NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm thinking about comparing win/loss records between years for top 20 players across different years. But it would be time consuming.
Federer/Nadal improvement and decline: ATP Matchfacts
- Thread starter NatF
- Start date
I'm thinking about comparing win/loss records between years for top 20 players across different years. But it would be time consuming.
NatF, I'm always down for looking up stats. What would you want me to do with the win-loss records??
2 finals + 4 SFs + 5 Masters >>> 2 finals + 0 semi-finals + 0 Masters.
Only one clown around here I'm afraid and it ain't me baby boy.
Whether I denied it? Why you are so insecure?
They belongs to same tier in terms of clay achievements with almost identical performance at RG which is fact.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Because their results at RG are identical and no other clay tourneys exist
I knew you gonna troll like this. I couldn't care to open those images
Djoko has 0 RG titles , Masters can not separate him from tier of players with 0 RG titles …
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I also have 0 RG titles, which according to your TrollLogic puts me in the same tier as Sampras (and every player ever who didn't win RG).
And while we are at it, I am also in the same HC tier as Borg with his 0 USO and 0 AO record!
Being in the same tier as Borg and Sampras certainly means I am one of the all time greats, no? :lol:
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
So Djokovic is in the same tier as Murray when it comes to clay? :lol: Please just stop.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I want to look at the average win/loss record for the top 20 outside of Federer and Nadal for all the years since they've been winning slams. I can do a little bit of it tomorrow.
How you define tier?
Number of GS titles are primary criterion for deciding tier since they are major tournaments in terms of format, competition.
Masters and other stuff are secondary criterion which generally used for deciding better player between two having identical performance at major tournament.
If Masters are so important as you are hyping then Djokovic would be GOAT candidate easily! :lol:
Fact is Masters tournaments are also significant but they don't define the tier but they define better player having identical performance at Slam.
Are you claiming Djokovic has his separate tier for 4 Masters title or he belongs to tier of players with 1 RG title without winning it because your blind belief? :lol:
Djokovic has very good achievements on clay but he resume lacks clay slam. You can't claim he's good as RG champions without winning it because he has few Masters.
Last edited:
Murray has 0 titles on clay. So he don't deserve place in discussion.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Roland Garros is not the only clay tournament. It's certainly the most important one, and Djokovic has a respectable resume there, with 2 finals and 2 semis.
In terms of clay achievements, I'd easily place him in the same tier as Michael Chang and he's certainly more accomplished on clay than the flukiest RG winner in history, Gaudio.
Your blind belief that winning RG is the only thing that matters is ridiculous. As if one match (RG final) creates an insurmountable gulf between Djokovic and 1-time RG champions.
Last edited:
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Soderling has 0 titles on clay above ATP 250
Last edited:
kOaMaster
Hall of Fame
Excuse me, Murray does not even have a single final on clay. He's 69-41 on clay. That's not exactly good. Or in other words: About as bad or worse than Andy Roddick. Söderling was clearly better. We do not need to compare.
Slam title = Slam title. Fluke is famous word in dictionary of whiners/excuse makers and haters. People will remember him as RG champion, nobody will remember details which is subjective analysis. Try to be objective here.
Don't try to downgrade former RG champions just to cover Djokovic's inability to win it so far.
When you will grasp this tier defined by bunch of players having comparable achievements at Slam
How can you believe Djokovic is as good as RG champions because he has few Masters without winning it? If Djokovic is that good, he would have won it.
It's not surprising to see you Djokovic fans trying to decide tiers according to Masters titles but your logic is flawed since you're purposefully neglecting slam title since Djokovic couldn't win it.
Can you say Murray is as good as Nadal on hard because he has more masters neglecting Nadal's more success at major?
Murray had 8 Masters before winning slam, were you rating him before as good as Hewitt or Roddick as we all rate now?
There is absolutely no logic behind your argument, you just believe it as you want to believe Just to favour Djokovic, no?
Last edited:
Problem is his performance at major tournament on clay is as good as Djokovic's with 2 runs to RG Finals. Imv his runs were more impressive than Djokovic.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
please stop with them facts... it's not doing any good in the perfect fantasies of Talk Tennis
objectivity
Banned
he probably just improved! that wasn't my point at all. i am just rebutting the thesis that 2008 is an anomaly cos he had been dropping for some time.
:lol:
Those bags are destroyed, right? or with WADA's appeal, they suspended decision?
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Your "rebuttal" would have been fine if he had continued declining - the fact is that at the age of 33 he is doing better than when he should have been in his prime. That does not compute and it is more logically consistent that there were extenuating circumstances in 2008.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
It's not a "downgrade" of former RG champions, it's a realistic reassessment of Djokovic's place among them.
Put Gaudio and Chang in this era with Nadal, Fed, and Djokovic himself and they aren't going to win an RG.
Are you purposefully dense, or just a troll?
When evaluating a player's career you look at everything, not just winning majors. When you take into account the masters AND performance at RG you can't conceivably rank Gaudio above Djokovic. The guy never went past the fourth round aside from the time he won it. Djokovic is consistently reaching semis and finals. That doesn't count for anything in your opinion?
If Fed never won RG, would you say he's done nothing on clay in spite of reaching several finals and winning a bunch of other clay titles? No, because that would be idiotic.
Average win-loss of top 20 excluding Federer and Nadal:
2005: 68.0%
2006: 68.1%
2007: 68.0%
2008: 68.9%
2009: 70.4%
2010: 67.6%
2011: 69.3%
2012: 70.8%
2013: 68.9%
2014: 69.6%
It's hard to know whether these numbers are just dependent on the performance of Federer and Nadal, though, instead of representing the strength of the other players. The years below 69% seem to correspond to dominant years of either Federer or Nadal (2005-2007 for Federer and 2008,2010,2013 for Nadal). The 3 best years, 2009, 2012, 2014, were coincidentally Nadal's biggest injury years. 2011 would be higher due to peak Djokovic. Thoughts?
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Better to ignore him. He makes no sense.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Amazing work, cant appreciate enough! Good analysis as well.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Thanks for doing that! Awesome work.
I would suggest removing wins/losses to the Federer and Nadal in years they were #1 - and perhaps Djokovic in his dominant years. Perhaps also just show the top 10.
Could you do 2004 as well?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Well said! Although Novak has actually reached 4 semis at RG as well as 2 finals. :wink:
So basically you're just saying average win-loss records for players from 2-10?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I'm afraid he's just a troll. :|
It is very interesting that Nadal gets "injured" just when the field starts to improve. We all know the real story, though.
Ironically, when the field was the toughest, it was Federer who did the best. Then Djokovic.
You have proven, that Nadal thrives when competition is a bit weaker.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I essentially want to know if the top players these days are winning more than they were before. We've looked at the top 20 (do you have the numbers themselves? I can play around with them myself if you do), now I'd like to see if there's a greater differential for the top 10.
Removing the #1 players impact is to gauge the field, because as you pointed out Federer having a 95% win/loss record is going to impact on the rest of the players. Likewise Novak lost to Rafa something like 5x in 2008 so his record was hurt substantially by having Rafa in one of his best years. If we look at it subtracting the #1 players we might get a better idea of how the top guys were preforming overall.
Might be interesting to look at. I don't expect much variation.
Can we stay civil in one thread please? We're not arguing here.
NatF
Bionic Poster
We can leave the petty BS out of this thread please. I'd actually like to have an intelligent conversation
Average win-loss of players ranked 2-10:
2004: 72.9% (Federer #1)
2005: 74.3% (Federer #1)
2006: 71.8% (Federer #1)
2007: 70.7% (Federer #1)
2008: 73.7% (Nadal #1)
2009: 76.8% (Federer #1)
2010: 72.2% (Nadal #1)
2011: 73.5% (Djokovic #1)
2012: 76.2% (Djokovic #1)
2013: 74.4% (Nadal #1)
2014: 75.1% (Djokovic #1)
3 best years: 2009, 2012, 2014
3 worst years: 2007, 2006, 2010
2012 really was a great year for both the ATP and WTA imo. Nadal missed the second half, but lots of great performances and add the olympics at Wimbledon
I have all the actual numbers if you want them.
Last edited:
Carsomyr
Legend
Not trying to troll or anything, just want an honest opinion: where would you rank the likes of, say, Bruguera compared to Federer? To Djokovic? How do you rank Djokovic compared to Fed on clay?
Sorry, I didn't get the memo
. Ok, in that case, nice work on stats. The difference in stats may also be due to surface changes and not related to player's form at all.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Firstly, there should be many factors to consider when forming an idea based on the above data. But my naive observation goes like whenever Nadal didnt participate in during a sizable part of the tour, the win% of the tour went up. When he did compete all along win% of his best years were 68.9, 68.9, 67.6 while Federer's is 68, 68, 68.1. Tells me the story
You can argue the other way around too!We can leave the petty BS out of this thread please. I'd actually like to have an intelligent conversation
That was me being civil. You don't want to get me on a bad day.
But, ok, now that I got the memo, I have to say that it's hard to make any conclusions from those stats. Because of circularity. Stats depend on how players do vs each other. There is no good way to analyze if the drop in form or increase in form is related to a player or to his opponent playing worse or better.
So, while great work on stats, they seem very useless to me and I can't draw any scientific conclusions.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Average win-loss of players ranked 2-10:
2004: 72.9% (Federer #1)
2005: 74.3% (Federer #1)
2006: 71.8% (Federer #1)
2007: 70.7% (Federer #1)
2008: 73.7% (Nadal #1)
2009: 76.8% (Federer #1)
2010: 72.2% (Nadal #1)
2011: 73.5% (Djokovic #1)
2012: 76.2% (Djokovic #1)
2013: 74.4% (Nadal #1)
2014: 75.1% (Djokovic #1)
3 best years: 2009, 2012, 2014
3 worst years: 2007, 2006, 2010
2012 really was a great year for both the ATP and WTA imo. Nadal missed the second half, but lots of great performances and add the olympics at Wimbledon
I have all the actual numbers if you want them.
Yeah I think 2012 was possibly the strongest year of the recent past.
Could you please post those numbers, include 2-20 players. Interesting that 2007 is the lowest for the top 10.
Firstly, there should be many factors to consider when forming an idea based on the above data. But my naive observation goes like whenever Nadal didnt participate in during a sizable part of the tour, the win% of the tour went up. When he did compete all along win% of his best years were 68.9, 68.9, 67.6 while Federer's is 68, 68, 68.1. Tells me the story
But Nadal participating or not, he doesn't play enough matches vs the tour for him making such a difference.
You really think him playing 20 matches more can offset entire tour by that much? No, it can't. So, it is mathematically and physically impossible for one player to do that much damage.
There was some other reason why the tour has different stats and it doesn't have to do with Nadal.
So, in this case you can't argue both ways. I mean why would serve % of the tour dropped if Rafa is playing in the tour or not? Doesn't make any sense.
We are comparing 20 guys vs 1 guy. One guy can't do that much damage.
Anyway, I think this different percentages are just a coincidence or related to surfaces maybe. Also we have too small sample size. Only top 20 players?
Then things are skewed by not using stats of the same top 20 players, since rankings change too.
I was joking with saying this proves Fed is godly. Stats like that are circular and are useless and can't prove anything.
Anyway, those kind of mental masturbations are for the masses, to delude themselves they are genius or on to something.It's like two guys arguing that the glass is half full or half empty.
Last edited:
This kind of thinking is the problem. This could also be by big 5 declining (Ferrer included), so others in top 20 taking advantage of it. You can argue both ways and stats don't mean anything.
Yeah, I think the 2007 average was mainly hurt by Gonzalez, he basically made top ten due to making the AO final, but his win-loss was 37-24. Also Davydenko ranking number 4 but recording 31 losses!
I think it would be better to email the numbers or something. They would take up a LOT of space.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah some of those guys played a crazy number of tournaments. Do you see any value in these numbers personally?
I'll ask the admin to send you my email.
There's sooo many different factors. I don't think you can go by these numbers alone, tbh. Fun to look at though.
Maybe only counting win-loss in mandatory tournaments could give a clearer picture, but that's another project for another day.
How will I get your email?
Excuses………
So transplanting former champions in current era and drawing conclusion they wouldn't win in current competition makes Djokovic as great as them without winning RG?!
I'm sure quality wise Djokovic > Gaudio, Chang but Tennis evolves every year. You can't expect past pros. to get same success after 10-15 years. Can you see Djokovic dominating same way he's doing now in 2025?
What Gaudio, Chang winning clay slam shows objectively ? That they were better than rest on clay at least for once something Djokovic can't claim, since he wasn't.
Fact is you can't deal with Djokovic's inability to win RG, that's why you're making pathetic attempts to put former RG champions down or trying to hype Djokovic's competition.
How many times you need to be explained now?
It's widely accepted that Slams are primary criterion deciding greatness and Masters, others titles are secondary. So make your stand clear. If you thinks Masters decides tier, then I'm done explaining you.
I ask you one question, please answer objectively.
Player 'A' has 1 slam on particular surface.
Player 'B' has few Masters on that surface and good runs at slam.
Can you say B is greater than A without introducing subjective analysis like Weak/strong Era, fluke champion etc?
Last edited:
Yeah I must be. Every poster not rating Djokovic as high as Mr. Objective D2011 or Chico do deserves label of 'troll' or 'hater'.
It's basically unwritten rule of Tennis forum.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
So basically you're just one of the many "slams are everything" type people on these boards. How tedious.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
This is the average win ratio of the tour outside Fedal. The average excludes the win ratio of Federer and Nadal themselves. It is to measure how good the top guys not named Federer and Nadal were.
It still will suffer from somewhat of circular reasoning, but not much.
It will suffer a lot by circular reasoning. Because it also depends how top 20 do vs themselves.
That's the point. But, hey people can go back to this pseudo-science and make any arguments that suits them to make themselves feel better.
Crazy thing is some people actually really believe those stats prove something.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. Nadal played just 48 matches in 2012. I believe he misses somewhere about 20-40 matches those 3 years. May or may not make difference, I dont know. Show me maths in case you have them?
2. Serve % has nothing to do with the opponent. If at all very less. Consider a better example. This is serious logic fail.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
That is not the circular reasoning here. I dont think NatF was trying to get an absolute measurement of quality and competition. In which case you have a point. He is trying to see how top 20 players of Federer's time and Nadal's time played, relatively. The perspective has to be from Federer's and Nadal's point of view. If top 20 players do bad vs themselves of some period, then it only again proves that top 20 wasnt good enough. Hope you get the point.
Similar threads
