Federer/Nadal improvement and decline: ATP Matchfacts

[kandamrgam]

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?

My analysis is here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8783500&postcount=116. Thought it could be of help.

 

[D.Nalby12]

So basically you're just one of the many "slams are everything" type people on these boards. How tedious.

You're singing this tune because Djokovic is failing to receive at biggest stage of Tennis? :lol:

So in your opinion Djokovic must be tier 1 great based on 'suitable' criterion which you will gonna turn as Djokovic's career goes?

If Djokovic fails to 10-11 majors=> Slams aren't what matters the most. He's still better than tier 2 based on other achievements.

and if Djokovic makes it to 11 slam => He's tier one great, since he has as much slams as Borg. He's better than Lendl based on more slams titles!

I know your double standards! Either way you're winner. :lol:

 

[NatF]

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?

No of course not. I'd never suggest just using these numbers. I do however think it is a useful metric to look at. Mandatory tournaments might be interesting to see but not necessarily better.

I will contact the admin and they will pass my email along to you.

 

[kandamrgam]

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?

There is a bit of circular reasoning in your stats. Even though we are excluding matches against Fedal, if Fedal make it deep into tournaments that will naturally mean rest of the pros are playing one less round. Which will affect their win-loss ratio. I did an example like this one and tried to negate that effect. Can you see it and see if you can do something along that lines? Here's the relevant part and I quote:

b. In tournaments where both players met Rafa, the player who met in earlier round is in an unfair position. In such cases I will exclude their results against Rafa. The problem doesn't end there. Let’s take RG 2008 for example. Nole met Rafa in semis, so if I ignore it, Nole’s record will be 5/5 (5 wins in 5 matches). But since Roger met Rafa in the final and by the same measure Roger’s record is 6/6. This skews the result in favour of Roger since he gets one more non-Rafa match and hence his "overall" percentage improves. So I count Roger’s record too as 5/5. In other words, in a tournament where both participated and one happened to meet Rafa in Round X, then I will include results of both players only up to X – 1. The two other cases are Hamburg 2008 and Madrid 2009.

I admit its going to extremely complicated and almost meaningless when you end up with the final stat since you will have to ignore results of a lot of matches.

 

[jg153040]

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.

If they do bad vs themselves it can also mean they are stronger, tougher to beat each other. It can mean both and there is no way to know. Or maybe 3 players decline in the top 20 and other 17 take advantage of it. Or combinations of anything.

I hope you get the point. Maybe top 20 did worse because others in top 80 got better. Not that top 20 did better.

I can't explain it more clearly. It's simple.

 

[jg153040]

No of course not. I'd never suggest just using these numbers. I do however think it is a useful metric to look at. Mandatory tournaments might be interesting to see but not necessarily better.

I will contact the admin and they will pass my email along to you.

It's useless metric. Because top 20 can be better cuz other top 80 decline.

Or it could be some luck, that one year top 20 play vs their worse matchups a lot of matches. Coincidences happen. Also it could also be related to surface speed or using faster or slower balls at random in some tournaments. Also top guys participating in different tournaments on their worse surfaces more.

 

[kandamrgam]

You're singing this tune because Djokovic is failing to receive at biggest stage of Tennis? :lol:

So in your opinion Djokovic must be tier 1 great based on 'suitable' criterion which you will gonna turn as Djokovic's career goes?

If Djokovic fails to 10-11 majors=> Slams aren't what matters the most. He's still better than tier 2 based on other achievements.

and if Djokovic makes it to 11 slam => He's tier one great, since he has as much slams as Borg. He's better than Lendl based on more slams titles!

I know your double standards! Either way you're winner. :lol:

Is the '12' in your name your age?

 

[NatF]

It's useless metric. Because top 20 can be better cuz other top 80 decline.

Or it could be some luck, that one year top 20 play vs their worse matchups a lot of matches. Coincidences happen. Also it could also be related to surface speed or using faster or slower balls at random in some tournaments. Also top guys participating in different tournaments on their worse surfaces more.

