacrifice bunt makes it more likely that a team scores one run, but less likely that the team piles on multiple runs. Hoopsters land two-point shots at a better rate than three-pointers, but the additional point makes the tradeoff worthwhile. Ice hockey coaches pull the goalie sooner than they used to, taking the chance that an extra skater will result in a game-tying goal, even if the decision could result in an easy score for the opposition.

Many more examples and counter-examples appear in the discussion around Lebron’s tweet and in the comments at Marginal Revolution.

It’s less clear that tennis ought to be grouped with these other sports. It may be true that players have uniformly bigger serves, or that they hit forehands harder than their predecessors. But is their pursuit of expected value causing them to take more risks?

Serve trends

Since 1991, when the ATP started recording stats like aces and double faults, aces have indeed gone up. That first year, about 5% of points ended with an untouched serve. The tour reached 7% by 2000, then cleared 8% in 2014. The rate has held fairly steady since then, sitting at 7.7% in 2024.

One way to hit more aces is to push closer to the edge. Aim for the lines, smack it as hard as you can, and accept that you’ll miss more, too. That would fit nicely with the increasing-variance hypothesis. But that’s not what has happened. As aces have gone up, the percent of first serves made has also risen:

The increasing-variance hypothesis holds for 1991-2000: Aces went up at the cost of fewer first serves in the box. Since then, though, players have kept hitting more aces (if only slightly), while landing even more first serves.

This is almost definitely thanks to better racket and string technology. You can swing harder than ever, with more spin than ever, and keep control of the ball. But that isn’t the whole story. For any given level of technology, players could take more risks, cracking still more aces at the expense of fewer first serves in. For nearly a quarter-century, that is not the decision pro men have made.

Second serves and double faults tell the same story:

Second serves offer an opportunity to take even more risks. If you go big and miss, you lose the point. But men have generally opted to take their chances with a ball in play. Double faults have cratered since the mid-90s and are currently at an all-time low. Yet players are winning about as many second serve points as ever.

In the last decade, we’ve seen a few players–Nick Kyrgios and Alexander Bublik come to mind–who do sometimes take their chances with a big second serve. Across 129 charted matches, Kyrgios hits aces on 4% of his second serves. Tour average is below 1%. Even Nick, though, doesn’t think it’s worth a major change in his risk profile. His career double fault rate is 4.2%: above average, but hardly an outlier among tour regulars.

The Aussie recognizes that the second serve evolved for a reason. Hitting a big second serve–deploying, in other words, two first serves–is a negative-EV play. It may be worth trotting out for variety’s sake, but not more than that.

Which brings us, finally, to Matteo Berrettini. The six-foot, five-inch Italian is the apotheosis of the big-serve, big-forehand, “plus-one” game. He’s the sort of player Lebron might have been thinking of when he bucketed tennis with the other sports on the list.

For all his power from the line, Berrettini is as conservative as they come. His career ace rate of 12.3% is outstanding, yet there is no apparent cost. He makes almost 64% of his first serves. He wins more second serve points than average, too, despite a miniscule double-fault rate of 2.4%. His game has gotten even safer as he reaches his late 20s. This year, he is hitting slightly more aces (12.8%) and landing far more first serves (68.6%) and committing fewer double faults (2.0%).

If the Italian is any indication, tennis is moving toward bigger serves and forehands. Yet when it comes to the serve, variance is headed in the opposite direction.

Rally aggression

What about groundstrokes? Nearly everyone these days talks about plus-one tennis. The serve–when it doesn’t end the point outright–generates opportunities to put the ball away. When those opportunities appear, don’t screw around! The strategy looks different in the hands of Berrettini than it does with, say, Jelena Ostapenko, but more than ever, players think in terms of recognizing and converting opportunities to end points.

