NatF
Bionic Poster
Hi all,
So my last project where I showed the win/loss of top 10 and 20 players was interesting but it occurred to me that it did not necessarily show how tough grand slam opponents were in those years for the winners.
To try and gauge this I moved onto looking at dominance ratio of defeated quarter finalists and onwards for the Trivalry. Dominance ratio is the percentage of return points you won divided by the amount of serve points you dropped. It essentially points to how well you were getting into your opponents service games versus how well they got into yours. The higher the number the more dominant you were.
To give an example if you win 40% of the points on your opponents serve and you win 70% of the points on your own serve your dominance ratio will be 40/30 = 1.33
I approached this from two angles:
The first:
What was the D/R of Trivalry opponents in defeat? Essentially who put up the most resistance in their eventual loss. This number of course will be relative to the level of the Trivalry member they faced. But it should indicate who was more evenly matched with Fedalovic and closest to their level at that moment. I also understand that games and sets lost might seem a more accurate representation of the difficulty of a match – this is not fool proof, I contend only that it is one way to check competition. There’s also the possibility that some players coasted after breaking or held out for a tiebreak for example…this would effect the D/R. But for now I will assume that mostly averages out over the whole sample.
• Note I would personally not flat out compare dominance ratios on different surfaces as there might other factors influencing how easy it is to win a point on serve etc…I'm open to opinions on this.
I have been looking at this on a round by round basis by slam showing the average, the full tables will be at the bottom of this OP. I would also note that comparing the average of a guy who has won 5 at event versus someone with 1 or even 2 can be a little unfair. So use your discretion when reading this.
It will also include the full average at each slam. I have also done a round by round average across all 4 slams and one for all matches.
The second:
What was the D/R of the defeated players on the way to the match with the Trivalry. In other words how dominant was player X in the USO QF in rounds 1-4. This will of course depend greatly on the draws but I feel the first metric e.g. how they performed against the Trivalry can balance this a little. We can also debate the finer points if necessary.
I will present this in the same way as the first.
The second angle I feel works well with the first, although there is obviously the option that the players in questions raised or dropped their games when playing the Trivalry.
Combined I think this will at least give some indication of who was playing well and who was a difficult match. I’m not sure how I feel surface impacts these, I don’t know if a higher D/R is easier to achieve on clay or grass etc…So if it’s easier for the better player to get a high ratio on grass that will obviously skew Federer’s overall numbers. Which is why even though I include them I try not to read too much into cross surface comparisons.
A further note, I excluded matches which had less than 2 sets so they didn't skew the results. I can if asked reveal the breakdown of the matches won by each opponent.
Ok so onto my observations/conclusions:
1) No surprises, Djokovic pretty comes out on top or on the bottom (depending on your perspective of whether he’s been very unlucky to play in this era
) in all categories. His opponents gave him the most trouble and they were the most dominant in their lead up matches. Which seems logical no?
2) In terms of resistance between Nadal and Federer, Federer had the tougher overall opponents at the USO and Wimbledon. Nadal at the AO and the FO. Though with no overlap in terms of multiple titles at those last two I don’t find it revealing. Djokovic had narrowly more trouble at the AO overall compared to Federer – though Novaks opponents were consistently more dominant in their lead up matches
3) In terms of form, it mirrors the first part quite nicely. Djokovic’s opponents come up tops at Wimbledon and the USO, Nadal’s at the AO and Federer’s at the FO. These last two don’t mean much to me. Djokovic’s average for the AO was a lot higher than Federer’s so unless Nadal wins another AO with really tough opponents I think Djokovic is superior in that respect. Federer leads Nadal at Wimbledon and the USO.
4) Overall across all the slams both for form and for resistance Djokovic is obviously #1 and Federer and Nadal are tied at #2 with exact same numbers when rounded to two decimal places.
5) Across the various rounds for resistance Federer had the toughest QF’s, with Djokovic #2. Nadal the toughest finals with Djokovic narrowly #2, and Djokovic the toughest SF with Nadal slightly edging Federer for #2. If you give more weight to slam finals then Nadal might be your guy – though Djokovic has the best balance
6) For rounds and form, Djokovic was clearly a head in all categories. With Federer a clear #2 in QF, both Federer and Nadal tied in SF and Nadal #2 in finals.
I would say overall Djokovic is #1 and Fedal joint #2, I put more stock in the by slam figures individually as I think D/R can be affected by the surface. Not to mention they came up even in both the overall numbers anyway. Nadal’s greater difficulties in finals balances the fact Federer had better numbers in the events both had won more than once – I would also note that I do find comparing averages of 7/ 5 titles versus 2/2 a little unfair as single bad or tough opponents can cause the average to jump.
Now onto the data…
Please suggest any improvements.
If it's not clear the round averages are to the right of each player and the slam averages are on the bottom.
I apologize for stretching the screen with the images.
So my last project where I showed the win/loss of top 10 and 20 players was interesting but it occurred to me that it did not necessarily show how tough grand slam opponents were in those years for the winners.
To try and gauge this I moved onto looking at dominance ratio of defeated quarter finalists and onwards for the Trivalry. Dominance ratio is the percentage of return points you won divided by the amount of serve points you dropped. It essentially points to how well you were getting into your opponents service games versus how well they got into yours. The higher the number the more dominant you were.
To give an example if you win 40% of the points on your opponents serve and you win 70% of the points on your own serve your dominance ratio will be 40/30 = 1.33
I approached this from two angles:
The first:
What was the D/R of Trivalry opponents in defeat? Essentially who put up the most resistance in their eventual loss. This number of course will be relative to the level of the Trivalry member they faced. But it should indicate who was more evenly matched with Fedalovic and closest to their level at that moment. I also understand that games and sets lost might seem a more accurate representation of the difficulty of a match – this is not fool proof, I contend only that it is one way to check competition. There’s also the possibility that some players coasted after breaking or held out for a tiebreak for example…this would effect the D/R. But for now I will assume that mostly averages out over the whole sample.
• Note I would personally not flat out compare dominance ratios on different surfaces as there might other factors influencing how easy it is to win a point on serve etc…I'm open to opinions on this.
I have been looking at this on a round by round basis by slam showing the average, the full tables will be at the bottom of this OP. I would also note that comparing the average of a guy who has won 5 at event versus someone with 1 or even 2 can be a little unfair. So use your discretion when reading this.
It will also include the full average at each slam. I have also done a round by round average across all 4 slams and one for all matches.
The second:
What was the D/R of the defeated players on the way to the match with the Trivalry. In other words how dominant was player X in the USO QF in rounds 1-4. This will of course depend greatly on the draws but I feel the first metric e.g. how they performed against the Trivalry can balance this a little. We can also debate the finer points if necessary.
I will present this in the same way as the first.
The second angle I feel works well with the first, although there is obviously the option that the players in questions raised or dropped their games when playing the Trivalry.
Combined I think this will at least give some indication of who was playing well and who was a difficult match. I’m not sure how I feel surface impacts these, I don’t know if a higher D/R is easier to achieve on clay or grass etc…So if it’s easier for the better player to get a high ratio on grass that will obviously skew Federer’s overall numbers. Which is why even though I include them I try not to read too much into cross surface comparisons.
A further note, I excluded matches which had less than 2 sets so they didn't skew the results. I can if asked reveal the breakdown of the matches won by each opponent.
Ok so onto my observations/conclusions:
1) No surprises, Djokovic pretty comes out on top or on the bottom (depending on your perspective of whether he’s been very unlucky to play in this era
) in all categories. His opponents gave him the most trouble and they were the most dominant in their lead up matches. Which seems logical no?2) In terms of resistance between Nadal and Federer, Federer had the tougher overall opponents at the USO and Wimbledon. Nadal at the AO and the FO. Though with no overlap in terms of multiple titles at those last two I don’t find it revealing. Djokovic had narrowly more trouble at the AO overall compared to Federer – though Novaks opponents were consistently more dominant in their lead up matches
3) In terms of form, it mirrors the first part quite nicely. Djokovic’s opponents come up tops at Wimbledon and the USO, Nadal’s at the AO and Federer’s at the FO. These last two don’t mean much to me. Djokovic’s average for the AO was a lot higher than Federer’s so unless Nadal wins another AO with really tough opponents I think Djokovic is superior in that respect. Federer leads Nadal at Wimbledon and the USO.
4) Overall across all the slams both for form and for resistance Djokovic is obviously #1 and Federer and Nadal are tied at #2 with exact same numbers when rounded to two decimal places.
5) Across the various rounds for resistance Federer had the toughest QF’s, with Djokovic #2. Nadal the toughest finals with Djokovic narrowly #2, and Djokovic the toughest SF with Nadal slightly edging Federer for #2. If you give more weight to slam finals then Nadal might be your guy – though Djokovic has the best balance
6) For rounds and form, Djokovic was clearly a head in all categories. With Federer a clear #2 in QF, both Federer and Nadal tied in SF and Nadal #2 in finals.
I would say overall Djokovic is #1 and Fedal joint #2, I put more stock in the by slam figures individually as I think D/R can be affected by the surface. Not to mention they came up even in both the overall numbers anyway. Nadal’s greater difficulties in finals balances the fact Federer had better numbers in the events both had won more than once – I would also note that I do find comparing averages of 7/ 5 titles versus 2/2 a little unfair as single bad or tough opponents can cause the average to jump.
Now onto the data…
Resistance
Form
Please suggest any improvements.
If it's not clear the round averages are to the right of each player and the slam averages are on the bottom.
I apologize for stretching the screen with the images.
Last edited:
