Serve-and-volley stats discredit case for defense

I think attack is well rewarded on grass.” Milos Raonic, runner-up to Andy Murray at Wimbledon last year

LONDON — At Wimbledon, where once players would charge the net almost on autopilot, the only time many get there now is when they shake hands at the end.

But for all the naysayers who complain that changes to the grass have made it too easy for the baseliners, players at Wimbledon would do well to remember that serve-and-volley still has its merits.

Tennis analyst Craig O’Shannessy said 81 percent of all points in the men’s singles at last year’s Wimbledon (and 77 percent in the women’s singles), were finished in the first five shots.

The Australian, an experienced coach who helped mastermind Dustin Brown’s 2015 Wimbledon victory over Rafa Nadal, also looked at how players who win their matches perform in three categories: when the point was won in 1-4 shots, 5-8 shots or 9+.

“In 2016 at Wimbledon, for 0-4, the winning player won them 94 percent of the time,” O’Shannessy said. “For 5-8 it was 71 percent, and in the 9+ category it was 64 percent.

“If you look at all four Slams in 2016; for 0-4 it was 91 percent, 5-8 was 66 percent, and for 9+ it was 55 percent. So the match winner, in the 9+ category is only just over 50-50.”

Many leading players are wary of out-and-out attack.

“Back in the day, you could just bludgeon and get high volleys ,” said three-time Wimbledon doubles champion Bob Bryan.

“Now you’ve got to stick your volleys to the corners, or you’re going to get passed.”

But they will also tell you that aggressive tennis is still the best option.

“I think attack is well rewarded on grass,” said Milos Raonic, last year’s Wimbledon runner-up to Andy Murray.

“Maybe it’s a bit less than before, but I don’t think it’s necessarily because of the grass. It’s more due to players’ athleticism and ability.

“But there are very few guys will say they are happy playing mostly defense on grass.”

Sam Querrey, the American who upset Novak Djokovic as the defending champion at Wimbledon last year, agrees.

“You don’t see serve-and-volley as much, but you’re still rewarded with a big serve and aggressive play,” he said.

To try to stop big servers turning matches into boring ace contests, Wimbledon changed the grass it uses in late 2000 from 70 percent rye and 30 percent creeping red fescue to 100 percent rye.

The effect was obvious. In the 2002 men’s final between Lleyton Hewitt and David Nalbandian, there was not a single serve-and-volley point, a far cry from the days of Boris Becker and Pete Sampras.

The likes of Murray and Djokovic have made an art out of defending, their incredible movement making it seem almost impossible to punch a hole through them.

Serve-and-volley is seen as a dying art, but O’Shannessy said: “There is absolutely no truth to the rumor or myth that serve-and-volley doesn’t work anymore.

“The win percentage remains the same whether you do it a lot or a little.”

In 2002, an average of 33 percent of players in the men’s singles served and volleyed, compared with just eight percent in 2016. But in both years, the tactic won the point 67 percent of the time.

“It just fell off the cliff, everybody stopped believing in it,” O’Shannessy said. “The average stays almost identical whether you do it a little or a lot. If you stay at the baseline (comparing 2002 with 2016) the win percentage stayed the same at 46 percent.

So, are players simply being more selective?

“In 2002, one out of three (33 percent) for a tournament is not being selective, it’s a fullon charge, and you’re still at 67 percent. In 2016, where you are being selective, it’s identical at 67 percent. The selective guy and the all-out guy are winning the same percentage.”

So why do players buy into the perception that longer rallies mean more success?

“Our minds trick us,” O’Shannessy said. “We remember the drama of long rallies. And there’s very little drama in short rallies.

“Secondly, we have literally never had this data.

“On the practice court, we spend most of our time on the back end of the point, ball after ball. We just got it wrong.

“The practice court is completely broken and doesn’t mirror where winning happens in a match.”