H2H against top players more important than weeks at #1?

Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
Weeks at #1 shows consistency and domination of the tour in general. H2H against top players shows consistency and domination against the best players and main rivals. I think there is a case to be made for either one, but the H2H against top players is underrated in comparison.
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
Weeks at No.1 is a much more important & historically significant achievement! This, coming from a Nadal fan.

But H2H against the main rivals is pretty significant too. But out of the two, No.1 ranking is much much more valuable :neutral:
 
Chanwan

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
H2H against top players is def. important. But I fail to see how it shows consistency. Nadal's naysayers often claim that his h2h against Fed, Djoko, Murray etc. is so good, because he meet them much more on clay than elsewhere, where he fails to make finals, when he's not in his best form.
So I fail to see how consistency is that important in H2H. It's about the ability to perform when you get to those late rounds, not how often you get there.

Other than that - both are important. I give the edge to No. 1 simply because there's something special about being No. 1 that most of the top players want to attain.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Top players meaning top 10 players? Or a select few in order to further an argument? H2H versus the top 10 is important but weeks at #1 is more important because it naturally includes wins versus top players.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Weeks at #1 is the measuring stick because it's based on the entire field, not against a few players.

And Federer has an incredible h2h against their main rivals.

Hewitt: 18-8
Roddick: 21-3
Safin: 10-2
Ferrer: 14-0
Davydenko: 19-2
Gonzalez:12-1
Robredo: 10-1
Youzhny: 15-0
Blake: 10-1
Ferrero: 10-3
Ljubicic: 13-3
Nalbandian:11-8
Stepanek:12-2
Ginepri: 5-0
Karlovic: 10-1
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
TMF said:
Weeks at #1 is the measuring stick because it's based on the entire field, not against a few players.

And Federer has an incredible h2h against their main rivals.

Hewitt: 18-8
Roddick: 21-3
Safin: 10-2
Ferrer: 14-0
Davydenko: 19-2
Gonzalez:12-1
Robredo: 10-1
Youzhny: 15-0
Blake: 10-1
Ferrero: 10-3
Ljubicic: 13-3
Nalbandian:11-8
Stepanek:12-2
Ginepri: 5-0
Karlovic: 10-1
Click to expand...

Lol if you're including Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri & Karlovic as "main rivals" :lol:

Fed has enough great achievements of his own. You trying to make him look good in this way, comes out as Fanboy attempt!
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TheAnty-vic said:
Lol if you're including Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri & Karlovic as "main rivals" :lol:

Fed has enough great achievements of his own. You trying to make him look good in this way, comes out as Fanboy attempt!
Click to expand...

These players are same or similar to Roger's age, hence, his main rivals. Why would I include players that are 5+ years younger/older than him? That doesn't make sense.
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
TMF said:
These players are same or similar to Roger's age, hence, his main rivals. Why would I include players that are 5+ years younger/older than him? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Main rivals does NOT mean same age! Come on! Do I need to explain this :shock:

Yes you would include players 5 years younger/ older, if they have competed more than 10 times, played important SFs and Finals of Masters and Slams, fought for the biggest trophies!
If they are younger than Federer now, and he is at a disadvantage, then there was a time earlier, when Federer was in his prime and those players were teenagers, no? So it evens out!
 
P

Praetorian

Professional
Which sounds better, "I am #1 in the world" or "I beat <name player here> xxx times."

Now to be fair, depending the player you name, and the subjective importance that player is to the person he's talking to, there may be a case where it's just as important. To everyone else in Tennis, as well as to everyone else in the world who know nothing of the sport, saying that you are, or were #1 holds more relevance.
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
By your logic, should I count Fognini, Monaco and the likes, as Nadal's "main rivals"? LOL.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TheAnty-vic said:
Main rivals does NOT mean same age! Come on! Do I need to explain this :shock:

Yes you would include players 5 years younger/ older, if they have competed more than 10 times, played important SFs and Finals of Masters and Slams, fought for the biggest trophies!
If they are younger than Federer now, and he is at a disadvantage, then there was a time earlier, when Federer was in his prime and those players were teenagers, no? So it evens out!
Click to expand...


The reason why same age is the best way to compare is because all of them would have met pre-prime, prime and post-prime. However if they are 5+ years apart, that's comparing pre-prime to prime, and prime to post-prime. How do we know if a player is better during their pre-prime than their post-prime and vice-versa? Can you actually prove that pre-Nadal will be better than post-Nadal, or pre-Fed is better than post-Fed? No.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
no.1 also includes wins over top players. Remember this is how Roger got baack to the top last year in the first place.

