2015 Wimbledon Championships…ATP 2000…London, Great Britain

[stotty]

Serving 1980

In the 1980 final Borg faced a total of 13 break points; 12 of those break points he delivered a first serve in. McEnroe broke three times and each time had to do it off a first serve.

McEnroe averaged 63% first serves, Borg 62%.

In the fifth set Borg raised it to 74% first serves, McEnroe raised his to 69%

Borg lost just 3 points on serve during the entire fifth set, which he won 8-6. He won 19 straight points in a row on serve in that last set. Remarkable.

It was a key part of the match that both men served very well, often when it really counted.

[tennis_chiro]

In the 1980 final Borg faced a total of 13 break points; 12 of those break points he delivered a first serve in. McEnroe broke three times and each time had to do it off a first serve.

McEnroe averaged 63% first serves, Borg 62%.

In the fifth set Borg raised it to 74% first serves, McEnroe raised his to 69%

Borg lost just 3 points on serve during the entire fifth set, which he won 8-6. He won 19 straight points in a row on serve in that last set. Remarkable.

It was a key part of the match that both men served very well, often when it really counted.

And we have top 10 players who routinely struggle to serve 50% first serves even though they have more than a half a foot of additional reach (3 - 6" in additional height)!

don

[don_budge]

1983 Wimbledon Final…John McEnroe vs. Chris Lewis

But was it evolving...and in what way? Where is the evidence that McEnroe and Borg were better than Gonzales or Hoad (the zeniths of those duets being twenty five years apart)? What evidence suggests the game had evolved to a higher level in those twenty five years? Gonzales confounded the theory the game goes onwards and upwards in 1971 when he thwarted the world's best of the day at 41 years of age. The game hadn't gone anywhere since his earlier days, in fact, if we believe ageing plays its part, it could be construed the game had gone down a level.

I am not convinced the game was going to evolve much more with wooden rackets (or diddy rackets as I call them; as metal was around then also), as the evidence provided by Gonzales alone refutes it.

Thanks for bringing up this conversation. It's a great prequel to the championships themselves.

Just for funsies…I have posted the "rules" for the tennis racquet. Notice there are no rules cited before 1978. That's because there never was a need to have any rules…for whatever reason. It was maybe always assumed that players would automatically use what was standard and would never in their right minds consider "seeking unfair advantage over their opponent". The overriding concept of an ancient custom…tennis etiquette.

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/publications/rules/rackets/history.aspx

Below is the 1983 Wimbledon Championships Men's Final between the great John McEnroe and the only player to ever get to the finals unseeded…Chris Lewis. Not once does the British duo of commentators ever mention the fact the racquets. McEnroe is using a midsize Dunlop that he would continue to use for years having switched rather quickly from the Dunlop "Mad Max" he was sporting in the previous year in his loss to Jimmy Connors.

But the real kicker is Chris Lewis. For the first time in the men's game the Prince Graphite at 110 square inches makes an appearance in a Grand Slam final. As I said not once is it mentioned in the dialogue which I find just short of amazing. These two commentators have been around since the beginning of time and two very astute tennis minds yet they never saw fit to even mention the fact that one of the players in the finals was using a tennis racquet that was nearly twice as big as the all of the past champions had used in the past.

For McEnroe's part he beats up on Lewis like a child. Lewis is scurrying around the court the entire match making little whimpering sounds like a puppy that is repeatedly kicked in the ribs. Lewis had a very trying road to the finals but he claimed that he wasn't even tired.

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

Here is the draw sheet. Chris Lewis has beaten a South African named Kevin Curren in the semis in five gruelling sets. Kevin Curren is using a Wilson Pro Staff…a wood racquet. I cannot even imagine the spectacle of the contrast between the two racquets on that day. Of course nobody nowadays will look at Chris Lewis' Prince Graphite and bat an eyelash but then it was a monstrosity to anybody remotely familiar with the game.

I would dearly like to know what each and every player was using for a racquet in the 1983 draw. Ivan Lendl was in the other half of the draw and he lost to McEnroe in the semis. He was using a racquet that was at least nearly standard sized. So in the 1983 finals at Wimbledon we had one oversized, one midsize and two standard sized racquets. Things were rapidly changing in the world of tennis. This was the "great engineering" of the game. The years between 1980 thru 1984 will go down in tennis history as the period when the rules were thrown out the window and the carcass of tennis was left to be fed upon by the promoters, the equipment manufacturers and anybody else that could squeeze a buck out of the pimping of the game. Certain high profile "coaches" were instrumental in shilling the propaganda too.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/archive/wimbledon/540/1983/draws

