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

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

Chanwan said:
The Big 4 against top-10:
Fed: 165-92 = 64,2 % (66,3 % at the end of 2012)
Nadal: 123-56 = 68,7 % (66,0 % at the end of 2012)
Djokovic: 108-70 = 60,7 % (56,8 % at the end of 2012)
Murray: 66-53 = 55,5 % (56,0 % at the end of 2012)

I've included 2012 results to show how much a year can mean - Nadal and Djoko went 24-5 and 24-6 respectively, Murray went 5-5 and Fed 4-10 in 2013.
In Fed's best year vs. top ten (2004), he went 18-0 (on his way to beating 24 top ten players in a row as far as I recall).

Obviously, age matters a bit (Fed was up at 71,9 % at the end of 2007). It also matters how much of a prodigy you are.
Fed lost quite a lot early and then won a hell of all lot during 2004-2007 and has had up and down years ever since.
Nadal's winning percentage has been pretty stable throughout the years, probably partly because he mainly met top ten players on clay in his early years (and there, he could always beat anybody!). His best year by far coming in 2013 (82,8 vs. 68,8 in 2010 for example (2006 and 2008 were in both in the mid 70's)

See this article for details on the h2h for each year up until 2012 for the Big Four:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-they-faired-against-top-10-through-the-years

Great post there and thanks for the link ! I have always wanted to take a look at wins against top 10 as a key metric while arguing about peak , prime, weak field strong field etc, so good to find it for the top 4 in one place.

From a quick glance, it does appear that Fed had something going on in 2008 (mono and it's aftereffects) because there is an uncharacteristic dip in the winning % against top 10. Because it is impossible that the field suddenly got strong in 2008 alone and then went back to being weak. It is more likely that Fed's level fell in 2008. Several other interesting observations can be made with this data, but don't want to derail tthis thread from it's topic, maybe subject for another thread.

The_Order · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Great post there and thanks for the link ! I have always wanted to take a look at wins against top 10 as a key metric while arguing about peak , prime, weak field strong field etc, so good to find it for the top 4 in one place.

From a quick glance, it does appear that Fed had something going on in 2008 (mono and it's aftereffects) because there is an uncharacteristic dip in the winning % against top 10. Because it is impossible that the field suddenly got strong in 2008 alone and then went back to being weak. It is more likely that Fed's level fell in 2008. Several other interesting observations can be made with this data, but don't want to derail tthis thread from it's topic, maybe subject for another thread.

Novak was better in 08 than 09.

Federer didn't have to play Nadal at RG or WIM in 09 either.

This helped his top 10 record...

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

The_Order said:
Novak was better in 08 than 09.

Federer didn't have to play Nadal at RG or WIM in 09 either.

This helped his top 10 record...

Actually Nadal had the advantage that Federer, who with his 1HBH was the perfect sitting duck matchup wise for Nadal, showed up in every final giving Nadal an easy win. Wonder if Nadal's record against top 10 would be as good without Federer

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

Forehand Of Doom said:
Top 10 opponents meaning 10 most sunstantial H2H records, or top ranked opponents regardless of H2H?

Do you need me to substantiate the claim that weeks at #1 gained special weight after Federer beat that record? Anecdotally, I can say that Lendl has never been claimed to belong to Tier 1 greats based on his great Weeks at #1 record. In other words, Weeks at #1 has always been a rather ancillary measure of greatness compared to slams won. Incidentally, Weeks at #1 has gained increasing appreciation lately, which I see as a premature reaction to the possibility that Nadal may break the slam record.

But, as I say, I don't think this is strange or worth decrying. It's quite normal and expected, and not a phenomenon exclusive to the Federer fan base.

Top 10 opponents meaning against players who were ranked in the top 10 at the time of the match.

Lendl has been very highly rated by some before. Slams obviously count more than weeks at #1 to almost everyone though. Consider that Lendl has less slams and less weeks at #1 than say Sampras then why should he be considered in a GOAT debate. Lendl is often considered to be the top of tier 2 over people like Agassi/Connors. Time at #1 has always been important. Federer fans have been talking about it long before Rafa's 2013 season.

