Andy Roddick’s Serve / Strategy Quiz

people tend to lose more second serve points because its harder to set up the point with the second serve,since its harder to serve and volley, make a one-two combo, etc .harder to do aces. the opponent can easily attack the ball and put more pressure on the server. i think also since the ball is going slower and probably to the middle then the returner can run around their backhand to attack with the forehand.

Another reason is because the grass at Wimbledon is faster paced than the clay at Roland Garros, this therefore means that if the returner attacks the second the server is immeditly put under pressure to get the ball back in play and will hence lob and the recievier willl smash the ball. Another reason that more points are lost on the second serve and that is pressure, especilly on break-points or 15-30 or love-30 the server will... 1) Hit a safty serve to get the ball in play or 2) Hit a faster pace ball to suprise the opponent. Option no.2 will result in double faults because the server is under pressure to win the point or the reciever gets the ball back. This happens more then you expect especailly with big servers like Andy Roddick and Ivo Karlovic and some modern game players including Mark Philipousis and Pete Sampras. Ex: In Wimbledon 2003 in the fourth round Mark Phillipousis uncorked a 130+MPH second serve down the T againest Andre Agassi but Andre Agassi was able to guess that he would serve there and Mark was under pressure to win the point. This also happened to Pete Sampras where he admitted that sometimes when he was under to win points (Break points, Love-30 etc) on his second serve he would have to cranck up his second serve by 20+MPH to put away points hence resulting in double faults or the opponent guessing (like in the match I talked about before) where the serve was going to be hit and then the server immediatly under pressure to put away the ball and win the point.

There are a couple of reasons why i think that the second serves aren't won as much as the first serves. The second-to-best reason I believe is that on a first serve, the returner cannot return the ball as agressively, this allows the server to get into better position or if playing on grass courts (like on this case of the Wimbeldon finals) to serve and volley. Federer would have a much easier time returning a 117mph serve agressively than a 148mph one which he would probably return with less pace and more towards the middle of the court, this would be very easy for Roddick to volley away from Federer and win the point. On a second serve, Federer would attack the ball on his return, then Roddick would be forced to play out a rally from the baseline in which case Federer would probably out play him. This is probably why Federer won 59% of all second serves[22+(30-13)]/(36+30). THE MAIN FACTOR would be the psycology involved, what is going on inside the returner's head. On a first serve, the returner is thinking about possible ace, forced errors, etc. On a second serve, he is no longer thinking about these, he is now more focused on what is actually going on in the court, therefore he has better control of his swing, footwork, etc. On the pro level the confident returner will be able to attack the second serve and play offensive therefore aquiring an advantage over the point. THE RETURNER'S PSYOLOGICAL STATE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REASEON TO WHY SECOND SERVE POINTS ARE HARDER TO WIN FOR THE SERVER.

Andy Roddick is better than you. Get over it.

The reason why it is easier to win your 1st serve points can be answered with obvious reasons such as the ball moving slower,(which is not necessarily true because the pros put more action on the 2nd serve to make it kick and have to hit the ball harder to do that it just doesnt go as fast) or that the 2nd serve is more predictable, or that the server is less confident on the 2nd serve. All of these reasons are true HOWEVER, I believe the best reason to explain why it is harder to win second serve points is the mentality of the RETURNER. If the returner has reson to fear your 1st seve and you get it in they are most likely just focused on getting the return in play. This allows the server to play more relaxed and confidently. On the second serve the server will have to deal with the disadvantages stated earlier BUT WILL ALSO have to deal with a more confident returner who can play with relaxed focus instead of worrying about getting a 1st serve back. This is the biggest reason why you lose more second serves. Because the returner has confidence.

I also see from the match stats that both players only served four double faults. But that takes Roddick's percentage to marginally under 50% of points won on second serve. It was receiving that he lost on, winning only 42 of 197 points. Federer served 50 aces to his 27.

First-time poster and so probably an idiot, but surely the mathematical reason why there are fewer points won on second serve than first is that you can't double-fault on a first serve. This means that there is one more way to lose a point on a second serve than a first.

The original figures specify only how many points were won on serve, without telling us how many of the points LOST on serve were the result of double faults. Answer that and you may find that other factors become less important.

First-time poster and so probably an idiot, but surely the reason why mathematically there are fewer points won on a second serve than on a first serve is that you can't double fault on a first serve, which means there is one more way to lose points on a second serve than on a first.

The original figures don't specify whether the points lost were the result of rallies or second serves into the net. They only specified points WON on serve. How many points LOST on second serve were the result of double faults?

The returner is in a more offensive mindset,because they have more time to react to the serve and kind of knows where ball will likely bounce. This results in a better hit return. Better returns with better placement means less time for the server to hit back a good reply. In 1st serves, the returner has less reaction time, balls can land anywhere, returns are weaker, the server can pick their shot placement. The more confuse you are the less focus and time you have.

Taking time away from servers/returners is key. Whether is it time in terms of speed, placement, & pattern.

I didn't know about this promotion, but if at all possible I would hope that my answer counts for something.

Besides the fact that the first serve contains more pace and is placed much more "aggressively", it is also characterized by less topspin or kick which gives the opponent less time to get set up. The second serve, however, usually bounces higher and gives the opponent more time.

This seems to be the general consensus from above so let me post a more deeper reasoning to this question.

Generally, the second serve allows for the returner to step more into the court, giving an advantage in court positioning. This offensive positioning gives the returner the advantage once the point starts since he or she is starting farther inside the baseline. The returner can be already be on the offensive depending on the server's skill level. Mentally, there is an advantage for the returner on the second serve. He or she will not be as tenuous in their swing and there is more of a mental approach to be aggressive rather than passive. This causes a deeper and more aggressive ball. Moreover, there will always be lower percentage for second serve points won because of the existence of double faults.

Secondly, it is not only the serve that must be accounted for when dealing with % of points won, but it is also the way the point is played after the serve is over. Therefore, we must also account for various other factors within the point after the serve.

The second serve is slower, and bounces higher thus makes it easy for the returner to start the point off aggresively, controlling the rythm of the point, putting the server at a disadvantage throughout the point. When you are playing defensively you are keeping yourself "alive" in the point, not anything more than that, just returning balls, and your opponent takes advantage of those easy balls and making you run for the point, and in the end comes the winner.

Answer:

We lose more points on our second serves because it allows our opponents a better chance to be aggressive. For me, it's like... "Where should I hit this serve to get my opponent out of position and but myself in a INSTANT winning position".


Lendale Johnson USA

ITF Singles Player

The fact that a ball comes slower is not a main reason that you lose a point, the thing is when you serve your first serve your opponent has a little time to react and when he/she does react they can't come up with enough energy to send back a ball as he want's to, most of first serve points are winners and when opponent does send it back it is not accurate and it doesn't have enough speed and energy so you dont have problem to start a rally and controle it . When your doing a second serve that is not the case . Your opponent has more time to react, your ball has less kinetic energy because it is slower , therefore opponent can send ball back with more precision and much faster that when he's sending back first serve and has much more chance to control the ball and eaven a rally and he has more different solutions for a ball coming his way (because of the location of your body after the service ). Also when your serving a second serve you don't have space for mistakes not only in the exact time of serve but in a rally to becaouse if u do a mistake during your first serve rally u still have time to react because u were in control, and you still have a chance to win a point and if you do a mistake during your second serve rally the opponent will most surely use your mistake in his advantage. We don't want to forget state a mind of a server . When you server your first serve you are prepared for a certain number of different types of ball coming your way , this number rapidly increases in the second serve so u have a lot more to think about and also less time to react when opponent send your ball back, most players react with instinct. Instinct -what your mind does is that it recognise a speed and a placement of the ball that you shot and compares it with all balls that you served like that (you have to know that this is not a conscious action , and you can't realy control it) and try to figure out where the ball could go.

Second serves are more conservative and allow the receiver to attack. It's a game of confidence and agressivee play at the right risk level...
LOWER RISK OF MOVING FORWARD AND HIGHER REWARD

1 - Because you are just afraid, and think too much that the opponent of what he is going to do with that serve ball, and in doing that... lose concentration.
2 - Not confident enough, thinking that "I think am going to make a double-fault!"
3 - Less practice... thinking that the first serve is really important... and focusing it on more on the "off-days."
4 - Maybe due to the change of grip from the first serve (unless you want to go flat (or slice, kick, etc) on the second)...
5 - Maybe they don't have a second serve... and so they are still using their first serve... but with slower pace.

Players attack your second serve more than you first, so you are on the defensive.
But also there is a chance of you double faulting on your second serve; so you lost the point automatically.

Well, what's the "official" answer?

I think it is because the person who is serving is in a less aggresive "mode" when serving a second serve.

I believe tennis, overall, is a game where earning a point is all about taking time away from your competitor (and earning your self more time in the process).

You hit hard first serves to reduce the amount of time someone has to react.

You try to keep people pinned to the baseline so you have time to respond to their shots.

You hit angles to increase the amount of time it will take for your opponent to get to a shot.

You WANT that short ball because it gives you a chance to come in and take more time away from your opponent.

The hit balls before they bounce or you take balls on the rise, all to take just that little bit more time away from your opponent.

IMO, once you figure out that the primary strategic element behind tennis is "time management" ;-) you can start building your game plan and tactics around it.

So, regarding second serves .. I believe you lose more points on second serves because you are GIVING your opponent more time (the ball comes in a bit slower), or your opponent has the ability to step into the court (because the ball comes in a bit more shallow) and effectively TAKE time away from how you can respond to a return.

Looking at it another way: The person who controls the rally usually controls the point. When your first serve goes in, you usually control the rally because you were the first person to effectively "take some time away" from your opponent. On second serves, the tables can be turned a lot more easily. The returner get a good smack on the ball and they become the first person to start taking time away from the server.

I think you lose more second serve points because of the mental block. You might get a little self conscious on the second serve. Also, coming into the match, I heard a lot of statistics against Roddick, such as the 2-18 record against Federer.

The second serve wins more points than the first for the returner since the ball comes slower with more kick and usually in the middle, that gives the returner more time to set up to hit the ball. Also the ball is usually short in the middel so the returner can come in and get an angle on the return and come in again to hit a volley to the other side. or have a better chance to hit down the line away from the server for a winner

not trying to win since i got no shot looking at all the comments so far but isn't it because he has all that running around the nadal serve practice(always to the backhand)?, so on second serve returns federer gets on offense and really goes for it

Will has done a good job with the numbers. However, there's one more kind of number to analyze – the number of times the ball crosses the net in a first-serve point compared to the same number for a second-serve point. I would expect that number to be considerably longer on average for second-serve points. The obvious conclusion is that the server's advantage is LOST on a second serve after both players have hit the ball a few times. Thus the factor we need to think about is how hard a player can play to win a point after the advantage of a serve is lost. My guess is that "Fed" would show better success on long second-serve points.

i added my super improved comment at 9:35 and its notttttt here!!!!!

IS there a limit for how long they can be? bc maybe thats why mine did not work!!!!! i am so mad right now!!!!!!

i found like 1% of my answer idk if this does anything.

YOU ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS YOUR SECOND SERVE, because you MUST be able to back up your play as the returner will most likely get the ball back in play with a neutral or aggressive shot. From that point on, the rest of the point is based upon your tactics vs. your opponents tactics, and your skills vs. your opponents skills, in which Fed clearly has the advantage!

The service is set up in such a way in tennis it gives the server Two chances (faults) in order to start the point,
Therefore the first serve is used with little risk in mind of losing the point, the tactic is to go for "free points" in the form of Aces", force the receiver to make an error or force the receiver into making a poor quality return. so the server has everything to gain and nothing to lose in a way, although a high first serve percentage is still desirable for the overall game.
The second serve is executed in such away with risk in mind, because there is no "third chance" (so to speak) in tennis the ball must land in the box, otherwise your giving your opponent a free point in the way of a double fault, therefore the tactic of the server is to get the serve in at all cost, just to start the point basically, a low risk shot to the center of the box, preferably with top spin and high bounce(e.g. kick serve) still making it difficult for the receiver to hit a winner or dominant stroke.
It may sound obvious but my answer is because of the reasons above, the return percentage of the receiver landing the ball in court is much higher as with the quality, on the second serve as it is on the first.
The fact that the ball is even hit back in play on the return more on the second serve means more errors make by the server.
The fact that the ball is hit back with better quality on the return means the server has to now retreat back to a more defensive position, the point is now at more neutral position so with two well matched players its a flip of coin at 50/50 or maybe even tipped towards the receivers favor.

The service is set up in such a way in tennis it gives the server Two chances (faults) in order to start the point,
Therefore the first serve is used with little risk in mind of losing the point, the tactic is to go for "free points" in the form of Aces", force the receiver to make an error or force the receiver into making a poor quality return. so the server has everything to gain and nothing to lose in a way, although a high first serve percentage is still desirable for the overall game.
The second serve is executed in such away with risk in mind, because there is no "third chance" (so to speak) in tennis the ball must land in the box, otherwise your giving your opponent a free point in the way of a double fault, therefore the tactic of the server is to get the serve in at all cost, just to start the point basically, a low risk shot to the center of the box, preferably with top spin and high bounce(e.g. kick serve) still making it difficult for the receiver to hit a winner or dominant stroke.
It may sound obvious but my answer why is because of the reasons above, the return percentage of the receiver landing the ball in court is much higher as with the quality, on the second serve as it is on the first.
The fact that the ball is even hit back in play on the return more on the second serve means more errors make by the server.
The fact that the ball is hit back with better quality on the return means the server has to now retreat back to a more defensive position, the point is now at more neutral position so with two well matched players its a flip of coin at 50/50 or maybe even tipped towards the receivers favor.

The reason for losing less second serves is dependent on the mental side of tennis.
The first serve is usually more powerful and used with better placement (as you mentioned). But the second serve does not have either of these qualities and it is more likely to be attacked by the opponent. Andy Roddick did not have as much success as Roger in that Roger has been winning and winning all of his life and coming into a 5 wimbledon title streak in a row and Andy was not as nearly as confident as Roger won bc Rogers serve had been working all tournament and Andys was also, but Roger had so much previous success that Roger was able to lay it all on the line and serve up a much more effective and unpredictable serve than andy

In my opinion.I can see a number of reasons why players dont win as many points on their 2nd serve compared to their first.

1) Any players second serve is always alot easier to adapt to than their first. Their is less variety on the serve in regards to spin,power,speed and height.This means the serve isnt as difficult for the returner to handle and they have a better control of the ball. This gives the receiver an edge as they have a better idea of what kind of 2nd serve they will have to deal with and they can plan their return shot and their position ahead of the serve,making it alot easier for them to take control of the rally early on.

2)On a second serve,returners move further into the court to take on the 2nd serve quicker and to put the server under pressure easier,not just with their return,but also by simply moving inside the court more.This will put the server under more mental pressure as I will explain further down.the returner can take the ball earlier and take control of the point.

3)For a second serve,most players like roddick,will hit to a more constricted area.Their second serves are to the middle of the service box,away from risky angles,and usually not at the service line either.This is more predictable for the returner and is obviously a disadvantage for the server.

4)One of the biggest differences between the 1st and 2nd serve is that the second serve is hit alot higher into the air to avoid the net.Because it doensnt have as much power or velocity,the added height makes it alot easier for returners to set up they feet and body into position,do their back-swing and execute offensive shots.

But the main reason in my opinion is:

5)When a server misses their first serve,especially on big points,there mental state changes.they no longer see themselves as being in a superior position because they missed their 1st serve and cannot put the returner under pressure straight away.the serve rwill change his mindset and instead of focusing on how to plan his attack and how to take control staight away,they begin to focus on not missing their serve and playing safe so they dont lose the point.they change their concentration from what they want,to what they dont want,which is a dangerous mental state in my opinion.they usually play too safe on the second serve in the fear of missing,unintentionally giving the returner the chance take control staight away.the returners mindset changes also.while the server will see themself in a defensive situation,the returner will see themself in a superior and advantaged position because they know they can win the point alot easier because of all of the differences.the server is put in a negative mental and position and the returner is a positive one,once again giving them the edge.because the sever will usually have a more negative outlook, and because of statistics,this can sometimes make them think it is more acceptable to lose the point on their second serve,and will end up accepting the loss or maybe not trying as hard in the point.Also,the fact that the returner will step further inside the court to receive on the second serve,adds to the servers frustration and fear because they know that the returner will be looking to attack and take control early on.sometimes,instead of being more conservative with their second serve,when the server sees the returner moving in and looking to attack,they may try to go for another 1 serve, or a very risky second serve,but because their mental state is still not correct and they are not calm,they will more than likely miss that too.the phsycological changes in both player is what mainly results in more lost pionts for the server on the second serve than the 1st.

BTW,great quiz idea.love the website( helped me looaaddss:) )keep it up!

the reason is that when the server is serving his first serve he puts pressure
on his opponent but when the server misses his first serve so he needs to serve his secende serve the prssure transfer on him and his opponent will attack his second serve what is going to put even more pressure on the server.
so when the all the pressure is on the server the server will play more defensive game what will give the retorner the opportunity to be more agresive and to attack more

The second serve % of points won is decreased substantially by double faults since the % points won off a double fault is zero. Likewise, the 1st serve % points won is greatly increased by aces since the % points won off an ace is 100%.
The other contributing factor is which player has the more consistant and dominating ground strokes once the ball is in play after the return of serve. The likelyhood that the ball will be in play after the serve is higher on the second serve because the player backs off on serve speed and placement to avoid a guaranteed double fault point loss. In the case of Fed vs Rod, Fed has more consistant and dominate ground strokes so he had a higher percent of points won off of second serves.

Will,

Great exercise, "Why do pros lose more points on 2nd serves vs. 1st serve?"

I saw several answers that seemed to flirt with what I know to be true but none that clearly stated the following.

The reason there are more points won on the 1st serve is because there is a high expectation of where they will receive the return if the return is made. When Roddick or Federer serves out wide they know that even a great return is going to be coming back at an angle towards them either on their backhand or forehand. Based on that understanding they have an earlier anticipation of where they want to play their first ground stroke or volley. They remain on offense for at least that first follow-up stroke after the serve. The amount of reaction needed to the returner is reduced by the limiting of the return angle possibilities.

