Break Point Conversion and Save Calculator
Break Point Conversion and Save Calculator
Break points converted divided by break points created, and break points saved divided by break points faced. Both are rates of POINTS, which is why a player who breaks every game they get a chance in can still convert one in three.
Conversion and save rates from four counts
Converted ÷ created7 break points converted from 16 created, and 13 of 19 break points saved
Two rates, and the thing they are not
Break points saved = (break points saved ÷ break points faced) × 100
Times broken = break points faced − break points saved
Break points needed per break = break points created ÷ break points converted
- what a break point is
- the LTA’s “scenario where the returner can win the game (AKA break serve) if they win the next point” — under ITF Rule 5(a), 0–40, 15–40, 30–40 or advantage to the returner. One game can present an unlimited number, because every return of advantage puts the returner one point from the game again
- the two denominators
- Tennis Abstract’s point-by-point glossary states both plainly: “BP Conv: Break points converted (as returner), as a percentage of break point opportunities” and “BP Saved: Break points saved (as server), as a percentage of break points faced”. Cross’s primer gives the same for the first: “Break Point Conversion % = fraction or percentage of break point opportunities won (converted) by the receiver”. The ATP publishes the rate as % Break Points Converted and publishes no definition
- why conversion understates a returner
- because the denominator counts points and the achievement counts games. A game broken on the third of three break points is one conversion from three: 33 per cent, from a game that was broken. Broken on the first is one from one. Same outcome, three times the rate, and nothing in the figure distinguishes them
- why saving a break point is not holding
- the same arithmetic from the other side: a server who faces three and saves two has a 67 per cent save rate and has been broken. Break points saved and service games won are different statistics, and the second is the one that moves the scoreboard — see the dominance and service hold calculator
- no-ad scoring changes the count
- under the No-Ad method in ITF Appendix VI there is no advantage: “If each player/team has won three points, the score is ‘Deuce’ and a deciding point shall be played”, with the receiver choosing which half of the court to receive in. That deciding point is a break point, and it caps a game’s break points at a small number instead of leaving them unbounded. Section 1.02.B.2 of the 2025 ATP Official Rulebook uses No-Ad in all ATP doubles, so a doubles conversion rate and a singles conversion rate are not the same statistic
Worked example
7 break points converted from 16 created, and 13 of 19 break points saved
7 ÷ 16 = 0.4375, so break point conversion is 43.8%
13 ÷ 19 = 0.6842, so break points saved is 68.4%
19 − 13 = 6 times broken, and 7 breaks against 6 is a net of +1 over the match
16 ÷ 7 = 2.29 break points used per break achieved
The first pair is published: Cross's primer says of the 2009 Australian Open men's final that "Nadal had 16 opportunities to break Federer's serve, and was successful on 7 occasions"
The second pair is DERIVED, not quoted. The same source says Federer "broke Nadal's serve 6 times" and "won only 32% of the time when he had a break point opportunity". Six conversions can only come from 19 chances if the rate rounds to 32: 6 of 18 is 33.3% and 6 of 20 is 30.0%. So 19 faced and 13 saved — an inference from the source's two figures rather than a figure it prints, and labelled as one
Double every count — 14 of 32 and 26 of 38 — and both percentages are unchanged, the check that these are rates. Enter 7 from 0 created, or 20 from 16, and the panel refuses
Three games, three identical outcomes, three different conversion rates
| How the game went | Break points created | Converted | Conversion rate | Games broken |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broken on the first chance, at 30–40 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 1 |
| Broken on the third chance, after 0–40 | 3 | 1 | 33.3% | 1 |
| Broken after four returns of advantage | 6 | 1 | 16.7% | 1 |
| Three games, all broken, taken together | 10 | 3 | 30.0% | 3 |
| Three games, each broken on the first chance | 3 | 3 | 100.0% | 3 |
Conversion and save across a range, with the refusals
| Converted | Created | Conversion | Saved | Faced | Save rate | Times broken |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 10 | 0.0% | 10 | 10 | 100.0% | 0 |
| 3 | 10 | 30.0% | 7 | 10 | 70.0% | 3 |
| 3 | 5 | 60.0% | 7 | 14 | 50.0% | 7 |
| 6 | 10 | 60.0% | 5 | 10 | 50.0% | 5 |
| 7 | 16 | 43.8% | 13 | 19 | 68.4% | 6 |
| 14 | 32 | 43.8% | 26 | 38 | 68.4% | 12 |
| 3 | 0 | Refused | 7 | 10 | 70.0% | 3 |
| 12 | 10 | Refused | 7 | 10 | 70.0% | 3 |
| 3 | 10 | 30.0% | 12 | 10 | Refused | Refused |
A rate of points, used as though it were a rate of games
A break point is a point on which the returner can win the game. Under the ordinary scoring of Rule 5(a) of the ITF Rules of Tennis 2026 that means 0–40, 15–40, 30–40, or advantage to the returner — and because a game at deuce can swing back and forth indefinitely, there is no limit to how many break points one game can present. The LTA defines it as “A scenario where the returner can win the game (AKA break serve) if they win the next point”. Break point conversion is the fraction of those points the returner won; break points saved is the fraction of them the server won. Both are rates of points.
That is the difficulty, and it is one of interpretation rather than arithmetic. A returner is trying to win GAMES, and one converted break point is one game won whether it was the first chance or the sixth. So a returner who broke every game a chance appeared in can show a third, if the server kept reaching 0–40 and saving two. The table above puts two returners side by side who both broke three games from three: one converts at 30 per cent, the other at 100, and nothing in the rate says their outcomes were identical. The save rate has the mirror-image problem.
So the useful companion figures are counts rather than rates, and the panel prints them. Faced minus saved is the number of times this player was broken; converted is the number of times they broke; the difference is the net breaks over the match, and in tennis that number is usually the match. Created divided by converted says how many chances were spent per break, which is what a low conversion rate is actually about.
One qualification about scoring, because it changes the counts rather than the interpretation. Under the No-Ad method in Appendix VI of the ITF rules there is no advantage: at three points each “a deciding point shall be played” and the receiver chooses which half of the court to receive in. That deciding point is a break point, and capping a game’s deuces at one caps its break points too, so a No-Ad conversion rate and an advantage-scoring conversion rate are not the same statistic measured in two places. Section 1.02.B.2 of the 2025 ATP Official Rulebook puts every ATP doubles match on No-Ad scoring, so this applies to a large and well-published part of the professional game. For the games these points add up to see the dominance and service hold calculator, for the serve that produced them the first serve percentage and points won calculator, and for the probability that a game reaches a break point at all, the game and set win probability calculator works the game out exactly from a point-win assumption.
Frequently asked questions
How is break point conversion calculated in tennis?
Break points converted divided by break points created, times 100. Tennis Abstract’s glossary: “Break points converted (as returner), as a percentage of break point opportunities”. Cross’s primer gives the same. The ATP publishes the rate as % Break Points Converted without defining it.
Why is break point conversion often so low?
Because the denominator counts points and the achievement counts games. A game that reaches 0–40 hands the returner three break points; break on the third and the rate for that game is 33 per cent, from a game that was broken. Rates in the thirties and forties are ordinary at professional level and do not describe a returner who wasted chances.
Does saving a break point mean holding serve?
No. A game can present several break points and the server has to win the game, not a majority of its break points. Facing three and saving two is a 67 per cent save rate and a lost game. Service games won is the statistic that tracks holding, and it is on a separate page.
How many break points can one game have?
Under ordinary scoring there is no limit, because every time the returner wins a point at deuce the score becomes advantage-returner, which is another break point. Under the No-Ad method in ITF Appendix VI the game is capped: at three points each a single deciding point is played, so a No-Ad game presents at most four break points and usually fewer.
Can a player win a match with worse conversion than their opponent?
Easily, and constantly, because the rates count points while the match is decided in games and sets. Two conversions from three chances while being broken twice from twelve faced looks very different from two from twelve while being broken twice from three — and the two players have identical break counts. The net breaks row is the one that tracks the scoreboard.
Related calculators
References
- Tennis Abstract (Heavy Topspin). “Point-by-Point Stats: Glossary”, tennisabstract.com/blog/?p=3727. “BP Conv: Break points converted (as returner), as a percentage of break point opportunities” and “BP Saved: Break points saved (as server), as a percentage of break points faced”. The same page names DR without defining it, saying only that “DR is similar to total points won, as a good first-order proxy of how well a player performed”. The post carries no byline; the site’s analytics are credited to Jeff Sackmann.
- Cross R. “Grand Slam Statistics”, June 2009, physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/StatisticsPrimer.htm. A physicist’s teaching page, and the only source read that states every DENOMINATOR: first serve % is the “fraction of first serves that went in”, winning % on 1st serve the “fraction of good first serves won by the server”, winning % on 2nd serve the “fraction of second serves won by the server”, and break point conversion the “fraction or percentage of break point opportunities won (converted) by the receiver”. It gives the decomposition “p = fw + (1 – f) s” with “f = N1/(N1 + N2), w = W1/N1 and s = W2/N2”, equal to “p(A) = (W1 + W2)/(N1 + N2)”. Its worked figures are the 2009 Australian Open men’s final: 175 first serves, 112 in (64%), 74 of 112 won (66%), 30 of 63 second serves won (48%), and “16 opportunities to break Federer’s serve” with “7 occasions” successful. Its game-level figures — “they each stepped up to serve 25 times”, 18/25 and 19/25, and Federer breaking “6 times” at a stated 32% — do not reconcile with each other or with the published 51-game score, and the batch says so on the pages that use it.
- Lawn Tennis Association. “Tennis stats explained”, lta.org.uk/fan-zone/tennis-stats-explained/. The ITF’s national association for Great Britain. First serve points won is the “Number of points won after a player lands a first serve” and second serve points won the same “after a player lands a second serve”; serve percentage is “How often a player lands their serve in”; a break point is where “the returner can win the game (AKA break serve) if they win the next point”, converted “as a returner – resulting in a break of serve” and saved “as the server – preventing their opponent from breaking their serve”. It states no denominator for any of them and does not define service games won or return games won at all.
- ATP Tour. “Stats Leaderboard”, atptour.com/en/stats/leaderboard. Read for the statistic NAMES the tour publishes: % 1st Serve, % 1st Serve Points Won, % 2nd Serve Points Won, % Service Games Won, Avg. Aces/Match and Avg. Double Faults/Match; and on the return side % 1st Serve Return Points Won, % 2nd Serve Return Points Won, % Return Games Won and % Break Points Converted. The page carries NO definitions and no tooltips: about 5,000 characters came back, mostly navigation and unfilled template placeholders such as {{playerData.PlayerFirstName}}, so the figures themselves are rendered by JavaScript and were not in the fetch. Cited as evidence of what the tour publishes and what it does not.
- International Tennis Federation. Rules of Tennis 2026, Rules 5, 6, 7 and 10. itftennis.com/media/7221/2026-rules-of-tennis-english.pdf. Rule 5(a), the standard game: Love, 15, 30, 40, “Deuce” at three points each, then “Advantage”. Rule 5(b), the tie-break game: first to seven with a margin of two; “The player whose turn it is to serve shall serve the first point”; “The following two points shall be served by the opponent(s)”; then two consecutive points each; and the player due to serve first becomes “the receiver in the first game of the following set”. Rule 6, the advantage set and the tie-break set. Rule 7, best of three or five. Rule 10: “During a tie-break game, players shall change ends after every six points.”
- International Tennis Federation. Rules of Tennis 2026, Appendix VI — Alternative Procedures and Scoring Methods. No-Ad: at three points each “a deciding point shall be played”, with the receiver choosing the half of the court. Short sets: first to four games with a margin of two, a tie-break “if the score reaches four games all” or, “at the discretion of the sanctioning body”, at three games all. Match tie-break, seven or ten points: played at one set all, or two sets all in a best of five, and it “replaces the deciding final set”. Its own Change of Ends entry gives an alternative to Rule 10 — “after the first point and thereafter after every four points” — which is an approved option, not a replacement.
- ATP. 2025 ATP Official Rulebook, Chapter 1 — ATP Circuit Regulations, Section 1.02.B. atptour.com/-/media/files/rulebook/2025/2025-rulebook-chapter-1_atp-circuit-regulations_20may.pdf. Singles (1.02.B.1): “the best of three (3) tie-break sets”. Doubles (1.02.B.2): “two (2) tie-break sets with a deciding Match Tie-break (10 point) at one (1) set all”, and “Games shall be decided using the No-Ad scoring method”. The file states no publication date and calls itself the 2025 rulebook at 1.07.A.1.