On average, 70% of all points are finished within 4 shots on the professional tour.
In typical fashion, many coaches are jumping on the bandwagon and perceiving that we should be placing most of our focus on to the 1st 4 shots at all levels. In this blog, I will offer a different view to this stat.
First of all, I do believe more focus needs to be placed on the huge variety of what can happen in these 1st 4 shots but I refuse to accept that we should not look at the long-term skill (in rally and development) of a player. I will break this blog into 3 sections:
- Understanding 1st strike mentality
- Understanding the margins of winning and losing
- Understanding player development
1st strike mentality
This has become a buzz term in recent years. I get it but coaches need to be careful not to ‘over egg the pudding’
There is a growing perception that 70% points are won within 4 shots. The reality, 70% of points are finished within 4 shots. So, what’s the difference?
If a player is developed with the belief that they are trying to win the point within their 1st 2 shots then there is a danger they will try too hard within these 1st 2 shots. Trying too hard could manifest itself in several different ways, from muscle tension, impatient shot selection and anxiety when they don’t finish early.
The reality is, there are so many ways, and reasons, a point can be finished within the 1st 4 shots. A large percentage of them are not because either player has won the point. It could be due to one player giving the point away. These are just some of the variations which could occur early in a point.
- Ace
- Serve winner
- Double fault
- Serve and sloppy missed return
- Serve – return – winner
- Serve – return – forcing the error
- Serve – return – ball 3 – sloppy mistake on ball 4
- Serve – return – ball 3 – winner on ball 4
- Serve – return – miss ball 3
- Serve – winning return
4 of these include the server winning the point, 2 of these the return player losing the point, 2 where the return player wins the point and 2 of where the server loses the point. That is 60% of the time the point being won and 40% being lost.
Now, of course, there is a genuine logic which states, if your player can come close to mastering the main variations that can happen within these 4 shots then they will be in a very strong position. This leads us nicely to understanding the margins of the match.
The difference between winning and losing is way less than 30%
In the 2019 Men’s Wimbledon Final, Roger Federer outscored Novak Djokovic in 10/12 key stats. The only stats that Novak outplayed Roger were, playing 10 less unforced errors (52-62)and he won more sets.
Federer won more points (218-204) yet he lost the match. I have not seen the stats on how many points out of the 422 were under 4 shots buts lets assume that it was 70%. That means that 127 points in that match went beyond 4 shots. In this match there was a 14 point deficit to the winner but in most cases the difference between wining and losing can be a 2-3 point swing. Are we really going to develop players to have the understanding that they must try and win the point within the 1st 4 shots when there are so many important points still being played beyond 4 shots. I believe we would be doing them a massive disservice.
Player development
Can you remember learning how to play tennis? Frustrating huh? I can clearly remember the feeling of trying to control this fuzzy little yellow bouncy sphere. It was like it had a life of its own. I still, to this day, refer to a racket as a trampoline on a stick. You can train a lifetime and I guarantee you one thing, you will be constantly learning how to control this tiny projectile. Just when you think you have mastered it, further demands are thrown your way.
It can take decades to learn how to master tennis to a professional level. The demands of the game are recognised by other sports experts as amongst the toughest of any sport. To cheapen it by saying, all you have to focus on is the 1st 4 shots, does our sport a massive disservice.
The most frustrating aspect of this statistic is the manipulation of the reality of coaching. Many coaches are making out that the vast majority of tennis coaches are allowing their players to have mindless and monotonous rallies as their main tennis development. Personally, I find this extremely disrespectful and, ironically, it is being said by coaches who have never developed, or worked with, any players of note. They have taken this statistic and butchered it. It is another example of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. No matter what you say, they will turn it around to fit their agenda. In most cases, trying to produce another new ‘system’ to develop players.
I have news for these coaches, players will always lead the way when it comes to player development, not coaches.
To summarise, statistics are important but they do not tell the whole story. I agree, more time should be spent on serve and return and the impact they have in the point. However, there are still so many points in every match that go deeper than 4 shots. As coaches, we must develop a full range of skills to cope with the demands of the game.
