Nadal supports elimination of two serve rule

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
Well, the article mentioned in the OP clearly uses quotes and so it claims that they are Ralph's original words (including possibly translated). "The Hindu" is not a tabloid paper either. So, I am almost positive that Ralph said those words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Grand_Slam

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
Well, the article mentioned in the OP clearly uses quotes and so it claims that they are Ralph's original words (including possibly translated). "The Hindu" is not a tabloid paper either. So, I am almost positive that Ralph said those words.
OK, I forgot we were looking at The Hindu, when I was looking at sources. Not a rag, though not a primary source here, either, and they don't cite one. However, I'm surprised at your gullibility about "quotes." Of course they are translated, if they even exist. From Spanish to French to English, based on the article trail, such as it exists. You're so sure that Rafa said "those words," and you're also sure that he wasn't asked the question, but spontaneously came up with the idea. I'm not as convinced as you are, neither about the words, nor about the citations. Because they put it in "quotes" means it must be an actual quote? Remember that he probably didn't say it in English. #gullible.
 

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,299
Reactions
3,202
Points
113
You guys are aware that this rule would punish more the bad servers than the good ones, right?
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
You guys are aware that this rule would punish more the bad servers than the good ones, right?

How do you figure? I think the rule would clearly punish players with very good 1st serves and players with very poor 2nd serves.
 

Nadalfan2013

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
2,768
Reactions
1,426
Points
113
None of this matters. Everyone thought that the serve clock was going to be a big deal for Nadal but he won his first tournament with that rule at the Canadian Open. He adapts quickly, he has so much talent that they can change whatever rule they want and he will still win. So whether it's 1 serve, 2 serves, 1000 serves, it doesn't matter for GOATdal. :good:
 

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
How do you figure? I think the rule would clearly punish players with very good 1st serves and players with very poor 2nd serves.

The situation slightly, but not too much complex.

Let us say that a player has p% of first serves in and wins p1% of points when the first serve is in. Let us also say, he wins p2% of second serves.

Then his current win % on serves = p*p1 + (1-p)*p2.

If the rule is eliminated and the player decides use his current first serve as his lone serve, then
his % of points won on serve will be = p*p1

If the rule is eliminated and the player decides uses his current second serve as his lone serve, then
his % of points won on serve will be = p2.

Assuming that these are his only strategies to deal with the change of rule (a wrong assumption at
that as players will tweak their serve to a compromise to deal with the rule change), then their
best strategy would yield max(p*p1, p2) of serve pts won. To decide whether the change of rule
hurts or helps a player we need to figure out as to how p*p1 + (1-p)*p2 compares to
max (p*p1, p2). Needless to say p*p1+(1-p)*p2 is always larger than p*p1. Also, as long as
p1 is greater than p2 (which will be the case for almost all players), again p*p1 + (1-p)*p2
will be larger than p2. So, in principle it will be bad for all players. But, that is no brainer and
we don't really need all these algebra.

The real question is how much a player will suffer due to change of rule. In other words,
while all players would be negatively affected, some players would be affected a lot and
some very less.

So, let me just do a typical example. Let us take a power server who is fairly accurate.
Say he lands 60% of first serves in and wins 90% of them when it lands in. Let us say
he has a poor second serve and wins only 40% of points off the second serve. Then
as .60*.90=.54. and 0.40*.40 = .16. Before the rule change this player will be winning
(.54 + .16 = .70) 70% of points. After the rule change, he is better off using his first
serve as the lone serve and he would win only 54%. That is a 26% reduction.

Let us take a server who does not have very good first serve. Let us say he lands
50% of them in, but wins only 80% of them. But his second serve is quite decent
and wins 60% of them. Then his previous percentage of serve points won would
be - .50*.80 + .50*.60 = .70. Now, after the rule change if he uses his first serve
as the lone serve, he wins 40%. But if he uses his second serve as the lone serve
then he wins 60%. So, he is better off using his second serve as the lone serve.
His performance would go down from 70% to 60%. So, it is 14% reduction.

This rule change will negatively impact all players obviously. However, the
impact on players with a reliable second serve is much less than the impact
on players with a bad second serve, but a good first serve.

