ATP No.1 Players H2H against each other

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by glazkovss, Apr 30, 2011.

  1. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    (as of 04/30/2011)
     
    #1
  2. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    Feel free to discuss the results of this calculation I've done. Corrections on accuratness of the numbers (if any) are welcome.
     
    #2
  3. Cassius Clay

    Cassius Clay Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    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.
     
    #3
  4. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    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.
     
    #4
  5. tenis1

    tenis1 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    848
    It is all clear now. Nadal is the GOAT.
     
    #5
  6. niff

    niff Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    5,390
    Location:
    Henman Hill
    Sampras' win number is very cool.
     
    #6
  7. Cassius Clay

    Cassius Clay Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    That one is Djokovic as he might get to #1 soon, but their H2H is already lopsided in favor of Nadal.
     
    #7
  8. miyagi

    miyagi Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,261
    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
     
    #8
  9. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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.
     
    #9
  10. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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.
     
    #10
  11. Djokolate

    Djokolate Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    853
    Location:
    Funkytown
    Nadal right now, but he has played not so much matches compared to Fed and Pete, and soon he will drop in form.
     
    #11
  12. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    What's incredible is that Agassi played 20 of 23 other people on that list :)

    The only non-plays were Borg, Newcombe and Nastase
     
    #12
  13. Nadalfan89

    Nadalfan89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,307
    Very interesting. Another statistic which proves Nadal is the GOAT.
     
    #13
  14. Clay lover

    Clay lover Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,911
    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.
     
    #14
  15. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Muster was much better against the field than against the very top players.
     
    #15
  16. DjokerIsTheBest

    DjokerIsTheBest Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    424
    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.
     
    #16
  17. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    You only say that because Federer and Nadal have won 25 slams between them.
     
    #17
  18. DjokerIsTheBest

    DjokerIsTheBest Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    424
    No, actually my point was that these stats only further illustrate the meaninglessness of H2H.
     
    #18
  19. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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:)
     
    #19
  20. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    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.
     
    #20
  21. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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:)
     
    #21
  22. FedError

    FedError Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    A park in Melbourne
    Without Federer, Roddick would be at 55.8%.

    Without Roddick, Federer would be at 61.9%.
     
    #22
  23. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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 %)
     
    #23
  24. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Thanks for putting in all the work on this one
     
    #24
  25. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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.
     
    #25
  26. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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.
     
    #26
  27. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,836
    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.
     
    #27
  28. single_handed_champion

    single_handed_champion Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    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.
     
    #28
  29. RalphDUD

    RalphDUD Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    Wien, Österreich
    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.
     
    #29
  30. RalphDUD

    RalphDUD Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    Wien, Österreich
    They ban DjokerIsTheBest and they keep this guy here?
     
    #30
  31. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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?
     
    #31
  32. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #32
  33. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    Thanks for an insight. I couldn't see that because I began to follow the game in 1996.
     
    #33
  34. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,836
    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.
     
    #34
  35. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    As we have a new No.1, here is the latest update of the table:

    [​IMG]

    And the standings:

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
    #35
  36. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    Latest update:
    9/10/2011 Nadal d. Roddick 6-2 6-1 6-3 (overall H2H 7-3)
     
    #36
  37. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    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.
     
    #37
  38. Tammo

    Tammo Banned

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,875
    Awesome stats, these will come in handy sometime
     
    #38
  39. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Wow, Connors doesn't have a single winning record, wouldn't have guessed that.
     
    #39
  40. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,534
    Yeah but.....

    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.
     
    #40
  41. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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).
     
    #41
  42. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    04/11 Federer d. Roddick 6-3 6-2 (H2H 21-2)
     
    #42
  43. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Connors also beat Lendl at the 1980 Masters and at the 1980 WCT Finals.
     
    #43
  44. tenniselbow1

    tenniselbow1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    297
    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.
     
    #44
  45. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    Recent results to add:
    WTF: Federer d. Nadal.
    AO: Неwitt d. Roddick
    Djokovic d. Hewitt
    Nadal d. Federer
    Djokovic d. Nadal
     
    #45
  46. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Don't worry, Federer is just a bad match-up for Roddick so it doesn't count.
     
    #46
  47. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    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 %.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2012
    #47
  48. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    So what? He is a combined 12-1 against those two since the beginning of 2011.

    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:)
     
    #48
  49. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Why the aggressive reply, you hate bunny?

    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

    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.
     
    #49
  50. glazkovss

    glazkovss Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    862
    IW: Federer d. Nadal
     
    #50

Share This Page