The heater flat serve up the middle is, on average, only effective for holding the offensive advantage if the server has the power to blast it by when they have the returner protecting the out wide or the server follows the serve in for a volley. In the past Roddick gave up this advantage because that was his serve the majority of the time, he rarely came in behind it, and his opponents started camping out there ready to take a full swing thus neutralizing the advantage his power offered. Once Stefanki got him to start using the out wide his fortunes changed and it took the game's greatest to keep the trophy out of his hands.

On a 2nd serve where there is an increased concern to avoid the double fault the serves are frequently delivered safely to the middle third of the service box. This safety margin gives the receiver a much greater range of return options and frequently allows them to be offensive with their return. The server has lost their advance expectation of where they will play the return from. The exception to this is when the server has a great 2nd serve kick that takes the receiver out wide. That allows to server to remain in control of the point for at least one follow up contact for the same reasons stated above.

First off after a second serve the receiver knows, its more likely for the server to stay at the baseline, eliminating the possibility of the server going to the net, taking that 1 extra pressure off the receiver. Also the receiver can place the ball better on the opposite courtside. Many times the server on the 2nd serve is vulnerable to drop shots, or other shots that open the court due to the fact that he is just finishing his serve motion and the ball is bouncing back already, because the reciever is closer tot he service box on 2nd serve.

Hi FYB

The reason that you loose more points on your second serve is because the opponent knows that you will not hit it as hard and as positioned as the first serve,
this will then allow the oponent recieving the second serve to hit it back to you, putting you on a defensive status.

the reason that you win points on your first serve is because you have spin and power, increasing the power will mean increasing the spin this will make the ball travell faster with more spin which means it will bounce unsupposebly, confusing the opponent and putting out of his reach.

One overlooked aspect of second serves is that it creates longer rallies. The longer rallies are not totally independent of pace and placement. In fact, it mainly occurs because of this. When a long rally occurs, the advantage the server initially had is lost. The odds for the returner become better, while the server's odds decrease. In a match of such opposite styles, this fact jumps out. Andy Roddick relies on his serve to either ace or to affect the balance of the opposing player. One reason that Andy has struggled with Federer is because Federer will put the ball back in play, forcing Andy to play into his hands. Andy's groundstrokes and volleys looked much improved in the match, but I imagine the stats would show rallies on Andy's serve where he hit over more than one shot after the serve were not successful. In matches that aren't such contrasts of styles, it may not be as obvious. Longer rallies evens the playing field a bit more. They take the advantage away from the server. I believe the announcer even mentioned that Andy should take more chances on his second serve... most likely to limit the rallies. He depends on his serve and the next shot. After that, his groundstrokes cannot compare with the likes of Federer. One reason Pete Sampras was so successful is because he controlled his second serve points with a monster second serve. The statistics show that Federer was 15% better on second serves. This proves to me that Federer was better on long rallies. This was the difference in the match.

Almost exactly what I said in my original answer. Glad to see you agree with me.

I thought I should approach this thought by first observing the point of view of the returner, because they can dictate how you serve. The returner is always positioned in perhaps the center of the two widest serves that you can hit, sometimes more out wide in order to maintain a better court position if the serve pulls you out wide. On a second serve, obviously the server is pressured to pull off a higher percentage serve in order to avoid regular double faults. On a first serve, the server would feel free to place it in either corner of the service box knowing that he can use it however he'd like. Even hitting it into the Federer-forehand side wouldn't pose much risk. As a result, Federer would have to prepare for the service return on both wings. In this case, my opinion is that the best serve to hit would be out wide in order to pull your opponents off the court. On a second serve, let's say Roddick is serving, Roddick has much less options to deal with. On the deuce court, hitting out wide could pose to be a huge mistake because after the serve, Roddick would be stranded out near no-man's-land right after the serve, and Federer would've returned serve closer to the baseline. This is a huge threat involving court positioning. On the ad court, Roddick can't pull off a very wide serve as to avoid hitting too close to the lines and Federer, again close to the baseline, would cut off any weak angle going to his backhand. This makes Roddick's serve much less effective if his best option is the hit to Federer's backhand and start a rally from there. Although Roddick did an unbelievable job rallying with Federer, Roddick can't beat Federer off the ground. A lot of the time, second service win percentages would show who's working the rallies better. Second service percentages for both players usually complement each other to add up to close to 100% too because usually, second serve points are rally points (60% for Fed; 44% for Rod).

Just to serve as examples for second serve percentages, I'm going to give some references of match statistics that I found on www.ATPworldtour.com.

Fabrice Santoro vs. Marat Safin at Roland Garros (2001)
San. won 49% of his 2nd-service-points; Saf. won 42% of his 2nd-service-points.
49+42 is 99. Just about even.
Andy Murray vs. Roger Federer at Indian Wells (2009)
Mur. won 57% of his 2nd-service-points; Fed. won 46% of his 2nd-service-points.
57+46 is 103. Very close.

Both examples shown as well as Federer vs. Roddick at Wimbledon (2009) show that a second serve doesn't usually give either players a huge advantage. Therefore, most second serve points turn out to be rally points. That would explain why the 2nd-service-points statistics usually complement each other to be 100% in sum, as well as show why Roddick's 2nd-service-points stat was far lower than Federer's - Federer had the upper edge in rally points up against Roddick, even though Roddick did splendidly against Federer in rallies this final compared to previous encounters (such as the Australian Open 2007)

Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick at Australian Open (2007)
Fed won 67% of his 2nd-service-points; Rod won 29% of his 2nd-service-points
67+29 is 96. Very close. (But what a put-down. Only 30% of rally points went Roddick's way).

So, in conclusion, my bet for why Roddick's second service percentage stat was much lower than Federer's was due to the fact that Roddick won less of the rallies with Federer.

On first service points, the result of the point is usually completely in the hands of the server and how well he is able to handle a weak return. No matter how fast you are and how well you can defend, there's a line to be crossed where you just can't defend anymore, in which case, it's just too good. Even if it's not too good, being on the defensive is a low percentage way of winning points. Being defensive, you have to wait for unforced errors to win a point, which may rarely happen in the pro tour. Therefore, if ever put on the defensive, it's critical to convert to offensive positions in order to win more frequent points. Addition to my previous answer right above regarding the first serve alone. Above, I realized I only explained why second serve stats are lower than first serve stats (esp. regarding Rod vs. Fed at Wimbledon 2009).

I checked some stats on Pete's second serve against other players. It wasn't monstrous statistically. In fact, it supports my theory above, that it only got him in rallies. I checked the stats of other players, such as John Isner and Ivo Karlovic, whose second serves were still monstrous to say the least. These were the only exceptions. The only times where second service point stats don't complement each other is when 1. one player is a huge server (and volleyer, perhaps; Ivo Karlovic for example) and the other is a much better rallier - in this case, second serve percentages will be high for both; or 2. Both players are Karlovic-like players, and same result as the first pairing.

One example of this:
Ivo Karlovic vs. Roger Federer at Wimbledon (2009)
Kar won 60% of his 2nd-service-points; Fed won 75% of his 2nd-service-points.

Besides this kind of exception, most second service points will be played in rallies.

Hi FYB!

The reason you lose more points on your second serve is because the returner knows your serve won't be as aggressive as your first serve. So the returner's return will put the server on the defensive, putting the returner in control of the ralley.

As for the first serve, it's vice-versa. The powerful first serve will put the server in control and the returner on the defensive.

Second serves will be returned more aggressively and the return will be placed in a more offensive position on the court, thus putting the server in a more defensive position to win the point.

As you have already said the server is generally expected to have the advantage and the first serve is considered the more aggressive shot, through pace and placement. Further still as others have said that this also puts the server in an aggressive or optimal potion to end the point with in a few shots (hopefully). I believe another factor is that you have way more options with the first serve. You can hit it flat, slice, kicker, etc. and the opponent really is not quite sure what coming unless they catch onto you placement and toss. With the second serve you don't have these options, or at least not under the same conditions. There's a lot more stress on the server not to double fault(and less on the returner) or loose that advantage that the server has. There nothing worse than seeing a tentative second serve.

well for:
1) for most players a first serve functions as an offensive shot. when you're serving you are considered to have the advatage, u get the first move, u can get first blood, if done rite. therefore, a second serve simply means, u are forced to be more cautious than you would have been for your frirst serve. u are basically almost on the defensive after throwing away a first serve. this is reflected in the fact that second serves are placed in more generic/safe/easy to place areas of the court, also promoting hogher net clearance. this first off results in a more often than not slower second serve, more spin, less aggressive placement on the court.

the reciever reacts in several ways to this situation. for
1) he has a stronger mental disposition for returning that second serve. consider this scenario, andy roddick a guy who has served upto 155 mph on his first serve just missed his first serve, roger federer is automatically boosted knowing about 20-30 mph is gonna be cutoff that next serve.

2) this then manifests itself physicaly, roger moves closer to the base line, therefore is disposed to play a more aggressive shot against an already threatened roddick.
3)roddick inevitably obsereves his opponent going on the offensive, this actually interferes with focus, becuz he is wondering whether to go for the big 2nd serve on an unsuspecting federer or whether to place it as best he could and then get ready for a tuff rally. even if he choses either his focus/coordination is inevitably affected by his premeditation.
4) by getting that 2nd serve in roddick can still experience anxiety, and over eagerness, if the return is not that difficult, he ccould go for too much too early, and throw the point away, or he mite play too defensively and federer takes advantage of that or roddick may miss time his shotsas a resut of that same anxiety.
5) therefore the mental effect goes way beyond the initial 2nd serve, but the anxiety can affect the server all throughout the rally, interfering with focus. and this is especialy true for a player like andy roddick who has the biggest first serve on tour. its always nioce to go for an ace and when u kno u can go for it at 150+mph, but are forced to play it safe on ur 2nd serve at a mere 120/130+ u are bound to be affected mentaly, both u and the receiver inversely.

A "mere" 120/130? You're kidding? 120/130 is a decent professional first serve speed. It would be absolutely huge to consistently serve that fast on a second serve. That's not mere at all. Roddick's average second serve speed was around 105mph for the Wimbledon Final and Federer's average second serve speed was around 98mph. Sources from TennisWarehouse Discussion posts.

Those statistics did not tell the whole story. Perhaps with insight from his new coach Roddick played the best tactical game he has ever played against federer. (compare the Aussie open a couple of years back) One of those tactics was the use of the big flat serve at federer’s body. If you count the unreturnable and easy put aways earned by that serve with the aces the data would show they both had a good day on first serve. (Bar the last game!) Also bear in mind the “flaw” of averages. Over a number of games the stats will approach a mean where-as any one match could be higher or lower than that. On first serves they both played extremely well and the few breaks of serve occurred when one or other dropped in intensity for a short time (applies also to the tie break). thanks for the tips. they sure are helping.

I believe that there is a huge mental aspect when it comes to serving. For everyone, one the first serve, the server is confident, extremely confident that they can win that point. With people like Roddick and Karlovic capable of hitting 140+ mph serves, they can win the point in one shot. The receiver is also wary of their big serve, and they know that it will be tough to win the point. However, after seeing that their first serve went out, the mentalities of the server and the receiver will switch, with the receiver being the much more aggressive and the server being a bit cautious, and wanting the serve to get in.

Now with the Roddick v Federer match, Federer had 50 aces, so he didn't really have to resort to his second serve, as the same with Roddick. However, Federer has much better ground strokes and has that pinpoint accuracy that Roddick lacks. Federer was able to jump on Roddick's second serve a bit more.

I believe there is much more of a mental game on the second serve. When gearing up to his a first serve, the server's main focus is aggression and getting the upper hand in the point; however, when hitting a second serve, the aggressive mentality is somewhat diminished, making the player more conservative and vulnerable during the ensuing play. The necessity to get the ball in on the second serve, for fear of a double fault, alleviates an aggressive serve, thus somewhat or completely making sure neither player has the upper hand on the point played. Fed has better groundies, and thus won the majority of Roddick's second serve points.

this is because federe is better than roddic in most strokes, and roddik's only advantage is it's poweful first serve. when play second serve, since roddik dont has the advantage of the serve, he will sure lose more points. so shortly, federer is much better player if roddic can not make first serve, and federer will win most points.

When you have one of the best servers in the game (Roddick) against the best returner of serve in the game (Federer), when faced with Roddick's second serve Federer has the advantage of putting on the pressure and winning the point by controlling the rally as the Roddick second serve is quite a bit slower than the first serve thunderbolt which Federer could only block back into play, thus giving the advantage to Roddick if his first serve went in. Also Federer's serve, whatever style of serve he hit, whether topspin or kick serve, is so heavily disguised as his ball toss is identical in either his first or second serve is why Roddick had the poorer percentages. That I believe is why Federer had the edge, as he was still able to keep the pressure on Roddick even if his first sevre failed to convert.

First of all, just from statistic point of view, there is more exchanges between the players after the second serve. In that exchange the chance for the receiving player to win the point is pretty much the same as the server. It is only logical that those points will be spread more evenly between the players, assuming they are at the same playing level. If one player is better then the other one that is where the difference will be mostly visible, by better player winning more of those points.

So, once the baseline exchange starts, the effect of first point (second serve in this case) is gone and game goes the same way as it would be for any regular practice hitting with first couple of shots taken easy.

Of course, a great servers (like Andy and Rodger) could use even their second serves to create some advantage before the start of the exchange, which keeps the advantage on the servers side and only double faults take some of that advantage away!

At the end, receiving players are more often then not in worst position for the start of the exchanges after the first serve then they are after the second serve and that is why server looses more of the second serves in general.

(i am not english or american, so overlook my mistakes)
Why more points on 1st serve and less on 2nd serve? First of all it is the CHOICE of shot. The 1st is agressive aso. If you do this on your 2nd (which no one does) you will probably make more points. And when you hit a 2nd-serve like on your 1st service it will cost you points on that one.

Ok, now for the real reasons, which i think it is. The first one is not hit with any stress. This one is for 'free'. There is a backup for failure. The 2nd has no backup. This is for real.
Most of the time people choose a save serve, to get the ball in play with the consequence that the shot is easy to counter.

Other reason can be the preparation. For the 1st you have about 30 seconds to relax and think things over. Maybe build up some positive tension. But when missing this one, it is not allowed to prepare another 30 secs, and furthermore there is now some negative aspect coming in: the missing of the 1st serve.

I think the main reason is that the 2nd serve is placed safely into servicebox, not close to the lines, so most of the time in the comfort zone of the returner. No need to stretch at the ball to block it, but now time and space to hit it.

These are my 20 cents.

It's all about Courage.

Firstly, when you play your second serve you don't risk as much cause you don't want a double fault. Therefore the returner can hit it as if it was a random baseline short ball landing in the service box and he can hit it much harder then when he receives a first serve(but that's obvious)
Secondly, when the server hits a good first serve he immediately has an advantage in the point, but with the second you have to build your point longer, or worse, even start the point in the defensive position.
Also, hitting a good first serve in gives you confidence during the whole point. But, when you hit a shaky second serve(because you're scared of double faulting of course) you have less confidence in your groundstrokes that follow.
Finally, the second serve usually has less variety then the first one and the returner can predict better where the serve's going. So, for example, you cannot be as confident if you're serve and volleying after the first serve as much as if you would be after hitting the second serve.
I don't know if a double fault counts as a second serve, cause there was no serve at all, so I'm skipping that part.
Now, let's look at this from the returner's side of view. If you are preparing to receive a first serve you usually don't know what to expect and can't prepare a good tactic. But, when you're receiving a second serve you can assume where the ball is going and therefore prepare better tactics. Also, receiving a second serve gives you confidence that you could win the point more easily.
That's it. Oh, and sorry if I messed something up with my English.

I think it's an mental issue.
The player who takes the command in the points, steps in to the court, often wins them.
Same thing about the 2nd serve. The server is at an mentally lower position. He's main focus is to put the ball safely into the box, knowing his apponant's eager to put pressure on him.
He's got a passive play even from the start.
The returner, on the other hand, is more confident to win, now that he got an 2nd serve to play at.

Federer is one of the few male players that stands near the baseline on any serve. This is key for him to cut off any angles, to get on top of the ball before the ball gets on top of him. When Federer returns second serves, he moves even closer, and sometimes even stands on the line. This is very important because hitting the second serve before the spin starts to work ensures Federer an easier shot. That's why Roddick did not have a better percentage of points won off of his second serve: Federer stepped inside the baseline to hit the ball before the spin went too out of control. Doing this also took time away from Roddick - the ball came back earlier, and it seemed as if he was not ready to make his next shot.

Roddick, on the other hand, stayed back for pretty much every serve. He could not cut off the angles, and he could not handle the spin because he was too far back. The spin was too much. Also, I forgot to mention that Federer makes a good split step before he returns a serve. He moves up and into the court. Roddick was different. He almost didn't leave the ground, especially late into the match. These factors (too far behind the baseline, not a good split step) showed in the statistics.

Federer had more time to prepare for Roddick's return and could take control of the point (higher 2nd serve percentage for Federer). He took care of the ball before the ball could get out of control. He got the ball back in play, giving him a better chance of winning the point (lower 2nd serve percentage for Roddick).

I think it's an mental issue.

The player who takes the command in the points, steps in to the court, often wins them.

Same thing about a 2nd serve.
The server is at an mentally lower position. He has to put the ball safely in the box, knowing his apponant's eager to put pressure on him. He's to passive from the start.

The simple answer to this question is that a server is required to hit ONE MORE SHOT than the returner to win a particular point. If we assume that the point is won by a winning stroke then the server must hit either a 2nd serve ace (very rare) or hit a ground stroke winner during a rally. This requires the server to win the point on the odd stroke of a rally (1, 3, 5, etc) and that means they must hit ONE MORE clean shot than the returner, whereas the returner only has to match or equal the number of clean shots that the server has hit in order to win the point.

A more complicated answer to our 2nd serve question involves the 8 unique possibilities that conclude each point (4 by the server and 4 by the returner). The 4 server possibilities are: 1) an ace, 2) a double fault, 3) a rally unforced error and 4) a rally winner. The 4 returner possibilities are: 1) a serve return unforced error, 2) a serve return winner, 3) a rally unforced error and 4) a rally winner.

