Which points are most important in a tennis match? (technical discussion)

[nickw]

Quality material. Timeless in many ways, players of all levels can learn so much from this. The serve appears to be more of a weapon these days, but I'd be interested to know how the stats surrounding how many service games are held, have changed over the last 100 years. Perhaps not as much as people may think, but I don't have the data. In any case, the importance of the 7th and 9th games is surely just as relevant in the modern game, even though players expect to hold the vast majority of the time. This begs the question of why anyone would ever choose to return first? Serve first, and that means you will be serving for the 7th and the 9th games of the set, which means your chances of winning these crucial games is higher. If successful, you can place that 'scoreboard pressure' on your opponent. Many coaches encourage choosing to return first, many pro's do choose to return first. I don't get it, I ALWAYS serve first when I win the toss, statistically it must be the right thing to do. Yes, you could catch them cold, and get an early break, but if that fails, then you are the one who's behind the whole time, and if you crack at 4-5 down or 5-6 down, guess what? You're behind the whole time in the 2nd set too! Surely, players should be warmed up, prepared, and confident enough to believe they can hold in the first game of the match, and should take the chance to do so EVERY time. Interested on opinions.

[don_budge]

Quality material. Timeless in many ways, players of all levels can learn so much from this. The serve appears to be more of a weapon these days, but I'd be interested to know how the stats surrounding how many service games are held, have changed over the last 100 years.

Thanks nickw...nice to hear from you again. Then appearances can be deceptive. Of course it would be easy to come to this conclusion as there is no subtlety left in the game except what Roger Federer can occasionally afford us. The bigger racquets make everything different. It changes the concept of the game.

But having been in these positions in points...a long time ago granted...I remember how important it was to hold serve. Particularly before the tie-break came into existence. Once you got beyond 6-6 in game score it was imperative that you hold your serve at all costs. No...the emphasis on serve was much more emphatic in the classic game. It was the means to get to the net. It improved the motion...to go to the net. My two best students here in Sweden are getting their feet wet in serve and volley. Both have beautiful one hand backhands. Gustaf and Filip. Little Filip too. Karlsson and Olsson.

I just love this chapter of his book. I feel it is one of the most important aspects of playing the game. Check that...it is the most important aspect of playing the game. Everything hinges on everything. The tactical approach. Each point must be carefully considered. I remember serving using these tactics. Approaching the baseline...asking the question? What is the score? Then taking all of the relative factors into account in the blink of an eye...my opponent, my serving history against him in the match, prior matches. What is the inevitability if I win this point? What do I face if I lose? What tactics am I going to use once the point is in play? What's the score? What's the score?

In life...one must ask themselves: What's the score? When discussing modern tennis and it's relevance in the place of tennis history you have to ask yourself...what is the score? It always comes down to this. You cannot overemphasize this. You cannot possibly overemphasize certain things. Repetition is necessary. I still read these words and marvel at them. How could a mind come to these conclusions in 1950 and put them down so succinctly so as to make it simple for the reading masses. Instead of confusion or obfuscation...it is white light. Enlightenment.

William Tilden is the Book. Harry Hopman and his Australian following referred to "Match Play and Spin of the Ball" as the Bible of tennis. It is actually quite sublime so quickly in my writing here on the forum, within a month, how I have arrived at a teaching paradigm such as...William Tilden is the book. Richard Gonzalez is the model...with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof. Of all that I have written here I am most proud of this paradigm.

Tilden is most certainly the "Father" of modern tennis. Perhaps the great-grandfather even. When taking into consideration the five "culmination" points identified in the history of tennis per this author. It was interesting to read his thoughts on Gonzalez in 1948 and 1949. I picked that up in rereading this chapter for the umpteenth time. "Match Play Tactics and Match Play Psychology". My lucky association with my old friend...my beautiful friend Don Budge. Harry Hopman and his contingent of great Australian sportsman and gentlemen. Somehow I don't envision them taking a knee. Finally there is Roger Federer. The only holdout in modern tennis, yet even he has a difficult time maintaining his last remaining connection to the game that was really tennis. Not the fake and phony offshoot that they pawn off now as tennis.