Once the serve has landed, some players have indeed adopted a higher-variance approach that is probably unprecedented. Ostapenko, the freest swinger of all, ends nearly two-thirds of points on her own racket. Inevitably, she misses a huge fraction of those. Her Rally Aggression score of 182 (on a scale designed to run from -100 to 100) leads active players, and it massively outstrips anyone who started their career before about 2005.

Here, alas, we are hamstrung by data limitations. I discussed the men’s tour above because women’s ace and double-fault data only goes back to 2010 or so. The situation is even worse with groundstrokes. While the Match Charting Project now spans over 14,000 matches, relatively few of those predate 2010. Those “early” matches are heavily skewed toward a handful of top players.

We can still draw some comparisons. Lindsay Davenport and Maria Sharapova, often-erratic free swingers a generation or two before Ostapenko, grade out with Rally Aggression scores in the mid-40s. That’s below Iga Swiatek. Let that sink in for a moment. Today’s rock-solid, heavy-topspinning queen of clay plays as aggressively as two earlier-era emblems of high-risk slugging.

Again, we see the effect of better tech. When Ostapenko swings away, there is perhaps a 60% chance it lands in. If it does, it probably isn’t coming back. When Davenport (or to a greater extent, her own predecessors) took a big cut with a 60/40 chance of falling between the lines, it wasn’t quite as hard, and it didn’t have as much spin. It was that much less likely to end the point immediately, or in her favor at all. The chance of an error was always high; modern rackets and strings have upped the odds that the risk is worth taking.

Berrettini, though, once again illustrates that the risk isn’t necessary. The Italian’s Rally Aggression score is 24: above average but not by much. In part the number is low because he struggles to create opportunities on return (or when his serve fails to create chances), but in part he rates where he does because he doesn’t often miss. Roger Federer, for broadly similar reasons, is in the same range.

Modern tech allows players to hit as many winners as ever with less risk. Jannik Sinner, with his career Rally Aggression score of -24 and Carlos Alcaraz, at +8, point toward a lower-variance future, at least in the men’s game.

Ebbs and flows, serves and volleys

The biggest gap in the increasing-variance hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain the death of the serve-and-volley.

Few tactics in any sport are higher variance than old-school, rush-the-net-on-every-point serve-and-volleying. Think of Boris Becker at Wimbledon. He hit a bomb, and if it came back, he was often sprawled across the court simply trying to get a racket on the ball. Today’s net forays aren’t always so kinetic, but they remain high-risk. For every easy volley, there’s an untouchable passing-shot winner.

What’s more, the most dedicated form of serve-and-volleying, Jack Kramer’s “Big Game,” was explicitly an EV play, the brainchild of an actual engineer decades before anyone thought to put “sports” and “analytics” in the same sentence. Kramer and club-mate Cliff Roche worked out the angles and the probabilities, and the on-court results were so overwhelmingly positive that other Americans quickly followed suit. Thanks to a Davis Cup drubbing in 1946, Kramer’s game also changed the course of Australian tennis, inspiring Frank Sedgman and indirectly defining the style of innumerable hopefuls, including Rod Laver.

Serve-and-volleying, in the right hands, was the smart play for reasons that no longer persist. Returners couldn’t do much with a good serve. Court conditions made baseline tennis chancy: Much more tennis was played on grass, and almost none of that grass resembled the impeccable grounds at Wimbledon. Rushing the net was the only way to avoid losing on a bad bounce.

There’s a direct line running from Kramer, through Laver and Pete Sampras, to early-career Federer. Roger gave up serve-and-volleying only when Lleyton Hewitt showed how a sturdy, precise defense–made possible, again, by improved tech–could turn even a strong serve-and-volley attack into a negative-EV proposition.

The overarching theme here is that tennis pros will chase expected value, just as they have for a century. If they don’t, other players will come along with a better approach and displace them. The tactics that work in a given era are heavily driven by tech, and they may or may not move in the direction of higher variance.

