kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I said your comment to another guy KOaMasters was out of place. His comment:
What has that got to do wit h2h, Sampras or Federer?
Federer/Nadal improvement and decline: ATP Matchfacts
- Thread starter NatF
- Start date
I said your comment to another guy KOaMasters was out of place. His comment:
What has that got to do wit h2h, Sampras or Federer?
Who cares. Don't we now argue for the sake of arguing? The thread is becoming irrelevant, I can't even remember the title
. Anyway my main point is this. I'm hungry and I will get something to eat and watch a TV show Stargate.
I'm happy with believing Fed is the best.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Exactly. But Nada's serve is actually very efficient on clay. Of course, he has a ton of weapons to back up the serve, but his general plan of spinning out to the BH and then attacking with a giant forehand works for him.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Good grief, even some people who terribly dislike Rafa admit that!
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal won 51% of his return games on clay in 2008.
Tennisknowledge99
Banned
My last posts was about Fed's performance. Maybe you misunderstand
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Why is Djokovic responsible for "inflating" Nadal's clay resume?
How about all the other players on the draw? If Djokovic is such a scrub I am sure some other player would have dethroned Nadal.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm sure I did. The thread has drifted. Most do.
vernonbc
Legend
No they don't. You must be selectively choosing which posts to read because many don't admit that. I was responding to a guy that said "Djokovic's inability to beat him at RG since 2011 played pivotal role in inflating Nadal's clay resume", thus my attempt to inform and educate him on what Rafa had accomplished prior to 2011, which, although many Djokovic fans don't believe it, is not when tennis began.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Tried to send you my email in a message. Did you get it?
Others contributed too.
Hey but you can't use strong competition argument because of Nadal who has 9 RG titles in which 6 came beating Djokovic. This means almost all glory Nadal achieved at RG over career of Djokovic prime to prime. Djokovic wasn't good enough to beat him or winning RG. Just accept that. If he was that good Nadal would not be clay GOAT.
No they don't. You must be selectively choosing which posts to read because many don't admit that. I was responding to a guy that said "Djokovic's inability to beat him at RG since 2011 played pivotal role in inflating Nadal's clay resume", thus my attempt to inform and educate him on what Rafa had accomplished prior to 2011, which, although many Djokovic fans don't believe it, is not when tennis began.
Last edited:
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal isn't Clay GOAT because he beat everyone on clay? That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Djokovic has not lost at RG to a player not named Nadal in three years. So yes, he wasn't good enough to beat the Clay GOAT but it's fairly obvious that he'd have a great chance of winning this if he didn't have to beat said Clay GOAT.
No, Nadal's won 9 RG titles beating Djokovic AND everyone else who played him. You know, that's how these tournaments usually work. He's had to win 57 matches against players other than Djokovic to win his 9 titles.
Last edited:
If Djokovic has beaten him multiple times, say 4 times out of 6, you still would've called Nadal Clay GOAT with 5 RG titles with Nole having 4?
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Why is Djokovic the only one who's "responsible" for Nadal winning 9 titles? Why not all the other players he's beaten?
If Federer had beaten him multiple times, say 5 out of 5, would you still call Nadal the Clay GOAT with 4 RG titles and Fed with 5?
If Federer had beaten him multiple times, say 5 out of 5, would you still call Nadal the Clay GOAT with 4 RG titles and Fed with 5?
We're discussion Djokovic's clay performance. You pulled strong competition argument and that was response. You forgot that?
Answer: off course not but I don't pull excuse for Federer having strong competition. I just admit he's good enough to win 1 RG with available set of players to compete with. I also don't think comparing Federer with past era or competition will make him look better than he's today on clay either.
In short I objectively deal with the fact he's only good enough to achieve that he has achieved. Comparison with old champions has little meaning. He's in same tier of 1-2 times RG champion. I don't think pulling strong competition excuse will place him upper tier.
You believe same for Djokovic? or happy with subjective opinion he's good enough to place in tier of RG champions without winning it just because he has strong competition to deal with?
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
"Never argue with trolls, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience". I suppose being a senior member you know who all to ignore.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Like my philosophy teacher used to say, "You can win an argument with a scholar but you can never win an argument with a fool."
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Like my philosophy teacher used to say, "You can win an argument with a scholar but you can never win an argument with a fool."
:lol: Now that is an awesome quote.
NatF
Bionic Poster
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Like my philosophy teacher used to say, "You can win an argument with a scholar but you can never win an argument with a fool."
Good one. Reminds me of another: "You can wake someone really sleeping up, but you can never wake someone pretending to be sleeping up"
Above reminds this:
"You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks."
- Winston S. Churchill
This is my attempt to educate (lol) you that individuals having good barking ability generally go unnoticed till they meet fools. I admire your consistency and perseverance. Be sure you'll meet those kind of individuals, don't disappoint so early. :lol:
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually you can win the argument by having an intelligent audience. It doesn't change the fool, but it becomes very entertaining.Like my philosophy teacher used to say, "You can win an argument with a scholar but you can never win an argument with a fool."
I prefer: You Can't Fix Stupid. Less elegant, but it is SO true!
Grandpa said:
Hurt much? Your reply to my argument deserved to be reacted that way. Now I have realised that you are much mature actually than your post shows knowing you're 66(!) year old Grandpa. I am sorry for that reply. I respect your age because you're almost two generations older.
I can explain again, hope you understand that.
If any player dominates sport like Federer (2004-07) or Nadal on clay, there are two possible extreme arguments.
1) That player was really that good so his opponents can be given advantage of strong competition.
2) Opponents that dominant champion faced simply weak. With better opponents, he would be much less accomplished. So his actual opponents deserves to be mocked for their inability to stop champion.