Read it and weep. Elvis is on his way out of the stadium.

[faultsnaces]

don_budge, with all due respect, the thing missing in the lengthy material you posted is any real guidance as to exactly HOW one can / should go about playing with knowledge of the score and the importance / consequence of winning or losing the point at issue.

It's easy to say "play better" or "play percentage tennis" but what exactly should a player do to implement that guidance? And, if this mode of play is better, why shouldn't the player implement this mode on all points?

One interesting item: when you dive into comparative analysis of women's pro tennis versus men's pro tennis, we find that women do seem to play more tentatively on 'important' points, as do lower ranked men. Top male pros really do seem to play completely outside the score.

Also, I've always wanted to understand why the classic literature makes such a big deal about the 7th game: makes no sense to me, and statistical analysis of pro matches bears out the immateriality of the 7th game. Why is an early break less important / valuable than a later break?

There's a lot of great classic tennis literature, but there's also a lot of myth - modern analysis has a lot to offer in many areas.... (And no, it's not just about big rackets and modern string.)

-frank

[don_budge]

don_budge, with all due respect, the thing missing in the lengthy material you posted is any real guidance as to exactly HOW one can / should go about playing with knowledge of the score and the importance / consequence of winning or losing the point at issue.

It's easy to say "play better" or "play percentage tennis" but what exactly should a player do to implement that guidance? And, if this mode of play is better, why shouldn't the player implement this mode on all points?

There's a lot of great classic tennis literature, but there's also a lot of myth - modern analysis has a lot to offer in many areas.... (And no, it's not just about big rackets and modern string.)

-frank

frank...thank you so much for the all due respect stuff. You might want to consider reading the rest of the book(s) for real guidance. Only if you are truly interested. I know what myth is. We live in mythical paradigms. I realize modern analysis. I can do the math. For me at this point it is boring. I'd have to go back to school...I hated school. I suppose you can tell.

If you discount the racquets and the effect that it had on the game, then your wooden racquet trial was lost on you. I played in that era. I fetched Don Budge's wooden behemoth from the ball room so that he would "hit a few" with me. The "concept" of the game changed. I would say that had a lot to do with it. How about the rest of the engineering?

The extinction of serve and volley, all-court tennis? I suppose that was just a coincidence. Play with the Maxply in competition. Make it a best of five. Come back to me after you delve a bit further into the information that I presented. Never mind. Your mind is already made up. I can live with that...if you can. Don't bother. It is of zero consequence to me. Tell yourself whatever you want. You believe it. That's great. Do some more statistical analysis. It's all in the numbers. Quantification. With all due respect...have you ever played three, three set matches in one day pitting a traditional Wilson Pro Staff wooden racquet against Prince racquets. I did. Lost the third in thee set. Coincidentally I lost three toe nails in the process.

It was only one chapter in only one part of the book. Any literature is bound to be supported by the "other" chapters. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the lengthy material. How long did it take you to read it? That is lengthy. If I took up too much of your time...well so be it. I would have suggested reading the second as well...just so you could answer your own questions. "HOW one can / should go about playing with knowledge of the score and the importance / consequence of winning or losing the point at issue." Read "Match Play and Spin of the Ball". The Australian and American tennis BIBLE for nearly a century. Written in 1925...of course it is no match from modern analysis. Or is it? I would say it is.

Dostoyevsky wrote of things to come in 1871. He wrote in an era sans word processors. Spell check. There is something to behold in the old. Even the ancient. Magical and mystical. Maybe you are a modernist...I don't care to hazard a guess. I suppose there is a beauty of crunching the numbers. My father was a Math professor at the college level. Trust me...if you want to take the fun out of something.

The thing missing from the "lengthy material" is the rest of the book. But it's old stuff. Don't bother. I would just say "you are right"...but I cannot bring myself to do it. With all due respect.