Here's an interview from Chris Lewis. He speaks well. Undoubtably by all accounts a great guy and everyone will probably speak glowingly of his character and his sportsmanship. But in reality he was a useful idiot…serving the masters. The demons behind the scenes selling the game down the river. For a buck and his own ambitions…he sold his soul and the game with it. What a shame. The thing worked it's way from the bottom. The lower players switching until the players above them started to feel the heat…then they switched. Pretty soon the metamorphosis was complete. One only had to bank on human nature. Greed. The proverbial thirty pieces of silver.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/down-the-t-interviews/down-the-t-1-an-interview-with-chris-lewis/

Here's an interesting article about the tennis racquet. Have a look at it if you are so inclined. I know…I know. Yawn…roll the eyes. But don't be so fast or so disdainful. The same thing is happening in the world. Things are rapidly changing in the world…it's the "great engineering" of society. The years 2001 to the present in the world are a simile to those years from 1980 to 1984 in the world of tennis. Reality is in question now. I predict that nobody will rise up in the face of it. It won't take long before we see where we have landed.

http://www.primitivism.com/tennis.htm

From the article…which is a must read for anyone purporting to know "anything" about the game of tennis. These are to two lines that changed the tennis world. It was opportunity…to make money. It was a loophole. That's all that it was. Bingo…money talks. Tradition walks. Thirty years later what have you got…a dumbed down tennis world that doesn't have a clue as to whether a high volley is a drive volley or a swinging volley. At Wimbledon where the net was the place to be…you will find that the modern player is not comfortable approaching the net let alone getting there.

Without tradition, new things die.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Head realized that the absence of official specifications created a unique opportunity. A patent issued in 1974 for his aluminum model (marketed as the Prince in 1976) gave him a legal monopoly on oversized rackets.

How convenient to write the rules for tennis racquets after Howard Head received his patent on oversized racquets giving him a monopoly.

Slew Hester…USTA President at the time…was quoted as saying in 1977, "You can play with a tomato can on a broomstick, if you think you can win with it." This was just the type of leadership that the tennis playing world needed at the time. Another useful idiot.

The prequel is almost over…one more entry. Can you guess what's next? 1984!

[don_budge]

Size makes a difference...

And we have top 10 players who routinely struggle to serve 50% first serves even though they have more than a half a foot of additional reach (3 - 6" in additional height)!

don

Not to mention twice as much real estate in their racquet heads.

[stotty]

Prince 110

But the real kicker is Chris Lewis. For the first time in the men's game the Prince Graphite at 110 square inches makes an appearance in a Grand Slam final.

That racket was the biggest turning point of all, bar none. All of a sudden players like Chris Lewis and Paul McNamee were getting better results. Gene Mayer shot up the rankings as a direct result of using the Prince 110. The extra sweet spot came in real handy for him, being two-handed on both wings.

But on all levels the racket made a huge difference. All of a sudden club players could volley better and play better. Players you had previously little trouble in beating became suddenly more difficult to beat.

The better players were subconsciously stubborn at first and stuck to their old weapons. Their was an element of pride about it: "I can really play the game an will beat you whatever you play with". This attitude was very prevalent at first in my neck of the woods.

Eventually, though, everyone came round to using the bigger head sizes with graphite frames.

Slowly but surely, as technique slowly changed as a result of the bigger sweet spots and greater power, the separation between the wooden era and modern era has become so great they can literally be viewed (and should be) as two different games.

I find it very fitting to look at wood (or diddy rackets) and modern as two different games. It does more justice to the wooden era and everything that went on in it to look at it that way. It's the only way to look at it in my view.

Two different games...

[klacr]

And we have top 10 players who routinely struggle to serve 50% first serves even though they have more than a half a foot of additional reach (3 - 6" in additional height)!

don

Good point. and yes, I know one of those players may or may not be Berdych

I've always been fascinated by the lack of importance, or perhaps ignorance that people seem to place on high first serve percentage. It's kind of a BIG DEAL. At least, That's what I taught myself growing up playing and competing. Because of my serve, more times than I could ever venture to guess I would get asked by parents, players, opponents and even coaches "wow, what's the fastest you can serve?" This always bugged me because although my speed may be up there, I always considered it more important to actually hit those big serves in. Just once I would have loved to have heard a parent, player or coach compliment me on my serve because I got a high % in. Sadly, it's all about the speedgun

I always answer the question I receive from observers with the honest to goodness truth..."I'm not sure how fast the serves are, I've never had my serve clocked. I'm more concerned with getting a high first serve percentage in. But thanks for the compliment and thanks for watching "

I know if I can get at least 75% of my first serves in, I'm not going to get broken....ever. I'm confident enough in that shot where I know it is a weapon and my opponents are going to have a hell of a time dealing with it. But it's not a great shot if I'm missing it half the time, even if it could go mach 3.

if I do miss my first serve 25% of the time, I still have my 2nd serve. They say, you are only as good as your 2nd serve . I'm more than fine with that.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[lobndropshot]

And we have top 10 players who routinely struggle to serve 50% first serves even though they have more than a half a foot of additional reach (3 - 6" in additional height)!

don

let's compare finals to finals and apples to apples.

