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

Chanwan said:

He does take the reasoning to an extreme, but there are two advantages for all lefties:
a) most ad points are played on their strongest serve (out wide from the ad court or receiving in the ad court - if they are pulled off court, they have a forehand rather than a backhand) and
b) Even though you can get quality training with lefthanded players, that does not come close to competing against righthanded players day in and day out. Righthanders have to adjust their game, when they meet a lefthander, lefthanders don't when they meet a righthander.

Now, I expect you to jump all over this quote given the two players it involves, but if you try and look at it neutrally, you'll see that it's not only an excuse (although there's possibly a bit of that too), but also a pretty good analysis.

"Well, he's a lefty, number one. That makes everything different. If you compare to yesterday's match and today's match, it's like I have to play two different ways. So for me it's much more of a change. It's not an excuse. But I definitely have to play totally different.
He can play pretty much the same like he plays against Berdych and Stan, so forth. It's definitely more up to me to getting used to the lefty spin quicker. Coming over the return very often instead of chipping it, which I've been doing it all week.
There's always going to be a bit of an up and down from that standpoint. But I thought it was okay at times, you know. But just my court positioning, getting used to knowing exactly the dimension, how things are going to work out is sometimes a bit tricky. That's why I either chose the wrong side or I can't get the read I usually get like you get with del Potro, Gasquet or Djokovic for that matter.
That's why it really changes everything around. He does a good job picking up the slice. He does a good job staying on the baseline when he needs to. He can also play from the back. He has multiple options. That's what makes him so difficult to play against."
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=94475

Federer, after his loss to Nadal at the WTF.

Click to expand...

Yeah. The thing is, in important points in matches those habits vs right handed players are ingrained in your mind. So even if you get used to it a bit, you can never get used to it 100%. And you also get less match practice too because of: A:less lefties, you play seldom a lefty, B:less lefties means less good lefties, so even if you play one, it doesn't help much.

If Fed was able to play 6 matches in every GS vs all-time great lefties, I'm sure this would matter a lot when playing Nadal in a final.

Another thing is, you have to practice more patterns in your practice sessions, so you need more time for the same result. That's why it's not fair.

I mean when a lefty plays a lefty it's strange for them too. But this almost never happens, because there are so few of them. And even if it's strange, it's strange for both equally, so nobody has an edge.

I know this is being used as an excuse. But it actually is based on facts.
And considering Fed and Rafa and how their matches go, it's not crazy to thing this has a lot to do with it.

Their are both goat contenders and elite players. Usually their matches are 50:50. So, this lefty thing can tip the scales.

And of course this effects Fed mentally too. He knows that vs Rafa he can't use his best game and his potential. And does have the time to train only vs one guy. Other lefties aren't good enough to bother Fed. You still has have to be good in the first place.

I'm not saying Rafa is not an amazing player in the first place. I mean you still have to be godly to beat Fed, lefty or no lefty.

Nadal would still have amazing results. I just think some of the close matches he has vs righties would not go his way.

I think in this case a few finals might go in Fed's way and with a bit of luck even win CYGS.

I'm not saying this can be used as an excuse, but when looking at their h2h, this must be taken into consideration, because that is also why Fed is mentally weaker vs Rafa. It's not that Fed suddenly decided for no reason to be afraid of teen Rafa. I mean Fed had tougher losses before, to mentally be afraid of teen Rafa.

On top of this Rafa didn't make it to Fed in finals on Fed's surfaces. Also, Fed after 2010 declined, so it was prime Rafa vs old Fed.

Considering all this it actually is not logical to use the h2h against Fed and explains the loop-sided h2h nicely.

KillerServe said:

Big Judge Judy fan here. I wonder what she was like in bed when younger.

"Stop, go, wait, move there, now move there, stay there. Done. Now get off"

Click to expand...

They changed the station that she used to come on, which was NBC and put her on Fox. Now they show four episodes a day! I am over the moon.

She is so wise and funny.

I get a kick out of the plaintiffs and defendants. I used to wonder if the cases were scripted, but now I know some people really are that irrational and clueless.

Apologies for being off topic, but I had to respond to a fellow JJ fan.

Povl Carstensen said:

I think that depends on which view you have.

Click to expand...

Not to me. Just take a gander at 99.9% of the polls on this forum. That's enough to let you know that many posters are not reliable enough to be taken seriously, IMO.

Steve Dykstra said:

Roddick was the best player on the tour during the summer of 2003 and that is how he ended up barely edging out Federer for year end number 1.

Click to expand...

I know he didn't win any majors that year, so I still can't call him the best player.

Similar to how I wouldn't call Wozniacki, Jankovic, or Safina the best player based on points alone.

TheTruth said:

Not to me. Just take a gander at 99.9% of the polls on this forum. That's enough to let you know that many posters are not reliable enough to be taken seriously, IMO.

