Comparison of Federer and Nadal's most dominant periods

[falstaff78]

This is a follow-up to a thread I made recently, which compared Federer's career at the end of 2009 to Nadal's career to-date.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=515647&page=4

Russeljones suggested it would be good to see the same breakdown for the two players' periods of dominance. His point was that the previous analysis was only useful to understand whether Nadal is on pace to match Federer's achievements. But not as an apples-to-apples comparison of their times at the top.

There was some debate about the comparison period. I ended up doing the numbers 4 ways:
(i) Major-winning span - i.e. 2003-2012 for Federer, 2005-2014 for Nadal
(ii) Peaks - i.e. 2004-2009 for Federer, 2008-2013 for Nadal
(iii) Overlap of major-winning span - i.e. 2005-2012 (i.e. same competition)
(iv) Absolute peaks - i.e. 2005-2006 for Federer, 2008 & 2010 for Nadal - see post 15



There are three main conclusions to be drawn from these data:

1) No one has ever played on Clay like Nadal. 80% of tournaments won over almost a decade. 90% of RGs won lifetime. Only lost 1 match at RG. Highest ever win pct 318-24.
2) No one has ever had a peak like Federer. over a 6 year period he: won 58% of majors, reached 83% of major finals, won 90% of tournaments on grass, won 52% of tournaments on hard, held number 1 for ~84% of the weeks
3) The weak era argument does not hold. The trends we see are exactly the same whether we look at their peaks, their career major winning spans, or just the overlap of their major winning spans.




(i) Major-winning span - i.e. 2003-2012 for Federer, 2005-2014 for Nadal

Majors (won / played / total - participation strike rate / overall strike rate)
Nadal 14 / 35 / 40 = 40% / 35%
Federer 17 / 40 / 40 = 43% / 43%

Weeks at no 1
Nadal 141
Federer 302

WTF (won / played / total - participation strike rate / overall strike rate)
Nadal 0 / 6 / 9 = 0% / 0% (not yet counting 2014 although Rafa not playing)
Federer 6 / 10 / 10 = 60% / 60%

MS1000s (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 27 / 75 = 36%
Federer 20 / 74 = 27%

Here's the break-down of MS1000 by surface:

MS 1000s on Clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 19 / 28 = 68%
Federer 5 / 24 = 21%

MS 1000s on Hard (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 8 / 47 = 17%
Federer 15 / 50 = 30%

Overall titles: (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 63 / 169 = 37%
Federer 72 / 173 = 42%

Following Clayqueen's suggestion, breakdown of titles by level. (RN / RF)

Majors: 14 / 17
WTF: 0 / 6
Olympics: 1 / 0
MS1000: 27 / 20
250&500: 21 / 29
Total: 63 / 72

Break down of all titles by surface. (Leaving out carpet, which accounts for 1 of Federer's titles)

Overall titles on clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 44 / 58 = 76%
Federer 9 / 41 = 22%

(Obligatory gushing at Nadal on clay - 76%! Insane!!!)

Overall titles on hard
Nadal 16 / 94 = 17%
Federer 50 / 110 = 45%

Overall titles on grass
Nadal 3 / 17 = 18%
Federer 12 / 18 = 67%

 

[falstaff78]

(ii) Peaks - i.e. 2004-2009 for Federer, 2008-2013 for Nadal

Majors (won / played / total - participation strike rate / overall strike rate)
Nadal 10 / 21 / 24 = 48% / 42%
Federer 14 / 24 / 24 = 58% / 58%

Weeks at no 1
Nadal 117
Federer 263

WTF (won / played / total - participation strike rate / overall strike rate)
Nadal 0 / 4 / 6 = 0% / 0%
Federer 3 / 6 / 6 = 50% / 50%

MS1000s (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 17 / 47 = 36%
Federer 15 / 44 = 34%

Here's the break-down of MS1000 by surface:

MS 1000s on Clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 12 / 18 = 67%
Federer 4 / 15 = 27%

MS 1000s on Hard (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 5 / 29 = 17%
Federer 11 / 29 = 38%

Overall titles: (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 37 / 98 = 38%
Federer 50 / 99 = 51%

Following Clayqueen's suggestion, breakdown of titles by level. (RN / RF)

Majors: 10 / 14
WTF: 0 / 3
Olympics: 1 / 0
MS1000: 17 / 15
250&500: 9 / 17
Total: 37 / 50

Break down of all titles by surface. (Leaving out carpet, which accounts for 1 of Federer's titles)

Overall titles on clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 24 / 32 = 75%
Federer 7 / 23 = 30%

Overall titles on hard
Nadal 10 / 57 = 18%
Federer 33 / 64 = 52%

Overall titles on grass
Nadal 3 / 9 = 33%
Federer 9 / 10 = 90%

 

[mike danny]

Seems pretty fair to me.

