H2H against top players more important than weeks at #1?

Weeks at #1 shows consistency and domination of the tour in general. H2H against top players shows consistency and domination against the best players and main rivals. I think there is a case to be made for either one, but the H2H against top players is underrated in comparison.
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
Weeks at No.1 is a much more important & historically significant achievement! This, coming from a Nadal fan.

But H2H against the main rivals is pretty significant too. But out of the two, No.1 ranking is much much more valuable :neutral:
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
H2H against top players is def. important. But I fail to see how it shows consistency. Nadal's naysayers often claim that his h2h against Fed, Djoko, Murray etc. is so good, because he meet them much more on clay than elsewhere, where he fails to make finals, when he's not in his best form.
So I fail to see how consistency is that important in H2H. It's about the ability to perform when you get to those late rounds, not how often you get there.

Other than that - both are important. I give the edge to No. 1 simply because there's something special about being No. 1 that most of the top players want to attain.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Top players meaning top 10 players? Or a select few in order to further an argument? H2H versus the top 10 is important but weeks at #1 is more important because it naturally includes wins versus top players.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Weeks at #1 is the measuring stick because it's based on the entire field, not against a few players.

And Federer has an incredible h2h against their main rivals.

Hewitt: 18-8
Roddick: 21-3
Safin: 10-2
Ferrer: 14-0
Davydenko: 19-2
Gonzalez:12-1
Robredo: 10-1
Youzhny: 15-0
Blake: 10-1
Ferrero: 10-3
Ljubicic: 13-3
Nalbandian:11-8
Stepanek:12-2
Ginepri: 5-0
Karlovic: 10-1
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
Weeks at #1 is the measuring stick because it's based on the entire field, not against a few players.

And Federer has an incredible h2h against their main rivals.

Hewitt: 18-8
Roddick: 21-3
Safin: 10-2
Ferrer: 14-0
Davydenko: 19-2
Gonzalez:12-1
Robredo: 10-1
Youzhny: 15-0
Blake: 10-1
Ferrero: 10-3
Ljubicic: 13-3
Nalbandian:11-8
Stepanek:12-2
Ginepri: 5-0
Karlovic: 10-1
Lol if you're including Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri & Karlovic as "main rivals" :lol:

Fed has enough great achievements of his own. You trying to make him look good in this way, comes out as Fanboy attempt!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Lol if you're including Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri & Karlovic as "main rivals" :lol:

Fed has enough great achievements of his own. You trying to make him look good in this way, comes out as Fanboy attempt!
These players are same or similar to Roger's age, hence, his main rivals. Why would I include players that are 5+ years younger/older than him? That doesn't make sense.
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
These players are same or similar to Roger's age, hence, his main rivals. Why would I include players that are 5+ years younger/older than him? That doesn't make sense.
Main rivals does NOT mean same age! Come on! Do I need to explain this :shock:

Yes you would include players 5 years younger/ older, if they have competed more than 10 times, played important SFs and Finals of Masters and Slams, fought for the biggest trophies!
If they are younger than Federer now, and he is at a disadvantage, then there was a time earlier, when Federer was in his prime and those players were teenagers, no? So it evens out!
 

Praetorian

Professional
Which sounds better, "I am #1 in the world" or "I beat <name player here> xxx times."

Now to be fair, depending the player you name, and the subjective importance that player is to the person he's talking to, there may be a case where it's just as important. To everyone else in Tennis, as well as to everyone else in the world who know nothing of the sport, saying that you are, or were #1 holds more relevance.
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
By your logic, should I count Fognini, Monaco and the likes, as Nadal's "main rivals"? LOL.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Main rivals does NOT mean same age! Come on! Do I need to explain this :shock:

Yes you would include players 5 years younger/ older, if they have competed more than 10 times, played important SFs and Finals of Masters and Slams, fought for the biggest trophies!
If they are younger than Federer now, and he is at a disadvantage, then there was a time earlier, when Federer was in his prime and those players were teenagers, no? So it evens out!

The reason why same age is the best way to compare is because all of them would have met pre-prime, prime and post-prime. However if they are 5+ years apart, that's comparing pre-prime to prime, and prime to post-prime. How do we know if a player is better during their pre-prime than their post-prime and vice-versa? Can you actually prove that pre-Nadal will be better than post-Nadal, or pre-Fed is better than post-Fed? No.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
no.1 also includes wins over top players. Remember this is how Roger got baack to the top last year in the first place.