Rafa is one of the leaders in percentage of points won off his second serve.
No wonder, he supports this rule change. The impact on his serve points
won will be less, but it will negatively impact to a much larger extent on
people who have good first serve and bad second serve.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
23,004
Reactions
3,946
Points
113
None of this matters. Everyone thought that the serve clock was going to be a big deal for Nadal but he won his first tournament with that rule at the Canadian Open. He adapts quickly, he has so much talent that they can change whatever rule they want and he will still win. So whether it's 1 serve, 2 serves, 1000 serves, it doesn't matter for GOATdal. :good:

Posts like this are so damn embarrassing. If he's as amazingly talented and great at adapting as you you claim he is then he shouldn't have needed to get illegal mid match coaching from his uncle all through his career. Might need to rethink what you just wrote. Basically everything you wrote above is 100% bs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Federberg

Nadalfan2013

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
2,768
Reactions
1,426
Points
113
Posts like this are so damn embarrassing. If he's as amazingly talented and great at adapting as you you claim he is then he shouldn't have needed to get illegal mid match coaching from his uncle all through his career. Might need to rethink what you just wrote. Basically everything you wrote above is 100% bs.

Stop making accusations. Tons of people also believe that Federer gets coaching not only from his coaches but also his wife. Of course Nadal is amazingly talented and great at adapting, when Federer wins 2 slams on each surface let me know. But he won't cause he can't adapt, he's just a fast surface player.
 

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,299
Reactions
3,202
Points
113
How do you figure? I think the rule would clearly punish players with very good 1st serves and players with very poor 2nd serves.

Off course that a player with a very good first serve and a poor second serve will be the most punished one -- as @GameSetAndMath post above shows. However, even if there are very notable exceptions, the general rule is that players with a good first serve also have a good second serve (so, GSM, it would be interesting to analyze the case were we assume that if p1A > p1B, than p2A > p2B, for players A and B, assuming for simplicity that pA = pB). And players with a bad first serve usually have a very bad second serve. Murray is known exception, he has pretty good first serve, and a less than mediocre second serve. Big servers like Isner, Kyrgios and Raonic have second serve stats that are better than a lot of top 50 players first serve stats, so for them I am sure this rule would be beneficial, as they would still be able to hold most of the time, while poor servers would face a barrage of return winners to their faces. You cannot overestimate how easy is to a top professional player to return a lousy serve.

As for Nadal... he would benefit from such a rule as he is a very good rally player, and obviously there will be more rallies like that.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
How do you know he was asked that specific question?

I can reasonably infer from the quoted answer of Ralph that the question must have been more general than "Do you support abolition of second serve concept?".

We can ask Isabelle to track down the L'Equipe article and translate the question for us.
While I can find nothing at all to support the mention in the OP of a second interview on the topic, I did find a translation of the interview in L'Equipe. (I could not find the original in French. L'Equipe has a terrible search engine!) This is the pertinent part:

And in the rules of tennis?*

I don’t know how, but attention needs to be paid to the serve and to power in general. The players are bigger and bigger and it’s getting faster and faster. If we don’t find a solution to the serve, then tennis will reach a point where it’s summed up by that shot. In ten years, tennis could be in danger.

Are you for or against cutting out one of the serves?

Why not? We can’t say it’s stupid. We can only try it out. I’m in favour of innovations. Why not try it at small tournaments? I don’t know … But we could at least consider it.

*Added 21:15

Note that he was asked the question about 2nd serves, he didn't offer it. Also, note the asterisk. It implies that the question was added later in the interview, but slotted in before it, presumably for flow of the interview and coherence. In any case, he didn't bring it up, the interviewer did.

_____________________________

Anyway, my google searching seems to show that the main interest in dropping the second serve was a couple of years back, with very little attention to it, even then. I'm fine with having the academic argument here, but I don't think it's in immediate danger of becoming a reality. And I don't think that Nadal tossing off a 'why not try it?' means anything.
 

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
And in the rules of tennis?*

I don’t know how, but attention needs to be paid to the serve and to power in general. The players are bigger and bigger and it’s getting faster and faster. If we don’t find a solution to the serve, then tennis will reach a point where it’s summed up by that shot. In ten years, tennis could be in danger.

Are you for or against cutting out one of the serves?

Why not? We can’t say it’s stupid. We can only try it out. I’m in favour of innovations. Why not try it at small tournaments? I don’t know … But we could at least consider it.

*Added 21:15

Note that he was asked the question about 2nd serves, he didn't offer it. Also, note the asterisk. It implies that the question was added later in the interview, but slotted in before it, presumably for flow of the interview and coherence. In any case, he didn't bring it up, the interviewer did.

_____________________________

How do you know which question was asked first and which was asked later. The way it currently reads, it was Ralph who started talking about doing finding "solution to the serve" on his own when the question was about the rules of tennis. So, it is fair to say Ralph volunteered it.
It looks more like the interviewer was naturally prompted to ask the question on "Are you for or against cutting out one of the serves" after the answer of Ralph to the previous question.

