[ad_1]
Playing at the Australian Open at 39, Serena Williams is once again trying to lock one of the last pieces of the puzzle of her magnificent career.
Widely regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all timeWilliams’ only remaining snag is the Grand Slam record of a Margaret Court, who performed at a time when competition was weaker. Slowing down to 23 Grand Slam singles titles, Williams needs one more to equalize and two to pass Court in the overall tally. She moved closer with vexation, winning numerous Grand Slam matches, but suffered a series of late trips since returning to have a child in 2017.
So what went wrong in the eight Grand Slam defeats since his return? Observers have put the blame on everything from age to nerves to poor conditioning. But an analysis of the stat sheets from those eight Grand Slam losses reveals a pretty obvious umbrella of differences between what happened in the loss and how Williams normally plays.
It is not his speed of service. In 2015, when Williams dominated the sport by capturing three of the four slams, his average first serve speed was 109 mph – identical to what it was in his last Grand Slam loss at the hands of Victoria Azarenka. Williams’ first serve percentage has been mixed in those games. She has reached or near the ideal of around 65% of first serves netting half of those eight Grand Slam losses. Its percentages in the remaining half were either too high or too low, but the inconsistency of performance in this area is not sufficient to indicate a trend. In this Grand Slam loss data set, his averages hovered mostly around the 65% first serve average, making it unlikely to be a chronic issue at this time. Moreover, his first serve winning percentage is stable: In his last three Grand Slam defeats, Williams’ winning percentage on his first serve points was 74%, 70% and 72% – all in line. with the top 10 players in the WTA. Touring in 2020. There must be something else going on.
Imagine James Carville sitting in front of a group of tennis experts figuring out why Williams has yet to break through. To these experts, he might say, “It’s back, stupid.”
Apart from the measures relating to the service, a mountain of meaning is included in the statistical category “points of return earned” because the points played on the return represent about half of all points played. Like many tennis statistics, it is more useful to see this category as a percentage rather than a gross number of points, as tennis matches can vary wildly in terms of the total number of points played.
Williams seems to sense that his problem lies in his return. After losing to traveler Wang Qiang in the third round of the Australian Open last year, she said, “I didn’t come back like Serena. Honestly, if we were just being honest with ourselves, it all depends on my shoulders. I lost this match. … I literally can’t do this anymore. It’s not professional. It’s not nice. “
In that three-set match, Williams made 30 errors on his return from serve. She almost pulled the game out again, losing 7-5 in the third set. Imagine if she had found a way to stake just half of those 30 returns. And no, blowing up a bunch of returning winners to make up for all the mistakes didn’t even make things go away – she only had seven returning winners for those 30 mistakes.
Looking at Serena’s return point percentage earned in her eight Grand Slam defeats since returning, the trend is outside of her overall benchmarks for the season.
Williams didn’t find his return in Slam losses
Returning points Serena Williams has won in her eight Grand Slam defeats since returning from childbirth
| Return points | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Tournament | Opponent | Round | Total won | Share |
| 2019 | US Open | Andreescu | Final | 30/68 | 44.1% |
| 2020 | US Open | Azarenka | Semi final | 32/82 | 39.0 |
| 2019 | open from Australia | Plíšková | Quarterfinal | 38/98 | 38.8 |
| 2018 | US Open | Osaka | Final | 20/55 | 36.4 |
| 2019 | French Open | Kenin | 3rd round | 28/78 | 35.9 |
| 2020 | open from Australia | Wang | 3rd round | 39/114 | 34.2 |
| 2018 | Wimbledon | Kerber | Final | 17/50 | 34.0 |
| 2019 | Wimbledon | Halep | Final | 12/46 | 26.1 |
These losses show a trend in return point percentages earned mostly in the 1930s, which deviates from his normally strong comeback game. By comparison, overall, in 2020 she earned 44% significantly better return points, and in Williams’ year 2015, her share of earned return points was 48%. Looking at her history of return points over the past decade, it’s possible that her pass rate in this category would have to be in the 40s for her to win, while the percentages in the 30s leave her vulnerable.
In 2019, the last full year of professional tennis before the pandemic, the top 60 players on the WTA Tour all had return point percentages earned throughout the season in the 1940s. Simply put, this is the range where the most successful women in tennis reside.
Also consider that there is more to gaining a return point than the return stroke itself.
Historians agree that Williams is one of the greatest comebacks of all time. She is a woman capable of rendering the 138 mph serve for a male player with a blast for a winner. Her return speeds sometimes far exceed the speed of the serve she ripped into.
Isn’t Serena getting enough comebacks – whether it’s getting a hit, missing the shot, or doing too much?
The answer is: sometimes.
According to Tennis Abstract, most of the best women in the world put in between 75 and 83% of their comebacks. This means that they are difficult to pull off, but also, they make very few mistakes on their return strokes.
In the 2018 loss to Angelique Kerber, Williams’s share of comebacks was an acceptable 71%. However, in the final US Open loss to Bianca Andreescu, Williams’ in-game returns slipped to just 63%. It was only a straight set match in which Serena made 19 return errors – almost two return errors per receiving game.
The comeback isn’t the only time a player can lose on a return point, of course. There is at least some indication that Williams might also struggle with his next shot after a comeback. When rally length data is available for these Grand Slam losses, in at least four of them, Williams lost the battle for short points, which the keepers of tennis statistics rank 0 to 4 strokes. In the tournaments that ended with his losses against Wang, Naomi Osaka and Karolína Plíšková, Williams had already won all the close-range battles leading up to his losses. It’s an indication of a quick run-off of points – at least in the Grand Slam matches she’s losing.
What is potentially most glaring about Williams’ decline in performance in the earned return points category is the caliber of servers she lets slip. In those eight Grand Slam defeats, she faced two elite servers including Osaka and Plíšková. It’s almost forgivable not to come back against these two well. But the rest? One would think that Williams would feast on their services. Andreescu, Azarenka, Kerber, Wang, Simona Halep and Sofia Kenin fall far short of the 2020 WTA Top 10 in ace or percentage of first serve points earned.
However, this group of players contains supreme defenders and fast runners. The only way to know why Williams is slipping in her second leg against these players may be to get inside her head, but it is possible that the specter of ending up in long and extended run points against them is hanging over her, consciously or not.
While Williams didn’t need the Grand Slam record to solidify her greatness, it would be satisfying for her and her fans if she got the job done. A simple shoring up of his second leg – taking care to put returns on the line and looking to extend receiving point exchanges – could help him clear the final hurdle.
[ad_2]
Source link