PDA

View Full Version : ATP No.1 Players H2H against each other


glazkovss
04-30-2011, 01:48 AM
http://s2.ipicture.ru/uploads/20110430/FYRR36jU.bmp (http://s2.ipicture.ru/)

http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20110430/IXc3S1LU.bmp (http://s1.ipicture.ru/)

(as of 04/30/2011)

glazkovss
04-30-2011, 01:51 AM
Feel free to discuss the results of this calculation I've done. Corrections on accuratness of the numbers (if any) are welcome.

Cassius Clay
04-30-2011, 05:59 AM
Nothing we didn't know already. Nadal is the GOAT and the H2H is going to get better for Nadal because he's the youngest of all and who will be playing old men for years to come.

Andres
04-30-2011, 06:13 AM
Nothing we didn't know already. Nadal is the GOAT and the H2H is going to get better for Nadal because he's the youngest of all and who will be playing old men for years to come.
Until there's a new #1 younger than him, and start beating him regularly as he gets older. Just like the rest of the crew.

tenis1
04-30-2011, 06:15 AM
It is all clear now. Nadal is the GOAT.

niff
04-30-2011, 06:22 AM
Sampras' win number is very cool.

Cassius Clay
04-30-2011, 06:24 AM
Until there's a new #1 younger than him, and start beating him regularly as he gets older. Just like the rest of the crew.

That one is Djokovic as he might get to #1 soon, but their H2H is already lopsided in favor of Nadal.

miyagi
04-30-2011, 06:52 AM
That one is Djokovic as he might get to #1 soon, but their H2H is already lopsided in favor of Nadal.

Djoko stands a very chance of getting to #1 this year but if he did he would have a bad figure as he has losing h2h with Nadal, Federer, Roddick and Safin

glazkovss
04-30-2011, 11:10 AM
Personally, while making this table, I was surprised by some of the H2H's, such as Edberg's poor (10-25) record against his main rival Becker, and a perfect one against Muster (10-0). Also was impressed by Lendl's combined 14-3 record against younger Courier, Agassi, Muster (14 of those matches took place after Ivan turned 29 years of age, including 1 w\o vs Muster - shouldn't that one be excluded by ATP from their official H2H record?).
At the same time Connor's poor overall record isn't surprising as it comes from his longevity.

glazkovss
05-01-2011, 01:41 AM
Personally, while making this table, I was surprised by some of the H2H's, such as Edberg's poor (10-25) record against his main rival Becker, and a perfect one against Muster (10-0). Also was impressed by Lendl's combined 14-3 record against younger Courier, Agassi, Muster (14 of those matches took place after Ivan turned 29 years of age, including 1 w\o vs Muster - shouldn't that one be excluded by ATP from their official H2H record?).
At the same time Connor's poor overall record isn't surprising as it comes from his longevity.

Djokolate
05-01-2011, 02:30 AM
Nadal right now, but he has played not so much matches compared to Fed and Pete, and soon he will drop in form.

Bud
05-01-2011, 02:40 AM
What's incredible is that Agassi played 20 of 23 other people on that list :)

The only non-plays were Borg, Newcombe and Nastase

Nadalfan89
05-01-2011, 05:32 AM
Very interesting. Another statistic which proves Nadal is the GOAT.

Clay lover
05-01-2011, 05:34 AM
Surpised how Connors is so low and Kuerten so high. Otherwise it is a good (but not exact) gauge of the player's greatness actually.

Mustard
05-01-2011, 06:21 AM
Muster was much better against the field than against the very top players.

DjokerIsTheBest
05-01-2011, 06:50 AM
Doesn't say much really. The only quality #1 that Nadal has faced is Federer. Look at the others, Ferrero?? Dead Agassi? Moya?? LOLLLLL. Come on. The only other decent guy is Hewitt, and Nadal barely leads that one.

Mustard
05-01-2011, 07:02 AM
Doesn't say much really. The only quality #1 that Nadal has faced is Federer. Look at the others, Ferrero?? Dead Agassi? Moya?? LOLLLLL. Come on. The only other decent guy is Hewitt, and Nadal barely leads that one.

You only say that because Federer and Nadal have won 25 slams between them.

DjokerIsTheBest
05-01-2011, 07:48 AM
You only say that because Federer and Nadal have won 25 slams between them.

No, actually my point was that these stats only further illustrate the meaninglessness of H2H.

glazkovss
05-01-2011, 12:23 PM
Doesn't say much really. The only quality #1 that Nadal has faced is Federer. Look at the others, Ferrero?? Dead Agassi? Moya?? LOLLLLL. Come on. The only other decent guy is Hewitt, and Nadal barely leads that one.

Don't forget that Rafa's career is not over yet so his record can get worse, and that Roger really owned the field for half a decade, so those no.1s you call of low quality just couldn't achieve more because of the great swiss. In the end arguments like yours can be used to diminish the meaning of any stat of any player. Actually, while summing up this H2H calculation I forseen such comments and came within myself to conclusion that they can't be taken seriously because of the largeness of the number of players and matches they have played against each other involved in it. It isn't a GOAT-determing stat, and it is not meant to be so. I just wondered how the best playes fared against each other, made this kind of little research and got some results. And as I got Nadal, Federer, Sampras and Borg in top 4 I should disagree that H2H stat is as meaningless as you state:)

egn
05-01-2011, 12:37 PM
I feel as if most of the earlier ones such as Newk and Nastase should be disregarded as a lot of their top tennis was prior to the 1973 which is when the ATP was formed. Though both possibly peaked in 73 they each had phenomenal years in the 70-72 range numbers which are not counted as the #1 ranking did not form until Aug 73. So Newcombe who had been playing top tennis since 67 and beat a handful of top guys such prior to that date has none of those matches counted. His 6-8 is very misleading and confusing when compared to the rest on the list.

glazkovss
05-01-2011, 12:47 PM
I feel as if most of the earlier ones such as Newk and Nastase should be disregarded as a lot of their top tennis was prior to the 1973 which is when the ATP was formed. Though both possibly peaked in 73 they each had phenomenal years in the 70-72 range numbers which are not counted as the #1 ranking did not form until Aug 73. So Newcombe who had been playing top tennis since 67 and beat a handful of top guys such prior to that date has none of those matches counted. His 6-8 is very misleading and confusing when compared to the rest on the list.

You're right, but have to keep him in for the strictness of the whole thing. In the end, Laver is not in the mix at all, and look how low Connors is because of remaning on the tour for so long. All I have to say is that nothing is perfect:)

FedError
05-01-2011, 10:12 PM
Without Federer, Roddick would be at 55.8%.

Without Roddick, Federer would be at 61.9%.

glazkovss
05-09-2011, 11:00 AM
Latest update:
05/07/2011 Nadal d. Federer 5-7, 6-1, 6-3 (H2H 16-8 )

Nadal 45-19 (70.3 %)
Federer 85-43 (66.4 %)

jackson vile
05-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Thanks for putting in all the work on this one

glazkovss
05-09-2011, 11:26 AM
Djoko stands a very chance of getting to #1 this year but if he did he would have a bad figure as he has losing h2h with Nadal, Federer, Roddick and Safin

That's true. As of 05/09/2011 Djokovic is 29-40 (42%) versus former and current No.1s. But he is on a 6 match winning streak against those, and he didn't face any other former No.1 apart from Fedal this year.

glazkovss
05-09-2011, 11:34 AM
Thanks for putting in all the work on this one

I'm glad to see that someone else is interested :)
And if I'll miss any of the future matches between the listed players, I'd be thankful to anyone remind me of those.

bluetrain4
05-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Edberg's less than .500 record vs. No. 1s (75-84) is due almost solely to his terrible record against Becker (10-25). I'm still amazed that he was 3-1 vs. Becker in Slams, and also beat him in the 1989 Masters finals, yet was dominated otherwise (6-24 outside those matches). Just an observation.

single_handed_champion
05-09-2011, 12:08 PM
Would be interesting to see what these %s were when they were themselves ranked no.1 (or decently high), so things like Connors' ridiculous longevity don't skew the stats.

RalphDUD
05-09-2011, 12:22 PM
Nothing we didn't know already. Nadal is the GOAT and the H2H is going to get better for Nadal because he's the youngest of all and who will be playing old men for years to come.

Your logic Fails. Too bad Roger and Pete were number 1 for so long that nobody was left except some scrubs for Nadal to beat up on... mostly on clay... oops.

RalphDUD
05-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Very interesting. Another statistic which proves Nadal is the GOAT.

They ban DjokerIsTheBest and they keep this guy here?

glazkovss
05-09-2011, 01:06 PM
Edberg's less than .500 record vs. No. 1s (75-84) is due almost solely to his terrible record against Becker (10-25). I'm still amazed that he was 3-1 vs. Becker in Slams, and also beat him in the 1989 Masters finals, yet was dominated otherwise (6-24 outside those matches). Just an observation.

As I said already, I was amazed with this particular H2H record too. They are almost of the same age, both played with right hand / one-handed backhand, both possesed attacking gamestyles and both ruled/struggled on grass/clay. So if we can explain Federer's losing record against Nadal by leftie/rightie, onehanded/twohanded backhand, onesided clay record, younger/elder factors - there is no such obvious causes to Becker's edge over Edberg. And Edberg held the No.1 spot much longer than Boris, while winning the same number of slams. Any possible explanations on this one?

Mustard
05-09-2011, 01:28 PM
As I said already, I was amazed with this particular H2H record too. They are almost of the same age, both played with right hand / one-handed backhand, both possesed attacking gamestyles and both ruled/struggled on grass/clay. So if we can explain Federer's losing record against Nadal by leftie/rightie, onehanded/twohanded backhand, onesided clay record, younger/elder factors - there is no such obvious causes to Becker's edge over Edberg.

Becker's topspin backhand return of Edberg's serve was a big factor. Becker could also cruise through games of a match where he would just win points with ease, almost like a comfort zone. Edberg rarely had this sort of comfort zone because he needed to mentally focus a lot more if he was going to play his best tennis. Concentration and timing were so important to Edberg's game.

And Edberg held the No.1 spot much longer than Boris, while winning the same number of slams. Any possible explanations on this one?

Becker wasn't consistently brilliant, but he could raise his level to beat anyone at any time. That's the sort of player he was. Edberg was more consistent in every event.

glazkovss
05-09-2011, 01:58 PM
Becker's topspin backhand return of Edberg's serve was a big factor. Becker could also cruise through games of a match where he would just win points with ease, almost like a comfort zone. Edberg rarely had this sort of comfort zone because he needed to mentally focus a lot more if he was going to play his best tennis. Concentration and timing were so important to Edberg's game.



Becker wasn't consistently brilliant, but he could raise his level to beat anyone at any time. That's the sort of player he was. Edberg was more consistent in every event.

Thanks for an insight. I couldn't see that because I began to follow the game in 1996.

bluetrain4
05-09-2011, 02:13 PM
As I said already, I was amazed with this particular H2H record too. They are almost of the same age, both played with right hand / one-handed backhand, both possesed attacking gamestyles and both ruled/struggled on grass/clay. So if we can explain Federer's losing record against Nadal by leftie/rightie, onehanded/twohanded backhand, onesided clay record, younger/elder factors - there is no such obvious causes to Becker's edge over Edberg. And Edberg held the No.1 spot much longer than Boris, while winning the same number of slams. Any possible explanations on this one?

In all fairness to Edberg, even though the H2H is horrible, he did beat Becker 10 times, which is an amazing achievement, including 2 Slam finals, a Slam semi, and a Masters final.

I just think it was the classic bad match-up. Edberg's kick serve to the Becker backhand just didn't consistently fluster Becker like it could Lendl and other for example. So that changed the tenor of the matches right from the beginning Also, they played a lot indoors on fast carpet, on which Becker was really in a different league. Some of those losses for Edberg were pretty good matches, though that doesn't change the fact that he lost. And, he did get his butt kicked sometimes.

So, I don't think it's any huge mystery why the H2H is so uneven. Obviously Edberg was indeed good enough to beat Becker on occasion and is a great player, but overall, Becker was just better in that rivalry.

glazkovss
07-07-2011, 01:57 PM
As we have a new No.1, here is the latest update of the table:

http://i.pixs.ru/storage/8/1/6/0707111bmp_8766480_2479816.jpg

And the standings:

http://i2.pixs.ru/storage/8/2/5/0707112bmp_5726794_2479825.jpg

As you can see, Sampras moved up to No.1 in the standings, thanks to Nadal's and Federer's loses to Djokovic this year, but it is very close at the top. Djokovic himself is in the bottom half of the standings, but he has a combined record of 8-1 against Federer and Nadal this year, so he is on the rise right now.

glazkovss
09-10-2011, 01:57 AM
Latest update:
9/10/2011 Nadal d. Roddick 6-2 6-1 6-3 (overall H2H 7-3)

glazkovss
09-16-2011, 01:44 PM
More updates:
9/10/11 Djokovic d. Federer 6-7 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5 (10-14 overall)
9/12/11 Djokovic d. Nadal 6-2 6-4 6-7 6-1 (13-16 overall)
9/16/11 Federer d. Hewitt 5-7 7-6 6-2 6-3 (18-8 overall)

Federer's win over Hewitt was his 100th win against former or current No.1 players. Only Sampras (115) and Lendl (102) have more of those wins.

Meantime, the continuation of Djokovic's success brings his win-loss percentage to 44,6% which moves him ahead of Roddick and Kafelnikov on this stat.

Tammo
09-16-2011, 01:54 PM
Awesome stats, these will come in handy sometime

jokinla
09-16-2011, 02:40 PM
Wow, Connors doesn't have a single winning record, wouldn't have guessed that.

timnz
09-16-2011, 05:07 PM
Wow, Connors doesn't have a single winning record, wouldn't have guessed that.

A bit loaded agaist Connors since he is one of the early ATP number 1s. Because of this most others are younger than him. If you threw in other players who were say year end number ones pre 1973 eg rosewall, laver, Hoad, Gonzales -all who Connors played - his record might look better.

Mustard
09-16-2011, 05:18 PM
Wow, Connors doesn't have a single winning record, wouldn't have guessed that.

That's because Connors played into his 40s. It wasn't until Connors was the wrong side of 32 that McEnroe and Lendl started to change things in their rivalry with Connors. Despite losing head-to-heads, Connors has had big wins over Borg (1975 US Open, 1976 US Open, Jan 1978 Masters, 1978 US Open), McEnroe (1977 Wimbledon, 1978 US Open, 1980 WCT Dallas, 1982 Wimbledon), and Lendl (1982 US Open, 1983 US Open, 1984 Wimbledon).

glazkovss
11-05-2011, 02:17 PM
04/11 Federer d. Roddick 6-3 6-2 (H2H 21-2)

kiki
11-05-2011, 02:28 PM
That's because Connors played into his 40s. It wasn't until Connors was the wrong side of 32 that McEnroe and Lendl started to change things in their rivalry with Connors. Despite losing head-to-heads, Connors has had big wins over Borg (1975 US Open, 1976 US Open, Jan 1978 Masters, 1978 US Open), McEnroe (1977 Wimbledon, 1978 US Open, 1980 WCT Dallas, 1982 Wimbledon), and Lendl (1982 US Open, 1983 US Open, 1984 Wimbledon).

Connors also beat Lendl at the 1980 Masters and at the 1980 WCT Finals.

tenniselbow1
11-05-2011, 02:30 PM
Lol at Nadal and his 13 clay wins over Fed warping these results, one dimensional stat king will fall hard on all these stats he's worked so hard to create. His fall will be like no other, he'll end his career at top 5 if lucky.

glazkovss
02-18-2012, 10:33 AM
Recent results to add:
WTF: Federer d. Nadal.
AO: Неwitt d. Roddick
Djokovic d. Hewitt
Nadal d. Federer
Djokovic d. Nadal

jackson vile
02-18-2012, 01:46 PM
04/11 Federer d. Roddick 6-3 6-2 (H2H 21-2)

Don't worry, Federer is just a bad match-up for Roddick so it doesn't count.

tennis_pro
02-19-2012, 03:58 AM
Djokovic will need some effort to get over 50 % of wins against other no 1's. Apart from playing Roddick 8 times and Safin, Hewitt, Moya a few times each, the only top ranked players he has to face in his career are Federer and Nadal.

A new no 1 in 2-3 years will only get to chance of playing Nadal and Djokovic (I think Fed will retire by then) as the only other active no 1's...

Sampras record at 66 % is a joke, he allowed players like Rafter, Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov or Moya and others to get to no 1 in the first place, no wonder he has such a high winning %.

glazkovss
02-19-2012, 08:19 AM
Djokovic will need some effort to get over 50 % of wins against other no 1's. Apart from playing Roddick 8 times and Safin, Hewitt, Moya a few times each, the only top ranked players he has to face in his career are Federer and Nadal.

So what? He is a combined 12-1 against those two since the beginning of 2011.


Sampras record at 66 % is a joke, he allowed players like Rafter, Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov or Moya and others to get to no 1 in the first place, no wonder he has such a high winning %.

The same can be said about Federer, who allowed player like Roddick to get to no.1 , but dominated him in H2H, dramatically improving his own overall percentage. Also, do you see those players you listed as overachievers, fluke champions, weak players? Then notice that Kafelnikov, Rafter and "other" Kuerten are the only former number ones (apart from Nadal, ofcourse) who have a winning H2H against Federer.
And why are you trying to discard the certain stat? It's not a GOAT debate thread:)

tennis_pro
02-19-2012, 11:32 AM
So what? He is a combined 12-1 against those two since the beginning of 2011.

Why the aggressive reply, you hate bunny?

The same can be said about Federer, who allowed player like Roddick to get to no.1 , but dominated him in H2H, dramatically improving his own overall percentage. Also, do you see those players you listed as overachievers, fluke champions, weak players?

How did Federer "allow" a player like Roddick to get to no 1 when it was in 2003 before Fed starting to dominate? It's like asking how did Sampras allow Courier to reach the top spot in 1992? Btw Federer in his peak years dominated EVERYONE, no 1 or not including peak Hewitt, peak Safin, peak Ferrero, still very good Agassi (Fed won the last 8 matches), having a combined 324-24 or something, the only player who had a positive record against him was Nadal thanks to his 6 wins on clay. Moya being ranked in the top 3 couldn't beat a 17-year old Fed on a hard court and has a 0-7 record against Federer, lolz. Isn't it the same Moya who has a respectable 2-3 h2h against Sampras?

Then, if you want to take out Roddick from the h2h why don't you take out Kafelnikov who couldn't win a set against Sampras on a hard court in all but 1 of their meetings (the very first one btw), why don't you take out Rafter since he was a non-factor before 1997 when Sampras got almost all of his 12 wins against Pat?

Or let's do it the other way. Take out Nadal's wins ON CLAY (not even the whole h2h, just clay) against Federer - Fed would stand at 71 % in this scenario. Now imagine if Sampras had to play against anyone 14 times on clay in his career (especially one of the clay GOATs), his 66 % would drop a lot

Then notice that Kafelnikov, Rafter and "other" Kuerten are the only former number ones (apart from Nadal, ofcourse) who have a winning H2H against Federer.
And why are you trying to discard the certain stat? It's not a GOAT debate thread:)

Excellent arguement. Like beating a teenage Federer was such a big deal.
Or maybe it was if Sampras couldn't do it on a fast grass court of Wimbledon, lolz.

glazkovss
03-24-2012, 01:24 PM
IW: Federer d. Nadal

tennis_pro
03-24-2012, 01:28 PM
IW: Federer d. Nadal

Federer-Roddick coming up in Miami 3rd round

glazkovss
04-07-2012, 10:26 AM
Miami: Roddick d. Federer

Who would have thought, Federer was on such a roll!

sbengte
04-08-2012, 12:29 AM
Personally, while making this table, I was surprised by some of the H2H's, such as Edberg's poor (10-25) record against his main rival Becker, and a perfect one against Muster (10-0). Also was impressed by Lendl's combined 14-3 record against younger Courier, Agassi, Muster (14 of those matches took place after Ivan turned 29 years of age, including 1 w\o vs Muster - shouldn't that one be excluded by ATP from their official H2H record?).
At the same time Connor's poor overall record isn't surprising as it comes from his longevity.

Edberg's H2H with Becker is pretty skewed overall but Edberg is 3-1 against Becker at the slams. Also note that Lendl's H2H against Becker and Edberg is very even (13-14 and 11-10 respectively) which is quite impressive since Lendl is 6-8 years older than Edberg and Becker.

glazkovss
04-28-2012, 01:17 PM
Monte-Carlo: Nadal d Djokovic

glazkovss
05-18-2012, 09:22 AM
Rome: Federer d Ferrero

glazkovss
05-19-2012, 01:23 PM
Rome: Djokovic d. Federer

tennis_pro
05-19-2012, 01:30 PM
And tomorrow's final obviously

glazkovss
05-21-2012, 11:09 AM
And tomorrow's final obviously

Rome: Nadal d. Djokovic

glazkovss
05-21-2012, 11:23 AM
07/07/2011

http://s018.radikal.ru/i512/1205/33/0f0b733e4cf9.jpg (http://www.radikal.ru)

05/21/2012

http://s019.radikal.ru/i620/1205/8a/f39fd300e02f.jpg (http://www.radikal.ru)

glazkovss
06-24-2012, 11:14 AM
French open:
Djokovic d. Federer
Nadal d. Djokovic

DRII
06-24-2012, 11:21 AM
Nadal has a winning record vs the other Big 4! Period, point blank!!!


Lets give him his due!

glazkovss
06-25-2012, 03:26 PM
Wimbledon: Djokovic d. Ferrero

TeamNadal
06-25-2012, 10:54 PM
That table on page 3 doesn't include the Roland Garros final, so Rafa has increased his winning%. Very close to Sampras now. Rafa is 65.69%. Sampras leads with 66.9%....:D

TeamNadal
06-26-2012, 06:10 PM
As of today :) (June 26, 2012):

1. Sampras 115-57 (66.9%)
2. Nadal 67-35 (65.7%)
3. Federer 104-58 (64.2%)
4. Borg 40-25 (61.5%)
5. Becker 87-58 (60%)
6. Lendl 102-74 (58%)
7. Agassi 97-85 (53.3%)
8. Hewitt 65-65 (50%)
9. Kuerten 35-36 (49.3%)
10. McEnroe 68-73 (48.2%)

glazkovss
07-06-2012, 02:19 PM
Wimbledon: Federer d. Djokovic

glazkovss
07-06-2012, 02:23 PM
That table on page 3 doesn't include the Roland Garros final, so Rafa has increased his winning%. Very close to Sampras now. Rafa is 65.69%. Sampras leads with 66.9%....:D

Look at page 2 - Nadal had more than 70% a year ago (post #23), but then came Nole (post #35).

The-Champ
07-06-2012, 02:28 PM
As of today :) (June 26, 2012):

1. Sampras 115-57 (66.9%)
2. Nadal 67-35 (65.7%)
3. Federer 104-58 (64.2%)
4. Borg 40-25 (61.5%)
5. Becker 87-58 (60%)
6. Lendl 102-74 (58%)
7. Agassi 97-85 (53.3%)
8. Hewitt 65-65 (50%)
9. Kuerten 35-36 (49.3%)
10. McEnroe 68-73 (48.2%)


Wow! Sampras was so great! GOAT without a doubt! :D right TMF?

glazkovss
07-31-2012, 12:32 PM
djokovic d roddick

glazkovss
08-01-2012, 11:12 AM
djokovic d hewitt

glazkovss
08-20-2012, 10:21 AM
federer d djokovic in cincy, what a great performance!

glazkovss
06-02-2013, 12:11 AM
Since August 2012:
2012 WTF: Djokovic d Federer
2013 Indian Wells: Nadal d Federer
2013 Monaco: Djokovic d Nadal
2013 Rome: Nadal d Federer

June 2nd, 2013
http://i066.radikal.ru/1306/ec/fb1366c025ff.png (http://www.radikal.ru)

Nothing changed in a year (see post #59), exept Djokovic surpassing marks of Safin, Wilander and Edberg, and now being placed at 11th behind McEnroe.

Doctor of Tennis
06-02-2013, 04:27 AM
seems like Roddick actually did quite well against other #1 players. Excluding Federer, he would be 34-29, or 53.9%. Interesting.

jg153040
06-02-2013, 04:40 AM
http://s2.ipicture.ru/uploads/20110430/FYRR36jU.bmp (http://s2.ipicture.ru/)

http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20110430/IXc3S1LU.bmp (http://s1.ipicture.ru/)

(as of 04/30/2011)

But isn't this a little flawed? If you have a good record vs nr.1 player doesn't that mean you spent a lot of time being NOT nr.1?

So a person who never beats a nr.1 player is the theoretical goat really, since he is the only one being nr.1.

So guys who spent being nr.1 the most are penalized, because the didn't play a lot vs nr.1 players. You can't beat yourself.

Just saying.

mattennis
06-02-2013, 04:44 AM
But isn't this a little flawed? If you have a good record vs nr.1 player doesn't that mean you spent a lot of time being NOT nr.1?

So a person who never beats a nr.1 player is the theoretical goat really, since he is the only one being nr.1.

So guys who spent being nr.1 the most are penalized, because the didn't play a lot vs nr.1 players. You can't beat yourself.

Just saying.

Well, Sampras, Federer and Lendl (the three players with more total weeks at n1 ) are 1, 3 and 6 on that list, so it seems your point is not very good.

jg153040
06-02-2013, 05:22 AM
Well, Sampras, Federer and Lendl (the three players with more total weeks at n1 ) are 1, 3 and 6 on that list, so it seems your point is not very good.

Yes, this is strange. This should not happen. How did those guys even get to play those nr.1 players, since they were nr.1 a lot of the time?

Maybe due to luck that guys from previous eras stick around for too long.
And than the guy from this era who got his wins retires too early so he doesn't record losses from new nr.1 ones.

And there is also luck of the draw. They don't get to play each other all the time.

mattennis
06-02-2013, 05:35 AM
Even if a player stays n1 for five or six years (like Sampras and Federer), usually they have a 15+ years long career, so there is time enough to play another n1 players many many times during your career.

merlinpinpin
06-02-2013, 05:36 AM
Well, Sampras, Federer and Lendl (the three players with more total weeks at n1 ) are 1, 3 and 6 on that list, so it seems your point is not very good.

Except that one could say that the Sampras result is somewhat skewed in his favour, as lots of players (comparatively) reached #1 for a couple of weeks then faded away during his tenure, so in a sense, he's being "gifted" with wins vs #1's which would have been wins vs guys ranked 2-5 in other eras (for example, he never played Rafter, Moya or Muster when they were #1, and Courier was just done as a great once he let #1 slip away, so Sampras scores big vs these guys, especially vs Moya or Muster, as he was very careful (lol) to avoid them on their best surface...)

Still, an impressive score from him, no doubt, but his percentage would probably have been worse had he been better on clay... ;)

jg153040
06-02-2013, 05:44 AM
Except that one could say that the Sampras result is somewhat skewed in his favour, as lots of players (comparatively) reached #1 for a couple of weeks then faded away during his tenure, so in a sense, he's being "gifted" with wins vs #1's which would have been wins vs guys ranked 2-5 in other eras (for example, he never played Rafter, Moya or Muster when they were #1, and Courier was just done as a great once he let #1 slip away, so Sampras scores big vs these guys, especially vs Moya or Muster, as he was very careful (lol) to avoid them on their best surface...)

Still, an impressive score from him, no doubt, but his percentage would probably have been worse had he been better on clay... ;)

Good points. Top players are penalized for consistency. Nadal also doesn't make it far on hard courts to lose to top players more. Like Roddick and Hewitt not giving much chances for Fed to defeat them on clay.

Fed does get penalized so much because he is so good on clay lol. This is so funny. Even Nadals clay dominance is being used against him sometimes.

merlinpinpin
06-02-2013, 05:46 AM
Edberg's less than .500 record vs. No. 1s (75-84) is due almost solely to his terrible record against Becker (10-25). I'm still amazed that he was 3-1 vs. Becker in Slams, and also beat him in the 1989 Masters finals, yet was dominated otherwise (6-24 outside those matches). Just an observation.

The most interesting thing about this stat is that nobody (and I mean *nobody*) ever mentions it (and rightly so) when comparing those two champions' career, with Edberg probably having a slight edge over Becker careerwise.

Food for thought for the young guns who think that h2h is the be-all and end-all of tennis... ;)

jg153040
06-02-2013, 05:57 AM
The most interesting thing about this stat is that nobody (and I mean *nobody*) ever mentions it (and rightly so) when comparing those two champions' career, with Edberg probably having a slight edge over Becker careerwise.

Food for thought for the young guns who think that h2h is the be-all and end-all of tennis... ;)

I don't think players care a lot about h2h. Let's say Murray would never win USO. What will his h2h vs Fed help?

We should ask players. If Murray never won uso. Who would they rather be?
Roddick who has a slam and nr.1 but being owned by Fed.

Or Murray having 0 slams and no nr.1 having positive h2h vs Fed.

I'd pick 1 slam over leading h2h against anyone. My personal opinion.
Dominic Hrbaty would agree, haha.

mattennis
06-02-2013, 05:59 AM
Yes, I remember an interview when they asked Edberg about his success against Becker, winning 3 out of their 4 GS encounters ( they faced each other three times in a WB final and once in a RG SF) and also defeating him in the Masters-Cup final in 1989, and Edberg said: "well, the reality is that he used to beat me all the time in general, but I happened to win the most important ones".

Edberg was a gentleman.

jg153040
06-02-2013, 06:30 AM
Yes, I remember an interview when they asked Edberg about his success against Becker, winning 3 out of their 4 GS encounters ( they faced each other three times in a WB final and once in a RG SF) and also defeating him in the Masters-Cup final in 1989, and Edberg said: "well, the reality is that he used to beat me all the time in general, but I happened to win the most important ones".

Edberg was a gentleman.

How did this happen? Why couldn't Becker defeat him at the slams?

glazkovss
06-09-2013, 05:46 AM
French open: Nadal d. Djokovic

glazkovss
08-12-2013, 12:55 PM
Montreal: Nadal d. Djokovic

topher
08-12-2013, 02:13 PM
But isn't this a little flawed? If you have a good record vs nr.1 player doesn't that mean you spent a lot of time being NOT nr.1?

I don't think you understand the list exactly. Even though a player is #1 at the time, he still gets credit against previous and future #1's that he plays, as I understand. Thus you'll be playing #1's throughout your career and a sufficient sample size will be reached.

So a person who never beats a nr.1 player is the theoretical goat really, since he is the only one being nr.1.

Same misunderstanding. Even if a player's #1 his entire career (from day 0 to retirement), the players he was playing will no doubt end up becoming number 1 before or after he was there.

So guys who spent being nr.1 the most are penalized, because the didn't play a lot vs nr.1 players. You can't beat yourself.

Just saying.

Not at all, actually. For example, Federer's count would be changed not at all had he been #2 for most of his career, as all of his #2's (who would then have been #1's in his stead) are also former #1's (Roddick & Nadal mostly I think). The stat is legit, in its context.

kiki
08-12-2013, 03:39 PM
I feel as if most of the earlier ones such as Newk and Nastase should be disregarded as a lot of their top tennis was prior to the 1973 which is when the ATP was formed. Though both possibly peaked in 73 they each had phenomenal years in the 70-72 range numbers which are not counted as the #1 ranking did not form until Aug 73. So Newcombe who had been playing top tennis since 67 and beat a handful of top guys such prior to that date has none of those matches counted. His 6-8 is very misleading and confusing when compared to the rest on the list.

Very good post.and Nastase was beating the hell of Connors and Borg for a few years.and both players were already peaking...

glazkovss
08-25-2013, 12:18 AM
Cincinatti: Nadal d. Federer

Sorana fan
08-25-2013, 10:31 AM
Cincinatti: Nadal d. Federer

:) :twisted:

glazkovss
09-24-2013, 01:03 PM
US Open: Nadal d. Djokovic

Mustard
09-24-2013, 01:41 PM
Nadal is now:

21-10 vs. Federer
22-15 vs. Djokovic
6-4 vs. Hewitt
7-3 vs. Roddick
7-2 vs. Ferrero
2-0 vs. Agassi
2-0 vs. Safin

glazkovss
10-07-2013, 11:35 AM
Beijing: Djokovic d. Nadal

glazkovss
11-10-2013, 11:38 AM
Paris: Djokovic d. Federer

London: Djokovic d. Federer

London: Nadal d. Federer

London: Djokovic d. Nadal

glazkovss
11-12-2013, 09:11 AM
Latest calculations, as of November 12th 2013 (year end)

http://s018.radikal.ru/i517/1311/3a/800fc66a9f91.jpg (http://radikal.ru/fp/125cf8ee1d464ab7bee030f67d7945c8)

glazkovss
01-26-2014, 06:17 AM
Australian Open: Nadal d. Federer

SLD76
01-26-2014, 06:19 AM
How did this happen? Why couldn't Becker defeat him at the slams?

a devastating lob for one thing. I remember..i think 92 wimby final, edberg destroyed becker with outstanding lobs.

glazkovss
03-07-2014, 01:13 PM
Dubai: Federer d. Djokovic

Stanimal
03-07-2014, 01:17 PM
Despite the current conditions, I'd like to see Hewitt/Nadal again. I think if Hewitt could play something like a 4-6 4-6 against Rafa it'd really be nice just to see him take 8 more games and still have a 6-5 record over Nadal

octobrina10
03-07-2014, 01:33 PM
Despite the current conditions, I'd like to see Hewitt/Nadal again. I think if Hewitt could play something like a 4-6 4-6 against Rafa it'd really be nice just to see him take 8 more games and still have a 6-5 record over Nadal

What??
Rafa has a 6-4 record over Hewitt!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiJ5qSYCQAAzESA.jpg

LazyNinja19
03-07-2014, 01:36 PM
Dubai: Federer d. Djokovic

Did you count Hewitt def. Federer Brisbane Final?

Stanimal
03-07-2014, 01:37 PM
Oh my bad man I thought Hewitt had the edge

Stanimal
03-07-2014, 01:37 PM
I'm drinking so you don't gotta listen to me today

Fed_Djoker_Fan
03-07-2014, 03:00 PM
Despite the current conditions, I'd like to see Hewitt/Nadal again. I think if Hewitt could play something like a 4-6 4-6 against Rafa it'd really be nice just to see him take 8 more games and still have a 6-5 record over Nadal

Let me guess, Fed is goat in your universe

Steve0904
03-07-2014, 03:23 PM
Let me guess, Fed is goat in your universe

That's called being in the correct universe. :twisted:

Stanimal
03-07-2014, 03:24 PM
Um no but thanks

Stanimal
03-07-2014, 03:25 PM
Federer is great and so is Nadal but I'm not really in the same boat as most here where liking one means shitting all over the other's accomplishments

Fed_Djoker_Fan
03-07-2014, 03:37 PM
That's called being in the correct universe. :twisted:

Yes in the universe where Hewitt leads Rafa 6-5, Fed is the GOAT. The "Correct" universe as in people in that universe need "correction" ? lol

Stanimal
03-07-2014, 03:38 PM
Dude I ****ed up one stat. Keep your tiny Nadal asspicker shorts on

glazkovss
03-20-2014, 02:27 PM
Indian Wells: Djokovic d. Federer

glazkovss
03-20-2014, 02:27 PM
Did you count Hewitt def. Federer Brisbane Final?

Missed that one, thanks!

glazkovss
03-23-2014, 01:08 PM
Miami: Nadal d Hewitt

glazkovss
06-08-2014, 12:55 PM
Monaco: Federer d. Djokovic
Rome: Djokovic d. Nadal
Paris: Nadal d. Djokovic