Net Approaches in Pro Tennis: A New Analysis

.table_header { clear: both; color: black; font-weight: bold; font-size: 14px; text-align: center; padding-top: 20px; padding-bottom: 14px; }

table { border-collapse: collapse; } .table { width: 325px; margin: auto; max-width: 100%; margin-bottom: 1rem; background-color: transparent; } .table td, .table th { padding: .45rem; vertical-align: top; text-align: center; }

tr.line th, tr.line td { border-top: 1px solid black; } tr.section td, tr.section th { padding-top: 8px; } th { display: table-cell; vertical-align: inherit; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; font-size: 12px; color: black; }

tr th:first-child { text-align: left }

tbody { display: table-row-group; vertical-align: middle; border-color: inherit; }

Is playing the net more effective than staying at the baseline? The simplest method to answer this question is to compare win probabilities at the net versus at the baseline.

In the final section of his brilliant article on the New Magic Numbers, Craig O’Shannessy reports that players won 65% of their approaches in his studies at the U.S. Open, and that this percentage was almost as high at every level, from 12 and unders up through college tennis. (Click Here.)

However, my research shows this method is insufficient to make a truly accurate determination. Why? Because win probabilities at net can be deceptively high.