Comparative Study on the Efficiency of Women Tennis Players’ First Serve at Australian Open 2014 and 2015

Abstract

Women’s tennis is focused now on increasing the fixed phase. The fixed phase is regarding the serve and the return of serve. Therefore, tennis coaches are working on finding new methods to increase the efficiency of this phase. The alternative phase, meaning every stroke after the return, is well developed for the majority of women tennis players. Thus, the fixed phase might be the clue of the next level in performance tennis. Several specialists described in literature the efficiency of tennis serve. The risk assumed by the player during these shots was placed at the heart of this strategy. In this paper, we intend to compare the efficiency of the first serve and winners after the first serve of women tennis players at the Australian Open 2014 and 2015. We want to underline if the efficiency of the first serve is on a high level at the beginning of a competition year and if this aspect was developed from 2014 to 2015. This study used specialized documents and the method of statistical analysis of the data. The data were provided by the Australian Open statistics. Variables taken into consideration were the effectiveness of the first serve (the ratio between the number of successful service in total effectuated services) in 45 games in the 2014 and 2015 Australian Open Tournament, and the efficiency of winning a point after the serve (the ratio of points won in total returns after the first serve).

Keywords: Tennis efficiency, first serve, serve strategy, women tennis players, WTA Grand Slam tournaments

1. Introduction

Women’s tennis circuit feels the influence of men’s tennis, which is manifested lately by the

emphasis on the fixed phase of the game. The fixed phase consists of service and return of service, and

since the fixed phase ensures rapidly winning the point, experts want to render it more efficient in

women’s tennis too. In the Australian Open, the service could be a decisive factor in winning matches

because the event is held on a fast surface, Plexicushion, which highlights the efficiency of the service.

As far as the service is concerned, there is a wish to see its speed and placement considerably

improved during training, with concrete results in the competitive game (Pollard et al., 2009).

Specialists focus on the following efficiency factors in service, namely in the first serve on speed

and placement, and in the second serve on effect and direction (Antoun, 2007; Knudson et al., 2004).

Also, the return of service can be a weapon that WTA players can take full advantage of - if they want

to finish the game in a short time, and take advantage of a weak service of the opponents (Blackwell &

Cole, 1994).

A previous study (Stănescu, 2014) has shown that the service is not a decisive factor in winning the

Grand Slam tournament matches analysed, as the first serve has fairly large fluctuations from one

round to another, and even at the highest level in women’s tennis service is not yet a shot to tip the

scales in order to win a match. It has also been revealed that the best results, in both first serve and first

point after the serve, are recorded in the first round. This reinforces the argument that insufficient

physical and mental preparation leads to rather large variations in results as they are advancing in the

tournament.

2. Research methodology

The purpose of this study is to highlight the influence of the efficiency of the first serve on the

results of the women tennis players at the Australian Open. In this regard, the first serve efficiency was

compared to the efficiency of the first ball after service at the Grand Slam Tournament, Australian

Open, in 2014 and 2015.

3. Results and interpretation

A comparative analysis of the values of the two variables for the players mentioned, in 2014,

emphasized the following:

- the efficiency of the first serve, from round 1 to the final, recorded the following variations: for Na

Li - between 60% and 80%, for D. Cibulkova - between 60% and 77%; for S. Halep - between 52%

and 67%, and for M. Niculescu - between 64% and 82%; the service efficiency varies from one round

to another for both the finalist players and the Romanian players;

- the most effective first serve belongs to M. Niculescu, in the 1st round, while the lowest is for S.

Halep, in the 3rd round (Table 1).

See Full Size >

Applying the Student’s T-test to calculate the significance of the difference between the averages

recorded by the finalists has indicated a t-value = 1.71, which allows us to say that the difference is not

significant at p = 0.05. The same indicator, from the comparison of the Romanian players, offered us a

t-value = 3.27, also not significant at p = 0.05. We can state that, regardless of the ranking achieved,

there were not any significant differences in terms of service efficiency.

The highest efficiency of the first point after the first serve belongs to S. Halep, with 84% in round

1, while the same player has the lowest efficiency, 45%, in the quarterfinals (Table 2, Graph 2). Graph

2 shows that, throughout the tournament, this variable described a downward curve: for the winner

from 71% to 59%; for the finalist from 75% to 58%; for S. Halep from 84% to 45%, and for M.

Niculescu from 58% to 50%.

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

3.1. Analysis and interpretation of the data

See Full Size >

At the 2014 tournament, for the service, the average percentage of the tournament winner was 66%,

with a minimum of 60% and a maximum of 80% compared with the 2015 winner, who averaged 61%,

with a minimum of 52% and a maximum of 70%.

See Full Size >

Regarding the 2014 finalist, she had an average of 66%, with a minimum of 61% and a maximum

of 77%, and the 2015 finalist had an average of 55%, with a minimum of 37% and a maximum of 64%.

206

See Full Size >

Regarding the average percentage for the first shot after service, the 2014 winner had 69%

compared with the 2015 winner who had an average of 76%.

See Full Size >

The finalists obtained an average percentage of 67% in 2014, and in 2015 they obtained 75%. S.

Halep got 66% in 2014, and in 2015 she got 74%.

Thus, regardless of the performance level, in 2014 the first point after service tends to be less

efficient from one tour to another. The application of significance tests between the finalist players and

the Romanian women players allowed us to find the same values, insignificant at p = 0.05, for the t

variable.

Among the Romanian tennis players, S. Halep was present both in 2014 and 2015 in superior

phases, and she had the following results for the service: in 2014 she had an average of 66%, with a

minimum percentage of 45% and a maximum of 84%, getting in the quarterfinals; in 2015 she had an

average of 74%, with a minimum percentage of 67% and a maximum of 79% getting only in the fourth

tour. The other player, M. Niculescu from Romania, in 2014 had an average of 57%, just like I. Begu in 2015, who had 57% too. Compared with M. Niculescu, who got only in the 3rd tour, I. Begu got into

the quarterfinals.

In conclusion, the efficiency of the service decreased in 2015 compared with 2014, so we believe

that the finalists had other strengths to reach the final act of the Australian Open.

This conclusion is underlined by the fact that the identical percentage of our players (57%) led to

better performance in 2015 than in 2014 (I. Begu in the quarterfinals compared with M. Niculescu,

who only got in the 3rd round). However, compared to the serve, the efficiency of the first ball after

service increased significantly from 2014 to 2015, by almost 10%. The graphs show that both winners

had, in the final percentages at the service, an upward curve, and for the 2015 winner, the percentage of

the first ball after service was upward compared with the winner of the next year, for whom this

percentage was downward. Regarding the finalists, only one had the percentage at the service on an

upward curve compared to the other one, who had this figure on a downward curve. In terms of

efficiency of the first ball after service, both were evaluated in the downward zone. Also, both Halep,

in 2014 and 2015, and Begu, in 2015, were eliminated from the tournament when they were on a

downward curve at the service.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, it is obvious that all the prerequisites to winning the games, especially in the final

stages, are met when most of the game efficiency parameters (including the service and the first ball

after service) are growing. We also note that there are two peaks of efficiency during the two-week

Grand Slam tournament compared to normal one-week tournaments, peaks that specialist teams should

obtain so that the second one would be in the final stages. The two areas of minimal efficiency (that

specialists should manage so that players have optimum efficiency that would ensure winning the

games) are of paramount significance.

The increased percentage of the service efficiency, alone, does not guarantee winning the game but

the decreased percentage turns out to be decisive. Also, the percentage of the first ball after service

turns out to follow the same variation as the first serve efficiency. The fixed phase of the game must be

prepared as a whole, with the first ball after service so that both components have a maximum

percentage that could matter in winning a game or tournament. The physical and mental preparation

should also be intensified because these two training components lead to this variation in the efficiency

of these two strokes, and the tennis players have demonstrated that on the upward curve they obtain

impressive percentages. It should be researched whether these parameters can be maintained

throughout the two weeks, or the training sessions in the pre-competitive periods should be modelled

based on the two peaks of fitness appeared in the Grand Slam tournaments.

References

• Antoun, R. (2007). Women’s Tennis Tactics. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

• Blackwell, J. R., & Cole, K. (1994). Wrist kinematics differs in expert and novice tennis players performing the backhand stroke: Implications for tennis elbow. Journal of Biomechanics,27(5), 509-516.

• Knudson, D., Noffal, G., Bahamonde, R., Bauer, J., & Blackwell, J. R. (2004). Stretching has no effect on tennis serve performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(3), 654-656.

• Pollard, G., Pollard, G., Barnett, T., & Zeleznikow, J. (2009). Applying match statistics to increase serving performance. Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis, (14)3, 16-19.

• Stănescu, R. (2014). Study about the efficiency of first serve in Grand Slam tournaments for women tennis players. International Congress of Physical Education, Sports and Kinetotherapy, UNEFS, Bucharest.