Why H2H is important and what it's value is

[Service Ace]

That's such nonsense, Fedfan. Pete really loves tennis and he likes Federer too. He is smart enough to know that he can't prove anything in exhibitions matches of all matches. Why see him intellectually so dense?

Sampras however does wonder (if I feel I can read his mind) from time to time as to how he would have fared against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc. It's an usual curiosity as he was a big match player and loved the big stages of tennis. Don't please mix it up with your ego.

Okay, now that we can confirm this is a troll account, no need to take anything it says seriously.

 

[Fedfan34]

Okay, now that we can confirm this is a troll account, no need to take anything it says seriously.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything. It seems player A can get ***** slapped around by player B in big matches time and time again and posters on here shrug it off as if it's no big deal. Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

Let's use Federer versus Nadal as the example. Both claim the other is their biggest rival, so why not use this rivalry as the example?

In slam matches, Federer versus Nadal looks something like this:

2006 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2007 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2008 W final - Nadal defeated Federer

2005 FO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2006 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2007 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2008 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2011 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2009 AO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2012 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2014 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

So in 12 Sam matches, Nadal leads 9-3 in head to head. But, what matches contributed to, or significantly contributed to, one winning the slam whilst denying the other the trophy?

Let's break it down.

Federer denied Nadal the W 2006 and 2007 tiles and the 2017 AO title. That is 3 points for Federer.

Nadal denied Federer up to 5 FO trophies, 4 of which gave him the trophy directly and one win which significantly contributed to a FO trophy, ie their 2005 FO semi final match. Nadal denied Federer the 2009 AO trophy which Nadal won (another point) however his other wins at the AO did not contribute to any further titles at the AO. Nadal's win at W 2008 is an extra point. So that is 7 points for Nadal.

Now add the surplus that one has over the other and add that surplus to the slam count of the person who leads the slam H2H which at the same time denied the other and resulted in a slam trophy or significantly contributed to a slam trophy.

Each earns the following points from the above matches:

Nadal 7
Federer 3

7 minus 3 = 4.

Add the surplus of 4 to Nadal's slam count:

14 + 4 = 18

Federer has 18 slams.

So in slams and slam H2H, it is a tie, 18 each.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Well it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation. It takes into account H2H matches which denied the other AND contributed to, or significantly contributed to, holding up a slam trophy.

Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H oes not matter.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Thanks for reading.

That is all.

Also: no

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Also: no

haha... there is treatise; forget not the not.

 

[Legend of Borg]

alright that's enough autism for one day, time to log off of TT

 

[SpinToWin]

OP is the funniest poster on the platform.





Unintentionally.


Never stop man, never stop

 

[checkmilu]

H2H will always be important for Nadal and Djokovic's hardcore fans because that's last thing they can hold on to, a piece of floating wood of their sinking ships. They should learn to accept that Federer is better overall and be proud of the fact that their idols are very close to Federer.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Nobody cares because Edberg won the slam H2H count which squares it. Becker won the total H2H, Edberg won the slam H2H, draw, hence why nobody cares.

No nobody care because only blocke on tennis forum cares about H2H, desperate as they are to undermine more important statistics. There is just no way to consider Becker significantly better than Edberg when Edberg is his equal or his better in the more important metrics. Actually it's even detrimental to Becker that he is 25-10 and still couldn't out achieve Edberg.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

OP is the funniest poster on the platform.





Unintentionally.


Never stop man, never stop

But he said that is all

 

[SpinToWin]

But he said that is all

 

[Zara]

You can infer intent based on someone's actions without needing access to their mind. This is how historians analyze revolutions, how soldiers are trained in combat, and how clear minded folks make important decisions. This is also common sense 101.

Explicitly stating you're reading someone's mind puts you in fantasy land. Maybe you can help Indie find the Crystal Skull while you're at it?

So you are saying you inferred Sampras' intention based on his actions in these exo matches? And the intention was that he was trying to prove he was the goat in an exo match? Right. That's quite logical.

I don’t know if you know this but mind or thought reading is not a strange concept. When you know a person quite a well, a lot of the times, you will be able to read some of his/her thoughts. There’s a reason why lovers finish each others sentence for example. Or wives know what their husbands want or when they are cheating or the non-verbal needs of the children and lots of other examples.

It would be quite normal for Pete to be curious and play with Federer to see where his game stood. In fact Sampras even showed interest playing against Nadal and I am sure Federer fans did not miss any opportunity for the gazillion times to show us who's the goat. So why show interest in Nadal? Unless you think he's the 2nd goat. That would definitely fit your twisted logic.

You assumption was from an egoistic mind. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to be able to read some thoughts of other people, if you know them well enough. I am not claiming I know how he is in bed or how he handles his kids as I have no knowledge on those, but I did follow his career 10+ years very closely, which allowed me to take a peek at his tennis mindset. Besides, Sampras is not that kind of a person who’d be so hung up on his records being broken to the point he’d take it to an exo match. Such a fanatic thought.

While it can be true that you can infer intent based on someone's action, you also run the risk of inferring it completely wrong.

 

[Zara]

Okay, now that we can confirm this is a troll account, no need to take anything it says seriously.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” - Einstein

 

[Service Ace]

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” - Einstein

We know which category you fall into.

 

[ghostofMecir]

We know which category you fall into.

 

[Fedfan34]

So you are saying you inferred Sampras' intention based on his actions in these exo matches? And the intention was that he was trying to prove he was the goat in an exo match? Right. That's quite logical.

I don’t know if you know this but mind or thought reading is not a strange concept. When you know a person quite a well, a lot of the times, you will be able to read some of his/her thoughts. There’s a reason why lovers finish each others sentence for example. Or wives know what their husbands want or when they are cheating or the non-verbal needs of the children and lots of other examples.

It would be quite normal for Pete to be curious and play with Federer to see where his game stood. In fact Sampras even showed interest playing against Nadal and I am sure Federer fans did not miss any opportunity for the gazillion times to show us who's the goat. So why show interest in Nadal? Unless you think he's the 2nd goat. That would definitely fit your twisted logic.

You assumption was from an egoistic mind. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to be able to read some thoughts of other people, if you know them well enough. I am not claiming I know how he is in bed or how he handles his kids as I have no knowledge on those, but I did follow his career 10+ years very closely, which allowed me to take a peek at his tennis mindset. Besides, Sampras is not that kind of a person who’d be so hung up on his records being broken to the point he’d take it to an exo match. Such a fanatic thought.

While it can be true that you can infer intent based on someone's action, you also run the risk of inferring it completely wrong.

What else can you tell us? Maybe the lotto numbers next week? Or would that be beyond your mind reading purview as it's a randomly selected number?

 

[Zara]

Just realized it's not 10+ years but about 8/9 years (pretty close though). Because I first noticed Sampras in 1994 when I first started watching tennis.

Though I watched Federer turn pro before my eyes, he didn't appeal me much.

 

[Fedfan34]

Just realized it's not 10+ years but about 8/9 years (pretty close though). Because I first noticed Sampras in 1994 when I first started watching tennis.

Though I watched Federer turn pro before my eyes, he didn't appeal me much.

I knew something in your post didn't make sense. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Zara]

What else can you tell us? Maybe the lotto numbers next week? Or would that be beyond your mind reading purview as it's a randomly selected number?

Your post made absolutely zero sense. And then you talk about common sense. I am not going to bother with you next time.

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal's Clay skewed H2H superiority over the much older Fed is made redundant by the many many slam losses to mugs, journeyman, pigeons etc during his prime.

Fed being the GOAT because he didn't lose to such players during his own prime which is why he went 237 weeks consecutive at number 1 and had three triple slam winning seasons, 5 straight W/USO etc.

 

[Fedfan34]

Your post made absolutely zero sense. And then you talk about common sense. I am not going to bother with you next time.

Its ok Zara, take it word by word. Sound them out, hold them in your mind. It may help.

 

[Druss]

H2H is very important, it tells us who the better player is: Krajicek vs Sampras 6-4, Hewitt vs Sampras 5-4

 

[Fedfan34]

H2H is important for keyboard warriors. Neither Rogi, nor Sampras, prided themselves on their records against their rivals (Rogi in particular lol). It was all about slams.

 

[NGM]

H2H certainly is a factor to consider a rivalry but not a factor to consider a career.

H2H is meaningful to see who has more chance to win in a certain match up but meaningless to guess who will win a tournament.

You love to beat rivals, you love even more to win titles. Beats your rivals then lost in final is just terrible thing no one wants to go through.

Until your retirement no one can say for sure which direction your h2h will head into. The easy match up now can turn 180 and it is not a rare thing in tennis. Federer - Hewitt, Federer - Agassi and who knows? Next could be Federer - Nadal.

 

[timnz]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything. It seems player A can get ***** slapped around by player B in big matches time and time again and posters on here shrug it off as if it's no big deal. Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

Let's use Federer versus Nadal as the example. Both claim the other is their biggest rival, so why not use this rivalry as the example?

In slam matches, Federer versus Nadal looks something like this:

2006 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2007 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2008 W final - Nadal defeated Federer

2005 FO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2006 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2007 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2008 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2011 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2009 AO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2012 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2014 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

So in 12 Sam matches, Nadal leads 9-3 in head to head. But, what matches contributed to, or significantly contributed to, one winning the slam whilst denying the other the trophy?

Let's break it down.

Federer denied Nadal the W 2006 and 2007 tiles and the 2017 AO title. That is 3 points for Federer.

Nadal denied Federer up to 5 FO trophies, 4 of which gave him the trophy directly and one win which significantly contributed to a FO trophy, ie their 2005 FO semi final match. Nadal denied Federer the 2009 AO trophy which Nadal won (another point) however his other wins at the AO did not contribute to any further titles at the AO. Nadal's win at W 2008 is an extra point. So that is 7 points for Nadal.

Now add the surplus that one has over the other and add that surplus to the slam count of the person who leads the slam H2H which at the same time denied the other and resulted in a slam trophy or significantly contributed to a slam trophy.

Each earns the following points from the above matches:

Nadal 7
Federer 3

7 minus 3 = 4.

Add the surplus of 4 to Nadal's slam count:

14 + 4 = 18

Federer has 18 slams.

So in slams and slam H2H, it is a tie, 18 each.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Well it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation. It takes into account H2H matches which denied the other AND contributed to, or significantly contributed to, holding up a slam trophy.

Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H oes not matter.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Thanks for reading.

That is all.

H2H is a minor stat for the following reasons.

1/ It almost always comes without any context ie without reference to surface/conditions. If you believe that the 7-all H2H of Borg McEnroe would be different if they had played all their matches on clay, then you believe that surface/conditions is extremely relevant to the numbers. The fact that it isn't quoted next to the bare 12-23 - means that the H2H is almost useless as a reading without it.
2/ The H2H is incredibly dependent on where the players end up in the tournament. If Federer was absolutely useless at clay, then his H2H against Nadal would look a lot better. But the fact that he basically was the number 2 on clay from 2005/2006 through to 2011 meant he met the best clay courter of all time in finals and semi's all the time. Looking at Nadal's performances at the US Open, which would have been a great balancer - Federer didn't get the opportunity to play Nadal at the US Open from 2005 to 2009.
3/ It is potentially inherently self-contradictory. If player A leads player B in the H2H and player B leads player C in the H2H and player C leads player A in the H2H - who is the better player out of A, B or C? In late 1982/early 1983 we had exactly that scenario. McEnroe was dominating Connors. Connors was dominating Lendl. And Lendl was dominating McEnroe (in the entire 1981 and 1982 seasons McEnroe only won a total of 1 set from Lendl).

My suggested way forward from this is.

H2H shouldn't mention numbers directly. It should merely state who is ahead in the 4 surfaces and/or conditions. Hence, the real H2H between Federer and Nadal is 2 all. Its not Federer's fault they have played so many times on clay and outdoor slow hard.

Federer Nadal H2H 2 all

Clay - Nadal leads
Outdoor Hard - Nadal leads
Grass - Federer leads
Indoor hard - Federer leads

Hence 2 all. If they played another 100 clay court matches - we know who would win the majority of those. That question has already been answered.

Note: If you don't believe that Indoor/Outoor is a relevant factor on hard court- compare Nadal's record against Federer in those two conditions. It will reveal it is incredibly relevant.

This method takes away the skewing based on the fact that the players have played the majority of times on surfaces/conditions that favoured one over the other.

 

[Thorondor]

H2H is a minor stat for the following reasons.

1/ It almost always comes without any context ie without reference to surface/conditions. If you believe that the 7-all H2H of Borg McEnroe would be different if they had played all their matches on clay, then you believe that surface/conditions is extremely relevant to the numbers. The fact that it isn't quoted next to the bare 12-23 - means that the H2H is almost useless as a reading without it.
2/ The H2H is incredibly dependent on where the players end up in the tournament. If Federer was absolutely useful at clay, then his H2H against Nadal would look a lot better. But the fact that he basically was the number 2 on clay from 2005/2006 through to 2011 meant he met the best clay courter of all time in finals and semi's all the time. Looking at Nadal's performances at the US Open, which would have been a great balancer - Federer didn't get the opportunity to play Nadal at the US Open from 2005 to 2009.
3/ It is potentially inherently self-contradictory. If player A leads player B in the H2H and player B leads player C in the H2H and player C leads player A in the H2H - who is the better player out of A, B or C? In late 1982/early 1983 we had exactly that scenario. McEnroe was dominating Connors. Connors was dominating Lendl. And Lendl was dominating McEnroe (in the entire 1981 and 1982 seasons McEnroe only won a total of 1 set from Lendl).

My suggested way forward from this is.

H2H shouldn't mention numbers directly. It should merely state who is ahead in the 4 surfaces and/or conditions. Hence, the real H2H between Federer and Nadal is 2 all. Its not Federer's fault they have played so many times on clay and outdoor slow hard.

Federer Nadal H2H 2 all

Clay - Nadal leads
Outdoor Hard - Nadal leads
Grass - Federer leads
Indoor hard - Federer leads

Note: If you don't believe that Indoor is a relevant factor - compare Nadal's record against Federer on those two conditions. It will reveal it is incredibly relevant.

Hence 2 all. If they played another 100 clay court matches - we know who would win the majority of those. That question has already been answered.

This method takes away the skewing based on the fact that the players have played the majority of times on surfaces/conditions that favoured one over the other.

Best post I've read on H2H in a long time. Good suggestion.

 

[Jonas78]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything. It seems player A can get ***** slapped around by player B in big matches time and time again and posters on here shrug it off as if it's no big deal. Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

Let's use Federer versus Nadal as the example. Both claim the other is their biggest rival, so why not use this rivalry as the example?

In slam matches, Federer versus Nadal looks something like this:

2006 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2007 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2008 W final - Nadal defeated Federer

2005 FO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2006 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2007 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2008 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2011 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2009 AO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2012 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2014 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

So in 12 Sam matches, Nadal leads 9-3 in head to head. But, what matches contributed to, or significantly contributed to, one winning the slam whilst denying the other the trophy?

Let's break it down.

Federer denied Nadal the W 2006 and 2007 tiles and the 2017 AO title. That is 3 points for Federer.

Nadal denied Federer up to 5 FO trophies, 4 of which gave him the trophy directly and one win which significantly contributed to a FO trophy, ie their 2005 FO semi final match. Nadal denied Federer the 2009 AO trophy which Nadal won (another point) however his other wins at the AO did not contribute to any further titles at the AO. Nadal's win at W 2008 is an extra point. So that is 7 points for Nadal.

Now add the surplus that one has over the other and add that surplus to the slam count of the person who leads the slam H2H which at the same time denied the other and resulted in a slam trophy or significantly contributed to a slam trophy.

Each earns the following points from the above matches:

Nadal 7
Federer 3

7 minus 3 = 4.

Add the surplus of 4 to Nadal's slam count:

14 + 4 = 18

Federer has 18 slams.

So in slams and slam H2H, it is a tie, 18 each.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Well it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation. It takes into account H2H matches which denied the other AND contributed to, or significantly contributed to, holding up a slam trophy.

Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H oes not matter.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Thanks for reading.

That is all.

That formula will earn you the Nobel Price, im sure of it

 

[JMR]

I have no reason to isolate H2H only. The overall results count and H2H is one of the factors of the overall results.

No, that's not what I mean by "isolate" (although let's not kid ourselves -- many head-to-head proponents act as though it's the only statistic that exists). I know that you are paying lip service to slam counts and some other things. I am referring to isolating the individual record against one player from the individual records against all the other players.

Suppose two players, A and B, have played each other 10 times, with A leading 8-2. Head-to-head boosters say that we should attach heavy weight to that record when comparing the two players. But suppose that against player C, A's record is 0-10, while B's record is 10-0. In the comparison between A and B, why should the record between A and B be isolated? Why is that record more relevant than the records of A vs. C and B vs. C in determining whether A or B is the "better" or "greater" player? The answer is that, logically, the single isolated record is not more relevant. The results against C have equal status. Then multiply C by several hundred, and you'll see that the record against the entire field ultimately is the only record that matters.

 

[Fedfan34]

Nadal's win over Federer in Major finals does offset the total titles count; reasons why he can be in the same conversation. As to Sampras, he played in more polarized and specialists era and despite that, he still won 14 Slams and stayed at No. 1 for 6 straight years. Agassi may have a career slam (played much longer than Sampras), but he doesn't have 14 slams to his credit nor does he have as many WTF or No. 1 raking to his credit. And it's not like Federer won a few RGs. There's a vast difference between one making gazillion finals and one actually winning it several times. Though he won 1 time but he didn't exactly beat Nadal to win it. He beat Soderling who never won anything significant. These can all be argued.

 

[Blocker]

H2H is important for keyboard warriors. Neither Rogi, nor Sampras, prided themselves on their records against their rivals (Rogi in particular lol). It was all about slams.

Wrong Sampras always prided himself on his record with Agassi. He wouldn't be the player he was if he got beat by Agassi more often than not. And it's no secret that Agassi is salty about the lopsided H2H. And no doubt, I'm 100 per cent certain, that if Fed had the better of his H2H with Nadal, he'd be proud too, if only to himself. Don't tell me that Nadal isn't proud of his record against Fed. I'm sure he's quietly dirty about losing the AO 17 final, but if he gets remembered for nothing else, he'll get remembered for making Federer his whipping boy.

 

[Blocker]

Those who dismiss the H2H as if it's nothing do so with an extremely guilty conscious. You know very well that 3-12 in slams is pivotal, it's significant and you know it. But as you force yourself to type "H2H does not matter" on your keyboard, just remember, you are writing something in spite of your own real beliefs. It's ok, keep spreading a lie, your guilty concionce will eat at you in years to come.

Of course it ****ing matters...3-12...you ****ting me?

 

[Thorondor]

Wrong Sampras always prided himself on his record with Agassi. He wouldn't be the player he was if he got beat by Agassi more often than not. And it's no secret that Agassi is salty about the lopsided H2H. And no doubt, I'm 100 per cent certain, that if Fed had the better of his H2H with Nadal, he'd be proud too, if only to himself. Don't tell me that Nadal isn't proud of his record against Fed. I'm sure he's quietly dirty about losing the AO 17 final, but if he gets remembered for nothing else, he'll get remembered for making Federer his whipping boy.

Interesting definition of a whipping boy who beats Nadal over a third of the time.

 

[Fedfan34]

Wrong Sampras always prided himself on his record with Agassi. He wouldn't be the player he was if he got beat by Agassi more often than not. And it's no secret that Agassi is salty about the lopsided H2H. And no doubt, I'm 100 per cent certain, that if Fed had the better of his H2H with Nadal, he'd be proud too, if only to himself. Don't tell me that Nadal isn't proud of his record against Fed. I'm sure he's quietly dirty about losing the AO 17 final, but if he gets remembered for nothing else, he'll get remembered for making Federer his whipping boy.

Did you acquire telepathy from Zara's Academy or were you born with the Gift?

As for the H2H, more mumbo jumbo. These guys were all human, so they have egos of course, but slams were always their #1 priority.

 

[Thorondor]

Those who dismiss the H2H as if it's nothing do so with an extremely guilty conscious. You know very well that 3-12 in slams is pivotal, it's significant and you know it. But as you force yourself to type "H2H does not matter" on your keyboard, just remember, you are writing something in spite of your own real beliefs. It's ok, keep spreading a lie, your guilty concionce will eat at you in years to come.

Of course it ****ing matters...3-12...you ****ting me?

I don't believe most people are saying it doesn't matter at all. It often matters a lot as you stated originally when the two meet in slam finals. The difference is just between mattering directly vs. indirectly.

 

[PrinceMoron]

I stopped reading at "Why H2H is important and what"
Makes no sense from "it's"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prabhanjan]

Wrong Sampras always prided himself on his record with Agassi. He wouldn't be the player he was if he got beat by Agassi more often than not.

Agassi is not the same rival in league of Sampras, Fed, and Nadal. There is like a Edber/Becker slam difference between Pete and Agassi, that's how huge the gap is between them. So naturally, he would have the better record against him. Agassi has pathetic slam finals record and you should know that. Like only 2 of his 8 slams were against 2+ slam winner and the other was Kafelnikov, and this means that almost often Agassi sees a multi-slam winner in the finals, he loses. 6 out of his 8 slams were won against finalists who had 1 or 0 slams. This is the biggest Pete rival and 90's competition So stop thinking that Agassi-Pete rivalry is any comparison with Fed-Nadal.

 

[Blocker]

I don't think old Pete cares about greatness values nearly as much as you do. He is universally acknowledged (and respected in real life) as an extremely great player. Why bother arguing for more?

This is a tennis forum. I'm talking tennis. What shall we talk about? Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, just for something different?

 

[Blocker]

Slam counts were not important then but slams indeed were

So was the WTC. So was the Australian indoor, considered more important than the AO. Like I said, things change. Both those events no longer exist, but look at the AO now. Things change and the tennis environment has changed.

 

[tennisaddict]

So was the WTC. So was the Australian indoor, considered more important than the AO. Like I said, things change. Both those events no longer exist, but look at the AO now. Things change and the tennis environment has changed.

So are YEC and Rome today. Very important and prestigious

 

[JSummers]

By OP's logic:
Q: how much is a big mac meal?
A: Let that be the charge of the combo + the bigmac + drink + fries AGAIN.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

18 > 14 is the only reason why H2H is important for the creator of this thread.

Plus: