Top 8 win-loss records vs themselves

djokovicgonzalez2010 said:

So, what do you think?

Click to expand...

CMM said:

Click to expand...

djokovicgonzalez2010 said:

profound insight, cmm.........
you are the only person to regularly call me a troll, and you do so at least 4 times a day
what do you object to so much? it's factual...

Click to expand...

Bud said:

What are the win/loss records and percent of the current top 10?

Go look that up and post it.

BTW, your silly poll makes zero sense.

Click to expand...

Andy G said:

Here is Nadal's 2010 tourney's. He lost to every top 10 player he faced. Doha, lost to #6 Davydenko. AO, lost to #4 Murray. Miami, lost to #8 Roddick. And he lost IW to #26 Lucic. His wins were MC to #12 Verdasco and Rome to #17 Ferrer. Again this is only 2010 not since May 2009.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa

Click to expand...

rovex said:

I'm pretty sure he beat Tsonga in Miami who was in the top 10 then...

Click to expand...

Bud said:

Buy a second can for me

Click to expand...

Semi-Pro said:

..........

The stupidity of your post is beyond belief. It's so stupid that I don't even need to explain why. You're probably one of the biggest ****s I've ever come across, aside from Bud...nobody tops Bud. And I mean nobody.

Click to expand...

djokovicgonzalez2010 said:

• Federer is 14-5 (74%)
• Djokovic is 7-6 (54%)
• Nadal is 1-13 (07%)
• Murray is 4-5 (44%)
• del Potro is 7-4 (64%)
• Davydenko is 9-6 (60%)
• Soderling is 8-10 (44%)
• Roddick is 4-4 (50%)

To me this shows:
- Murray and Nadal are rather lucky to be Top 8
- Djokovic is probably worse than his ranking indicates (though the 2 below him are both )
- delPo and Davydenko both have great records they are failing to defend
- After Federer at 19, Soderling is the most consistent player, having met the Top 8 18 times, followed by Davydenko with 15, Nadal with 14, and Djokovic with 13
- Murray has only met the Top 8 9 times, with a (-1) record, has been fortunate to be #4
- Roddick loses early the most (and doesn't play a lot) , but has a decent record vs the Top 8 once he gets there

So the rankings are, by %

1. Federer 74
2. del Potro 64
3. Davydenko 60 (these 2 are probably pretty appropriately ranked , as they have missed a lot)
4. Djokovic 54
5. Roddick 50 (a bit misleading, he has met the top 8 by far the least)
6. Soderling 44
7. Murray 44 (Soderling is ahead because he has both more wins and subsequent losses)
8. Nadal 7

So, what do you think? Why the overrankings? And underrankings?
Who is too high? And too low?

Click to expand...

djokovicgonzalez2010 said:

because I'm talking about too-high rankings and only the past year counts

Click to expand...

djokovicgonzalez2010 said:

Why do you want the top 10? Top 10 means nothing in tennis

Click to expand...

viduka0101 said:

let's look at their whole career
1.Federer 71-30 (0.703) 2
2.Djokovic 29-33 (0.468 ) 3
3.Nadal 50-30 (0.625) 1
4.Murray 30-26 (0.536) 2
5.Del Potro 14-22 (0.389) 5
6.Davydenko 21-38 (0.356) 5
7.Soderling 15-31 (0.326) 4
8.Roddick 18-38 (0.321) 5
numbers from left to right are: H2H,winning percentage,number of loosing H2Hs

biggest ownage:
Federer-Soderling 12-0,Federer-Roddick 19-2,Federer-Davydenko 13-2

closest:
Murray-Soderling 2-2(only tie) and several other 5-4 and 4-3

Click to expand...

netcorder said:

Wow! Nadal is 50-30??? That's terrible.

Click to expand...

viduka0101 said:

how is that terrible?

Click to expand...

viduka0101 said:

how is that terrible?

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

It is funny that for all this talk that Nadal is not talented,a rudimentary player and so on,he is only second to Fed on that list and even in the h2h he leads everybody in the top8,10,excluding davydenko(4-5). Yeah,I know some of the h2h's are padded with clay wins but wins are wins in the end.
Also,Nadal has 400 wins in less than 500 ATP matches. Not bad for a guy who,to quote many of the trolls on these boards,"hasn't beaten a top5/top8/top10 guy in months".

Looking at the state of the top10 right now he may not get that chance. Fed has been a no show since AO,Djoker,DelPo,Davydenko are having health issues,Murray is having confidence issues,so basically that only leaves roddick,soderling,verdasco and tsonga.

Click to expand...

netcorder said:

Why should it be otherwise? He's been #2 for 6 years now, it's not that surprising his record is what it is. I just presumed it would have been better.

Click to expand...

vortex1 said:

Maybe one of the reasons Nadal hasn't managed to beat top player recently is because they are either injured or playing in clown mode so they can't even reach QF/SF/F where they can play against him? Ever thought of that?

Click to expand...

JeMar said:

I find it hilarious that now that Federer and the other top 4 players are in good form that it suddenly doesn't matter who you beat to win your tournaments, whereas the majority of Federer's majors have an asterisk by them because Nadal sucked too much to get into finals of non-clay majors for all those years.




Hilarious.

Click to expand...

Cesc Fabregas said:

You're the worst type of poster on this site, a hardcore Federer fanatic but you disguise it, unlike the load and proud type TMF.

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

Better how? Fed is 71-30 with 5 years on Nadal and Nadal is 50-30 being 5 years younger. And Nadal is pretty much nr.2 in all those stats,second only to Fed.Maybe you meant better than GOAT?
Now Nadal's record can get worse or better but it's not a fair judgement when the guys aren't the same age. The guys in Nadal's age group aren't faring any better than him that's for sure. What if Fed starts losing to top10 guys in the latter part of his career,would that be a correct judgement for Fed?

Nadal is pretty much unbeatable(relatively speaking) but only on clay and he is a tough cookie on grass. Most of those defeats up there are on HC. He would have a crazy record if the tour was made up of natural surfaces.

Click to expand...

Cesc Fabregas said:

You're the worst type of poster on this site, a hardcore Federer fanatic but you disguise it, unlike the load and proud type TMF.

Click to expand...

Augustus said:

DG, seriously, how on earth can you say that Nadal is lucky to be in the top 8, when he's about the only top player that's playing good tennis right now. He's just won the last two tournaments he played, while Federer is playing like crap, Djokovic struggling big time, Murray sucking on clay, Del Potro and Davydenko injured, Roddick on vacation and Soderling doing alright.

Ferrer and Verdasco, two of the best clay courters this year, lost comprehensively to Nadal several times. No miracle Nadal can't get any wins over fellow top 8 players when they don't even get to him.

I assume you're joking though. Don't let your hate for Nadal get the better of you...

Click to expand...

nikdom said:

Just goes to show that Roger has a matchup problem with Nadal because of that lefty forehand. If Nadal were indeed as great, he'd be beating other top 10 players more consistently on more varied surfaces. Nadal has more notoriety because he beats Roger than he has because of his own achievements.

Click to expand...

veroniquem said:

Yep but Fed also has lopsided negative records vs other top 10. Nadal doesn't.

Click to expand...

nikdom said:

Just goes to show that Roger has a matchup problem with Nadal because of that lefty forehand. If Nadal were indeed as great, he'd be beating other top 10 players more consistently on more varied surfaces. Nadal has more notoriety because he beats Roger than he has because of his own achievements.

Click to expand...

jrachiever said:

This does expose an obvious weakness in the ranking system. Given the advantage of the easier draws from higher seeding, along with the fact that the ranking system gives no credit whatsoever for quality of wins or strength of schedule, it absolutely is easier for an overranked player to maintain their ranking.

After returning from injury last year, Nadal was realistically in marginal top 10 form. At this point, I think he's back to standard #1 on clay, top 5 on everything else form. But even if he had remained in last year's comeback form, with easier draws and his consistency against everyone outside the top 10, it would have been extremely difficult to knock him out of the top 4. In the ranking system, a SF and 1st round loss is worth the same as 2 QF, and with other guys in the top 8 having to face a top 4 player other than Rafa in the QF 75% of the time, that's quite a big pts battle to climb.

I'd like to see a study of two players, one ranked #40 and one ranked #2, but both playing like #10 in the world. Say winning 80% of matches against players outside the top 16, 60% against #9-16, 40% against #5-8, 30% against #3-4 and 20% against #1-2. With the standard draws in 1000s and Grand Slam events, how many pts would #2 be expected to earn vs #40. I think you'd find a disparity of possibility a couple thousand points and would show just how poor the ranking system adapts to a player's current form (even over the course of a full year). In fact I might go ahead and do that study if anyone is interested.

Click to expand...

vortex1 said:

Maybe one of the reasons Nadal hasn't managed to beat top player recently is because they are either injured or playing in clown mode so they can't even reach QF/SF/F where they can play against him? Ever thought of that?

Click to expand...

veroniquem said:

If he wins titles he deserves to be #1, as simple as that.

Click to expand...

reversef said:

You are right. And that's why it's so difficult to reach the top and to stay there. That's why some players do everything they can, even when they are injured, to keep playing. Because they know what it costs to reach the top, they know what it's going to cost if they have to do it again. That's why a champion is a champion: because he can get there and he can stay there. When players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray go through a bad moment, if they can stay at the top, it means one thing: they are champions. If some players reach the number 3, 4, 5 and disappear, it's their problem. If some players don't manage to get there, it's their problem too. The public doesn't need to see the flavour of the month becoming a top player. It needs more.

Click to expand...

jrachiever said:

Actually a lot of what I'm saying is that it's extremely difficult to get to the top, but staying there is comparatively much easier. Sure some guys ride the strength of a few huge performances to a high ranking and then plummet when it comes time to defend them next year. But it's not quite as simple as saying, he earned the points, therefore he deserves his ranking. For instance, imagine a player who is actually the 2nd best player in the world over the course of a year, and reaches #2 in the rankings. Then he parties and drinks a little too mcuh after the year end championship, and goes into the next season playing at the level of #8-10 in the world. Just on the strength of the draws he'll get and the way points are awarded, even if he carries that #8 form throughout the entire year, I bet he wouldn't drop below #4. That ranking by itself is like a couple thousand point headstart on the field. Consider Nadal in roughly #10 in the world form last fall. His #2 draw was worth 720 pts instead of likely 90 or 180 if he had to actually play a #10 draw at the US Open. These advantages really add up over the course of a year for a player who is overranked in the top 8 but not necessarily in free fall.

Click to expand...

Semi-Pro said:

It's actually the opposite. Staying on top is more difficult because you have to consistently perform well in order avoid the risk of getting knocked off a top position, not to mention the pressure of being a top player.

Click to expand...