Comparing Grand Slam Winning Percentage of Big 3

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Aug 14, 2012.

  1. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    When Nadal and Nole reach 33 their winning percentage will go down.
     
    #51
  2. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Yes. But From then arguments never end as to what years count toward greatness. Is Federer the goat since he has won like never before from the age of 22-26? Or is Connors the goat for having 80%+ winning percentage over the entire career? I find a good 8-9 year period that can be considered as prime is the best to period to asses. In that sense it doesn't matter if Nadal and Djoker slump beyond 30s.
     
    #52
  3. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    It's amazing to see what Nadal has done by winning Roland Garros year after year. Not just add to his clay legacy, but he has left the winning percentage of Djoker and Federer at Roland Garros way down compared to their records at other Slams despite doing reasonably well reaching final and semis of Roland Garros. Nadal can comfortably lose in the earlier rounds of other Slams, even skip them and still have his worst record above Federer's worst record.

    For eg, in my table, Federer's worst Slam record is at RG which is 83.7%. Djoker's is 82%. Nadal's worst record comes in at Wimbledon which is 83.33%!! Nadal's recent Wimbledon shows are like Not Played, 1st Round, 2nd Round, 4th Round etc and still manage to have a comparable record to other two greats!

    In other words, by winning RG every year he is not skewing his own results to be biased, but he is in turn maximizing his potential to be the best all-courter of his era! Funny..
     
    #53
  4. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,229
    ^^^ DNP is same as 1R loss.

    Both dont get points for the event.
     
    #54
  5. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    ^^^ If getting points is the factor, then yes. Other than that they can be different. For eg, DNP doesn't affect your win % in ATP records.

    I did account DNP as 1R loss in the second figure anyway. What I mean is despite having such pathetic show in Wimby, he is having comparable record of Federer's and Djokovic's at RG.
     
    #55
  6. drm025

    drm025 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,875
    DNP does not count as a loss. Not in career win-loss. Not in yearly win-loss. Not in tournament win-loss. Not in H2H with another player. Not the same thing. Why is this hard to understand? You can't lose if you don't play. It's simple.
     
    #56
  7. drm025

    drm025 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,875
    Don't see how adding nonexistent losses can in any way be objective.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2014
    #57
  8. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,229
    DNP is same as Walk over as retirement. It is a loss on account of not being able to play.
     
    #58
  9. jhhachamp

    jhhachamp Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    *duplicate post
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2014
    #59
  10. jhhachamp

    jhhachamp Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    This is only 100% true if there are only two tennis players in the world. If there are more, it is not necessarily a good definition.
     
    #60
  11. jhhachamp

    jhhachamp Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    Both are impressive. I don't recall anyone saying Nadal playing well at a young age is not impressive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2014
    #61
  12. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Some people see it this way. I can see their point. I can see your point too. But I tend towards "counting non-existent losses" since in tennis some tournaments mandate your presence. By law you have to play. You lose points if you dont (considering you are defending some points from previous years there).
     
    #62
  13. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Haa, the problem mostly is not that people dont consider it impressive. The problem is that they do consider it impressive and hence hold Nadal accountable for bad losses early in his career. Often seen poor Federer fan arguments:

    1. Nadal's first slam is in 2005. Hence his all court prime is from 2005 (a guy just argued this in this thread as well).
    2. Nadal and Federer are contemporaries, and hence if Federer's era is weak, so is Nadal's.
    3. Blake, Gonzalez etc are high quality players since they beat Nadal, an all time great, handily often.

    The last one is the most glaring of all. Nadal hadn't shown anything of his caliber during his early period to be an all time great on non-clay surface. When Nadal fans argue Federer had much worse losses during his early period, the obvious counter argument is that he didnt bloom by then. But Nadal? He is answerable.

    The problem is people often think things progress linearly, and similarly. Like since Federer started to dominate all surfaces more or less at the same time, Nadal too should.
     
    #63
  14. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    USA
    To me Nadal's 98% at one grand slam trumps everything Federer has done. I prefer 1 exceptional achievement over "all around" success. Nadal at the French Open is like the iPhone.
     
    #64
  15. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,229
    One cannot take whatever are the things convenient and discard things that are bad.

    Do Nadal fans discount all of his hard court wins over Federer till his "supposed" hard court maturity ?

    Do they not say a baby Nadal was number 2 and hence the era was weak ?

    If it was weak, then Nadal ought to have won.


    Nadal fans always resort to the theory that his peak is like a sine curve - different peaks at different time periods - one of a kind in tennis history.

    It is good for a laugh. If Nadal was a pure Spanish clay courter of the yester years, he would not have won any hard court matches . The fact was that there were players that played better than him at that time. That is not to say Nadal did not improve on hard. Nadal improved on every surface post 2007 - he got rewards much later.

    There is no objective way to compare the current top 10 with yester years top 10.
     
    #65
  16. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    USA
    Nadal's 3 HC slams put him in the top 10 hard-courters of all time. Fed's 1 FO does not make him even top 10 clay courter eve.r
     
    #66
  17. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,229
    Tennis is played on slow hard, fast hard, grass, clay and indoors.

    Having success just at one of 5 is where he is falling short as compared to Borg and Sampras. Person having 3 majors less than you being rated on par speaks volumes.
     