I don't understand the asterisk and the explanation you have added. Is it actually mentioned in L'Equipe as to which question is asked first?
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
You guys are aware that this rule would punish more the bad servers than the good ones, right?
I still like this point. Whatever all the higher math above, I understand the theory of it punishing the player with the great first serve/bad 2nd, but it doesn't really mean that the great server thereby only gets to use his 2nd. It means that there is more gamble involved, and a player with a great first serve is going to be more inclined to risk it and be rewarded by it. In the game as it exists, even weaker servers get to go for it on the first serve, and sometimes it works out for them. With only one shot at it, a weaker server will be disinclined to take chances. Top players and great servers, however, often come up with 2nd serve winners...likely because they're more confident generally and because they are better placement servers.

As I said above, I don't think there is any real interest in this change. There's really nothing out there to suggest it, so it's an academic conversation. That said, what if they eliminated the 2nd serve AND the let cord. That would make things pretty wild and wooly! It would certainly speed up the game. :lol6:
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
How do you know which question was asked first and which was asked later. The way it currently reads, it was Ralph who started talking about doing finding "solution to the serve" on his own when the question was about the rules of tennis. So, it is fair to say Ralph volunteered it.
It looks more like the interviewer was naturally prompted to ask the question on "Are you for or against cutting out one of the serves" after the answer of Ralph to the previous question.

I don't understand the asterisk and the explanation you have added. Is it actually mentioned in L'Equipe as to which question is asked first?
If you look at the whole interview, it makes more sense. As I said, I couldn't find the original article, but an asterisk is applied to mention that it was at a specific time-marker, implying that it was not asked where it was inserted in the article. What else could it imply? I could be wrong, but it's not usual to see that, so it definitely means something was changed at that specific point. If you're going to be fair to Nadal, you can't assume that the one question came before the other. Also, consider this. It was added at 21:15. Twenty minutes - half hour is pretty long for a sports interview, so if it was "added" at minute 21, it's likely that it was a follow-up question. Does that seem fair?
 
Last edited:

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113


Leaders in the category of first serve points won.


Ralph is #58



[URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'] Leaders in the category of second serve points won .


[URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false']
[URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'] Ralph is #1.
[URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false']
[URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false']
[URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'][URL='https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=serve&timeFrame=52Week&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false'] No wonder, he wants to get rid of first serve.
[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
OK, now that you can't argue that he didn't really promote it, you're arguing it in a different way. This is just a slur, now. As I said, it's not going to happen, anyway. Some of you Fed fans can be really obnoxious with the need to denigrate. I see that you edited your post to take out the first link, whereby Nadal is in the same position on the list in first serves as second serves. Didn't work for your theory?
 

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
OK, now that you can't argue that he didn't really promote it, you're arguing it in a different way. This is just a slur, now. As I said, it's not going to happen, anyway. Some of you Fed fans can be really obnoxious with the need to denigrate. I see that you edited your post to take out the first link, whereby Nadal is in the same position on the list in first serves as second serves. Didn't work for your theory?

You are projecting a victory without me conceding. He certainly promoted it.

What non-sense are you talking about? Both the links support my point, why would I take out one of them. You can ignore my links and go directly to atp website and click on stats under serving category and see where different players stand on winning % on first serve and winning % on second serve. He is not in the same position. He is in #58 for first serves and #1 in for second serves.

Do some fact checking before accusing people. It appears that even though I am doing the correct standing and creating the link, the link just depicts the standard ones. But, you can check directly. Click on any column and it will order the players based on that column.
 
Last edited:

Nadalfan2013

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
2,768
Reactions
1,426
Points
113
I think Federer fans are proving in this thread that if you take off the 1st serve Nadal is superior to Federer in every other aspect and shot in the game. That's why they are terrified of the whole idea. :yes: :help:
 

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
Funnily enough, ATP addressed this question and decided that if they eliminated 2nd serve, Federer would dominate even more:

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/federer-first-serves-only-infosys-2018

That is a bad analysis. The first serve won % that the article uses is the percentage of points won by the player when the first serve lands in. In other words, it is referring to p1 in my analysis post above. So, it does not really represent the real situation. It is amazing that ATP makes such a blunder in analyzing the situation and you also merely quote without realizing the blunder.

He is able to win 81% when first serve lands in because he can afford to go big without worrying whether it lands in. If the second serve is eliminated, he does not have that safety and so it will come down. But, even if that remains same, they forgot to factor in the % of times the serve lands in, which is a crucial factor.
 

monfed

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
2,112
Reactions
506
Points
113
I think Federer fans are proving in this thread that if you take off the 1st serve Nadal is superior to Federer in every other aspect and shot in the game. That's why they are terrified of the whole idea. :yes: :help:

Federer is dependent on his serve , Nadal is dependent on his opponent's chokes. The former is superior tennis, still, sorry to tell you that mate.