Fed more consistent than Nadal?

[TMF]

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.

If a player win the FO and he skip the tournament for the next 9 years, and then on the tenth year he play and won the FO, does that mean he's the most consistent at this tournament? I don't think so. Had a player played all 9 years and losing in the 1st round is still better not playing.

The point is Nadal has skipped a lot of tournaments and doesn't have many impressive streaks/records as Federer, and even Lendl.

 

[TMF]

No doubt that Federer is way more consistent than Nadal.

Until Nadal collect as many streaks/records as Federer, we can debate.

I don't see the purpose of this thread.

2003 Wimbledon — 2009 French Open Career Grand Slam
Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal

2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 17 titles Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 24 finals Stands alone

2005 Wimbledon — 2007 US Open 10 consecutive finals Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon — 2013 Australian Open 33 semifinals Stands alone

2004 Wimbledon — 2010 Australian Open 23 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2013 French Open 36 consecutive quarterfinals Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 56 consecutive appearances Wayne Ferreira

2004 & 2006–2007 3 years winning 3+ titles Stands alone
2004–2007 & 2009 5 years winning 2+ titles Stands alone
2006–2007 2 consecutive years winning 3+ titles Stands alone
2004–2007 4 consecutive years winning 2+ titles Stands alone
2004–2011 8 consecutive years winning 20+ matches Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon —2012 Wimbledon 5+ titles at 2 different Majors Björn Borg, Pete Sampras
2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 4+ titles at 3 different Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 5+ finals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2013 Australian Open 7+ semifinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2001 French Open — 2013 French Open 9+ quarterfinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2008 US Open 5 consecutive titles at 2 different Majors Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2007 US Open 4 consecutive years of winning the two same Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2007 French Open 2+ consecutive finals at all 4 Majors Ivan Lendl
2003 Wimbledon — 2009 French Open 5+ consecutive semifinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2013 French Open 9+ consecutive quarterfinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2006 Australian Open First 7 finals won Stands alone
2004 Australian Open — 2010 Australian Open 9 hard court titles Stands alone
2008 US Open — 2009 Wimbledon Simultaneous holder of Majors on clay, grass and hard court Rafael Nadal
2006–2007 & 2009 All 4 Major finals in 1 season Rod Laver
2006 French Open — 2009 US Open Runner-up finishes at all 4 Majors Ivan Lendl
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 260 match wins Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 50+ match wins at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 60+ match wins at 3 different Majors Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 135 hard court match wins Stands alone
2006 27 match wins in 1 season Stands alone
2004–2007 & 2009 5 years with match winning percentage of 90%+ Björn Borg
2004 French Open — 2012 US Open 23 No. 1 seeds Stands alone
2004 French Open — 2008 Wimbledon 18 consecutive No. 1 seeds Stands alone
2006 US Open — 2007 French Open 36 consecutive sets won Stands alone
2007 US Open 35 consecutive service points won Stands alone
2009 Wimbledon 50 aces in a final Stands alone
1999 French Open — 2012 US Open 5618 games won Stands alone
2005 Wimbledon — 2007 French Open 2 winning streaks of 25+ matches Stands alone
2005 Wimbledon — 2009 US Open 3 winning streaks of 20+ matches Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2009 US Open 5 winning streaks of 15+ matches Stands alone

Grand Slam tournaments

Australian Open 2004–2010 4 titles overall Andre Agassi
Novak Djokovic
Australian Open 2004–2010 5 finals overall Stefan Edberg
Australian Open 2004–2013 10 semifinals overall Stands alone
Australian Open 2004–2013 10 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
Australian Open 2007 Won title without losing a set Ken Rosewall
Australian Open 2000–2013 68 match wins overall Stands alone
Australian Open 2006–2008 30 consecutive sets won Stands alone
French Open 2006–2009 4 consecutive finals Björn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Rafael Nadal
French Open 2006–2011 4 runner-up finishes overall Stands alone
French Open 2006–2008 3 consecutive runner-up finishes Stands alone
French Open 2005–2009 5 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
French Open—Wimbledon 2009 Accomplished a "Channel Slam": Winning both tournaments in the same year Rod Laver, Björn Borg, Rafael Nadal
Wimbledon 2003–2012 7 titles overall Pete Sampras
Wimbledon 2003–2007 5 consecutive titles Björn Borg
Wimbledon 2003–2012 8 finals overall Stands alone
Wimbledon 2003–2009 7 consecutive finals Stands alone
Wimbledon 2003–2009 7 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
Wimbledon 2005–2006 34 consecutive sets won Stands alone
US Open 2004–2008 5 titles overall Jimmy Connors
Pete Sampras
US Open 2004–2008 5 consecutive titles Stands alone
US Open 2004–2009 40 consecutive match wins Stands alone


Year-End Championship

2003–2011 6 titles overall Stands alone
2002–2012 42 match wins overall Stands alone
2003–2005 14 consecutive match wins Ivan Lendl

ATP Masters 1000 records
2000–2013 280 match wins overall Stands alone
2004–2012 15 hard court titles Stands alone
2005–2006 2 consecutive years winning 4+ titles Stands alone
2002–2011 9 different finals Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
2006 6 finals in 1 season Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
2004–2012 4 Indian Wells Masters titles Stands alone
2002–2007 4 Hamburg Masters titles Stands alone
2005–2012 5 Cincinnati Masters titles Stands alone
2012 Won title without having serve broken or losing a set
(Cincinnati Masters) Stands alone