1st serve percentages Wimbledon Finals 2009-2014

2014 Djokovic 0.62 Federer 0.69
2013 Murray 0.64 Djokovic 0.65
2012 Federer 0.69 Murray 0.56
2011 Djokovic 0.73 Nadal 0.78
2010 Nadal 0.68 Berdich 0.59
2009 Federer 0.64 Roddick 0.70

[stotty]

let's compare finals to finals and apples to apples.

1st serve percentages Wimbledon Finals 2009-2014

2014 Djokovic 0.62 Federer 0.69
2013 Murray 0.64 Djokovic 0.65
2012 Federer 0.69 Murray 0.56
2011 Djokovic 0.73 Nadal 0.78
2010 Nadal 0.68 Berdich 0.59
2009 Federer 0.64 Roddick 0.70

I don't think tennis_chiro was questioning these players, although Berdych and Murray are on the low side...and often are.

I think Federer, Nadal, Djokovic have better rhythm than most.

I wonder what Federer's first serve percentage was in the final set against Roddick in 2009? He became unbreakable in that final set, much like Borg in his 1980 fifth set. I imagine Federer's percentage to be similar...mid-70%-range.

[klacr]

stotty,

tennis_chiro should be questioning Berdych. His serve percentages rates are notoriously low during his career, especially for a man at 6'5"

lobndropshot, Great job with the stats on the first serve percentage. I think a more telling stat could actually be percentage of 2nd serve points won. Off the top of my head I think Federer won only 45% of 2nd serve points last year in the finals vs. Djokovic.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

A mach 3 serve would be about 2242.20 mph, which may kill your opponent, so I'd say, who cares about first serve percentage if he's dead. He would be better off facing a .357 magnum at 1150 ft/sec escape muzzle.

[klacr]

A mach 3 serve would be about 2242.20 mph, which may kill your opponent, so I'd say, who cares about first serve percentage if he's dead. He would be better off facing a .357 magnum at 1150 ft/sec escape muzzle.

Geoff,
I used a bit of hyperbole on the mach 3 reference. But thanks for breaking down the numbers for us.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[lobndropshot]

How does one hit the ball that hard? With EMOTIONAL POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hockeyscout]

A mach 3 serve would be about 2242.20 mph, which may kill your opponent, so I'd say, who cares about first serve percentage if he's dead. He would be better off facing a .357 magnum at 1150 ft/sec escape muzzle.

Are you a gun aficionado as well Geoff?

I like hunting bear (and moose).

My oldest daughter just turned nine years old and she is hunting wild rabbit, learning how to gut fish and helping her nanny butcher and pluck the chickens.

BTW, don_budge, Milana said she could solve that beaver problem you're having, no problem. Beaver stew is wonderful, and I could skin them and make a nice hat that would be fashionable when the cold hits in Sweden.

Not many tennis guys like hunting, fishing, MMA, WWF, chewing tobacco and listening to good heavy metal music, its sad. Then again, not many tennis guys are from hicks in the sticks. I think this sport needs more villagers, I really do.

PS:

I had a pig once, and my oldest one took a liking to it. I slaughtered it, and she was crying when it was on the table. Guess she called it Petra PIGGYTOVA - Kvitova, and had a close bond. The pig was rather plump. Tasty as well.

PPS:

Here are a few great hockey motivational blackboard saying by the way.

To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

Success requires no explanations, failure presents no alibis.

If you keep your opposition on their ass, they don't score goals.

Win today and we walk together forever.

He that will not when he may, he shall not when he will.

The only people not under stress are dead.

People can be divided into three types: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened. In which category are you?

There are no heroic tales without heroic tails.

Philadelphia's coach said, "Montreal played one goal dumber than us."

I want to be miserable, that’s what makes me happy. You can’t know joy if you don’t know sorrow. I think that if you’re happy all the time, something must be wrong with you.

[hockeyscout]

How does one hit the ball that hard? With EMOTIONAL POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its like pitching hay on the farm. Pretty soon you will be big and mean like a moose, resourceful like a beaver and as strong as the horses. Its the biggest con going in Canada you know. "Hey kid, get strong for hockey season, come pitch the hay, and work your ass off on the farm from 4 am till it gets dark to get ready for hockey." Anyways, it works. Thats emotional power, keeping up with the old farmers who have old man strength and iron willpower.

[GeoffWilliams]

YOu can't gun a shot without explosive power, and that lies with emotion, not dull appreciation. The proper (huge) coil, demands emotional power, unconscious (unless on roids ala McEnroe), hatred, rage, and the urge to use a gun on your enemies, not far underneath the conscious surface of all sporting/games and vengeful fantasies..... Only two hundred million dead at the end of a bullet, but how many more would be, without the medicine of sport?

Even with all the gun dead, the population is almost the same as it would have been had they lived. Somehow, women who want to have babies, always find someone to oblige.

"I am not afraid of an army of guns led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a gun." Geoff Williams