Also to be no.1 you hvae to win as many big tournaments as possible. And in those big tournaments you are bound to meet top players
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
The reason why same age is the best way to compare is because all of them would have met pre-prime, prime and post-prime. However if they are 5+ years apart, that's comparing pre-prime to prime, and prime to post-prime. How do we know if a player is better during their pre-prime than their post-prime and vice-versa? Can you actually prove that pre-Nadal will be better than post-Nadal, or pre-Fed is better than post-Fed? No.
Lol! This "PRIME" bullsh*t I've read only on this forum.
No one in real world talks about "newborn prime/ infant prime/ Prime prime/ post prime prime/ old age prime.......blah blah blah".

Think whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
I think h2h is a very american thing. american sports likes the big duells. boxing for example is all about the h2h. guys like ali or fraziers have become mega stars not because they excelled against the field (which they did too of course) but because they had epic rivalries. boxing fans don't appreciate beating the field all that much. for that reason guys like klitschko or holmes who have been great against the field are not as respected as guys like frazier who had great rivalries.

boxing is more about who you beat than that you beat a lot of guys. tennis however I think is different. rivalries matter too but in the end it is about how much you win, not who you beat and who beats you.

I think america uses too much of a boxing standard when they judge players. the networks are to be blamed too, they do not care about whether it is a quarter or a semi but they want to sell the "battle of the giants" (agassi sampras, fed nadal...).
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
I think h2h is a very american thing. american sports likes the big duells. boxing for example is all about the h2h. guys like ali or fraziers have become mega stars not because they excelled against the field (which they did too of course) but because they had epic rivalries. boxing fans don't appreciate beating the field all that much. for that reason guys like klitschko or holmes who have been great against the field are not as respected as guys like frazier who had great rivalries.

boxing is more about who you beat than that you beat a lot of guys. tennis however I think is different. rivalries matter too but in the end it is about how much you win, not who you beat and who beats you.

I think america uses too much of a boxing standard when they judge players. the networks are to be blamed too, they do not care about whether it is a quarter or a semi but they want to sell the "battle of the giants" (agassi sampras, fed nadal...).


Uh... I think the denominator here is that they are both individual sports, nothing to do with being American.

There are big rivalries in soccer/football too - even champions league.
 
H2H against top players of YOUR OWN AGE is the most important criteria of dominance. The younger players will have an advantage sooner or later, so only comparison against top players of about your age is relevant.

Check this statistic of all current players. It gives the undisputable answer to the question of the most dominant player.
 

Lips

Rookie
These players are same or similar to Roger's age, hence, his main rivals. Why would I include players that are 5+ years younger/older than him? That doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense is that you don't consider rafa one of Fed's rivals but it is considered one of the greatest rivalries in the history of sports...remember a teenager Nadal was beating a "prime" Fed
 

Lips

Rookie
Lol! This "PRIME" bullsh*t I've read only on this forum.
No one in real world talks about "newborn prime/ infant prime/ Prime prime/ post prime prime/ old age prime.......blah blah blah".

Think whatever helps you sleep at night.
Well said!!!
 

vladap

Semi-Pro
Weeks at #1 shows consistency and domination of the tour in general. H2H against top players shows consistency and domination against the best players and main rivals. I think there is a case to be made for either one, but the H2H against top players is underrated in comparison.
not comparable IMO...good trolling effort nonetheless 9/10
 
H2H against top players is def. important. But I fail to see how it shows consistency. Nadal's naysayers often claim that his h2h against Fed, Djoko, Murray etc. is so good, because he meet them much more on clay than elsewhere, where he fails to make finals, when he's not in his best form.
So I fail to see how consistency is that important in H2H. It's about the ability to perform when you get to those late rounds, not how often you get there.

Other than that - both are important. I give the edge to No. 1 simply because there's something special about being No. 1 that most of the top players want to attain.
Fair enough. Nadal's case is special because of his trajectory in the different surfaces. And I do see the surface skew as only marginal, because except indoor and grass, his H2H against Federer is favorable to Nadal. Against Djokovic I feel the surfaces are well represented, with Nadal having the overall edge but falling behind in hardcourt.

Perhaps the H2H against main rivals is not as significant as the Number of weeks at #1, but I still maintain it should be considered more important than what it is now.
 
not comparable IMO...good trolling effort nonetheless 9/10
Why are these metrics not comparable? The H2H against top rivals reflects dominance on a limited scope, but it has a definite intrinsic value, which I think is very underplayed by the Federer fans.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Possibly.

