Wasn't Pim-Pim hitting his 2nd as hard as his 1st? Calculated risk, he called it I think.
When you have a serve as good as his, you can take such a risk.
Originally Posted by LocoPorElTenis
Some basic math ignoring the (VERY IMPORTANT) psychological aspect. There are three numbers to consider:
1) F = the first serve percentage.
2) W1 = percentage of points won on first serve.
3) W2 = percentage of points won on second serve.
If a player manages to hit second serves exactly as he hits first serves, he would win W1 percent of the time the second serve was in, and lost the other points. So he would win F x W1 percent of second serves (the rest would be double faults or would correspond to the percentage of points lost when first serve goes in).
So the question is, is F x W1 > W2? In this case, theoretically a player would be better off hitting two first serves (ignorning, again, psychological factors). But there are very few players for which this equation holds, they would need to have very good first serves hit at a large percentage and comparatively bad second serve. Ivo might be one of them.
Well, if someone serves at 62% first serve, wins 75% of first serve points, and wins 42% of second serve points, it may be beneficial for him to perhaps go for more on a 2nd serve. This of course is purely mathematical and does not take into account mentality, which is the #1 thing in the game of tennis. Basically, it all comes down to how confident is Player X in hitting a 2nd serve like a first serve, and especially on a big point? Most times, a guy will roll in a 2nd serve and rely on his ground game
Originally Posted by Deathless Mortal
Rumor has it Troicki once managed to hit a double fault on 1st serve.
The usual suspects: Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Isner.
You may say that Nadal's so good because he's still young and most of those points are won due to his baseline game, but take a look at Fed's stat.
He's played 1011 matches and won 57% of points behind his 2nd. Sampras has played 983 matches with just 53%.
Well, Fed, Nadal, Roddick, Isner, of course.
That 57% vs. 53% in Fed vs. Sampras is probably due to the fact that Fed's ground game superiority over Sampras is larger than Sampras' 2nd serve superiority over Federer. Also, perhaps a few too many double faults Sampras made when going for the 2nd.