And eliminated any notion of weak era since Nadal and Federer pretty much played in the same era against the same opponents

 

[falstaff78]

Seems pretty fair to me.

And eliminated any notion of weak era since Nadal and Federer pretty much played in the same era against the same opponents

Actually, Mike, to eliminate the notion of weak era, one would have to look at the numbers for the same years. Sadly, their peaks did not overlap by too much (2004-2009 vs. 2008-2013). So I compared the overlaps between their major-winning spans (i.e. between 2003-2012 & 2005-2014 = 2005-2012). Here is the analysis.

(iii) Overlap of major-winning span - 2005-2012 for both - i.e. same competition

Majors (won / played / total - participation strike rate / overall strike rate)
Nadal 11 / 29 / 32 = 38% / 34%
Federer 13 / 32 / 32 = 41% / 41%

Weeks at no 1
Nadal 102
Federer 255

WTF (won / played / total - participation strike rate / overall strike rate)
Nadal 0 / 5 / 8 = 0% / 0%
Federer 4 / 8 / 8 = 50% / 50%

MS1000s (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 21 / 61 = 34%
Federer 17 / 60 = 28%

Here's the break-down of MS1000 by surface:

MS 1000s on Clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 16 / 25 = 64%
Federer 4 / 23 = 17%

MS 1000s on Hard (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 5 / 36 = 14%
Federer 13 / 37 = 35%

Overall titles: (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 49 / 138 = 36%
Federer 54 / 133 = 41%

Following Clayqueen's suggestion, breakdown of titles by level. (RN / RF)

Majors: 11 / 13
WTF: 0 / 4
Olympics: 1 / 0
MS1000: 21 / 17
250&500: 16 / 20
Total: 49 / 54

Break down of all titles by surface. (Leaving out carpet, which accounts for 1 of Federer's titles)

Overall titles on clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 35 / 44 = 80%
Federer 6 / 30 = 20%

Overall titles on hard
Nadal 11 / 80 = 14%
Federer 39 / 87 = 45%

Overall titles on grass
Nadal 3 / 14 = 21%
Federer 8 / 14 = 57%

 

[Bartelby]

Yet more statistical confirmation that Nadal is the last, and best, clay court specialist who made an excellent transition to the slow court era.

 

[mike danny]

Actually to correct for strength of competition one would have to look at a common period. I'll run those numbers and post them too.

What do you mean by a common period? They are 5 years apart, which means that their best years never overlapped.

 

[NatF]

What do you mean by a common period? They are 5 years apart, which means that their best years never overlapped.

I assume by common period he'd look at 05-12 e.g. when their dominant periods overlapped.

 

[mike danny]

I assume by common period he'd look at 05-12 e.g. when their dominant periods overlapped.

Nadal wasn't exactly dominant before 2008. And by 2008 Federer started to lose it a bit.

My point still stands. Their most dominant period have never overlapped.

 

[Bartelby]

I think the best methodology would be to take their best continuous six years as a basis of comparison: 2004-9 and 2008-13?

 

[falstaff78]

Nadal wasn't exactly dominant before 2008. And by 2008 Federer started to lose it a bit.

My point still stands. Their most dominant period have never overlapped.

Indeed. The peaks (2004-2009 for Fed and 2008-2013 for Nadal) did not overlap.

But their major-winning spans (2003-2012 for Federer and 2005-2014 for Nadal) overlapped by 8 years. Those numbers are presented in scenario 3.

 

[falstaff78]

I think the best methodology would be to take their best continuous six years as a basis of comparison: 2004-9 and 2008-13?

That is scenario 2. Post #2

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

What do you mean by a common period? They are 5 years apart, which means that their best years never overlapped.

It has nothing to do with age, Nadal best years are closer to Federer's one chronogically wise than to Djokovic ones.

