Really enjoyed this analysis and agree it's very match up and context dependent (I think there's also a material different between men's and women's tennis in the dominance of 4 shot and under rallies, although it's narrowed over time).
A couple of other points I think might be made: (i) the investment (both mental and physical) and crowd engagement is normally much greater in a lung-bursting 10 shot rally than a quick serve + FH combo, which can give winning a couple of them on big points an intangible additional value; and (ii) there's also the benefit that if a player is winning the long points, they're putting more pressure on their opponent to make the points short, forcing them to take more risks early in the rally (especially on serve).
Bravo for putting the lie to what, imo, has been a dominant concept that relies on not very nuanced analysis. Yes, the unassessed numbers point to 1-4 shots, but as you show there's more to the story. *Knowing* your opponent can withstand the pressure of not missing in a longer point is its own pressure. Not wanting to be caught out by being the first whose consistency cracks can easily lead to unfulfilled risk taking.
Did the emphasis on 1-4 arise after the early oughties, Kuerten, and matches like Nalbandian/Hewitt at Wimbledon? I remember thinking how early Federer was breaking rules by playing "serve and stand in no-man's land."
Really enjoyed this analysis and agree it's very match up and context dependent (I think there's also a material different between men's and women's tennis in the dominance of 4 shot and under rallies, although it's narrowed over time).
A couple of other points I think might be made: (i) the investment (both mental and physical) and crowd engagement is normally much greater in a lung-bursting 10 shot rally than a quick serve + FH combo, which can give winning a couple of them on big points an intangible additional value; and (ii) there's also the benefit that if a player is winning the long points, they're putting more pressure on their opponent to make the points short, forcing them to take more risks early in the rally (especially on serve).
Bravo for putting the lie to what, imo, has been a dominant concept that relies on not very nuanced analysis. Yes, the unassessed numbers point to 1-4 shots, but as you show there's more to the story. *Knowing* your opponent can withstand the pressure of not missing in a longer point is its own pressure. Not wanting to be caught out by being the first whose consistency cracks can easily lead to unfulfilled risk taking.
Did the emphasis on 1-4 arise after the early oughties, Kuerten, and matches like Nalbandian/Hewitt at Wimbledon? I remember thinking how early Federer was breaking rules by playing "serve and stand in no-man's land."