I remember Don himself telling me the story of his match with Gottfried Von Cramm in the famous Davis Cup tie. It was over dinner and champagne with all of the councilors at the camp. Damn...that was an important point. What a courageous response. What a small racquet. What the hell did Tilden possibly know? Well...he knew Gonzalez was going to be a great one. For one thing.

[stotty]

One interesting item: when you dive into comparative analysis of women's pro tennis versus men's pro tennis, we find that women do seem to play more tentatively on 'important' points, as do lower ranked men. Top male pros really do seem to play completely outside the score.

Also, I've always wanted to understand why the classic literature makes such a big deal about the 7th game: makes no sense to me, and statistical analysis of pro matches bears out the immateriality of the 7th game. Why is an early break less important / valuable than a later break?

-frank

I think great players are comfortable playing on the brink of their capabilities. The BIG 3 can all do it. Murray sometimes struggles playing at the very brink, which is perhaps why he is firmly in 4th place when in their company. Roger can raise the bar at any time and is real comfortable on the edge. Rafa and Novak like to play within themselves but can raise their game significantly in the clutch without any problem. It's why they have been so, so good.

The concept of the vital seventh game, as Dan Maskell used to put it, has been a round a long time. Assuming you and your opponent have stayed with each other that far (3-3) and are equally matched, it's exactly where the stakes start to get higher. Any lapses here and the set is gone. But granted it is a more apt expression in classic serve and volley tennis (where the expression originated) where if you dropped your serve, it really could mean the end of the set. These days, with matches based far more on rallying, perhaps the seventh is not so vital.

But I am curious when you say the "statistical analysis of pro matches bears out the immateriality of the 7th game". What statistical analysis do you mean? Has any been done?

[arturohernandez]

What a great discussion? But my question is that everyone thinks tactically and mentally. But what about physically. The mind arises from the body (yes, the brain is a body part too!). If we just feel a certain way, then we play a certain way and we win.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal all have incredible movement and balance. They can do things others cannot. Playing on the edge is not the edge for them.

It is kind of like Brad Gilbert's description of playing Lendl the first time. Everything seemed so manageable the first few games. Where were the big shots?

Then somewhere in the middle of the first set, Lendl hits this huge ball. And then he hits another and another.

Gilbert was toast. He never beat Lendl.

I am sure that the Big 3 have an even higher gear they could use in practice. They could play at an even higher level but with perhaps too much risk and so they would miss more.

Statistics and strategy can work only to a certain extent. At some point, good players can just do things that lesser players cannot.

And given the right personality and disposition, they will get into the right state and win a match.

But personality and disposition are also biochemical. It is the body's response to certain environments.

And yes, emotions and your interpretation of a situation is also biological. It is physical.

The big 3 have all these arms at their disposal. Others don't, at least not on a consistent basis.

The only one out there I see with this ability is Shapovalov. He has that factor. He will have to learn to temper the risk and maybe volley better.

But he can move and do things others cannot. And he stays fired up.

In Godzilla vs. Bamby, Godzilla wins.

The big 3 are Godzilla in so many innumerable ways.

Then again Stakovsky won a few years back against Fed at Wimbledon.

He did it one time with a very different approach.

But it was only once. Eventually, the pattern fell back into place.

So we can digest all the numbers but in the end, the numbers will just end up being replaced with a much simpler metric.

If you can move, see the ball, coordinate your body and maintain the right mindset, you will win.

We can analyze statistics to death but in the end it is about a non reducible combination of factors that get combined in a champion.

In other words, winning is many things put together and cannot be broken down into very specific things.

Am I sounding fatalistic?

[bottle]

You're sounding great. Almost like Montaigne.

[arturohernandez]

Ha! I was not up on my Renaissance philosophers. So I looked him up on Wikipedia only to find that he has has a profound influence in Psychology my field of work.

I love the part of how to educate children. Things he wrote in 1580 that still ring true today. Even applicable to tennis and training (see below).