The women’s game shows us the potential of high-risk tennis. So many top players go for broke that someone like Swiatek–an aggressive player by historical standards–looks conservative by comparison. Ostapenko-style slugging looks nothing like serve-and-volleying, but the philosophy is similar: Put the ball away before your opponent has the chance.

The men’s game, though, is becoming ever more precise. Sinner and Alcaraz don’t have low Rally Aggression scores because they play so passively. They just don’t miss very often. Berrettini is more aggressive, but only just. Few men hit serves harder or pepper the corners so persistently. Fewer still are so relentless in how they capitalize on a short ball. Yet he does that seemingly without cost. The Italian has plenty of limitations–injuries and a limited backhand, for starters–but they aren’t tactical. He and his colleagues have concluded that higher risks aren’t worth it, and they are probably right.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Coco Gauff’s Big What-If

*Coco Gauff at the 2022 US Open. Credit: All-Pro Reels*

The best players are able to work around their weaknesses. Coco Gauff is so solid that she has overcome two: an unreliable forehand and a second serve that hands too many points to her opponents. On Wednesday in Wuhan, Gauff coughed up 5 double faults out of 19 second serves. Despite surrendering more than 10% of her serve points for the fifth consecutive match, she eased past Viktoriya Tomova. The Bulgarian managed just three games.

The forehand is a subject for another day. Lately, the serve has been a bigger concern, the one blot on an eight-match win streak (and counting) in China.

Start with season totals. Through last week’s Beijing final, Gauff has missed more than one in five of her second serves. The result: She has double-faulted 8.9% of her 2024 service points. No other woman in the WTA top 60 has double faulted so often.

The typical tour regular loses barely half so many points this way. Tour average is 5.1%. Fellow elites Iga Swiatek, Jessica Pegula, and Jasmine Paolini come in at 3% or lower; Emma Navarro just misses that mark at 3.1%. Even Aryna Sabalenka, with her recurring bouts of service shakiness and occasional risk-taking on the second serve, gives away only 4.5% of points.

Still, Coco rates as the fourth-best player in the world. She’ll be back to #3 on Monday, and she has a good chance of ending the season there. The rest of her game is so sturdy that she has piled up nearly 50 wins on the season despite committing 274 more double faults than Swiatek has.

This is uncharted territory. In the last 15 years–the extent of my serve stats for women’s tennis–only two players have hit double faults so often and still managed to finish in the top five. No one has cracked the top three:

DF Rate  Player             Year  Rank  
  10.4%  Aryna Sabalenka    2022     5  
   9.6%  Maria Sharapova    2011     4  
   8.9%  Coco Gauff         2024     ?  
   8.7%  Elena Dementieva   2009     5  
   8.4%  Maria Sharapova    2015     4  
   8.1%  Dinara Safina      2008     3  
   7.9%  Dinara Safina      2009     2  
   7.9%  Maria Sharapova    2014     2  
   7.9%  Karolina Pliskova  2021     4  
   7.6%  Victoria Azarenka  2013     2  
   7.6%  Aryna Sabalenka    2021     2  
   7.5%  Maria Sharapova    2013     4  
   7.3%  Maria Sharapova    2012     2  
   7.0%  Venus Williams     2010     5

The typical year-end number one double faults only 4.1% of the time. Victoria Azarenka’s 2012 season, at 6.8%, was the only such occasion over 6%. This isn’t exactly a law of physics, but if Gauff is to dislodge the two women atop her in the ranking table, she’ll probably need to make a substantial move in that direction.

What-ifs

It’s no easy task to fix a leaky serve. The good news for Coco is that it may be all she needs to do.

Back to the season totals. Gauff is basically tied with Swiatek as the best returner in the game. The American has won 48.4% of her return points this year, compared to Iga’s 48.5%. Gauff has played slightly weaker opposition, but in any case, it’s a minor gap. Both women stand well above the pack; no one else tops 47.5%. With no double faults working against her, Coco’s return game is worthy of a world number one.