Other records
2004–2012 302 total weeks at No. 1 Stands alone
2 February 2004 — 17 August 2008 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1 Stands alone
2003–2005 26 consecutive match victories vs. top 10 opponents Stands alone
2005–2006 56 consecutive hard court match victories Stands alone
2003–2008 65 consecutive grass court match victories Stands alone
2003–2005 24 consecutive tournament finals won Stands alone
2001–2013 10+ titles on grass, clay and hard courts Stands alone
2003–2013 13 grass court titles Stands alone
2002–2012 52 hard court titles Stands alone
2006 9 hard court titles in 1 season Jimmy Connors
1998–2013 339 tiebreaks won Stands alone
1999–2013 87.14% (122 - 18 ) grass court match winning percentage Stands alone
1998–2013 82.63% (552–116) hard court match winning percentage Stands alone
2006 94.12% of tournament finals reached in 1 season Stands alone
2004–2008 2 consecutive Olympic games as wire-to-wire No. 1 Stands alone
2004–2012 3 consecutive Olympic games as No. 1 Stands alone
2005–2007 3 consecutive calendar years as wire-to-wire No. 1 Stands alone
2005–2007 3 calendar years as wire-to-wire No. 1 Jimmy Connors
2003–2012 Ended 9 years ranked inside the top 2 Stands alone

2005–2007 2 winning streaks of 35+ matches Björn Borg
2004–2012 7 winning streaks of 20+ matches Stands alone

 

[RidAH]

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.

We are talking about World #1's and multiple GS champions so we don't need to discuss which one is the better player here. For consistency purposes, we assume them to be equal in their best respective periods. That was why the overall level is disregarded.

 

[drm025]

If a player win the FO and he skip the tournament for the next 9 years, and then on the tenth year he play and won the FO, does that mean he's the most consistent at this tournament? I don't think so. Had a player played all 9 years and losing in the 1st round is still better not playing.

The point is Nadal has skipped a lot of tournaments and doesn't have many impressive streaks/records as Federer, and even Lendl.

You can throw all the hypotheticals at me that you want, but no one has skipped 9 years. Nadal has played pretty consistently except for his 7 month break.

Nadal is confident enough in his tennis that he doesn't need to play through injury to rack up titles. When he's healthy he comes back and starts winning again. And no, not only on clay. He won the summer slam last year which neither Fed nor Djokovic has accomplished on their favored surface.

 

[RidAH]

Ok, damnit. I did it again. I have no life.

Grand Slam points Standard Deviation

Roger:
Best 5 year period (2005-2009): 514
Best 8 year period (2005-2012): 639

Roger:
Best 5 year period (2007-2011): 775
Best 8 year period (2005-2012): 818

 

[drm025]

We are talking about World #1's and multiple GS champions so we don't need to discuss which one is the better player here. For consistency purposes, we assume them to be equal in their best respective periods. That was why the overall level is disregarded.

Do we really assume that? Because as far as I'm concerned, Federer was the more consistent player during his peak, while Nadal has been more consistent over his entire career up to this point.

I don't think you'll find anyone assuming that Fed and Nadal have had the same consistency at their peaks.

 

[jg153040]

If a player win the FO and he skip the tournament for the next 9 years, and then on the tenth year he play and won the FO, does that mean he's the most consistent at this tournament? I don't think so. Had a player played all 9 years and losing in the 1st round is still better not playing.

The point is Nadal has skipped a lot of tournaments and doesn't have many impressive streaks/records as Federer, and even Lendl.

The OP also includes Fed's early years not just his prime. He is penalizing Fed for needing time to develop his game.

Which is unfair in my opinion. I mean 23 consecutive semis is impressive, no matter if the other guy also has 23 semis scattered in longer periods.

I also agree with you. I don't like his definition of consistency. I agree that we can't talk about consistency when you lose early or skip tournaments.

The point is one bad day and the streak is gone. You have more pressure.

Also I don't see the point penalizing a guy who develops latter. I mean Djokovic also needed more time to develop compared to Nadal. But his consistency is greater too.

 

[drm025]

Ok, damnit. I did it again. I have no life.

Grand Slam points Standard Deviation

Roger:
Best 5 year period (2005-2009): 514
Best 8 year period (2005-2012): 639

Roger:
Best 5 year period (2007-2011): 775
Best 8 year period (2005-2012): 818

That's for peak level, again, no one is arguing who was more consistent during peak level. This thread is about their whole careers up to this point. You can start another thread if you like, though.

 

[RidAH]

Do we really assume that? Because as far as I'm concerned, Federer was the more consistent player during his peak, while Nadal has been more consistent over his entire career up to this point.

I don't think you'll find anyone assuming that Fed and Nadal have had the same consistency at their peaks.

Oh dear.

Not same consistency. Same baseline performance level. Consistency is what we're trying to find out.

 

[drm025]

The OP also includes Fed's early years not just his prime. He is penalizing Fed for needing time to develop his game.

Which is unfair in my opinion. I mean 23 consecutive semis is impressive, no matter if the other guy also has 23 semis scattered in longer periods.

I also agree with you. I don't like his definition of consistency. I agree that we can't talk about consistency when you lose early or skip tournaments.

The point is one bad day and the streak is gone. You have more pressure.

Also I don't see the point penalizing a guy who develops latter. I mean Djokovic also needed more time to develop compared to Nadal. But his consistency is greater too.

You can look at it as penalizing Fed for developing later or rewarding Nadal for developing sooner. Don't see how Nadal being great as a teenager should get no recognition when comparing him to Fed. This could be evened out by Nadal's later career, though. We will have to wait and see.

 

[RidAH]

That's for peak level, again, no one is arguing who was more consistent during peak level. This thread is about their whole careers up to this point. You can start another thread if you like, though.

Are you kidding me again? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Players are of different age. They mature differently, they peak differently, they decline differently. Since I can't compare Fed's pre-Nadal years, I can't compare their current performances either!!!

edit:

Officially stopping to reply to drm025 now.

 

[drm025]

Oh dear.

Not same consistency. Same baseline performance level. Consistency is what we're trying to find out.

Well either way, why assume, when we have the actual results.... lol.

 

[jg153040]

You can throw all the hypotheticals at me that you want, but no one has skipped 9 years. Nadal has played pretty consistently except for his 7 month break.

Nadal is confident enough in his tennis that he doesn't need to play through injury to rack up titles. When he's healthy he comes back and starts winning again. And no, not only on clay. He won the summer slam last year which neither Fed nor Djokovic has accomplished on their favored surface.

Fed was more consistent at his peak, Nadal was more consistent early years.

But, in overall consistency, Fed still wins. I mean Rafa has what like 25 GS quarter finals? Fed has like double the figure, I think 42.

And don't get me started about WTF consistency.

Ok, maybe only in masters Rafa is close to Fed's consistency, but who cares really. Those are 3rd tier events plus no masters on grass.

 

[drm025]

Are you kidding me again? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Players are of different age. They mature differently, they peak differently, they decline differently. Since I can't compare Fed's pre-Nadal years, I can't compare their current performances either!!!

edit:

Officially stopping to reply to drm025 now.

You can stop replying and get all upset, I'm just trying to have a conversation. I think I've made it pretty clear that Fed was very inconsistent before reaching his prime. At the same time, Nadal matured pretty quickly. This is the major disparity in the numbers I presented in the OP. You can argue that it doesn't matter if you want, but Nadal maturing faster is something he has over Federer. It's just not deniable. Now, this advantage could even out if Nadal is less successful later on in his career. That we will have to wait and see. And that is why I have not concluded that Nadal is the more consistent player. This can't be determined before both players retire.

The purpose of this post was just to show that Nadal has been pretty darn consistent and in some aspects has done better than Federer up to this point. It's something that I found interesting, because it is undisputed that Federer is far and away the more consistent player.

 

[drm025]

Fed was more consistent at his peak, Nadal was more consistent early years.

But, in overall consistency, Fed still wins. I mean Rafa has what like 25 GS quarter finals? Fed has like double the figure, I think 42.

And don't get me started about WTF consistency.

Ok, maybe only in masters Rafa is close to Fed's consistency, but who cares really. Those are 3rd tier events plus no masters on grass.

Rafa has made the quarterfinal stage at a higher percentage than Federer..... You are saying that Fed has many more quarterfinals but hes played over 20 more slams than Nadal. That's why we compare with percentages.

And WTF consistency? Nadal has a winning record against top 8 players on his worst surface... Probably all of these players perform better on indoor hard than Rafa. He's made the final 2 of the 6 times he's played. Not bad. Fed has made 5 finals out of 16 tries at RG, so a slightly lower percentage than Rafa at WTFs.

What about Fed makes you think he is more consistent than Nadal in masters? Lol, thats a new one. Nadal has more titles, more finals, and a better win percentage, while playing less Masters tournaments in his career than Fed.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Fed was more consistent at his peak, Nadal was more consistent early years.

But, in overall consistency, Fed still wins. I mean Rafa has what like 25 GS quarter finals? Fed has like double the figure, I think 42.

And don't get me started about WTF consistency.

Ok, maybe only in masters Rafa is close to Fed's consistency, but who cares really. Those are 3rd tier events plus no masters on grass.

I dont know in what world you live... wtf is closer to m1000 importance than Its to a grandslam. It has been that way for quite a long ago..

 

[jg153040]

You can look at it as penalizing Fed for developing later or rewarding Nadal for developing sooner. Don't see how Nadal being great as a teenager should get no recognition when comparing him to Fed. This could be evened out by Nadal's later career, though. We will have to wait and see.

Even with this included, Fed's consistency is still greater. At least in high tier events like majors and WTF.

Maybe Nadal is close in his consistency only at masters. That would make sense.

That is of course if we use your definition, with which I don't agree.

Consistency for me is that Fed didn't skip any major his entire life or retired from any match. That is godly and no matter how you spin it, Nadal isn't close to this consistency.

For that reason alone, Fed is the greatest. That even with his poor form he still doesn't avoid losses or when tired he still goes deep. And never backs down and skips a major.

I mean, how is this even possible, I don't know.

But, thanks for your thread. The more I think about this, the more I'm in awe here.

Also what makes this even greater is that when you have streaks going, you have pressure.

How can we talk about consistency with Rafa when he is unable to defend a title off clay? When the pressure is the biggest.

Not to mention Fed had extra pressure from chasing history and Sampras. He was called goat from the start before results. Do you realize how much pressure he had to deal with?

You need to look results in context. Tennis isn't just about raw numbers only.

 

[jg153040]

I dont know in what world you live... wtf is closer to m1000 importance than Its to a grandslam. It has been that way for quite a long ago..

No it's not. WTF has more points than GS final. Deal with it. And please don't waste my time with trolling.

 

[jg153040]

Rafa has made the quarterfinal stage at a higher percentage than Federer..... You are saying that Fed has many more quarterfinals but hes played over 20 more slams than Nadal. That's why we compare with percentages.

And WTF consistency? Nadal has a winning record against top 8 players on his worst surface... Probably all of these players perform better on indoor hard than Rafa. He's made the final 2 of the 6 times he's played. Not bad. Fed has made 5 finals out of 16 tries at RG, so a slightly lower percentage than Rafa at WTFs.

What about Fed makes you think he is more consistent than Nadal in masters? Lol, thats a new one. Nadal has more titles, more finals, and a better win percentage, while playing less Masters tournaments in his career than Fed.

Ok, I had enough of this. I don't agree with you. I gave you reasons. Either you accept them or not, I'm done with this, because we are getting nowhere.
And you gave your reasons and I rejected them and gave you my arguments for it.

 

[BringBackSV]

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.

There is more to Rafa struggling at Wimbledon of late than it being "fast", it's as much the low bounce as anything. I'm less interested in the fast vs slow debate, I joined because there was a comparison made that suggested it was harder to win Wimbledon, which is simply not true and the evidence shows that.

BTW, since 2003, Roger has more early exists at the French (the slowest) than he does at Wimbledon and the same is true for Andy Murray. Novak is a wash. So really, we are just talking about Rafa, who is struggling on grass, for a variety of reasons. Your "point" is simply not valid.

 

[Steve0904]

Are you kidding me again? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Players are of different age. They mature differently, they peak differently, they decline differently. Since I can't compare Fed's pre-Nadal years, I can't compare their current performances either!!!

edit:

Officially stopping to reply to drm025 now.

:lol: You're not the only one. Gets tiring really quickly.

 

[jg153040]

There is more to Rafa struggling at Wimbledon of late than it being "fast", it's as much the low bounce as anything. I'm less interested in the fast vs slow debate, I joined because there was a comparison made that suggested it was harder to win Wimbledon, which is simply not true and the evidence shows that.

BTW, since 2003, Roger has more early exists at the French (the slowest) than he does at Wimbledon and the same is true for Andy Murray. So really, we are just talking about Rafa, who is struggling on grass, for a variety of reasons. Your "point" is simply not valid.

Well, if the difficulty is the same, why does Rafa always struggle on grass then? Last three years he won FO, so he was at the top of his game and W is only two weeks after.

Then tell me why did Rafa struggle if you say W doesn't have more upsets.

 

[drm025]

:lol: You're not the only one. Gets tiring really quickly.

To each his own, I'll just continue to be a respectable poster. I don't troll, I don't insult people, just give my opinion and try to back it up with facts. If you get exasperated by me because I don't agree with your opinion, this forum may not be the right place for you.

 

[drm025]

Ok, I had enough of this. I don't agree with you. I gave you reasons. Either you accept them or not, I'm done with this, because we are getting nowhere.
And you gave your reasons and I rejected them and gave you my arguments for it.

Nobody ever gets anywhere on here. Do you think people's opinions are regularly changing? Not really.

Either way, what exactly in the post you quoted are you disputing? You're being too vague. I know you've made arguments in here but they are all just your opinion. Am I just supposed to accept it? Make an attempt to prove it to me with facts. If they are sound facts, I will listen and consider them.

 

[drm025]

Well, if the difficulty is the same, why does Rafa always struggle on grass then? Last three years he won FO, so he was at the top of his game and W is only two weeks after.

Then tell me why did Rafa struggle if you say W doesn't have more upsets.

What has changed more, Nadal from 2006-2011 compared to 2012-2014, or Wimbledon from 2006-2011 compared to 2012-2014? If Wimbledon conditions have remained practically the same, than something about Nadal has resulted in a change in the results. Again, he made 5 straight wimbledon finals when he played from 2006-2011. He has commented on having problems bending his knees to get down low for the bounce at Wimbledon. So, the bounce sounds like a plausible explanation for why he hasn't been as successful.

 

[jg153040]

Nobody ever gets anywhere on here. Do you think people's opinions are regularly changing? Not really.

Either way, what exactly in the post you quoted are you disputing? You're being too vague. I know you've made arguments in here but they are all just your opinion. Am I just supposed to accept it? Make an attempt to prove it to me with facts. If they are sound facts, I will listen and consider them.

Well, yeah one should convince the other one. But after a long time that didn't happen, so what's the point in continuing this?

At one point we have to accept and agree to disagree and move to the next topic.

I mean if we didn't convince each other till now, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

And evidence doesn't matter if we don't agree what consistency means anyway. Numbers can only prove something if we agree about the definition.

No hard feelings or anything, just moving on when it's not productive.

 

[drm025]

Well, yeah one should convince the other one. But after a long time that didn't happen, so what's the point in continuing this?

At one point we have to accept and agree to disagree and move to the next topic.

I mean if we didn't convince each other till now, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

And evidence doesn't matter if we don't agree what consistency means anyway. Numbers can only prove something if we agree about the definition.

No hard feelings or anything, just moving on when it's not productive.

Thats fine with me, if the numbers meant nothing to you also fine. But tell me why specifically. Give me examples like "I see that Rafa has made the final this % and Fed has made this percent %. I don't think it means anything because...." The main reason I got was clay, which again doesn't really make sense since we are talking about all surfaces, and they have both played a significant amount on all surfaces. Then we got a tangent about how its more impressive to be consistent on faster surfaces. It just wasn't relevant. And I didn't steer it that way. But I can only respond to what others post.

 

[RidAH]

One final comment.

Most traditional consistency measures do not work in tennis because a) it is played almost exclusively in cup format and b) it is an individual 1-on-1 sport. You must understand all the implications those points have on a player's career statistics to evaluate performance over time.

 

[jg153040]

Thats fine with me, if the numbers meant nothing to you also fine. But tell me why specifically. Give me examples like "I see that Rafa has made the final this % and Fed has made this percent %. I don't think it means anything because...." The main reason I got was clay, which again doesn't really make sense since we are talking about all surfaces, and they have both played a significant amount on all surfaces. Then we got a tangent about how its more impressive to be consistent on faster surfaces. It just wasn't relevant. And I didn't steer it that way. But I can only respond to what others post.

I told you why. You just didn't listen or don't want to accept. Because firstly they are skewed by not using the same sample size and all losses and wins aren't the same.

Secondly, because I don't agree with your definition of consistency. CYGS vs career slam. Both are 4 wins according to you. But one is consistency, one is not. That is my definition.

Thirdly, I think consistency on faster surfaces is worth more, because more chances for an upset.


I understand your arguments very well, but I disagree. I think you don't interpret numbers very well. Stats are useless without correct interpretation and right definition.

I mean I can say Delpo is more consistent in GS finals than Rafa. After all he has 100% winning rate.

That is a fact. But, without definition of what consistency is and correct interpretation of numbers, this fact is useless.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Well federer is the most consistent tennis player on history, that isnt surprise. But rafa has won the most epic and legendary matches ever. And its said from a rafa fan.

 

[jg153040]

Well federer is the most consistent tennis player on history, that isnt surprise. But rafa has won the most epic and legendary matches ever. And its said from a rafa fan.

Yeah, Nadal is great big match player. Almost never falters.

Which brings me to my point I made earlier. If you didn't read it, here it is.

Maybe Fed's consistency is actually the reason why Nadal is better big match player. Hear me out. Nadal knows he will have less chances, so he is more focused in big matches. Also due to injuries, he never knows when he will be in finals, so he really gives it all.

Fed on the other hand knows his consistency will bring him often to finals. So, maybe he isn't motivated as much as Rafa. He just doesn't see finals as win or die situations.

This is how I feel.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

But this would only be the case if we weighed the surfaces equally.

I would say if we want to look at consistency as a whole across all surfaces, we should consider weighing the worth of all surfaces the same and then average those percentages together.

Clay - 25%
Grass - 25%
Outdoor Hards - 25%
Indoor (Carpet and Hards) - 25%

Take the winning % of each player on each of those surface and multiply them by 0.25 each, and add them together to get a consistency % metric.

The way it is set up now, the skew diminishes the value of Indoors and Grass tremendously due to the sample size.

Lets look at an exaggerated hypothetical:

Player A plays:
10 GC tournaments and wins all going 50-0.
2 HC tournaments, losing in round 1 in both going 0-2
2 CC tournaments, losing in round 1 in both going 0-2
1 Indoor tournaments, losing in round 1 going 0-1

So his win % is 50/55 = 91%


Player B plays:
10 GC tournaments and wins 5, but loses in 5 SF going 40-5.
4 HC tournaments, winning 2 and reaching two SF going 16-2
3 CC tournaments, winning 2 and losing the other in the SF going 13-1
3 Indoor tournaments, winning 1 and losing two in the SF going 11-2

So his win % is 80/90 = 89%

Based on your methodology then Player A is more consistent but the playing sample size is so heavily skewed to grass that his 0% win percentage off grass plays no role and Player B winning the 10 titles, with 10 SF is viewed less consistent than Player A winning 10 titles with 5 1st round exits, and 5 off grass skips.

Alternatively if you use my method what you would get is:

Player A:
100% * 25 = 25
0% * 25 = 0
0% * 25 = 0
0% * 25 = 0
Weighted consistency = 25%

Player B:
40/45 * 25 = 22
16/18 * 25 = 22
13/14 * 25 = 23
11/13 * 25 = 21
Weighted consistency = 88%

Which method do you think more accurately sums up summative hard + clay + grass + indoor performance when comparing consistency of these two players?

drm interested to see what you think about this

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Yeah, Nadal is great big match player. Almost never falters.

Which brings me to my point I made earlier. If you didn't read it, here it is.

Maybe Fed's consistency is actually the reason why Nadal is better big match player. Hear me out. Nadal knows he will have less chances, so he is more focused in big matches. Also due to injuries, he never knows when he will be in finals, so he really gives it all.

Fed on the other hand knows his consistency will bring him often to finals. So, maybe he isn't motivated as much as Rafa. He just doesn't see finals as win or die situations.

This is how I feel.

I beg to disagree, not because the situations are much different than you depict here, but the motivation issue.

Its not about federer or Nadal logic or motivation, but Its about their personalities..

Believe me you dont logically think about the fact you have less or more chances to win or go deep in a turnament and because of that end up playing better/worse, hope everybody could ever manage those situations that easy. IT all goes down to their real personalities, and rafa always came out as the guy who likes challenges and compete more than anyone else.. Rafa wins more often than not because he see it as a big challenge (same as all the biggest contenders in the history of the sport), so he has no problems making the things work out from negative or positive positions, unlike fed who depends more on his game-plan working the way he thought. And there is far more strategy in 5 set matches, because you have to go over way more mental breakdowns which often come along the tiredness of the match, unlike the 3 setters where you can get into automatic pilot mode ( IF things are working same way as you planned) and close it in 2 set.

 

[drm025]

drm interested to see what you think about this

I think all the hypothetical scenarios of really impropable situations that go around on these threads are silly, tbh. This scenario is not relevant to Rafa or Fed. They have both played the majority of their tournaments on hard courts, then clay courts, and grass courts the least. Fed favors hard since he's better there, and Rafa favors clay since he's better there.

I don't care how my system would work for an improbable situation. If these situations existed, then I would change the system.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I think all the hypothetical scenarios of really impropable situations that go around on these threads are silly, tbh. This scenario is not relevant to Rafa or Fed. They have both played the majority of their tournaments on hard courts, then clay courts, and grass courts the least. Fed favors hard since he's better there, and Rafa favors clay since he's better there.

I don't care how my system would work for an improbable situation. If these situations existed, then I would change the system.

I do agree that systems don't need to be catered around improbable hypotheticals, but I was more asking if you think its more fair to use a system that weighs performance across all surfaces evenly or use skewed distributions. Its one thing to use absolute terminology like "X played his most on Y surface and least on Z" but its another to see the actual discrepancy this causes. As you mentioned they have varied distributions of how many matches they played on each surface, so should we not normalize their performances to get equitable weights for all before we say one compensates for the lack of others?

For example let me plug the actual Fed/Nadal values into my system to demonstrate:

Fed:
Hard - 82.5% * 25= 20.6
Clay - 76.4% * 25= 19.1
Grass - 87.3%* 25= 21.8
Indoor - 79.9%* 25= 20

Federer Weighted Consistency: 81.5%


Federer Career Win Percentage: 81.2%


Nadal :
Hard - 78.1%* 25= 19.5
Clay - 93%* 25= 23.3
Grass - 77.9%* 25= 19.5
Carpet - 67% * 25= 16.8

Nadal Weighted Consistency = 79.1%

Nadal Career Win Percentage: 83.7%

When we do this, we see Federer's consistency across all surfaces normalized for equitable distribution only very slightly skews his totals, dropping by 0.3%. Nadal's meanwhile drops 4.6%, when we normalize, and goes from being about 2% above Fed to 2% below Fed.

This is why I think its a bit disingenuous to take his career win % with such a disproportionate amount of his matches being played on clay and state that shows over-all consistency is higher.

The weighted metric more accurately accounts for the type of consistency balance you claim to be looking for, in terms of whether or not performance on a particular surface is enough to compensate for performances on others.

 

[BringBackSV]

Well, if the difficulty is the same, why does Rafa always struggle on grass then? Last three years he won FO, so he was at the top of his game and W is only two weeks after.

Then tell me why did Rafa struggle if you say W doesn't have more upsets.

Rafa doesn't always struggle on grass, he does have 5 finals and two wins at Wimbledon. However, I've already addressed that the low bounce is always a bit of a problem for him. His forehand is not the same weapon without the high bounce.

I wouldn't say that he's looked to be at the top of his game at Wimbledon the last three years, in any match he's played.

Rafa is better on clay than he is grass, that much has been obvious since day one. If your argument is that it's harder for Rafa on grass, that's obviously true since clay is by far his best surface. If your argument is that in general Wimbledon is a harder major to win, that's just not true, as history has shown.

 

[RidAH]

I beg to disagree, not because the situations are much different than you depict here, but the motivation issue.

Its not about federer or Nadal logic or motivation, but Its about their personalities..

Believe me you dont logically think about the fact you have less or more chances to win or go deep in a turnament and because of that end up playing better/worse, hope everybody could ever manage those situations that easy. IT all goes down to their real personalities, and rafa always came out as the guy who likes challenges and compete more than anyone else.. Rafa wins more often than not because he see it as a big challenge (same as all the biggest contenders in the history of the sport), so he has no problems making the things work out from negative or positive positions, unlike fed who depends more on his game-plan working the way he thought. And there is far more strategy in 5 set matches, because you have to go over way more mental breakdowns which often come along the tiredness of the match, unlike the 3 setters where you can get into automatic pilot mode ( IF things are working same way as you planned) and close it in 2 set.

Or maybe Rafa just doesn't get to the big matches when he's off and Roger does... It's all useless speculation.

And actually Fed is the one who can change his plan when things go wrong. Sometimes he's been clearly stubborn (arrogant?) about it though. Rafa changes attacking patterns, but doesn't really have a proper Plan B ever. That's why you find him looking like a deer in the headlights and seeking eye contact from Uncle Toni when an opponent is blasting away.

Rafa simply has a massive, safe weapon at his disposal that enables him to force opponents to aggression beyond their capabilities. His game is built purely on utilizing his forehand to the max and he's doing it very well. In a risk/reward analysis I would say it is the greatest single weapon tennis has ever seen. Yes, the final shot is mostly in opponent's racket, but stats tell the same story from one match to another so it's all about Rafa. And when an opponent is blasting away, it means higher risk and higher risk means that eventually the level will drop. Sometimes it doesn't in 3 set matches and in rare cases not even in 5 set matches, but usually it does. That, however, has nothing to do with Rafa's choices or changes in-play.

And also skewing the stats is of course the mismatch to one-hander BH's (especially Roger's) so Rafa's stats are slightly inflated by the extensive number of Federer's finals appearances. Yes, he's also good enough to win anyone else, but I'd say the mismatch has given him a few Slam titles vs. Fed. That's not to take anything away from Rafa, just pointing out that few of those times someone who lost to Fed might have been able to push Rafa more due to not having such an obvious "handicap". Shoulda, coulda, woulda... I know

I don't care how my system would work for an improbable situation. If these situations existed, then I would change the system.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why this thread is not going anywhere. If you accept a theoretically unsound system (i.e. works only under certain criteria), then you're always free to move the goalposts.

 

[KtM]

OP you also fail to factor in these later years for Federer. You should only compare consistency by comparing Federer up to whatever age Nadal is now.

You MUST compare Federer up to 28 yrs and 2 months old. You MUST.

Compare Federer up to October 2009.


Career 967–224
2014 minus 45-9
2013 minus 45–17
2012 minus 71–12
2011 minus 64–12
2010 minus 65–13
2009 November onwards - minus 7-4

=
670 wins
157 loss

equals at age 28.16 = 81%

So when we remove Federer's record after 28.16 yrs we still find that up to that age Nadal had the advantage.

 

[edberg volleys]

Well federer is the most consistent tennis player on history, that isnt surprise. But rafa has won the most epic and legendary matches ever. And its said from a rafa fan.

That's cool from Nadal- fan. Respect!

I mean, 36 consecutive, min QFs at GS-tournaments speak for themselves! It's NINE (9) years in a row!

 

[drm025]

Or maybe Rafa just doesn't get to the big matches when he's off and Roger does... It's all useless speculation.

And actually Fed is the one who can change his plan when things go wrong. Sometimes he's been clearly stubborn (arrogant?) about it though. Rafa changes attacking patterns, but doesn't really have a proper Plan B ever. That's why you find him looking like a deer in the headlights and seeking eye contact from Uncle Toni when an opponent is blasting away.

Rafa simply has a massive, safe weapon at his disposal that enables him to force opponents to aggression beyond their capabilities. His game is built purely on utilizing his forehand to the max and he's doing it very well. In a risk/reward analysis I would say it is the greatest single weapon tennis has ever seen. Yes, the final shot is mostly in opponent's racket, but stats tell the same story from one match to another so it's all about Rafa. And when an opponent is blasting away, it means higher risk and higher risk means that eventually the level will drop. Sometimes it doesn't in 3 set matches and in rare cases not even in 5 set matches, but usually it does. That, however, has nothing to do with Rafa's choices or changes in-play.

And also skewing the stats is of course the mismatch to one-hander BH's (especially Roger's) so Rafa's stats are slightly inflated by the extensive number of Federer's finals appearances. Yes, he's also good enough to win anyone else, but I'd say the mismatch has given him a few Slam titles vs. Fed. That's not to take anything away from Rafa, just pointing out that few of those times someone who lost to Fed might have been able to push Rafa more due to not having such an obvious "handicap". Shoulda, coulda, woulda... I know



And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why this thread is not going anywhere. If you accept a theoretically unsound system (i.e. works only under certain criteria), then you're always free to move the goalposts.

Thought you were done replying to me.

And yes you can concern yourself with improbable hypotheticals and I will stick with reality.

 

[drm025]

OP you also fail to factor in these later years for Federer. You should only compare consistency by comparing Federer up to whatever age Nadal is now.

You MUST compare Federer up to 28 yrs and 2 months old. You MUST.

Im pretty sure removing the later years will make fed's numbers worse since his early years will be more significant.

 

[KtM]

Im pretty sure removing the later years will make fed's numbers worse since his early years will be more significant.

Check the earlier post I did the footwork.

 

[BringBackSV]

Or maybe Rafa just doesn't get to the big matches when he's off and Roger does... It's all useless speculation.

Is that a serious counter-argument? I'm pretty sure you can do better than that, no?

 

[jg153040]

Rafa doesn't always struggle on grass, he does have 5 finals and two wins at Wimbledon. However, I've already addressed that the low bounce is always a bit of a problem for him. His forehand is not the same weapon without the high bounce.

I wouldn't say that he's looked to be at the top of his game at Wimbledon the last three years, in any match he's played.

Rafa is better on clay than he is grass, that much has been obvious since day one. If your argument is that it's harder for Rafa on grass, that's obviously true since clay is by far his best surface. If your argument is that in general Wimbledon is a harder major to win, that's just not true, as history has shown.

No, history has shown that even while W is harder to win, those players who won 5+ W titles, are just superior players, not that it's easier to win.

If someone does something impossible, that doesn't mean it's easy to do, it means he is special.

Are you saying if 10 people break the world record in swimming, that this proves that it's easy? No, it just proves that we have 10 goats.

If achievement is unique, that doesn't necessary mean it's harder to do it.

Besides those Fedal arguments are moot. Fed has all the records obtained in polarized era, which is even more impressive. At Fed's peak, it was harder to be consistent, upsets happened all the time. When did you see the same four players in semis? Only Fed was the only one in finals all the time across all surfaces.

And when you compare Fed vs his generation. About close to his age, how he distanced himself from them, here you can see greatness.

Nobody dominated his peers so much. Fed is light years ahead. While Rafa let Nole to win too much.

 

[BringBackSV]

No, history has shown that even while W is harder to win, those players who won 5+ W titles, are just superior players, not that it's easier to win.

If someone does something impossible, that doesn't mean it's easy to do, it means he is special.

Are you saying if 10 people break the world record in swimming, that this proves that it's easy? No, it just proves that we have 10 goats.

If achievement is unique, that doesn't necessary mean it's harder to do it.

Besides those Fedal arguments are moot. Fed has all the records obtained in polarized era, which is even more impressive. At Fed's peak, it was harder to be consistent, upsets happened all the time. When did you see the same four players in semis? Only Fed was the only one in finals all the time across all surfaces.

And when you compare Fed vs his generation. About close to his age, how he distanced himself from them, here you can see greatness.

Nobody dominated his peers so much. Fed is light years ahead. While Rafa let Nole to win too much.

You argued that Wimbledon is harder to win because it brings more people into the mix, however if you look at history, the same number of different people are winning Wimbledon as those winning the French (I went back 25 years).

The point that you attempted to make was that Fed's era was tougher because only one guy was particularly consistent but that actually suggests that his era was in fact weaker. There weren't excellent surface specialists and there weren't all surface greats either. In fact, the long time number 2 was a clay court specialist who didn't win a HC GS title until 2009.

Fed had nobody comparable to Novak during his run. Nadal had to deal with Fed while he was coming up and then Novak (who is also somewhat of a tricky style matchup for him) later on. He didn't have a 3-4 year transitional period that Fed enjoyed.

 

[Mayonnaise]

You argued that Wimbledon is harder to win because it brings more people into the mix, however if you look at history, the same number of different people are winning Wimbledon as those winning the French (I went back 25 years).

The point that you attempted to make was that Fed's era was tougher because only one guy was particularly consistent but that actually suggests that his era was in fact weaker. There weren't excellent surface specialists and there weren't all surface greats either. In fact, the long time number 2 was a clay court specialist who didn't win a HC GS title until 2009.

Fed had nobody comparable to Novak during his run. Nadal had to deal with Fed while he was coming up and then Novak (who is also somewhat of a tricky style matchup for him) later on. He didn't have a 3-4 year transitional period that Fed enjoyed.

You speak as if Nadal is an all-surface dominant force :lol:

Nadal racked up most of his Slams beating up on a pathetic Claycourt field, where his biggest competition has been 1-time champion Federer on his worst surface, and 0-time champion Djokovic on his worst surface. You call that strong competition? :lol:

Federer wasn't lucky enough to have a 10-year vacuum on his best surface.

 

[jg153040]

You argued that Wimbledon is harder to win because it brings more people into the mix, however if you look at history, the same number of different people are winning Wimbledon as those winning the French (I went back 25 years).

The point that you attempted to make was that Fed's era was tougher because only one guy was particularly consistent but that actually suggests that his era was in fact weaker. There weren't excellent surface specialists and there weren't all surface greats either. In fact, the long time number 2 was a clay court specialist who didn't win a HC GS title until 2009.

Fed had nobody comparable to Novak during his run. Nadal had to deal with Fed while he was coming up and then Novak (who is also somewhat of a tricky style matchup for him) later on. He didn't have a 3-4 year transitional period that Fed enjoyed.

Sorry, we need to end this. I don't argue with people who don't know what circular reasoning is.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

You speak as if Nadal is an all-surface dominant force :lol:

Nadal racked up most of his Slams beating up on a pathetic Claycourt field, where his biggest competition has been 1-time champion Federer on his worst surface, and 0-time champion Djokovic on his worst surface. You call that strong competition? :lol:

Federer wasn't lucky enough to have a 10-year vacuum on his best surface.

And federer defeated in grass 1 times wimbledon champion ******* (hardcourt specialist from murrika), slam mug philly-***** and claycourter nadal, no ? You kill yourself with your arguments mayo.

 

[Mayonnaise]

And federer defeated in grass 1 times wimbledon champion ******* (hardcourt specialist from murrika), slam mug philly-***** and claycourter nadal, no ? You kill yourself with your arguments mayo.

Federer beat Wimbledon champions like:
Hewitt
Nadal
Murray
Djokovic

Nadal beat French Open champions like:
Federer

:lol: That's it :lol:

 

[jg153040]

And federer defeated in grass 1 times wimbledon champion ******* (hardcourt specialist from murrika), slam mug philly-***** and claycourter nadal, no ? You kill yourself with your arguments mayo.

I played my friend at table tennis. I won.

But we can't agree on something. I claim that I won because he is weak player and I don't get the credit.

But he claims he is very strong player and that I won because I'm good and that I should get the credit.

Who is right? Am I better than him or is he worse than me? Is glass half empty or half full?