PRESSURE SITUATIONS 1 – SERVING FOR THE SET

PRESSURE SITUATIONS 1 – SERVING FOR THE SET

In tennis, there are a number of pressure points that a player must negotiate to win a match. Clearly, serving for the set (with a single break advantage) is going to be one of those situations. The phrase ‘choking’ is often used when describing a player’s failure to hold their serve when in this key situation. Whilst that term is slightly derogatory, it accurately summarises the situation in most cases. The player has let the pressure get to them at a critical point in the match.

On that basis, it would be reasonable to think that laying the server in these situations would be a lucrative entry point. However, for several reasons, I personally dislike this entry point in most cases.

Firstly, because it’s to win a set - a key part of the match - the downside regarding the amount of ticks lost if the server holds is significantly higher than opposing the server in a

‘normal’ service game. Whilst it’s true that previous events in the set have caused some drop of the starting price, this is still going to be a significant loss if the player holds. Considering the normal gain if a break is achieved is barely, if any, bigger than a break back at a normal time, you will want to ensure that if you are laying a player in this situation that they have a proven track record for ‘choking’ and also a very low projected hold percentage.

Secondly, my statistics show that there is no significant likelihood that the average bad server holds their serve any less than they would normally be expected to. There is a phenomenon in life where people generally remember more significant incidents than more minor ones, and I think this situation falls into that category. People naturally are going to remember a player failing to serve out a set than getting broken at *2-1 up as it’s a higher profile situation. Therefore people think this happens more due to remembering it happening as it’s a more significant event.

In the sample that I carried out, I surveyed all service games for players with a projected hold below 74% in the ATP. The mean projected hold was 67.2%, but these players held their serve when serving for the set on 66.7% of occasions. So there was barely any difference whatsoever (and certainly not statistically significant difference) between an average service game and serving to win the set. The situation was far worse for the women with a projected hold below 60%. The perception of many is that many women players struggle badly mentally in pressure situations but the statistics failed to back that up. In fact, the opposite was found to be the case. The mean projected hold was 56.6%, but these players held their serve when serving for the set 64.6% of the time.

This is very interesting because not only is the 64.6% above the 63.6% mean for WTA service holds across all surfaces, it’s above the 61-62% risk/reward ratio I mentioned previously.

When you add the fact that the tick gain for this situation is higher than a ‘normal’ service game too, it appears that backing generally bad serving women when serving for the set almost certainly has a positive expectation. This is fantastic when you consider that the vast majority of the market will be thinking the opposite.