Sorry but I think you're making it up. Slams have always been more important than weeks at #1 that's true. But to say weeks at #1 have only recently become important to Federer fans is nonsense. It's always been important, probably the second most important stat for Federer after the slams.

TheTruth said:
Yeah well, you probably don't see the death threats or the wishing injury on players either.

I'm not surprised.

My post was real easy to understand.

So that's a no then. Typical.

I have seen the injury wishes yes. Not sure why that's relevent.

The_Order · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Actually Nadal had the advantage that Federer, who with his 1HBH was the perfect sitting duck matchup wise for Nadal, showed up in every final giving Nadal an easy win. Wonder if Nadal's record against top 10 would be as good without Federer

Of course not, you'd have to take off 22 wins with only 10 losses.

So I guess as a Nadal fan, I should thank Federer for being his *****.

Thanks Feddy :lol:

mike danny · Dec 5, 2013

The_Order said:
Novak was better in 08 than 09.

Federer didn't have to play Nadal at RG or WIM in 09 either.

This helped his top 10 record...

Actually it was a combination of both. fed's level dipped a bit and the others upped theirs a bit.

Watch Miami 2009 with Novak. You can't simply affirm Novak got better and Fed stayed the same. Fed kinda handed that mtch to Novak with horrible errors. Novak did not have to do much. It was more Fed losing it than Novak winning it

Chanwan · Dec 5, 2013

The_Order said:
Novak was better in 08 than 09.

Federer didn't have to play Nadal at RG or WIM in 09 either.

This helped his top 10 record...

I agree with the first, but that's not what influenced the percentage as Fed was 2-1 against Novak in 2008 and 2-3 in 2009. He was 0-4 against Nadal in 2008 and 1-1 in 2009 - but not playing Nadal at the FO helped ever so slightly.

What you can see from the data is that Fed went from 80-100 percent in 2004-07 to 41 percent in 2008. That's a massive drop. And it's not due to Novak as shown above. And not that much due to Rafa either as Fed also lost 4 to Rafa in 06, but still maintained an 82,6 percentage.

Bobby Jr · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
I completely understand what FOD was trying to say but I don't agree with the analogy because it is more apt for a situation where players are picked based on their performance round the year...

WTF restricts the number of players to top 8 (effectively, 8 players who played the most consistent tennis over the past year) so it can have a unique RR format. I also gave the seeding based on ranking example in my earlier post. At the end of the day , WTF is an indoor tournament and should be viewed as just that.

Similarly, every tournament actually pre-selects most entrants based on their results in the 52 weeks prior. The WTF just happens to have a 8 player cut-off instead of a 106 or whatever it is at the majors (leaving the rest of the slots for qualifiers and wild-cards etc).

The WTF is the première indoor tournament of the season. People bleating about how there is some onus on the tour to rotate it between different surfaces shows nothing other than they completely miss the point of it and/or are such partisan hacks they can't see the wood for the trees.

Were the French Open to announce they would be playing on fast hard-courts for a couple of years I'm sure they would be screaming blue murder about how it breaks with tradition and that the FO should always be on clay bla bla, or how it favours certain players.

Chanwan · Dec 5, 2013

The_Order said:
Of course not, you'd have to take off 22 wins with only 10 losses.

So I guess as a Nadal fan, I should thank Federer for being his *****.

Thanks Feddy :lol:

Actually, it would exactly the same as Nadal's win percentage against Fed is 68,75 and his win percentage against the field is 68,7.
If anything else doesn't, this clearly shows that there's a match-up advantage/disadvantage at play in their rivalry, as it's a bit odd that Nadal's win percentage is the same against the guy, who's been either 1 or 2 (or 3) almost every time they played as it is against the top-10 field as a whole.

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

The_Order said:
Novak was better in 08 than 09.

Federer didn't have to play Nadal at RG or WIM in 09 either.

This helped his top 10 record...

Del Potro, Murray and Davydenko were better in 09. The field probably evens out in general.

More than that he actually had the edge against Djokovic in 2008, 2-1 and he didn't lose to Nadal anymore in 2008 than he did in 2006. The drop in form was clear. Despite Djokovic being worse in 2009 Federer actually came out 2-3 versus him at the end of 2009. So obviously there's more to Federer's record against the top 10 in 2008 than just Nadal and Djokovic...

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Similarly, every tournament actually pre-selects most entrants based on their results in the 52 weeks prior. The WTF just happens to have a 8 player cut-off instead of a 106 or whatever it is at the majors (leaving the rest of the slots for qualifiers and wild-cards etc).

Yep, exactly my point. I didn't mention that every tournament actually restricts entry (to 64 or 128 top players) just like WTF does because I knew someone would bring up qualifiers and wild cards

All tournaments except for Wimbledon do that on the basis of ranking - which is based on performance in the past year (across all surfaces, of course). This is why I don't get why people make up some convoluted argument for WTF alone to rotate the surface.

MachiA. · Dec 5, 2013

Certainly you can not be the greatest ever when you are the lap dog of Nadal.

Even in the weakest era and most homogenized Fed could not manage to finish more than 5 years as Number 1.

KR

mike danny · Dec 5, 2013

Chanwan said:
I agree with the first, but that's not what influenced the percentage as Fed was 2-1 against Novak in 2008 and 2-3 in 2009. He was 0-4 against Nadal in 2008 and 1-1 in 2009 - but not playing Nadal at the FO helped ever so slightly.

What you can see from the data is that Fed went from 80-100 percent in 2004-07 to 41 percent in 2008. That's a massive drop. And it's not due to Novak as shown above. And not that much due to Rafa either as Fed also lost 4 to Rafa in 06, but still maintained an 82,6 percentage.

Agree with this.

Povl Carstensen · Dec 5, 2013

So actually pre-32 year old Federer was doing allright in this stat in spite of a slow start to his carreer, interesting.

mike danny · Dec 5, 2013

MachiA. said:
Certainly you can not be the greatest ever when you are the lap dog of Nadal.

Even in the weakest era and most homogenized Fed could not manage to finish more than 5 years as Number 1.

KR

So being no.1 5 years does not impress you? Even Nadal has never been 5 years no.1.

Federer was no.1 for 237 cons weeks. Nobody else even comes close

Bobby Jr · Dec 5, 2013

MachiA. said:
Certainly you can not be the greatest ever when you are the lap dog of Nadal.

And you certainly cannot be the greatest of your era when another player has a far, far better all-round record against the entire tour than you.

That's why Nadal cannot be considered greater than Federer until he at least matches him in the whole accomplishments that have been the benchmark by which players across different eras have been compared for decades.

Chanwan · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Great post there and thanks for the link ! I have always wanted to take a look at wins against top 10 as a key metric while arguing about peak , prime, weak field strong field etc, so good to find it for the top 4 in one place.

From a quick glance, it does appear that Fed had something going on in 2008 (mono and it's aftereffects) because there is an uncharacteristic dip in the winning % against top 10. Because it is impossible that the field suddenly got strong in 2008 alone and then went back to being weak. It is more likely that Fed's level fell in 2008. Several other interesting observations can be made with this data, but don't want to derail tthis thread from it's topic, maybe subject for another thread.

Haha, I think the thread has been derailed a bit (I thought that's what's happening to every thread here given sufficient time?) - it's still part of the topic though.
Anyhow, glad you liked it.

Chanwan · Dec 5, 2013

Btw - what also matters - and will matter going forward - in this discussion is that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are more or less the same age and the next generation is, as far as we can see, crap. So they don't have talented youngsters coming into their prime and trying to take their place.
Imo, there's no reason to think that the Big Three won't be competing against each other for the next two years or more. With Delpo as the fourth wheel. Obviously, a lot can happen, but it's clear that there are no 18-24 year olds anywhere near Nadal, Djokovic and Murray at that age.

