tennis question

[Crayzee]

in this match between serena and jankovic
serena served first in the first game
then i think she also served first in the second game

how do they determine who serves first?
and how do they determine who serves first in the second game?

thanks

[EaglesPhan36]

I believe who serves to open is a coin flip. I get mixed up on who serves the next set, but I think it's based on who wins the last service game of the previous set.

[Boner_18]

I believe who serves to open is a coin flip. I get mixed up on who serves the next set, but I think it's based on who wins the last service game of the previous set.

Correct.

[duanedibley]

bump.

Does anyone have the percentage of matches won by the player who served first over a large sample?

This should be a direct measure of the advantage of serving first since it's determined by a coin flip, not by seed, ranking, etc.

[SBR Lou]

I don't really think it matters as much as one might think.

Some players like to serve first, others prefer to return first. Depends on how good a server or returner they are, but as professionals I don't think it is meaningful enough to sway the tempo of the match. The match hasn't started until there's a service break, everything else is just routine gameplay.

[single shaker]

who starts serving is determing by coin flip, after that players just taking turns, so if jankovic serve the last service game in the previous set than it is Serena's time to serve. in case of the tie break, it is a little more complicated. lets say Jankovic served at 5-6 and won her serve, now it is 6-6. Serena would serve the first point of the tie break. Jankovic will serve the first game of the following set.

[Crayzee]

its really weird seeing a real old thread of yours appear all of a sudden

[WileOut]

bump.

Does anyone have the percentage of matches won by the player who served first over a large sample?

This should be a direct measure of the advantage of serving first since it's determined by a coin flip, not by seed, ranking, etc.

It would be 50/50 all time or extremely close to it. Serving first or second has absolutely no bearing on who wins the set. Either way you have to net +1 on breaking your opponent's serve to win the set, or you have to win the tiebreaker if it goes there. There is no advantage to serving first at all unless the particular player has a preference and I wouldn't think many of them do.

Well now that I think about it, the new rules make the players wait until after the 3rd game to switch sides so maybe there is a psychological advantage to serving twice from the same side in games 1 and 3 of the set. Unless there is bad sunlight in your eyes on that side then it would be a disadvantage to the server. But that is a random event that wouldn't effect that all time stats. So no I still don't think it matters at all unless the sun is in a bad place then serving first would be a disadvantage.

[single shaker]

i think it also depends on the surface, i have noticed that on clay players mostly elect to receive first, because the serve is not a factor, and on the faster surfaces to serve first. i think on the faster surface where the probabilty of holding your serve is much higher, you get an advantage by serving first, because the other player is always playing a catch up, but if you get broken you still get a chance to break back.

i wonder guys are any of you play tennis? i would say i am about 3.5 myself

[duanedibley]

It would be 50/50 all time or extremely close to it. Serving first or second has absolutely no bearing on who wins the set. Either way you have to net +1 on breaking your opponent's serve to win the set, or you have to win the tiebreaker if it goes there.

Sorry I'm a little rusty on my tennis rules. Assume every point is won by the player who served. Then who serves first in the tie breaker? Will the tie breaker last forever (given no service breaks)?

Even if there is no structural advantage to serving first, it would still be interesting to see what the stats are. If it's not 50% over a large sample, then the number might be useful.

[meganie]

Sorry I'm a little rusty on my tennis rules. Assume every point is won by the player who served. Then who serves first in the tie breaker?

Player to serve first gets to 6-5, player to return evens it 6-6 ->The player to serve first in the match is also the first to serve in tie-breaker. Player to return first in the match is first to serve in the second set.

Will the tie breaker last forever (given no service breaks)

What a weird question. It's simply not possible to play 1000000000 or more points with NO service breaks or one player making two consecutive points. Hasn't happened before and won't happen, that's like predicting you'll get hit 10 times by a lightning and still live.

[duanedibley]

I just wanted to know if it is possible serve out the tie breaker. Apparently not from your response.

[Karla]

its really weird seeing a real old thread of yours appear all of a sudden

Hahahahaha, yeah dude I've also noticed this. U had posted this last year and suddenly followers burst out! haha, anyway hope u've learned though.. good luck!

[mathdotcom]

The real question is how you'd take advantage of this information, even if it were useful. By the time the coin flip happens the lines are closed.

[duanedibley]

The real question is how you'd take advantage of this information, even if it were useful. By the time the coin flip happens the lines are closed.

It will be useful for estimating a player's rating based on past results.

For example say we find that 53% of games are won by the player who serves first - from which we conclude that there is a 3% advantage to serving first.

Now say player A and B have each played 30 games total against opponents with the same average rating, and A and B both have the same record: 15-15. However, A served first in most matches, and B served second in most matches.

We will compute a higher rating for player B than A, because he has the same performance as A, but he was playing at a slight disadvantage in most matches, while A was playing at a slight advantage.

[WileOut]

i think it also depends on the surface, i have noticed that on clay players mostly elect to receive first, because the serve is not a factor, and on the faster surfaces to serve first. i think on the faster surface where the probabilty of holding your serve is much higher, you get an advantage by serving first, because the other player is always playing a catch up, but if you get broken you still get a chance to break back.

i wonder guys are any of you play tennis? i would say i am about 3.5 myself

Who serves first has no bearing on who wins the set. Like I said, whether you serve first or second you still have to net +1 breaks of serve during the set to win, or win the tiebreaker. Whether you serve first or second does not matter. If you serve first and are broken immediately, then the other person holds serve the rest of the set, the other person will win the set. It will play out like this: 0-1 (you lost your serve on the first game), 0-2 (opponent holds), 1-2 (you hold), 1-3 (again opponent holds), 2-3, 2-4, 3-4, 3-5, 4-5, 4-6. This result is your opponent with +1 break of serve therefore he won the set.

Also, the surface doesn't matter either. What advantage do you have on clay returning first? You still have to do what you have to do whether it be now or later. You still have to come out at least +1 on break of serve's. If you break three times and your opponent breaks twice, you win the set 100% of the time. Doesn't matter if you served first or second.

As for my tennis rating, 10 years ago I was probably 5-5.5, now I am probably strong 4.5 if you give me a couple weeks of practice. Haven't played in years.

Edit: Blah don't want to go here. Bad memories.

[mathdotcom]

duane,

Your inference is wrong. On average your 3% advantage estimate is correct, but that does not mean it will always be the case. In your example of player A vs player B, maybe player B actually dominates whenever he does not serve first. Then you're betting the wrong side, pal.