The chances of the entire top 100 outside of the top 20 declining are remote.

 

[jg153040]

So basically you're just one of the many "slams are everything" type people on these boards. How tedious.

No, slams aren't everything. Slam finals and slam streaks are important too .

 

[jg153040]

The chances of the entire top 100 outside of the top 20 declining are remote.

They don't have to be entire top 20. Only 20 out of top 80 can decline.

So, chances of players between top 40 and top 20 to decline or improve are exactly the same as top 20 improving or declining.

I thought that was simple and obvious.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Djokovic2011 said he'd take Novak's career over Nadal's because his masters record is more balanced. He didn't even consider the fact that Nadal's slam record is more diverse. He'll literally take any little crumb he can. Not objective at all and the second biggest Djokovic troll behind Chico.

He's worse than Chico Imv.

 

[kandamrgam]

If they do bad vs themselves it can also mean they are stronger, tougher to beat each other. It can mean both and there is no way to know. Or maybe 3 players decline in the top 20 and other 17 take advantage of it. Or combinations of anything.

I hope you get the point. Maybe top 20 did worse because others in top 80 got better. Not that top 20 did better.

I can't explain it more clearly. It's simple.

1. If they do bad themselves, chances are their win% goes down since top 21 and above will dominate them, all relatively. So it affects their strength. I dont see any circular reasoning here. We are not strictly restricting calculating performance of top 20 vs among themselves.

2. The second one is a better argument, ie case of circular reasoning. But as NatF says the chances of quality of top 21-100 showing such drastic change is negligible. Any scientific analysis does these kinds of guesstimations.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Is the '12' in your name your age?

Why you are trying to be over smart? Doesn't look that so dumb?

 

[jg153040]

1. If they do bad themselves, chances are their win% goes down since top 21 and above will dominate them, all relatively. So it affects their strength. I dont see any circular reasoning here. We are not strictly restricting calculating performance of top 20 vs among themselves.

2. The second one is a better argument, ie case of circular reasoning. But as NatF says the chances of quality of top 21-100 showing such drastic change is negligible. Any scientific analysis does these kinds of guesstimations.

But what if only players between 40 and 20 improve/decline. Chances are the same as top 20 improving/declining.

So, maybe players between 40 and 20 declined a bit. Or not. It could be either, we can't know. That's the point.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic2011 said he'd take Novak's career over Nadal's because his masters record is more balanced. He didn't even consider the fact that Nadal's slam record is more diverse. He'll literally take any little crumb he can. Not objective at all and the second biggest Djokovic troll behind Chico.

I've never said any of this so you're clearly a blatant liar. :roll:

 

[D.Nalby12]

It's quality, not quantity. More balanced resume of Nole and being better indoor, grass and HC vs tougher competition owns billion clay titles vs weak competition. Those are phantom titles. Rafa is just a paper champ.

I can win 50 clay titles too, if I can choose my opponents lol.

Paper champ, really?

How can you prove Rafa has poor competition and Noel has tough? They both played in same era, against same set of players.

 

[jg153040]

Paper champ, really?

How can you prove Rafa has poor competition and Noel has tough? They both played in same era, against same set of players.

I can prove it based on my faith. Faith is evidence.

 

[jg153040]

I've never said any of this so you're clearly a blatant liar. :roll:

But you have thought about it.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I've never said any of this so you're clearly a blatant liar. :roll:

Don't worry mate, you've been caught trolling 'Red Hands' hundreds of times before. Above really makes little difference in your image.

 

[jg153040]

Don't worry mate, you've been caught trolling 'Red Hands' hundreds of times before. Above really makes little difference in your image.

When did he troll? I've never seen him trolling once.

 

[kandamrgam]

But what if only players between 40 and 20 improve/decline. Chances are the same as top 20 improving/declining.

So, maybe players between 40 and 20 declined a bit. Or not. It could be either, we can't know. That's the point.