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

Chanwan said:
Btw - what also matters - and will matter going forward - in this discussion is that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are more or less the same age and the next generation is, as far as we can see, crap. So they don't have talented youngsters coming into their prime and trying to take their place.
Imo, there's no reason to think that the Big Three won't be competing against each other for the next two years or more. With Delpo as the fourth wheel. Obviously, a lot can happen, but it's clear that there are no 18-24 year olds anywhere near Nadal, Djokovic and Murray at that age.

Yep, all this talk of competition is meaningless as even if there was weaker competition in 04-7 Federer has had to deal with the strong competition as he aged. Likewise the current guys don't seem have to worry about the next generation at all competing for slams like Federer did.

Magnetite · Dec 5, 2013

Definitely weeks at #1.

tennisaddict · Dec 5, 2013

Forehand Of Doom said:
I'm not following your reasoning. I was assuming identical achievements in terms of slams won, for example.

4 slams gap is not a small difference, both started winning majors within an year of each other.

If Nadal gets to 18, then he can have the front page. Not till then.

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

torpantennis said:
Nope, even this statistic claims Federer is better than Nadal. Check their winning pct. against the top rivals of about THEIR OWN AGE, the only fair way to compare it.

Right.

Because that's the way they've always done it throughout the history of tennis.

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Not a good comparison because I'd think Serena has way more weeks at #1 than Woz. Pick someone else who has fewer weeks at #1 than Woz and tell us if you would pick their prowess against the field.

Fair point.

Sharapova vs. Wozniaki.

Yes. I'd take Sharapova's career over Wozniacki.

And Venus's.

And Azarenka's.

And Capriati's...

And many more.

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

NatF said:
So that's a no then. Typical.

I have seen the injury wishes yes. Not sure why that's relevent.

Are you serious? Are you trying to tell me that you haven't seen posters on this board constantly comparing Fed's 302? Really?

I've seen it so much that I actually know Federer's weeks at no. 1 and I don't even follow him.

Wonder how I know that when I am not a stats person?

.

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
Fair point.

Sharapova vs. Wozniaki.

Yes. I'd take Sharapova's career over Wozniacki.

And Venus's.

And Azarenka's.

And Capriati's...

And many more.

Not a fair comparison really seeing as Wozniaki has no slams. Irrespective of weeks at #1 her accomplishments aren't close to any of those you mentioned.

Being #1 means being the best in the world. It's clearly a big deal. If it comes hand in hand with winning slams and big tournaments like it has with Federer then it can only be a plus.

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
Fair point.

Sharapova vs. Wozniaki.

Yes. I'd take Sharapova's career over Wozniacki.

Are you implying that Sharapova has a winning H2h against her main rivals ?

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
Are you serious? Are you trying to tell me that you haven't seen posters on this board constantly comparing Fed's 302? Really?

I've seen it so much that I actually know Federer's weeks at no. 1 and I don't even follow him.

Wonder how I know that when I am not a stats person? .

I've seen posters saying Federer has 302 weeks at #1 ofcourse. But I never saw weeks at #1 being discounted when Federer didn't have the record is what I meant.

I fear we may have misunderstood eachother...

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

NatF said:
Not a fair comparison really seeing as Wozniaki has no slams. Irrespective of weeks at #1 her accomplishments aren't close to any of those you mentioned.

Being #1 means being the best in the world. It's clearly a big deal. If it comes hand in hand with winning slams and big tournaments like it has with Federer then it can only be a plus.

We're not measuring majors. We're asking which is more important H2H or weeks at #1.

Thread Title:

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

Weeks at number one can be diluted because you can be #1 without domination or beating the best players.

Being #1 does not mean being the best in the world (see Wozniaki, Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic,) all who reached #1 by being consistent and dealing with a diluted field, not by beating the dominant players.

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

NatF said:
Not a fair comparison really seeing as Wozniaki has no slams. Irrespective of weeks at #1 her accomplishments aren't close to any of those you mentioned.

Being #1 means being the best in the world. It's clearly a big deal. If it comes hand in hand with winning slams and big tournaments like it has with Federer then it can only be a plus.

It's a fair comparison, you're just getting off track and adding new ingredients to the recipe (majors). We're not talking about majors.

We're talking about H2H against top players more important than weeks at #1?

I am pointing out that weeks at #1 means consistency, but does not indicate that you are the best player in the world. It's never meant that.

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
We're not measuring majors. We're asking which is more important H2H or weeks at #1.

Thread Title:

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

Weeks at number one can be diluted because you can be #1 without domination or beating the best players.

Being #1 does not mean being the best in the world (see Wozniaki, Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic,) all who reached #1 by being consistent and dealing with a diluted field, not by beating the dominant players.

Lets not compare the situation in the WTA to the ATP.

Keeping to the topic then I still say you comparison isn't fair. A better one would be a player who has a good h2h record with the top players of the last few years and Wozniaki with her weeks at #1.

You can also beat top opponents regularly but lose to journeymen in equal measure. You'd have a good h2h when considering main rivals year on year but domination against the field would be lacking. Why is being the most consistant not the same as being the best?

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

NatF said:
I've seen posters saying Federer has 302 weeks at #1 ofcourse. But I never saw weeks at #1 being discounted when Federer didn't have the record is what I meant.

I fear we may have misunderstood each other...

I'm not discounting Federer's weeks at #1. I think it's an awesome stat. I just don't think people can make blanket statements such as weeks at #1 means you're the best player, when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Possibly...

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
Weeks at number one can be diluted because you can be #1 without domination or beating the best players.

Not exactly correct. I don't follow the WTA, but I am sure Woz and Safina did beat the top players consistently and won the smaller tournaments (just not slams) to get to #1 ? You can luck out and win slams, actually, by getting cake draws and avoiding in-form players. However, getting to #1 and staying there for a while would require you to get some wins against the "best players", who btw, would be themselves #1, if they were truly the best in the past year.

Being #1 does not mean being the best in the world (see Wozniaki, Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic,) all who reached #1 by being consistent and dealing with a diluted field, not by beating the dominant players.

Who were the dominant players and what were they doing when Woz and co got to #1

You seem to have a different definition for what 'best in the world' implies. For tennis rankings, the best player on a given day is the one who has shown the most consistent results/gained maximum points over the last one year.

FreeBird · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Not exactly correct. I don't follow the WTA, but I am sure Woz and Safina did beat the top players consistently and won the smaller tournaments (just not slams) to get to #1 ? You can luck out and win slams, actually, by getting cake draws and avoiding in-form players, but getting to #1 and staying there for a while would require you to get some wins against the "best players", who btw, would be themselves #1, if they were truly the best in the past year.

Who were the dominant players and what were they doing when Woz and co got to #1

Hey sbengte, whats up? Was busy last week. Any new story on this forum? :twisted:

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

FreeBird said:
Hey sbengte, whats up? Was busy last week. Any new story on this forum? :twisted:

Hi ! I assume you got placed since you are back on the forum. If so, which company and where ?

Latest discoveries from the forum : #1 ranking is useless, Federer lies about his injuries, winning h2h is the most coveted stat etc :twisted:

moonballs · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
It's a fair comparison, you're just getting off track and adding new ingredients to the recipe (majors). We're not talking about majors.

We're talking about H2H against top players more important than weeks at #1?

I am pointing out that weeks at #1 means consistency, but does not indicate that you are the best player in the world. It's never meant that.

No single stat can include all information. h2h has its own flaws: 2011 Nadal lost to Novak 7 times in a row, yet his H2h was still favorable. After he lost the third or fourth time nobody with with some basic tennis knowledge would think he was better than Djokovic at that time.

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
I'm not discounting Federer's weeks at #1. I think it's an awesome stat. I just don't think people can make blanket statements such as weeks at #1 means you're the best player, when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Possibly...

Ok well I think when looking at the mens game the player who is #1 is usually the best playing in the world. There was a time this year when Nadal was clearly playing the best tennis but Djokovic was #1 likewise when Djokovic was in the middle of his win streak in 2011 he technically the best player of the moment. Aside from complaints about the rolling 52 week ranking I think weeks at #1 is a good reflection of who's had the best year and therefore the best player.