For the sake of simplicity, we will eliminate 2nd serve aces from the discussion and we will assume that double faults and a returner's serve return unforced errors cancel each other out. That leaves 5 remaining possibilities: server hits rally unforced error, server hits rally winner, returner hits serve return winner, returner hits rally unforced error and returner hits rally winner. Out of those 5 possibilities, 3 fall in favor of the returner. That means that if all things are equal, the returner should be winning around 60% of the 2nd service points.

A second serve is generally a serve that is dependable and safe. That being said, the nature of the 2nd serve has greater spin, and the placement is somewhere with large margin for error. As opposed to the first serve, which tend to be more aggressive serve and with greater pace, the 2nd serve gives more predictability to the returner and also allows the returner to step in and dictate the point from the start. Also the spin tends to give the ball greater height to give the returner the ability to really hit through the ball for outright winners if there were opportunities.
The second serve is also the last opportunity for the server to play the ball. There can be tendencies to double fault, thus losing the point outright. With that said, more points are often won on the first serve because the nature of it, as described above, really lets the server control the situation. More often than not, if you have control of the point, there is a greater chance to win the point. There is also less pressure to absolutely make the serve. The 2nd serve gives the opponent the opportunity to play more crafty and throw in suprise shots such as droppers, making the return more unpredictable.

Assuming this question goes for all players ranging from ntrp 1.0 to all the way to 7.0 world class players there could be many factors that lead up to losing more points on the second serve. To start off we can say the general rule is hitting the second serve can be tough but the ball coming back is tougher including the scenario your in to. At the 7.0 levels factors like
court surface+stadium court +stadium lights /fans+ opponent+ the abilty to be able to adapt to these factors+tournament= A different outcome of how each and every point is to be played.
Let's say Murray is up at 2010 Wimbledon centre stage+ grass court + English fans/queen+ Federer= Hard to decide.
Before the match starts Murray knows before hand Federer has 1-0 on him in slams, Wimbledon his home turf he needs to win, the fans and queen ae depending on him.
As the match is played Murray will tend to get conservative knowing he has a match on the line. When second serve points are in play this is where the factors will take affect as in every other points. Grass court keeps the ball lower on kick serves than clay, pressure to play the point out w/o losing, trying to look good and not messing up in front of your home crowd and espically queen, and last Federer who knows how he plays and where to place the ball. We already established that second serves are hard to hit but the ball coming back is harder. Now lets put it in Murray's case. So he's playing in Wimbledon final with his home crowd with him againist a guy who's 1-0 againist him. pretty tough.. Murray can have 3 options that'll result from Fear and Pressure trying to execute a good second serve.
1) Double fault 2) Hit a weak second serve Fed can run around 3) Execute a good second serve. We can look at these three scenarios as tree branches branching from the two ideas. Branching from these ideas can be 1) Double fault= embrassment if done too much can lead to more double faults 2) Weak Second serve= Fed can put the ball away since he has more chances of placing it or the ball would be very difficult to hit back since our general idea applies. 3) Execute a good one= Fed can hit a decent deep return which is hitable, or Fed would be able to place the ball well.

So depending on the scenario pros can either win or lose second serve points.

Same can go for every other player ranging from 1.0-5.5ntrp. Not all of us in this level will play centre stage, have big crowds, or have the opponent know our weaknesses. We can say that a 4.0 player plays a regular pickup match for fun, hardcourt, only between him and his oppenent are present there at the moment so no one watching. As in this scenario the percentages will probably be different if the same people were playing in centre court of any tournament, crowds, and something on the line like atp points to advance. The regular pickup match with no one there and nothing on the line will allow both players to execute more sucessful second serves which like in Murray's case give the oher oppenent fewer options to do with the ball.

In conclusion different scenarios will affect how each and every player will play second serve points and even every other points. Our general states the ball coming back from the second serve is harder to hit than the second serve itself but added with different scenarios and factors like fear and pressure can make it even more harder. This rule can apply from a player thats a 1.0 all the way to world class player making it a universal answer that every player will have different scenarios they have to play in. Most of all fear and pressure can be a common way to lose points applying to mostly every tennis player including world class. Thanks!

Roger won the higher serve percentage because Andy is not as effective with his return. Compare how many aces Roger had to Andy and how many netted or out returns Andy had to Roger. Although he apparently could not tell from Roger's toss where serve would go I thought Andy could have done better had he moved left or right just as Roger served instead of waiting. That way he had a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

The reason is very simple. When facing second serves, Federer has a better chance of getting a rally started.

From then on, and because of his superior skills and much better groundstrokes, shotmaking ability and confidence level than most players, he turns defense onto offense, dominating the competition and winning more points, particularly when he keeps his percentage of unforced errors at bay

I think that the pressure of getting the second serve in gives the opponent a better look of what your second serve looks like. Because you are focusing just on getting the serve, if you get an attacking return you will not be able to do a good rally, and eventually the opponent will win the rally. In other words, your second serve is easy to predict or to read, the return will be tough to receive and eventually you'll lose the rally.

1) A big thing is variety. Besides placement which you already said, there is also the type of serve being hit. From what I know about Roddick his second serve is pretty much always top spin. Which means Federer knows where its going to be placed and how the ball is going to behave. Seeing as most people just try and hit the second serve in they fall back into their comfort zone which usually stays the same. Going off your numbers, Federer on the other hand has a bit of variety to his second serve, its not as black and white as Roddick's. Therefore Federer's second serve is still putting pressure on Roddick

2) Another part linked to the first one is the mental aspect of the game. Federer was completely ready for Roddick's second serve because Roddick's serve does not have a lot of variety in placemetn or spin. Meaning that Federer probably positions himself better and is more confident in his return. Also when a player knows they don't have a very good second serve it also effects the ralley, they are more nervous and tight. It gives the returner a huge mental edge because it already stimulates a large amount of pressure on the server.

3) Something else I think should be accounted for is the difference in the two serves. Seeing as players usually hit a much faster first serve the returner would be more accustomed to a faster serve, meaning the second serve appears a lot easier to hit, especially when it has little to no variety in it.

4) Finally a major factor is double faulting. When a player tried to add a little more speed to the second serve and double faults, it usually causes them to be very conservative on their second serves for a long time, making it even easier for the returner to take advantage of it.

I think the reason a player loses more second serve points than first serve points is often more mental than mechanical. The player is more aggressive physically on the first serve, but he also has a more positive mental attitude.
On the first serve, we are all anticipating an ace or a ball that our opponent will have difficulty in returning. We have this attitude because we are taught to be that way and because we have the safety net of a second serve.
During a second serve, players change not only the physical characteristics of their serve, but there is also a very subtle attitude change as well. Even players with great confidence in the mechanics of their second serves, may still feel a little less confident about the second serve point and that loss of confidence can be just enough to hurt their play.
This attitudinal advantage also comes into play on the receivers side exaggerating the advantage. A player may have less confidence returning booming first serves, but may be much more confident about the prospects of success on the second.
This attitude is very apparent in club players who go from a booming first serve to a patty cake second. Now the pro's are not club players, but I think they may suffer a subtle loss of confidence, even sub consciously, in the same manner.
Andy showed great fight and determination, but Roger's terrific mental approach to the game give him an advantage on the second serve percentage. To me winning at that high level of play is all about the mental mechanics than the physical mechanics.

Roddick lost points on second serve, probably because of combination of these reasons:

1. He tried a bit too hard and thought Federer would be serving slowly, so he stands a good chance and tried a bit too hard (and therefore used more power) to win the point. But since Fedex is master of spin, Roddick's power play trick might have worked negatively for him.

2. Roddick anticipated that Federer would slow down his second serve and only concentrate on getting it right there. But since Federer's second serve ratio was higher than that of Roddick, therefore Federer send down more second serves and thus was able to improvise and hence failed Roddick.

3. Roddick was using bit too similar types of shots to counter Fedex's serves in the first set. Hence when Federer altered his second serve speed/placement, Roddick was not fully prepared for that and paid d price.

4. Federer has always had many second serves and is therefore adept at serving the second time. This might have come as a surprise to Roddick who would've been thinking of owning up the game when Fedex didn't get it right the first time.

Might me some more reasons but that's all I can think of as of now.

The reason more points are lost on second serves in my opinion is that the second serve is more predictable. Typically every second serve is a kick serve. The kick serve does not move faster through the court typically than a first serve. As the returner I have the advantage of putting the server on the defense by attacking and placing my return. Second serves for the most part put the server on the defense and the returner on the offensive. At the higher level if the player is controlling the point they typically come away with that point. Roddick is not the best at returning and turning the second serve into an offensive shot, whereas Federer is great at turning the second serve into a offensive shot to gain the control of the point. Throughout the match, the more second serves the returner sees, the more confident they get and eventually breaks of serve will come.

in addition to location and spin of the second serve another variable is the relative speed between the first and second serve. could roddick have tried to serve too agrressively with his second serve either with higher speed or location than fed in an attempt to offset fed's better return game. or was roddick's second serve much slower than first which allowed fed's return game to dominate. either way strategy was almost a winner for roddick but not quite.

I watched the final and felt that the Roddick's service games took longer duration than Federer's. See if there are statistics to support my observation.

This implies Federer managed to stay alive longer in Roddick's service game. By successfully returning more Roddick's serves, Federer neutralized the advantage of the server, mostly by his under spin backhand returns back to Roddick's backhand. Especially on Roddick's 2nd serves, Roddick's service advantage were gone and became rally points, which Federer is good at.

While Federer's 2nd serves were harder to return aggressively by Roddick, mainly because the heavier kicks and unreadable directions. Federer managed to control his service game with more advantage most of the time despite being broken more by Roddick.

Roddick's serves were more powerful, but readable / predictable and flatter. Bigger serves mean draining more energy in the long run. Especially in a 5 setter. The physical condition requirement is higher for Roddick.

Federer's serves were difficult to read / predict, the 2nd serves' kick/spin might also be heavier and difficult to return aggressively by Roddick.

Federer said he had been working hard to physically prepare for the long 5 setter matches. He managed to serve much more aces in the 5th set, which required outstanding mental strength and great physically condition, to keep oneself highly concentration in this 5th set service games besides luck. As you pointed out earlier, Roddick didn't even respond to Federer serves in the 5th set which became Fed's aces. Such slow reflex was the sign of Roddick tiring physically due to disadvantage of his bigger serve play style in a long 5 setter.

FYW,

Second Serve success is increased with a higher level of confidence. Most tennis players at all skill levels have a mind set to first - Get the ball in! Second - Try to make the returner be somewhat surprised & Third - Change up from what the first serve looked like to the returner. With the first serve there is usually one though process which is in fact a combination of several factor such as spot, pace, spin, direction but the several choices are usually encompassed into a single service choice for that serve. The second serve, however, changes the thought process. The server will, most ofter, attempt to creat a serve combination instantly and in doing so is creating a new pattern. It comes down to making a new serve on the fly instead of reaching into the bag and pulling out an already created service choice.

Why do we loose more second serves?
Points are won on offense. Now of course this is just an analogy, each player can win points with defensive as well as offensive shots, each player can assume offensive and defensive positions on the court, and each player will be in a defensive and offensive state of mind throughout each point. In general more points are won when they are hit from an offensive position on the court, the player is in an offensive mindset, and the player is hitting an offensive shot. A first serve is typically an offensive shot. When a server misses that first serve their second serve is usually a defensive shot. A defensive serve will have less pace and be placed in a more conservative location, middle of the service box. As soon as the serve is hit the server assumes a defensive position on the court knowing that the serve receiver is now on offence because they have not been pressed by the serve and will most likely be hitting an offensive return. On the second serve, in the servers mind, they now have a chance to loose this point. The server is assuming a defensive mindset. Likewise the service receiver knows they are on defense receiving the first serve and sees a chance to move to offense receiving and returning a second serve. Therefore on the second serve the serve receiver is typically going to step in a bit more on the return, hit the ball a little harder, and be a bit more aggressive on their placement. Knowing that the serve receiver is looking to assume an offensive state on the second serve a server can mitigate, or take some of the advantage away from the serve receiver by varying the second serve such as serving kick, slice, and flat serves at different times. The server can also assume an offensive position on the court after the serve looking to play the ball out of the air or on the rise. The server needs to maintain an offensive mindset, they still have a chance to hit a winner and win the point.
Why do we loose more second serves? Because we are making it too easy for our opponents to get on offence by not varying our second serves, we are conceding the court and moving to a defensive position after the serve expecting an offensive return, and we are assuming a defensive mindset before we have even played the point.

Well, if we leave out double foults as a major contribute (they would be on the club level), I would argue like this:

Besides pace and placement (which obviously have the major impact), there is a mental reason for the lesser winning percentage as both players know the serve has to be in (and will be in most of the time) and the serving player already missed one. This leads to more preparedness of the return player (subconsciously) as opposed to less agressive play of the player to serve. Also, the return player will know he is going to get a serve with less pace and more spin, being able to prepare for that serve coming - stepping up to the baseline for a more agressve return.

I think the main reason is psychological. (The fear of double faulting) The second serve will be safer and your opponent is going to attack a slow serve.  The server is playing safe and the reciever is playing aggressively

The reason for loosing the second serve, in my opinion, is the issue of mentality.
What I mean is that - for instance it's Andy to serve:
1)-He hits a powerful 1st serve, yet it's out
2)-The Federer's face is like it's been frozen (showing no emotions with his body or behaviour whatsoever)
3)-Andy hits 2nd serve;
Now, the 2nd might be in or out - that doesn't matter RIGHT NOW, what matters is the final effect of all this, i.e. the crucial and destrutive repetition of the first 2 points I wrote (take a look). First unknowingly, then more to be seen - it kills the players mentality. Ok, but Andy hasn't been crying out loud from brainpain - true. I thnik he couldn't overcome it, hid it inside himself, trying not to commit to it and let IT do its job (ruin the "run to rescue the 2nd serves point). As it's been mentioned - the second serve is slower (so the blowback is harder/more accurate/adjusted by the opponent to be troublesome for the server), it's placed in the placed you showed (just completing my answer); it is also mainly a kick-alike so higher bounce is easier to finish, the high ball bounce enables the opponent to hit a tight cross (plus it's more powerful as you are twisting the body and using the wrist more).
Now the thing is that a tight cross-return is a threat for the server so his mind is alarmed and swiches to thinking (or maybe 'watching at) about the cross tight return. This gives 2 advantages for the opponent: 1) mental adventage 2) the opportunity of hitting down the line and opening the rest of the court if the server manages to return. To all this we should still remember about the very first point I mentioned - mental destruction (especially when playing against Federer).
Now I just come up with another thing - when playing the second serve, the server wants to win it quickly (his mind says something like "you 're on the verge of loosing"-maybe not exactly that and not freely but it might be out there somewhere hiding in this form) - quickly - look at Andy his rallies are good but he looses most of them - the hit too nervously and wants to finish too quickly. That is olny my opinion. Of course he is a fantastic player. I really awe to everyone in the first 100ATP, but the first 10 are just astounding :) Cheers, hope you like it and sorry for some english mistakes, Peter.

1) Second serves are meant for placement. To get the placement, you spin the ball into the court. You tend to place the ball further away from the edge of the service box as you fear double faulting. Double faulting will cause you to lose mentality so players avoid placing the ball towards the edge of the service box. Since the balls are placed closer to the receiver than for the first serve, it is easier to strike the ball and thus losing more points.

2) Your 1st serve says alot of your second serve. Let say you were to do a spin serve out wide as your 1st serve after hitting a few 1st serves down the line. Missing it pretty much garentees that your opponent knows you wont do that for your 2nd serve. This eliminates alot of ground that he has to cover to hit back the 2nd serve. If you were to do a spin serve down the line from the AD court, it works the same way. Since your opponent has less ground to cover, it would be a easier return.

3) Your second serve usually goes to your opponent's weaker side. For example, Federer served 14 2nd serves to the backhand of Roddick from the deuce court, 14 to the body (which can be hit from both sides, depending if opponent were to run it down), and 7 to the forehand. So, obviously, Roddick has a weaker backhand than forehand. This makes it very very predictable for Roddick as he knows 4 in 5 second serves it would be hit to his backhand (body will be counted as backhand) and he can set up easily and prepare for a winner or angled shot. For the case of Roddick, he hit 1 2nd serve to the forehand of Federer on the deuce court out of a total of 36 2nd serves. Federer will hit a forehand less than 5% of the time, so he just has to run around his backhand and good luck to Roddick.

4) Second serves has obviously less power, but less varity. Though you can do Twist, Spin, Kick serve on the 2nd serve, you dont get to do a flat serve with the speed of your 1st serve. Using those 3 more general options, you would hit to the opponents weaker side and occasionally to the stronger side. These must be considered and the net, but not least. The net clearance level is lower towards the middle, which gives you a lower chance of double faulting. This causes people to hit to the body/down the line as a serve outwide has the highest chance of missing.

5) Lefty. If your opponent is lefty, which is not really often unless your Federer, your second serve must not be hit to the forehand or you will be getting hell. In a 4th round match at Wimbledon, Verdasco played Karlovic. Verdasco has a similar playing style as Nadal, but way weaker. Karlovic is a great server, which gives you a huge advantage on grass, won the match. What Karlovic did on the second serve on the ad court was to serve 0 second serves to the forehand. Logically, from my previous points, that is what you were to do. If Nadal was playing, he has a better return and would have won the match as he is faster and can run around his backhand.

6) Double Faults, 'nuff said.

IMO, Federer clearly has better backhand than Andy. Andy's majority of second serve went to Federer's backhand side which started backhand - backhand cross court rally to start the games. This clearly gave Federer advantage. This was also a huge difference for Federer when he played Nadal who hits lefty.

Andy occasionally hit his second serve to Federer's forehand side but Federer is a master of hitting high forehand therefore it didn't help Andy unless the placement was perfect.

Andy just wasn't as successful on the second serve. If you just look at the stats you could say he would have won 4 more point on his serve if he had been more aggressive on the second serve (ie served the second serve much the same as the first serve). In reality this would probably have reduced his over all serve percentage (just like a pitcher you have to mix things up).
From my seat in watching this match, it was not the serve that made the difference in who won the match. In the end it was just a little bit of luck. On this day these guys were both pretty much equal.
Cann't wait for the US Open.
Good Tennis!!!

I cant get my comment to post.

me neither!

1. I think that Federer has a better percentage on the second serve is because he seemed like after he hit a second serve that was a little bit less fast than the first one he was more aggressive to try and get to the ball than Roddick. Roddick had some shots that Federer was unable to get some times, so he has a lower percentage because he was only able to do it a few times.

2. Also on the second serves they both had to focus pretty hard to make sure that they hit the ball in, so they did not give the other person a point, and there were probably distractions that each of them had; Roddick more than Federer.

3. In addition, by the time Roddick, and Federer got to there second serves, it shows us that Federer had figured out where to place the ball on Roddick, so he was unable to get it, and Roddick didn't do that as much.

4. Plus, because it is a second serve the person that is receiving the ball may expect the ball to be slower or have a different spin on it, and Federer, from the stats seemed like he was able to do that.

5. Finally, while Roddick and Federer were rallying a second serve it could have been a break point where one of them was trying to make sure that the ball didn't go out or in the net, which took a lot of concentration and skill.

This is why Federer had a better second serve than Roddick.

1. I think that Roger Federer mixes his serves up really well and contrary to what people think that " Roger couldn't read Andy's serve for most of the game", what i saw is that Andy's pace on the serve was just a bit too much for Roger to handle (pace with direction / hitting the corners, is what Andy did really well through the whole match).

2. The above being said. I think the match was so close that you couldn't pick an outright winner and the only thing i think that seperated the two players was that Roger maintained his cool when things weren't exactly going his way and on the crucial points and Andy' chocked those points and double faulted to ease the pressure off Roger. It was unforced errors at crucial moments of the match that cost Andy the crown.

On the 1st serve return, at the pro level, almost all returns go deep and down the middle. The purpose of this return is to neutralize the first serve, and start the point.
ON THE SECOND SERVE RETURN, THE RETURNER CAN TAKE AWAY TIME AND SPACE FROM THE SERVER. The returner can either move in and chip and charge, or hit an aggressive on the rise, or step back and hit a high heavy ball or a low heavy ball, to take away time and space. The returner can also alter his starting position to get more forehands, which can can either be hit inside out, or down the line. The end result is the returner is able to take away time and space form the server easier on the second serve.

I think it's a question of attitude:

When you hit a first serve your in an attacking frame of mind. So apart from the fact that the quality of your serve is better, your also looking for the winner much more than on your second serve. On the second serve your looking for the rally, where, most of the time, the chances are fifty-fifty.

After viewing your math concerning the serve stats, does it beg the question why doesn't Roddick just serve his first serve on both serves? He only won 13 points serving 44% with his second serve in your example, while if he had served his second serve using his first serve and still hit 70% in (as he did in his first serve) and won 30 percent of those second serves (again based on your 100 point example) he would have won 21 points on his second serve.

Hello,

Here is what I think the reasons for loosing more points on second serve is.

No 1 - Well this one is obvious. Pressure. The player knows he cannot afford to loose the point. He concentrates on the serve, not the point. Instead of thinking about strategy he is concentrating on getting that serve in.

No 2 - Everybody knows that the returning player takes few steps forward when returning the second serve. This gives the returning player more open view of the court and more possibilities for angles. When returning first serve especially against a good server many players just try to return the ball into the oposite court. Against a second serve howerver, they can deploy their own tactics. A player can choose where to return the ball and he dictates the way the point will be played. There is a choice between topspin shot, slice, an extreme angle, a drop shot, deep loopy return (this one is effective because the server has taken at least one large step into the court).
Another advantage of stepping forward is that you have less ground to protect. If we imagine a triangle that the server and the two most extreme serves on the side return then the returner sits on one side of the triangle that is opposite to the server. The closer the returner is to the server the shorter his side of the triangle would be thus protecting less ground.

No 3 - Third reason agains lays in the hands of the returner. He knows he has bigger chanse and prepares better. Especially in Roddick's case he looked like he didn't try to return some of Federer's 50 aces. He lacked motivation knowing that even if he returned the serve most likely the point will go to Federer anyway. On the second serve he was being more agressive and thus more successful.

No 4 - From the server's point of view it is also easier to play the second shot of the ralley when getting the first serve in. Even if the ball is returned it is usually slower and placed in the middle of the court. So the server has options to attack with his second shot from the baseline, play a volley or if the return allows it to play an aproach shot. Also often the returner just places the racquet and this gives not very well placed loopy return easier to get around and hit a forehand no matter where the ball is going.

No 5 - Another reason is that the server has less variety at his disposal. When hitting his first serve he can go for the lines or for the body, can choose between flat, kick and slice. On the second serve he just has to get the ball in and that is the goal. Not winning the point but getting the serve in. Only after the serve this goal changes. In a sense the server turns from agressor to somebody looking to stay in the point.

No 5 - Another part of the player's midset is that he knows he is supposed to win more points on first serve. This gives the feeling that winning the point on second serve is not mandatory. After all he will get to serve a first one after it.

I think players lose more points on the second serve because they allow the returner to make an attacking shot which reduces their chance of winning the point. Also, the returner has a higher chance of returning the shot, which forces the server to go for another shot. This causes the point to be longer, and as more shots are played, both players have an equal chance of winning the point. The player who can last the longest in rallies usually win, and in this case it is Federer. When a player serves a first serve, it is usually unreturnable and therefore they score free points, but they have to work much harder to score a point on their second serve. Players usually stand closer or in the baseline during a second serve, and therefore they return aggressively and attack, while during a first serve they stand far from the baseline and return a nothing ball which allows the server to attack and be in control of the point.

Players play safely during their second serve, but if there is no risk, there is no gain. They might also expect too much from the return and therefore go for too much.

If the statistics given by a previous responder (Charlzz July 29, 2009 at 8:22 pm) are accurate, then Federer's second serve was hit most often to Roddicks backhand.
Roddick has a two-hand backhand. I think it is more difficult for Roddick to generate much power and placement when he has to return a kick serve or slice to his backhand. Federer also had to return more second serves to his backhand but Federer has a one-hand backhand return. I think Federer is better able to return a kick serve or slice serve to his backhand because of his one-hand backhand.

One reason Federer had a higher percentage on his second serve vs. Roddick is because Federer's second serve is harder to predict. His serve doesn't allow Roddick to get a jump on the serve and be aggressive.

Another reason why Federer wins more of his 2nd serve points can be seen by eliminating first serves for both placers and looking at the rest of their games. Federer's overall ability and weapons are greater than Roddick's. This can be seen in how Federer gets on the offensive on Roddick's 2nd serve points and how deep rallys tend to be in Roger's favor.

A third reason relates to the strategy of each player. Roddick should have served more to Roger's backhand, which is less likely to be an aggressive shot right off the return. Nadal placed his serve to Roger's backhand more and was able to get in the point better and win more 2nd serve points.

Ron's comment is correct, and its rationale comprised Sampras' service strategy for much of his later career. By essentially hitting only first serves, you will collect more double faults but the points lost on them will be balanced by higher winning percentages on the second serve. If the difference between the first and second serve is not so exaggerated, the server's chance of winning the point is higher a priori.

The reason for this, which is the reason why second serve percentages are lower generally, involves what the player reacting to the serve can reasonably assume. In chess, white starts with an advantage not only because it moves first and thus gains a tempo over black, which must respond to as well as neutralize white's gain, but also because, by moving first, white imposes the constraints on play and thus limits the opponent's options: white sets the terms from which, logically, only certain predictable patterns will emerge. The key to white's advantage, though, is that only white knows which patterns are possible BEFORE play begins. The more possibilities white has to choose from, the greater the burden black must bear and therefore the more disadvantaged he becomes.

Tennis is no different. The server, on first or second serve, gains an immediate advantage by dictating not only where and at what speed play begins but also how it begins. This "how" is the key to the different percentages of the first and second serves. The more information (i.e. the greater number of variations or permutations in a sequence) a receiver is expected to compute, the more physical and emotional stress he feels. This nebulous, nervous energy he experiences while awaiting and responding to the first serve can distract him, cause him to lose his concentration, disrupt the timing of his swing, vary his contact point, and interfere with his overall ability to strike the ball cleanly. Because the average server has more options on his first serve, the receiver must accommodate more information--more possible patterns and thus a higher tax on his mental and physical powers. The effect gives an advantage to the one who knows the secret (the server), not to the one who must guess at it.

Moreover, speed and placement are not necessarily the only, or even the most important, factors. How many times have we seen a player shank a return off a fairly slow ball struck with little slice or kick? In such situations, the receiver doesn't miss the ball because it moves too quickly or bounces out of his reach or drags him off the court; quite the opposite, his expectation led him to believe that only certain possibilities existed. When the serve introduced new information--an existent slow second serve--his mind went white, his instinct faltered, and he lost his rhythm. The consequence? An unforced error. Not because of pace or placement, or aggression or stance behind or on the baseline, but because he suddenly had to think about something he hadn't considered: new and necessary information confused him, and he lost because what he expected did not correspond to what he experienced.

Generally, players accept that a second serve presents fewer options than a first serve--it is slower with more kick and less of an angle--and that reduction in the expectation of the receiver makes his job much easier: it allows him to deal with less information. It is not the slower pace or wider margin on serve that makes the return more aggressive; rather, it is the returner's assumption, usually confirmed by the server's more practical and modest effort, that the second serve will not make him think too much. This relationship between expectation or assumption and actual advantage makes all the difference between a first and second serve and is itself the reason why more players win more points on the first rather than the second serve: they voluntarily restrict the amount of information the returner must parse. Strategic second serves, on average, retain a significant part of the server's advantage even if played slower and more conservatively because with uncertainty comes power. The more the server makes the returner assume about what is going to happen, the greater his chances of inducing an error, forced or otherwise.

Bottom line: Too many servers, preoccupied with safety on the second serve, abandon its strategic value which depends entirely on uncertainty. With loss of variation comes a gain in certainty, and the server's advantage erodes. When players serve bolder on their second serves, as Sampras did--not necessarily faster or closer to the lines, although those definitely help--they find holding serve overall easier, despite double faults. We all know the strain that comes from having to expect anything. We get tense, lose focus, and over- or underhit. We get tired. Our bodies and our brains get fuzzy. The weight of expectation blunts us, making our edges less dangerous, our shapes less threatening. With a first serve, we have to assume it can go anywhere with any spin at any speed. And while these factors go make the serve harder to return, the fact that it CAN go anywhere with any spin at any speed makes it far more difficult. With a second serve, most of us assume it will be slower with more topspin toward the center. We expect a lot less. We loosen up. We hit return winners. More often than not, we win these points because we make assumptions with less information, relaxing us, freeing us from the anxiety of intelligence. It's a gift from the server. It's called a second serve.

Apologies for the length.

Nick

I'll admit to not having read all of the responses, but I agree with many I have read. I'll go one further -- Although Roddick's first serve is faster than Federer's and everyone else in the game, Roger's second serve is as varied as his first, albeit with a little less power. Pancho Gonzalez used to say that he never hit second serves, but rather had two chances to hit a first serve. Except for pace, I believe this to be true of Federer as well. His second serve is not predictable and his opponents have a more difficult time jumping on it and taking control of the point. Roddick on the other hand is much more predictable and conservative wiht his second serve, which allowed Federer to play aggressively in the 5th set on his return. I will also agree that the rest of Federer's game does not break down as easily. In short, he's just a better player than Roddick after the serve. Both players have issues with their backhands. Roddick hit some of the best backhands of his life throughout most of the match, but in the 5th it began to let him down. Federer on the other hand had to play defensively on his backhand throughout a lot of the match. By the 5th set, he was reading Roddick's second serve better and was able to be more offensive on both sides.

I belive the reasoning behind this is psychological, when facing a first delivery its a tennis players instinct to look to just return the ball whereas on the second delivery you look to do more as a returner, so i feel when roddick was facing an important point on his serve he would aim to play the second serve for his 1st serve to increase the chances of him making that play giving him the advantage in the rally and allowing him to start out ahead on those important point helping him to defend his own serve. Roddick is also aware that giving his 1st serve at full speed will allow federer to find a rhythm and use the pace against him whereas if he is mixing it up on the big points he will keep federer guessing leading to errors on return.

k, My guess is that during a second serve the opponent gets a much bigger variety of shots to hit for example he could hit the ball in the right or the left corner could give a short ball right up against the net etc., because of the fact is that most commonly the server wont risk giving the opponent any free points by hitting it harder and will hit it rather safer, so my awnser simply is that the returner gets a much bigger variety in returning a second serve than a first serve.

sorry forgot to add this one small detail. And since the returner has a much bigger variety on the second serve returning the server has to cover up a much bigger part of the court than he would after a first serve.
By the way is this question only about the advanced or pro level of play or is it also about intermediates and club level of players?cause other wise my awnser has a high precentage of being wrong.

I believe was in a better position ti win the point on Roddick's second serve by moving up to the baseline. This helps Federer 1st of all by having more power on his return especially since the second serve is usually slower than the first serve. Additionally, Federer is creating a better chance of wininng the point by cutting down the angle on a potential return by Roddick by moving closer to the net, reducing Roddick's chance of a passing shot winnner!

Hi Will. Why do we loose more points behind a second serve ?

If we forget the fact that the second serve is less fast and in a less problematic location on the service box for the server than a first serve, I can see two things :

- The first one, related to the fact that the second serve is easier to return, is that the returner is more likely stepping inside the court when returning and doing so, it's easier for him to produce a long and effective return and to be able to take the control of the point at the very begining of the point. At the contrary, with a first serve the server takes the control of the point because of the less quality of the returned ball hitted behind the base line by the returner.

- The second one, already mentioned, is that the server is in a more defensive attitude in his mind when serving a second serve because of the fear of the double fault, when at the contrary the returner is stepping inside the court, getting in a more agressive attitude. This increases the probability of the returner to take the control of the point.

In conclusion, the one of the two players, at the same play level, who takes the control of the point, is the one who has the better chances to win it if he plays relaxed and keeps himself in a good and positive mental attitude, even if the other player is also playing well with a good mental attitude, just because of the fact the latter must run after the ball to return it while the former is deciding of the phisionomy of the point. Since behind a first serve you keep the control of the point, and behind a second serve you let it to your opponent, it's natural to win less points behind a second serve rather than a first serve.

I think the reason is because because of the fear of the double fault and due to that it cause the player to not properly hit a good kick serve and instead they turn the body in to early which turns into a topspin serve which cause a good bounce for the returner to pounce on.
If you have notice many players even the pros just topspin their seconds in because the turn their bodies in the court too early which as i said turns into a topspin serve, but don't get me wrong it is a good thing, high percentage and does force the player to move back due to the high bounce but if you are a good returner like federer or the likes of hewitt nalbandian, simon and etc the will move inside the baseline and take that high bounce from the topspin serve and it aggresssively down into the court and since the ball jumps up nicely for the returner all they have to do is hit it down either a angle or a hard return. Now if a player hit a kick serve for a first that will be different compared to when they hit a kick for the second. If its a first the player will have to fear of losing the point so in this case the player will attempt to with more height which results in more kick tha CHANGES DIRECTION but if a player hits a kick on the second they always and i mean always turn the body into the court way too early which it either turns it to a topspin or slice serve which makes it easier for the retuner to be more aggressive. Now the reason why i think federer won so many points on roddick's second serve is beacuse of federer's backhand slice. Roddick does have good pace on his second and it does jumps from the spin but the ball never changes direction as it jumps and since roddick's second just jumps straight up all federer has to do is slice it down and this is a HUGE advantage for federer because even if he does drop the alice return short for roddick the ball stays low and it cause roddick to run and forces him to make an approach. The ball is low, roddick has to advance up net to make a good approach if he wants to win the point but what roddick tends to do is power the shot to win the point with topspin now if he does that the balls going to end up with more spin that his depth and pace put together and it leaves federer in a good position to make the lob or the passing shot beacuse the ball is short and also with that decent pace that roddick puts on the attempt aprroach he can hit the passing shot with less effort because he feeds off that pace.

Interesting question. As you have eliminated two of the greatest reasons for the server winning more first serve points than second serve - power and accuracy - I will put forward what I think is another one of the biggest reasons - the aggression and mindset of the returner.

What I mean by this is that, when receiving a first serve (particularly at male professional level), the returner will stand one or two yards behind the baseline to give himself more reaction time. This means that, even if he does get his racquet on the ball and return it, it is very often going to be a defensive block shot and not a shot which gives the returner the dominant position in the rally. A good first serve - in my opinion - is not just one which is not returned but also a one which allows an easy put away on the servers second shot or gives the server the dominant, aggressive position in the rally.

When receiving a second serve though, the fact that the serve will (usually) not have as much power as the first means that the returner will almost always move in a yard or two, meaning they are standing on (or even inside) the baseline. The different positioning means the returner is capable of creating wider angles on his return and therefore taking the initiative immediately - something which is more difficult to do with a first serve. This more aggressive tactic also involves the returner taking a greater swing at the ball rather than 'blocking' the ball back, therefore generating more power. This, coupled with the fact the returner can create greater angles, means we are more likely to see a winner (or stroke which puts the returner in the dominant position) from a second serve than a first. If the returner approached a second serve in exactly the same way as the first (in terms of positioning and shot selection) then I believe that the point-winning percentage on first and second serve would not have such a big difference.

The above point is a very general one which obviously does not apply every time across the board. For example, looking at your case study (Roger Federer v Andy Roddick), an important reason for Federer's greater point winning percentage on second serve is the fact he has the greater groundstrokes of the two players. Whilst Roddick is clearly more than capable from the baseline, I do not believe that even the most ardent Roddick fan (which I consider myself to be) would expect Roddick to win the majority of rallies which went beyond 5-6 shots. As it is easier to get a second serve back into play (due to the points mentioned above) there will be a greater number of long rallies ensue from a second serve than first serve.

-John

I think that one common reason people loose more points on there second serve is that they don't have that much variation on them which of course make it a lot easier for the oponent to predict how to return and take control over the point.
Of course there are exceptions (like Federer) who have a great variation also on the second serve but the majority of the players will hit always go for a kick serve in placed in one out of two locations ...

Hi Will,
Here's my humble two-bits worth...
Typically receivers on second serves stand a lot closer to the baseline and often times even make contact with the ball inside the court - hitting the ball before it has reached the top of the rise, or soon thereafter. This immediately puts pressure on the server as the ball is back on them quickly and the receiver has established an aggressive position inside the baseline allowing them to dictate the point. In the modern game where virtually no player serves and volleys on second serves any more, the server is usually transferring their weight backwards after the service action to a position on the baseline. This also works to the receivers advantage on second serves, because while the receiver is stepping into the court aggressively, the server is back-pedalling to the baseline in a defensive posture.

I think the key difference with a second serve is that the receiver has more reaction time and can actually "see" the bounce of the ball before he has to commit to his return swing.
Broadly speaking, on a serve, for the first 0.15 seconds of the ball’s trajectory, the returner does not follow the ball with his eyes. The eyes are stationary, fixed on the point of service contact, and the ball moves down through the field of vision.
The next step is a saccade – the eyes move very rapidly to the point on the court where the returner thinks the ball will bounce. There they wait until the ball arrives.
After the ball bounces, the returner tracks the ball for the next 0.1-0.2 seconds, but not necessarily all the way onto the racket. The reason for this is quite simple:- it takes a top player 0.2 seconds to adjust his shot on the basis of new information. Thus, the information gained by watching the ball in the last 0.2 seconds of its flight is useless – there isn’t enough time to incorporate that information into the return swing.
The big difference therefore is:- on a first serve the bounce of the ball takes place within that final 0.2 seconds of the ball’s trajectory, so the returner doesn’t have time to incorporate information from the bounce and placement into his return swing; but on a second serve, the ball bounces before the final 0.2 seconds’ cut-off period, this data can be factored into the return, and the return is therefore “better”.

I believe it's easier to win the "not-big" points than it is to win the "big" points. (i.e. It's easier to win the final point when you're up 40-0 than it is when you've reached deuce due to the will of your receiving opponent, and this is especially true when serving against Roddick who more than most is not looking to fight back from several game points down unless you start giving him points, which Federer does not do.)
With that being said, Federer got to cruise through more service games than Roddick. (Precisely because a sometimes futile Roddick is on the other side of the net during Federer's serve, and because the tenacious Federer is on the other side of the net during Roddick's services.)
Federer played steady throughout, winning some he earned and some he was given, while Roddick had some highs and lows, winning some great ones during his highs, but it was his final low that decided the whole match.

I think the reason that pros usually lose a higher percentage of second serve points has more to do with mentality than game play. Losing the first serve is detrimental to everyone, as the opponent has an advantage: a slower, well placed ball that most of the time bounces right to about the desired hitting level. The server, of course, realizes this and is most of the time caught off guard by the server's return since they may be still contemplating about the misplaced first serve. A guy like Roddick gets most of his first serve in, but when he does miss his first serve, he always scrutinizes himself for missing it. So when a guy like Federer senses Roddick's lowering self-esteem, he takes advantage of that and wins the point.

I think the reason Roddick lost more points on his second serve is not what he did with his second serve but how Federer returned it, Federer mainly just tried to get the ball back in play and not do to much with it on the first serve, but on Roddicks second serve, Federer can think about placement and can stop Roddick controlling the point. I think this is a vital point because, as the statistics show for Roddick to win the point he needed to control it from the start, as in a rally he was just not good enough to beat Federer, that is why the second serve percentage of points won was almost half of what is was on the first. On Federer's serve, as Will Hamilton, say in a previous video it was Roddick's return what let him down and I agree if Roddick would adjust more to Federer's serve or do more with it, he may have had a shot at the title. Sorry if my grammar is poor I had to write this in a rush.

Martin, age 14 England

Hey Coach!

In the case of Federer vs. Roddick, I don't think it really matters. Games are won by winning 4 points by a margin of 2. Your analysis shows that Roger wins most of his serve games by shutout, or by giving up one point. It also shows that Andy wins his games by shutout, or by giving up one or even two points.

So if Andy wins 3 first serves, loses a first serve, (75%) loses a second serve, and wins a second serve, (50%) he wins the game. It doesn't even matter what order these events occur. The percentages are all that matters. Roger has the same deal going, his game wins overall are slightly more dominant. Luck of the draw gives Andy the upper hand in breaking serve (Rogers' actual 1st/2nd server percentage was probably a little higher than your calculations, except for the two games he lost serve, where the stats for those two games were clearly dismal), but the results of games are consistent with the first and second serve percentages overall.

Why are you going to lose more points on second serve? I say it doesn't make any difference when you're serving at this level - you are just going to win games. Let's say you lose 35% of your second serve points on placement. Another 35% on speed. The other 30% might be on your opponent reading your second serve, and he knows what's coming and exactly how to hit and win that point. But ultimately it doesn't make a whit's bit of difference, because even with Andy's lower percentages, he's going to win pretty much every game he serves, even he gives up two to three service points in a game. And he's going to lose pretty much every game he receives because of Roger's service percentages. Only a couple of fluke games will go the other way, which is exactly what happened. These guys know how to keep their eyes on the prize, which is why they don't get rattled if they win 40-30 instead of 40-love.

Now, if only I could ratchet my first serve percentages up that high.

Tx,

George

Most professional player just block back the first serve and they start the point on the defensive side and hopeing to return the ball deep enough to get back into a neutral position in the point.

Once the second serve comes at them, they start the point on the offensive side. By the second serve they usually take a full swing at the ball and the ball has to be hit as a defensive shot for the server. At this point the server is trying to get into a neutral position in the point.

I haven't read the other posts, but here is my answer:

The typical second serve is of such a nature that the returner can move in closer to the baseline (or even within the baseline) and still get a good strike at the ball. The returner's closer position opens up more angles for the return, makes short chip shots easier to execute, and gives the server less time to react. The result is that after his second serve, the server frequently loses the offensive advantage; the point can often be neutralized or the server can immediately be put in a somewhat defensive position. Because the server's offense can more easily be immediately broken down, he will typically not win as many points on his second serve.--In short, the second serve allows for more aggressive positioning on the return, which contributes to a number of factors that can more easily neutralize the offence of the server.

As an aside -- Applied to the Federer/Roddick match, Federer in general is notoriously good at stepping in and taking the ball early; Roddick isn't. Patrick McEnroe even said that Roddick prefers to play further behind the baseline and let the ball sit up. Federer, of course, plays with more conservative grips that make it easier to take the ball on the rise, while Roddick's Western forehand grip generally makes it difficult. So it could be that Roddick isn't as adept at positioning himself more aggressively on the second serve, and hence loses the neutralizing advantages of such positioning and doesn't win as many second serve points.

Well the reason is ... If you look at the sun... Roddick was staring right into it on his second serve because his second serve wasn't tossed in the same spot as his first... this partially blinded him giving Fed. The upper hand! He was seeing black for that split second. That's always hard to recover from. That's why Fed. Had the Edge!

Based on the statistics presented, if Roddick hit all first serves (e.g used his first serve as a second serve), he would win more points on his serve. If he served 70%. that would mean given 2 chances to get in a first serve, he would have a 91% chance of getting it in. (100% - (.3x.3)). .3 reprsents 30% of the time he misses.

So if he wins 83% of 91%, he would win over 75 points on his serve (.83 x .91). 75+ points is better than the 71 points he would actuall win by hitting second serves. So why not hit all first serves?

The assumption hidden is that he can serve 2x number of first serves at the same % (and win the % of them). I doubt he can do that beyond 2 or 3 sets.

Great point Ron. Thanks for the post!

Hi Ron/Will

Why do you think the main reason behind players not hitting an all first serve game is? I mentioned earlier that Roddick would only need to hit his "second serve" (at first serve speed and placement) at above 53% in to show a higher points return than he managed in the final.

P is the percentage of first serves in
0.83 = win percentage on those serves
0.45 = Percentage of points Roddick was winning
P x 0.83 = 0.44
so P = 0.44/0.83 = 0.53

Anything greater than that would give a positve return on his current game! Not to mention the added "fear" players would have of staring down the barrel of 130+ serves on both occasions!
I know at lower levels the first serve isnt the huge advantage it is towards the pro level and the percentages of first sreves in drops as well, so for club level maybe it wouldnt be as effective, but for players with a high enough percentage do you think it would it be a worth-while tactic?

So what is the reason players like Roddick don't hit an all first service game? Does it wear them down. I would think the racquet speed is just as fast no second serves as first serves but just a different toss and motion, so I am not sure what the reason would be not to attempt all first serves, if you can serve at that level. I think Roddick is serving over 70% for the entire season. I am not sure what his % of points won on first serves are for the season though. I assume it was higher at Wimbledon because of the grass surface.

Ron, even on the professional level, psychology plays a roll. The pressure of facing a double fault would likely lower Roddick's "first serve" percentage if he was trying them on the second serve.

Key to the return game to me is "Position/Spot of where the two players are starting the point". Let me explain this further.

Before that, all the things people have mentioned are important, being agressive, attacking rather than defense, etc. But these are dependant on the type of player. SOme players play more agressive than others, some plays defense. The only thing that DOES NOT change or that is consistent with almost ALL the players are is 'where the player serves and where the player returns.'

We all know where the server serves in deuce and ad court. Same thing for where the returner usually returns. So, let me get into the details why I think this is THE REASON why 2nd serve vs 1st serve makes huge difference and why returner usually wins more points during 2nd serve.

Since we know that the toughest shots are the off balanced shots, we can agree that you are in advantage when you force your opponent to hit more off balance shot.
So, let's start with 1st serve situtation.
1st Serve:
Serve has the choice to hit away, down the middle or into the body of the returner. All of these returns usually end up in the middle of the court (or not on the court), which helps the server to hit winners right afterwards or start making the returner to hit off balance shots by running. We know that server definitely will have an advantage in this caes. The key point is that server didn't really have to move to hit the next ball and returner is already in a bad position for the next shots.

2nd Serve
Server are NOT allowed to pass the middle of the court when serving as we all know. This doesn't matter whether it is in deuce or ad court.. as we all know already. Now, returner however can stand anywhere on the court but we also know that they usually stand by the corner of the baseline to receive the serve.
So, when returner returns the serve, he/she has many options to return the ball: Down the line, cross court, or right into the server's body area. Doesn't this sound familiar? These are similar options that the server has during 1st serve. Therefore, returner is actually serving(returning) the ball to the server who is now a returner.

This is only possible because server is allowed to serve nowhere past the middle of the baseline making the returner to 'serve' back anywhere on the court he/she chooses to ask if he/she is serving 1st serve to the opponent.

In summary, my theory is the positioning of the players. Everything else is really just the variety of individual player's skill sets. Of course, statistics will change based on player's skill level. However, in a professional level where most players can attack when they are in 'balanced' mode, the #1 reason why returner has the advance in 2nd serve points is the "positioning that the players are placed to begin the points".

-Kevin Hong

Why do you lose more points on a second serve than on a first serve?

Well on a first serve the opponent is just looking to get the ball back into play. He knows that the serve might be coming reletively hard or fast, so he just wants to get the rally started. A decent crosscourt topspin return will be satisfying enough.

On a SECOND SERVE however, the opponents mindset changes. Instead of just trying to get the ball "into play", he knows that the serve will be slower. The opponent knows that this can be a chance for him to attack and from the start of the point will take an offensive shot off of a second serve.

Basically, on a first serve, receiver returns defensively
and on s second serve, the receiver returns offensively which will put him in better positions to win the point!

Why "do you lose more second service points than you do on the first serve."

When we are all watching tennis on television, the most common statistic we hear commentators mention during the course of a match is first-serve percentage: how many first serves a player connects on. The recent match between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick parallels the Australian Open match between Mats Wilander and Pat Cash in 1988. Mats Wilander, successfully put into play 77 percent of his first serves, compared with just 61 percent for his opponent, Pat Cash. Yet, Wilander won by only the slimmest of margins, much like Federer, 8-6 in the fifth set, with both players holding second serve percentages very closely related to those of Federer and Roddick.

Judging by these numbers, it is clear that both percentages are important, and positively correlate to victory in most cases. But why are second serve percentages of even the greatest champions much lower then their first serve percentages?

The primary response to a question of this complexity lies in the hardened psychological cognizance of professional tennis athletes. The receiver is in a defensive mind-set on your first serve, and by making a lot of first serves, you keep him on the defensive. If you miss a first serve, the receiver is going to be licking his chops. Tennis being one of the last gladiatorial-type sports is indeed a game of opportunity, and the second serve presents such an occasion. The returner can move closer to the baseline, if not beyond it, and take away valuable reaction time from his opponent attempting traditionally low-percentage shots with an increased confidence. If you have seen the motion picture "300" you will no doubt remember the words "Give him nothing, but take from him everything" muttered by Leonidas (The gladiator motif again eh?) and I believe this is exactly what the second-serve calls for. The aforementioned psychology is a very plausible explanation for the lowering of second-serve percentages.

Second, let's view this second serve percentage in the environment of court positioning. A second serve presents the receiver with an opportunity to even up the battle for court position immediately. The server's supposed to have the offense at the start of the point but, if the receiver can make the server step back two or three steps after his serve, he's equaled everything, if not put him or herself at an advantage however slight it may be. If you are a serve and volley type, this is a nightmare made reality, but even if you consider yourself a baseliner you have allowed your opponent to enter into competitive rally, which on some occasions (facing Roger Federer for instance) is not in your best interest.

Third, let's examine the idea of forced errors which can be attributed to the second serve. Execution errors which occur when a player’s swinging skills break down, due to a list of reasons including seeing, movement, adjusting, rotation, and transfer skills which are all called upon harshly during a second serve, and if not performed acceptably will lead to a lost point. Aggressive errors can occur when you simply tried to do too much. This can occur frequently during big points in which your second serve can be the deciding factor of a game, set, or match. Strategic errors can occur during a long match in which fatigue begins to set it. These errors are bad choices you make that play into an opponent’s strengths rather than weaknesses. Say you’re attempting to get to the net as often as possible, and you tweak a second serve to play to this advantage, but your opponent is a very good counterpuncher who really enjoys playing against an attacker. Oops.

It's hard to argue against wisely played percentage tennis, and I believe that each of the aforementioned reasons play a big part in second serve percentage errors. By knowing which of these weaknesses are present in your game, you can begin to build confidence in areas where doubt prevailed, and drastically increase self-confidence in your game when match time rolls around.

I dunno where your 72 comments are because I only see 54 comments.

You asked why players win more points on the first serves than the second serves. I assume you are referring to professional players.

There are several things that happen on second serves. Most male pros hit a kick second serve. This gives a safety margin over the net, and the ball is high enough that it can't be easily attacked. Most pros have to play this ball near shoulder height unless they get in close to the net.

However, because most of the energy is being applied to spinning the serve, rather than in pure speed, it's easier to follow the ball.

Because of this, most pros generally aim the second serve to the backhand. The receiver has a more predictable response because of this.

Consider the Wimbledon final:
Andy Roddick 2nd serve
Deuce court: Forehand: 1 Middle: 21 Backhand:14
Ad court: Forehand: 4 Middle: 7 Backhand: 20

Andy mixed it up better in the deuce court, but actually he seems to play a lot of shots up the middle which might jam Federer if it were a first serve rather than a second.

Roger Federer 2nd serve
Deuce court: Forehand: 7 Middle: 14 Backhand:14
Ad court: Forehand: 6 Middle: 8 Backhand: 17

In the deuce court, Federer took more chances serving to the Roddick forehand, but still hit to the backhand at least twice as often. Much like Roddick, Federer also hit serves to the middle of the deuce court, but not so often to the middle of the ad court.

I was curious to see how lefty's would change serving patterns. I picked Verdasco (a lefty) against Montanes.

Fernando Verdasco 2nd serve
Deuce court: Forehand: 7 Middle: 1 Backhand:4
Ad court: Forehand: 2 Middle: 5 Backhand: 3

Alberto Montanes 2nd serve
Deuce court: Backhand: 18 Middle: 2 Forehand:6
Ad court: Backhand: 14 Middle: 0 Forehand: 7

You'll see Verdasco was willing to mix things up more often to Montanes. This was partly due to Verdasco hitting a whopping 76% first serves and partly because Verdasco must trust his second serve enough to hit it to a variety of spots. Montanes hit a ton of second serves and strongly favored hitting to Verdasco's backhand, which is normally a right-hander's forehand.

There are other reasons that second serves lose more points. Since the serve is weaker, the returner can move further in the court, increasing the angles to hit and allows a good returner to run around their backhand. Andy Murray, one of the top returners of the game, often takes a few steps before returning serve, hits his backhand much further into the court. This cuts down the time the server has to react and allows Murray to come to net, if need be. Finally, a server with a weaker second serve may back up on return while the returned may attack the return more, where a good first serve usually lets the server dictate points more.

My opinion for why the percentage of 1st serve points won is considerably greater than the percentage of 2nd serve points hinges on the mindsets of the server and returner.

On a first serve, the server will be more aggressive (with pace and placement) and the returner will generally try to return serve in a defensive manner -- if the serve isn't an ace -- by simply blocking it back. Thus the server will have the first real opportunity of the point to hit an aggressive shot.

On a second serve, the returner will step further into the court and potentially look to capitalize on a weaker 2nd serve. They may play the angles, try to hit the ball deep, or even go for a winner. The server often hits his second serve with the mindset that A. s/he must get the ball in play AND/OR B. s/he has to start the point from a defensive position. Hence on a point started with a second serve, the returner has the chance to hit the first truly aggressive shot.

This certainly isn't the only reason for the disparity of percentage of service points won, but in my opinion it's the greatest. Other factors come into play: players will generally take the second serve on the rise (especially if it's a kick serve), on a second serve the returner has more time to react than on the first serve and is less likely to be caught out of position, and servers will rarely serve and volley on a second serve.

The reason I think he loses more points is because on a second serve, it allows the opponent to actually start a rally in a neutral or aggressive way. Although Roddick played extremely well, he isn't as good as Federer in forehands, backhands, volleys, etc... Basically the points don't all come from the serves, but come from how well you play the game.

I think Roddick partly answered this question right on his press conference after the final match. He stated that Federer wasn't able to read his serve as he usually does and that was one of the reasons he was able to force Federer into the 5th set. However, while pressured, Andy didn't have the same variation on his 2nd serve and, thus, Federer was able to read it more easily and hit better returns.
Also, when Roddick hits his 1st serve, not only the serve is more difficult for Federer to read, but the return is easier for Roddick to predict where it's going, since Federer will be just trying to put the ball back into play.
Besides the fact of how well the players are able to predict where the ball is going, there's also the point that when a player hits a second serve, the returner usually has more tactical and technical options to put the ball into play and also, giving him the opportunity to be more agressive.
At last, there's also the mind factor that comes when you hit a second serve. The server feels more pressured to hit the ball in while the returner has less pressure on his shoulders, since he knows he'll possibly have a good chance to take control of the point right on the first ball. Instead of just trying to put ball into play, the returner will try to take control of the point right away and, since he knows that the possibility of the server hit an ace or a big serve is lower, there will be very little pressure involved.

Statement: You win more points off your 1st serve then off your 2nd serve.

1) Most of the time the returner is looking more towards returning the ball in on your 1st serve, and on your 2nd serve they look more towards actually doing something with the ball. Its what we all learned, it is planted in our brains. When we were just learning tennis the trainer would teach us to attack the 2nd serve, and since the 1st serve is coming much better and harder then the 2nd serve, just hit a good, safe deep return. Just try to get the ball in play.
This thought is also planted by the media: When we see tennis on TV, especially on the WTA, the serve is very often a point of discussion. The Williams sisters tend to get inside the baseline to attack the 2nd serve, whilst with Jankovic it is the 2nd serve that most of the time gets attacked. Even though her 1st serve is almost just as weak/slow as her 2nd serve, that you can basically attack both the 1st and the 2nd serve: it is just something that we automatically do - put the return off the 1st serve in, and attack the 2nd serve.

2) The expectancy of the server and the returner. When a player hits a first serve in, he is expecting to win the point by using the pace and mindset that his opponent has while returning that 1st serve. The opponent is expecting a hard-hit, difficult ball to deal with. That "pessimistic", if you will, view on the 1st service that the returner has, definitely helps the returner to be not too aggressive or too optimistic upon returning the 1st serve. You can sum it up as this: players tend to consider NOT making 1st service returns something that is just a part of the game of tennis, and NOT making a 2nd service return just a disgrace. Imagine swinging and missing on a 2nd serve, you would consider that just and embarrassment to yourself. So players put more pressure on making the 2nd serve return and are more focused when they have to return a 2nd serve: They allow less to no room for error while returning a 2nd serve.

3) Aces! Acing somebody with your 2nd serve happens once in a blue moon. Aces are a big part of points won on serve and most of them occur off the 1st serve.

4) One small point i wanted to add: The way players move when returning 1st and 2nd serves. On the 1st serve, the returner is letting the ball move towards him instead of him moving towards the ball: this may effect his footwork, his concentration (since he is also dealing with actually catching the ball and hitting it while the ball is coming at him) and can also effect his timing. You could say: the ball is timing the moment the returner is hitting the ball, which can lead to errors and surprises that might cause a bad return.
When the returner is returning the 2nd serve, it is more him/her moving towards the ball and timing the swing him/herself, which leads to better made returns. And you sure win more points with good returns than with bad returns. ;)

This is all i could think of, most of the points are things that i notice to myself when playing tennis. Hope these are good!

Second serves present the returner more options thus allowing more pressure to be put on the servers next shot. The shot following a second serve becomes much more difficult if the server is forced to hit a shot that is placed well. A well placed shot (deep in the corner or a sharply angled crosscourt) alows the returner to take control of the point. The returner also has the option to "chip and charge" a short second serve to take the offensive away from the server.

1) On the second serve, the returner doesn't have to stand as deeply as he does for the first serve. This allows the returner to get better angles to either hit winners or shots that allow him to take control of the points.
2) Typically, the serve and volley is not an option on the 2nd serve, which takes away a potent weapon from the server.

Tennis is a game of confidence, this is widely accepted fact. All other things (skills/physical fitness) being equal one plays better and wins more more points if they are feeling confident than when they are not feeling as much confident.

I think amongst other things the player psychology also comes into play in a important way during the server. For the server second serve mistake means automatic point loss, hence bit more mental pressure to play safe. The server is also aware that playing safe typically means an easier serve for the returner to pounce upon. The mere knowledge of this fact makes the server feel more nervous and less confident during the second serve. On the other hand the returner psyche is reversed, they are now expecting a weaker serve which they know can be attacked more easily than the first one. And they are less nervous and feel more confident of facing, attacking and therefore winning the point on the second serve.

In tennis the way players feel does translate to actual results and I think the servers downward shift in confidence and receivers upward shift in confidence eventually leads to the expected result of second serve points working out more in the favor of the receiver than the server.

Question: Why do you lose more points on second serve?
(I think some people are misunderstanding the question as why Federer's 2nd serve is better than Roddick's 2nd serve. In general, everyone's 2nd serve wins less points than their 1st serves.)

(1) Variety on the second serve decreases.
This means, the player is pressured to get the ball IN, and less focused on how to throw the opponent off-balance. On first serve, most players can hit a variety of different serves because they know they have a second chance (the 2nd serve) if they miss. So they can hit harder, with slice, or go for better placement. However, on second serve, players don't have the luxury to add too much variety to the serve since the main goal is to get the serve IN PLAY! Thus, a second serve doesn't change often and is easier to read than the first serve.

(2) Kick and Bounce of the Ball.
When a second serve is hit, most good players try to create a longer, fast racket swing in order to generate a good topspin, high-percentage serve. So, most players hit a kick serve. The reason why players hit a kick serve is NOT because they're trying to hit a difficult-to-return serve (most kick serves are not difficult to return), but because it clears the net HIGHER, and lands more safely inside the service box. The 1st serve usually has a low clearance over the net and lands closer to the service line. The topspin digs into the ground and the speed of the 2nd serve is reduced a lot after hitting the ground. The 1st serve speed usually doesn't reduce as much after hitting the ground because there isn't as much spin to slow it down.

(3) Mindset of the Players
Psychology has a lot to do with tennis. When I hit a huge first serve, I have a lot of confidence and I think I will win the point. However, when I hit 2nd serves, I'm slightly nervous, and I'm just looking to stay in a rally, instead of trying to close the point with a clean first serve. Thus, I'm already anticipating a WIN on my 1st serve, and a hard-fought point on my 2nd serve. My opponent is thinking similar things: "I'm going to have a hard time with the 1st serve, but an easier time with the 2nd serve." Thus, the opponent is trying to stay in the point on the 1st serve, but is more aggressive when returning the 2nd serve (higher confidence).

So, once again, I have three main reasons why players don't win their 2nd serves as much as their 1st serves: (1) The variety on the 2nd serve decreases, (2) the pace of the 2nd serve quickly reduces when it hits the ground, and (3) the mindset of the players dictate how service games are played out. First, servers are more worried about getting the ball IN rather than mixing up their 2nd serve variety, so the 2nd serve is predictable. Second, the topspin of the 2nd serve negates the speed of the ball as soon as it hits the ground; a flat 1st serve doesn't lose as much pace after hitting the ground. Finally, the server is much more confident and aggressive on 1st serve (as opposed to the returner being more nervous), and loses that confidence and aggression on 2nd serve (while the returner GAINS more confidence on 2nd serve).

Ah, and one more thing. When the returner returns a 2nd serve, many times he will step closer inside the baseline, giving himself a wider angle to return the ball. However, this isn't always the case, because the 2nd serve has a kick, and some people will opt to stand far behind the baseline and wait to hit the return on it's descent.

However, when the returner does choose to be more aggressive and step into the ball, the returner can afford to hit a more sharply angled shot, forcing the server to get on the run.

We need to bring in a tennis version of Einstein's theory of relativity. What you term the obvious answers, less pace, more conservative placement, means that the server is getting fewer "free" points on second serve. A player wants to be in control of the point, and the serve is an opportunity for the server to do so -- at least initially. The more complex answer is that it depends on the relative ability of the two players to return serve and transition from defense to offense. Roger has better stats than Andy on both first and second serves. Roger is quicker on his feet and returns better than Andy. Roger is also superior in his ability to convert a defensive position to an offensive one. Roger is usually content to hit a conservative return to start the point and then set up the point to where he can hit a winner within his confort zone. Andy relies more on getting free points on his first serve. When Andy gets into a rally with Roger, he loses that advantage. In a rally, you would expect Roger to have the advantage. I think that's what the second serve percentage stats show. I expect that if one were to look at similar stats for Roger's last match with Nadal, you would see different stats. QUOD EST DEMONSTRANDUM. Cheers. Ted

I see two reasons.

1. The kick of the second serve, if can be controlled, allows the returning player to hit the high ball of the kick down, which makes an easier winner than the first serve, that doesn't bounce nearly as high. Federer seems to be able to handle the spin of the kick well, so this is a big advantage for him.

2. More importantly, Federer seems to have developed this habit of running around the second serve after predicting where it's going. Because of the high kick and the slower pace, it gives him realistic amount of time to run around the uncomfortable high one handed backhand and hit a high forehand with lots of power and aggression. Nadal always serve to his backhand, so it's easy for him to predict. Roddick's serve also goes to his backhand most of the time, so running around can help a lot. Obviously, running around Roddick's 130mph first serve would be impossible.

Actually I find that the second serve hinges on the RETURNER. Even by the end of the second game, there is a certain amount of rhythm established between both players. Once a player begins getting opportunities to "sniff out" the second serve of his opponent, his confidence will grow and he may start to take more aggressive Agassi-like jumps into the court and CREATE plays.

Unless your name is Federer, then you will just try for an ace again :)

Truth is, it IS all about the pace and placement of the second serve. The first serve is typically hit much harder. It's a more aggressive play. Because of this, the returner often finds himself in a defensive position from the start. If not, he'll be out of position or off balance. So the first serve give the server a huge advantage, because he can attack from the start of the point.

You'll notice that many points that the server wins after getting a first serve in are actually over pretty quick. This is because of that advantage of being on the attack. Actually, you'll see a lower winning percentage by the server the longer the rally goes on. That's cause the server's advantage is usually gone 3-4 shots into the rally.

Second serves are typically not near as threatening. And a bad second serve can actually let the returner become the aggressor. And even a decent second serve will often start the point out with no particular aggressor. So basically, the server's advantage is all but gone.

Roger and Andy have such different games so the serve varies in players

Andy mostly relies on his serve hence what makes him one of the greatest and strongest servers nowadays. When he hits his serve he depends on his strength and hopes to win a point from it just by serving. That just might be his problem. He relies to much on his serve and the opponent, in this case Federer, who is one of the best baseline players, cuts his serve and turns it into a rally where most of the times he is more skillful in playing such rallies than Roddick. Hence Roddick does not win so many points on his second serve against such player

On the other hand, Federer is not known at all for his powerful serve, but more for his technique on it. He places the ball really well and forces Roddick to try for a good return but when Roddick does not hit his return as well for Federer's placement of the ball was better, Federer advances to hit a groundstroke or even volley which can easily eliminate the opponent and win the point immediately. With that perspective, Federer uses his serve as a foundation to his game and each point, and by placing the ball of his serve appropriately, he sets off a good point on his advantage for he has proven to be an excellent baseline player as well as a volleyer.

With those in mind, that is why some players have a better use of their better serves for they have different techniques in mind. Techniques which can earn them matches.

i think the reason roddick loses more second serves is because he is not placing them to federer's backhand.
in the 2008 wimbleton final, nadal placed almost all of his serves to federer's backhand, thus holding more of his games. nadal then broke federer a few times to win the first two sets, and then the last set.
a year later, roddick did not do the same. several serves were put to the forehand, and returned. according to wimbledon.org, andy roddick only won 1 second serve point to federer's forehand. he won 16 serving to his backhand (2nd serve).

I think aside from the speed and ball placement issues, and the greater opportunity for aces these 2 factors create for first serves, the main reason players win more first serve points than they do second serves is that the scale becomes tipped much more in the returners favor on second serves.

It's much easier on the first serve to pin the returner into the corners or force them out of the court entirely, leaving much more space to take advantage of for the next shot. Also first serve return shots tend to be weaker which gives the server much more time to assess his next shot and pick the best one. On the second serve the advantage is with the returner who can position themselves better for the kind of return they want to hit. So the ball is much more in the returner's court, so to speak, on the second serve than the first.

I would agree with Alok's "Reason 1", in that second serve points begin more equally leveled than first serve points. I would propose the reason behind this is the mind of the server.

At the start of a second serve point, your mental state of mind is to be more defensive as the server, and more aggressive as the returner. This might be more relevant at the club level, but I have to think it's there somewhere in the pros.

If you see your second serve as an opportunity to gain advantage, you'll be more likely to look for (and press) that advantage when the ball comes back over the net. If your goal is to start the rally with a safe serve and wait for the return, you're not in 'attack' mode when the ball comes back, and may miss an opportunity to take advantage.

Roddick FS serve even though is very fast, lost accuracy in the 5th set. Federer instead was more accurate in 5th set. The biomechanics of Roddicks serve in the 5th set was somewhat readable to were the serve might have been placed, Ferderer played according to this and to the fact that mix of placement was not unpredictable, Federer just had to adjust to the speed and spin that´s why the games served by Roddick in the 5th set were longer than when Roger served. Also Federer´s serve biomechanics is the same for his FS and 2ndS, very hard to read where the serve is going to be placed and also the mix of the placements was much better. That also explains why Federer was able to make many more asses than Rodd not being his FS faster than Roddick´s.

I think there are two main reasons why Federer wins more points on second serves:

Reason 1: Typically a second serve (by either player) is more likely to lead to a relatively "equal" rally. And the player with the superior overall game will likely come out ahead in a rally where no one has a distinct advantage to begin with. As a test for this theory, I propose the following conjecture: if we were to calculate the percentage of points won when a rally goes beyond three or four shots (or maybe five or six), we'll find that Federer won most of those points. (Obviously, I don't have the raw data handy to verify this conjecture.)

Reason 2: Federer simply has a better disguised second serve and greater serve **variety** than Andy Roddick. He is also marginally more aggressive with his second serve than most other players.

Note: The first of the two reasons I gave would imply that Federer would win most of the points on **either** player's second serve, a fact that is borne out by the statistics you gave. The second reason would only indicate why one player's second serve win percentage would be superior to his opponents (assuming that the rest of their games balance each other out).

You're killin' me with the math lesson. I tried not to read the other people's lesson.

I think the reason why people lose more second serve points are:

1. There is no trick. Most people either hit the dink serve or the kick serve but there is no jump left or right after the bounce. It just jumps straight up. Federer has an american twist so people would have a harder time returning it.

2. During the crucial points, most people miss their first serves and have to play second serve points a lot more tentatively. More first serves go in when there is no pressure. So that would be a factor that would harm the second serve win percentage. More second serves during scary points

3. The first ball setup is different. Most people hit the first serve and think to control the point with their weapon, a forehand or a volley. Second serve is basically a thought process of get back behind the baseline and neutralize the rally.

4. Lastly and relating to 3, the first serve or flat serve involves you jumping into the court. The return, if short, poises you to put away the ball. But if you hit a kick serve, you are usually behind the baseline or on top of the line. Moving forward after a kicker is not natural.

5. Not lastly but most obvious (even though I forgot it). If you miss the first serve you don't lost the point. If you don't make the second serve, you lose the point automatically. No point penalty for missing the first serve. That is a factor that makes the statistic unpure.

I'm left handed and I gave up hitting the kick serve for a second serve and use the slice and it has been working out great!

1. The mental aspect even at the pro level is a big factor in losing second serve points because losing points by double faulting can be mentally draining and thus second serves are hit with less power and more spin in order to avoid faulting. In this particular match the mental game between Fed and Rod cannot be ignored just for the fact that Fed has dominated Rod throughout their respective careers to such a large extent thus giving more confidence to Fed.

2. Second services from a strategic standpoint can be returned with more aggression and often times an aggressive return will obviously favor the returner and put the server on the defensive. As far as this matchup is concerned Fed has always favored more accuracy and precision in both serves so to some extent he would be more prepared to have aggressively hit returns of service whereas Rod may not be as accustomed to seeing such aggressive returns on his serves because his serves have always been more reliant on their power.

3. Technically speaking Fed also has an advantage using a platform stance footwork with his serves which seems to allow him to handle aggressive second serve returns. From watching the match it looked to me as if Fed was able to get into a more balanced position just a bit quicker than Rod on the second serve returns whereas Rod who uses the pinpoint footwork would have to adjust his body after his service motion. While both players were able to get into position to return the service return I think being able to recover from the serve motion just a split second quicker especially on aggressively hit second serve returns can make a small but important difference.

Hi,
I think that the biggest difference between the First and Second serve apart from the speed, placement etc is all mental.
As others have said the added pressure of a possible double fault is big, so many players really only focus on getting the ball in court, I know I do. However when I do get it in I am expecting my opponent to capitalise on the advantage and take control of the point if not hit a winner. Im waiting to be scrambling around trying to reach shots etc.
So before I have even stepped up to the line I have mentally put myself on the back foot, half expecting to lose the point. Its similar to the player that we have all met, that we lose to the first few times and then go onto court already expecting to struggle.
At beginer - intermediate levels which is where I am the reciever is also normally inside the baseline and so has a much easier time coming to net after a deep approach from a second serve and so the server is rushed into making a passing shot or lob and I know from painful experience that my passing percentage is maybe 50% at best, much lower if I am running to the ball as well.

It is intersting that if Roddick only won 44% second serve points, he could have gone for his second serves as a first serve, and as long as he was hitting above 54% of them in, he would win more second serve points. I know its not a good stategy due to variance and the drop in confidence if you double faulted 3 times in a row. . . . Interesting though!!

Anyway time to cut it here I think!