    #67
  18. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,229
    Nadal has 2 fast hard and 1 on Plexi. He is not in top 5 in neither AO , US or Wimbledon.

    Fed is top at Wimb , USO and AO. Top 10 at FO .

    No comparison
     
    #68
  19. drm025

    drm025 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,875
    A retirement is recorded as a loss, so of course that is the same as a loss. A walkover is not recorded as a loss, but if you give a walkover in the 4th round, your result is the 4th round, so you failed to win an event that you entered. If you do not play, no loss is recorded and there is no result, so there is no failure in tennis terms. Not giving yourself the opportunity to win, though, does hurt.
     
    #69
  20. drm025

    drm025 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,875
    So you would give players losses for every masters tournament that they dont play as well? Doesn't make sense. If you don't play, you can't win and you can't loss.
     
    #70
  21. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    @tennisaddict,

    One cannot take whatever are the things convenient and discard things that are bad.

    Indeed!



    Do Nadal fans discount all of his hard court wins over Federer till his "supposed" hard court maturity ?


    Some dont, some do. But in my view they dont count. In the sense it doesn't matter. The only thing it proves is Nadal had a game to beat Federer. All this Nadal didn't own prime Federer outside clay is ********. But in the greatness context it doesn't matter. In fact none of the h2hs matter. Though credit should be given to players who beat in form players. Another case, Federer beat Nadal IW 2012 which is a good effort.



    Do they not say a baby Nadal was number 2 and hence the era was weak ? If it was weak, then Nadal ought to have won.

    You contradict yourself. If they say Nadal was a baby, why should he ought to have won even if the era is weak? He did make decent exploits during that period with his clay game on non-clay surfaces though. Nevertheless, Nadal was a clay monster and that was enough to stay at no.2. In fact if a guy consistently wins 3 masters and a slam a year he will be no.2 in any era. So the argument "baby Nadal could be no.2 hence the era is weak" is stupid. That period was weak because outside clay there was not anyone who could consistently threaten Federer. In other words, before '08 the tour wasn't top heavy.



    Nadal fans always resort to the theory that his peak is like a sine curve - different peaks at different time periods - one of a kind in tennis history.

    They are delusional!



    It is good for a laugh. If Nadal was a pure Spanish clay courter of the yester years, he would not have won any hard court matches .

    I dont understand you here.. :(



    The fact was that there were players that played better than him at that time.

    Very true outside clay. But that argument doesn't make the era stronger. If players A B C is better than players X Y Z, A B C era is not stronger by default. It depends on quality of A B C.



    There is no objective way to compare the current top 10 with yester years top 10.

    True somewhat. But imo everyone can objectively say Djokovic is a much better player than Roddick on hard courts just by watching them :). So for Federer and Nadal, 2003-2007 competition on hc < 2008 - 2014 competition on hc.
     
    #71
  22. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    That's so much over-simplification of the problem. I believe Nadal is the only reason why Federer went underachieved. If for Nadal many in the past too would have gone like that. Federer is inside top 10 all time on clay. May be even top 5!
     
    #72
  23. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    30,378
    Location:
    Orlando FL
    And in the same token, Nadal could have 4 Wimbledon titles and 2 WTF's without Federer and would have been #1 from 2005-2011.
     
    #73
  24. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Haha good point. It made me realize I made a poor argument. What I did mean was Federer had problems with "Nadal" itself, not the "good clay courter". When I say "if not for Nadal" I mean Federer could have had more success than he has today in terms of titles. While this can not be guaranteed for Nadal. The 2006-07 version of Nadal might still lose to a good grass courter not Federer.

    My point is Federer is a top 10 clay courter. Result based analysis are so unjustified. We may have to agree to disagree? I dont see tennis just from "all that happens is all that counts" point of view. If not for Nadal's health and Soderling, some people might still argue Gaudio was a better clay courter than Federer, which is absurd. The best clay courter in my opinion between the Keurten - Nadal period is Coria. Imo, he was really a quality opponent. Federer has wins over him during his prime.. All this is to say Federer is a very capable clay courter, easily inside top 10 all time.
     
    #74
  25. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    In the context of greatness and if Masters includes in my metric, then yes (other than Monte-Carlo of course).

    I like to make my pick based on very objective and foolproof methods. It shouldn't be a loose, "depending on the situation" metric. Otherwise people will have very "subjective" (mostly to suit their goat :p) standards. Here is one example where I will show why counting DNPs as losses is sane.

    Wimbledon records of A and B:

    A - W, W, W, W, 1R
    B - W, DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP

    Now whose win % at Wimbledon is better according to me? A. Whose according to you? B. If you still stick to B, fine. I dont. I hope A makes sense to more people.

    I take extreme examples to show how people will use subjective criteria to assess things like this if we dont standardize things. Here is another extreme example:


    A - DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP, 1R
    B - DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP

    Now who has a better Wimbledon record? According to me A. According to you its B? Or neither?

    In my comparison I was comparing win % across Slams over a fixed period of time. Since competition is very high, it leaves less margin for players. I have to be very critical here. Nadal didn't play Wimbledon because he thought he will lose. Or his body cant handle it. Its as simple as not being good enough to play. Which is a 1R loss.
     
    #75

Share This Page