Average winning percentage across surfaces

EasyGoing said:
Sure, there is something seriously wrong with the way a group of people thinks, because it can't be your idiotic posts, right? Not just fake, but arrogant as well - and not the good kind of arrogant where you earned it, but more the Kyrgios type.
Get a grip on yourself, buddy, you are all over the place.
Click to expand...

You're projecting dude and it's not working. You're a terrible poster and you already know this. When you can't get along with someone like Hitman and attack even someone like him, it's obvious. Your opinion is worthless to me just like whatever you choose to type. Ironic that you think I am the one who needs to get a grip. Lol.
 
Lew II said:
To make this stat, yes.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know that you have done everything properly. You should have excluded carpet as it is a surface not played by some players you wish to compare. By allocating the same weight to each surface and doing averages of averages you have addressed the issue of surface bias arising from different number of matches played on each surfaces. Let's say, you would like to assess anti-hypertensive treatment with a drug and you have 3 patients getting this drug, but you measured in each patient blood pressure different number of times (subject A 10 measurements, subject B 30 measurements and subject C 100 measurements). When it comes to estimating anti-hypertensive effect you are not going to sum 100+30+10 measurements and divide it by 140 (as the effect on subject C would be the one with disproportional influence) to find a mean of blood pressure, but you would find average first for each patient and than divide sum of 3 averages by 3.
 
ABCD said:
Just to let you know that you have done everything properly. You should have excluded carpet as it is a surface not played by some players you wish to compare. By allocating the same weight to each surface and doing averages of averages you have addressed the issue of surface bias arising from different number of matches played on each surfaces.
Click to expand...
But there is a problem. I think you are a fan of Djokovic. Do I have that right? The inconvenient truth is that HCs are the most important events re careers today because not only are more M1000s played on that surface, two of the 4 majors are there also. And the WTF. So today, from a practical perspective, it makes sense to be strongest on HCs. When two of the four majors are on that surface, it makes sense to put top priority on dominating on that surface. Is this what you are calling a surface bias? Or is it about the bragging rights of winning Wimbledon?

Looking at thing practically, today you want to be best on HCs, then second best on clay IF you are looking at career records for winning all events and especially for that in combination with majors. That would logically give Djokovic and advantage in that HCs are his best surface, and more matches are played on HCs by far.

If you are a traditionalist and give the greatest weight to Wimbledon (which I do not), then you will see the whole matter differently.

But if you take a straight career average of match wins, or big event wins, you are merely reflecting the reality of the tour. I see 215 grass matches for Fed and an 87.13 record, and my count includes the Olympics and DC. To me it seems pretty obvious that if there were a whole lot more grass events, Fed would have a higher W/L%. And if the majority of matches were on clay, who knows how high Nadal would be.

This doesn't matter, but "it is what it is". We have to deal with the tour as it is, which means counting all matches, including carpet, and even wood in other eras. Then we have an even playing field, simply comparing careers as they were/are. Today including or excluding carpet will have a negligible effect on the results because it is such a small factor.

Taking an average of the surfaces ignores the reality of the balance of these surfaces regarding frequency of which each surface is used for events.
 
I root for Djokovic as I like his story and his tennis. However, I believe that am reasonable objective.

If you would like to form a full picture you have to have different angles and this is definitely an angle that should be a part of the package. It tells a part of the story. What you are saying is that there is an influence of surface "importance" (as noted by Lew II as well) on players development and strategy. It is a valid hypothesis, but should be supported (or rejected) using objective criteria. It can't be accepted because you say so. The difficult question is how to do that, and this is what Lew II tries to do. He tries to address difficult topics by finding ways. These issues look simple on first sight, but are immensely complex and require a life-time.
 
Let's see in Slams alone, since Slams were played only on hard, clay and grass, starting with players born in the '50s (Laver, Rosewall, etc. had no slam on hc to play):

1) Borg 88.72
2) Nadal 87.43
3) Djokovic 85.98
4) Federer 85.37
5) Connors 82.64
6) Lendl 81.34
7) Murray 81.16
8) Sampras 80.47
9) Wilander 79.72
10) McEnroe / Agassi 79.40
12) Becker 78.98
13) Edberg 77.53
14) Vilas 75.33
15) Tsonga 74.12

Compare with normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 89.81
2) Nadal 87.24
3) Djokovic 86.60
4) Federer 86.15
5) Sampras 84.23
6) Connors 82.62
7) Lendl 81.92
8) McEnroe 81.07
9) Agassi 80.87
10) Murray 80.77
11) Becker 80.30
12) Wilander 79.56
13) Edberg 79.11
14) Courier 75.64
15) Vilas 75.27
 
Last edited:
Lew II said:
Let's see in Slams alone, since Slams were played only on hard, clay and grass, starting with players born in the '50s (Laver, Rosewall, etc. had no slam on hc to play):

1) Borg 88.72
2) Nadal 87.43
3) Djokovic 85.98
4) Federer 85.37
5) Connors 82.64
6) Lendl 81.34
7) Murray 81.16
8) Sampras 80.47
9) Wilander 79.72
10) McEnroe / Agassi 79.40
12) Becker 78.98
13) Edberg 77.53
14) Vilas 75.33
15) Tsonga 74.12

Compared with normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 89.81
2) Nadal 87.24
3) Djokovic 86.60
4) Federer 86.15
5) Sampras 84.23
6) Connors 82.62
7) Lendl 81.92
8) McEnroe 81.07
9) Agassi 80.87
10) Murray 80.77
11) Becker 80.30
12) Wilander 79.56
13) Edberg 79.11
14) Courier 75.64
15) Vilas 75.27
Click to expand...

Slams changed surfaces over this period. How did you deal with that? Based on your data I would say that Sampras was very surface specialized, while Nadal is allround.
 
tennisaddict said:
I am still looking for a honest answer and it is not coming.

How come they are "all equal" now yet when someone crosses Fed, Fed becomes lower than them ?
Click to expand...
How do you know that @RaulRamirez will say that Djokovic/Nadal are greater?

By the way my opinion is that Djokovic and Nadal faced greater competition, so if they will reach the same achievements as Federer they will be greater.
 
Lew II said:
How do you know that @RaulRamirez will say that Djokovic/Nadal are greater?

By the way my opinion is that Djokovic and Nadal faced greater competition, so if they will reach the same achievements as Federer they will be greater.
Click to expand...

Read his posts . He says so.

You say Stakhovsky is better than Wilander . So I will consider your statements in the same vein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top