Rafa's W/L record - can he sustain it?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by kragster, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    Along with ranking, weeks at no 1, slam count etc I think of W-L record as a very good indicator of greatness, given a large enough sample size. Rafa has a long way to go on the first few criteria but one place where he has his best stats is his W/L percentage which at the moment is 2nd only to Borg (0.826 vs 0.827). The other top guys are also very close behind - Connors/Mcenroe/Fed/Lendl. As a surface breakdown, Rafa is 1st on clay, 7th on grass and 13th on hard courts (not bad for someone considered a dirtballer).

    It must be noted that as you get older and move out of your prime, your W/L record will naturally come down. That being said, even in one of Rafa's worst years (2009), his W-L was a healthy 82.5%. If Rafa has a Federesque career, where he can remain top 5 for the next 3 years, he could still end up with a >82% W-L record. On the other hand, with such a physical game, Rafa's fall from grace could also be a lot steeper than a touch player like Fed. Early bloomers like Rafa are likely to have better pre-primes and worse post-primes compared to late bloomers like Fed.

    Thoughts?

    Interesting side notes:

    1) Murray is really high up there in W-L record, highlighting why he is considered such an underachiever - no other non-slam winner comes close to having a similar W-L record.

    2) Lendl has the most balanced W-L record across surfaces with around 82% on all 3 surfaces(clay/hard/grass). Connors is the 2nd most balanced.

    3) Fed is no 1 on both hard and grass but his clay-court W-L by his own lofty standards is a little low (76.2% - rank 14). 2008 was Fed's worst year (after becoming a top player) in W-L record and post 2008, Fed's W-L record has remained pretty flat around the 83% mark. Fed's pre-prime years are the reason why his W-L record is not somewhere in the 85% range.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
    #1
  2. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,360
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and ┼╝eberka
    I think the best answer is that we'll have to wait and see.
     
    #2
  3. MG1

    MG1 Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    984
    From 2014 onwards tough time will start...tough losses will come with increasing age and more tournament on h/cs means more chances of early exit from tournaments.
     
    #3
  4. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,360
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and ┼╝eberka
    The funny thing is that reaching 2 finals in a particular tournament gives u a lower win % than winning a title and losing in the first round in the same event. I think as long as Nadal is winning some titles (doesn't have to be 10, 2-3 a year is enough), he's going to maintain that 82% winning ratio.
     
    #4
  5. nadal_slam_king

    nadal_slam_king Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,458
    Over the next 5 years I think Nadal will focus on clay all-year round (the South American clay events). There is no logic behind submitting to the most injury-inflicting surface that is hardcourt when you are getting toward age 30. And every player stops caring about their ranking at some point. That is when Nadal will not care about the hardcourt masters events. Mandatory, but still able to be skipped. Definitely I see him skipping the indoor season, and skip Indian Wells/Miami. Still play Canada/Cincy/US Open/AO but no other hardcourt events. More clay events, South American season. Overall W/L record will therefore stay the same or slightly improve.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
    #5
  6. MG1

    MG1 Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    984
    heavy financial loss for nadal then and do you know the penalties for skipping mandatory masters??
     
    #6
  7. nadal_slam_king

    nadal_slam_king Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,458
    Are you kidding me? I've seen players skip Masters Events with "exhaustion". That is a legit medical reason. If Nadal plays a few South American clay events, he can claim exhaustion. And how about when Nadal skipped Paris Indoors with "elbow tendinitis" from serving too hard in practice? That actually happened! And of course knee tendinitis. It's EASY to skip a Masters Event. Easy, without being fined. And regarding ranking points, obviously as players get older they focus primarily on the slams, as Sampras did, and later Agassi (though Agassi cared a lot about the rankings for most of his 30s).
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
    #7
  8. MG1

    MG1 Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    984
    still you lost bonus at the end of the yeat considering he ends in top 10 after your advice.

    and you can skip 1-2 master in year claiming injury after that it will be suspicious if you keep playing smaller tourneys but skip big ones.
     
    #8
  9. nadal_slam_king

    nadal_slam_king Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,458
    The thing is, the tour can't fine you based on 'suspicion', because you have a medical certificate. Medical certificate holds a lot more weight than 'suspicion'. The player would sue the tour if they fined him in that instance. Plus Nadal could play Clay events in the weeks preceding the hardcourt masters events. The tour can't tell Nadal not to focus on clay events. Then after the clay events he will be 'exhausted' or have some other physical issues. And Nadal has the right to do this, because the tour SHOULDN'T have the right to force 28-30 year-olds into hardcourt-induced injury. I am 100% sure Nadal will play less hardcourt events in future.
     
    #9
  10. elpolaco84

    elpolaco84 Guest

    First: :lol:
    Not playing shanghai, paris ok but, seriously, do you really think he'll skip IW/Miami??? and for some clay 250's or 500s?:roll:
     
    #10
  11. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,636
    Rafa gonna win all the remaining Slams this year
     
    #11
  12. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,908
    Quoted for truth !
     
    #12
  13. nadal_slam_king

    nadal_slam_king Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,458
    When he's 30, of course he will skip them. Nadal knows what causes most of his problems. Nadal knows his future will have to be on clay.
     
    #13
  14. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Unfortunately, Nadal can never be GOAT.
     
    #14
  15. nadal_slam_king

    nadal_slam_king Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,458
    Well, no 25-26 year old in history has every qualified to be GOAT (not that there has every been an award called GOAT lol). Obviously.
     
    #15
  16. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Borg qualified for consideration when he was 25. But now the bar has been raised by Federer. Yes it's obvious there is no award for GOAT, did I say there was? If it was so obvious why did you have to point it out?
     
    #16
  17. Apun94

    Apun94 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    757
    Are you kidding me?? Why would Nadal want to play more clay events. He doesnt need to achieve more on clay, he's already clay GOAT.
    Since Nadal actually has a legit chance for coming in the GOAT debate, i really do think he would prefer playing more HC events. I really dont see him missing indoor HCs and IW/Miami tournys for the next 5 yrs (unless injury, of course) The more he plays these tournys the more he has chances of winning them. Nadal has already said that he wants to play more HC than clay
     
    #17
  18. elpolaco84

    elpolaco84 Guest

    you can skip 1 year, you can skip 2 years(with medical excuses and so on), but you can't skip indefinitely such mandatory tournaments, if Nadal thinks like you (and he doesn't) he will enter the tournaments and lose in the early stages

    But again

    No.
     
    #18
  19. TTMR

    TTMR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,943
    Anything that happens on clay aside from 2009 doesn't matter. Ergo, Nadal's win/loss record is unimpressive.
     
    #19
  20. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,123
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Why is that unfortunate ?
     
    #20
  21. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Because that knowledge will destroy NSK, and then who will entertain us with his lunacy?
     
    #21
  22. sbengte

    sbengte Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    8,793
    OP, do you also have stats for W-L record against top 10 players ? Who has the best record in this category ?
     
    #22
  23. Clay lover

    Clay lover Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,912
    One reason why Borg's % was so high was because he retired early. If Nadal retires on top then of course he may sustain a very high career winning %, but will people recognize it as legitimate?
     
    #23
  24. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,563
    This. Early bloomer, retired young. Totally skews the %. The W/L ratio of players like Lendl, and especially Connors, is much more impressive, considering they were still playing 10 years (and 15, lol) after Borg called it a day.
     
    #24
  25. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    Pretty fair point but retiring in your prime is a double edged sword - you sacrifice the opportunity for a second wind where you can pick up some more titles and slams. Most of the greats have won slams even past their prime. By retiring early Borg's W-L is overstated but his slam count is understated. Hard to tell if 11 slams with 82.7% W-L record would have been considered better than 12 slams with 81.7% W-L or 13 slams with 80% W-L.
     
    #25
  26. monfed

    monfed Guest

    On clay yes he can since he'll be winning there till the end of time or end of the world,whichever comes first. According to the Mayans it's 2012, so yes it'll be preserved, except TW won't be there anymore!
     
    #26
  27. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    Yes, straight from the ATP site.

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx

    1) Borg - 0.705
    2) Fed - 0.670
    3) Becker - 0.651
    4) Lendl & Nadal - 0.643
    5) Sampras - 0.636

    Quite interestingly, Rafa's W-L average vs top 10 has actually declined in the past 1 year because of so many losses to Djokovic. If I remember correctly he was # 3 on the list at some point.
     
    #27
  28. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,561
    Particularly if you're lucky enough to compete against a relatively weaker field in your second wind, (like some we know of)...
     
    #28
  29. sbengte

    sbengte Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    8,793
    ^^^ Thanks kragster ! I always look at this stat as a more reliable indicator of a player's mettle than just W/L against the entire field. (You can't look at beating a top tenner in the same light as beating #320 )
    So you can expect Rafa to end up below Lendl on this one since the W/L against top 10 can only get worse later in your career. Maybe Federer too will play long enough to worsen his own top 10 record.
     
    #29
  30. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    I think both stats used together provide a complete picture. If you have a good overall record but a bad record vs top 10, it indicates that you consistently go deep in tournaments but rarely win. If you have a better record vs top 10 but not great overall, it means that you are somewhat inconsistent in early stages but if you get to the later stages you play well. I think Sampras might be one of those guys who was susceptible to an early upset but once he got to the quarters, he started zoning.

    Rafa's rivarly with Djokovic will actually be a big factor in where his W-L vs top 10 ends as they are likely to meet another 10-15 times in their careers.
     
    #30
  31. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,561
    Perhaps you should pay attention to the stats of the Big 4 (of the last few years) and their records against one another.

    Nadal is far and away better in this regard. So I'm sure you'll just ignore it...
     
    #31
  32. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,561
    Nadal is the only one of the Big 4 that has a winning record against every other player of the Big 4!

    Ignorance may be bliss, but lets not be delusional...
     
    #32
  33. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,123
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Just what i was thinking. Does Borg benefit from early retirement in this stat ?
     
    #33
  34. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    I imagine that when you start to decline, your W-L vs other top players is affected much more than vs the field. Your level can be high enough to beat the others but even the slightest decline can be the difference in the top 10.
     
    #34
  35. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    And why is that so? :lol:
     
    #35
  36. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,539
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    the best way to answer this question is to have the nadal retiring as soon as possible, and see what 'people' think...

    the rusty peak injured golden bull can barely walk with all these unfortunate knee injuries, and he himself stated he felt he had played for more than 100 years... so why go on like this ?
     
    #36
  37. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Because he won't surpass 16 and his slam distribution is too skewed.
     
    #37
  38. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,561
    Riiight, having only one clay slam (in particular one where the best clay courter ever was injured and beaten early) out of 16 is a far more balanced than having two hardcourt slams among 10 slams overall...

    Psyche!

    Please get some sunlight.
     
    #38
  39. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Slam distribution of Ralph isn't GOAT worthy IMO. Even if he gets to 11 slams with 7 RGs, most would consider him below Borg. He's also too limited as a player to be considered a GOAT.
     
    #39
  40. tenniselbow1

    tenniselbow1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    297

    Someone please add a funny GIF here, its needed. In the lines of WTF?, say what?, needs a slap etc.
     
    #40
  41. tenniselbow1

    tenniselbow1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    297
    OMG another slap in face GIF needed. Who are these tards? Do they enjoy vocalising opinions that 1/100th of the tennis world actually believe?
     
    #41
  42. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,561
    Yea Ok...

    but 1 RG is acceptable in your view to be GOAT??? :confused:

    Hypocrisy at its finest!
     
    #42
  43. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,561
    Try and counter my assertion, instead of being idiotic!

    How is having just 1 clay slam out of 16 more balanced than having 2 HC slams out of 10?

    :confused::confused::confused:
     
    #43
  44. tenniselbow1

    tenniselbow1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    297
    Dude this is amateur level discussion, not worth my time. Read up on this before posting garbage. I could rip you a new orifice with this one.
     
    #44
  45. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Yea even if you use the somewhat absurd logic of clubbing AO AND USO together as one surface JUST because it's a hardcourt, Ralph only has 2 but he was losing to basically everyone there. Federer OTOH was losing mainly to Ralph on clay and has his 1 RG.

    Furthermore, Federer has one shot of winning a clay slam while Ralph has two shots of winning a HC slam,using your own dumb logic.

    But the most telling statistic is that Federer on his second best surface namely grass(which is debatable in itself) has 6 slams. Ralph OTOH has 2.

    Sorry Ralph maybe the CLAY GOAT/CO-CLAY GOAT at this point. GOAT/CO-GOAT he is not.
     
    #45
  46. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    At this point, this guy actually has a point.
     
    #46
  47. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Ralph is clayGOAT#2 behind Borg at this point.
     
    #47
  48. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    30,229
    Location:
    Orlando FL
    That's arguable.
     
    #48
  49. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    How? Borg played in a tougher era as lauded by you tards and he has one more slam. Moreover the transition from clay to grass in his day was much harder.
     
    #49
  50. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    Umm, Borg does not have 1 more RG. He has 6 RG like Rafa. He has 1 more OVERALL slam but the discussion was about being clay goat. Borg is obviously ahead in the overall GOAT picture, on clay it's pretty even . In fact after this 8th MC and looking at Rafa's superior Win %, the edge would go to Rafa. Unless you want to bring in your subjective 'weak era' theories. In which case we may as well argue that Borg > Fed :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
    #50

Share This Page