No, that's the point. Which you are not getting. Chance of no.1 of one era being different from that of another era is high. It's lesser when you take top 10. It's even lesser when you take top 20. It's even more when you take top 80, and so on. Like Rank 1000 to 2000 is more stable than Rank 0-1000 across eras. Get the point?

 

[kandamrgam]

I've never said any of this so you're clearly a blatant liar. :roll:

Both are troll legends. There is one more to join the party, hope he will.

Best to ignore!

 

[jg153040]

No, that's the point. Which you are not getting. Chance of no.1 of one era being different from that of another era is high. It's lesser when you take top 10. It's even lesser when you take top 20. It's even more when you take top 80, and so on. Like Rank 1000 to 2000 is more stable than Rank 0-1000 across eras. Get the point?

So, the chances of Federer being the goat are much higher than any other player being the goat, since it's much less likely for entire era be worse.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[kandamrgam]

So, the chances of Federer being the goat are much higher than any other player being the goat, since it's much less likely for entire era be worse.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[jg153040]

You think you are so clever. It's so cute. Ok, let's pretend you owned me. You sure do need it more than me. Your ego needs a boost.

 

[NatF]

They don't have to be entire top 20. Only 20 out of top 80 can decline.

So, chances of players between top 40 and top 20 to decline or improve are exactly the same as top 20 improving or declining.

I thought that was simple and obvious.

There isn't a steep enough drop off between players at those sort of ranks for me to believe there couldn't be significant decline from one year to the next.

Some of those players will be replaced by improving players etc...I doubt it's particularly significant. This is just something interesting to look at not a 'proof'.

 

[jg153040]

There isn't a steep enough drop off between players at those sort of ranks for me to believe there couldn't be significant decline from one year to the next.

Some of those players will be replaced by improving players etc...I doubt it's particularly significant. This is just something interesting to look at not a 'proof'.

Ok, then I agree. It's fun to look at it and juggle numbers for some people, but we can't draw any conclusions.

I guess, go and enjoy it. You are right. It's like watching a movie. Doesn't prove anything, but it's fun to do it.

Sorry, for disturbing the fun. Just ignore me and continue enjoying.

 

[jm1980]

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?!

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.

"Hype" Djokovic's competition? You can't be serious. Nadal is the undisputed Clay GOAT. There's no need to hype him any further. Federer is a pretty good clay courter himself, and would have won multiple RGs without Rafa.

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?

The question is, what else has Player 'A' done on that particular surface? Did he consistently reach the later rounds in the Slam? Did he win at least a few other significant tiles on the surface? If yes, then sure, Player 'A' is greater than Player 'B'.

 

[D.Nalby12]

"Hype" Djokovic's competition? You can't be serious. Nadal is the undisputed Clay GOAT. There's no need to hype him any further. Federer is a pretty good clay courter himself, and would have won multiple RGs without Rafa.

Why Nadal became 'Clay GOAT'? Wasn't Djokovic's inability to beat him at RG since 2011 played pivotal role in inflating Nadal's clay resume? If Djokovic has won multiple RG since entering his prime instead of getting schooled by Old Man, jumping on net on crucial point, double faulting on match points, I'm sure Nadal wouldn't get same status on clay.

Data can be interpreted either way, we can play this game all the day. Better thing you can do here just to deal with the fact Djokovic wasn't good enough. No need cover him.

The question is, what else has Player 'A' done on that particular surface? Did he consistently reach the later rounds in the Slam? Did he win at least a few other significant tiles on the surface? If yes, then sure, Player 'A' is greater than Player 'B'.

I disagree but it's your opinion so I'm OK with it.

Imv. GS champion is greater than Masters winner. Quality wise player with more consistency and Masters titles might be better. Masters don't define greatness, slam does. Are you getting my point? Nobody will say Djokovic was great clay courter because he has few Masters after 20-25 years, same can't be said for slam champion.