By service points won–where the double faults come into play–Gauff ranks a more pedestrian 12th. That’s entirely because of the deliveries that miss. She wins more first-serve points than anyone except for Qinwen Zheng and Elena Rybakina. In an era without megastars, the combination of 1st or 2nd on return and 12th on serve might be good enough to lead the field, but with an all-rounder like Swiatek and a dominant slugger like Sabalenka to contend with, it doesn’t do the job.

Here, then, is the what-if. Wave a magic wand and proclaim that all of Gauff’s second serves find the box. The 9% of her service points that end in double faults turn into second serves in play: points that she wins at a 56% clip.

Do that, and her rate of serve points won–currently at 60.2%, good for 12th place–becomes 65.3%, better than anybody. A double-fault-free Coco Gauff would rack up more serve points than anyone on tour, while still winning almost as many return points as Iga does. A handful of key points might swing the year-end number one in either direction, but statistically, the American would be the best player in the world.

You might argue that even in the rosiest real-life scenario, Coco isn’t going to eliminate double faults entirely. Fair enough. Reduce her double fault rate to tour average, and she wins 62.5% of service points. Not as good as Swiatek, Sabalenka, or Rybakina (or, technically, Lulu Sun in her limited tour-level action), but ahead of everybody else.

Combine serve and return into total points won (TPW%), and we see how these wishful adjustments move Gauff clear of the field–or, at least, everyone except for Iga:

TPW%   Player                      
56.9%  Coco Gauff (no dfs)  
56.5%  Iga Swiatek                 
55.4%  Coco Gauff (avg dfs)  
54.3%  Coco Gauff (actual)  
54.3%  Aryna Sabalenka             
53.7%  Elena Rybakina              
53.1%  Karolina Muchova            
52.9%  Qinwen Zheng                
52.8%  Danielle Collins            
52.7%  Mirra Andreeva              
52.6%  Jessica Pegula              
52.3%  Victoria Azarenka           
52.3%  Maria Sakkari               
52.3%  Paula Badosa                
52.1%  Madison Keys                
52.0%  Jasmine Paolini

Actual-Coco is already near the top of the list. Take away all or half of her double faults, and at the very least she looks stronger than Sabalenka and Rybakina.

The specifics

This may seem a bit too abstract, especially since the total-points-won list has so many differences from the official ranking table. Greatness is not measured by points, but by titles, and some trophies count much more than others.

Remember that these points we’re changing took place in real–often close–matches. Reversing just a few of the double faults would have tipped the scales in Gauff’s direction. In the counterfactual, she probably didn’t lose 15 matches this year. She likely picked up more than two titles.

Take the most painful loss of the season: Coco’s fourth round defeat at the US Open. Against Emma Navarro, she committed a gut-wrenching 19 double faults. Despite that, she won 46.8% of total points. All else equal, had she landed those 19 second serves, Gauff would have almost exactly flipped the tally, winning 53.0% of points. Even with a tour-average double fault rate, she would have won 51.0% of points and–barring bad luck or a ill-timed choke–earned a victory.

Run the same exercise for the American’s other defeats this year, and we see just how strong her season could have been. If we reduce her double faults to a tour-average 5.1%, 4 of her 15 losses probably would have gone her way. Two more matches would have ended within a point of 50/50, safely in the range where a clutch (or lucky) break point or two can reverse the result.

Cut out double faults entirely, and Gauff wins at least 50.8% of points in six of the losses. She would have cleared 48% in four more, putting those in the range where luck could hand her the victory.

Even in the more conservative scenario, Gauff’s campaign looks quite different. Instead of losing to Anna Kalinskaya in the Dubai quarters, she would have faced off with Iga in the semi-finals. She wouldn’t have lost to Marta Kostyuk in Stuttgart: She’d have played Marketa Vondrousova for a place in the final. In Madrid, she would have handily beaten Madison Keys, earning a quarter-final date with Ons Jabeur. Flip the Navarro result in New York, and Coco could well have defended her US Open title.

Today’s action in Wuhan offered a glimpse of a sturdier future. Gauff cast aside Kostyuk with nary a double fault, advancing to the quarters in just 61 minutes. It was her quickest match since April–against an opponent who has bedeviled her in the past–and her first double-fault-free outing in 14 months.

The American has somehow established herself as a top-five player and grand slam champion despite handing her opponents more free points than any of her peers. A stingier Coco Gauff could soon be the best player in the world.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

Tomas Machac’s Defiant Angles

*Tomas Machac at the 2023 US Open. Credit: Hameltion*

2024 is quickly turning into the year of Tomas Machac. The 23-year-old Czech reached his first grand slam third round in Australia, straight-setting Frances Tiafoe for a first top-20 win. A quarter-final showing in Marseille and a defeat of Stan Wawrinka at Indian Wells earned him a place in the top 60.

Now, in Miami, he has dispatched top-tenner Andrey Rublev and outlasted Andy Murray for a place in the fourth round. The live rankings place him precariously in the top 50; tomorrow’s match against fellow second-week surprise Matteo Arnaldi give him a chance to make it official. While Jiri Lehecka, a year younger and considerably higher in the rankings, is the poster boy for the resurgence of Czech men’s tennis, Machac is right behind him.

The key to the Machac game is a compact, versatile backhand that seems capable of anything. Inside-out backhands are usually little more than a curiosity, a miracle of timing that many players don’t even bother to try. The Czech hits one in ten of his backhands that way. Against Rublev, he cracked five: one for a winner and two more that forced errors. He won all five.

The tactics that surround Machac’s backhand are a joy to watch. Since he doesn’t serve big, every point threatens to become a rally. But the Czech angles for court position like a much bigger hitter. He approached the net 35 times in yesterday’s Murray match alone. Counting the times he was forced to come forward as well, he played 48 points in the forecourt, winning 38 of them. Combined with a court-widening slice serve, the net play makes Machac just as much of a threat on the doubles court. With Zhang Zhizhen, he reached the semi-finals in Australia and won the title in Marseille. He and girlfriend Katerina Siniakova would make a dangerous mixed duo at the Paris Olympics.

The unknowns that could limit Machac’s ceiling are, well, everything else. His forehand is a bit hitchy and it is nowhere near as effective as his backhand. By my Forehand Potency metric (FHP), he earns barely any points off that wing, ranking among the likes of Adrian Mannarino and Mikael Ymer.

And then there’s the serve. While he is capable of firing bullets–one of his serves in Australia registered at 128 mph (208 kph)–he rarely goes that route. His first serves in Miami have hovered around 110 mph, so he sets up points with slices wide, especially in the deuce court. He manages a respectable ace total thanks to a well-disguised delivery and the surprise that comes from his occasional bombs down the T.

The Machac serve is not a liability, exactly, but it is not the standard first-strike weapon for a prospect in today’s men’s game. Let’s take a closer look.

Lean right

Aside from keeping an eye on the radar gun while watching Machac’s progress in Miami, I don’t have a lot of data to put his serve speed in context. The only available point-by-point serve speed data these days comes from Wimbledon and the US Open, where the Czech has played just two career main-draw matches.

At Wimbledon last year, Machac’s first serves clocked an average of 115 mph (184 kph), faster than about one-third of the field. The Wimbledon gun might have been a little hot, as most players scored better there than in New York, and by a wider margin than you’d expect from more serve-centered tactics. When the Czech played a match at the US Open in 2022, his average first serve speed was 107 mph (171 kph). Four-fifths of the field hit harder; most of the names in his part of the list are clay-courters. Presumably he has gotten stronger since then, so while 115 mph may be an overestimate, 107 mph is probably low.

These numbers confirm that the serve won’t hold him back too much. Some other men in the same neighborhood are Casper Ruud, Tommy Paul, and David Goffin. Neither Carlos Alcaraz nor Novak Djokovic averaged much faster than Machac on the Wimbledon gun last year, and they did just fine. The Czech has only a bit of ground to make up with the rest of his game, and Ruud offers one example that it can be done.

What makes Machac’s serve look so pedestrian is the frequency with which he spins wide serves in the deuce court. Against Murray yesterday, he hit 54% of his deuce-court firsts to the wide corner. Fewer than 40% went down the T, and most of the remainder were also to the forehand side. He was even more extreme in the ad court, spinning 61% of those first serves down the T to the opponent’s forehand.

60/40 sounds rather undramatic, like most tennis stats. But few men favor one direction so strongly, at least until they reach critical situations like break point, when they lean more heavily on their favorite angle. Machac tries to balance it out by aiming for the backhand with his second serves, though by a slightly narrower margin. That does the job: The gap between his first- and second-serve results is about the same as tour average.

In the deuce court, at least, the tactic is working. Against Murray yesterday, Machac won 18 of 22 (82%) when his first serve went wide, though he was nearly as successful down the T. Against Rublev, he won 13 of his 14 wide deuce-court first serves. Understandably, he didn’t hit many deuce-court serves anywhere else. When Murray broke back yesterday to keep the third set alive, it wasn’t the serve itself that let Machac down. Twice at deuce, the Czech missed first serves when he tried to go down the T. His wide second serves drew weak replies on both occasions, but he lost both points with unforced errors.

The dis-ad-vantage

Wide serves in the deuce court are a gamble. You let your opponent take a swing at a forehand–probably his preferred wing–but you pull him out of position. Clearly it can work. Few men rely more heavily on their forehand than Rublev does, yet Machac attacked that side at every opportunity.

Murray was cannier and kept things much closer than Rublev did. But even he was fighting a losing battle. Machac won 80% of total first-serve points in the deuce court yesterday, compared to 69% in the ad court. So far, the Czech’s opponents have been more like Murray than Rublev, but still, the serve-to-the-forehand gamble pays off.

While he likes to aim for the same wing in the ad court as well, Machac doesn’t get the same court-position advantage. Across ten matches logged so far by the Match Charting Project, he has won 78% first-serve points in the deuce court against 71% in the ad court.

The difference lies largely in what Machac can do with his plus-one shot. In the deuce court, he wins about half of first-serve points with his serve or plus-one. In the ad court, that number falls below 40%. 50% is excellent: Djokovic hardly does better than that, and even an imposing server like Ugo Humbert does worse. But 40% is dire. Only clay-courters win so few short first-serve points overall. There’s less room to put away the second shot when you’ve left the returner standing in the middle of the court.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with a split between deuce-court and ad-court results. If asked, most players would probably prefer to win more points in the ad court, since most break points start in that direction. But the effect of winning more break points is mostly cancelled out by earning fewer break chances in the first place. Anyway, Machac doesn’t have any particular problem saving break points. He survived 13 of 15 against Murray. At tour level since this time last year, he has saved 64.5% of break points faced while winning 65.5% of serve points overall. That’s a closer margin that most players can boast.

The deeper we dig, the more we find weaknesses and unusual preferences in Machac’s game. Paired with each one, it seems, is a way in which it could work to his advantage. So far, he has succeeded despite the oddities. His results against Rublev and Tiafoe suggest that stronger competition might not break the spell, though the demands of yesterday’s gutbuster with Murray makes me wonder if brainier competition will raise the bar.

As the men’s game gets ever more powerful, there is less room at the top for playing styles that break the mold. Machac has already hinted that he can counterbalance brute force with the right set of angles, especially if they create opportunities for him to deploy his top-tier backhand. Countryman Radek Stepanek cracked the top ten with his own brand of unorthodox unpredictability. Machac has a different set of quirks, but based on his rapid progress this year, he may be able to do the same.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email: