90's Clay: ELO Ranks the Roland-Garros fields from 1978

[Meles]

ELO says 90's Clay is weak: discuss.

the above is the average peak ELO of the 4 Quarterfinalists at the French Open.

The above is the average of the middle 4 quarterfinalist's ELO at the French (truncated mean.) This throws out 2 of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer for the last ten years and also the two lowest peak ELO players in the quarterfinals.

The QF and SF ELOs are just the average of the participants peak ELO rating.

The ratings and rankings for the top 500 of all time built from 1978 can be found here:
http://simtheworld.blogspot.cz/2012/10/tennis-elo-ratings-clay.html

The above rankings were built at the end of 2012. This creates ELO rating issues for perhaps the first six years. Many of the early and later players were adjusted for based on this list built at the end of 2015 (not slam-weighted):
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/...-djokovic-and-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal/

Here are the ratings through some of the later guestimates (easily detected as they don't have decimal points):
Pos Name Ratings Date
1 Rafael Nadal 3142.25 May-09
2 Bjorn Borg 3020 Apr-82
3 Novak Djokovic 3000 May-11
4 Roger Federer 2953.74 Sep-09
5 Ivan Lendl 2879.27 May-88
6 Mats Wilander 2800.23 Sep-85
7 Gustavo Kuerten 2794.66 Jul-01
8 Guillermo Vilas 2793 May-82
9 Jose Luis Clerc 2793 Nov-81
10 Thomas Muster 2792.64 Jun-95
11 Jimmy Connors 2780 Jun-85
12 Juan Carlos Ferrero 2777.8 Jul-03
13 Sergi Bruguera 2775.01 Jul-93
14 Jim Courier 2768.41 Jun-92
15 Yannick Noah 2765 Apr-84
16 Robin Soderling 2763.97 May-09
17 Guillermo Coria 2749.76 May-04
18 Gaston Gaudio 2743.86 Jul-04
19 Carlos Moya 2730.34 Jul-98
20 Albert Costa 2716.11 Jun-02
21 Yevgeny Kafelnikov 2713.52 Jul-96
22 Andy Murray 2700 Jun-16
23 Stanislas Wawrinka 2700 Jun-15


This thread is the successor to the Wimbledon and US Open ELO threads:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-ranks-the-wimbledon-fields-from-1978.569259/
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...lo-ranks-the-us-open-fields-from-1978.569296/

Please see those threads for all references for this OP and much discussion on ELO, etc. The US Open thread already has some discussion on clay.

 

[90's Clay]

Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Chang, Medvedev, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster. (And Sampras was very good during his peak 93-96 years)


So WEAK.


Theres 8 great clay court players right of the bat. Whens the last time we have seen the equivalent of that many great clay court players in one decade?

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Um, John McEnroe did not win in 1984, this was Lendl's first Slam.
Mats Wilander also won in it in 1982.

 

[Meles]

Um, John McEnroe did not win in 1984, this was Lendl's first Slam.
Mats Wilander also won in it in 1982.

Good catch. Formula was pulling from US Open for that one. Corrected. Edit: Ugh just spotted the Wilander finally and fixed that (sometimes excel formulas get feisty and doesn't want to update and then I manually enter data which was a bad choice because it caused these errors. Excel is the devil sometimes.)

I can easily provided other views and make corrections to the images:

This shows the ratings of all the individual QFers. (The ones without decimal detail are guestimates.)

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It's obviously weak, because the game conditions were so polarized that many of the very best players of that time had game which were strongly unsuited for clay, and so they couldn't offer a strong competition to the Almagro and Montanes of the time. Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Stitch, Rafter, Krajicek, Ferreira, etc. were deers in the headlight on clay. Some Hard court specialist like Chang, Kafelnikov, Agassi and Courier had a baseline game good enough to bully the true clay court specialists, who were mostly MIA for the rest of the year. Kuerten looked good in the late 90's but you are well placed to know the advantage he had with poly strings, as he was one of the first player to adopt them.

In the other eras of the game, the best players were able to meet success on every surfaces: Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

That 2016 drop:

 

[Meles]

Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Chang, Medvedev, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster. (And Sampras was very good during his peak 93-96 years)


So WEAK.


Theres 8 great clay court players right of the bat. Whens the last time we have seen the equivalent of that many great clay court players in one decade?

They are all rated. We've had some discussion on Kafelnikov who was really only strong in 1997 (see link in OP to US Open). His other later years often show him winning less than 50% of points on clay. Kafelnikov gives a very strong peak ELO rating for his 1997 run and it shows the strength of ELO. Kuerten also suffers on any stat view and is fairly rated.

Kuerten is ranked 7th in this list. Brugeura and Courier seem to have lower peak ELOs due to field strength at the time. The 1990's score poorly because they don't have some of the top clay players:
Like Federer and Djokovic.

 

[HipRotation]

Stitch

Stitch could be pretty good on clay, not quite Roland Garros winning material but he could really mess up some players who did win RG like Muster.

 

[NatF]

The 90's is only decade where the real ATG's and top players of the day were pretty much no shows on clay, the result is a load of lesser tier players exchanging titles.

 

[metsman]

Stitch could be pretty good on clay, not quite Roland Garros winning material but he could really mess up some players who did win RG like Muster.

Stich was the Safin of the 90's, basically Safin in serve volley form..had the talent to do well everywhere

 

[Meles]

It's obviously weak, because the game conditions were so polarized that many of the very best players of that time had game which were strongly unsuited for clay, and so they couldn't offer a strong competition to the Almagro and Montanes of the time. Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Stitch, Rafter, Krajicek, Ferreira, etc. were deers in the headlight on clay. Some Hard court specialist like Chang, Kafelnikov, Agassi and Courier had a baseline game good enough to bully the true clay court specialists, who were mostly MIA for the rest of the year. Kuerten looked good in the late 90's but you are well placed to know the advantage he had with poly strings, as he was one of the first player to adopt them.

In the other eras of the game, the best players were able to meet success on every surfaces: Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

To be technical these are strictly built from clay results (including the green stuff). You have to beat a top ranked clay player to move up. Its possible that the baton was not handed off from Wilander and Lendl to Courier and Bruguera, but Kuerten was able to get to 7; virtually tied with peak Wilander and close to Lendl. It doesn't matter what you did on other surfaces; not one bit.

The field strength loss in the 90's actually started in 1989 and who can argue that Chang was a strong champion given the field that year (particularly cramping Chang beating Lendl.) I'd say the fact that Americans were winning a lot on red clay is a red flag.

 

[Meles]

The 90's is only decade where the real ATG's and top players of the day were pretty much no shows on clay, the result is a load of lesser tier players exchanging titles.

Clay ELO is only built on play on clay and weighted to slams. It may be something else is hurting the 90s, but that shouldn't matter.

Edit: I guess you are saying the 90's wasn't great on clay? Brugerra and Kuerten are held in high esteem.

 

[90's Clay]

They are all rated. We've had some discussion on Kafelnikov who was really only strong in 1997 (see link in OP to US Open). His other later years often show him winning less than 50% of points on clay. Kafelnikov gives a very strong peak ELO rating for his 1997 run and it shows the strength of ELO. Kuerten also suffers on any stat view and is fairly rated.

Kuerten is ranked 7th in this list. Brugeura and Courier seem to have lower peak ELOs due to field strength at the time. The 1990's score poorly because they don't have some of the top clay players:
Like Federer and Djokovic.

Huh?? Courier/Bruguera are on par or better than Fed and Nole on clay. Kuerten is EASILY better than Federer/Nole on clay and if stayed healthy could have had a similar career to Nadal at the French (Maybe 2-3 less slams but up there)

 

[Meles]

Stich was the Safin of the 90's, basically Safin in serve volley form..had the talent to do well everywhere

Stich and Edberg have pretty high clay ratings given their reputation. Edberg had a great first return on clay and I believe Stich was much the same. That can help when the opposition is pumping in a high percentage of first serves. Stich blows up my clay court handbook because his 2nd return was very poor and not in the top 200 since 1991.

 

[Meles]

Huh?? Courier/Bruguera are on par or better than Fed and Nole on clay. Kuerten is EASILY better than Federer/Nole on clay and if stayed healthy could have had a similar career to Nadal at the French (Maybe 2-3 less slams but up there)

ELO says there not. If you go away from slam weighted ELO, Kuerten falls out of the top ten on clay:
Player Year Clay Ct Elo
Rafael Nadal 2009 2550
Bjorn Borg 1982 2475
Novak Djokovic 2015 2421
Ivan Lendl 1988 2408
Mats Wilander 1984 2386
Roger Federer 2009 2343
Jose Luis Clerc 1981 2318
Guillermo Vilas 1982 2316
Thomas Muster 1996 2313
Jimmy Connors 1980 2307

I think he gets a pretty fair shake in the slam weighted at 7, though ELO won't reward a player as richly who wins in 5 sets instead of 3. Kuerten was an early, early adopter of Poly strings and that helped him. I don't have any stats that put Kuerten higher. If we grab his peak years on clay he is pretty high up. I'd have sympathy for Kuerten except the he was like a Poly wolf in among the gut sheep. He had most of the advantages that Fed and Djoko had, but failed to produce the numbers. I'd say where he falls is actually his great strength (first serve points won). Fed and Djoko are better and have higher percentage of serves. This adds up. You don't really get a sense of this from watching points/rallies either. Nadal for his career is 70/70 plus his superior return game. From my study of points, first serve points won is a big difference that seperates the wolves from the sheep and Kuerten and Brugeira were the only wolves (Kafelnikov 97 was one.) Djokovic and Federer get wolf numbers plus a far better return game than the top players of the 1990s that came onto clay (Sampras, Becker, Agassi). Its how Wawrinka has had his runs and now Murray even.

 

[90's Clay]

ELO says there not. If you go away from slam weighted ELO, Kuerten falls out of the top ten on clay:
Player Year Clay Ct Elo
Rafael Nadal 2009 2550
Bjorn Borg 1982 2475
Novak Djokovic 2015 2421
Ivan Lendl 1988 2408
Mats Wilander 1984 2386
Roger Federer 2009 2343
Jose Luis Clerc 1981 2318
Guillermo Vilas 1982 2316
Thomas Muster 1996 2313
Jimmy Connors 1980 2307

I think he gets a pretty fair shake in the slam weighted at 7, though ELO won't reward a player as richly who wins in 5 sets instead of 3. Kuerten was an early, early adopter of Poly strings and that helped him. I don't have any stats that put Kuerten higher. If we grab his peak years on clay he is pretty high up. I'd have sympathy for Kuerten except the he was like a Poly wolf in among the gut sheep. He had most of the advantages that Fed and Djoko had, but failed to produce the numbers. I'd say where he falls is actually his great strength (first serve points won). Fed and Djoko are better and have higher percentage of serves. This adds up. You don't really get a sense of this from watching points/rallies either. Nadal for his career is 70/70 plus his superior return game. From my study of points, first serve points won is a big difference that seperates the wolves from the sheep and Kuerten and Brugeira were the only wolves (Kafelnikov 97 was one.) Djokovic and Federer get wolf numbers plus a far better return game than the top players of the 1990s that came onto clay (Sampras, Becker, Agassi). Its how Wawrinka has had his runs and now Murray even.

Does ELO take into account that Guga tore prime Fed from pillar to post and disposed of him like a wet fart all while with a plastic hip and past his prime

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Stitch could be pretty good on clay, not quite Roland Garros winning material but he could really mess up some players who did win RG like Muster.

Yeah of course and it's exactly my point. Stitch was one of the most talented player of the early 90's, but his game did not work easily on clay, so it was never going to be easy for him to beat inferior tennis players whose game was more suited to clay.

Now if you are one of the most talented player, you will be able to meet some success on every surfaces. It was also true in the 70's and 80's.

 

[Meles]

Does ELO take into account that Guga tore prime Fed from pillar to post and disposed of him like a wet fart all while with a plastic hip and past his prime

It does. That is an impressive win. Federer got knocked out in the SF the next year by Nadal. I would term that pre-prime Federer on clay, but on could argue that Kuerten made that pre-prime.

I think Guga is very fairly rated for his ELO. ELO has Federer's peak as 2009 on clay. Fed beat Nadal that year in Madrid and of course won the French Open.
Other stats:
Federer won a whopping 79% of his first serve points (served 60%) and won 90% of his service games (peak), but only 26% of his return games (well down from his prime in the low 30%s.)

Guga has good years in 2000 and 2001 on clay:
Games Guga was 82/34 in 2000 points 64/43 (Federer was 67/44 in 2008, 70/40 in 2009) - there is a big, big difference between 90% games won on serve and 82% to Fed's advantage.
Games Guga in 2001 was 88/34!!! and points 66/43, so for games and points this is also Guga' peak year.

Still these stats favor Federer. For me 2009 shows the power of the serve on clay. Federer's return game was down in 2009 and its been at this lesser level the rest of his career. He's still able to win on clay because of an improved serve game that is better than his early years (even on clay). 2009 was the pinnacle especially on first serve points won at 79%.

Nadal's peak on clay in 2012 had him winning a huge 89% of his serve games with 75% first serve points won and 65% first serving. The games won is 5% higher than his other great year in 2008. In 2008 Nadal had a massive 51% of return games won and 50% of points on return. 2012 was 47/48%.