I think if you have a long period of time at #1 with lots of majors thrown in the two achievements support eachother. The best player is the person who wins the most, which is what the rankings measure.

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

NatF said:
Lets not compare the situation in the WTA to the ATP.

Keeping to the topic then I still say you comparison isn't fair. A better one would be a player who has a good h2h record with the top players of the last few years and Wozniaki with her weeks at #1.

You can also beat top opponents regularly but lose to journeymen in equal measure. You'd have a good h2h when considering main rivals year on year but domination against the field would be lacking. Why is being the most consistant not the same as being the best?

In the first instance Azarenka has always had a better H2H against the top players than Wozniacki.

I can't think of one instance where this would apply. You'll have to find one of those for me. The Big Four don't lose to journeymen in equal measure.

Ferrer is very consistent, but not the best.

FreeBird · Dec 5, 2013

Delete....

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
In the first instance Azarenka has always had a better H2H against the top players than Wozniacki.

I can't think of one instance where this would apply. You'll have to find one of those for me. The Big Four don't lose to journeymen in equal measure.

Ferrer is very consistent, but not the best.

The thing is Azarenka has translated those wins into slams as well.

It was a hypothetical, I was just saying simply having a good h2h with top players doesn't make a great career. Likewise lots of time at #1 without the big titles looks very hollow.

Forehand Of Doom · Dec 5, 2013

Day Tripper said:
H2H was never considered to be an important criteria until the advent of Federer/Nadal.

It says a lot about Federer that so many Nadal fans on this forum believe that Nadal's greatest achievement is his H2H with Federer.

Nobody said the H2H is Nadal's greatest achievement. It's rather the other way around (it is perhaps Federer's most important shortcoming).

Also, I think the fact the H2H comes up often is because Nadal has been maligned for far too long by a particular portion of Federer fans as a player without talent who shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the one they long ago annointed GOAT, and the H2H plus the parity of results at the same age disprove that.

NatF · Dec 5, 2013

Forehand Of Doom said:
Nobody said the H2H is Nadal's greatest achievement. It's rather the other way around (it is perhaps Federer's most important shortcoming).

Also, I think the fact the H2H comes up often is because Nadal has been maligned for far too long by a particular portion of Federer fans as a player without talent who shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the one they long ago annointed GOAT, and the H2H plus the parity of results at the same age disprove that.

Federer's h2h against the top 10 is as good as Nadal's. Obviously his h2h versus Nadal is a blotch, it would probably be denied less if certain posters didn't parrot on about it all the time.

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

FreeBird said:
Flipkart. It is a fast growing Indian e-commerce company just like your amazon. I will be heading to Bangalore, our IT city.
Gave interview for Deutsche Bank also but came short of nailing the interview. Anyway, Getting into flipkart will assist me in my preparations for MBA since the work is not rigorous there.

Congratulations ! Is flipkart making profits yet ? I know they got massive funding as a startup and have established a name for themselves. And congratulations again that you will be moving to the coolest city in India

Forehand Of Doom · Dec 5, 2013

Day Tripper said:
Weeks at number one has always been considered to be the second most important achievement after Grand Slams. Anyone who seriously disputes this I suspect has a hidden agenda.

The problem with Forehand of Dooms argument is that H2H offers no context to those wins.

As i said following Nadals defeat of Federer at the WTF.

'Nadal beat Federer yesterday but in the end it didn't mean jack - Why? - they both walked away with nothing. Tennis is about winning tournaments.'

Weeks spent at number one is the best measure of dominating the field. No surprise then that it is dominated by Federer and Sampras.

What context so you want for the wins?

As for winning tournaments, I agree. Slams are the main measure of greatness. After that, Masters is in my opinion the next level, as Masters are played year round on several surfaces (with grass sadly lacking). WTF is nice, but it is not a fair balanced competition due to the fact that the surface does not reflect the surface composition of the tour.

TheTruth · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Not exactly correct. I don't follow the WTA, but I am sure Woz and Safina did beat the top players consistently and won the smaller tournaments (just not slams) to get to #1 ? You can luck out and win slams, actually, by getting cake draws and avoiding in-form players. However, getting to #1 and staying there for a while would require you to get some wins against the "best players", who btw, would be themselves #1, if they were truly the best in the past year.

Who were the dominant players and what were they doing when Woz and co got to #1
You seem to have a different definition for what 'best in the world' implies. For tennis rankings, the best player on a given day is the one who has shown the most consistent results/gained maximum points over the last one year.

If you don't follow the WTA then how would you know?

FreeBird · Dec 5, 2013

sbengte said:
Congratulations ! Is flipkart making profits yet ? I know they got massive funding as a startup and have established a name for themselves. And congratulations again that you will be moving to the coolest city in India

Thanks.

Not making profit yet but I hope from 2014 they will. They are thinking long-term. It took amazon 7 years to make profit and look where it is today.
Are you an NRI or an Indian?. You don't seem to me an European guy by looking at your knowledge of India. :shock:

Forehand Of Doom · Dec 5, 2013

NatF said:
Federer's h2h against the top 10 is as good as Nadal's. Obviously his h2h versus Nadal is a blotch, it would probably be denied less if certain posters didn't parrot on about it all the time.

Parrot on? It is fair to talk about the H2H. Discussing such things brings no harm to anybody.

KillerServe · Dec 5, 2013

Forehand Of Doom said:
What context so you want for the wins?

As for winning tournaments, I agree. Slams are the main measure of greatness. After that, Masters is in my opinion the next level, as Masters are played year round on several surfaces (with grass sadly lacking). WTF is nice, but it is not a fair balanced competition due to the fact that the surface does not reflect the surface composition of the tour.

Neither does any one Masters reflect the surface composition of the tour, or for that matter any one slam! WTF is ONE tournament, Mastersssss is 9, you can't compare apples to oranges.

Forehand Of Doom · Dec 5, 2013

Chanwan said:
The Big 4 against top-10:
Fed: 165-92 = 64,2 % (66,3 % at the end of 2012)
Nadal: 123-56 = 68,7 % (66,0 % at the end of 2012)
Djokovic: 108-70 = 60,7 % (56,8 % at the end of 2012)
Murray: 66-53 = 55,5 % (56,0 % at the end of 2012)

I've included 2012 results to show how much a year can mean - Nadal and Djoko went 24-5 and 24-6 respectively, Murray went 5-5 and Fed 4-10 in 2013.
In Fed's best year vs. top ten (2004), he went 18-0 (on his way to beating 24 top ten players in a row as far as I recall).

Obviously, age matters a bit (Fed was up at 71,9 % at the end of 2007). It also matters how much of a prodigy you are.
Fed lost quite a lot early and then won a hell of all lot during 2004-2007 and has had up and down years ever since.
Nadal's winning percentage has been pretty stable throughout the years, probably partly because he mainly met top ten players on clay in his early years (and there, he could always beat anybody!). His best year by far coming in 2013 (82,8 vs. 68,8 in 2010 for example (2006 and 2008 were in both in the mid 70's)

See this article for details on the h2h for each year up until 2012 for the Big Four:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-they-faired-against-top-10-through-the-years

Excellent information, thank you. A year can make a very big difference, yes.

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

FreeBird said:
Thanks. Not making profit yet but I hope from 2014 they will. They are thinking long-term. It took amazon 7 years to make profit and look where it is today.
Are you an NRI or an Indian?. You don't seem to me an European guy by looking at your knowledge of India. :shock:

Yeah, they are quite good and have the early bird advantage so it is a matter of time.
It is quite puzzling why people assume I am a 'European guy' :shock:

(And I am outta here before I get banned for derailing the thread ;-) )

sbengte · Dec 5, 2013

TheTruth said:
If you don't follow the WTA then how would you know?

I know how the ranking works, that is why. Please enlighten me if it is not the case.

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

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads