2021 Rolex Paris Masters...ATP 1000...Paris, France

[arturohernandez]

Hi Everyone, Been a hectic time and was out of touch. Brain Game tennis chalks it up to serve and volley tennis. I always thought Sampras would eat up deep returners. Shapo should take notes. Adding the net as a threat destabilizes players. It’s like the run opening up the pass in American Football. The problem is that playing the net is the domain of short players closer to 6 foot tall. According to O’Shaugnessy the net never gave up on tennis players. Tennis players gave up on the net.

Djokovic showed it still works today!

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.atptour.com/en/news/brain-game-djokovic-medvedev-paris-2021?mc_cid=6793706052&mc_eid=6d09bb261a__;!!LkSTl j0I!SNX7g5Cpbtsg11BdCNCW2a5RqXxRTL2eeNysN7hYFLMAGT s8PqPVeYqKvLfa6zEj$

[jimlosaltos]

Hi Everyone, Been a hectic time and was out of touch. Brain Game tennis chalks it up to serve and volley tennis. I always thought Sampras would eat up deep returners. Shapo should take notes. Adding the net as a threat destabilizes players. It’s like the run opening up the pass in American Football. The problem is that playing the net is the domain of short players closer to 6 foot tall. According to O’Shaugnessy the net never gave up on tennis players. Tennis players gave up on the net.

Djokovic showed it still works today!

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.atptour.com/en/news/brain-game-djokovic-medvedev-paris-2021?mc_cid=6793706052&mc_eid=6d09bb261a__;!!LkSTl j0I!SNX7g5Cpbtsg11BdCNCW2a5RqXxRTL2eeNysN7hYFLMAGT s8PqPVeYqKvLfa6zEj$

I enjoy Craig's analyses and was looking forward to this with mixed feelings. Shortest way to put it is, I agree with his analysis but cringe at how he overstates it. Yes, S&V can make a good tactic today when used as a change, here to exploit Daniil's deep position and at Wimbledon to exploit Berrettini's severe grip change on his forehand service return (forcing him to chip returns so Novak knew he's never get a tough volley if he served to Matteo's forehand).

BUT ... but ... Novak won 18 points on S&V. Great! Might be the difference. But that is 18 points out 84 service points won. Or, if we take out second serves Novak won 17 points using S&V out of 57 points won on first serve, or 29%. That's a lot but it is nothing like what Pete Sampras was doing. When Sampras met Fed in Wimbledon, 2001 Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Federer of vast majority off first serves and about half the time off seconds, if I recall correctly.

So, no S&V is not extinct but it is no more a dominant strategy than hitting drop shots.

Checking online for that match I find (hope it's accurate, but hey it's the internet)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was...
- 88/121 (73%) at net, including...
- 78/107 (73%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 58/77 (75%) off 1st serve and...
- 20/30 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching

Sampras was...
- 103/160 (64%) at net, including...
- 99/152 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 74/105 (70%) off 1st serve and...
- 25/47 (53%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 retreating
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...d-2001.678246/

[don_budge]

Yeah...that's rich. Novak is all of a sudden a serve and volleyer. All of a sudden even on this forum serve and volley is back. Funny...but my impression of his serve and volley performance was number one it was a great tactic. But all that it was...it was a situational ploy. Like the drop shot these days. The oohs and ahhs that a simple drop shot brings from a dumbed down audience that is being lulled to sleep by mindless, brain numbing endless backcourt points. But I give Novak a lot of credit for coming up with this ploy. It is totally out of character for him. Novak isn't so much an enigma...he is a calculating risk taker. And he rarely tries to make a shot that he doesn't know he can make.

I didn't need any stats to come up with analysis. I was doing it in my head as the action was unfolding. I wasn't the only one either...Jim Courier stumbled to the same conclusions. Daniil Medvedev had this match under his control for the first set. He played the identical pattern that he used against Alexander Zverev, who for all intents and purposes is Djokovic Lite. He basically plays the same game. But Medvedev got a bit tentative in the second set and he was faced with a double break advantage to Novak at some point. I'm not sure as I didn't watch the entire match. But during the first it looked as if he might beat Djokovic by a similar score that he beat Zverev. He was that much in control. But he was experiencing some fits and starts...he lost his break advantage as soon as he had gained it. He was wobbly even though he pretty much dominated the first set.

When Novak was serving for that second set he was having all sorts of trouble. At 5-3 he started to serve and volley more and more. He must have won at least six of those points with serve and volley in that game alone. He came up with some rather lucky volleys in my estimation. Medvedev also failed to make a couple of passes that didn't look to be all that uncomfortable. Daniil handed that match back to Djokovic. Novak was on really shaky ground serving out the second. How many break chances did Medvedev have? How many times did Novak come up with something so uncharacteristic of him at the net. He is not a serve and volleyer. Not by any stretch of the imagination...sorry to inform the guys here. It was situational and he pulled it off much to his credit. This guy is slippery. He is elusive. You cannot relax on him and I sort of felt that somehow Medvedev lost his concentration. He put himself in position after that first set. But even so...he was a bit fortunate.

Novak was looking a little rubbery in his legs towards the end of the second set. During that "epic" game he looked as if he couldn't make it to the finish line if there were a couple of thirty something balls exchanged in a point. He did the perfect thing. He sought the path of least resistance and figured out how to end the points as quickly as he possibly could. Interesting match. Daniil is a perfect Mr. Pencil to Novak's Houdini. That match was as tactical as it was a slugfest. I think Medvedev likes to take the slug out of the fest and Novak made right counter moves to win the match.

[stroke]

I for one never meant to imply Novak was now a serve and volley player. But the stats presented at end of the match per TennisTV had Novak winning 27/36 points when he came forward. Novak's tactics in doing so had a significant impact on this match to me, and he came forward way more in this match than Medvedev. To me, Medvedev is the first player that has made Novak feel he needed to leave his comfort zone of squeezing his opponent with relentless baseline play.

[stotty]

I enjoy Craig's analyses and was looking forward to this with mixed feelings. Shortest way to put it is, I agree with his analysis but cringe at how he overstates it. Yes, S&V can make a good tactic today when used as a change, here to exploit Daniil's deep position and at Wimbledon to exploit Berrettini's severe grip change on his forehand service return (forcing him to chip returns so Novak knew he's never get a tough volley if he served to Matteo's forehand).

BUT ... but ... Novak won 18 points on S&V. Great! Might be the difference. But that is 18 points out 84 service points won. Or, if we take out second serves Novak won 17 points using S&V out of 57 points won on first serve, or 29%. That's a lot but it is nothing like what Pete Sampras was doing. When Sampras met Fed in Wimbledon, 2001 Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Federer of vast majority off first serves and about half the time off seconds, if I recall correctly.

So, no S&V is not extinct but it is no more a dominant strategy than hitting drop shots.

Checking online for that match I find (hope it's accurate, but hey it's the internet)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was...
- 88/121 (73%) at net, including...
- 78/107 (73%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 58/77 (75%) off 1st serve and...
- 20/30 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching

Sampras was...
- 103/160 (64%) at net, including...
- 99/152 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 74/105 (70%) off 1st serve and...
- 25/47 (53%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 retreating
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...d-2001.678246/

Great stats. How the game has changed since Pete Sampras’s time.

Novak chose some smart moments to serve and volley. It's a no-brainer against Medvedev who stands acres behind the baseline to return. True, a couple of times he chose S&V as a bail out (much like he bails out with drop shots at times) but mostly it was dome with astute tactical intent. It's strange someone so secure from the baseline feels the need mentally bail out for spells here and there.

[arturohernandez]

I enjoy Craig's analyses and was looking forward to this with mixed feelings. Shortest way to put it is, I agree with his analysis but cringe at how he overstates it. Yes, S&V can make a good tactic today when used as a change, here to exploit Daniil's deep position and at Wimbledon to exploit Berrettini's severe grip change on his forehand service return (forcing him to chip returns so Novak knew he's never get a tough volley if he served to Matteo's forehand).

BUT ... but ... Novak won 18 points on S&V. Great! Might be the difference. But that is 18 points out 84 service points won. Or, if we take out second serves Novak won 17 points using S&V out of 57 points won on first serve, or 29%. That's a lot but it is nothing like what Pete Sampras was doing. When Sampras met Fed in Wimbledon, 2001 Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Federer of vast majority off first serves and about half the time off seconds, if I recall correctly.

So, no S&V is not extinct but it is no more a dominant strategy than hitting drop shots.

Checking online for that match I find (hope it's accurate, but hey it's the internet)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was...
- 88/121 (73%) at net, including...
- 78/107 (73%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 58/77 (75%) off 1st serve and...
- 20/30 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching

Sampras was...
- 103/160 (64%) at net, including...
- 99/152 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 74/105 (70%) off 1st serve and...
- 25/47 (53%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 retreating
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...d-2001.678246/

Ah yes!!!! Craig argues that playing serve and volley today leads to the same percentage of winning that it did in the past.

But the problem is the frequency. Yes, it is a great tactic because it leads to something like a 70% chance of winning the point. But if you volley less and do it under more ideal circumstances then you will win more.

I always see a chicken/egg problem with the let's volley and S&V more.

The real experiment would be for Sampras to be reincarnated and for someone to play that way today. To serve and volley with the type of athletic skills and serve that Sampras had.

Given junior tennis and all the topspin that is probably impossible. Mischa Zverev got himself into the top 50 but that was it.

We would need something like a random set of players being told they would play that way.

When I saw the highlights I was wondering why there were so many long rallies.

As always, thanks for all the great analysis and insight.

[arturohernandez]

Great stats. How the game has changed since Pete Sampras’s time.

Novak chose some smart moments to serve and volley. It's a no-brainer against Medvedev who stands acres behind the baseline to return. True, a couple of times he chose S&V as a bail out (much like he bails out with drop shots at times) but mostly it was dome with astute tactical intent. It's strange someone so secure from the baseline feels the need mentally bail out for spells here and there.

But part of me always wonders what Pete would do to a lot of these players. I mean there is chance that if someone chose to really play that way, they could make an impact.

I know the strings are different and that there is more topspin. I know that in basketball they just take 3's because they have figured out that you can shoot a lot more and even if you miss, you come out winning.

But....

If someone tried it, I always wonder how far they could go. Where are the rebels? The Queens, the Stones, those who don't toe the line.

Federer grew up idolizing Laver. Will some throwback look at Sampras, stick out his tongue and then look to hit a jump slam overhead.

Johnny Mac can still wreak havoc on players in matches.

Okay, I'll come back to reality. Djokovic coming 18 times is a big deal. It is as if the earth shook or the stars fell.

[arturohernandez]

Great stats. How the game has changed since Pete Sampras’s time.

Novak chose some smart moments to serve and volley. It's a no-brainer against Medvedev who stands acres behind the baseline to return. True, a couple of times he chose S&V as a bail out (much like he bails out with drop shots at times) but mostly it was dome with astute tactical intent. It's strange someone so secure from the baseline feels the need mentally bail out for spells here and there.

I was just using a bit of flair to agree with you BTW.

Point very well taken!

[jimlosaltos]

Okay, I'll come back to reality. Djokovic coming 18 times is a big deal. It is as if the earth shook or the stars fell.

well played

[stroke]

Ah yes!!!! Craig argues that playing serve and volley today leads to the same percentage of winning that it did in the past.

But the problem is the frequency. Yes, it is a great tactic because it leads to something like a 70% chance of winning the point. But if you volley less and do it under more ideal circumstances then you will win more.

I always see a chicken/egg problem with the let's volley and S&V more.

The real experiment would be for Sampras to be reincarnated and for someone to play that way today. To serve and volley with the type of athletic skills and serve that Sampras had.

Given junior tennis and all the topspin that is probably impossible. Mischa Zverev got himself into the top 50 but that was it.

We would need something like a random set of players being told they would play that way.

When I saw the highlights I was wondering why there were so many long rallies.

As always, thanks for all the great analysis and insight.

Radek Stefanek got to 8 in the world. A great front court game. I really liked his game.

[don_budge]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnwYdF8a5ws

[doctorhl]

Perhaps the future of more attacking and net play in tennis if evolving racket technology does not push players further behind the baseline

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ReXim7yIqnk

[arturohernandez]

Radek Stefanek got to 8 in the world. A great front court game. I really liked his game.

I forgot about Stepanek. Yes, he was a great player who tried to attack and play smart all court tennis. Maybe Emma should hire him as a coach.

I am starting to get my threads confused here.

Anyway, here is hoping!

[don_budge]

I enjoy Craig's analyses and was looking forward to this with mixed feelings. Shortest way to put it is, I agree with his analysis but cringe at how he overstates it. Yes, S&V can make a good tactic today when used as a change, here to exploit Daniil's deep position and at Wimbledon to exploit Berrettini's severe grip change on his forehand service return (forcing him to chip returns so Novak knew he's never get a tough volley if he served to Matteo's forehand).

BUT ... but ... Novak won 18 points on S&V. Great! Might be the difference. But that is 18 points out 84 service points won. Or, if we take out second serves Novak won 17 points using S&V out of 57 points won on first serve, or 29%. That's a lot but it is nothing like what Pete Sampras was doing. When Sampras met Fed in Wimbledon, 2001 Sampras serve-volleyed off all serves, Federer of vast majority off first serves and about half the time off seconds, if I recall correctly.

So, no S&V is not extinct but it is no more a dominant strategy than hitting drop shots.

Serve and volley has been dead in the water for a long, long time now. As long as I have been writing on this forum. It's so interesting how the forum evolves...or devolves. It won't be long before I am gone. Not that I would let you guys run me off. I'm not like that. It doesn't matter to me if the odds are two million to one...as long as I am the one that is just fine with me. I made a stand here a long time ago and have drawn some withering fire and even petty Stotty's silent treatment. He's like a little girl. A woman. What a shame too. I honestly don't understand it...maybe some fallout from the bottle affair. But it's quite ok. Joke him if he can't take a fuck. Fuck him if he can't take a joke. I learned a long, long time ago what human nature is about. The tendency to band together. I'm leaving...but never even think it was due to any small and petty bullshit. You make me laugh. I've got better things to do.

What Novak did the other day was not in fact so much serve and volley...it was more like serve and drop shot. I didn't read jimlosaltos' comment about the way that Novak used this tactic was tantamount to the modern drop shot tactic. The fans ooh and ahh at the drop shot to. They need that little change of pace to move their asses in their seats to not fall asleep. I thought as much of Novak's tactic...although I give him credit. In today's tennis he looked like a genius. But after all...in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King. It was in the key ninth game of the second set that Novak won several points by following his serve to the net and hitting a stop volley. A drop volley. A very short volley. A dink in some circles. Nothing like what McEnroe and Borg were doing when they were playing the last of any real tennis that was played on this planet. Lord...that was volleying. To volley with authority and courage...that what volleying was. To race to confront your opponent at the net. What Novak did was serve and Stotty. Almost cowardly. But it worked. Afterall...this is modern tennis. Fake tennis.

Don't you just love statistics. I know I do. Here are a couple of quotes I came across that represent a cross section of the realm of possibilities regarding the subject:

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.” ...Benjamin Disraeli

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” ...Mark Twain

“I couldn't claim that I was smarter than sixty-five other guys--but the average of sixty-five other guys, certainly!” ...Richard P. Feynman

“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns- the ones we don't know we don't know.” ...Donald Rumsfeld

“One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.” ...Thomas Sowell

“All statistics have outliers.” ...Nenia Campbell

“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination” ...Andrew Lang

“99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.” ...Ron DeLegge II

“Statisticians are the most dangerous creatures on the face of the planet.” ...Anonymous

Brain Game? Perhaps...to some it is a Lame Brain. jimlosaltos did a good job to paint the numbers according to their worth or lack of it. I know he is fascinated by the numbers, which is a good thing. I am not so much when it comes to tennis as much as I believe it is a game of percentages. But I know that it also not a rigid science...much of it due to the unique scoring system.

As I said...what Novak did was an interesting tactic. He was getting soundly whipped in the first set. I watched a replay and that was as a one-sided ass whipping I have seen Novak take. For some reason Medvedev lost his focus and lost his way in the match. Early on in the second set Jim Courier said as much. He got away from what he was doing...therefore violating one of Bill Tilden's sacred rules in tennis...Never Change a Winning Game. In tennis you can lose your focus or your concentration for a variety of reasons and two of them are fatigue and due to your opponent. The first set was very close to a heavyweight brawl with both players swinging from their heels and trying to knock each other out. Daniil clearly had the upper hand out of the gate. But the thing about tennis is...it all comes down to the end. What happens in the beginning doesn't necessarily mean it is going to end up that way. The Djokovic Effect. So many times we have seen just what a slippery character Novak is and this was classic. It may have been one of his best performances in this regard and he didn't even use the dramatics to do so. He couldn't afford to. Medvedev wasn't going to fall for that.

The most important part of the match was middle and towards the end of the second set. Medvedev blinked and suddenly he found himself down a double break. But he wasn't done just quite yet. He was nicking away at the Djokovic service game and forcing Novak to labor extremely hard to hold his serve. At 5-3 Novak serving, Medvedev made an all out effort to break him. He might have let the set go and steeled himself for the third but instead he put all of his chips down on breaking Novak. I don't know how many deuces there were in this game but this is where Novak saved the match with his "serve and drop shot" tactic. Several times he pulled shots out of his ass that completely surprised not only Medvedev but perhaps even Novak himself. It looked as if he was on the ropes and as stroke said...this was no rope-a-dope. Medvedev really had him.

The most important statistic, jimlosaltos astutely had it circled, was the break points converted stat. Novak converted 5/6 and Daniil 3/10. There you go. How many of those ten were in the 5-3 game with Novak serving for the second set. That was the match. If Medvedev breaks Djokovic there...it puts a stab into Novak's heart. It probably goes to a tie-break and if Medvedev resorts to his original tactic as he seemed to be doing at the end of the second, he has a good chance of pulling it out. I wonder how many of those break points were in Novak's previous service game as well. It seemed to me that Daniil was on the verge of breaking him then as well. Novak prevailed with what he does best. The ultimate stonewaller. The ultimate stay of executioner. Mentally he is as fit as a fiddle. His experience in situations like this is unparalleled amongst the current crop and Medvedev is going to being playing catchup in this regard.

Great match...and some great comments too. Nothing wrong with any of them. I cannot say I agree or disagree with any of them. jimlosaltos...what can I say?

[don_budge]

Another stat I would like to see but of course it is nowhere to be found. What was the breakdown on who won based on the length of points...broken down by set?