Djokovic is in the same boat as far as big offense on clay. For his career he matches Rafa's first serve points won at over 70%, but is 65% first serve versus 70% for Rafa. Djokovic before the last few years had a peak ELO of 2807 in 2011 which is virtually tied with Guga (Djoko swept the clay masters events and probably would have won the French if Fed had not stopped him.) For 2015, his clay ELO vaults him past Federer to near 3000. His offense was at another level in 2015:
75% first serve points won (68% first serving) and a whopping 91% of games (33% on return) and of course a player with a more powerful first serve game took him out in the final. Djokovic's clay offense was down hugely in 2016 with just 85% games won.

For me at their peaks Fed and Djoko had the better serve games and close enough on return to put them clearly ahead of peak Kuerten. They also had to deal with the 800 pound clay Gorilla who in 2012 on games was:
89/47 Nadal
91/33 Djokovic
90/26 Federer
88/34 Kuerten

You can argue for Kuerten but the field strength was higher for most of these stats years and as Wawrinka has shown; combining high first serve won % with high first serving really has an advantage. Kuerten was the originator of this power game and even Murray seems to be getting a clue on the importance of the first serve though he served like garbage in the final after the first set at the FO final against Djoko. (Kafelnikov in 1996 wasn't bad either).

I'd argue that serve is the one thing that held back the sub-Kuerten players of the 1990s and early 2000s. They could not dominate as they were often only winning 67% of first serve points or less. Not only did this make it difficult to grind their way deep into the French Open, but it also made the susceptible to players like Sampras, Stich, et al who could decide to serve a very high percentage of firsts on clay and be very hard to beat. The clay courters had the longer matches too versus the power players. Add to this the mess that seeding would have been and the French Open was a real mine field. Things are much more ordered today as all of the top players are proficient on clay (ok maybe not Raonic.). We may never see 90's Clay again.

 

[Meles]

Yeah of course and it's exactly my point. Stitch was one of the most talented player of the early 90's, but his game did not work easily on clay, so it was never going to be easy for him to beat inferior tennis players whose game was more suited to clay.

Now if you are one of the most talented player, you will be able to meet some success on every surfaces. It was also true in the 70's and 80's.

Stich and Sampras relied a lot on volleying and had nowhere near the return game of a player like Federer. Stich would have been crushed on clay in the last ten years. He and Pete might have benefitted from Poly on clay or they might have been eaten alive as their net game would have been an even bigger failure.

The story on today's game is its more baseline oriented and so even players like Nishikori and finally Murray are having success on clay. The Euros love the stuff (Auzzies and yanks not at all). Its where the talent is coming from and the fact that baseline is favored today.

The big mess in the 1990s was the seeding at the French. Since a lot of the top players were weak on clay in the 1990s it was a real mess. I suspect this had something to do with some of the quirky results. Kafelnikov was a crossover from hard courts by in large who got the win in 1996, but most years was not even winning 50% of his points on clay. Brugeira was not a great threat off clay. Kuerten had some success, but the top clay courters were never in the top 4 seeds until Kuerten.

In lesser tournaments the big servers rarely could punch through a draw loaded with clay courters. Yet in the big tournaments, they might luck out and not face challenging clay courters til later in the event and then they just had to get red hot on serve to win the match. It seems the poorly seeded or unseeded clay courters struggled in the 5 set format and then became more beatable by bigger servers. Today we don't see that kind of a mess in the seeding and it may explain some of the odd results in the 1990s.

ELO is a tool that sees through much of this and the results don't seem far off course. My only question with using the 8 ELO's of the QFers is perhaps average is not the right tool. Perhaps a truncated mean might be better which throws out the top and bottom player and just averages the remaining 6 would be a more reliable measure.

 

[Meles]

That 2016 drop:

No Rafa in 2016 QF. I'm thinking about doing a truncated mean that throw out the top player and the worst player in the QFs or maybe 2 and 2, leaving the middle 4. I like this even though it means throwing out Rafa every year. I think I'm going to replace the SF field graphs with that. Some people like to imagine that Rafa cleaned up in some kind of weak era on clay. ELO shows Rafa even well clear of Borg in 2nd. Of course when we look at poor Djokovic's stats we have to realize that having Nadal there every 10th match wasn't very good for his stats (Fed too.)

 

[abmk]

Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Chang, Medvedev, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster. (And Sampras was very good during his peak 93-96 years)


So WEAK.


Theres 8 great clay court players right of the bat. Whens the last time we have seen the equivalent of that many great clay court players in one decade?

--

2000s : Kuerten, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio,Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Soderling,
1980s : Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Noah, Borg,Gomez,Chang,Gerulaitis

 

[Meles]

Ok. I've edited the OP and removed the graph and data for the average ELO of the SFs at the French. This has been replaced by a truncated mean which takes the average of the middle 4 quarterfinalists peak ELO. This means we are throwing out Nadal every year plus one other top player (like Djoko or Fed), but at the same time the two weakest quarterfinalists are removed from the average.

I did this for middle six and the graphs were so similar that I went all the way to middle 4 which is really the normal truncated average. It still shows the 90s as weak on clay and the best explanation for this so far is @NatF 's:
"The 90's is only decade where the real ATG's and top players of the day were pretty much no shows on clay, the result is a load of lesser tier players exchanging titles."

Its impossible to get away from, but without a Borg, Wilander, Lendl type player on clay the field as a whole was weaker as measured by average peak ELO. The top talent in the game was just not on clay at that time. This suprsises me somewhat, but it appears that as we go into the 90s that the fields were weaker on grass and hard courts too for a variety of reasons (Agassi's inconsistent play did not help the 90's). Clay started in 1989. Hard courts as early as 1993 and Wimby 1994. The domination of Australian and American players at the top of the tour did not help matters.

 

[Meles]

--

2000s : Kuerten, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio,Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Soderling,
1980s : Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Noah, Borg,Gomez,Chang,Gerulaitis

I'll cry foul on Gerulaitis in hopes you'll explain; he made the final the one year, but otherwise no QFs. 168 on the ELO which I'm sure is low and needs adjustment. Check out post 4 image and check ratings on early QFers from 1978-1984. Those can be woefully underrated. Pat Cash made a SF one year and he was off the top 500 ratings chart for peak clay ELO. I bumped him some, but his rating could have been off due to issues with ELO starting up. Everyone starts at 1500 and builds from the beginning of 1978. And was Chang really that good in 1989? (I'd lump him in with the 1990s based on this ELO study.)

Noah rates at 15 and others stated he was a huge force on clay for a while. He was a surprise for me. You forget the Swedes from the 1980s. Pernfors and Nystrom flared briefly. What does Edberg waiting til the 90's to do well at the French say? (serious question)

 

[Gary Duane]

Guga has good years in 2000 and 2001 on clay:
Games Guga was 82/34 in 2000 points 64/43 (Federer was 67/44 in 2008, 70/40 in 2009) - there is a big, big difference between 90% games won on serve and 82% to Fed's advantage.
Games Guga in 2001 was 88/34!!! and points 66/43, so for games and points this is also Guga' peak year.

Actual numbers:

61.18 87.95 34.47

Of all the players I have tracked, and I believe I have them all now, Guga is #9 on the list leaving out Nadal. But that includes some years for some player where they did not win RG. Of the winners, Courier is absolutely on top, followed by Bruguera twice. Those are the only guys to win more than 61% of games on clay and win RG. Novak does not quite make the cut in 2016.

(When you include Nadal he gets 9 out of the top 10 places.)

Still these stats favor Federer. For me 2009 shows the power of the serve on clay. Federer's return game was down in 2009 and its been at this lesser level the rest of his career. He's still able to win on clay because of an improved serve game that is better than his early years (even on clay). 2009 was the pinnacle especially on first serve points won at 79%.

Weighting for DR moves Fed to 3rd place, again not counting Nadal. Djokovic only moves to 5th place because his serving % dropped so much this year. Again, not counting Nadal. See if you Elo shows Courier also very strong around 1992.

Nadal's peak on clay in 2012 had him winning a huge 89% of his serve games with 75% first serve points won and 65% first serving. The games won is 5% higher than his other great year in 2008. In 2008 Nadal had a massive 51% of return games won and 50% of points on return. 2012 was 47/48%.

On % of games and weighted for dominance 2010 and 2012 are neck and neck. 1010 edges out 2012 by a hair because of a spectacular 91% of service games, about 1.5% above Fed's best year.

Nadal's record at RG was his second best at 2012 with games, over 71%. He had a fierce battle with Novak in the final, so that might have pushed his Elo up really high along with his other two battles on clay that year with Novak.

For me at their peaks Fed and Djoko had the better serve games and close enough on return to put them clearly ahead of peak Kuerten. They also had to deal with the 800 pound clay Gorilla who in 2012 on games was:
89/47 Nadal
91/33 Djokovic
90/26 Federer
88/34 Kuerten

You can argue for Kuerten but the field strength was higher for most of these stats years and as Wawrinka has shown; combining high first serve won % with high first serving really has an advantage. Kuerten was the originator of this power game and even Murray seems to be getting a clue on the importance of the first serve though he served like garbage in the final after the first set at the FO final against Djoko. (Kafelnikov in 1996 wasn't bad either).

Top five for career on clay, % of games won, since 1991, weighted for DR on games:

Nadal
Djokovic
Federer
Muster/Courier

Muster and Courier are tied.

I'd argue that serve is the one thing that held back the sub-Kuerten players of the 1990s and early 2000s. They could not dominate as they were often only winning 67% of first serve points or less.

Too much emphasis on 1st service points. Go on all points and all games won on serve. It's a package deal. Sampras served way better on 1st serve than Fed on grass but way below him on 2nd serve. They are neck and neck on games won.

Courier and Novak are separated by .09% of service games won for their career. On points they are .11 apart.

Djokovic
70.51 54.33
Courier
72.80 51.93

Courier has a better record on 1st serve, which makes no difference because of his 2nd serve %.

In fact, Courier is absolutely spectacular on serve when you remember how much harder it was to win a high % on serve in the early 90s. His career is not higher because he did not stay at a really high level for many years as the 2000 guys have done...

 

[Nonsense]

That 2016 drop:

Equivalent of Thiem replacing Nadal haha

And I suppose ARV instead of someone like Fed.

 

[Meles]

Actual numbers:

61.18 87.95 34.47

Of all the players I have tracked, and I believe I have them all now, Guga is #9 on the list leaving out Nadal. But that includes some years for some player where they did not win RG. Of the winners, Courier is absolutely on top, followed by Bruguera twice. Those are the only guys to win more than 61% of games on clay and win RG. Novak does not quite make the cut in 2016.

(When you include Nadal he gets 9 out of the top 10 places.)

Weighting for DR moves Fed to 3rd place, again not counting Nadal. Djokovic only moves to 5th place because his serving % dropped so much this year. Again, not counting Nadal. See if you Elo shows Courier also very strong around 1992.

On % of games and weighted for dominance 2010 and 2012 are neck and neck. 1010 edges out 2012 by a hair because of a spectacular 91% of service games, about 1.5% above Fed's best year.

Nadal's record at RG was his second best at 2012 with games, over 71%. He had a fierce battle with Novak in the final, so that might have pushed his Elo up really high along with his other two battles on clay that year with Novak.

Top five for career on clay, % of games won, since 1991, weighted for DR on games:

Nadal
Djokovic
Federer
Muster/Courier

Muster and Courier are tied.

Too much emphasis on 1st service points. Go on all points and all games won on serve. It's a package deal. Sampras served way better on 1st serve than Fed on grass but way below him on 2nd serve. They are neck and neck on games won.

Courier and Novak are separated by .09% of service games won for their career. On points they are .11 apart.

Djokovic
70.51 54.33
Courier
72.80 51.93

Courier has a better record on 1st serve, which makes no difference because of his 2nd serve %.

In fact, Courier is absolutely spectacular on serve when you remember how much harder it was to win a high % on serve in the early 90s. His career is not higher because he did not stay at a really high level for many years as the 2000 guys have done...

Your numbers now look like IP addresses.

ELO rates Guga quite highly, but really the spread from Wilander to 6 down to Soderling at 16 covers a scant 33 points. It does not like Courier relatively speaking, and rates Juan Carlos Ferrero, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, and Soderling about the same. The rest of these players are pre-1991. Soderling proved his worth and is another big first serve points won player who also had a strong return game. Many TTWers speak highly of Soderling and fits the DR mold nicely. I'm quite happy with Muster and Ferrero's ratings, but Bruguera and Courier don't differentiate themselves from this pack which surprises me. The period from 1989 to 1999 generally has lower field strength, so according to ELO it was easier to amass better stats.

Courier 1992:
67/46 on points (amazing) and 89/38 on games also some of the strongest numbers short of Nadal. (Courier's 1991 77/34 on games and 61/44 points which is really weak. 1993 was 88/39 and 66/45 and very nice.)

Bruguera 1993:
81/43 on games and inferior to Courier, but 43% or return games is very high. 65/47 on points was superior to Courier in 1993. 47% of return points won is a lot.
94 was much the same.

Both players had strong first serve points won numbers that seperated them from the like of Muster, etc, but perhaps a little low first serve percentage. On points stats Courier is very close peak Djokovic, but his ELO suffers due to the field. Burguera had a great return game. But ends up in the same boat.

Lets analyze the top of the game in 1991-1994:
1991
1 Stefan Edberg Quarterfinals - good, but not til later in career during this weak 90's, hmmmmm
2 Boris Becker Semifinals - fair, but had bit of a first return game
3 Ivan Lendl Did not play - old (did not play)
4 Andre Agassi Finals - strong, but played a lot on green which pumps his stats
5 Sergi Bruguera Second round - strong, but weaker serve game at this point and poor DR
6 Pete Sampras Second round - horrible on clay
7 Guy Forget Fourth round - beyond horrible
8 Goran Ivaniševic Second round - pretty bad, but had his serve and some clutch returning
9 Jim Courier Champion - strong, but points and games stats weaker this year
10 Michael Chang Quarterfinals - good
11 Emilio Sánchez Second round - not a good returner for a Spainard on clay
12 Michael Stich Semifinals - good, with strong first return game compensating for bad 2nd return game
13 Aaron Krickstein Second round - bad clay court player
14 Karel Novácek First round - good
15 John McEnroe First round - old and horrible
16 Brad Gilbert First round - old and horrible

1992
1 Jim Courier Champion - very strong
2 Stefan Edberg Third round - good on clay, but not til later in career during this weak 90's, hmmmmm
3 Pete Sampras Quarterfinalist - bad
4 Michael Stich Third round - good
5 Michael Chang Third round - good
6 Guy Forget Second round - bad
7 Petr Korda Finalist - good returner on clay, but very weak offense
8 Goran Ivaniševic Quarterfinalist - bad
9 Carlos Costa Fourth round - strong
10 Ivan Lendl Second round - old (knocked out Bruguera 1st round easily, whose ranking was down in 1992)
11 Andre Agassi Semifinalist - strong
12 Richard Krajicek Third round - fair (strong first serve game, but weak 2nd and return passable)
13 Aaron Krickstein Third round - bad clay court player
14 Alexander Volkov Third round - good returner with 0.0 offense on clay
15 Brad Gilbert First round - old
16 Jakob Hlasek First round - bad

1993
1 Pete Sampras Quarterfinals - bad
2 Jim Courier Finals - very strong
3 Stefan Edberg Quarterfinals - good
4 Boris Becker Second round - bad
5 Goran Ivaniševic Third round - bad
6 Petr Korda Second round - fair
7 Ivan Lendl First round - old
8 Michael Chang Second round - good
9 Michael Stich Fourth round - good
10 Sergi Bruguera Champion - very strong
11 Andrei Medvedev Semifinals - good
12 Richard Krajicek Semifinals - fair
13 Karel Novácek Quarterfinals - strong
14 Wayne Ferreira Second round - weak
15 Thomas Muster Fourth round - very strong
16 MaliVai Washington Fourth round - weak

1994
1 Pete Sampras Quarterfinals - bad
2 Michael Stich Second round - good
3 Stefan Edberg First round - good
4 Andrei Medvedev Quarterfinals - good
5 Goran Ivaniševic Quarterfinals - bad
6 Sergi Bruguera Champion - very strong
7 Jim Courier Semifinals - very strong, but down in rankings
8 Michael Chang Third round - good
9 Todd Martin Third round - weak
10 n/a Boris Becker out - LL
11 Thomas Muster Third round - very strong
12 Petr Korda First round - fair
13 Magnus Gustafsson Second round - good, great returner with 0.0 offense on clay
14 Cédric Pioline Second round - bad
15 Carlos Costa Second round - strong
16 Richard Krajicek Third round - fair

In summary, 1991 was very weak with early Bruguera, Agassi, and Courier. Courier was very strong in 1992, but the field was not. 1993 and 1994 Muster was starting to surface and Bruguera and Courier very strong, but Agassi gone. Most of the top 16 seeds were weak or worse on clay from 1991-94. Stich and Edberg were passable on clay, but a weaker surface for both. Contrast this with 2016 where almost all of the top 16 have titles on clay (Raonic and Tsonga with 2 French SFs being the exceptions) and 7 would be strong to very strong players on clay. 12 of the top 16 seeds made the round of 16 in 2016. In 1994 only 5 made it.

When its all said in down ELO probably is right to have Bruguera and Courier in the pack from 7-16 and very close to Wilander in level. They were cleaning up in some weak and erratic draws. A player like Kuerten had much more of a battle and should be narrowly ahead of these two players.

 

[Meles]

Equivalent of Thiem replacing Nadal haha

And I suppose ARV instead of someone like Fed.

The 2016 drop is misleading as many of these players have better days ahead on clay. This uses peak ELO and I've had to conservatively estimate many of the players in the last few years. If Thiem and Murray win FOs these numbers do change. Goffin may eventually do something on clay as he only lacks a great serve game (has a great return game.) The dip in 2016 is overstated. 2015 and 2014 are probably pretty solid with Ninja and Murray being the only ones in 2015 that might find a higher peak on clay. The middle 4 graph completely removes Rafa from the equation.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I like how 90's clay is so weak.

 

[Meles]

I like how 90's clay is so weak.

I'm not sure its completely fair, but its putting it into perspective. I was greatful to have some input from 90's Clay (aka 60's Weed, lol). ELO is not the 90's friend by in large.

 

[Meles]

Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Chang, Medvedev, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster. (And Sampras was very good during his peak 93-96 years)


So WEAK.


Theres 8 great clay court players right of the bat. Whens the last time we have seen the equivalent of that many great clay court players in one decade?

I think you need to dig deeper on this. At this point, we need to know Medvedev's peak years and who were some of the nice tier2/tier3 clay courters. Karel Novacek, Magnus Gustaffson, Carlos Costa, Corretja, Magnus Norman, Rios? How does Muster go through the 90's with only one Win, one SF, and one QF at the French?

 

[NatF]

I'm not sure its completely fair, but its putting it into perspective. I was greatful to have some input from 90's Clay (aka 60's Weed, lol). ELO is not the 90's friend by in large.

Tbh I'm not sure 90's Clay has ever offered anything constructive.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I think you need to dig deeper on this. At this point, we need to know Medvedev's peak years and who were some of the nice tier2/tier3 clay courters. Karel Novacek, Magnus Gustaffson, Carlos Costa, Corretja, Magnus Norman, Rios? How does Muster go through the 90's with only one Win, one final, and one SF at the French?

Oh, noez!

 

[Mainad]

I think you need to dig deeper on this. At this point, we need to know Medvedev's peak years and who were some of the nice tier2/tier3 clay courters. Karel Novacek, Magnus Gustaffson, Carlos Costa, Corretja, Magnus Norman, Rios? How does Muster go through the 90's with only one Win, one final, and one SF at the French?

Wow, so Muster's 1995 run to the title was the only really deep run he ever made at Roland Garros?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I think you need to dig deeper on this. At this point, we need to know Medvedev's peak years and who were some of the nice tier2/tier3 clay courters. Karel Novacek, Magnus Gustaffson, Carlos Costa, Corretja, Magnus Norman, Rios? How does Muster go through the 90's with only one Win, one final, and one SF at the French?

Maybe decades are not the best way to separate eras, at least for the purpose of analysis. As NatF said, the fact that the best players where no show at the FO didn't last from 90 to 99 but more from 1989 to 2004. In this time span many players had great clay careers successively: Courier, Bruguera, Muster in the first part, then Kuerten, Corretja, Rios, Norman, Moya, then Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio. More importantly, it was often not the second tier clay courters who created upset at the FO, but hard courters like Rosset, Hrbaty, Pioline, Grosjean, Rafter, Verkerk, and of course Kafelnikov. Even Henman made a FO SF!

 

[Gary Duane]

Your numbers now look like IP addresses.

I put those numbers in a very readable form in another thread and was completely ignored. Did you really have trouble reading them?

 

[Meles]

Wow, so Muster's 1995 run to the title was the only really deep run he ever made at Roland Garros?

I need to correct its one win, 1 SF, and 1 QF. Seems like Muster was susceptible to big servers. Sampras I believe got him in 5 sets in round 1 one year after Muster won the first two sets.

 

[Meles]

I put those numbers in a very readable form in another thread and was completely ignored. Did you really have trouble reading them?

I finally figured it out, but most probably see IP addresses. Just format the cells to percent. If they don't come out right then divide by 100 first or stop multiplying by 100. Its easy to fix.

 

[Meles]

Maybe decades are not the best way to separate eras, at least for the purpose of analysis. As NatF said, the fact that the best players where no show at the FO didn't last from 90 to 99 but more from 1989 to 2004. In this time span many players had great clay careers successively: Courier, Bruguera, Muster in the first part, then Kuerten, Corretja, Rios, Norman, Moya, then Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio. More importantly, it was often not the second tier clay courters who created upset at the FO, but hard courters like Rosset, Hrbaty, Pioline, Grosjean, Rafter, Verkerk, and of course Kafelnikov. Even Henman made a FO SF!

This and the seeding lead to some inexplicable results often at the French especially with just 16 seeds. Poor Muster got Sampras one year in the first round. A young Rafter knocked Muster out in 1994. What's worse is these same hard courters would have a much harder time in a smaller clay event loaded with specialists, but could make deep runs perhaps only knocking out one legit clay courter at the French. The clay courters expended a lot of energy too and were easier to beat in 5 set format especially late in the tournament.

The best clay courters today combine a hard court like serving game with a good enough clay return game to make deep runs at the clay events. Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, and then Kuerten were the first to really dominate with their first serve game on clay.

 

[Meles]

........
Too much emphasis on 1st service points. Go on all points and all games won on serve. It's a package deal. Sampras served way better on 1st serve than Fed on grass but way below him on 2nd serve. They are neck and neck on games won.

Courier and Novak are separated by .09% of service games won for their career. On points they are .11 apart.

Djokovic
70.51 54.33
Courier
72.80 51.93

Courier has a better record on 1st serve, which makes no difference because of his 2nd serve %.

In fact, Courier is absolutely spectacular on serve when you remember how much harder it was to win a high % on serve in the early 90s. His career is not higher because he did not stay at a really high level for many years as the 2000 guys have done...

For me its the combo of first serve percentage and first serve points won. Djokovic has been improving both numbers in the last few years plus a bit better on 2nd serves on clay. All of the greatest clay court players since 1990 have generally been very high on first serve points won in their peak years and some like Nadal have a high first serve percentage that makes for a lethal combination.

In general having a great first return game on clay has been helpful too. Here are the top first returners (filtered for players who were in top 200 for 1st serve, 2nd serve, 2nd return):
Rafael Nadal 39.5%
Guillermo Coria 38.8%
Stefan Edberg 37.0%
David Ferrer 36.7%
Andy Murray 36.6%
Andrei Medvedev 36.5%
Novak Djokovic 36.1%
Andre Agassi 35.8%
David Nalbandian 35.7%
Juan Carlos Ferrero 35.7%
Thomas Muster 35.6%
Sergi Bruguera 35.6%
Tommy Robredo 35.5%
Carlos Moya 35.5%
Roger Federer 35.2%
Guillermo Canas 35.2%
Michael Stich 35.2% (Stich actually fails on one of the criteria, but let him in since he was so strong on first serve points won.)
Gaston Gaudio 35.0%
Jim Courier 34.9%


This list starts weakening a little when you get down to Canas and Robredo, but Robredo had a ton of FO QFs and probably would have made some SFs in a weaker era. I would imagine for some of the 90s clay stalwarts that many of their best years had numbers this high. Soderling might have made the list if he hadn't had some unhealthy years watering down his numbers. And look @Gary Duane just format excel to show percent symbol and it pastes right in . Failing to show units is bad science.

And these are hard numbers from my Clay Court Handbook. The ATP site removes the decimal point of detail.

 

[Meles]

Tbh I'm not sure 90's Clay has ever offered anything constructive.

His name defines an era and he doesn't have to crunch numbers, just post in his normal style. Anyone can cry foul on this and I must admit that I was not a fan of 90's clay because the top players did not compete well on it. I'm far from an expert and enjoy greatly trying to understand this period.

 

[Meles]

OP and images updated. I've gone through and guestimated ratings for the early clay players so the 1978-1984 ratings are much better. The image in post 4 of this thread shows the new ratings for the quarterfinalists. This was done because the ELO ratings take years to build. Vitas Guerelitas got moved up quite a bit among others.

 

[Gary Duane]

I finally figured it out, but most probably see IP addresses. Just format the cells to percent. If they don't come out right then divide by 100 first or stop multiplying by 100. Its easy to fix.

Nah. The data is the way I want it. Looks fine in the spread sheet.

 

[Gary Duane]

In general having a great first return game on clay has been helpful too. Here are the top first returners (filtered for players who were in top 200 for 1st serve, 2nd serve, 2nd return):

Rafael Nadal 39.5%
Guillermo Coria 38.8%
Stefan Edberg 37.0%
David Ferrer 36.7%
Andy Murray 36.6%
Andrei Medvedev 36.5%
Novak Djokovic 36.1%
Andre Agassi 35.8%
David Nalbandian 35.7%
Juan Carlos Ferrero 35.7%
Thomas Muster 35.6%
Sergi Bruguera 35.6%
Tommy Robredo 35.5%
Carlos Moya 35.5%
Roger Federer 35.2%
Guillermo Canas 35.2%
Michael Stich 35.2% (Stich actually fails on one of the criteria, but let him in since he was so strong on first serve points won.)
Gaston Gaudio 35.0%
Jim Courier 34.9%

Pretty much the same list, just return game % for career on clay.

player RG%

Nadal 42.53
Coria 39.85
Muster 37.08
Bruguera 36.55
Ferrer 36.18
Djokovic 35.42
Carlos Costa 35.33
Agassi 34.87
Gaudio 33.85
Ferrero 33.73
Nalbandian 33.67
Murray 33.62
Chang 33.16
Edberg 32.10
Robredo 31.67
Courier 31.52
Canas 31.28
Moya 30.08
Federer 28.24
Stich 27.64

I'm not at all impressed with 1st serve return or 1st serve stats when not combined with 2nd serve stats.

Edberg won something like 3 clay events in his career, only one Masters level I think, and barely played RG. His best there was a F.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Your numbers now look like IP addresses.

ELO rates Guga quite highly, but really the spread from Wilander to 6 down to Soderling at 16 covers a scant 33 points. It does not like Courier relatively speaking, and rates Juan Carlos Ferrero, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, and Soderling about the same. The rest of these players are pre-1991. Soderling proved his worth and is another big first serve points won player who also had a strong return game. Many TTWers speak highly of Soderling and fits the DR mold nicely. I'm quite happy with Muster and Ferrero's ratings, but Bruguera and Courier don't differentiate themselves from this pack which surprises me. The period from 1989 to 1999 generally has lower field strength, so according to ELO it was easier to amass better stats.

Courier 1992:
67/46 on points (amazing) and 89/38 on games also some of the strongest numbers short of Nadal. (Courier's 1991 77/34 on games and 61/44 points which is really weak. 1993 was 88/39 and 66/45 and very nice.)

Bruguera 1993:
81/43 on games and inferior to Courier, but 43% or return games is very high. 65/47 on points was superior to Courier in 1993. 47% of return points won is a lot.
94 was much the same.

Both players had strong first serve points won numbers that seperated them from the like of Muster, etc, but perhaps a little low first serve percentage. On points stats Courier is very close peak Djokovic, but his ELO suffers due to the field. Burguera had a great return game. But ends up in the same boat.

Lets analyze the top of the game in 1991-1994:
1991
1 Stefan Edberg Quarterfinals - good, but not til later in career during this weak 90's, hmmmmm
2 Boris Becker Semifinals - fair, but had bit of a first return game
3 Ivan Lendl Did not play - old (did not play)
4 Andre Agassi Finals - strong, but played a lot on green which pumps his stats
5 Sergi Bruguera Second round - strong, but weaker serve game at this point and poor DR
6 Pete Sampras Second round - horrible on clay
7 Guy Forget Fourth round - beyond horrible
8 Goran Ivaniševic Second round - pretty bad, but had his serve and some clutch returning
9 Jim Courier Champion - strong, but points and games stats weaker this year
10 Michael Chang Quarterfinals - good
11 Emilio Sánchez Second round - not a good returner for a Spainard on clay
12 Michael Stich Semifinals - good, with strong first return game compensating for bad 2nd return game
13 Aaron Krickstein Second round - bad clay court player
14 Karel Novácek First round - good
15 John McEnroe First round - old and horrible
16 Brad Gilbert First round - old and horrible

1992
1 Jim Courier Champion - very strong
2 Stefan Edberg Third round - good on clay, but not til later in career during this weak 90's, hmmmmm
3 Pete Sampras Quarterfinalist - bad
4 Michael Stich Third round - good
5 Michael Chang Third round - good
6 Guy Forget Second round - bad
7 Petr Korda Finalist - good returner on clay, but very weak offense
8 Goran Ivaniševic Quarterfinalist - bad
9 Carlos Costa Fourth round - strong
10 Ivan Lendl Second round - old (knocked out Bruguera 1st round easily, whose ranking was down in 1992)
11 Andre Agassi Semifinalist - strong
12 Richard Krajicek Third round - fair (strong first serve game, but weak 2nd and return passable)
13 Aaron Krickstein Third round - bad clay court player
14 Alexander Volkov Third round - good returner with 0.0 offense on clay
15 Brad Gilbert First round - old
16 Jakob Hlasek First round - bad

1993
1 Pete Sampras Quarterfinals - bad
2 Jim Courier Finals - very strong
3 Stefan Edberg Quarterfinals - good
4 Boris Becker Second round - bad
5 Goran Ivaniševic Third round - bad
6 Petr Korda Second round - fair
7 Ivan Lendl First round - old
8 Michael Chang Second round - good
9 Michael Stich Fourth round - good
10 Sergi Bruguera Champion - very strong
11 Andrei Medvedev Semifinals - good
12 Richard Krajicek Semifinals - fair
13 Karel Novácek Quarterfinals - strong
14 Wayne Ferreira Second round - weak
15 Thomas Muster Fourth round - very strong
16 MaliVai Washington Fourth round - weak

1994
1 Pete Sampras Quarterfinals - bad
2 Michael Stich Second round - good
3 Stefan Edberg First round - good
4 Andrei Medvedev Quarterfinals - good
5 Goran Ivaniševic Quarterfinals - bad
6 Sergi Bruguera Champion - very strong
7 Jim Courier Semifinals - very strong, but down in rankings
8 Michael Chang Third round - good
9 Todd Martin Third round - weak
10 n/a Boris Becker out - LL
11 Thomas Muster Third round - very strong
12 Petr Korda First round - fair
13 Magnus Gustafsson Second round - good, great returner with 0.0 offense on clay
14 Cédric Pioline Second round - bad
15 Carlos Costa Second round - strong
16 Richard Krajicek Third round - fair

In summary, 1991 was very weak with early Bruguera, Agassi, and Courier. Courier was very strong in 1992, but the field was not. 1993 and 1994 Muster was starting to surface and Bruguera and Courier very strong, but Agassi gone. Most of the top 16 seeds were weak or worse on clay from 1991-94. Stich and Edberg were passable on clay, but a weaker surface for both. Contrast this with 2016 where almost all of the top 16 have titles on clay (Raonic and Tsonga with 2 French SFs being the exceptions) and 7 would be strong to very strong players on clay. 12 of the top 16 seeds made the round of 16 in 2016. In 1994 only 5 made it.



When its all said in down ELO probably is right to have Bruguera and Courier in the pack from 7-16 and very close to Wilander in level. They were cleaning up in some weak and erratic draws. A player like Kuerten had much more of a battle and should be narrowly ahead of these two players.

Actually Lendl late in his career was concentrating on Wimbledon.
This was a shame, as an original fan of his, he should have won more RG titles imo rather than worrying about this. (even 1988-9 were bad results).
They didn't even call it a Career Grand Slam back in those days, Lendl just wanted the prestige of winning at the All England Club , and who could blame him?

 

[Meles]

Actually Lendl late in his career was concentrating on Wimbledon.
This was a shame, as an original fan of his, he should have won more RG titles imo rather than worrying about this. (even 1988-9 were bad results).
They didn't even call it a Career Grand Slam back in those days, Lendl just wanted the prestige of winning at the All England Club , and who could blame him?

Yes and clay often doesn't favor the aging player. Lendl actually developed the game on grass to win Wimby; he just had the misforture of dealing with Edberg, and Becker. If Australia had been like today (hard courts), Lendl probably would have had more slam titles and been in the ATG discussion (never really like the player, but he's impressive.) Instead he is remembered for the Chang FO match in 1989 and who can blame him for ditching the French Open after that.

 

[Meles]

Pretty much the same list, just return game % for career on clay.

player RG%

Nadal 42.53
Coria 39.85
Muster 37.08
Bruguera 36.55
Ferrer 36.18
Djokovic 35.42
Carlos Costa 35.33
Agassi 34.87
Gaudio 33.85
Ferrero 33.73
Nalbandian 33.67
Murray 33.62
Chang 33.16
Edberg 32.10
Robredo 31.67
Courier 31.52
Canas 31.28
Moya 30.08
Federer 28.24
Stich 27.64

I'm not at all impressed with 1st serve return or 1st serve stats when not combined with 2nd serve stats.

Edberg won something like 3 clay events in his career, only one Masters level I think, and barely played RG. His best there was a F.

So you see the correlation with return games won on clay, but don't think 1st serve return matters on clay. Stich and Edberg have horrible to average 2nd return games on clay and yet they both made finals despite that. What of Medvedev? He made a final and yet does not make the return games won list.

2nd return does not correlate well with success on clay in the big events, nor does the 2nd serve game. They surely conrtibute, but Murray has had strong success on clay recently and his 2nd serve game is quite bad.

Let's compare Thiem and Goffin for 2016 on clay:
__________serve%-1st won-2nd won-1st ret-2nd ret
Dominic Thiem 61.3% 72.1% 54.8% 32.9% 51.6%
David Goffin 59.7% 68.6% 52.0% 36.0% 55.8%

Goffin had the far better return game, but Thiem kept afloat with a passable first return game at 32.9% won of first return. Thiem had a better first serve points won then Goffin by a wide margin. Goffin won nearly as many points as Thiem with 52.4% to 52.7%, but Thiem had the far greater success on clay.

Murray and Wawrinka also show the difference. Stan won 5.5% more 2nd serve points than Murray on clay in 2016 (tour leading 57.7%), but his first return was 3% weaker than Murray's at 32.0%. Wawrinka was within 0.2% of Murray's 53.5% of points won on clay. Djokovic's shining stat on clay this year was first return at 38.0%; the best of his career and he won the French Open. The game very much revolves around first serve and on clay, first return is extremely import.

stats from:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/2016-clay-court-handbook.556878/

 

[Meles]

Nah. The data is the way I want it. Looks fine in the spread sheet.

Just remove that extra decimal point and show the % symbol; then you can copy and paste right in to TTW. You are getting in F in your science for not showing units.

 

[Gary Duane]

Let's compare Thiem and Goffin for 2016 on clay:
__________serve%-1st won-2nd won-1st ret-2nd ret
Dominic Thiem 61.3% 72.1% 54.8% 32.9% 51.6%
David Goffin 59.7% 68.6% 52.0% 36.0% 55.8%

Goffin had the far better return game, but Thiem kept afloat with a passable first return game at 32.9% won of first return. Thiem had a better first serve points won then Goffin by a wide margin. Goffin won nearly as many points as Thiem with 52.4% to 52.7%, but Thiem had the far greater success on clay.

Yes. On points they are very even. If you use DR on points they are very even. Thiem is a bit higher. Also true on games won. But Thiem's service game % is about 8.5% higher. In my experience when two players win about he same % of games total but one serves much better, that guy has an advantage, often a huge one. Winning about 82% of games on serve puts Thiem in a good place for the future. Not even 74% puts Goffin in a bad place.

Just by looking at that I'd pick Thiem for the future - assuming he gets healthy. To be a slam contender he needs to plush his stats up on both serve and return a little and then he is in the zone.

Murray and Wawrinka also show the difference. Stan won 5.5% more 2nd serve points than Murray on clay in 2016 (tour leading 57.7%), but his first return was 3% weaker than Murray's at 32.0%. Wawrinka was within 0.2% of Murray's 53.5% of points won on clay. Djokovic's shining stat on clay this year was first return at 38.0%; the best of his career and he won the French Open. The game very much revolves around first serve and on clay, first return is extremely import.

I haven't even bothered yet running the stats for Wawrinka on points. I don't need to. He got to around 26% of his return games. Murray is around 33%. Games % is about 2% difference, which is pretty big. If you run DR for games - and that gives a huge bonus for better serving - Murray still comes out on top. If Stan served 2% higher in games then they would both be about even in games, and Stan would most likely win, because then DR would stronger favor him.

I don't know how you keep up with all these stats. I have to enter 8 numbers to get points stats because the ATP rounds everything off, and I can't get a convenient set of figures otherwise.

 

[Meles]

Yes. On points they are very even. If you use DR on points they are very even. Thiem is a bit higher. Also true on games won. But Thiem's service game % is about 8.5% higher. In my experience when two players win about he same % of games total but one serves much better, that guy has an advantage, often a huge one. Winning about 82% of games on serve puts Thiem in a good place for the future. Not even 74% puts Goffin in a bad place.

Just by looking at that I'd pick Thiem for the future - assuming he gets healthy. To be a slam contender he needs to plush his stats up on both serve and return a little and then he is in the zone.

I haven't even bothered yet running the stats for Wawrinka on points. I don't need to. He got to around 26% of his return games. Murray is around 33%. Games % is about 2% difference, which is pretty big. If you run DR for games - and that gives a huge bonus for better serving - Murray still comes out on top. If Stan served 2% higher in games then they would both be about even in games, and Stan would most likely win, because then DR would stronger favor him.

I don't know how you keep up with all these stats. I have to enter 8 numbers to get points stats because the ATP rounds everything off, and I can't get a convenient set of figures otherwise.

I paste in the leaders for the six categories and then format. Takes about half hour to update the handbook.

This ELO is my most efficient yet. I can build a whole event in half an hour. The time is posting and capturing images and of course the discussion.

 

[eldanger25]

Actually Lendl late in his career was concentrating on Wimbledon.
This was a shame, as an original fan of his, he should have won more RG titles imo rather than worrying about this. (even 1988-9 were bad results).
They didn't even call it a Career Grand Slam back in those days, Lendl just wanted the prestige of winning at the All England Club , and who could blame him?

I think Lendl wins RG 1990 if he plays. He would have whipped Gomez like he always did, and I don't think the rest of the field would have touched him that year.