I think more second serves are lost because of the change in confidence going from a first serve to a second serve. In high level tennis, you're supposed to hold serve or else you lose. To hold, you rely a lot on your first serve to gain an advantage in the point. If you lose that opportunity of a first serve, there is a lot more pressure to win the point because now you know you can't double fault, and now you know your opponent might jump on your second serve.
When I watch the Opens on TV, in close matches such as Wimbledon last year with Federer and Nadal, when Federer hit a first serve into the net or went out, I often heard murmurs, sighs, and groans in the crowd right before Federer's second serve and they probably knew that it was a higher probability that Federer would lose the point.

It's all in the mind, Will.

On the first serve, you basicly have a free shot. It's more of an all-out attack towards your opponent than an actual tactical shot, because even if your opponent returns it, you know the placing won't be as solid or aggressive as it could be, which gives you a chance to just keep focusing on winners as your opponent will only be focused in returning the ball, unless you screw up that is.

The second serve, on the other hand, is what I cansider to be the "real" serve. Now you're feeling the pressure, and getting the ball in the service box has replaced putting your opponent in the defensive as the most important thing to do. So, predictably, this produces the opposite reaction from your opponent, who is now given the chance to be aggressive with his/her shots, while all you want to do is keep the ball in play so as to not lose the point.

Of course, there's no written rule that states the second serve should be slower than the first, or more defensive, which interests me since people rarely ever attempt to produce their biggest serve after failing their first attempt. It seems to me that if they fail to land the first serve, they should just fix their mistakes and go for it again as the confiidence would be kept on your side instead of your opponent's. Since the chance of gaining the point would also be higher compared to that of your normally weaker second serve, this would cancel, or at least balance, the risk involved with missing the serve.

with the 2nd serve firstly there is less variation. primarily it's conservative, it's mostly hit to go in, and there is less variation that you get with the first serve. with a first serve you can aim down the line, to a wide corner, hit a kick serve out wide, or a bodyball, or drop one in with less pace to mix it up if your opponent is getting complacent. with a second serve there's less options available that can punish or wrong foot your opponent. there's more time to read any spin as there is less pace on the ball and the direction is further in from the lines.

but i also think that the mechanics of a second serve benefit the receiver over the server. to receive a second serve the opponent is mostly moving forward into the court to hit a shorter, slower ball, while you (serving a second serve) hit with less power and instead of using your first serve swing momentum to move forward into the court to take up an attacking position you move back, often behind the baseline in anticipation of the attacking return that your opponent will hit. so you're in a defensive position rather than an attacking one leaving your opponent in control of the rallyy.

The reason for most players, in this case roddick, losing a majority of their 2nd serve points is simply because the opponent is taking/hitting the ball early.

As most advanced players know, the answer to balls that bounce high, or balls that slice is to take the ball early to prohibit the ability to bounce higher and prohibit the slice from pushing left or right. By taking the ball early on the 2nd serve, it takes away time from the server to recover, and the quick movement is unexpected by the server. As Federer does frequently, he takes the ball early on the 2nd serve, and hits it down the line, there is less time for the server to hit the ball because the distance is a straight vertically instead of cross court where it takes the length diagonally of the court. In addition to this strategy, even if roddick does return the serve that Federer hits down the line, theres only 1 shot that roddick can hit - cross court. Federer anticipates that and gets to the ball early and hits another down the winner where roddick has left the whole court wide open.

Well, I would say that on your second serve, you are looking to to get the ball in. You dont want to give points away by double faulting, so your mind is focusing on getting that ball in that box and in play, giving your opponent the green light to attack. Whereas on your first serve, you obviously looking to pinpoint the ball and to hit it harder.

Great comments / insights so far folks! Keep them coming!

Will, on your latest video where you announced the winner on the Roddick serve quiz, you mentioned my comment on if Roddick hit his first serve on his second serve he would have won a higher percentage of points. I did further analysis on this with some numbers I got from the ATP stats site, and found this would be true for Roddick over the course of the season, as well as for Karlovic. I haven't looked at the numbers on ohter players but I had
thought this would be true for both of them so I have only looked at them so far.

One thing though. You mentioned "Rob" made and interesting point on Roddick winning a greater percantage of points had he hit first serves for his second serve. I am "Ron", not "Rob" and would like to show your comments on the video to my friends so if you have any way of correcting that, it would be awesome.

Thanks,
Ron

1. The second serve is often hit with topspin and clear the court much slower allowing much more time for the returner to position himself and as we all know Roger is a positional expert while Roddick is not very much so.
2. The spin on the second serve make the placement highly predictable according to the dominant hand of the server. I.E. a right hander would generally serve toward the opponent's backhand on a kick serve and forehand on a slice serve due to the natural spin on the ball.
3. Players often experience an effect called "paralysis through analysis" when they are allowed too much time to think about what to do. On a first serve the ball, if it is returned at all, often clear the net quickly and sit on the server's side allowing them the option of hitting their most comfortable shots. On a second serve however, the situation is reversed, the ball sit on the returner side allowing them the selection. During this time, the analysis on the side of the server is not how to hit the ball but what kind of return is to be expected. The ball when returned will also clear the net much more quickly and is no longer a sitting duck waiting to be finished off.

Sorry I typed too much XD

i personally think it has more with the nerves and mentality. The reason for this on the second serve you would be more cautious about getting the ball in order to start the point, because if u fault again its your opponent's point. The second would be because of the lack of confidence after missing your first serve, the second serve would been hit more shallow and if its more shallow. Your opponent could chip and charge and take advantage, or take a bigger rip onto the ball. And you as the server would have to worry about all the aspects of when the returnee returns your first serve PLUS the fact that the returnee would have more time to set up their attack. Also, because the returnee have more time to set up due to the second serve being less aggressive, their placement for their shots to dictate the play would be better then if they returned a first serve.Another reason for this is because of the time they gain from being second serve they can go for their stronger shot whether its the forehand or backhand and move their position accordingly to the servers weaker side.

Here are my 3 (TOP) reasons for fewer service points won on second serve;

1. (T) Time - Servers most often sacrifice pace and hard angles for spin and consistency on second serves. As a result, the returner has more time to return a second serve. This gives him the chance to set up better to hit harder (or softer), more consistent, and better placed returns. In doing so the returner takes time away from the server, possibly gaining an edge.

2. (O) Options - With more time the receiver has more return options available. He may, for example, hit a big run-around forehand return, chip and charge, or he might step in to take the ball early. There are rarely as many return shots options and angles available when receiving first serves.

3. (P) Pressure - The second serve is the last chance a server has to get the ball in play. Depending on the score, this may mentally pressure the server, neutralizing the server's natural advantage. Additional serving pressure comes from the server understanding points 1 and 2 above.

You didn't take into account double faults.

Confidence wavers on second serve as it is not a weapon. This in turn causes the server to, at times, become defensive and as a result play a game which suits your opponent.

HI Will,

I think that we loose more points on our second serve because of the pressure we put(feel) on our selves and our opponent can add to that pressure if he is a good returner.

. On the first serve especially at the club level we try to look good. Maybe better than we are and we are thinking agressive. Hit an ace while the opponent is thinking neutralize(stay) in the point. All the pressure is on our opponent. The player who attacks first and can put the pressure on first has the advantage and this pressure is usally started by the server on his first serve. On our second serve we change the way we think and play not to loose the point rather than to ace or look good. We cannot give a free point to the returner by double faulting and we feel this self directed pressure. Our opponent is now thinking to attack rather than neutralize the point and that adds extra pressure on us. This makes us tighten up more on our second serve, especially on big points and that improves our opponents percentages even more.

A pop of the second serve lets the ball bounce significantly higher than the first serve. While it might create difficulty in returning, if the returning player is prepared and positions himself correctly, he can hit a winner easier by striking the ball early, at its highest point when bouncing off the pop, like Federer often does - something that is impossible to do with a first serve that bounces much lower. In sum, it is easier to hit a winner off the higher second serve bounce if you can handle the spin.

The second serve is also slower and allows you to run around the ball if you predict its directly correctly. Federer does that quite often, running around to return with his forehand, especially with Nadal, whose second serve is relatively weak and whose direction is predictable.

Here's my analysis which starts with the paradox of Roger breaking Andy serve once whilst Andy broke Roger twice despite Roger winning more receiving points, and then ties it in with the tennis mental game.

2009 Wimbledon final Roddick Federer
Receiving Points Won 42 of 197 = 21% 68 of 239 = 28%
Break Point Conversions 2 of 5 = 40% 1 of 7 = 14%

2008 Wimbledon final Federer Nadal
Receiving Points Won 73 of 218 = 33% 64 of 195 = 33 %
Break Point Conversions 1 of 13 = 8 % 4 of 13 = 31 %

Roger hasn't been playing break points well against big opponents for some time - see his stats in last years Wimbledon final against Rafa where they won the same % of receiving points, but Roger only broke once. Roger is feeling the weight of history and sorely wants to win majors, especially against Rafa. He is very good at controlling his emotions but at the big points he is mentally not as strong. This is in contrast to when he plays lower ranked players or up to the final.

Roger plays more freely when receiving service - like all of us he has "nothing to lose" and can be relaxed the first few points, can go for his shots and they come off. But, then he gets to that vital break point, at which time, LIKE THE REST OF US, HE GETS TIGHT and either goes for too much or too little (very evident in the 5th last year against Rafa who played the big points conservatively and allowed Roger to make unforced errors). This is happens to all of us on our second serve - the pressure makes it hard to not know how aggressive to be and then either making unforced errors or being too cautious.

Hey Will,

I think my answer might be similar to most of these replies but I'll give it a shot anyways.

Another reason would be on the 2nd serve your opponent can take control of the point. Most first serves are hard to return thus making it hard for your opponent to make a good return. But 2nd serves are easier to return and you can do what you want with them most of the time since they are easier to handle because of the slower pace and location in the box.

I think the general reasonswhy you can lose points on your 2nd serve is because the ball is served at a slower pace. Because the player serving does not want to double fault he/she has to make a sure serve. The 2nd serve is usually a slower paced serve that is sure to land in the box. Since it's being served at a slower pace the opponent has more time to react and make a good return and possibly even control the point with a nice return.

Hope my answer is alright. If not, I will just continue following your lessons Will and learn from the master himself!

Best regards,

Andrew

1. It just puts added pressure knowing you can double fault and lose and easy point on serve. This is more of an issue on the club level.

2. Since the 2nd serve is usually a kicker and its sits higher up, it allows a player to either flatten out his shot or forces him to take it early. This is more of a issue at pro level, club players usually don't have the timing to attack a good kick serve, but at the same time most of them don't have a great kick serve to begin with.

There are several processes that are unique to the second serve:

First of all, the second serve is mentally tiring; on the pro tour, players hit their first serves expecting more go in. Thus, having to hit a second serve is in the minority of cases. Players go in hitting the second serve thinking more defensively, and the mindset carries into the point played afterwards. I noticed this during the tiebreaker in the third and fifth sets: Roddick shanked a few balls he wouldn't have on the forehands following his second serve.

Along with the mental aspect, the second serve throws off the players' rhythms and concentration. After hitting a first serve in, players are presented with a "clean slate" of mind to set up the point. However, after missing the first serve, a player's arm naturally feels some wear, the player may have to redo his serving routine (e.g. Roddick's shirt-over-neck), and the player's original focus has been compromised.

Since most second serves are hit with heavy topspin and focus is directed on placement rather than power, the returner's situation also differs between second and first serves. On a first serve, the returner's goal is to block or chip the ball back (e.g. Federer's very high number of slices and taps against Roddick's first serve). The returning player can be more opportunistic on a second serve, especially for the two players in question, as they can both rely on holding serve. This is shown, as Federer's second serve returns were much more varied; he employed angled shots, dropshots, chip-and-charges, and the back-up-and-whack groundstrokes.

Lastly, players tend to hit second serves more conservatively in terms of placement than they would on first serves. The fear of double-faulting ensures that most second serves are very high margin. However, this causes the second serve to be far less effective over time, as there is a limited number of safe places to serve the ball.

In my opinion it is mostly about the situation when 2nd serves happen.
I suggest you don´t need much 2nd serves if you are dominating the game. You need them on big-points when you are already in trouble to win your game, because you lost some rallys and the score is like 30/30 or worse. Then the will to hit an extraordinary 1st serve in order to get a free point often results in a fault and afterwards in an extreme mental pressure on the 2nd serve. And because this is a bad situation to hit the most difficult shot in tennis people just try to get the ball into play (pros on a higher level, club players on a lower) and so lose most of there 2nd serve-points.

The second serves are hit less acurately with less pace because the server wants to avoid commiting a double fault.

The way I see it, hitting a second serve is equivalent to playing a short groundstroke directly to an opponent who's already in position. A groundie played in your opponent's general direction that bounces well inside the service box (where most second serves land) is like handing control of the point to your opponent on a silver platter. Whoever has control of the point usually wins it.

Just a thought. The arc of the second serve is a little more predictable. If a server is right handed, they will generally serve the ball with a right to left arc (because of the extra spin). Even if the server varies the location that the serve lands in (and, as you said, the 2nd serve is generally NOT as varied, it's more in the center of the service box,) the returner will be more able to pick up, and predict where the serve is going to be. They can prepare better and take a more offensive shot at the ball. Because of the slower pace, they have extra time too, so it's common to see the returner run around a serve to the backhand, for instance, and hit a forehand. So to recap:
1)More predictable arc
2)Smaller service area
3)Slower pace
all make it easier for the returner to make a more aggressive return. For the record, my answer is really#1, since you already said #s 2 and 3 (and excluded them,) but they all sort of fit together so I mentioned them again. Just my 2 cents. Thanks.

I think the reason behind people losing more points on the second serve is because

1. Step in to the court: You get more Time to get into a good position to hit a winner : The returner steps a little further into the court and most second serves are usually a kick serve that bounces high- and you can thereby lineup to go for a winner straight off or hit a deep shot into the court. Take a look at some of the winners federer hit in the 08 wimbledon against Nadal, especially on his second serve. There's this one shot of nadal serving a 2nd to fed in the ad court and fed knows that nadal's gonna try and push a kick serve up to his backhand, so he runs around the backhand to play an inside out forehand cross court.

2. Reading the serve based on the toss is easier on the 2nd than the 1st serve: The increase in reaction time during a 2nd serve can help you decide where you can place the ball as a returner. If it's the 1st serve, you're always on the back foot instead of dictating terms to your opponent. Your backswing increases on the 2nd serve return and you have better shot placement along with flexibility to hit a good shot too.

People lose second serve points because their confidence is shaken by a miss at the first serve. Missed first serve often transfers the momentum to the other side of the net, which brings us to the quality of the return. Returning player, besides being encouraged by a missed first serve, has more options on second serve because the ball is much slower and placement is rather predictable, so, on the second serve, serving players are often in defensive situation after return, and have to work harder to win the point. Returning player on a second serve can actually make a shot that is not fully defensive like it would be if the first serve got in.

People lose most of second serves in their heads, because they expect to be attacked, they think that momentum is on opponents side, and they know that they will have to work harder for a point when serving the second serve.

The reason the second serve has a significant drop in percentage is due both to the nature of the second serve and the returner. The second serve is generally hit with a massive amount of spin which has the ball rotate at thousands of RPMs. Generally this causes the ball to accelerate both upwards and forwards once it bounces. On the first serve a player is generally taught to stand behind the service line as a good server can usually hit all angles. However, this won't work for a second serve. A returner generally will step in on the second serve to take it off the bounce before it reaches a height that is uncomfortable to return from. Because of this, the returner generally starts off in an aggressive position from the first strike of the point. The first serve puts the returner on defense at the start of the point where as the second serve allows the returner an opportunity to go on the offense or neutralize the point.
Tennis after all is a game based on serving as a break normally leads to a loss.

Also, the court positioning of each player has changed during the second serve. As mentioned above, the returner will move in on the second serve. Therefore, the server is forced to move back to cover the angles of a possible return. This shift in positions usually allows the returner much more room to work with once the point is initiated. For example, in the Wimby final, Federer's crosscourt forehand allowed him to open up the court many times and give him countless winners. He can only do this when he is inside the court and has Roddick behind the baseline. The court positioning dynamics on a first serve are the exact opposite.

IMO, the second serve is a last resort that players NEED to get in to prevent giving away a free point. This puts pressure on the server so they would probably serve more conservatively and less aggressively. Also, the receiver is more likely to be aggressive on the second serve because they know it's not going to be as much as a bomb as the first serve and go for more. For these very two reasons, the second serve is a much easier point to win.

There are several factors which can explain why a server would win fewer points on a second serve.
“Tennis is a mind game.” It has been said over and over again throughout history. Although tennis players will have mastered this technique, one cannot reach perfection when playing in such a huge tournament. After a first serve, a tennis player may start to panic slightly and let their nerves get to them. Although a fundamental technique of serving, a server may remove his “standard” for the toss. Personally, after missing a first serve, I let my nerves get to me and hit a serve with a poor toss. I don’t know how professionals play this mind game, but it’s a thought. Additionally, the crowd may stir a little, raising a player’s nerves move. Also, I have noticed some pros getting a little anxious to hit the ball on a second serve. Their timing will be slightly off, due to eagerness and anxiety of getting through the point. What is more, not only does the mind of the server change, but the mind of the returner changes as well. The returner will have a lot more confidence. Lots of players will think that they should just slice a ball on a first serve or do a very, very short swing (I understand the swing should be short but not as much as I have seen). On a second serve, the returner gains enough confidence to utilize a longer swing. Once again, timing is an issue with the returner as well. On a first serve, the returner may panic and swing too early swing too late (although this is more of the matter of the speed of the ball).
Furthermore, another factor that may represent itself as an explanation would be that of the spin a server would place. There are many different variations of spin form a first serve and second serve. Some add more spin on a first serve; some add more spin on a second serve. However, I have noticed that on a second serve, the spin is more evident and kicks in earlier. This gives the returner more time to think and make it easier to track where the ball will end up being and where the returner will want to place him or herself.
In addition, the server will be able to predict where the ball will go after the return of a first serve. If not, the ball will probably not have much pace, making it easier to reach and set up. A return of a second serve can go anywhere. I hope this doesn’t break the rule of mentioning placement, as I am speaking of the placement of the return rather than the placement of the serve itself. What is more, the returner may be able to predict what kind of a serve will be the second serve as the server may get his racquet into a distinguished position earlier to get a higher accuracy.
Yet another factor would be simply missing the fundamentals slightly on a second serve. This is associated with the mind game but as it is such an important topic, should be separated. I have already mentioned the possibility of settling for a bad toss and mistiming the serve. On top of this, a server may not bend his/her knees all the way to produce the most power, or might not bring the racquet all the way back.
All of these factors together can create a proper explanation for the lack of win percentage on a second serve.

Well let me take a stab at this.

The two points I want to discuss are return of serve on a second server and point construction on a second serve in comparison to the first serve.

When a player gets a first serve in, more often than not that player is in an offensive position. The reason being the first serve is harder to return is due to the speed as well as angle. The server could possibly get an ace, service winner, a weak return, a good return putting the rally at neutral or be put on the defensive. There are many other possibilities but what I am trying to highlight is that when professional tennis players get a first serve in, they usually are in an offensive position while a majority of the other times in a neutral one. From what I remember about the Wimbledon 2009 final anytime Federer or Roddick got a first serve in it pretty much resulted in them getting an ace, service winner or weak reply. Now when you hit an ace or service winner the point is already won so I’m going to talk about the weak return of serve outcome. Now with a weak reply many professionals will do what the commentators call the “One Two Punch”. The server will hit a first serve in and get a weak return to which he’ll just hit a winner of the short return. In general the weak reply gets the server on the offensive allowing him to dictate play and construct points easier. Even if they do not get the winner of the short return, the server is still in a dominate position to win the point as he can be the aggressor from the very start. The first serve, in short, allows you to be aggressive and offensive from the start. It can use angles and speed to construct points allowing the server to win the point

The second serve most professionals hit will have less speed and more spin, to bring the ball back into the court for safety. Return of serve is a bigger weapon these days than ever before as mentioned by many commentators. Getting a good return usually consists of getting the ball nice and deep without it being too high. Ideally a serve return will put the returner on the offensive allowing them to being the aggressor or dictate play. The second serve can be more easily attacked allowing the returner a greater chance to be aggressive early in the point and win it. A bad second serve can cause the ball to pretty much sit the returner’s strike zone allowing them to pummel it. This may be contradictory as it is still a serve, but the second serve is more defensive serve as you cannot completely start it on your own terms due to the danger of double faulting. The second serve will most likely put the server in a neutral position or defensive position rather than offensive.

What it all really boils down to are the chances of being the aggressor and dictating play. The first serve allows a player to be aggressive from the start and win the point early. Amongst the first serve outcomes most of them place the server on offense. The second serve limits the chance for the server to be offensive thus the server losing more points on his second serve compared to his first.

Yea I'm bored if you couldn't tell. :)

Hi coach.
Well, I think players loose more points on their second serve due to more factors.
1- the second serve is mostly a kick serve, so the spin brings the ball higher and the receiver can attack it easier and, more importantly QUICKER.
2- as the server lands into the court right after he has served, he has less time to recover, hence the ball is coming quicker back. Particularly, when the receiver hits a deep shot back, the server has difficulty adjusting, and can do in most cases only a defensive return, and from there on, the point is lost....

The reason you lose more points on 2nd serve is the point begins with a neutral to slightly defensive posture for the server. Since the server is unable to dictate the point as they would with a 1st serve, the returner has a better chance to be aggressive on the return; thus putting the server in a defensive, or at best neutral position. Now its up to each player's respective game to work & win the point. In this case, Federer has a better all court game than Roddick when excluding the serve.

If they were to play a game of 21 (hit from the baseline, no serve, point is live after the 3rd stroke), I would expect that Federer would win a higher % of points than Roddick. The same is true with 2nd serves as the server is less able to put the returner in a defensive position. Prior to the Wimbeldon final, no one would argue that Andy's ground game was better than Fed's.

Andy's only chance to be aggressive on 2nd serves was to serve & volley; which he did with some success but could not sustain repeatedly against a quality returner like Federer.

You could argue that Andy could have jumped on Fed's 2nd serve & seen a similar winning %. I believe Fed's defense is simply better than Andy's return game, thus more equipped to defend against Andy's aggressive returns. I would expect to see a higher number of unforced errors, if Andy was committed to jumping on Fed's 2nd serve. If Andy's 2nd serve return was passive, he played into Fed's hands.

Hi Will, this is an interesting question and I believe there are a number of points that could be discussed.
Obviously, a person would lose more 2nd serves because it is easier to attack a second serve and put immediate pressure on the server....... they returner go for a winner on the return or set up the next shot with a penetrating return, chip and charge and win with a volley etc. There is also more pressure on a player to get the 2nd serve in as if they don't, they double fault and lose the point. The server may also feel they have to hit with more pace or perhaps try to slice a 2nd serve wide if the returner is running around their forehand on the deuce side or just try to hit closer to the corners if the returner is crushing their 2nd serve. The server just tries to do too much with the 2nd serve unlike when hitting a 1st serve.
I also believe a person who relies on just power to hit a first serve quite often hits a 2nd serve much slower and this large contrast in speed is easier to pick up and attack. Some players may have slower 1st serves but may have more than just power going for them: 1. They vary their pace (and spin) to throw off the returner so they will be slightly early or late when contacting the ball. A player who can not vary their pace will lose more 2nd serves. 2. Some servers may toss the ball in the same spot to disguise where they are hitting the serve (some players toss the ball a bit wider to hit a slice and it is easier to pick up). Players who can not disguise their 2nd serves will lose them more frequently.
I look forward to reading your take on the question. Have a great day.
Jim

I believe that the reason players (myself included) loose more points on their 2nd serves in comparison to their 1st serves (apart from the pace and placement) is the different mentality of both the server AND the reciever. When a player has to serve a 2nd serve he more or less expects to be attacked and isn't as eager to take the offence in the point. Perhaps even the knowledge that players loose more points on their 2nds makes a player think it's normal (or at least more exceptable) to loose most points on their 2nd serve. It's kind of a ready made mental excuse to loose the point. I however exclude double faults from the equation because I think we should strictly focus on the second serve points won/lost (the times when the player actually gets his 2nds in).
The mentality of the reciever is also different, which I think is the other cause. Recievers typically step forward a few steps which helps them be more aggressive. Most of the time when facing a guy whoose 1st and 2nd serve don't differ too much almost all players would still stay back on the 1sts. The simple knowledge that more points are lost on 2nd serves should again be taken in to account - the reciever expects to win the point, thinks more aggresively, takes the ball earlier, pressures the server etc.
Just my 2 cents...

It's just a matter of the server never really being able to take control of the rally on a second serve due to all the factors that make it a lot easier to hit and attack.

Basically, the returner can run around a serve hit to the backhand and crank a forehand out wide or down-the-line thus taking control of the point. Or the returner can hit a deeper ball, thus getting the server on the back foot. The returner can also attack the serve and come into the net to volley. There are basically MANY more options a return has to gain control of a point on a serve.

As opposed to the first serve, there's basically nothing the returner can do beside just get it back with as much pace as possible. For the most part, the returner will need to be well-behind the baseline and will oftentimes get pulled out wide to return. This will result in returns that the server can easily use to gain control of the point.

Reasons why players lose more points on their 2nd serve other than pace and placement.

1. Ball toss. Most players have similar 2nd serve ball tosses in that it is very easy to distinguish a first serve and a second serve without actually hitting the ball. This lets the receiving player know what type of action the ball is going to have and that it may travel slower, giving them the strategy of being aggressive. Federer's second serve is very effective because his first and second serves ball toss is similar and harder to distinguish than most other players.
2. Confidence. At the pro level(as well as others), tennis relies more on mental aspect of the game. If you have the believe you will win the point because it is a second serve, your chances of winning the point increase. Regardless of the pace/power/placement/toss or any other factor, the belief and confidence of winning the point because it is a 2nd serve increases those chances of winning. This also applies to the server who knows they may have to work harder to win the point because they are hitting the 2nd serve. Nerves lower the chances of winning the point. It puts more pressure on them to not double fault.
3.
Bounce. Most 2nd serves are kick/topspin serves for consistency. These serves produce a higher bounce and allows players with more western grips to take the ball higher resulting in a better return and higher chance to win the point.
4. Court positioning.
Most players these days do not serve and volley. A well placed 2nd serve sets up an opportunity to serve and volley assuming they have the adequate skills to pull it off. After hitting their 2nd serve, the server is ready for an aggressive return. Once they miss their first serve it is already in their mind to play defensive during the point before they even have their toss. This ties in with confidence, because they do know they will have to work harder on this point, so they take a less aggressive approach to the point during a second serve. We would love to be able to not have nerves or any negative thoughts. But we are human, it's only natural.

I believe the reason why players lose more points on the second serve is the fact that they usually start the rally in a neutral or defensive position, while the opposite happens on the first serve.

Most players will step behind the baseline in order to return the first serve, usually not trying anything extreme in terms of placement and pace on the shot, allowing the server to take control of the point from the beginning.
In the second serve the opposite happens: the one returning is most likely going to step up the baseline and hit a stronger shot with better placement, perhaps even catching the ball on the rise and trying to get the server while he is still moving from the position where he end his serve movement to where he like to stay on the court. In that scenario, the server would have to came up with a really good shoot or hope for his opponent to make a mistake in order to get out of the defensive position, take control of the point and win it.

Wow, so many people aren't even answering the actual question. Here is my answer:

People tend to lose more points on their second serve for the following reasons:

* The returner has an easier time placing the ball (reasons below)
- The velocity of the ball is much lower. This gives the returner more time to react.
- The angles are less extreme. This means the returner usually won't have to move as far to get into position to hit his shot.
* The returner has more angles to work with (reasons below)
- The returner can set up further into the court on the 2nd serve because of the lower velocity and less-extreme angles mentioned above
- The ball bounces higher on most 2nd serves. This extra height gives the returner a bit more to work with because it is easier to clear the net when hitting the ball from a higher point (I know, this is a stretch, but still valid)
* The server cannot be as aggressive in many cases(e.g. serve an volley) because the return is less likely to be a "sitter". Instead, the return will have more pace, and the server will be in defensive more, rather than offensive mode.

There are other subtle reasons that also contribute, but I think these are the most important ones.

Corrections to my comment #13:

3 and 4 shoudl read "...because of #2" and "...because of #3", respectively. Added the first item and forgot to renumber references. )

You should be able to reply to your previous comment, that way Will for sure see this correction

Taking a shot at this.

Ok so the reason why i think a higer percentage of first service points are won vs second service points is mainly due to mental factors!
On the first serve it is often quite hard to take the ball early-what i mean is the receiver is "expecting" a hard fast flat/slice service. He not going to be jumping into the court to hit a winner. He is so called "scared" of the first service- this often accounts for large margin losses of new comers when they play against people like roddick and federer and murray. Take for example the Federer vs Lu match at this year's wimbledon. I observed that Lu was almost "sitting" and rocking on his feet during Federer's first serve- he was afraid to move it. He was so nervous for that serve that he didn't split step or get ready for the return.

If you take a look at murray or nadal's service returns you see that they both stand well behind the baseline on both kinds of service returns. BUT you see (esp. murray) that he really jumps in on those second serves! He almost takes a big lunging step. He is expecting a high arcing ball hit with a lot of top spin which doesn't scare him one bit.

Lastly in order to prove my point...Remember the Sampras Federer match at the 2003 wimbledon? The stats came up in that match and Sampras was dominating on his second serves. Sampras' second serve was better than 80% of touring pros of his time. He won those points because he had the ability to not fear double faults! He "scared" all his oppenents on BOTH serves! He wasn't afriad to hit that ball hard and flat- AND THAT put on his opponents on their guards ALL THE TIME!

Well i hope i have expressed my point well so that everyone here can understand.
feel free to email me to ask questions regarding my opinion on the matter.
gave the best answer i knew- good luck to all out there.
would love to hear the winner!

1. Physical: the height of the bounce is more predictable to the returner. Most second serves are hit with topspin for safety and bounce relatively high, which makes low-skidding bounces somewhat less of an issue (they are especially annoying on grass).

2. Tactical: the return is less predictable to the server. For example, with the first serve aimed out wide, most returns will be cross-court, but a down-the-line return has more chances on the second serve.

3. Tactical: because of #1, it's harder and more risky to S&V, so the server gets fewer options to win the point quickly. That did not apply to Sampras at Wimbledon, but it is rather an exception.

4. Tactical: because of #2, the server's position on the court after the serve becomes more predictable to the returner.

5. Psychological: since the second serve is easier to attack, the server consciously or subconsciously expects to be attacked, which can make them more defensive and/or nervous.

6. Mathematical and psychological: there is no 3rd serve. Double-faults increase the number of lost points, plus can really ruin the mood of the player making him less confident in their subsequent second serves. Even the mere fact that no mistake is allowed creates additional pressure.

More points are lost on the second serve at the pro level because the player receiving serve steps forward or into the court another five feet or so. This allows them to take the ball more quickly and allows less distance for the ball to travel if going back to the server's base line. In addition, the slower pace put on the first serve allows the receiver to attack it more and hit with more intensity. So the receiver has shortened the court, takes the ball sooner allowing less reaction time and hits it back more aggressively rather than simply trying to block it back. All this allows for a harder return with less reaction time for the server.

I believe that The reasons why the second server % is lower than the first server are given below:

1) Mind:
When Roddick is serving, if his mind is preoccupied thinking about the opponents power and strength. He will do a weak serve. Even before serving the point is lost.

When Federer is receiving the second serve, he is relieved and thinks about winning this point. His MIND is just focused on winning the next point, not on the opponent or the end result of the match.

2) Been There:
Federer has 18 wins and 2 loss record against Roddick before the wimbledon. That gives a very strong edge to Roger

3) Absence of Nadal
When one knows Nadal is not playing in the Wimbledon 2009, a huge weight is taken off from Federer's chest. That helped Roger to play better.

Conclusion: It is all in the MIND!

I think the reason most people lose more points on the second serve is due to the conservative placing of the serve in the middle of the service box. This would mean that the returner can safely eliminate the need to cover both corners and can focus on positioning themselves properly to attack a serve in the middle of the service box. What makes matters worse for the server is that unless there is an inordinate amount of kick and or pace on the second serve, most returners can run around the serve in the middle of the box and crush forehands.

I think Federer was lot better when it came to serving from the ad court . That made the difference in the game .

Look at the Points won on the Deuce court vs the Ad Court (Critical Points) .

well.. how much 2nd serve points you loose.. also depends on your opponent.. for example Roger Federer did not forgive any of his 2nd serves... he has a really good Fore-Hand + back Hand.. which really tops Roddick's ground strokes.. But, how strong your second serve is can also make a good impact on it.
-----------------------
So, Roger would really easily neutralize the rally, in 2-3 shots.. or maybe even take the offensive.. but Andy couldn't hit those great ground strokes..
===================================
Another reason... that really helps me out is.. 99% of ppl add alot of Top-Spin on their second serves which causes the ball to jump up high, which might end up in the comfort zone for some players..
===================================
i hope i win. (woulda been more fun if it were Roddick's autograph) im the biggest 16-year old Roddick fan!

BTW: i love what you do with these videos...

oh wait.. i forgot to add this..
i think Roddick might also be a bit intimidated n panicky doing his second service to Roger because of his big ground strokes...

Dude! he IS giving away Roddick's autograph!

The second serve relies more on spin to get the ball in the service box. As you should know, spin takes pace off the ball, and it is also (generally) harder to place. Where you place your second serve can be analyzed and attacked on by the returner if you tend to hit a kick serve to the opponent's backhand.

Roddick's serve relies more on power, not placement, and the power is somewhat neutralized by the spin on the second serve. Federer's serve is more about placement in the service box, so the effect of the benefits surrendered on second serve are not as magnified.

Most club level players cannot place a serve on an exact spot very consistently, which is why the second serve is more of a weakness to them than to a professional's serve would be.

hmm... the reason why you tend to lose on second serves more often is..

The Mind..
*Definitely i believe that it has to do with the mind, and how you go are under pressure of losing the point to a double fault, you may not think too much about placement/quality. its kind of like you're thinking quantity over quality =P. Also a thing my Highschool Coach told me is that "your opponent will feel much more comfortable and confident if you miss your first serve often and rely on your second serve too often."

Technical stuff:
*another thing i thought about was, the sudden change in pace of the serves. Not that im a pro, but i would serve at over 100mph on most of my first serves. however my second serves i feel barely clear 80mph. i Noticed that Rodd* and Fed's serves go: 1st: 120-30. 2nd: hanging in the 90s-low 100s. At that pace it is much easier to react, plan and redirect the serve accordingly putting the server on defense.

i think one of them is when you get your FS in and its a little faster and they cant return it very good then you have a good chance of winning the point that's what i think one of them is

I personally Believe that the answer to this question would be one of energy loss. Basically, with your first serve you have the greatest chance of winning the point by using the least amount of energy. Therefore if the point is won, there is a constraint on effort, making the point easily won. The second serve however, because it is so conservative, will make the player produce more effort in order to win the point. The player must beat the opponent with strategy and good shots, instead of his serve and second shot alone. So putting the wimbledon final into perspective:
Roddicks FS Won %= 83 SS Won %= 44
Federer FS Won %= 89 SS Won %= 60
So according to these first and second serve percentages, Federer was able to hit many more first serve wins and therefore less effort used and outlasting Roddick as the game went into the later games. Federer also won more second serve points because of his overall better play with the ball (Roddick also played great)
Roddick did win a lot of his first serves at 83% but because of this being lower than Federers he would have to use more effort after his second serve therefore tiring him out and resulting in his miss hits at the end of the game which overall ended in Federer with his 15th title.

If served out wide on the first serve then it pulls the opponant of the court and with the extra pop of the first serve they can't attack it so they just get the ball over the net so the server can smack a shot cross court or a cross court drop shot, kind of a serve and volley type of game.

No... if you really have a fast Flat first serve.. they can easily counterpunch it into a corner...
or if you use 2 much spin on your serve.. you can use excessive topspin to easily pull the ball back in..