Fed more consistent than Nadal?

[jg153040]

So what we're discussing is whether your hypothesis could be true if we were able to measure it by controlling for all other factors in a match. But we can't..... So, I don't really see the point, if it doesn't have a measurable effect.

I decide whether to agree or disagree based on facts.

I thought we can measure it. We can measure speed of the ball.

We can also demonstrate that faster courts make more upsets. Which doesn't prove this theory, but it would be hell of a coincidence to just dismiss it.

I mean Rafa having the only one 9 RG titles is too small sample size. But we can demonstrate that upsets on faster surfaces are known for years and for more players.

Ok, if you disagree with this, how do you explain so many upsets on faster courts?

 

[drm025]

Of course matches are irrelevant. I can prove CYGS is harder without any actual matches being played. Those are the odds. I don't need to throw the dice to prove that you have the same chance to hit 1 or 6.

About your last point. You need luck to win 1 W title, that's why it's so tougher to win several. Because odds of having that kind of luck are lower the more matches you play.

I mean you really have problems here. You argue that because it's luck to win one coin toss, that it takes less skills to win 100 in a row. That doesn't make any sense. Because if something is luck it takes more skills to replicate this.

I mean hitting a net cord is luck, but that is why hitting a net cord every point is considered such a great skill.

By your reasoning a guy who wins every point by net cord is lucky. How come you claim something so opposite? And you said you are a scientist and making experiments in a lab?

Wait, so winning a coin toss once is luck. But winning 100 coin tosses in a row makes it skill? After 5 times or so, do I start to become psychic? Winning a coin toss can never be more than luck, unless you yourself are flipping the coin and found a way to toss it so that it consistently lands on one side. THAT would be skill.

And yes, netcords are lucky and multiple netcords are lucky. Unless someone is purposely trying to hit the top of the net, then it is lucky. If someone gets multiple netcords in a game, everyone's reaction, commentators and fans, is that the player got lucky.

 

[drm025]

You still haven't answered if you agree or disagree. I believe this means that you agree, but are doing your best to avoid admitting it at this point. Asking for proof for a mathematical fact is grasping at straws, buddy! And, yes, it is a fact that increasing the SD of a distribution increases the number of observations at its extremes. Or rather extends the tails to reach new extremes. However you wanna look at it...

...or you can disagree and point out where my logic fails me. But we don't need history data for this discussion.

I said I choose to agree or disagree based on observable facts. You have not provided any, so I don't have any basis for agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[drm025]

I thought we can measure it. We can measure speed of the ball.

We can also demonstrate that faster courts make more upsets. Which doesn't prove this theory, but it would be hell of a coincidence to just dismiss it.

I mean Rafa having the only one 9 RG titles is too small sample size. But we can demonstrate that upsets on faster surfaces are known for years and for more players.

Ok, if you disagree with this, how do you explain so many upsets on faster courts?

I think you must feel that if you say something it makes it true. You say that there are more upsets on faster courts. Just show me some facts, and I could maybe agree with you. To keep this relevant, I'm interested in the period from 2003 to the present. I don't care whether upsets were more likely in the 90's. That has no affect on the players today.

 

[BringBackSV]

Ok, Fed being also upset early in 2013. How about Murray this year? How about Djokovic being upset in 2009?

Let us just compare RG finals vs W finals. Only 4 different finalists in RG final.
But on grass we had Fed, Rafa, Nole, Murray, Berdych, Roddick. 6 different finalists in last years.

Also the fact that Rafa was upset is also a huge indicator. How about so many new semi finalists this year? Kyrgios, Dimitrov. Or Janowicz semi in 2013?

And this is just basic stuff. How come you don't see a trend. And even if it weren't the case, that still doesn't disprove that it's tougher on faster surfaces.

Fact is that for example CYGS is tougher to win than career slam. Because it's less likely. But even if there are more CYGS winners that career slam winners that still doesn't dispute that fact. It's irrelevant. Odds are the same no matter what.

The same for faster surfaces. It's tougher to win. When more people win, it just means more people are that good. It doesn't mean it's easier to win.

I mean if 10 people match the world record in swimming, that doesn't mean it makes this record easier to win. It's the same. But of course since math works and that is very unlikely, of course we won't have that much record holders. So, this works.

Novak made it to the third round of the FO in 2009, so what's your point exactly? Novak was an inconsistent player at that point. Andy Murray has also been inconsistent this year and losing to Dimitrov was not much of an upset. How many top ten players has he beaten this season? Roger was 31 years old and inconsistent in 2013. Roger lost to Gulbis this year at the French Open in the 4th round, is that not an upset?

If you look at the amount of different winners at the FO and Wimbledon over the last 25 years, there are as many different winners at the FO as there are at Wimbledon. So if Wimbledon was really producing so many upsets, that shouldn't be the case.