Click to expand...

Or, to take it one step further, some posters can be reliably not taken seriously.

TheTruth said:

I know he didn't win any majors that year, so I still can't call him the best player.

Similar to how I wouldn't call Wozniacki, Jankovic, or Safina the best player based on points alone.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Maybe you need to look at the US Open final of 2003.

Start da Game said:

weeks at #1 is an overrated stat......it is actually a flawed stat......all the weeks at no.1 are not those weeks which the no.1 player plays in.....for example nadal in these months of november and december keeps adding to the weeks at #1 while fishing in mallorca......whereas he cannot add to head to head against federer or djokovic without playing and scoring the wins actually......

Click to expand...

Great post. I agree wholeheartedly. When you get and hold the #1 spot can automatically add weeks to your total.

Your example of Rafa getting the no. 1 and going off to Mallorca is spot on.

Forehand Of Doom said:

That's a very good point. You add number of weeks as #1 without even playing, whereas the H2H reflects just matches.

Click to expand...

Yours is a great point as well.

Hitman said:

Are you sure about that? Maybe you need to look at the US Open final of 2003.

Click to expand...

hilarious...

Forehand Of Doom said:

That's a very good point. You add number of weeks as #1 without even playing

Click to expand...

That goes for nr 2 also.

TheTruth said:

Not to me. Just take a gander at 99.9% of the polls on this forum. That's enough to let you know that many posters are not reliable enough to be taken seriously, IMO.

Click to expand...

Like http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=477082&page=8 ?

Povl Carstensen said:

Like http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=477082&page=8 ?

Click to expand...

What does this one poll have to do with the million of polls that's been on this board?

Roddick learned that he had become the year-end No. 1 in 2003 while eating at a Mexican restaurant in Houston. He was watching Andre Agassi beat Juan Carlos Ferrero in the Tennis Masters Cup [now named Barclays ATP World Tour Finals].
"The coolest thing about it for me was that my childhood idol won the match that made me No. 1," said Roddick. "It was just one of those ‘somebody pinch me so I know this is for real’ moments. It was surreal."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/08/33/Heritage-2003-No-1-Roddick.aspx

Being YE#1 doesn't always equate to being the best player of the year. In the case of the YE#1 much of it is timing.

For example, Nadal had a better 2013 than Novak, won more majors and tournaments and still Novak could have ended the year YE#1.

Had Djokovic ended up YE#1 when someone else obviously outperformed him simply shows that you have to go a little deeper than saying someone was the best just because they got to YE#1.

TheTruth said:

Roddick learned that he had become the year-end No. 1 in 2003 while eating at a Mexican restaurant in Houston. He was watching Andre Agassi beat Juan Carlos Ferrero in the Tennis Masters Cup [now named Barclays ATP World Tour Finals].
"The coolest thing about it for me was that my childhood idol won the match that made me No. 1," said Roddick. "It was just one of those ‘somebody pinch me so I know this is for real’ moments. It was surreal."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/08/33/Heritage-2003-No-1-Roddick.aspx

Being YE#1 doesn't always equate to being the best player of the year. In the case of the YE#1 much of it is timing.

For example, Nadal had a better 2013 than Novak, won more majors and tournaments and still Novak could have ended the year YE#1.

Had Djokovic ended up YE#1 when someone else obviously outperformed him simply shows that you have to go a little deeper than saying someone was the best just because they got to YE#1.

Click to expand...

Also, despite Nadal being the dominant player from March onward, Djokovic still gets credit for weeks at #1 until the last week or so of the season.

There should be an asterisk next to Djoko's weeks at #1 stat since he was not worthy of being number 1 at all this year.

sam_p said:

Also, despite Nadal being the dominant player from March onward, Djokovic still gets credit for weeks at #1 until the last week or so of the season.

There should be an asterisk next to Djoko's weeks at #1 stat since he was not worthy of being number 1 at all this year.

Click to expand...

Right, 2013 was the prime example. If Rafa hadn't played those last few tournaments, regardless of his play this year he could have gotten stiffed.

Plus, consider that Nadal had missed seven months so had not accrued points past Wimbledon.

The way that they appoint YE#1 isn't the best system in the world, but it's the best we've got. What that means is that the best player for the year will not always get the year end #1 with the 52-week rolling system.

sam_p said:

Also, despite Nadal being the dominant player from March onward, Djokovic still gets credit for weeks at #1 until the last week or so of the season.

There should be an asterisk next to Djoko's weeks at #1 stat since he was not worthy of being number 1 at all this year.

Click to expand...

