kennydredrum
New User
Borg had a 91.3% winning rate at the time of retirement (age 25) -- the highest among all retired pros. Unfortunately he decided to comeback at age 35 and went 0-12 to 12 different opponents.
Big Four and their losing H2H records
- Thread starter jm1980
- Start date
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I am interested in matches great players lose, during their peaks, and how often it happens.
For instance, I can't recall how often Fed has beaten Seppi. I just remember that Seppi got him this year, and even though Fed is not in his prime, that still sticks out my mind.
But those kinds of matches usually end up fairly famous, like the Soderling matches where Nadal lost. No one much cares that Nadal has a winning H2H against him, just that Soderling kept him from winning RG in 2009.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I remember that. What a horrible, disappointing comeback. His playing was a joke, a true embarrassment.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I look at this as raw data, nothing more. You have to find out when the losses happened. Did they happen before a player started peaking? Or well after a players peak? Where did the losses happen?Ok, maybe my contribution was a little bit from the belly and not the brain
I think these stats are a poor indicator of a player's value, because of the many parameters they leave aside: age difference, percentage of matches played on one of the player's best surface, match-up, etc. IMO, you can only use this indicator when all of the above is balanced.
I would put more importance on the when. When you look at all Fed's losses, it becomes obvious that most of them happened before 2003, when he was still "Baby Fed", in 2013, some in 2008 (mono). When you strip the rest of it away you end up with his one weakness, his H2H against Nadal. And even that needs to be examined by surface.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Wait, I only just realised my thread was deleted - LOL.
Anyway, yes this is just raw data which will and has already led to some interesting discussion and interpretations. But I thought that was obvious...
Must be so plagued by the forum that an agenda is assumed with every single post.
The agenda of the OP was raw data. CRIMINAL.
LMAO.
Anyway, yes this is just raw data which will and has already led to some interesting discussion and interpretations. But I thought that was obvious...
Must be so plagued by the forum that an agenda is assumed with every single post.
The agenda of the OP was raw data. CRIMINAL.
LMAO.
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
Alex Corretja Best ever!!! )
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
Corretja would have annihilated any player at any given year... ):} And with both hands tied to his shoes xD
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
How about Big4 against each other? I think it brings:
1.Nadal
2. Djokovic
3.Federer
4.Murray
1.Nadal
2. Djokovic
3.Federer
4.Murray
randomtoss
Semi-Pro
We mostly agree then.
What I still don't get is why you fell on me like a starving wolf on a hen house! It's not like H2H is discussed for the first time on TTW, and the OP's contribution to the subject is not that big... Besides, my English being rather poor, I sometimes succumb to the solution of shortcuts for expressing my views (which is bad, I know). This poor English also explains why I "like" so many poasts: why repeat what has already been perfecly expressed by another forumer?
What hurt most is that I always felt kind of connected to you (in a very loose sense, don't worry), as a fellow pianist
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
Interesting question.
Federer breached into Top10 in 2002, before that he was only an Junge. His Achilles heels are indeed Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. His win-loss rate is over 90% since 2004, against non-Big4 opponents.
Nadal rivalry is the bloodiest, since the spaniard got him knocked out in a variety of surfaces (like Djokovic) and without losing many battles (as suffered Novak and Andy):
2004 — *Nad 1 x 0 Fed — clay x -
2005 — Nad 1 x 1 Fed — clay x hard
2006 — *Nad 4 x 2 Fed — hard/clay x hard/grass
2007 — Nad 2 x 3 Fed* — clay x clay/grass
2008 — *Nad 4 x 0 Fed — grass/clay x -
2009 — Nad 1 x 1 Fed — hard x clay (the opposite lol)
2010 — Nad 1 x 1 Fed — clay x hard
2011 — *Nad 3 x 0 Fed — hard/clay x hard
2012 — Nad 1 x 1 Fed — hard x hard
2013 — *Nad 3 x 0 Fed — hard/clay x -
2014 — *Nad 1 x 0 Fed — hard x -
2015 — Nad 0 x 1 Fed* — - x hard
Besides Nadal, the other 2 are formidable rivals as well:
—Murray is one of the few 3 to have >10 victories over Federer, being since always ahead of Roger, until 2014.
—Djokovic is, along with Nadal, the only player to have won >20 against the Swiss. As a matter of fact the Serb is the only payer to heave defeated all Big4, more than 20 times and in all surfaces.
Without Big 4, « theoretically » be understood , Federer would have amassed:
— 11 year-end #1s and
— near 26 GSs…
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Djokovic's numbers are very impressive in that he has less losing head to heads than the others. He is like a Chameleon in that he can adapt his game incredibly well to deal with different opponents. A lot of people (those who don't know tennis) don't even understand his game and what he's really doing on the court.
Last edited:
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
Sublimely elaborated analysis. I've never thought of his game under this prism.
When you watch his matches against each of them and along the years, it is perceptible how adaptive and strategic his game is.
Federer and Nadal perhaps never had such need before 2010, because of their overwhelming power. That's why their game does not present such keen adaptation. That also may explain why they struggled so much when facing superior opponents, what is the case since 2011.
In my opinion, Murray is also very adaptative, but he does not possess the same level of Novak to implement his strategies before and during his matches.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I think so just off the top of my head it would have to be in that order.
BTW, I'm enjoying your posts. Welcome here
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
I think so just off the top of my head it would have to be in that order.
BTW, I'm enjoying your posts. Welcome here
Thank you!! It's to discuss tennis with people really passionate about the game.
I wanted to gather these data, but still couldnt find time though... lol
itrium84
Hall of Fame
If those comeback matches were all wins, should they still be excluded?
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
11-23 kinda sticks out
Career H2H up to now taking into account all ATP matches played (irrespective how many matches played against a player)
1) Djokovic positive H2H 208, draw 11 negative 12
2) Nadal positive H2H 252, draw 9, negative 9
3) Federer positive H2H 288, draw 16, negative 24
4) Murray positive H2H 200, draw 8, negative 15
5) Wawrinka positive H2H 171, draw 28, negative 51
6) Hewitt, positive 233, draw 38, negative 44
Data from ultimate tennis statistic.
1) Djokovic positive H2H 208, draw 11 negative 12
2) Nadal positive H2H 252, draw 9, negative 9
3) Federer positive H2H 288, draw 16, negative 24
4) Murray positive H2H 200, draw 8, negative 15
5) Wawrinka positive H2H 171, draw 28, negative 51
6) Hewitt, positive 233, draw 38, negative 44
Data from ultimate tennis statistic.
Last edited:
This is a real eye opener.
Hopefully the masses will soon realise that Murray in any other era is a 12+ slam winning guy. He was only stopped by GOATs.
This is really fascinating. When I looked into H2H when 10 and more matches were played (which I personally consider cut off for meaningful statistics) this is what happens:
1) Djokovic positive H2H 22, draw 0, negative 0
2) Nadal positive 25, draw 0 negative 2 (Djokovic and Davidenko)
3) Federer positive 35, draw 0 negative 2 (Djokovic and Nadal)
4) Murray positive 19, draw 0 negative 3 (Djokovic, Nadal and Federer)
5) Wawrinka positive 5, draw 1, negative 4
6) Hewitt positive 4, draw 1, negative 3
1) Djokovic positive H2H 22, draw 0, negative 0
2) Nadal positive 25, draw 0 negative 2 (Djokovic and Davidenko)
3) Federer positive 35, draw 0 negative 2 (Djokovic and Nadal)
4) Murray positive 19, draw 0 negative 3 (Djokovic, Nadal and Federer)
5) Wawrinka positive 5, draw 1, negative 4
6) Hewitt positive 4, draw 1, negative 3
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
While Djoker’s achievements are excellent here , I would go with a cutoff of 5 matches or a h2h difference of 2 if it is less than 5 matches .
Also fascinating. When I looked into H2H when 5 and more matches were played:
1) Djokovic positive H2H 60, draw 1, negative 1
2) Nadal positive 67, draw 1 negative 2
3) Federer positive 86, draw 1 negative 4
4) Murray positive 55, draw 0 negative 4
5) Wawrinka positive 29, draw 6, negative 8
6) Hewitt positive 46, draw 4, negative 9
1) Djokovic positive H2H 60, draw 1, negative 1
2) Nadal positive 67, draw 1 negative 2
3) Federer positive 86, draw 1 negative 4
4) Murray positive 55, draw 0 negative 4
5) Wawrinka positive 29, draw 6, negative 8
6) Hewitt positive 46, draw 4, negative 9
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
In Boxing sure , not in tennis
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, Nadal got rid of one losing H2H (Kyrgios); Federer added two (Djokovic, Thiem); Djokovic gained four (Vesely, Daniel, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios)
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Hewitt before injuries: positive 29, draw 3, negative 3.
We all know Hewitt was not a top player after 2005. However that does not take away his stats till that.
H2H when 10 and more matches were played.
1) Borg positive H2H 15, draw 1, negative 0
2) Mcenroe positive 20, draw 2 negative 2
3) Lendl positive 21, draw 1 negative 1
4) Sampras positive 19, draw 0 negative 1
It seems that Djokovic is the only player ever that has positive H2H against all players with whom he played 10 and more matches.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Never knew Djokovic, Murray and Hewitt were boxers as well as tennis players! You learn something new every day on here.
Given that he has negative H2H with 9 matches it is kinda pointless, is it not? Would he become somewhat worse by defeating ARod once more?
That is the problem with these cherry picked stats. When you look close they just don't make sense.
Or holding McEnroe H2H against Borg, when out of 14 matches they met 12 times on McEnroes turf (grass/carpet, USO) and 0 times on Borgs one (clay)... If anything he should be aplauded to have this H2H drawed! Much, much more valuable H2H than Djoker/ARod.
Djokovic is also the only one who has no younger rival going after him. All the worse H2H are against younger players. Coincidence? Don't think so.
(Sampras/Krajicek, McEnroe/Lendl and Becker, Borg/McEnroe, Lendl/Edberg, Becker/Agassi and Sampras, Federer/Nadal and Djokovic, Connors/Borg, Lendl and McEnroe and so on...)
I agree, the only H-H that matters is the ones against the top players of THEIR era.
This is not cherry pick stats. When I tried it I did not have any idea who would be at the top or bottom. I am impressed with all big 4, but Djokovic really impressed me. I did not expect that he is so incredible good.
tennisplayer111
New User
Master Yoda
New User
Good lord, and I thought Federer had a long list...
Similar threads
