Spencer Gore
Legend
Elsewhere, Tennis Hands posted a detailed list of young v old ATGs. (With incorrect data which I have corrected in the list below).
It allows us to get to the heart of the matter as it relates to current players. The claim often made is that the age difference between Federer and his main rivals is one of the key reasons for his losing H2H record.
The age difference between the players is:
Federer-Nadal = 4 years 10 months
Federer -Djokovic = 5 years 9 months
What happens if we look at Tennis Hands list -focusing on ATGs exclusively from the Open Era with similar age gaps -between 4 and 6 years.
Lendl (born 1960) vs Wilander (born 1964) 15-7
McEnroe (born 1959) vs Wilander (born 1964) 7-6
Lendl (born 1960) vs Edberg (born 1966) 13-14
Edberg (born 1966) vs Agassi (born 1970) 3-6
Edberg (born 1966) vs Sampras (born 1971) 6-8
Wilander (born 1964) vs Agassi (born 1970) 2-5
Becker (born 1967) vs Sampras (born 1971) 7-12
An interesting fact emerges. The H2H corresponds to the generally accepted rankings in ATG lists in 6 out of the 7 cases, regardless of age:
Lendl > Wilander,
McEnroe > Wilander,
Agassi > Edberg,
Sampras > Edberg,
Agassi > Wilander,
Sampras > Becker.
(The outlier is Lendl v Edberg where it is generally accepted that Lendl > Edberg. The 13-14 (4-5 in slams) H2H is very close however. The 5th set tie-break in their final meeting would have swung things the other way.)
So, in all but one (incredibly tight) case in the history of open tennis, the H2H results between ATGs with a 4-6 year age gap reflect the accepted all-time standing of the players involved, regardless of age.
Yet, in the current game we are suddenly asked to accept a further two exceptions.
Federer (born 1981) vs Nadal (born 1986) 15-23
Federer (born 1981) vs Djokovic (born 1987) 22-25
Is this reasonable? Or do the current players results actually accord with the evidence of the previous data? If not, what explains the shift?
Footnote:
If we focus only on players with a similar 4-5 year age gap to Federer-Nadal the Lendl-Edberg anomaly disappears altogether. The winner of the H2H count is considered the greater player in all cases, regardless of age.
Why does Federer-Nadal break the pattern, if it does?
Thanks for all serious replies.
It allows us to get to the heart of the matter as it relates to current players. The claim often made is that the age difference between Federer and his main rivals is one of the key reasons for his losing H2H record.
The age difference between the players is:
Federer-Nadal = 4 years 10 months
Federer -Djokovic = 5 years 9 months
What happens if we look at Tennis Hands list -focusing on ATGs exclusively from the Open Era with similar age gaps -between 4 and 6 years.
Lendl (born 1960) vs Wilander (born 1964) 15-7
McEnroe (born 1959) vs Wilander (born 1964) 7-6
Lendl (born 1960) vs Edberg (born 1966) 13-14
Edberg (born 1966) vs Agassi (born 1970) 3-6
Edberg (born 1966) vs Sampras (born 1971) 6-8
Wilander (born 1964) vs Agassi (born 1970) 2-5
Becker (born 1967) vs Sampras (born 1971) 7-12
An interesting fact emerges. The H2H corresponds to the generally accepted rankings in ATG lists in 6 out of the 7 cases, regardless of age:
Lendl > Wilander,
McEnroe > Wilander,
Agassi > Edberg,
Sampras > Edberg,
Agassi > Wilander,
Sampras > Becker.
(The outlier is Lendl v Edberg where it is generally accepted that Lendl > Edberg. The 13-14 (4-5 in slams) H2H is very close however. The 5th set tie-break in their final meeting would have swung things the other way.)
So, in all but one (incredibly tight) case in the history of open tennis, the H2H results between ATGs with a 4-6 year age gap reflect the accepted all-time standing of the players involved, regardless of age.
Yet, in the current game we are suddenly asked to accept a further two exceptions.
Federer (born 1981) vs Nadal (born 1986) 15-23
Federer (born 1981) vs Djokovic (born 1987) 22-25
Is this reasonable? Or do the current players results actually accord with the evidence of the previous data? If not, what explains the shift?
Footnote:
If we focus only on players with a similar 4-5 year age gap to Federer-Nadal the Lendl-Edberg anomaly disappears altogether. The winner of the H2H count is considered the greater player in all cases, regardless of age.
Why does Federer-Nadal break the pattern, if it does?
Thanks for all serious replies.