I believe, in the near future, we will see a generation of smart and creative tennis players who play with the insane athleticism of the current players. Why? Players are smart. They know if they want to be the best they have to bring something different to the table. Different will not be hitting winners within the 1st 4 shots as a norm. Physics and geometry will not allow it.
Tennis is one of the most sophisticated games in sport. To master it, players must be incredibly skilful at solving problems. A huge percentage of these problems lie deep in the rallies and not just within the 1st 2 shots for each player. Equally as important, the fun of tennis often lies in these extended rallies. Of course, help your players win but help them understand and cope with the full demands of our amazing sport.
I am 46 years old and I still love the feeling of rallying. Surely, I am not alone in this….
I have taken the unusual steps of recording this blog as a very short podcast. The reason? I believe my tone will help you understand better how I feel about this topic. Give it a listen. Click on the link below.
http://theservicebox.com/feed/podcast/
Bruce Gullikson says
You make some interesting points but I believe that there is misunderstanding of what the 1-4 advoacstes are really saying. They are not saying that you should never rally especially when starting out but more emphasis should be on serve and return. In the Wimbledon men’s final this year. Fed got dominated in longer rally’s which tended to take place in the tiebreakers. A great example of using stats would be the us open final in I believe 95 when on set point in first set they had a great 22 stroke rally that Sampras won as he was willing to hit as many shots as necessary to win that point but if they would have a multitude of 22 stroke rally’s Pete would have gotten crushed. There is room for both and winning points does not mean one needs to hit winners you can force an error or simply receive an unforced error. Also remember stats apply closely to all levels watch a typical high school match as there are so many double faults and missed returns it is frightening partly because the players never play sets or practice starting points with serves and returns
Kris Soutar says
Thank you for taking the time to comment Bruce, it is appreciated.
You have pretty much echoed most of what I have said. Unfortunately, there are some, so called, experts attempting to say that practicing rallying is a complete waste of time. It is this message I am attempting to address.
BTW, I completely agree with your statement on the lack of practice sets. I remember my friend and I playing first to 100 sets over an entire summer holiday. It finished 100-98. 198 sets of tennis and this was around a full schedule of tournaments in the holidays. It is very rare now to see juniors playing practice sets. They learn so much AND they are free!
Thanks again
Justin Clarke says
Yeah, nice opening to a discussion on the 1-4 shot statistic that has been buzzing for a good while now. And the Federer Djokovic Wimbledon Final is a fine example to use…
I think if you look at the 1-4 shot discussion, you need to address all other points that go hand in hand with that stat:
1-4 Shot Point: 70%
5-8 Shot Point: 20%
9+ Shot Points: 10%
Without diving headlong into that 5 hour Fed Djok epic in order to discover what happened in the 5-8 shot and 9+ shot categories, I feel that these are where you find those ‘immeasureables’ that the sport of tennis throws at us – no matter the level of play. The ‘moments’, that didnt show up in the stat sheet in favour of Federer.
If a coach is explaining the 1-4 shot statistic, then they should be very clear about when those 9+ shot rallies are likely to occur also. I suspect the 5-8, and 9+ shots per rally stats would carry their own certain weight… I mean, even an armchair critic could tell us that inside a big moment both players will more likely play beneath themselves, or in a more controlled fashion at, lets say 70-80%, they might play the margins more in order to win – and so, causing a longer rally ‘in the moment’… or, as in the Fed Djok match, the unforced error both being made, and not, ‘in the big moments’. There was a pattern in there, sadly for Roger fans.
The 1-4 shot statistic is a great tool to rightly help players be mindful of the large percentage of points dictated by the serve and return under non-pressurised conditions, but the 5-8, and 9+ shot statistics would, I imagine, tell us that champions are also well made ‘in the moment’.
Without having the definitive stat sheet on ‘big moments’ to hand, or having a black and white rule governing what a big moment actually is, I’d wager that the 10% of 9+ shot rallies, and the 20% 5-8 shot rallies more regularly happen at pivotal moments within sets and games.
Kris Soutar says
Thanks for such comprehensive thoughts Justin. I appreciate you taking the time to write them
Steffi says
Simply: 👍👍👍