Serena Williams is playing at the Australian Open at the age of 39 and is once again trying to close one of the last puzzle pieces of her amazing career.
Generally considered one of the greatest tennis players ever, Williams’ only remaining problem is the Grand Slam record of a troublesome Margaret Court, who played in an era of weaker competition. At 23 Grand Slam singles titles, he spins loose, and Williams needs one more to draw and two to make the Court in the overall score. She came close to worrying and won many Grand Slam matches, but since returning as a child in 2017, she has had a string of late trip-ups.
So what’s wrong with the eight Grand Slam losses since her return? Observers put the blame on everything from age to nerves to poor conditioning. But an analysis of the stats from the eight Grand Slam losses shows a fairly clear umbrella of the differences between what happened in the defeat, versus the way Williams normally plays.
This is not her speed of ministry. In 2015, when Williams dominated the sport by catching three of the four Slams, her average first serve speed was 109 km per hour – identical to what it was in her last Grand Slam loss to Victoria Azarenka. Williams’ percentage of first portions was mixed in these games. She was about 65 percent from the first time in half of the eight Grand Slam losses. Her percentages in the remaining half were too high or too low, but the performance in this area is not enough to indicate a trend. In this dataset of Grand Slam losses, her averages mostly hovered around the 65 percent average of the first time, making it unlikely at the moment. In addition, her winning percentage with the first serve is consistent: in her three recent Grand Slam losses, Williams’ winning percentage on her first serve points was 74 percent, 70 percent and 72 percent – all in line with the Top 10 players on the WTA Tour in 2020 There must be something else going on.
Imagine James Carville sitting across from a group of tennis experts and grasping why Williams had not yet broken through. To those experts, he can say, “This is the return, stupid.”
In addition to the criteria associated with serve, a mountain of significance is built into the statistical category ‘return points won’, because the points played at the return make up about half of all points played. Like many statistics in tennis, it is best to consider this category as a percentage rather than a raw number of points, as tennis matches can vary greatly in the total number of points played.
Williams seems to feel that her problem lies in her return. After losing travelwoman Wang Qiang in the third round of the Australian Open last year, she said: ‘I did not return like Serena. Honestly, if we were just being honest with ourselves, it’s all on my shoulders. I lost that game. … I literally can not do it again. This is unprofessional. This is not cool. ”
In the three-series game, Williams made 30 mistakes with her return. She almost pulled out the game and lost 7-5 in the third set. Imagine that she found a way to put only half of the 30 returns in the game. And no, the explosion of a bunch of returning winners to make up for all the mistakes didn’t even make the case – she only had seven winners out of those 30 mistakes.
If we look at Serena’s percentage of return points she’s achieved in her eight Grand Slam losses since her return, the trend is less than her overall benchmark for the season.
Williams did not find her return in Slam losses
Return points Serena Williams has won in her eight Grand Slam losses since returning from childbirth
| Return points | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Tournament | Opponent | Round | Total won | Share |
| 2019 | US Open | Andreescu | Finale | 30/68 | 44.1% |
| 2020 | US Open | Azarenka | Semifinal | 32/82 | 39.0 |
| 2019 | Australian Open | Pliskova | Quarterfinals | 38/98 | 38.8 |
| 2018 | US Open | Osaka | Finale | 20/55 | 36.4 |
| 2019 | French Open | Kenin | 3rd round | 28/78 | 35.9 |
| 2020 | Australian Open | Cheek | 3rd round | 39/114 | 34.2 |
| 2018 | Wimbledon | Kerber | Finale | 17/50 | 34.0 |
| 2019 | Wimbledon | Halep | Finale | 12/46 | 26.1 |
These losses show a trend of profit percentages for the return point mostly in the thirties, which deviates from her normally solid return. By comparison, in 2020, she scored a significantly better 44 percent of her return points overall, and in Williams’ banner year 2015, her share of the return points was 48 percent. By researching her return point history over the past decade, it is possible that her success rate in this category must be in the 40s in order to win, while percentages in the 30s leave her vulnerable.
In 2019, the last full year of professional tennis before the pandemic, the top 60 players on the WTA tour all achieved percentages in the 1940s with a season-long return point. Simply put, this is the series where the most successful women in tennis live.
Also keep in mind that there is more to winning a return point than the setback itself.
Historians agree that Williams is one of the best returnees of all time. She is a woman who is capable of delivering a man’s player’s 138 km / h with an explosion for a winner. Her return speed sometimes exceeds the speed of the storage in which she tore.
Is Serena not putting enough returns into the game – whether by being aced, hitting the bat or doing too much?
The answer is: sometimes.
According to Tennis Abstract, most top women in the world put between 75 and 83 percent of their returns into play. This means that they are difficult to get, but they also make very few mistakes during their return.
In the 2018 loss to Angelique Kerber, Williams’ share of the return was 71% acceptable. However, in the US Open last loss against Bianca Andreescu, Williams’ yield dropped only 63 percent. It was just a two-match match in which Serena made 19 return errors – or almost two return errors per receiving match.
The return, of course, is not the only time a player can lose at a return point. There is at least an indication that Williams may also struggle with her next shot after a setback in the game. Where duration length data is available for these Grand Slam losses, in at least four of them, Williams loses the battle for short points, classifying tennis status holders as from 0 to 4 strokes. In the tournaments that ended with her losses against Wang, Naomi Osaka and Karolína Plíšková, Williams had previously won all the short-point battles that led to her defeats. This is an indication of a quick standout in points – at least in the Grand Slam matches she loses.
What is potentially the worst to Williams’ weakened performance in the category of desired points is the server caliber she slips. In these eight Grand Slam losses, she encountered two especially elite ministers in Osaka and Plíšková. It’s almost excusable not to return well against the two. But the rest? You would think Williams would feast on their ministries. Andreescu, Azarenka, Kerber, Wang, Simona Halep and Sofia Kenin are nowhere near the WTA Top 10 in 2020 in an ace or percentage of the first discount points won.
However, the group of players contains the highest defenders and fast runners. The only way to find out why Williams may slip into her return game against these players is to get inside her head, but it is possible that the thought of ending up in long, long running points against them, consciously or not does not lie on her.
Although Williams does not need the Grand Slam record to confirm her greatness, it will be satisfying for her and her fans if she completes the task. A direct suspension from her return match – making sure she puts returns into play and strives to extend receiving points – can help her remove the last hurdle.