Djoker and Murray are different generation than rafa not because they are so much younger but because they started to peak way later.


And rafa was reaching 2 slam finals a year since 2006.

2006-2009 are 4 out of 6 prime years of roger, no?

and Even in 2005 Rafa won a slam and won double digit titles in different surfaces (and was already 2 in the world)

The primes overlaped vastly , hoever peak is an absolute different thing and sometimes arent even dependant on age but of more complex situations.

I consider Prime Roger anywhere 2003-2012
I consider Prime Nadal anywhere from 2005- 2013

Peak federer 2004-2009
Peak Nadal mid 2007 - mid 2012

Absolute peak federer 2005-2006
Absolute peak nadal Mid 2008- Mid 2009/2010

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I would love to know each of their best win/loss records over 100 consecutive matches, 150 matches, 200 consecutive matches, 250 consecutive matches, 300 consecutive matches, 350 consecutive matches, and 400 consecutive matches.

For example: Federer from July 2005 (after French Open loss to Nadal) to March 2007 (winning Dubai). Federer went 139-6 during that period. What is Nadal's best win/loss record in 145 consecutive matches. How does Federer's best 21 month consecutive period compare to Nadal's Best 21 month consecutive period?

 

[falstaff78]

I would love to know each of their best win/loss records over 100 consecutive matches, 150 matches, 200 consecutive matches, 250 consecutive matches, 300 consecutive matches, 350 consecutive matches, and 400 consecutive matches.

For example: Federer from July 2005 (after French Open loss to Nadal) to March 2007 (winning Dubai). Federer went 139-6 during that period. What is Nadal's best win/loss record in 145 consecutive matches. How does Federer's best 21 month consecutive period compare to Nadal's Best 21 month consecutive period?

Hey are you aware of tennisabstract.com?

For someone with your leanings it would be paradise. Do check it out - it would help you with a lot of your statistical investigations!! With a little bit of work you could totally do this from that website. It's awesome!

 

[falstaff78]

It has nothing to do with age, Nadal best years are closer to Federer's one chronogically wise than to Djokovic ones.

Djoker and Murray are different generation than rafa not because they are so much younger but because they started to peak way later.


And rafa was reaching 2 slam finals a year since 2006.

2006-2009 are 4 out of 6 prime years of roger, no?

and Even in 2005 Rafa won a slam and won double digit titles in different surfaces (and was already 2 in the world)

The primes overlaped vastly , hoever peak is an absolute different thing and sometimes arent even dependant on age but of more complex situations.

I consider Prime Roger anywhere 2003-2012
I consider Prime Nadal anywhere from 2005- 2013

Peak federer 2004-2009
Peak Nadal mid 2007 - mid 2012

Absolute peak federer 2005-2006
Absolute peak nadal Mid 2008- Mid 2009/2010

Hard to do this analysis for parts of the year. So comparing their two best years on tour.

(iv) Absolute Peaks - i.e. 2005-2006 for Federer, 2008 & 2010 for Nadal

Majors (won / played)
Nadal 5 / 8
Federer 5 / 8

Weeks at no 1
Nadal 51
Federer 104

WTF (won / total)
Nadal 0 / 2
Federer 1 / 2

MS1000s (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 6 / 17 = 35%
Federer 8 / 12 = 67%

Here's the break-down of MS1000 by surface:

MS 1000s on Clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 5 / 6 = 83%
Federer 1 / 4 = 25%

MS 1000s on Hard (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 1 / 11 = 9%
Federer 7 / 8 = 88%

Overall titles: (won / played - strike rate)
Nadal 15 / 36 = 42%
Federer 23 / 32 = 72%

Breakdown of titles by level. (RN / RF)

Majors: 5 / 5
WTF: 0 / 1
Olympics: 1 / 0
MS1000: 6 / 8
250&500: 3 / 9
Total: 15 / 23

Break down of all titles by surface. (Leaving out carpet, which accounts for 1 of Federer's titles)

Overall titles on clay (won / played - strike rate):
Nadal 8 / 9 = 89%
Federer 1 / 6 = 17%

Overall titles on hard
Nadal 4 / 23 = 17%
Federer 17 / 20 = 85%

Overall titles on grass
Nadal 3 / 4 = 75%
Federer 4 / 4 = 100%

 

[cknobman]

Your facts don't support my opinions

THEREFORE YOURE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT

 

[Gary Duane]

I don't like to get into "weak era" arguments, but I do think that at the time Fed hit his peak things were less competitive than they became a few years later. I think by the time Nadal truly hit his stride, things became insanely competitive, and even more for Novak and Murray, who simply peaked later.

No matter how you measure Nadal against Fed, there are so many anomalies. Fed's best years were packed together more, Nadal's more spread out. Fed peaked a bit later, Nadal a bit earlier, so that brings (possibly) their peak years closer together. Fed has been nearly injury free, Nadal has been plagued with injuries. Fed's results are more evenly distributed over surfaces, grass, HC outdoors and HC indoors.

Nadal is weaker in being dominant on other surfaces, but as the greatest clay court player ever (I think THAT is fair to say), it makes Fed look weak on clay, when really he is not.

I will say people will be arguing which of these two players was better long after both stop playing.

 

[falstaff78]

I don't like to get into "weak era" arguments, but I do think that at the time Fed hit his peak things were less competitive than they became a few years later. I think by the time Nadal truly hit his stride, things became insanely competitive, and even more for Novak and Murray, who simply peaked later.

No matter how you measure Nadal against Fed, there are so many anomalies. Fed's best years were packed together more, Nadal's more spread out. Fed peaked a bit later, Nadal a bit earlier, so that brings (possibly) their peak years closer together. Fed has been nearly injury free, Nadal has been plagued with injuries. Fed's results are more evenly distributed over surfaces, grass, HC outdoors and HC indoors.

Nadal is weaker in being dominant on other surfaces, but as the greatest clay court player ever (I think THAT is fair to say), it makes Fed look weak on clay, when really he is not.

I will say people will be arguing which of these two players was better long after both stop playing.

Very thoughtful post Gary. Thanks. The numbers do reveal a fascinating picture. That was a great summary.

Regarding strengths of eras, i think tennis fans tend to have much stronger opinions than the data allow. As you mentioned Federer at his peak was essentially an unstoppable force. It's not statistically straightforward to gauge whether the 2004-2006 era was actually weak or just made to look weak because he (and Nadal on clay) never let anyone win majors.

 

[falstaff78]

Your facts don't support my opinions

THEREFORE YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

10char

 

[Russeljones]

I am not sure I agree with the duration of the peaks. I would say that Nadal's peak started and ended earlier. Nadal's 2013 is a little like Federer's 2012 as in they are anomalous events where circumstances coincided to produce an outstanding year for the respective player. This is on the back of less spectacular years or barren periods (in Federer's case).

I have argued earlier that extended periods of lower quality play should lead to a player's prime being discontinued, regardless of what follows. Had Federer won Wimbledon and ended 2014 as world #1, should we say his prime extends to 2014?.

The effort you made definitely deserves praise, I am just not sure if the timeframe under review is producing the results this debate should revolve around.

Will come back with more thoughts on this.

 

[jg153040]

Or it can prove both are playing in a weak era. Sometimes an answer isn't linear in the sense that it always has to be on or the other.

 

[jg153040]

Your facts don't support my opinions

THEREFORE YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe Federer is the goat. FAITH IS EVIDENCE!

 

[Russeljones]

Or it can prove both are playing in a weak era. Sometimes an answer isn't linear in the sense that it always has to be on or the other.

Can we start banning people who use "weak era" in a sentence?

 

[jg153040]

Can we start banning people who use "weak era" in a sentence?

Sure, then you are the first one to go, since you just did it.

Besides, I smart enough to never use era and weak in the same sentence when responding to guys who do this.

 

[falstaff78]

I am not sure I agree with the duration of the peaks. I would say that Nadal's peak started and ended earlier. Nadal's 2013 is a little like Federer's 2012 as in they are anomalous events where circumstances coincided to produce an outstanding year for the respective player. This is on the back of less spectacular years or barren periods (in Federer's case).

I have argued earlier that extended periods of lower quality play should lead to a player's prime being discontinued, regardless of what follows. Had Federer won Wimbledon and ended 2014 as world #1, should we say his prime extends to 2014?.

The effort you made definitely deserves praise, I am just not sure if the timeframe under review is producing the results this debate should revolve around.

Will come back with more thoughts on this.

thanks I'll look forward to it. From a calculation perspective it's now quite easy to do the numbers since I've made a large spreadsheet. Happy to run different scenarios.