Deeper field vs denser top: Which is a tougher draw in a Major?

[kandamrgam]

Let's consider the following draws for a player in a Major:

R1 - opponent rank 128
R2 - opponent rank 100
R3 - opponent rank 600
R4 - opponent rank 50
QF - opponent rank 32
SF - opponent rank 20
F - opponent ATG

vs

R1 - opponent rank 128
R2 - opponent rank 64
R3 - opponent rank 32
R4 - opponent rank 16
QF - opponent rank 10
SF - opponent rank 8
F - opponent rank 4

Which would you consider a tougher draw for a player from the above two? In the first draw, all the opponents are very weak but in the final you get a ATG of the surface. In the second draw, while none of the opponents stand out all of them are reasonably capable.

A practical example:

Nadal's 2013 US Open draw:

R1 - Harrison
R2 - Dutra Silva
R3 - Dodig
R4 - Kohlschreiber
QF - Robredo
SF - Gasquet
F - Djokovic

vs

Federer's 2004 Australian Open draw:

R1 - Bogomolov Jr.
R2 - Morrison
R3 - Reid
R4 - Hewitt
QF - Nalbandian
SF - Ferrero
F - Safin

This is just an example, there is no point in getting into specifics like how well those players played in those years. This just assumes Safin doesn't GOAT in the final whereas Djoker does. Which of the draws deem tougher in that case?

 

[ForumMember]

Whichever way you want to look at it, Nadal winning this GS worth more than Federer winning that Aus open by beating like Safin. That why I always believe 14 > 17 = 12.

 

[NatF]

Assuming the ATG does GOAT it would be that draw - assuming that no one in the second draw really plays above themselves. Though when your draw boils down to one opponent and they don't play up to their real standard that draw becomes very weak. It can't be assumed that the ATG will necessarily play his best or anything close to it on every occasion, I would need a specific example as there's no rule. Generally I would favour depth as generally reaching a slam final requires a certain level of form whether you're an ATG or not IMO.

 

[kandamrgam]

Assuming the ATG does GOAT it would be that draw - assuming that no one in the second draw really plays above themselves. Though when your draw boils down to one opponent and they don't play up to their real standard that draw becomes very weak. It can't be assumed that the ATG will necessarily play his best or anything close to it on every occasion, I would need a specific example as there's no rule. Generally I would favour depth as generally reaching a slam final requires a certain level of form whether you're an ATG or not IMO.

Yes that was the assumption, that ATG does play like ATG. I believe Djokovic did there Just trying to know which draw would people generally prefer, top heavy or deep.

I think a lot of it depends on the player itself. For e.g. players who are more hit or miss like Wawrinka or Soderling would prefer the 1st set of draw, whereas a player like Ferrer would prefer the second set because his average level could be consistently higher than averagely good players. I think Nadal would also prefer the first draw because when he peaks he wouldnt mind much about the opponent in the final but in the second draw his consistency could be exposed by consistent threats. In that respect I think both Federer and Nadal got what they desired

 

[Sysyphus]

Depends too much on form and contingencies for any answer to this question to be too meaningful IMHO.

 

[NatF]

Yes that was the assumption, that ATG does play like ATG. I believe Djokovic did there Just trying to know which draw would people generally prefer, top heavy or deep.

I think a lot of it depends on the player itself. For e.g. players who are more hit or miss like Wawrinka or Soderling would prefer the 1st set of draw, whereas a player like Ferrer would prefer the second set because his average level could be consistently higher than averagely good players. I think Nadal would also prefer the first draw because when he peaks he wouldnt mind much about the opponent in the final but in the second draw his consistency could be exposed by consistent threats. In that respect I think both Federer and Nadal got what they desired

Well we disagree on Djokovic there. **** poor 1st and 4th sets He certainly didn't GOAT. There are also situations where non ATG's can play like ATG's.

I think trying to evaluate draws by using a rule simply misses out too much detail. I think each draw needs to be looked at individually.

 

[kandamrgam]

Well we disagree on Djokovic there. **** poor 1st and 4th sets He certainly didn't GOAT. There are also situations where non ATG's can play like ATG's.

I think trying to evaluate draws by using a rule simply misses out too much detail. I think each draw needs to be looked at individually.

Depends too much on form and contingencies for any answer to this question to be too meaningful IMHO.

Right right. I was trying to see if strength of era/player can be assessed from statistics, of course computers dont get form/level.

 

[Sartorius]

Whichever way you want to look at it, Nadal winning this GS worth more than Federer winning that Aus open by beating like Safin. That why I always believe 14 > 17 = 12.

LOL. Put that in a frame and hang it on your wall, I guess. "This slam is worth more than that one" thing will always be an irrelevant argument, whichever way you want to look at it.

I'll also add, along the lines of @Sysyphus's post, the line of thinking in OP (which is used often, sadly) completely disregards the quality a player brings to the court, whatever his ranking may be. And it's something you can not disregard.

I was trying to see if strength of era/player can be assessed from statistics, of course computers dont get form/level.

I vaguely remember some kind of chart perhaps close to what you imply. Maybe on MTF? Not sure. But it really doesn't mean much, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

14 > 17

Interesting mathematics there, old chap.

 

[metsman]

Fed's AO draw is pretty clearly tougher. Nalbandian probably played as well or better than Djoker did in the 13 USO final. Maybe Hewitt did too. Let's not forget Djoker ate a 6-2 and 6-1 set in the final and was spraying a lot of UFE. Nadal was playing well but he wasn't at his 2010 USO final monster form.

First of all Djoker is not a fast HC ATG. Secondly the problem with relying on one player to provide all the competition is that what happens if that player doesn't show up.

A much better comparison would be Fed's 06 Wimby draw vs say Nadal's 06 Wimby draw where Nadal faced weaker players before the final but a grass GOAT in the finals while Federer faced a slew of quality of players before the final but a somewhat nervous Nadal in the final.