Is this the weakest top 10 ever?

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

5. Soderling
6. Ferrer
7. Berdych
8. Verdasco
9. Melzer
10. Monfils

If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Murray
4. Nadal
5. Del Potro
6. Davydenko
7. Roddick
8. Soderling
9. Tsonga
10. Cilic

It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

Anyone with me?

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

5. Soderling
6. Ferrer
7. Berdych
8. Verdasco
9. Melzer
10. Monfils

If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Murray
4. Nadal
5. Del Potro
6. Davydenko
7. Roddick
8. Soderling
9. Tsonga
10. Cilic

It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

Anyone with me?

dominikk1985 · Apr 17, 2011

well a few guys are missing.

-DP will come back
-davydenko is in bad bad. will he come back?
-I think roddick also will make the top10 again

with those guys back in the top 10 would be much stronger again.

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

I would rather have Verdasco in top 10 then James Blake in top 4.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
I would rather have Verdasco in top 10 then James Blake in top 4.

Anything is better than Verdasco in the top 10 who has been there for the last 2 years in comparison to Blake who was in the top 4 for a couple of weeks. Blake in 2006 was better than Verdasco will ever be, that's another thing.

Btw isn't it the same James Blake who once led Nadal 3-0 in the h2h series?

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
Anything is better than Verdasco in the top 10 who has been there for the last 2 years in comparison to Blake who was in the top 4 for a couple of weeks

Btw isn't it the same James Blake who once led Nadal 3-0 in the h2h series?

Damn, he's that great? :shock: How many slam finals has he made or masters has he won? :lol:

Devilito · Apr 17, 2011

how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
Damn, he's that great? :shock: How many slam finals has he made or masters has he won? :lol:

At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

Devilito said:
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

I was gonna bring that up at one point. I mean dang what a top 10! Together they won 50 Slams throughout the years.

A pity that THAT'S the top 10 the Samprastards use to say how Pete's competition was tough, they forget that it got way worse and by 1996-1998 it was rather poor.

aphex · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

Verdasco is the biggest disgrace in the history of the top 10.

He was on his knees thanking his master for letting him get a point exactly one year ago.

Mugdasco is an embarrassment.

aphex · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
I was gonna bring that up at one point. I mean dang what a top 10! Together they won 50 Slams throughout the years.

A pity that THAT'S the top 10 the Samprastards use to say how Pete's competition was tough, they forget that it got way worse and by 1996-1998 it was rather poor.

How many had all of these won at THAT point?

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

aphex said:
How many had all of these won at THAT point?

If you count at the end of 1992: 25
If you count at the end of 1993: 28

Good point there, tho. We're gonna look at the current (or the 2008-2010 top 10 at least) top 10 a couple years from now saying how strong it actually was, Federer could win another 1-2 majors, Nadal has a couple more in him, same with Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro could win a Slam here and there making the total of them close to 50 (it's 27 for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic already at this point)

stringertom · Apr 17, 2011

Year-ending 2001 is Reverse

The opposite side of the coin is year-ending '01 rankings in which 6 of the top ten were multiple major winners and a seventh holds one major.
1. Hewitt
2. Kuerten
3. Agassi
4. Kafelnikov
5. Ferrero
6. Grossjean
7. Rafter
8. Haas
9. Henman
10. Sampras

Also, consider this: two short years later the y-e list had disintegrated to only 2 multiple major winners, one of whom had only won one at the time (Fed).
1. Roddick
2. Federer
3. Ferrero
4. Agassi
5. Coria
6. Schuettler
7. Moya
8. Nalbandian
9. Phillipoussis
10. Grossjean

2.

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

Now please, compare Murray (4) with James Blake. (4)
Murray: 16 titles (6 masters I believe), 3 grandslam finals and still counting.
James Blake: 2 titles (500 atp) in 2002. :lol: so basically he hasn't won anything during his best period and still managed to grab that 4th place. How deserving is that when we look how much Murray has struggled to keep his 4th spot?

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

speaking of pingeons, does Roddick come in mind? :lol: :lol: :lol:

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
Now please, compare Murray (4) with James Blake. (4)
Murray: 16 titles (6 masters I believe), 3 grandslam finals and still counting.
James Blake: 2 titles (500 atp) in 2002. :lol: so basically he hasn't won anything during his best period and still managed to grab that 4th place. How deserving is that when we look how much Murray has struggled to keep his 4th spot?

Why compare Blake with Murray now? ISN'T VERDASCO A STRONG ENOUGH ARGUEMENT LUL?

There wasn't much room to manouver that year since Federer swept everything on hard courts and grass courts while Nadal took every title on clay. Obviously somebody had to finish at no 3, 4, 5 and so one, thus Blake finished at no 4 having won 5 titles and reached the finals of Indian Wells and the Tennis Masters Cup (losing both to Federer which was ANYTHING but a disgrace).

Verdasco was on his knees when he won a point against Nadal on clay, now that's a sign of a top top player if you ask me.

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
Why compare Blake with Murray now? ISN'T VERDASCO A STRONG ENOUGH ARGUEMENT LUL?

There wasn't much room to manouver that year since Federer swept everything on hard courts and grass courts while Nadal took every title on clay. Obviously somebody had to finish at no 3, 4, 5 and so one, thus Blake finished at no 4 having won 5 titles and reached the finals of Indian Wells and the Tennis Masters Cup (losing both to Federer which was ANYTHING but a disgrace).

Verdasco was on his knees when he won a point against Nadal on clay, now that's a sign of a top top player if you ask me.

I see... Federer was just to good hmmm... I have another question for you. How come baby Murray defeated Federer in 2006 and prime James Blake couldn't?

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
speaking of pingeons, does Roddick come in mind? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Roddick almost always gave it his best shot against Federer but Fed was just way too good, not only for Roddick but also for guys like Hewitt (15 losses in a row), Safin (10-2), Agassi (lost 8 last matches against Federer), I gues they were all pigeons.

It's not Roddick's fault that he didn't have enough weapons to challenge Federer but he was far from being his pigeon.

Look at the 2006 Masters Cup RR match (had match points)
Look at 2009 Wimbledon (double break point up to be serving for the match)
Look at 2004 Wimbledon (very tough 4-setter)
Look at 2009 Madrid (took a set off Federer on clay)
Look at 2007 US Open (super high quality first 2 sets)

He never wilted against Federer saying Oh please lord Federer mercy! unlike Verdasco

MichaelNadal · Apr 17, 2011

Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
I see... Federer was just to good hmmm... I have another question for you. How come baby Murray defeated Federer in 2006 and prime James Blake couldn't?

If you actually saw the match you'd see that Federer was visibly tired having played 3-setters every day for a week just prior to that. I even remember what he said in the press conference: "it's tough when you play a long tournament and you're scheduled to play another pair of matches 1-2 days later"

That's when the 1st round byes were brought to life in the Masters.

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
Roddick almost always gave it his best shot against Federer but Fed was just way too good, not only for Roddick but also for guys like Hewitt (15 losses in a row), Safin (10-2), Agassi (lost 8 last matches against Federer), I gues they were all pigeons.

It's not Roddick's fault that he didn't have enough weapons to challenge Federer but he was far from being his pigeon.

Look at the 2006 Masters Cup RR match (had match points)
Look at 2009 Wimbledon (double break point up to be serving for the match)
Look at 2004 Wimbledon (very tough 4-setter)
Look at 2009 Madrid (took a set off Federer on clay)
Look at 2007 US Open (super high quality first 2 sets)

He never wilted against Federer saying Oh please lord Federer mercy! unlike Verdasco

Far from being his pingeon???

Are you serious? 20-2 !!!
Even a baby Djokovic and Murray defeated a prime Federer once so there is no excuse why a prime Roddick couldn't do it. So many trolls on this board are killing me with their stupidity. The mods should step in.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

MichaelNadal said:
Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?

You missed the point. I also think the Federer-Nadal is the best duo ever but compare the top 10 from 2 years ago to the current one.

cc0509 · Apr 17, 2011

Devilito said:
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

Now, this is a real top 10! The top 10 today, aside from the top 4, is a joke. The only one that I can say I don't mind watching play is Ferrer from rank 5 to 10. The rest, forget it.

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
If you actually saw the match you'd see that Federer was visibly tired having played 3-setters every day for a week just prior to that. I even remember what he said in the press conference: "it's tough when you play a long tournament and you're scheduled to play another pair of matches 1-2 days later"

That's when the 1st round byes were brought to life in the Masters.

Hey troll, aren't you the one who told me:

tennis_pro said:
who cares? if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
Hey troll, aren't you the one who told me:

LOOK WHO CALLED ME A TROLL LOL

Federer actually wanted to skip Cincinnati that year but HE WAS FORCED TO PLAY, if you want an example what a well rested Federer can do to Murray when it counts, check out 2008 US Open or 2010 AO

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
Far from being his pingeon??? Are you serious? 20-2 !!!
Even a baby Djokovic and Murray defeated a prime Federer once so there is no excuse why a prime Roddick couldn't do it. So many trolls on this board are killing me with their stupidity. The mods should step in.

Do you know what being a pigeon means? It means handing your butt to the opponent before the match even started, Roddick gave it his best shot against Federer in many matches, another story is that it wasn't enough.

And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.

Djokovic barely squeaked out a win 7-6 2-6 7-6 over Federer in Canada in 2007 and he got a straight set beatdown from Federer at the US Open just a month later.

MichaelNadal · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
You missed the point. I also think the Federer-Nadal is the best duo ever but compare the top 10 from 2 years ago to the current one.

But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

MichaelNadal said:
But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.

Again, you missed the point.

Federer and Nadal were both there in 2010 and 2011, now compare the top 10 in both years. Fedal being tough doesn't have to do anything with Melzer, Berdych, Monfils, Verdasco being a top 10 fail.

Davydenko, Del Potro, Roddick were there in the top 10 in 2010 that's why THAT year looked better even though Fedal swept all 4 Slams in 2010.

You get the point?

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
LOOK WHO CALLED ME A TROLL LOL

Federer actually wanted to skip Cincinnati that year but HE WAS FORCED TO PLAY, if you want an example what a well rested Federer can do to Murray when it counts, check out 2008 US Open or 2010 AO

Please read again:

tennis_pro said:
who cares?if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
Do you know what being a pigeon means? It means handing your butt to the opponent before the match even started, Roddick gave it his best shot against Federer in many matches, another story is that it wasn't enough.

And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.

Murray is leading the head 2 head against Federer. Roddick is not! 20-2!!!

tennis_pro said:
Djokovic barely squeaked out a win 7-6 2-6 7-6 over Federer in Canada in 2007 and he got a straight set beatdown from Federer at the US Open just a month later.

Does it matter if you win in 2 or 3 sets? A win is a win and that's something Roddick never experienced against a prime Federer.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
Please read again:

If your brain wasn't the size of a peanut you'd know that it wasn't Federer's decision to play in Cincinnati in 2006, the ATP forced him to participate

Do you see the difference between "I'm playing because I hope everything is alright" and "I don't wanna play cause I know I'm tired but the ATP won't let me skip the tournament"

MagneticCurls · Apr 17, 2011

What's so hard to understand? Federer is likely the best ever, and current Djokovic is poised to be second best ever. Simple.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
Does it matter if you win in 2 or 3 sets? A win is a win and that's something Roddick never experienced against a prime Federer.

It actually does cause Roddick had a huge match-up issue against Federer AS HE HAD against great returners. He was 1-5 against Agassi even though they played only in the 2002-2004 period.

What does it say for Djokovic to have a 3-5 h2h against a guy who was somebody's "pigeon"?

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
If your brain wasn't the size of a peanut you'd know that it wasn't Federer's decision to play in Cincinnati in 2006, the ATP forced him to participate

Do you see the difference between "I'm playing because I hope everything is alright" and "I don't wanna play cause I know I'm tired but the ATP won't let me skip the tournament"

and again:

tennis_pro said:
who cares?if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

YodaKnowsBest · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
It actually does cause Roddick had a huge match-up issue against Federer AS HE HAD against great returners. He was 1-5 against Agassi even though they played only in the 2002-2004 period.

What does it say for Djokovic to have a 3-5 h2h against a guy who was somebody's "pigeon"?

A bad match-up is still not a good excuse for a 20-2 head 2 head. Nadal is also a bad match-up for Federer, but you don't see Federer losing every single time.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
and again:

this is turning into a ****-war so I'll end it here

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

YodaKnowsBest said:
A bad match-up is still not a good excuse for a 20-2 head 2 head. Nadal is also a bad match-up for Federer, but you don't see Federer losing every single time.

Nadal is not a typical match-up against Federer, even now Federer has won more hard+grass court matches against Nadal than the other way round. The 12 matches on clay out of 23 played skews the h2h big time.

You want more examples of a bad match-up?

Who do you consider better, Davydenko or Blake? Well guess what the h2h is - Blake 7-0

Safin-Santoro, another one

that's just on top of my head

JeMar · Apr 17, 2011

MichaelNadal said:
But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.

Oh, god. This is so ironic.

rovex · Apr 17, 2011

dominikk1985 said:
well a few guys are missing.

-DP will come back
-davydenko is in bad bad. will he come back?
-I think roddick also will make the top10 again

with those guys back in the top 10 would be much stronger again.

tennis_pro said:
I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

5. Soderling
6. Ferrer
7. Berdych
8. Verdasco
9. Melzer
10. Monfils

If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Murray
4. Nadal
5. Del Potro
6. Davydenko
7. Roddick
8. Soderling
9. Tsonga
10. Cilic

It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

Anyone with me?

How many clones does this anaconda have? So far I've counted 6 and im sure there are more. Dominekk in this thread is another one. This is pretty unique:

Mainad · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
Do you know what being a pigeon means? It
And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.

Well, he did beat Fed in straight sets in the finals of Toronto and Shanghai last year!

Admittedly not so good against him in GS finals,though.

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

rovex said:
How many clones does this anaconda have? So far I've counted 6 and im sure there are more. Dominekk in this thread is another one. This is pretty unique:

I guess one has to be completely different than the other not to be considered a clone.

Cassius Clay · Apr 17, 2011

tennis_pro said:
Nadal is not a typical match-up against Federer

That "bad match-up" thing is nonsense. If you can't adjust your game to your rivals' then you are a complete loser. I'm not saying that any player who has a favorable H2H against any other player is, per se, the better player, because many factors should be taken into consideration. But when the players have played +20 matches and the H2H is so lopsided, then there are no doubts as to who the better player is.

tennis_pro said:
even now Federer has won more hard+grass court matches against Nadal than the other way round.

By the same token, Nadal has won more clay+hard or clay+grass matches against Federer than the other way round.

tennis_pro said:
The 12 matches on clay out of 23 played skews the h2h big time.

Nadal and Federer could only meet ONCE a year (at most) on grass (Wimbledon) and most likely in the final, so you can't expect them to have a H2H evenly distributed among all surfaces. More than anything you should be thankful that most of the tournaments are played on HC (favoring Federer's title count big time). They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal. On top of that, they are 4-4 so it wouldn't have made much of a difference if they had played 12 matches as well.

MagneticCurls · Apr 17, 2011

Therefore davydenko >>> Nadal

tennis_pro · Apr 17, 2011

Cassius Clay said:
Nadal and Federer could only meet ONCE a year (at most) on grass (Wimbledon) and most likely in the final, so you can't expect them to have a H2H evenly distributed among all surfaces.

Who's talking about grass courts here? It's not even Federer's best surface as they're becoming slower and slower each year.

Matches played on particular surfaces SHOULD be evenly distributed but you can't really talk about that in the Federer-Nadal case since they've played more than half of their matches on clay which, like it or not, is a minor part of the season.

A fair distribution would be something more like hard courts 65-70 %, clay courts 25-30 %, grass around 5 % and it's 50 %+ on clay instead. So like it or not, clay is a major factor in their h2h.

Cassius Clay said:
More than anything you should be thankful that most of the tournaments are played on HC (favoring Federer's title count big time). They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal. On top of that, they are 4-4 so it wouldn't have made much of a difference if they had played 12 matches as well.

Why I should be thankful? Hard courts have been the most dominant surface since they were introduced for the very first time, just because Nadal struggles on the surface won't make the ATP bring more clay court tournamens to life. It's Nadal's problem that's hes a far worse hardcourter in an era where hard courts are the domain of men's tennis. More than anything, Nadal should be thankful that the depth of level on clay is far worse than on hard courts, for years only Federer seemed to rise to the challenge on clay as he was chasing the GOAT status and needed to prove himself on clay.
They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal

Not a big deal, huh?

Let's see how the h2h changes when we change the distribution to a more fair one.

