Ask a player why they lost and they may remember the double fault at 4-4 or the forehand that sailed long on set point. Those moments matter, but they do not describe the whole match. A few simple tennis match statistics can help players and coaches identify recurring problems and decide what to practise next.
Start with serve and return performance, then connect the numbers to what happened on court. The examples below focus on singles and show how to turn a match review into a practical training plan.
Where the Numbers Come From
At club and junior level, useful data can come from a friend charting the match or a video reviewed afterwards. Choose a few measures you can record accurately. First serves in, points won behind each serve and service games won make a manageable starting point.
For professional matches, published statistics provide reference material. A tennis data API can supply live and historical results and match statistics in a structured format for coaching apps or academy dashboards. Check which competitions and statistics a provider covers before comparing records.
Tour figures need context. Professional players face different opponents and playing conditions from recreational players. For your own development, compare your results over time against opponents of similar ability, using consistent definitions.
The Match Statistics Worth Tracking
| Statistic | How to calculate it |
|---|---|
| First serves in | First serves in divided by total service points played, multiplied by 100. |
| First serve points won | Points won behind the first serve divided by first serves in, multiplied by 100. |
| Second serve points won | Points won behind the second serve divided by service points requiring a second serve, multiplied by 100. Double faults count as losses. |
| Return points won | Points won as the returner divided by total return points played, multiplied by 100. Include points won through opponent double faults. |
| Hold rate | Service games won divided by service games played, multiplied by 100. |
| Break rate | Return games won divided by return games played, multiplied by 100. |
Include tiebreak points in point statistics, but exclude tiebreaks from service-game and return-game counts. Keep the underlying totals alongside each percentage: winning three of five points gives much less evidence than winning 30 of 50.
Read First Serve Percentage Alongside Points Won
First serve percentage tells you how often the serve lands. First serve points won tells you how successful the points are once it does. Read them together before changing your approach.
In a hypothetical match, landing 60 of 100 first serves gives a first serve percentage of 60%. Winning 42 of those 60 points gives a first serve points-won percentage of 70%. A more cautious serve might increase the first figure while giving the returner more opportunities to attack.
If many first serves land but few points are won behind them, review placement, the quality of the return and the first shot after the serve. If the serve works when it lands but misses too often, practise a more repeatable target and margin. Check total service points won as well as the individual percentages.
Look Beyond Double Faults on Second Serve
Calculate second serve points won using every service point that required a second serve, including double faults as lost points. A low figure can reflect several problems: too many faults, predictable placement, a returner who attacks effectively or weak execution on the next ball.
Review a few lost points before choosing a drill. Separate double faults from points where the return immediately puts the server on defence. Keep a note of the serving side if the problem appears more often in one service box.
One-serve practice games can help you rehearse second serves under pressure. Compare your performance with your own starting level, and work on a serve you can repeat on both sides.
Measure the Return and the Point That Follows
A return can land safely and still leave the server an easy first attack. Track returns put in play alongside points won when returning second serves. For return-in-play percentage, count legal serves faced, including aces, and exclude double faults because there was no legal serve to return.
If too many returns miss, simplify the target and allow more margin. If returns land but sit short, work on depth and recovery position. Against an attackable second serve, practise taking time away from the server while keeping a reliable target. The USTA guidance on returning first and second serves provides a useful starting point for these choices.
Use Hold and Break Rates to Guide the Review
Hold rate measures how often you win service games; break rate measures how often you win return games. For example, holding six of eight service games gives a 75% hold rate. These game-level measures help you see where you are losing ground, but the point statistics explain more about the cause.
Frequent breaks of your serve may involve double faults, strong returning or errors later in rallies. Losing return games may involve missed returns or chances that disappear after the return lands. Review the points before deciding which stroke or pattern needs attention.
Account for the Surface and Conditions
Record the surface and whether the match was indoors or outdoors. Add a short note about wind, unusual bounce or other conditions that affected play. Compare similar matches where possible.
If a slower court gives opponents more time to return your serve, practise the rally pattern that follows it. If a quicker court leaves you rushed on return, rehearse your starting position and a compact response. Let the problems you observe determine the session, rather than assuming every clay or hard court will play the same way.
Use Head-to-Head Records to Prepare for Opponents
A head-to-head record becomes more useful when you add the surface, scores and patterns behind the results. Matchstat provides professional head-to-head records and match histories that can help with this type of review. Check the dates and conditions before applying an old result to a new meeting.
A historical example comes from the 2024 Beijing final between Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. Alcaraz won 6-7(6), 6-4, 7-6(3). The ATP report records that he recovered from 0-3 in the deciding tiebreak by winning seven consecutive points. That makes a useful case for practising specific score situations, although one match cannot establish a lasting psychological advantage.
At club level, build a short record for opponents you meet regularly. Note which serve locations caused trouble, which returns drew weaker replies and which rally patterns worked. Treat those observations as a starting plan and be ready to adjust when the opponent plays differently.
Turn the Findings Into Focused Drills
Choose one priority for the next session. Each drill should rehearse the situation you identified and give you something specific to measure.
- Low second serve points won: Play short games with one serve, alternating the deuce and ad courts. Record serve success and points won separately so you can tell whether the main problem is the serve or the rally afterwards.
- First serves land but produce little advantage: Practise serve plus one. Choose a serve target, then play the next available groundstroke into a large target area. Measure how often the pattern is completed without an error.
- Too few returns in play: Face a manageable serve and aim deep through the middle. For example, work towards eight of ten returns landing beyond the service line. Adjust the target to your level before increasing the serving difficulty.
- Service games repeatedly slip away from 30-30: Start practice games at that score. Use your normal routine and a clear serve-and-next-ball plan. Record whether you executed the plan as well as whether you won.
- Errors arrive early in slower-court rallies: Play crosscourt points with generous net clearance and depth targets. Award a bonus for building a controlled five-shot rally before changing direction.
Repeat the relevant measurement over several comparable matches. A run of three to five matches can be a useful first review window, though small samples still need caution. If execution improves but results vary, check opponent strength and playing conditions before changing the plan.
A Practical Plan for a Rematch
Imagine you lost a three-set match on clay to a left-handed opponent. Your notes and video suggest that double faults were more common from the ad court, a controlled ball to the opponent’s backhand often drew a shorter reply, and well-placed returns of second serves helped you start rallies on equal terms.
A simple plan for the rematch could be:
- Serve with a repeatable margin on both sides. Give the ad-court second serve extra practice, using a target you can trust.
- Test the backhand pattern early. Use it when the incoming ball allows a balanced shot, then check whether it still produces a useful reply.
- Prepare to take time away on second-serve returns. Move forward when the serve allows it and aim for a large, reliable target.
Practise those situations during the week. After the rematch, review ad-court double faults, the quality of replies to the backhand pattern and second-serve return performance. This gives the next session a clear basis even if the final result changes.
Avoid the Most Common Interpretation Mistakes
- Track only what you can record consistently. A small set of reliable numbers is easier to use than a long sheet with missing or guessed entries.
- Keep the sample size visible. A percentage based on a handful of points can change sharply after one rally.
- Separate results from explanations. A low hold rate identifies a problem to investigate; it does not prove that serving technique caused it.
- Use video or brief notes to explain the numbers. Check opponent quality, surface and conditions when comparing matches.
After each match, choose one recurring problem, review a few examples and set a practice task you can measure. Keep collecting the same information long enough to see whether the change helps.
About the Author
Wojtek Kolan is co-founder of Matchstat and writes about putting tennis data to practical use, on court and in software.