Big 3 HTH Analysis

[tennisfanboy]

I am another Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fan ( no pun intended). I know we have all beaten down their comparisons to pulp but I am daring to start another one of these threads. Here is a HTH analysis of them when they were either peak/prime or close to their peak prime. My assumption is, if they have won atleast 1 slam during a calendar year, they have performed at a higher level that year more often than not.

We all know that Nadal is a different animal on clay, so I am breaking down his hth numbers to clay/non-clay.

(2004 - 2010, 2012, 2017) Federer vs Nadal: 2-10 (Clay): 17%, 11-6 (other surfaces): 65%
(2004 - 2010, 2012, 2017) Federer vs Djokovic: 15-9 (62.5%)

(2005-2014, 2017) Nadal vs Federer 13-2: 86.7% (clay), 10-12 (other surfaces): 45.45%
(2005-2014, 2017) Nadal vs Djokovic 14-4: 77.8% (Clay) 10-15 (other surfaces): 40%

(2008, 2011-2016) Djokovic vs Federer 19-11 (63.3%)
(2008, 2011-2016) Djokovic vs Nadal 7-7: 50% (clay) 14-4 (others) 77.77%

Here are my conclusions:
1. Fed vs Djokovic is pretty even (62.5% to 63.3%). Slightly higher percentage in favor of Djoker could be attributed to more meetings during Djokovic's prime than during Federer's prime
2. Nadal vs Federer: Nadal murdered federer on clay during his peak and federer's peak but Federer clearly dominated him on non-clay surfaces during both their peaks. As much as he had his match up advantage, Nadal still could not dominate Federer on non-clay surfaces.
3. Nadal vs Djokovic: While Nadal murdered Djokovic on clay during his own prime/peak, Djokovic managed to stand his ground against Nadal even on clay during his prime/peak and utterly dominated him on non-clay during both their peaks/primes.

I went 1 step ahead and drilled the stats further down to coinciding peak/prime levels. Here are the hth stats for the years when both players in the hth managed to win a slam.

When both players won atleast 1 slam during the calendar year:

Federer vs Nadal (2005 - 2010, 2012, 2017): 2-10 clay: 17%; 11-4 (other surfaces): 73.3%
Federer vs Djokovic (2008, 2012): 4-4: 50% even split
Djokovic vs Nadal (2008, 2011-2014): 4-7 (clay): 36.4%; 10-4 (other surfaces): 71.4%

Conclusions:
1. Prime-to-Prime Federer and Djokovic are evenly split at 50% though the sample size of 8 is small. But looking at the other stats I feel Fed vs Djokovic prime to prime is even stevens. This also validates how Djokovic was able to achieve Federeresque peak levels but Nadal could not.
2. Prime-to-Prime Nadal murdered Federer on clay and more than dominated Djokovic on clay but got annihilated by both of them on non clay surfaces.

These stats when they played each other prime-to-prime shed bad light on Nadal's claim to GOAT status.

Please discuss without trolling.

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

Good stats.

 

[Waspsting]

An agenda free analysis ... Thanks, respect and nicely done

You've used a base criteria of "Years with Slam title" and the secondary criteria is "Head-to-Head"

Personally, I don't consider H2H as important as results against the full field (i.e. Win-Loss records) ... and I would look to that more to draw conclusions

Every players primary purpose is to win as many matches as possible, not specifically to beat Player X... would you agree?

If so, Win-Loss records as the secondary measure in your study would be more appropriate than H2H - which, imo, is a gross simplification for assessing greatness

Another possible secondary measure is to look at all the tournaments the players in question participated in ... and recording who went further in them

A finalist > a semi > a quarter etc.... the suggested measure would give you a reading for the how the 3 players stacked up against one another even if they didn't win the tournament or meet one another in it

Conclusions:
1. Prime-to-Prime Federer and Djokovic are evenly split at 50% though the sample size of 8 is small. But looking at the other stats I feel Fed vs Djokovic prime to prime is even stevens. This also validates how Djokovic was able to achieve Federeresque peak levels but Nadal could not.
2. Prime-to-Prime Nadal murdered Federer on clay and more than dominated Djokovic on clay but got annihilated by both of them on non clay surfaces.

These stats when they played each other prime-to-prime shed bad light on Nadal's claim to GOAT status.

Have to disagree with this interpretation

The clay/non-clay division you've made is handy for short circuiting the very predictable (and fairly useless) responses you'd get along the lines of "yes, but outside clay..." If you hadn't made the division

However, keep in mind, for the purposes of the study itself, there's no reason to make the division. A match is a match... they don't count any less because Nadal is so far ahead that comparing him with his rivals seems unfair on clay

Nadal is an unusual GOAT candidate in that his case is based on stratospheric long-term partial dominance (clay) coupled with irregular bursts of high levels elsewhere (non-clay)

His not dominanting all year round isn't really important given he has the clay cushion that he earns each year ... as long as he's racking up Slams and ranking high (probably two best GOAT meterics), who cares? There's more than one way to skin a GOAT

Note also, to date Nadal leads your base criteria measure with 11 Slam winning years, (Federer 10 and Djokovic 7 - that's more than 50% behind)

 

[tennisfanboy]

An agenda free analysis ... Thanks, respect and nicely done

You've used a base criteria of "Years with Slam title" and the secondary criteria is "Head-to-Head"

Personally, I don't consider H2H as important as results against the full field (i.e. Win-Loss records) ... and I would look to that more to draw conclusions

Every players primary purpose is to win as many matches as possible, not specifically to beat Player X... would you agree?

If so, Win-Loss records as the secondary measure in your study would be more appropriate than H2H - which, imo, is a gross simplification for assessing greatness

Another possible secondary measure is to look at all the tournaments the players in question participated in ... and recording who went further in them

A finalist > a semi > a quarter etc.... the suggested measure would give you a reading for the how the 3 players stacked up against one another even if they didn't win the tournament or meet one another in it




Have to disagree with this interpretation

The clay/non-clay division you've made is handy for short circuiting the very predictable (and fairly useless) responses you'd get along the lines of "yes, but outside clay..." If you hadn't made the division

However, keep in mind, for the purposes of the study itself, there's no reason to make the division. A match is a match... they don't count any less because Nadal is so far ahead that comparing him with his rivals seems unfair on clay

Nadal is an unusual GOAT candidate in that his case is based on stratospheric long-term partial dominance (clay) coupled with irregular bursts of high levels elsewhere (non-clay)

His not dominanting all year round isn't really important given he has the clay cushion that he earns each year ... as long as he's racking up Slams and ranking high (probably two best GOAT meterics), who cares? There's more than one way to skin a GOAT

Note also, to date Nadal leads your base criteria measure with 11 Slam winning years, (Federer 10 and Djokovic 7 - that's more than 50% behind)

Fair points. While I do agree with most of what you said, I disagree with you on not making the clay/non-clay division while comparing. Nadal is arguably the greatest on Clay. And, if the stats are not divided across clay and non-clay they give the false impression that Nadal dominated the other ATGs across all surfaces prime-to-prime. Surface has a significant role in tennis unlike most other sports. Even more so before the homogenization when there were more surface specialists than today. I think it's fair we make the clay vs non-clay comparison only because Nadal was not consistent enough on other surfaces as much as Djokovic and Federer were on clay. He had the luxury of meeting them consistently in Clay masters and majors but hasn't showed up enough on the other surfaces for the stats to even out. Prime to Prime Nadal and Fed played 12 times on clay and only 15 times on grass and hard courts combined (even if we consider indoor and all outdoor hard courts as one surface). For the stats to show true picture either the non-clay numbers have to be corrected (extrapolated in this case) or the clay stats have to be corrected (reduced accordingly). If not, it's not fair for the other GOAT candidates. If anything they were good enough to meet Nadal consistently on clay but not vice-versa.

 

[Nishikorigoat]

I am another Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fan ( no pun intended). I know we have all beaten down their comparisons to pulp but I am daring to start another one of these threads. Here is a HTH analysis of them when they were either peak/prime or close to their peak prime. My assumption is, if they have won atleast 1 slam during a calendar year, they have performed at a higher level that year more often than not.

We all know that Nadal is a different animal on clay, so I am breaking down his hth numbers to clay/non-clay.

(2004 - 2010, 2012, 2017) Federer vs Nadal: 2-10 (Clay): 17%, 11-6 (other surfaces): 65%
(2004 - 2010, 2012, 2017) Federer vs Djokovic: 15-9 (62.5%)

(2005-2014, 2017) Nadal vs Federer 13-2: 86.7% (clay), 10-12 (other surfaces): 45.45%
(2005-2014, 2017) Nadal vs Djokovic 14-4: 77.8% (Clay) 10-15 (other surfaces): 40%

(2008, 2011-2016) Djokovic vs Federer 19-11 (63.3%)
(2008, 2011-2016) Djokovic vs Nadal 7-7: 50% (clay) 14-4 (others) 77.77%

Here are my conclusions:
1. Fed vs Djokovic is pretty even (62.5% to 63.3%). Slightly higher percentage in favor of Djoker could be attributed to more meetings during Djokovic's prime than during Federer's prime
2. Nadal vs Federer: Nadal murdered federer on clay during his peak and federer's peak but Federer clearly dominated him on non-clay surfaces during both their peaks. As much as he had his match up advantage, Nadal still could not dominate Federer on non-clay surfaces.
3. Nadal vs Djokovic: While Nadal murdered Djokovic on clay during his own prime/peak, Djokovic managed to stand his ground against Nadal even on clay during his prime/peak and utterly dominated him on non-clay during both their peaks/primes.

I went 1 step ahead and drilled the stats further down to coinciding peak/prime levels. Here are the hth stats for the years when both players in the hth managed to win a slam.

When both players won atleast 1 slam during the calendar year:

Federer vs Nadal (2005 - 2010, 2012, 2017): 2-10 clay: 17%; 11-4 (other surfaces): 73.3%
Federer vs Djokovic (2008, 2012): 4-4: 50% even split
Djokovic vs Nadal (2008, 2011-2014): 4-7 (clay): 36.4%; 10-4 (other surfaces): 71.4%

Conclusions:
1. Prime-to-Prime Federer and Djokovic are evenly split at 50% though the sample size of 8 is small. But looking at the other stats I feel Fed vs Djokovic prime to prime is even stevens. This also validates how Djokovic was able to achieve Federeresque peak levels but Nadal could not.
2. Prime-to-Prime Nadal murdered Federer on clay and more than dominated Djokovic on clay but got annihilated by both of them on non clay surfaces.

These stats when they played each other prime-to-prime shed bad light on Nadal's claim to GOAT status.

Please discuss without trolling.

So is this a backhanded way of bigging up Nadal? Ultimately players are judged on their performances at the Majors due to the best of five set format and Nadal off clay is 4-3 v Federer and 3-3 v Djokovic. That seems to suggest Nadal raises his level at the Majors.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I am another Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fan ( no pun intended).

At first I rolled my eyes and thought, “Not another $@%*#$& Big 3 Head to Head thing,” but this was pretty good. Thank you.

But I have to ask—what exactly is the pun that’s not intended?

 

[Waspsting]

I disagree with you on not making the clay/non-clay division while comparing. Nadal is arguably the greatest on Clay....

Small misunderstanding here... my fault for not being clearer

I was referring to not having the clay/non-clay distinctions in the measures I suggested (i.e. Base criteria - Slam winning Years, Secondary criteria - Win-Loss record or how far everyone got in tournaments they all played in)

For the H2H secondary measure you've used, I agree that the clay/non-clay distinction paints a more realistic picture for all the reasons you said

----

Back to your study

For Nadal, you might consider splitting the base criteria of "Slam Winning Years" into clay/non-clay also

As I understand it, the premise of the study is "if you won a Slam that year, it's a 'Prime' year"... a reasonable assumption and appropriate for Federer and Djokovic

But for Nadal, winning French doesn't necessarily indicate it's a 'Prime, All Round Year' (meaning we can assume he's playing well on all surfaces just because he won the clay Slam)

His non-clay Slam years are 08, 09, 10, 13 and 17... I wonder if we'd find he was doing better h2h off clay with Fed and Djok in those years than he typically does?

Certainly wasn't the case this year where he's been 0-4 off clay with Fed

 

[Russeljones]

Is the analysis still coming, or was this it?

 

[tennisfanboy]

Is the analysis still coming, or was this it?

More coming. I'm going to update the hth stats taking waspsting's suggestions into consideration. Feel free to add if you want.

 

[every7]

An agenda free analysis ... Thanks, respect and nicely done

You've used a base criteria of "Years with Slam title" and the secondary criteria is "Head-to-Head"

Personally, I don't consider H2H as important as results against the full field (i.e. Win-Loss records) ... and I would look to that more to draw conclusions

Every players primary purpose is to win as many matches as possible, not specifically to beat Player X... would you agree?

If so, Win-Loss records as the secondary measure in your study would be more appropriate than H2H - which, imo, is a gross simplification for assessing greatness

Another possible secondary measure is to look at all the tournaments the players in question participated in ... and recording who went further in them

A finalist > a semi > a quarter etc.... the suggested measure would give you a reading for the how the 3 players stacked up against one another even if they didn't win the tournament or meet one another in it




Have to disagree with this interpretation

The clay/non-clay division you've made is handy for short circuiting the very predictable (and fairly useless) responses you'd get along the lines of "yes, but outside clay..." If you hadn't made the division

However, keep in mind, for the purposes of the study itself, there's no reason to make the division. A match is a match... they don't count any less because Nadal is so far ahead that comparing him with his rivals seems unfair on clay

Nadal is an unusual GOAT candidate in that his case is based on stratospheric long-term partial dominance (clay) coupled with irregular bursts of high levels elsewhere (non-clay)

His not dominanting all year round isn't really important given he has the clay cushion that he earns each year ... as long as he's racking up Slams and ranking high (probably two best GOAT meterics), who cares? There's more than one way to skin a GOAT

Note also, to date Nadal leads your base criteria measure with 11 Slam winning years, (Federer 10 and Djokovic 7 - that's more than 50% behind)

Very good comments.

I have my belief that the OP's original post was designed to use strange data points to try and create a non-traditional re-framing of the Nadal / Federer / Djokovic's H2H records.

You have rightly pointed out that some of these data points unintentionally indicate areas of excellence for Nadal that remained unacknowledged by the OP. Particularly regarding the base criteria.

 

[mike danny]

Years in which all 3 won majors is a good criteria.

It is interesting that Federer and Djokovic both won slams in a season just twice, 2008 and 2012, despite the rivarly being so long. I guess this is where the age difference has a say.