23 matches - 15 played on hard courts (65 %), 6 played on clay courts (27 %), 2 played on grass courts (8 %)

So it's 7-7 on hard courts (8-7 either way), 5-1 on clay, and 1-1 (or 2-0 Federer, depends on how you look at it)

Now the scenario changes to either 13-10 Nadal or 12-11 Nadal, not a big deal, looks nothing better than 15-8

Of course there are tons of different factors we have to take into consideration like, the majority of matches played in 2004-2007 or post 2007, what kind of hard courts/clay courts.

The facts are, Nadal wasn't good enough to challenge Federer outside of clay till 2008 by the time Federer hit 27. We can't just make up hypothetical matches cause there are too many factors to analyse.

MagneticCurls · Apr 17, 2011

"Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Semi-Pro · Apr 17, 2011

MagneticCurls said:
"Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I like this quote!

My new signature

Bobby Jr · Apr 17, 2011

Devilito said:
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

Yeah, but at the time Ivaniseevic, Korda, Krajicek and Agassi (depending on the date) hadn't yet won a slam - so the list looks way better when viewed retrospectively.

If Verdasko, Melzer and Monfils ever win slams in their career then the current top ten will be mostly full of slam winners too. Unlikely I know but then again Andres Gomez, Yannick Noah, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda etc (could maybe even include Ivanisevic) never really entered slams as favourites either.

Cassius Clay · Apr 17, 2011

MagneticCurls said:
Therefore davydenko >>> Nadal

That H2H is pretty even, and they have only played 10 matches. We can't take much info out of that.

tennis_pro said:
Who's talking about grass courts here? It's not even Federer's best surface as they're becoming slower and slower each year.

Matches played on particular surfaces SHOULD be evenly distributed but you can't really talk about that in the Federer-Nadal case since they've played more than half of their matches on clay which, like it or not, is a minor part of the season.

A fair distribution would be something more like hard courts 65-70 %, clay courts 25-30 %, grass around 5 % and it's 50 %+ on clay instead. So like it or not, clay is a major factor in their h2h.

Why I should be thankful? Hard courts have been the most dominant surface since they were introduced for the very first time, just because Nadal struggles on the surface won't make the ATP bring more clay court tournamens to life. It's Nadal's problem that's hes a far worse hardcourter in an era where hard courts are the domain of men's tennis. More than anything, Nadal should be thankful that the depth of level on clay is far worse than on hard courts, for years only Federer seemed to rise to the challenge on clay as he was chasing the GOAT status and needed to prove himself on clay.
They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal

Not a big deal, huh?

Let's see how the h2h changes when we change the distribution to a more fair one.

23 matches - 15 played on hard courts (65 %), 6 played on clay courts (27 %), 2 played on grass courts (8 %)

So it's 7-7 on hard courts (8-7 either way), 5-1 on clay, and 1-1 (or 2-0 Federer, depends on how you look at it)

Now the scenario changes to either 13-10 Nadal or 12-11 Nadal, not a big deal, looks nothing better than 15-8

Of course there are tons of different factors we have to take into consideration like, the majority of matches played in 2004-2007 or post 2007, what kind of hard courts/clay courts.

The facts are, Nadal wasn't good enough to challenge Federer outside of clay till 2008 by the time Federer hit 27. We can't just make up hypothetical matches cause there are too many factors to analyse.

You are missing the point that most of the tournaments are played on outside HC and Nadal leads 4-1 in that department (if I'm not mistaken), so Nadal would still own the H2H by a big margin.

On top of that, at the beginning of the rivalry Federer had the advantage of playing Baby Nadal and now Nadal will have the upper hand when facing Old Federer, thus making the H2H even more embarrasing for Federer.

So there is no reason to suggest that their H2H is deceptive whatsoever.

MagneticCurls · Apr 17, 2011

Cassius Clay said:
That H2H is pretty even, and they have only played 10 matches. We can't take much info out of that.

Even/lopsided are subjective terms which you use at your own preferences and are coloured by your biases. The bottom line is Davydenko has beaten Nadal more than Nadal has beaten Davy. Likewise with Nadal against Federer. Whether you call it lopsided or fairly even is meaningless and arbitrary. Numbers don't lie.

Cassius Clay · Apr 17, 2011

MagneticCurls said:
"Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Yeah, and Nadal owns almost every single one of them, except maybe Davydenko, on the other hand Federer...

Is this the weakest top 10 ever?

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads