Sinner 1 Of 4 Men to Not Face a BP in a Slam Final & His Tactics

[jimlosaltos]

Near the top of the ATP small things can make huge differences.
Jannik Sinner goes for more on his serve when he is behind, none of this "make sure you get your first in" namby-pamby stuff. And it works.

Sunday, Sinner joined august company with Fed, Nadal, and Pete Sampras as the only 4 players to win a slam final without facing a single break point.

How? One factor is that Sinner serves faster and wins a higher percentage of his points when down.

Jeff Sackman has the numbers on Tennis Abstract's "Heavy Topspin". At 40-love, Jannik slows down to a crawl, serving at an average speed of only 113 MPH. But at 15-30, he ramps it up to 121 MPH. And Sinner does it without paying a price:

> With more at stake, the Italian hit harder. There’s no apparent trade-off, either. He made more first serves than average at 15-30 and deuce, even with the faster strikes.

From: The Locked-Down Serve of Jannik Sinner


Here are Sinner’s first-serve speeds at the most common point scores he faced:

Score MPH
15-30 121.0
40-40 120.3
40-15 120.0
0-15 119.7
30-30 119.4
40-30 118.0
30-15 117.7
30-0 117.0
15-0 116.6
0-0 116.6
15-15 115.8
40-0 113.0

(Yes, I know it’d be nice to have 30-40, 40-AD, 15-40, and so on. But this is Sinner we’re talking about. He didn’t face many of those.)

[neilchok]

yeah it seems you got to be a risk taker to win these big events. Not just strokes and fitness. Not easy to server harder when you are down break point!!!!!!

[stotty]

It's worth pointing out that Sinner had a comfortable draw. The only two players capable of beating him knocked each other out; Novak defeated Carlos but injured himself beyond repair in the process. I'm pretty confident Sinner would have faced a break point or two had he had to play either Carlos or Novak. I'd have put money on that.

[stroke]

I have not heard this stat but it is beyond impressive, and what company he is in. To me it is hard to pinpoint the reason for it, other than they are all some of the very best players of all time. Fed, Nadal, and Sampras clearly got to this club very differently.

[jimlosaltos]

Sinner is over two 'Slam titles' worth of points ahead of Carlos, and nearly that ahead of number two Zverev.

filedata/fetch?id=106448&d=1738180026&type=thumb

[jimlosaltos]

It's worth pointing out that Sinner had a comfortable draw. The only two players capable of beating him knocked each other out; Novak defeated Carlos but injured himself beyond repair in the process. I'm pretty confident Sinner would have faced a break point or two had he had to play either Carlos or Novak. I'd have put money on that.

Probably. But that also points out how incredibly fortunate Djokovic has been in his later years with draws at the majors, incl 2024 French Open and Wimbledon. Djokovic has been alone in one half with Sinner and Alcaraz on the opposite sides repeatedly, even as their rankings changed. Has he ever beaten both in a major? I don't think so. He beat Sinner in 2023 Wimbledon then lost to Alcaraz. That might be the only time Djokovic has had to face both in a major?

With the Big 3 and Borg-McEnroe-Connors before them, the one that didn't have to meet a fellow Big 3er in the semis generally had an advantage in the final. But Djokovic just sits over in his own half. Strange.

[jimlosaltos]

ATP has another way to look at how hot Sinner has been since getting to numero uno.


Since climbing to the top of men's tennis on 10 June last year, the Italian has been nearly perfect. According to the Infosys ATP Win/Loss Index, Sinner's winning percentage as World No. 1 has been better than all 28 previous No. 1s in the history of the PIF ATP Rankings (since 1973). {And, yes, the sample size is far smaller -- so far )

Winning % As World No. 1 (Top Five)

Players	Record As No. 1	Winning %
1) Jannik Sinner	47-3	94%
2) Bjorn Borg	136-12	91.9%
3) Jimmy Connors	408-45	90.1%
4) Ivan Lendl	362-44	89.2%
5) Roger Federer	430-56	88.5%
6) John McEnroe	226-34	86.9%

[stotty]

Probably. But that also points out how incredibly fortunate Djokovic has been in his later years with draws at the majors, incl 2024 French Open and Wimbledon. Djokovic has been alone in one half with Sinner and Alcaraz on the opposite sides repeatedly, even as their rankings changed. Has he ever beaten both in a major? I don't think so. He beat Sinner in 2023 Wimbledon then lost to Alcaraz. That might be the only time Djokovic has had to face both in a major?

With the Big 3 and Borg-McEnroe-Connors before them, the one that didn't have to meet a fellow Big 3er in the semis generally had an advantage in the final. But Djokovic just sits over in his own half. Strange.

I did some research a while back and seem to remember Novak won over two thirds of his encounters with Rafa and Roger from 2011 onwards. By the end of his career Borg had Connors firmly in his back pocket and won the last ten matches they played. Connors faired better against McEnroe but still lost good deal more than he won. I call them the Big 2.5. It would have been better had Lendl rocked up five years earlier to construct a more credible Big 3.

[jimlosaltos]

I did some research a while back and seem to remember Novak won over two thirds of his encounters with Rafa and Roger from 2011 onwards. By the end of his career Borg had Connors firmly in his back pocket and won the last ten matches they played. Connors faired better against McEnroe but still lost good deal more than he won. I call them the Big 2.5. It would have been better had Lendl rocked up five years earlier to construct a more credible Big 3.

Yup. Some call this the major fallacy of comparing players by their head-to-head records. Someone ( I think a European journalist that uses "Oleg" as his online alias) did an extremely lengthy comparison of "big rivalries" spanning many generations, showing that if a rivalry spans decades, the younger player almost always ends up with the better H2H. The young player, while still near his peak, plays against the older player well past theirs. So, they pile up wins later. But that proves nothing about their relative skills/ level of play when both were great.

In the case of Fed-Djoko, I believe Fed led their H2H from game one until he was perhaps 34 years old? All Fed needed to do to have the better career H2H was quit earlier, like Borg.

[stotty]

In the case of Fed-Djoko, I believe Fed led their H2H from game one until he was perhaps 34 years old?

From 2011 it was pretty much a rout in favour of Novak. Both players are anomalies as they became better players in their 30's. Roger was a better player at 35 than 25.

But, yes, I would agree head to heads can be misleading and probably meaningless. When weighed up as an average, Novak is a better player than Roger, but then Roger, at his best, has played better than anyone alive. No one has hit the heights Roger has on a tennis court.

[jimlosaltos]

From 2011 it was pretty much a rout in favour of Novak. Both players are anomalies as they became better players in their 30's. Roger was a better player at 35 than 25.

But, yes, I would agree head to heads can be misleading and probably meaningless. When weighed up as an average, Novak is a better player than Roger, but then Roger, at his best, has played better than anyone alive. No one has hit the heights Roger has on a tennis court.

Boy, that's a tough one. Fed 2004-2008 vs 35 yo Fed? Same equipment?

I've got to take the whirling-dervish of serve + 1 that was, as Andy Roddick put it, "Simultaneously, the best offensive and best defensive player in tennis."

[stotty]

Boy, that's a tough one. Fed 2004-2008 vs 35 yo Fed? Same equipment?

I've got to take the whirling-dervish of serve + 1 that was, as Andy Roddick put it, "Simultaneously, the best offensive and best defensive player in tennis."

I saw the 2008 Wimbledon final from around 10 rows back...a bird's eye view. It was finest final ever. I also saw Roger and Rafa play into their 30's. The difference between those eras was night and day. Both players went on to improve so much since that 2008 final.

It was a good job there were rain delays in that final. Roger would have lost in three straight sets without them.

[jimlosaltos]

I saw the 2008 Wimbledon final from around 10 rows back...a bird's eye view. It was finest final ever. I also saw Roger and Rafa play into their 30's. The difference between those eras was night and day. Both players went on to improve so much since that 2008 final.

It was a good job there were rain delays in that final. Roger would have lost in three straight sets without them.

I'm insanely jealous !

As a Fed Fanboy I must note that you mention the rain delays but not the ridiculous dark and flashing lights at the end. Tsk. Tsk.