Revenge at slams

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Hops, Jun 11, 2006.

  1. Hops

    Hops Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    392

    xposted from rst

    With Fed and Nadal meeting again in the same slam two years in a row, I was curious how the second match turned out in these situations historically.

    There have been 77 OE instances where two players meet at the same slam in consecutive years, with both matches at QF round or later. Examples:

    Borg-Mac, Wimbledon, 1980-81
    Safin-Federer, Australian Open, 2004-2005
    Agassi-Sampras, US Open, 2001-2002

    Instances where players meet three consecutive years (e.g. Fed-Roddick Wimbledon 2003-2005) are counted as two separate occurances.

    The player winning the first match won the second match 52x, and lost second match 25x. This makes intuitive sense; if a player is better one year, the odds are he'll still be better the next year. This would seem to bode well for Nadal today.

    However -

    at Roland Garros: only 9-7
    when second match is the Final: 11-10
    First match SF, second match F: 3-3

    the exact Fed-Nadal scenario: Roland Garros SF, Roland Garros F: 1-1
    (Borg-Gerulaitis 79-80; Lendl-Wilander 84-85)

    Full listing and other splits:

    http://www.tennis28.com/studies/revenge_at_slams.html




     
    #1
  2. raftermania

    raftermania Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,626
    Location:
    Ontario
    Intriguing figures Hops, you always stood out as a poster worth reading over at RST. The rest of RST however is an example of what TW would be like without moderation. 99% of RST posters are homophobic or obsessed with Stephanie Graf or Monica Seles.
     
    #2
  3. Hops

    Hops Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    392

    well, there's crazies everywhere, even here.

    btw, I've been a rookie here forever. don't they take into account quality as well as quantity? :mrgreen:
     
    #3
  4. raftermania

    raftermania Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,626
    Location:
    Ontario
    Yeah that's true, this place has it's share of crazies.

    Unfortunately, quality is not a measure here, that's why you get a lot of ****ers posting fluff.
     
    #4
  5. matty p

    matty p New User

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    55
    thanx for the interestin facts. did u compile these yourself? got any others to divulge?
     
    #5

Share This Page