Agree. I am sure you also agree that Nadal didn't deserve to be ranked at all when he took his 7 month vacation. His points should have been reset to zero. How can a guy not even playing tournaments be ranked at #2 or #4 or anything, right ?

sbengte said:

Agree. I am sure you also agree that Nadal didn't deserve to be ranked at all when he took his 7 month vacation. His points should have been reset to zero. How can a guy not even playing tournaments be ranked at #2 or #4 or anything, right ?

Click to expand...

I was just taking a crack at arguing things Chico style :twisted::twisted:

I actually don't think there should be an asterisk, but you get the prize for first responder of the Djokovic brigade!

TheTruth said:

What does this one poll have to do with the million of polls that's been on this board?

Click to expand...

I think you are exagerating. It just shows (as it has been shown before) that the "TT is Federer-something-land" is a straw argument.

Povl Carstensen said:

I think you are exagerating. It just shows (as it has been shown before) that the "TT is Federer-something-land" is a straw argument.

Click to expand...

Not with one poll being selected out of the thousands that have been put forth.

No, Povl, not at all.

TheTruth said:

No, Povl, not at all.

Click to expand...

Yes really, with a recent poll right on the subject and the money.

Povl Carstensen said:

Yes really, with a recent poll right on the subject and the money.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Too many polls say you're wrong.


I can't believe you're pulling up one poll out of thousands to prove your point. That is too funny.

Resurrecting old vine for perspective. But my updated question is: Are these Fed stats up-to-date? Whose else has a winning record with at leas

Novak 26-22
Nadal 24-16
Thiem 4-2
Kafelnikov 4-2

*I think Rafter was 3-0 against Fed.

Wow, not bad. Only four players with a winning record who played him over five times.

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...

Fanboiz tend to underrate/overrate whichever stat suits them.

Sort of like corrupt defense lawyers at a criminal trial, omitting the bad while exaggerating the good, spinning whatever suits them.

Yes. H2H against top players > weeks as #1.

dlk said:

Resurrecting old vine for perspective. But my updated question is: Are these Fed stats up-to-date? Whose else has a winning record with at leas

Novak 26-22
Nadal 24-16
Thiem 4-2
Kafelnikov 4-2

*I think Rafter was 3-0 against Fed.

Wow, not bad. Only four players with a winning record who played him over five times.

Click to expand...

R these the only players with winning record against Fed, with at least 5 matches played?

So Zverev also leads after 5 matches?

Just can’t anyone to buy into this old thread. Odd, considering what gets commented on, on this site.

Thiem is now 5-2; behind Novak and Nadal for third best winning percentage behind the best player ever. Where is that guy who said Thiem is “trash” on hard courts?

We don't talk about H2H (especially in the slams) on this site because it is not good for Fed. Don't hate me, thems the rules around here

titoelcolombiano said:

We don't talk about H2H (especially in the slams) on this site because it is not good for Fed. Don't hate me, thems the rules around here

Click to expand...

H2H is already discussed obsessively on this board like it the center of the tennis universe and nothing else matters.We should talk even more about it though, the slam H2H, because it suits Nadal( and of course, we shall not forget to mention that he leads Djokovic 2-1 at the USO, to keep the original narrative).

titoelcolombiano said:

We don't talk about H2H (especially in the slams) on this site because it is not good for Fed. Don't hate me, thems the rules around here

Click to expand...

Anyone who wants, can do it

dlk said:

Just can’t anyone to buy into this old thread. Odd, considering what gets commented on, on this site.

Thiem is now 5-2; behind Novak and Nadal for third best winning percentage behind the best player ever. Where is that guy who said Thiem is “trash” on hard courts?

Click to expand...

Thiem was trash on HC for the last 5 years with 2 250 titles. The 2-2 H2H against Fed during that time won't make you think that. Thats why H2H is a meaningless stat in tennis.

AceSalvo said:

Thiem was trash on HC for the last 5 years with 2 250 titles. The 2-2 H2H against Fed during that time won't make you think that. Thats why H2H is a meaningless stat in tennis.

Click to expand...

Your just like all the kids today who throw the adjective “trash” around.
All I’m saying is, use vocabulary that accurately matches that which your trying to describe. Calling a top 5 player’s game “trash,” is just silly.

dlk said:

Calling a top 5 player’s game “trash,” is just silly.

Click to expand...

Nice try to create new words out of something I did not say.

Thiem was a trash HC player until 2019 AO as proven by "facts". I see you have a thing for Timmy and is willing to ignore facts. So, thats your problem and has nothing do with "kids of today".

ForehandRF said:

H2H is already discussed obsessively on this board like it the center of the tennis universe and nothing else matters.We should talk even more about it though, the slam H2H, because it suits Nadal( and of course, we shall not forget to mention that he leads Djokovic 2-1 at the USO, to keep the original narrative).

Click to expand...

Glad you picked up on my tongue-in-cheek comment