Also to be no.1 you hvae to win as many big tournaments as possible. And in those big tournaments you are bound to meet top players
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
TMF said:
The reason why same age is the best way to compare is because all of them would have met pre-prime, prime and post-prime. However if they are 5+ years apart, that's comparing pre-prime to prime, and prime to post-prime. How do we know if a player is better during their pre-prime than their post-prime and vice-versa? Can you actually prove that pre-Nadal will be better than post-Nadal, or pre-Fed is better than post-Fed? No.
Click to expand...

Lol! This "PRIME" bullsh*t I've read only on this forum.
No one in real world talks about "newborn prime/ infant prime/ Prime prime/ post prime prime/ old age prime.......blah blah blah".

Think whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
D

dominikk1985

Legend
I think h2h is a very american thing. american sports likes the big duells. boxing for example is all about the h2h. guys like ali or fraziers have become mega stars not because they excelled against the field (which they did too of course) but because they had epic rivalries. boxing fans don't appreciate beating the field all that much. for that reason guys like klitschko or holmes who have been great against the field are not as respected as guys like frazier who had great rivalries.

boxing is more about who you beat than that you beat a lot of guys. tennis however I think is different. rivalries matter too but in the end it is about how much you win, not who you beat and who beats you.

I think america uses too much of a boxing standard when they judge players. the networks are to be blamed too, they do not care about whether it is a quarter or a semi but they want to sell the "battle of the giants" (agassi sampras, fed nadal...).
 
BrooklynNY

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
dominikk1985 said:
I think h2h is a very american thing. american sports likes the big duells. boxing for example is all about the h2h. guys like ali or fraziers have become mega stars not because they excelled against the field (which they did too of course) but because they had epic rivalries. boxing fans don't appreciate beating the field all that much. for that reason guys like klitschko or holmes who have been great against the field are not as respected as guys like frazier who had great rivalries.

boxing is more about who you beat than that you beat a lot of guys. tennis however I think is different. rivalries matter too but in the end it is about how much you win, not who you beat and who beats you.

I think america uses too much of a boxing standard when they judge players. the networks are to be blamed too, they do not care about whether it is a quarter or a semi but they want to sell the "battle of the giants" (agassi sampras, fed nadal...).
Click to expand...



Uh... I think the denominator here is that they are both individual sports, nothing to do with being American.

There are big rivalries in soccer/football too - even champions league.
 
T

torpantennis

Legend
H2H against top players of YOUR OWN AGE is the most important criteria of dominance. The younger players will have an advantage sooner or later, so only comparison against top players of about your age is relevant.

Check this statistic of all current players. It gives the undisputable answer to the question of the most dominant player.
 
L

Lips

Rookie
TMF said:
These players are same or similar to Roger's age, hence, his main rivals. Why would I include players that are 5+ years younger/older than him? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense is that you don't consider rafa one of Fed's rivals but it is considered one of the greatest rivalries in the history of sports...remember a teenager Nadal was beating a "prime" Fed
 
L

Lips

Rookie
TheAnty-vic said:
Lol! This "PRIME" bullsh*t I've read only on this forum.
No one in real world talks about "newborn prime/ infant prime/ Prime prime/ post prime prime/ old age prime.......blah blah blah".

Think whatever helps you sleep at night.
Click to expand...

Well said!!!
 
vladap

vladap

Professional
Forehand Of Doom said:
Weeks at #1 shows consistency and domination of the tour in general. H2H against top players shows consistency and domination against the best players and main rivals. I think there is a case to be made for either one, but the H2H against top players is underrated in comparison.
Click to expand...

not comparable IMO...good trolling effort nonetheless 9/10
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
Chanwan said:
H2H against top players is def. important. But I fail to see how it shows consistency. Nadal's naysayers often claim that his h2h against Fed, Djoko, Murray etc. is so good, because he meet them much more on clay than elsewhere, where he fails to make finals, when he's not in his best form.
So I fail to see how consistency is that important in H2H. It's about the ability to perform when you get to those late rounds, not how often you get there.

Other than that - both are important. I give the edge to No. 1 simply because there's something special about being No. 1 that most of the top players want to attain.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Nadal's case is special because of his trajectory in the different surfaces. And I do see the surface skew as only marginal, because except indoor and grass, his H2H against Federer is favorable to Nadal. Against Djokovic I feel the surfaces are well represented, with Nadal having the overall edge but falling behind in hardcourt.

Perhaps the H2H against main rivals is not as significant as the Number of weeks at #1, but I still maintain it should be considered more important than what it is now.
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
vladap said:
not comparable IMO...good trolling effort nonetheless 9/10
Click to expand...

Why are these metrics not comparable? The H2H against top rivals reflects dominance on a limited scope, but it has a definite intrinsic value, which I think is very underplayed by the Federer fans.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Possibly.

I find Nadal's h2h vs. the top 30 in the world more impressive than Federer's weeks at #1 honestly.


As dominant as Fed was, he couldn't manage what Nadal does via the h2h
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Forehand Of Doom said:
Fair enough. Nadal's case is special because of his trajectory in the different surfaces. And I do see the surface skew as only marginal, because except indoor and grass, his H2H against Federer is favorable to Nadal. Against Djokovic I feel the surfaces are well represented, with Nadal having the overall edge but falling behind in hardcourt.

Perhaps the H2H against main rivals is not as significant as the Number of weeks at #1, but I still maintain it should be considered more important than what it is now.
Click to expand...

So now it's h2h versus main rivals and not just top players? Main rivals wise Federer has more than just the current guys...
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Forehand Of Doom said:
Why are these metrics not comparable? The H2H against top rivals reflects dominance on a limited scope, but it has a definite intrinsic value, which I think is very underplayed by the Federer fans.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of inconsistency in comparing metrics.

OTOH some say Pete was nothing compared to Federer, if that's true, then weeks at #1 loses its luster.

They also say that Pete was just a serve, and if he was just a serve and the serve alone made him #1 that also renders the #1 statistic irrelevant.

These metrics also exclude Pete's consecutive years at year end #1, some don't consider a "GOAT" attribute at all.

So, what makes the weeks at #1 so important if it didn't/doesn't make a difference in Pete's or Lendl's case?

I don't get it.
 
vladap

vladap

Professional
Forehand Of Doom said:
Why are these metrics not comparable? The H2H against top rivals reflects dominance on a limited scope, but it has a definite intrinsic value, which I think is very underplayed by the Federer fans.
Click to expand...

h2h sure has its value, why would you compare it with no.1 weeks is beyond me

what about Nole-Rafa h2h? 13-3 on clay with 9-14 on other surfaces...
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
TheTruth said:
There is a lot of inconsistency in comparing metrics.

OTOH some say Pete was nothing compared to Federer, if that's true, then weeks at #1 loses its luster.

They also say that Pete was just a serve, and if he was just a serve and the serve alone made him #1 that also renders the #1 statistic irrelevant.

These metrics also exclude Pete's consecutive years at year end #1, some don't consider a "GOAT" attribute at all.

So, what makes the weeks at #1 so important if it didn't/doesn't make a difference in Pete's or Lendl's case?

I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is important, just not that important. Lendl is the poster boy to make that case. I think to some extent everybody is biased in determining what achievements are more important, which is actually expected.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Forehand Of Doom said:
Who do you consider Federer's main rivals?
Click to expand...

Hard to say at the very least I'd include Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt and Roddick. Murray should perhaps be in there too as well as Nalbandian. As well as that there's players like Agassi and Del Potro who have contested multiple slam matches with him. There's alot of players you could include. What do you think the critera is?
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
TMF said:
Weeks at #1 is the measuring stick because it's based on the entire field, not against a few players.

And Federer has an incredible h2h against their main rivals.

Hewitt: 18-8
Roddick: 21-3
Safin: 10-2
Ferrer: 14-0
Davydenko: 19-2
Gonzalez:12-1
Robredo: 10-1
Youzhny: 15-0
Blake: 10-1
Ferrero: 10-3
Ljubicic: 13-3
Nalbandian:11-8
Stepanek:12-2
Ginepri: 5-0
Karlovic: 10-1
Click to expand...

And Nadal's head-to-heads (including against the other big 3, which you conveniently left out):

Federer: 22-10
Djokovic: 22-17
Murray: 13-5
Hewitt: 6-4
Roddick: 7-3
Safin: 2-0
Ferrer: 21-5
Davydenko: 5-6
Gonzalez: 7-3
Robredo: 7-0
Youzhny: 10-4
Blake: 4-3
Ferrero: 7-2
Ljubicic: 7-2
Nalbandian: 5-2
Stepanek: 6-0
Ginepri: 1-0
Karlovic: 4-0
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
vladap said:
h2h sure has its value, why would you compare it with no.1 weeks is beyond me

what about Nole-Rafa h2h? 13-3 on clay with 9-14 on other surfaces...
Click to expand...

Because both measure dominance (against the field in general, or against specific players).

Djokovic has a very good record against Nadal outside clay, but in slams the picture is a little different (not that it makes any different in the H2H).
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
NatF said:
Hard to say at the very least I'd include Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt and Roddick. Murray should perhaps be in there too as well as Nalbandian. As well as that there's players like Agassi and Del Potro who have contested multiple slam matches with him. There's alot of players you could include. What do you think the critera is?
Click to expand...