 

[Gary Duane]

Thanks for the work. Here are the best years of Rafa on clay statistically then,

1. 2012 - 89% Service Games Won, 47% Return Games Won = 136
2. 2008 - 84% Service Games Won, 51% Return Games Won = 135
3. 2007 - 87% Service Games Won, 45% Return Games Won = 132
3. 2010 - 91% Service Games Won, 41% Return Games Won = 132
5. 2005 - 84% Service Games Won, 46% Return Games Won = 130
6. 2009 - 85% Service Games Won, 43% Return Games Won = 128
7. 2011 - 83% Service Games Won, 44% Return Games Won = 127
7. 2014 - 83% Service Games Won, 44% Return Games Won = 127
9. 2013 - 87% Service Games Won, 38% Return Games Won = 125
10. 2006 - 84% Service Games Won, 40% Return Games Won = 124

Weird. I've been doing the same thing, and I have been totally ignored...

When you add these two stats every point is important. Note that the highest numbers are in 2008, at age 22, then 2012 at age 26. That falls into the "sweet spot" for men, close to age 25.

Scores drop in 2013. 2014 will probably be the last year close to 130.

Serve tends to improve over time, returns drop. Best year for serve was 2010, best year for return was 2008. Both stats will probably drop in 2015.

 

[Gary Duane]

Great thread! Thank you for these stats. This show how Fed declined after 2007, he clearly lost some power in his groundstrokes

Look at the stats again, look at the year he won 51% of his return games.

 

[Gary Duane]

How did you compute these averages? Did it take into consideration the number of games/matches played into those years, or was it a simple average?

% of service holds + % of return games won.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think peak Soderling on clay might be better than Djokovic.

Ouch...

10 chars...

 

[Gary Duane]

Why Nadal became 'Clay GOAT'?

That may be the stupidest question I've ever seen on this forum...

 

[D.Nalby12]

That may be the stupidest question I've ever seen on this forum...

If Djokovic would've beaten him multiple times at RG since entering his prime, you still would have called Nadal 'Clay Goat'? Now looking back, it's very easy draw conclusions but Nadal wasn't born with his clay status.

Try to read complete argument before making fool of yourself.

 

[kandamrgam]

Weird. I've been doing the same thing, and I have been totally ignored...

When you add these two stats every point is important. Note that the highest numbers are in 2008, at age 22, then 2012 at age 26. That falls into the "sweet spot" for men, close to age 25.

Scores drop in 2013. 2014 will probably be the last year close to 130.

Serve tends to improve over time, returns drop. Best year for serve was 2010, best year for return was 2008. Both stats will probably drop in 2015.

Oh sorry about that. But yeah Nadal's return % in 2008 is unreal. That's like saying you cant hold two consecutive games against me. Imagine if he had the heavier serve he developed later in his career.

His serve stats generally went up as years rolled on. But as you say that is the general trend with pros I believe. Your return games % drop as you lose movement.

 

[kandamrgam]

If Djokovic would've beaten him multiple times at RG since entering his prime, you still would have called Nadal 'Clay Goat'? Now looking back, it's very easy draw conclusions but Nadal wasn't born with his clay status.

Try to read complete argument before making fool of yourself.

How many times is multiple times? I read the complete argument, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[vernonbc]

If Djokovic would've beaten him multiple times at RG since entering his prime, you still would have called Nadal 'Clay Goat'? Now looking back, it's very easy draw conclusions but Nadal wasn't born with his clay status.

Did you just start watching tennis a couple of years ago? At 16 years old Rafa was beating Top 10 ranked guys on clay courts. He has the longest surface winning streak in history at 81 matches (on clay). He's the only guy to win the clay slam in one year, let alone in his career - MC, Rome, Madrid and then FO. He's the only guy to win 9 trophies at one slam, the FO. His record at the FO is 66-1. His winning percentage on clay is 93%, Djokovic's is 78.3%. In what delusional world is Novak going to beat Rafa multiple times at RG?

