Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by glazkovss, Apr 30, 2011.
Federer-Roddick coming up in Miami 3rd round
Miami: Roddick d. Federer
Who would have thought, Federer was on such a roll!
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.
Monte-Carlo: Nadal d Djokovic
Rome: Federer d Ferrero
Rome: Djokovic d. Federer
And tomorrow's final obviously
Rome: Nadal d. Djokovic
Djokovic d. Federer
Nadal d. Djokovic
Nadal has a winning record vs the other Big 4! Period, point blank!!!
Lets give him his due!
Wimbledon: Djokovic d. Ferrero
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%....
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%)
Wimbledon: Federer d. Djokovic
Look at page 2 - Nadal had more than 70% a year ago (post #23), but then came Nole (post #35).
Wow! Sampras was so great! GOAT without a doubt! right TMF?
djokovic d roddick
djokovic d hewitt
federer d djokovic in cincy, what a great performance!
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
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.
seems like Roddick actually did quite well against other #1 players. Excluding Federer, he would be 34-29, or 53.9%. Interesting.
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.
Well, Sampras, Federer and Lendl (the three players with more total weeks at nº1 ) are 1º, 3º and 6º 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.
Even if a player stays nº1 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 nº1 players many many times during your career.
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.
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.
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?
French open: Nadal d. Djokovic
Montreal: Nadal d. Djokovic
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.
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.
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.
Very good post.and Nastase was beating the hell of Connors and Borg for a few years.and both players were already peaking...
Cincinatti: Nadal d. Federer
US Open: Nadal d. Djokovic
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
Beijing: Djokovic d. Nadal
Paris: Djokovic d. Federer
London: Djokovic d. Federer
London: Nadal d. Federer
London: Djokovic d. Nadal
Latest calculations, as of November 12th 2013 (year end)
Australian Open: Nadal d. Federer
a devastating lob for one thing. I remember..i think 92 wimby final, edberg destroyed becker with outstanding lobs.
Dubai: Federer d. Djokovic
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
Rafa has a 6-4 record over Hewitt!
Did you count Hewitt def. Federer Brisbane Final?
Oh my bad man I thought Hewitt had the edge
Separate names with a comma.