The ones you mentioned seem about right. For me the criteria is players with a substantial H2H. You could also require multiple finals, especially slam finals, or multiple slam matches in QF or later. For example, I wouldn't consider Robredo to be a main rival of Federer, or Wawrinka a main rival of Nadal. Yet, I think considering Murray a main rival of Nadal or Federer is not too unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Forehand Of Doom said:
The ones you mentioned seem about right. For me the criteria is players with a substantial H2H. You could also require multiple finals, especially slam finals, or multiple slam matches. For example, I wouldn't consider Robredo to be a main rival of Federer, or Wawrinka a main rival of Nadal. Yet, I think considering Murray a main rival of Nadal or Federer is not too unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What about Davydenko, would you consider him a main rival of Federer? They met in 6 (?) slam matches so they should probably be considered rivals if not main rivals.
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
NatF said:
Agreed. What about Davydenko, would you consider him a main rival of Federer? They met in 6 (?) slam matches so they should probably be considered rivals if not main rivals.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider Davydenko a main rival of anybody. Certainly a rival, but Davydenko's career has been streaky at best.
 
moonballs

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Nadal is so great at the h2h against the top players. Yet he can never win a single WTF which is only played by the top 8.
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Forehand Of Doom said:
I agree that it is important, just not that important. Lendl is the poster boy to make that case. I think to some extent everybody is biased in determining what achievements are more important, which is actually expected.
Click to expand...

My point is that the metrics aren't being used consistently. The same statistic is being used in one case to exalt and in the other to deflate.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
TheTruth said:
My point is that the metrics aren't being used consistently. The same statistic is being used in one case to exalt and in the other to deflate.
Click to expand...

Can you back up your claims that weeks at #1 is somehow being used against anyone? I've never seen it. Least of all by anyone who supports Federer, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
davydenko_main-420x0.jpg


omg not this again
 
Last edited:
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
moonballs said:
Nadal is so great at the h2h against the top players. Yet he can never win a single WTF which is only played by the top 8.
Click to expand...

And Federer can't win a single Rome or Monte Carlo title, while Nadal has 15. I suggest you have a look at Nadal's record against all the top players. These people who say "it's about the record against the field" don't seem to realise that Nadal's record against the field is excellent.
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
NatF said:
Can you back up your claims that weeks at #1 is somehow being used against anyone? I've never seen it. Least of all by anyone who supports Federer, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you will agree that the Number of weeks at #1 gained much more weight for some once Federer beat that record. Which is expected anyway, I'm not complaining about it.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Forehand Of Doom said:
Well, at least you will agree that the Number of weeks at #1 gained much more weight for some once Federer beat that record. Which is expected anyway, I'm not complaining about it.
Click to expand...

Forehand Of Doom said:
Yes, definitely. Another criteria could be to discard "pigeons" as maIn rivals, but I am not too sure about that.
Click to expand...

I think h2h versus top players is far more subjective. If we call it h2h versus top 10 opponents we can be objective with the players we include.

As for weeks at #1 gaining weight I haven't seen that. It's always been important. Some still tout Federer's consecutive weeks at #1 ahead of his total weeks. So I don't think it has anything to do with Federer getting that 2 extra weeks to nudge ahead of Sampras. It's always been an important criteria.

These claims seem false to me. It would be nice if people on this board substantiated their claims about other fanbases instead of just pointing fingers.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
What good is it if you beat Federer and Murray, but keep losing to Davydenko, Rosol, Giles Muller , Darcis and Zeballos ?
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Mustard said:
And Nadal's head-to-heads (including against the other big 3, which you conveniently left out):

Federer: 22-10
Djokovic: 22-17
Murray: 13-5
Hewitt: 6-4
Roddick: 7-3
Safin: 2-0
Ferrer: 21-5
Davydenko: 5-6
Gonzalez: 7-3
Robredo: 7-0
Youzhny: 10-4
Blake: 4-3
Ferrero: 7-2
Ljubicic: 7-2
Nalbandian: 5-2
Stepanek: 6-0
Ginepri: 1-0
Karlovic: 4-0
Click to expand...

You need to list the players that are same/close to Nadal's age. Guys like Ljubicic is a lot older than Nadal, lol. You don't see men include Fed h2h against Agassi(8-3) and Sampras(1-0).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Why H2H is important
Replies
3
Views
463
RNadal
R
D
Weeks at #1 vs H2H
Replies
47
Views
912
ericarnett88
E
P
More players gaining a positive H2H against Federer is making Nadal look worse
Replies
37
Views
7K
beast of mallorca
beast of mallorca
Bukmeikara
Djokovic/Nadal H2H against other players
Replies
2
Views
851
Mainad
Mainad
Sport
Nadal-Djokovic H2H in Slams is more one-sised on clay than hard.
Replies
17
Views
822
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Top