Yes, Rafa is the Clay Goat. He is without a doubt the King of Clay.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Did you just start watching tennis a couple of years ago? At 16 years old Rafa was beating Top 10 ranked guys on clay courts.

By this logic Borna kid must be future indoor GOAT, since he beat World No 3 at age of 17 in straights. He even has set points for bagel.

He has the longest surface winning streak in history at 81 matches (on clay). He's the only guy to win the clay slam in one year, let alone in his career - MC, Rome, Madrid and then FO. He's the only guy to win 9 trophies at one slam, the FO. His record at the FO is 66-1. His winning percentage on clay is 93%, Djokovic's is 78.3%. In what delusional world is Novak going to beat Rafa multiple times at RG?

Yes, Rafa is the Clay Goat. He is without a doubt the King of Clay.

Incredible records. I hope he retires with all trophies he has won so far. Above are records in 2014 not 2010 or before.

You couldn't understand my argument. He wasn't clay GOAT in 2010 or before. He still had great resume but not GOATworthy, right?

My point was if Djokovic would have prevented him winning RG since he came to prime (2011), Nadal wouldn't get same status on clay. He was close to do that in 2013.

So Djokovic's inability to beat Nadal at RG inflated Nadal's clay resume, right?

Would you like to blame Djokovic for not stopping Nadal or excuse him for having great competition? That's your personal interpretation from available data but keep this in mind Nadal wasn't clay Goat every time he beat Djokovic!

 

[kOaMaster]

You couldn't understand my argument. He wasn't clay GOAT in 2010 or before. He still had great resume but not GOATworthy, right?

That is so wrong. When did you start watching tennis?
I think after 2008, no one even doubted Nadal being the best clay court player ever.

 

[jg153040]

Did you just start watching tennis a couple of years ago? At 16 years old Rafa was beating Top 10 ranked guys on clay courts. He has the longest surface winning streak in history at 81 matches (on clay). He's the only guy to win the clay slam in one year, let alone in his career - MC, Rome, Madrid and then FO. He's the only guy to win 9 trophies at one slam, the FO. His record at the FO is 66-1. His winning percentage on clay is 93%, Djokovic's is 78.3%. In what delusional world is Novak going to beat Rafa multiple times at RG?

Yes, Rafa is the Clay Goat. He is without a doubt the King of Clay.

Well, then you admit Rafa had weak competition on clay, since you suy how much Nole sucks on clay compared to him.

 

[jg153040]

That is so wrong. When did you start watching tennis?
I think after 2008, no one even doubted Nadal being the best clay court player ever.

Rafa 9 RG titles vs Borg 6 RG titles = Clay goat.

Fed 17 titles vs 14 titles(Sampras, Rafa) = goat.

What's the problem?

 

[D.Nalby12]

That is so wrong. When did you start watching tennis?
I think after 2008, no one even doubted Nadal being the best clay court player ever.

Some journalists started to believe that Federer will be future GOAT in 2004-05 but was he really GOAT back then?

Federer got his 'GOAT' status after breaking slam record back in 2009. We always have belief in particular player but without achievements to back it we can't claim that.

I too thought back in 2008 that Nadal will be good case for 'Clay GOAT' but he wasn't GOAT back then. Djokovic beating him or injury ending his career would have changed equation completely.

 

[kandamrgam]

Rafa 9 RG titles vs Borg 6 RG titles = Clay goat.

Fed 17 titles vs 14 titles(Sampras, Rafa) = goat.

What's the problem?

I always thought your strength/forte is replying precisely to the point.

 

[vernonbc]

My point was if Djokovic would have prevented him winning RG since he came to prime (2011), Nadal wouldn't get same status on clay. He was close to do that in 2013.

If, if, if. Do if Djokovic had broken his leg in early 2011, he never would have reached his prime.

Which makes about as much sense as what you're trying to say (meaning none). Ay yi yi.

 

[D.Nalby12]

If, if, if. Do if Djokovic had broken his leg in early 2011, he never would have reached his prime.

Which makes about as much sense as what you're trying to say (meaning none). Ay yi yi.

Insecure much? Don't worry, I'm taking nothing away from him.

I can't help you more. You seems to be thinking about Rafa's records only but I made argument to show how data can be interpreted as you want.

 

[jg153040]

I always thought your strength/forte is replying precisely to the point.

Only when being serious, which is rarely the case here. So, I will be serious for the next few minutes, so we resolve this.

I do get your point. I just don't agree with it, it's based on circular logic. How can't you see that? It's very simple, when you take emotion out of it. Why do you disagree on this simple fact?

You really don't see the flaw in this? Fed has 1 RG title, Roddick has 1 USO title.
So, by what logic is at least on paper beating Fed at RG more impressive than beating Roddick at USO?

You can't do that. Sampras is 14 GS champion and was nr.1 seed at RG.

Also Fed's peers have less titles cuz he prevented them, like Rafa's peers have no RG titles, cuz he prevented them.

Logic has to apply equally for both situations. So, why do you then insist that Rafa has more quality wins, since situation is the same?

Also what is the evidence that beating Fed at RG is tougher than beating Roddick at W 09? Or beating Gonzo 07?

You just decided based on what you want. If you take emotions out of it, it doesn't add up.

And here is where h2h is circular logic:
Player A beats B
Player B beats C
Player C beats A.

Doesn't work and that's why you can't use h2h. I mean we can use it as intangibles as emotional. Like style for example. But not when comparing raw numbers.

Especially not in tournament and rankings structure when skills are not measured by h2h between two players.

Also for people who argue there is no goat, since you can't compare eras. IN that case they also can't claim if Soderling is greater than Sampras or not. If they do, then they admit they can compare and Fed is the goat by this logic. But if they say we can't know, then argument should stop there and shouldn't even try to be in goat discussions and argue h2h lol.

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

Look at the stats again, look at the year he won 51% of his return games.

What's your point? Where is the 51%?

Fed lost amount of his power in 2008. See his matches in 2007 and 2008 again, most people will notice the big different

 

[kandamrgam]

Only when being serious, which is rarely the case here. So, I will be serious for the next few minutes, so we resolve this.

I do get your point. I just don't agree with it, it's based on circular logic. How can't you see that? It's very simple, when you take emotion out of it. Why do you disagree on this simple fact?

You really don't see the flaw in this? Fed has 1 RG title, Roddick has 1 USO title.
So, by what logic is at least on paper beating Fed at RG more impressive than beating Roddick at USO?

You can't do that. Sampras is 14 GS champion and was nr.1 seed at RG.

Also Fed's peers have less titles cuz he prevented them, like Rafa's peers have no RG titles, cuz he prevented them.

Logic has to apply equally for both situations. So, why do you then insist that Rafa has more quality wins, since situation is the same?

Also what is the evidence that beating Fed at RG is tougher than beating Roddick at W 09? Or beating Gonzo 07?

You just decided based on what you want. If you take emotions out of it, it doesn't add up.

And here is where h2h is circular logic:
Player A beats B
Player B beats C
Player C beats A.

Doesn't work and that's why you can't use h2h. I mean we can use it as intangibles as emotional. Like style for example. But not when comparing raw numbers.

Especially not in tournament and rankings structure when skills are not measured by h2h between two players.

Also for people who argue there is no goat, since you can't compare eras. IN that case they also can't claim if Soderling is greater than Sampras or not. If they do, then they admit they can compare and Fed is the goat by this logic. But if they say we can't know, then argument should stop there and shouldn't even try to be in goat discussions and argue h2h lol.

To which post of mine are you responding? If its not mine I am not interested.

 

[jg153040]

To which post of mine are you responding? If its not mine I am not interested.

To the one where you said I'm usually precise. Anyway just make me a good logical argument why should we use h2h when we compare players, so I can give you a chance.