Fed, Novak, Nadal, Soderling, Ferrer, that's 5 different finalists in the past 5 years. This is despite the fact that Rafa has been there all 5 years. If you look at Wimbledon, there have been 5 different finalists also. Even if you go back another year, it's 5-6. Again, what you are suggesting is not really supported by evidence.

I will note that yes, fast low bouncing surfaces might make top players a little more uncomfortable but what I'm pointing out is that the results at Wimbledon and the FO are pretty much what you'd expect.

 

[The_Order]

Likewise, Becker made 7 Wimbledon finals, Connors made 6 Wimbledon finals, and Mac made 5 Wimbledon finals, and for you to not even consider that they dominated the major is also very strange.

But you don't think they dominated either so what point are you trying to make here?

You said you need 8+ titles to have dominated. Now you're making a case that guys with 3 titles and a bunch of finals dominated?

Hahahaha. Your whole reasoning has backfired you troll.

 

[The_Order]

So, when you don't understand the proof, you insult me?

I have demonstrated, but it's not my fault if you don't or don't want to understand.

Insult? No, no, I call you a clown because your posts are funny.

You have not provided one grain of proof that it is harder to win on faster surfaces, all you have provided was your opinion.

I provided my opinion that it is harder to win on slower surfaces and gave my reasoning.

But as usual, the precious federinas like yourself get offended because Roger fails on slow surfaces compared to Rafa.

 

[RidAH]

I said I choose to agree or disagree based on observable facts. You have not provided any, so I don't have any basis for agreeing or disagreeing.

I gave you a list of observable facts that logically support my position. You haven't addressed that nor my mathematical reasoning. You have to do that first before you can ask for further proof.

You can refuse to answer, but I'll take that as an admission of defeat as per generally accepted rules of a proper debate (You have to address what I say, not digress).

fakedit:

I did it. As rankings were too hard to find I figured the number of unseeded players in QF's should work as well.

In 2000-2014, the number of unseeded players (of which qualifiers;wild cards) in quarter finals is:

RG: 14 (0;0)
Wimbledon: 23 (2;2)

With such an great difference, this is very much the proof that faster surface allows underdogs to win more. Also against the argument is the fact that clay is the only surface to have specialists. So even with low-ranked clay specialists boosting the numbers, they're not even at 2/3 of Wimby.

 

[jg153040]

Insult? No, no, I call you a clown because your posts are funny.

You have not provided one grain of proof that it is harder to win on faster surfaces, all you have provided was your opinion.

I provided my opinion that it is harder to win on slower surfaces and gave my reasoning.

But as usual, the precious federinas like yourself get offended because Roger fails on slow surfaces compared to Rafa.

Sorry, I thought you were trolling and that you agree with me. I didn't think I needed to provide proof for such basic facts.

Are you saying you actually don't agree with this basic fact? Come one, I know you are trolling.

Nobody can possibly claim that winning on faster courts is harder. It's like claiming Earth is flat.

But if you were serious, I can't help you. Because anyone who doesn't believe this basic facts, probably won't even understand the proof anyway.
As a lot of people here demonstrated. But, you sound intelligent, so I thought you were trolling me I still do. No way you can think the opposite.

 

[The_Order]

Sorry, I thought you were trolling and that you agree with me. I didn't think I needed to provide proof for such basic facts.

Are you saying you actually don't agree with this basic fact? Come one, I know you are trolling.

Nobody can possibly claim that winning on faster courts is harder. It's like claiming Earth is flat.

But if you were serious, I can't help you. Because anyone who doesn't believe this basic facts, probably won't even understand the proof anyway.
As a lot of people here demonstrated. But, you sound intelligent, so I thought you were trolling me I still do. No way you can think the opposite.

So why the hell are you doing it then?

 

[jg153040]

Insult? No, no, I call you a clown because your posts are funny.

You have not provided one grain of proof that it is harder to win on faster surfaces, all you have provided was your opinion.

I provided my opinion that it is harder to win on slower surfaces and gave my reasoning.

But as usual, the precious federinas like yourself get offended because Roger fails on slow surfaces compared to Rafa.

I never get offended. But, I see that it's a waste of time arguing with you. You don't want proof. You decided in advance that Fed is bad and Rafa is good. No matter what anyone says, you won't change your mind. You demonstrated this.

You do realize, that my argument actually hurts Fed? I have to admit now that Pete's 7 W is superior. Maybe some of his other titles too, since surfaces were faster. But hey even if it hurts, the reality doesn't want to listen to me. I need to conform my beliefs to reality. Not the other way around.

But, look I get how you feel. We humans are wired that we don't want to accept the truth if it feels bad. It's tough to do it. Needs a lot of practice.
So, even if I don't agree with you, I 100% understand why you refuse to give in even if you are wrong. It's not your fault. We are wired this way and it takes a lot of training to deflect this.

So, while I don't agree with you, I really do understand you and your motivation.

 

[jg153040]

So why the hell are you doing it then?

I made a mistake. I meant the opposite. It should read: Nobody can possibly claim that winning on faster courts is not harder.

My language has different double negatives, so I skipped not.

 

[drm025]

I gave you a list of observable facts that logically support my position. You haven't addressed that nor my mathematical reasoning. You have to do that first before you can ask for further proof.

You can refuse to answer, but I'll take that as an admission of defeat as per generally accepted rules of a proper debate (You have to address what I say, not digress).

fakedit:

I did it. As rankings were too hard to find I figured the number of unseeded players in QF's should work as well.

In 2000-2014, the number of unseeded players (of which qualifiers;wild cards) in quarter finals is:

RG: 14 (0;0)
Wimbledon: 23 (2;2)

With such an great difference, this is very much the proof that faster surface allows underdogs to win more. Also against the argument is the fact that clay is the only surface to have specialists. So even with low-ranked clay specialists boosting the numbers, they're not even at 2/3 of Wimby.

Finally, you provide something. It' definitely interesting, but since Wimbledon apparently changed speeds after 2001, I'd really only be interested from 2003 on, when Fed started winning. Also, I'd like to see how it compares to all the majors.

 

[jg153040]

Novak made it to the third round of the FO in 2009, so what's your point exactly? Novak was an inconsistent player at that point. Andy Murray has also been inconsistent this year and losing to Dimitrov was not much of an upset. How many top ten players has he beaten this season? Roger was 31 years old and inconsistent in 2013. Roger lost to Gulbis this year at the French Open in the 4th round, is that not an upset?

If you look at the amount of different winners at the FO and Wimbledon over the last 25 years, there are as many different winners at the FO as there are at Wimbledon. So if Wimbledon was really producing so many upsets, that shouldn't be the case.

Fed, Novak, Nadal, Soderling, Ferrer, that's 5 different finalists in the past 5 years. This is despite the fact that Rafa has been there all 5 years. If you look at Wimbledon, there have been 5 different finalists also. Even if you go back another year, it's 5-6. Again, what you are suggesting is not really supported by evidence.

I will note that yes, fast low bouncing surfaces might make top players a little more uncomfortable but what I'm pointing out is that the results at Wimbledon and the FO are pretty much what you'd expect.

First of all you are wrong. Upsets do happen more on faster surfaces than slower. Your sample size was too small. You just used finalists and two slams.
What about other surfaces and tournaments and all rounds?

Ridah has demonstrated that more upsets are on faster surfaces.

But even if it were not, that doesn't disprove my theory. It just mean there is some other explanation for this.

Let's say I claim winning career slam is easier than CYGS. That doesn't mean that if it were more CYGS winners, that it disproves my theory. It just means that it's still statistically harder, just we have some other explanations.

Let me give you an example. I claim winning a coin toss is 50/50 chance. But now if we find out that most people get heads 100 in a row, that doesn't disprove 50/50 chance. It just means that maybe all people are cheating, not that the odds don't apply.

So, we get more upsets on faster courts, you are wrong here. Also even if it weren't the case, that still doesn't disprove the odds of winning on slower courts are higher, therefore it's easier. It's the structure of the game.

Like if I throw a coin and I win 100 times in row, it doesn't disprove 50/50 odds.

But I don't know why I need to explain this basic facts to smart people like you. What gives? Why don't you want to accept simple facts here?

 

[drm025]

I gave you a list of observable facts that logically support my position. You haven't addressed that nor my mathematical reasoning. You have to do that first before you can ask for further proof.

You can refuse to answer, but I'll take that as an admission of defeat as per generally accepted rules of a proper debate (You have to address what I say, not digress).

fakedit:

I did it. As rankings were too hard to find I figured the number of unseeded players in QF's should work as well.

In 2000-2014, the number of unseeded players (of which qualifiers;wild cards) in quarter finals is:

RG: 14 (0;0)
Wimbledon: 23 (2;2)

With such an great difference, this is very much the proof that faster surface allows underdogs to win more. Also against the argument is the fact that clay is the only surface to have specialists. So even with low-ranked clay specialists boosting the numbers, they're not even at 2/3 of Wimby.

Now that you're in my domain of providing facts, you may have a little to learn.

Looking at unseeded quarterfinalists at each slam from 2003 on:

AO: 9
RG: 11
Wimby: 18
USO: 7

Looks good, but these numbers need adjusting. Some of these unseeded players are former quarterfinalists at that particular slam. So, therefore, that is hardly a random player breaking through. If we adjust, the numbers are:

AO: 8
RG: 10
Wimby: 13
USO: 7

The difference is small, and there is no correlation to court speed, with the USO having the lowest number, and RG having the second highest. If 3 more random players are breaking through at Wimbledon compared to the French Open over 12 years, that's not very significant to me. Maybe you may have a point when we look at the 90's, but that's not relevant to this thread.

While your hypothesis may be correct, the court speeds clearly aren't different enough for it to really matter.

 

[RF-18]

Two things separated Fed from Nadal.

1. Fed has been blessed with near PERFECT health his entire career and hasn't had to miss any extended time or slam opportunities. While Nadal had to endure injuries and time away from the game at the peak of his Powers in 2009 and later on.

2. Nadal has had to beat Fed,Murrray, Djoker to win damn near ALL 14 of his slams. And Peak Djoker stopped him as well.

WHile Fed had a nice little vacation cream cakewalk by coming along at the perfect time during a transitional era with Old Sampras era holdover Agassi, and pre prime Nada/Djoker.

Are you a dumb blonde?

Nadal gets more injuries cause of his playstyle. He doesn't have the skills or offensive that he can avoid running thousand miles every match while federer, with his talent, can controll his opponent and not run and grind as much.

your logic is like a 7 year old

 

[RidAH]

Now that you're in my domain of providing facts, you may have a little to learn.

Looking at unseeded quarterfinalists at each slam from 2003 on:

AO: 9
RG: 11
Wimby: 18
USO: 7

Looks good, but these numbers need adjusting. Some of these unseeded players are former quarterfinalists at that particular slam. So, therefore, that is hardly a random player breaking through. If we adjust, the numbers are:

AO: 8
RG: 10
Wimby: 13
USO: 7

The difference is small, and there is no correlation to court speed, with the USO having the lowest number, and RG having the second highest. If 3 more random players are breaking through at Wimbledon compared to the French Open over 12 years, that's not very significant to me. Maybe you may have a point when we look at the 90's, but that's not relevant to this thread.

While your hypothesis may be correct, the court speeds clearly aren't different enough for it to really matter.

Are you kidding me? Exclude past quarterfinalists? Why not future ones too? Ridiculous. What you're doing is cherry picking and it's the opposite of sound statistics. You're skewing the data towards your own agenda and throwing objectivity away with it. If the players are good enough, they'll be seeded. End of discussion.

 

[drm025]

Are you kidding me? Exclude past quarterfinalists? Why not future ones too? Ridiculous. What you're doing is cherry picking and it's the opposite of sound statistics. You're skewing the data towards your own agenda and throwing objectivity away with it. If the players are good enough, they'll be seeded. End of discussion.

Haha, dont you get that grass court specialists will struggle to be ranked high seeing as the amount of grass tournaments is so low? I mean I thought we were talking about major upsets and random players breaking through? How is a former quarterfinalist getting to the quarters a major upset? Lol, so because safin and hewitt made wimbledon quarters when not ranked top 32, that means the surface lends itself to huge upsets? Come on, man.

 

[TMF]

Finally, you provide something. It' definitely interesting, but since Wimbledon apparently changed speeds after 2001, I'd really only be interested from 2003 on, when Fed started winning. Also, I'd like to see how it compares to all the majors.

Actually 2003 Wimbledon was faster and lower bounce than 2008 Wimbledon. Grass and other surfaces got slow enough that help Nadal's game.

http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

 

[RidAH]

Haha, dont you get that grass court specialists will struggle to be ranked high seeing as the amount of grass tournaments is so low? I mean I thought we were talking about major upsets and random players breaking through? How is a former quarterfinalist getting to the quarters a major upset? Lol, so because safin and hewitt made wimbledon quarters when not ranked top 32, that means the surface lends itself to huge upsets? Come on, man.

No. You're just constructing a straw man argument since the numbers showed that fast courts allow underdogs to win more. No one was talking about "major upsets" or anything. You invented it. This thread was about Rafa vs. Fed consistency and the numbers show that stringing together grass wins is harder than clay wins because more underdogs find their way into QF's.

And btw, seeding does not equal ranking. If there would some crazy grass specialists they would be seeded. However, clay is the only surface to have true specialists. Four weeks of grass would need an idiot to specialize on. Those who succeed on today's grass have a balanced or attacking game and can adapt. In other words, they are versatile.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hands down Federer was/is more consistent than Nadal. Get back to me when Nadal has 36 consecutive QFs.

 

[Mustard]

Hands down Federer was/is more consistent than Nadal. Get back to me when Nadal has 36 consecutive QFs.

But Nadal has won majors for 10 years in a row, and counting. That's more than anyone in the open era.

 

[BringBackSV]

First of all you are wrong. Upsets do happen more on faster surfaces than slower. Your sample size was too small. You just used finalists and two slams.
What about other surfaces and tournaments and all rounds?

Ridah has demonstrated that more upsets are on faster surfaces.

But even if it were not, that doesn't disprove my theory. It just mean there is some other explanation for this.

Let's say I claim winning career slam is easier than CYGS. That doesn't mean that if it were more CYGS winners, that it disproves my theory. It just means that it's still statistically harder, just we have some other explanations.

Let me give you an example. I claim winning a coin toss is 50/50 chance. But now if we find out that most people get heads 100 in a row, that doesn't disprove 50/50 chance. It just means that maybe all people are cheating, not that the odds don't apply.

So, we get more upsets on faster courts, you are wrong here. Also even if it weren't the case, that still doesn't disprove the odds of winning on slower courts are higher, therefore it's easier. It's the structure of the game.

Like if I throw a coin and I win 100 times in row, it doesn't disprove 50/50 odds.

But I don't know why I need to explain this basic facts to smart people like you. What gives? Why don't you want to accept simple facts here?

We are comparing RG to Wimbledon. First of all, I used the same time period you JUST finished using where you claimed there were 6 different finalists at Wimbledon to 4 (though it is actually 5). Secondly, I went back 25 years and you still find a similar number of champions over that period so to say that the sample isn't big enough, is a joke. Hey, you want to go back 50 years, will that make you feel better?

I don't recall Ridah demonstrating anything, rather listing reasons for his/her opinion. Admittedly I haven't read every post in this thread but again, I haven't seen it.

You claim that even if the results show your claim to be false, that doesn't disprove your "theory". Actually, that's exactly what it does. No offense but the rest of your post was just a waste of time.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But Nadal has won majors for 10 years in a row, and counting. That's more than anyone in the open era.

That just means that Nadal is greater than Federer, in that he has been able to show a higher level for a longer period.. but out and out consistency, as in, every slam, every year, Federer has been the more consistent (not better, but more consistent) of the two until recently.

 

[TMF]

But Nadal has won majors for 10 years in a row, and counting. That's more than anyone in the open era.

And during those 10 years, how many years did he had 90+ winning percentage? Only one.

 

[BringBackSV]

And btw, seeding does not equal ranking. If there would some crazy grass specialists they would be seeded. However, clay is the only surface to have true specialists. Four weeks of grass would need an idiot to specialize on. Those who succeed on today's grass have a balanced or attacking game and can adapt. In other words, they are versatile.

Perhaps this is a matter of how you define "specialist" but how does clay have specialists (of any relevance anyway) in a way that HC does not? Grass rewards aggressive play even more than HC or clay obviously but nobody is winning titles (any big ones) in today's game without a versatile game, it's not something that is exclusive to any particular surface.

 

[BringBackSV]

Obviously Fed is more consistent across all surfaces than Nadal, not sure how that can be disputed.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Federer has played 1200 matches

Nadal has played 840 matches.

Can we look at how consistent Nadal is when he reaches 1200 ?

1191 vs 839, you are adding 9 extra matches to fed and only 1 to rafa :evil:

 

[drm025]

No. You're just constructing a straw man argument since the numbers showed that fast courts allow underdogs to win more. No one was talking about "major upsets" or anything. You invented it. This thread was about Rafa vs. Fed consistency and the numbers show that stringing together grass wins is harder than clay wins because more underdogs find their way into QF's.

And btw, seeding does not equal ranking. If there would some crazy grass specialists they would be seeded. However, clay is the only surface to have true specialists. Four weeks of grass would need an idiot to specialize on. Those who succeed on today's grass have a balanced or attacking game and can adapt. In other words, they are versatile.

"The numbers show that fast courts allow underdogs to win more." Maybe if you ignore that the numbers have little to no statistical difference. You can't just call every unseeded player the underdog. Who was Hewitt the underdog against at 2009 Wimbledon? Ginepri? no. Del Potro who had a 2-2 record at Wimbledon? no. Petzschner? no. Stepanek? Don't think so. But according to you the former Wimbledon champ and 4-time quarterfinalist making the quarters in 2009 is proof that faster surfaces allow underdogs to win more?

The seeding at Wimbledon doesn't differentiate from ranking very much except for the top players. Because, news flash, only the top players are winning on grass, just like every other surface.

Was Nadal a versatile player when he made the Wimbledon final in five straight appearances?

 

[drm025]

Obviously Fed is more consistent across all surfaces than Nadal, not sure how that can be disputed.

More consistent across all surfaces, meaning that his performance on all surfaces is more similar. More consistent overall is a different story, though. When they are actually playing, Nadal has made it deeper more consistently across his entire career up to this point. This doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, but interesting to me nonetheless.

 

[jg153040]

We are comparing RG to Wimbledon. First of all, I used the same time period you JUST finished using where you claimed there were 6 different finalists at Wimbledon to 4 (though it is actually 5). Secondly, I went back 25 years and you still find a similar number of champions over that period so to say that the sample isn't big enough, is a joke. Hey, you want to go back 50 years, will that make you feel better?

I don't recall Ridah demonstrating anything, rather listing reasons for his/her opinion. Admittedly I haven't read every post in this thread but again, I haven't seen it.

You claim that even if the results show your claim to be false, that doesn't disprove your "theory". Actually, that's exactly what it does. No offense but the rest of your post was just a waste of time.

No, we are comparing faster vs slower surfaces. Yes, if more or less people win something that doesn't prove anything about being it harder to win or not. It has to do with faster ball promoting less margins, therefore making it harder to win. You have less window to distance yourself.

Sorry, if you believe it was waste of time, but this was the key point. Correlation is not proof. The fact that more people win something has nothing to do with being it harder or easier to win. It just means there are other reasons for that.

Besides, you didn't demonstrate that that both surfaces have equal number of upsets. BUT, even if I demonstrate which I did that more upsets happen on faster surfaces, that still doesn't prove my theory. It could be other reasons for that. But the fact that it's harder to win there remains.

I can give you other possible reasons for skewed results, which nobody has even proven that they are skewed. I mean when did Fed or Rafa lose early at non W? And it happened 4 times last years. And even early rounds they play so more close matches on grass than on clay. This fact alone proves the margins being lesser.

But, even if I demonstrated this, this just proves more upsets happen on grass. Is that because there is harder to win there? We don't know. It could be, but there could be other reasons. For example some people being more motivated there and try harder because it's W. But it still doesn't changes the fact it's harder to win there.

 

[jg153040]

"The numbers show that fast courts allow underdogs to win more." Maybe if you ignore that the numbers have little to no statistical difference. You can't just call every unseeded player the underdog. Who was Hewitt the underdog against at 2009 Wimbledon? Ginepri? no. Del Potro who had a 2-2 record at Wimbledon? no. Petzschner? no. Stepanek? Don't think so. But according to you the former Wimbledon champ and 4-time quarterfinalist making the quarters in 2009 is proof that faster surfaces allow underdogs to win more?

The seeding at Wimbledon doesn't differentiate from ranking very much except for the top players. Because, news flash, only the top players are winning on grass, just like every other surface.

Was Nadal a versatile player when he made the Wimbledon final in five straight appearances?

In any case, we are in the wrong direction. Even if I demonstrate that more upsets happen on grass, this is irrelevant. This would be only correlation and not proof. Then the question would be, do players get upset more there because it's harder to win, or are there other reasons? It's a good guess that this is the reason, but still not a proof. I don't think you can get proof for mathematical theory.

I mean how will you demonstrate that you have 50/50 chances to win a coin toss? We can't throw a coin till the end of time. But let's say millions of people throw a coin, and we get skewed results. Does this disprove mathematical theory?

Wanting proof for mathematical theory is really grasping lol.

 

[jg153040]

Ok, I'm going to end this discussion. We are going nowhere.
Too many bias here. People decided in advance that their hero is better, so I'm wasting my time here.

Let's go back to original topic. I guess, I don't have the same definition of consistency as the op. If you skip tournaments, we can't talk about better consistency for me. Period.

But, for the op CYGS and career slam means that both guys have the same consistency. CYGS winner and career slam winner. After all both won 4 majors. No, one is consistency, one is longevity. Then you talk about Nadal converting more chances than Fed. That isn't consistency to me either, it's just higher conversion rate. Also winning 5 in a row vs winning 7 titles. Still, this is not consistency. This is domination.

OP, you didn't answer me. What is your definition of consistency? For me uninterrupted streaks are consistency.

 

[helloworld]

Fed is more consistent than Nadal, but Nadal is a much better big match player than Fed, hence Nadal has far better conversion rate than Fed in slams.

 

[jg153040]

Fed is more consistent than Nadal, but Nadal is a much better big match player than Fed, hence Nadal has far better conversion rate than Fed in slams.

This sounds about right.

And wow, you just gave me a good idea. Maybe that's why Rafa has better conversion rate. He knows he has fewer chances, so he knows he has to use them more, therefore better big match player.

But Fed is so used to easy path to finals, that he knows he will give himself more chances, so maybe he doesn't feel like his life depends on converting.

Think about it when you play computer games. When you have one life or when you can save and load.

 

[drm025]

In any case, we are in the wrong direction. Even if I demonstrate that more upsets happen on grass, this is irrelevant. This would be only correlation and not proof. Then the question would be, do players get upset more there because it's harder to win, or are there other reasons? It's a good guess that this is the reason, but still not a proof. I don't think you can get proof for mathematical theory.

I mean how will you demonstrate that you have 50/50 chances to win a coin toss? We can't throw a coin till the end of time. But let's say millions of people throw a coin, and we get skewed results. Does this disprove mathematical theory?

Wanting proof for mathematical theory is really grasping lol.

The more and more you flip a coin, the closer and closer the distribution will be to 50/50, that is proof. If one person throws everytime, or you use the same coin everytime, you are introducing bias into the system. This may skew the data, but even then you will approach 50/50.

Either way, I'm not disagreeing that fast court tennis can be more unpredictable, but I am arguing that its not affecting federer and nadal, so its not relevant. The slam results of this era show no significant difference.

 

[drm025]

Fed is more consistent than Nadal, but Nadal is a much better big match player than Fed, hence Nadal has far better conversion rate than Fed in slams.

When playing, Nadal is better at winning, making the final, making the semis, making the quarters, and making the round of 16. Doesnt really have to do with big matches. It has to do with all matches. Fed was very inconsistent before 21 or so, that is what is hurting him here. Of course Fed was more consistent in his peak, but im talking about their entire career.

 

[conway]

But Nadal has won majors for 10 years in a row, and counting. That's more than anyone in the open era.

Nadal's longevity is superior to Federer's.
Federer's consistency is better overall than Nadal's.

 

[drm025]

Nadal's longevity is superior to Federer's.
Federer's consistency is better overall than Nadal's.

You mean fed's consistency at his peak right?

Also I dont feel nadals longevity is better at all. He's just able to beat all of the top players. Fed has struggled since 2007 ended.

 

[jg153040]

The more and more you flip a coin, the closer and closer the distribution will be to 50/50, that is proof. If one person throws everytime, or you use the same coin everytime, you are introducing bias into the system. This may skew the data, but even then you will approach 50/50.

Either way, I'm not disagreeing that fast court tennis can be more unpredictable, but I am arguing that its not affecting federer and nadal, so its not relevant. The slam results of this era show no significant difference.

I think it affects them. Because being consistent on faster courts is much harder and consistency on faster courts has more value.

Also, I'm asking this the fourth time, can you define what is consistency, please?

Who is more consistent by your definition? A guy who wins career slam or CYGS?

 

[drm025]

I think it affects them. Because being consistent on faster courts is much harder and consistency on faster courts has more value.

Also, I'm asking this the fourth time, can you define what is consistency, please?

Who is more consistent by your definition? A guy who wins career slam or CYGS?

Nadal has made wimbledon finals in 5 straight appearances, he has only copied this at RG. Fed had made 7 straight wimbledon finals, his longest streak at any slam. I dont see it affecting them....

Consistency will be defined differently for everyone. A lot of people will factor skipping tournaments into consistency, for example, but I think it has nothing to do with how consistent you are when playing. Of course if you play more, you have more chances to lose, but you also have more chances to win, so this is the trade off.

I think being consistently good is determined by win-loss percentage and how often you are making it deep in tournaments.

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal has made wimbledon finals in 5 straight appearances, he has only copied this at RG. Fed had made 7 straight wimbledon finals, his longest streak at any slam. I dont see it affecting them....

Consistency will be defined differently for everyone. A lot of people will factor skipping tournaments into consistency, for example, but I think it has nothing to do with how consistent you are when playing. Of course if you play more, you have more chances to lose, but you also have more chances to win, so this is the trade off.

I think being consistently good is determined by win-loss percentage and how often you are making it deep in tournaments.

Players take a break or skip when they dont feel well and know they would lose.

They dont skip when they are in great form and good health.

So, skipping a tournament is a 1R loss.

 

[jg153040]

Nadal has made wimbledon finals in 5 straight appearances, he has only copied this at RG. Fed had made 7 straight wimbledon finals, his longest streak at any slam. I dont see it affecting them....

Consistency will be defined differently for everyone. A lot of people will factor skipping tournaments into consistency, for example, but I think it has nothing to do with how consistent you are when playing. Of course if you play more, you have more chances to lose, but you also have more chances to win, so this is the trade off.

I think being consistently good is determined by win-loss percentage and how often you are making it deep in tournaments.

But that's just it. If surface doesn't affect things, why don't they have both same number of titles on both surfaces? Why don't all players have same results on all surfaces?

So, if you are consistent on a surface with more upsets, that is even more impressive.

But, ok let's drop this for the sake of the argument and just use raw numbers like there is only one tennis surface.

I guess this is where problem was. Just people have different definitions for consistency. So, we were arguing in vain. The problem weren't your number, but what the definition of consistency is.

Ok, if we use your definition. You said win/loss %. There are a lot of problems here. We need the same sample size. So, we need to use only numbers for the matches Nadal played.

Also, are all losses equal? One guy can be 28-100 in a season and will win CYGS. His win % is terrible. One guy can be 100-4, but he loses in first rounds of all grand slams. Can you say that a guy with CYGS is inconsistent in this case?

I guess the best way to see their consistency by your definition is to use only matches Nadal played. So, you use only for their first 952 matches. I think this many matches is how Rafa played. Then we combine all ranking points they earned in those matches.

That will show real numbers.

 

[conway]

You mean fed's consistency at his peak right?

Also I dont feel nadals longevity is better at all. He's just able to beat all of the top players. Fed has struggled since 2007 ended.

Nadal has gone a 10 year period where he never went more than 12 months between slam wins. Federer won slams over a 10 year period too, but went 2.5 years between his 2nd last and last slam wins (unless he wins another, which would still be another huge break), showing he wasn't a consistent factor at the top anymore, as Nadal has continued to always be ever since early 2005. Nadal had 2 of his 3 best years ever in 2008 and 2013. Yes I think Nadal's longevity is easily better.

As for consistently over a whole career, not just prime or peak years, it is too early to determine that. Right now Federer with his quarterfinal and semifinal streaks has the edge though.

 

[RidAH]

Players take a break or skip when they dont feel well and know they would lose.

They dont skip when they are in great form and good health.

So, skipping a tournament is a 1R loss.

But that's just it. If surface doesn't affect things, why don't they have both same number of titles on both surfaces? Why don't all players have same results on all surfaces?

So, if you are consistent on a surface with more upsets, that is even more impressive.

But, ok let's drop this for the sake of the argument and just use raw numbers like there is only one tennis surface.

I guess this is where problem was. Just people have different definitions for consistency. So, we were arguing in vain. The problem weren't your number, but what the definition of consistency is.

Ok, if we use your definition. You said win/loss %. There are a lot of problems here. We need the same sample size. So, we need to use only numbers for the matches Nadal played.

Also, are all losses equal? One guy can be 28-100 in a season and will win CYGS. His win % is terrible. One guy can be 100-4, but he loses in first rounds of all grand slams. Can you say that a guy with CYGS is inconsistent in this case?

I guess the best way to see their consistency by your definition is to use only matches Nadal played. So, you use only for their first 952 matches. I think this many matches is how Rafa played. Then we combine all ranking points they earned in those matches.

That will show real numbers.

Skipping is actually worse than a first round loss. It's zero points. All other things equal, player with those losses is the more consistent player. And that is why win-% is not a relevant measure of consistency.

Since we're comparing Rafa & Fed we don't need to factor in the absolute performance level because they're both tier 1 champions and GOAT candidates. This means we can analyze their points from suitable periods (to control for maturation/peak age... something like the best 7-8 seasons from both...?) and simply see which player has more variance in the points gathered in slams or slams+masters adjusting with 0 points for tournaments not entered unless of course playing another smaller tournament that week.

I'm not gonna bother with this one myself.

 

[drm025]

Players take a break or skip when they dont feel well and know they would lose.

They dont skip when they are in great form and good health.

So, skipping a tournament is a 1R loss.

If it was a 1R loss, than their win-loss for the tournament is 0-1. Not playing is a win-loss of 0-0. So, no, it is not the same and a first round loss is worse. Even for ranking points outside of masters and slams, 0 points are awarded for a first round loss. So, the points lost from skipping a masters or slam are lost because you are skipping a mandatory tournament, not because skipping is worse than a 1R loss.

 

[TMF]

If it was a 1R loss, than their win-loss for the tournament is 0-1. Not playing is a win-loss of 0-0. So, no, it is not the same and a first round loss is worse. Even for ranking points outside of masters and slams, 0 points are awarded for a first round loss. So, the points lost from skipping a masters or slam are lost because you are skipping a mandatory tournament, not because skipping is worse than a 1R loss.

Not playing is worse than losing in early round if one is measuring player's consistency.

 

[drm025]

Skipping is actually worse than a first round loss. It's zero points. All other things equal, player with those losses is the more consistent player. And that is why win-% is not a relevant measure of consistency.

Since we're comparing Rafa & Fed we don't need to factor in the absolute performance level because they're both tier 1 champions and GOAT candidates. This means we can analyze their points from suitable periods (to control for maturation/peak age... something like the best 7-8 seasons from both...?) and simply see which player has more variance in the points gathered in slams or slams+masters adjusting with 0 points for tournaments not entered unless of course playing another smaller tournament that week.

I'm not gonna bother with this one myself.

See post #247 regarding skipping.

You have a point about the variance if we are simply talking about consistency meaning who has results that are most similar.

I guess what I actually meant was being consistently good, as opposed to just consistent. More like who is more consistently making it deep in a tournament.

 

[drm025]

Not playing is worse than losing in early round if one is measuring player's consistency.

A player can't play inconsistently if they are not playing....

A player can have inconsistent health, but doesn't really have to do with the level of their tennis while playing.

 

[ultradr]

Federer's consistency is something really stands out compared to past GOAT candidates, especially 2004-2007.