Djokovic fan just pulled first extreme strong competition argument for getting excused from Djokovic's failure on clay against Nadal.
I just made second extremeargument that Djokovic can be easily mocked as weak opposition for his inability to beat Nadal.
Be sure none of above two are facts. I made argument against Djoko doesn't necessarily means that I believe that. I just showed Djoko fan it's possible to interpret data the way one wants and asked for being objective, anything wrong with that?
Don't be insecure. (If you are!) I don't believe second argument is correct but I'm sure first is not enough to describe reality of story. Truth lies anywhere midway between above two extreme arguments. Both are true up to certain extent which is matter of debate. I. can't explain any better now. I hope being part of intelligent audience, you can grasp this easily and won't react obnoxiously again which obviously not appropriate for your age.
I hope insecure Nadal troll desperately trying to derail this discussion putting off topic quotes finally can rest now. My policy for not throwing stones towards every barker will be same.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Can you see this post of mine: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8915631&postcount=154 ? Is there a way you can take that too into consideration?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't remember ever talking to you. Not sure what you disagree with me about. Not sure if you even know what my opinion is...
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm open to it, but in my sleep deprived state I can't think of how :lol:
Would you apply this to the whole top 20? So if #18 meets Federer in round 4 of the USO every top 20 player Federer beats along the way gets a 3-1 record? Sorry if I misunderstand. Across the 20 players would it not average out considering we're not singling out a single player.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Taking off quotes so that the data will show:
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
Now, the same thing, but ordered by returns, not totals:
2. 2008 - 84% Service Games Won, 51% Return Games Won = 135
1. 2012 - 89% Service Games Won, 47% Return Games Won = 136
3. 2007 - 87% Service Games Won, 45% 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
3. 2010 - 91% Service Games Won, 41% Return Games Won = 132
10. 2006 - 84% Service Games Won, 40% Return Games Won = 124
9. 2013 - 87% Service Games Won, 38% Return Games Won = 125
It's hard to see usual trends in Rafa's game because it is so up and down due to injuries. Fed has had a small improvement during his career in service games but has dropped in return games. 2012 is hard to explain. Second best year ever for returns, second best year for serving. It looked like everything was working, then suddenly he was gone for 7 months
In general Rafa's serve has improved, peaking in 2010. Then after that I have to wonder if he was starting to have back problems, earlier than he admitted having them, because his serve has fallen off so much since 2012.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
You get the idea, but not correctly. I will explain.
Firstly, I think "top 20" is a bit higher on the sample size. Can you cut it down to 16? So which means top 16 are expected to make it to the 4th round. Excluding Federer and Nadal there are 14 of them now. Fedal will meet "the other top 14" only from the 4th round, not before that.
Secondly, matches among top 16 themselves should be avoided. Since someone like Djoker can dominate another top 16 which even though will improve Djoker's win % and compensate for the worse win% of the guy on the losing side, I dont think it will give any meaningful information. Top 16 will meet each other only in the 4th round.
Lastly, even if in the 4th round, say, Wawrinka is meeting a "top 45", his match should be avoided since Wawrinka is getting an additional match compared to someone else, so his win% will be different - better or worse.
All in all, only 3 rounds of Slams should be covered
I know that will be a lot less matches which I admitted. The main problem is that when Fedal plays unbelievably good then the stat of the entire tour goes down. It doesnt mean the tour of top whatever was playing poorly. So if you count just only the first three rounds then we might get a better idea. I would ask you to count it both ways. ie as I mentioned above as well as counting the whole tournament and let's hope law of averages do some justice.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Good point. But I believe clay is not the best surface to inspect serve. The slower surface will ensure the serve is neutralized more often than on faster surfaces and will have high noise level to distort information. This can be said for returns as well. I believe better levels of serve and return are best measured on faster surfaces.
The overall hold% + return% on clay, however, shows overall level on clay.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Serve and return are best measured on the surface that they reflect.
Service % goes up from clay to HC to grass. Return % goes down from clay to HC to grass. The total tends to be highest on clay, lower on HC, lowest in grass.
But I have no idea what you mean be "distort information".
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I will explain. When we say "Nadal was breaking at a rate of 51%" we naturally intend to convey how good Nadal's return game was. But as such Nadal's return ability is not best judged on clay surface. The ball can be more neutralized on clay upon return and serve and from there the bigger baseline bully often wins.
I mean the fact that serve and return get neutralized more on clay means such return and serve % has more noise on clay. The real information of how good Nadal was on serve and return is heavily influenced and corrupted by his insanely good baseline game.
Not to mean return% and serve% doesnt mean anything, just that it is not as good as measuring on faster surfaces. I mean the true serve and return shot.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, but if I say that his breaking rate on clay was 51% for a year, and that no one else has ever gotten close to that since the ATP started stats, it tells us that Nadal is the best defender on clay.
It doesn't say anything about any other surface.
If we say that one year Fed had 35% of return games won on grass, and that no one else has done that, it gives us a gold standard for returning on grass.
Of course, but we can compare those stats to those of other great clay players, and what we find out is that his return game is insane, but he also keeps a much higher service game % than most of them did. We know this is necessary because without a pretty good serve he would not have won as much on HCs and even grass.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. There are definitely good indicators in all that. But the noise can be too much too.
Let's say Nadal broke 40% and held 90% in year xxxx and broke 35% and held 80% in year yyyy. Now conventional wisdom says Nadal was returning better in xxxx. But as such it really need not be. Even his serving was good in xxxx. And a few more factors can indicate Nadal was overall playing from the baseline better that year. Clay serve and return stats will have too much baseline game information intervening.
2. Nadal's hold % is better than Stich, Ljubicic etc. Doesn't mean Nadal was serving better. I dont think so.
Similar threads