Thanks for the tip!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Montaigne

Montaigne disagreed with learning strictly through books. He believed it was necessary to educate children in a variety of ways. He also disagreed with the way information was being presented to students. It was being presented in a way that encouraged students to take the information that was taught to them as absolute truth.

At the foundation Montaigne believed that the selection of a good tutor was important for the student to become well educated.^[36]:66 Education by a tutor was to be done at the pace of the student.^[36]:67

Individualized learning was also integral to his theory of child education. He argued that the student combines information he already knows with what is learned, and forms a unique perspective on the newly learned information.

[bottle]

Mr. Hernandez:

I so enjoyed your informative article today on clay court tennis and your account of first playing on German red clay.

And now this! I have spent months if not years reading THE COMPLETE ESSAYS OF MONTAIGNE, translated by Donald M. Frame, Stanford University Press.

It's not just childhood education and psychology, but what Montaigne did for the essay form itself. Also, most of what we know about ancient Rome and Greece comes through him, or so they say. And every word he writes seems modern-- extraordinary.

On childhood education, however, I have to be especially interested since right now I am in the middle of it.

As a substitute teacher in Detroit I am finding that, if you passed your TB and fingerprint tests, the agency that "handles" you may assign you to any subject or grade.

Although I am a longtime English teacher, I taught math for the first time in my life yesterday-- in a school where all the sixth graders were hung up on sizing fractions, on writing down > or < or = . They couldn't do it.

So again and again I would get in somebody's downcast face. "Look at me!" Then when they raised their eyes, "What's the difference between seven and eight apples?" With enough persistence by me they might say "one." "That's half the answer." Finally, the person, no matter who it was, could manage to say "one apple."

"Okay, what's the difference between seven ninths and eight ninths?" "One ninth." "Right. A-plus! That's the thing about every math problem. It's A+ or F, nothing in between."

Well, I hope they all now understand that 8/9ths is bigger than (>) 7/9ths by 1/9th but you never know.

Anyway, that's terrific support by Socrates-loving Montaigne of one-on-one instruction.

The rest of the class has to be sufficiently absorbed in work. The noise level has to be low enough to permit the one-on-one.

Speaking of clay court players, you should see how former French Open doubles champ Luke Jensen does one-on-one. He corners someone in a group, won't let her get away, asks to know her favorite restaurant and team, favorite this, favorite that. Pretty soon he has her hitting a doubles service return short in the crosscourt alley followed by a volley to the exact same spot.

[faultsnaces]

But I am curious when you say the "statistical analysis of pro matches bears out the immateriality of the 7th game". What statistical analysis do you mean? Has any been done?

yeah, a lot has been analyzed. If you're actually interested in this sort of thing, I really recommend the book _Analyzing Wimbledon: The power of statistics_ by Klaassen & Magnus. Nice paperback, not too long, and not too math heavy - they go over all the stats math used, and I think someone with some basic math background should be able to follow it. All the stats are "classic" "frequentist" "summary statistics" - nothing too new / nothing to mathematically imposing. In one chapter they use some more advanced regression techniques, but they sketch out an explanation of what the statistical math power tool does, and how the tool actually works is fairly immaterial for the analytical conclusions. This book builds on an analysis strategy that goes back to the 70s, and the old / original papers are referenced, if you really want to dig into it.

There are two ways the 7th game and related things have been analyzed: first, by simply analyzing the scoring system, and second, by analyzing actual results. With scoring system analysis, it's easy to prove that with a level match, the odd numbered games continuously increase in importance starting from 0-all (game 1), and the follow-on even number games have the same importance. That is, game 7 and 8 have the same importance, which is less than games 9 and 10, but higher importance than games 5 and 6, and so on. Looking at the outcomes of thousands of pro matches, the importance - correlation with outcome - of the games has been verified.

I have done a lot of work analyzing the scoring system from a more modern perspective, and from that, I will give you a sketch of how to verify that the relative importance of the 7th is as above: if the match is level at 3-all, the players are both playing to a level that is close enough to be within the serving advantage, and both ends of the court have been tested for serving and receiving (one end twice), and the scoring system is fully working - in other words, there's no favor to either end, and the players are very closely matched. Most importantly, we know this with a very high degree of precision, as both players have served and received from both ends, one end twice now: this is a significant 'run' of results in multiple dimensions. At the 7th game, we know this match is very close to a greater degree than we did at the 5th game (both players having served from each end once), so a break in the 7th game is more important than in the 5th game. But at 4-all, both players will have served twice from both ends, meaning we know to an even higher degree of precision that the players are very evenly matched - that's a substantial run of results which is very unlikely with much difference between the players. And so on - so for a player to win the match, it becomes ever more important for the player to achieve a break, to show they are better than the other player -- and this is true starting at 2-all.

There's nothing particularly special about the 7th game....
-frank

[stotty]

yeah, a lot has been analyzed. If you're actually interested in this sort of thing, I really recommend the book _Analyzing Wimbledon: The power of statistics_ by Klaassen & Magnus. Nice paperback, not too long, and not too math heavy - they go over all the stats math used, and I think someone with some basic math background should be able to follow it. All the stats are "classic" "frequentist" "summary statistics" - nothing too new / nothing to mathematically imposing. In one chapter they use some more advanced regression techniques, but they sketch out an explanation of what the statistical math power tool does, and how the tool actually works is fairly immaterial for the analytical conclusions. This book builds on an analysis strategy that goes back to the 70s, and the old / original papers are referenced, if you really want to dig into it.

There are two ways the 7th game and related things have been analyzed: first, by simply analyzing the scoring system, and second, by analyzing actual results. With scoring system analysis, it's easy to prove that with a level match, the odd numbered games continuously increase in importance starting from 0-all (game 1), and the follow-on even number games have the same importance. That is, game 7 and 8 have the same importance, which is less than games 9 and 10, but higher importance than games 5 and 6, and so on. Looking at the outcomes of thousands of pro matches, the importance - correlation with outcome - of the games has been verified.

I have done a lot of work analyzing the scoring system from a more modern perspective, and from that, I will give you a sketch of how to verify that the relative importance of the 7th is as above: if the match is level at 3-all, the players are both playing to a level that is close enough to be within the serving advantage, and both ends of the court have been tested for serving and receiving (one end twice), and the scoring system is fully working - in other words, there's no favor to either end, and the players are very closely matched. Most importantly, we know this with a very high degree of precision, as both players have served and received from both ends, one end twice now: this is a significant 'run' of results in multiple dimensions. At the 7th game, we know this match is very close to a greater degree than we did at the 5th game (both players having served from each end once), so a break in the 7th game is more important than in the 5th game. But at 4-all, both players will have served twice from both ends, meaning we know to an even higher degree of precision that the players are very evenly matched - that's a substantial run of results which is very unlikely with much difference between the players. And so on - so for a player to win the match, it becomes ever more important for the player to achieve a break, to show they are better than the other player -- and this is true starting at 2-all.

There's nothing particularly special about the 7th game....
-frank

Interesting...

The seventh game is so drilled in to my generation that it is seldom the server drops it. It's game approached with cast iron resolve.

I am not sure how the modern world-class player approaches it or views it.

[don_budge]

Interesting topic, always nice to get away from technique. Just a few thoughts of mine.

Humans rarely have the capability to play with the idea that every point is equally important, it requires consistently high levels of concentration and intensity that most are not capable of. At pro level, you rarely see a player manage this without any blips. At lower levels, even tougher to do.

Then comes the question of how can you exploit the knowledge of knowing which are the important points. For me, the answers come from tactical knowledge and then confidence. The first is available to everyone, the second is a complex aspect of human nature that is not so easy to control.

Then comes confidence, which I believe is the most powerful force at work in any competitive tennis match. When it comes to the important points, the player feeling confident will be far more likely to execute a quality point, thereby increasing their chances of winning it. The whole subject of confidence is vastly complex, but at a basic level we all know it's power, and we all know that when lacking confidence, your ability to execute your game can greatly diminish.

I believe that when it comes down to it...when push comes to shove...the point right in front of your nose is the most important. How important is it to stay in the moment when playing a tennis match. You cannot afford to let you mind wander...not even for a little bit. The trick is to "maintain pressure on your opponent" and it is best done with unwavering concentration. I remember those matches when my concentration was so focused and I didn't allow anything to distract me.

Every single point has two possible outcomes...you win or you lose. When approaching a point you ask your self...what is the score? From the very first point this is the question...the "to be or not to be" moment. On the very first point of every game it begins with a love-love situation. Zero-zero that is. If you win it is 15-love and if you lose it is love-15. Which do you prefer? The former of course...so play your heart out to win it. At moments where the score maybe 40-15 against you...you are desperately thinking to win the point to get to 40-30 which give you a shot of drawing even on the next point.

After years of competing one acquires the instincts that reveals the critical nature of every single point. Knowing the score and understanding the ramifications of winning or losing a point is acquired from experience. After being in given situations umpteen times you get a supernatural feeling of where it is you stand on the food chain. Winner or loser? Confidence is a huge factor...belief in oneself at critical junctures of a match is what sets apart the men from the boys. Watch the steely eyes of Roger Federer once he gets that break of serve. When he is on...when he is in the moment he starts to slice up his opponent like a hot knife through soft butter. He just increases the pressure.

This thread is a great topic and one that cannot be overly discussed or contemplated by any student of the game.

The seventh game? It speaks for itself...whenever Tilden is not speaking for it.

[stotty]

There are some scenarios where some points have no importance whatsoever...in a sense. I remember Buster Mottram once played either Borg or McEnroe (cannot remember which) and said he would rather hit the ball in the stands than allow his esteemed opponent to get any rhythm. He stated he would hit a ball into the royal box at an appropriate moment on a meaningless point (this became public knowledge a few weeks after Wimbledon), which he did...actually it landed just short of the box.

Buster tanked many points during this match. This was a tactical decision that rendered a lot of points meaningless. An unusual scenario, granted, but one that does exist and occasionally happens.

[don_budge]

There are some scenarios where some points have no importance whatsoever...in a sense.

These must be few and far between. Even if they were of no importance a real tennis player (remember Richard Gonzalez is the model not Buster Mottram) would be fighting you tooth and nail to win it.

I would never teach a player to tank a point.

[faultsnaces]

These must be few and far between. Even if they were of no importance a real tennis player (remember Richard Gonzalez is the model not Buster Mottram) would be fighting you tooth and nail to win it.

I would never teach a player to tank a point.

This reminds me of a match I saw at the last Pilot Pen tourney in New Haven (2010,the last year the men played there): the quarters,
Baghdatis v Stakhovsky. Bag won the first set, and seemed to be playing well, and even very relaxed - Stak didn't seem to be much of a challenge and they both seemed to be having a good time. First set was 5-7, but the score belies the fact that Bag really was in control the whole set.

In the second set, Bag made a few errors early on and Stak got a break on Bag's second serve game iirc. At that point, Bag very visibly just "played through" with as close to zero effort he could put in without looking like some arrogant tantrum prone child (ahem, Nik) Really obvious that Bag was just giving away the 2nd, but seemed his plan was to leadoff serving for the match in the 3rd. 2nd went 6-1 to Stak. Bag came roaring back in the 3rd, playing all out for the match, and it was a great set. Alas, Stak was ready for the renewed onslaught, and really raised his game - he took the match at 4 in the breaker.

In the post match interview, Bag said he was really tired etc, but of course didn't talk about dumping the 2nd. I imagine (but of course don't know) that he dumped the 2nd to conserve energy and start the 3rd with the advantage of serving first, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Didn't work out well for him though. And it really did seem like Bag should have won that match.

So yeah, giving away games is probably in general a really bad idea, though working less hard on less important points - and points where a win is less likely - is probably an important part of the pinnacle of the game, for energy management.