I find Nadal's h2h vs. the top 30 in the world more impressive than Federer's weeks at #1 honestly.


As dominant as Fed was, he couldn't manage what Nadal does via the h2h
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Fair enough. Nadal's case is special because of his trajectory in the different surfaces. And I do see the surface skew as only marginal, because except indoor and grass, his H2H against Federer is favorable to Nadal. Against Djokovic I feel the surfaces are well represented, with Nadal having the overall edge but falling behind in hardcourt.

Perhaps the H2H against main rivals is not as significant as the Number of weeks at #1, but I still maintain it should be considered more important than what it is now.
So now it's h2h versus main rivals and not just top players? Main rivals wise Federer has more than just the current guys...
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Why are these metrics not comparable? The H2H against top rivals reflects dominance on a limited scope, but it has a definite intrinsic value, which I think is very underplayed by the Federer fans.
There is a lot of inconsistency in comparing metrics.

OTOH some say Pete was nothing compared to Federer, if that's true, then weeks at #1 loses its luster.

They also say that Pete was just a serve, and if he was just a serve and the serve alone made him #1 that also renders the #1 statistic irrelevant.

These metrics also exclude Pete's consecutive years at year end #1, some don't consider a "GOAT" attribute at all.

So, what makes the weeks at #1 so important if it didn't/doesn't make a difference in Pete's or Lendl's case?

I don't get it.
 

vladap

Semi-Pro
Why are these metrics not comparable? The H2H against top rivals reflects dominance on a limited scope, but it has a definite intrinsic value, which I think is very underplayed by the Federer fans.
h2h sure has its value, why would you compare it with no.1 weeks is beyond me

what about Nole-Rafa h2h? 13-3 on clay with 9-14 on other surfaces...
 
There is a lot of inconsistency in comparing metrics.

OTOH some say Pete was nothing compared to Federer, if that's true, then weeks at #1 loses its luster.

They also say that Pete was just a serve, and if he was just a serve and the serve alone made him #1 that also renders the #1 statistic irrelevant.

These metrics also exclude Pete's consecutive years at year end #1, some don't consider a "GOAT" attribute at all.

So, what makes the weeks at #1 so important if it didn't/doesn't make a difference in Pete's or Lendl's case?

I don't get it.
I agree that it is important, just not that important. Lendl is the poster boy to make that case. I think to some extent everybody is biased in determining what achievements are more important, which is actually expected.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Who do you consider Federer's main rivals?
Hard to say at the very least I'd include Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt and Roddick. Murray should perhaps be in there too as well as Nalbandian. As well as that there's players like Agassi and Del Potro who have contested multiple slam matches with him. There's alot of players you could include. What do you think the critera is?
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Weeks at #1 is the measuring stick because it's based on the entire field, not against a few players.

And Federer has an incredible h2h against their main rivals.

Hewitt: 18-8
Roddick: 21-3
Safin: 10-2
Ferrer: 14-0
Davydenko: 19-2
Gonzalez:12-1
Robredo: 10-1
Youzhny: 15-0
Blake: 10-1
Ferrero: 10-3
Ljubicic: 13-3
Nalbandian:11-8
Stepanek:12-2
Ginepri: 5-0
Karlovic: 10-1
And Nadal's head-to-heads (including against the other big 3, which you conveniently left out):

Federer: 22-10
Djokovic: 22-17
Murray: 13-5
Hewitt: 6-4
Roddick: 7-3
Safin: 2-0
Ferrer: 21-5

Davydenko: 5-6
Gonzalez: 7-3
Robredo: 7-0
Youzhny: 10-4
Blake: 4-3
Ferrero: 7-2
Ljubicic: 7-2
Nalbandian: 5-2
Stepanek: 6-0
Ginepri: 1-0
Karlovic: 4-0
 
h2h sure has its value, why would you compare it with no.1 weeks is beyond me

what about Nole-Rafa h2h? 13-3 on clay with 9-14 on other surfaces...
Because both measure dominance (against the field in general, or against specific players).

Djokovic has a very good record against Nadal outside clay, but in slams the picture is a little different (not that it makes any different in the H2H).
 
Hard to say at the very least I'd include Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt and Roddick. Murray should perhaps be in there too as well as Nalbandian. As well as that there's players like Agassi and Del Potro who have contested multiple slam matches with him. There's alot of players you could include. What do you think the critera is?
The ones you mentioned seem about right. For me the criteria is players with a substantial H2H. You could also require multiple finals, especially slam finals, or multiple slam matches in QF or later. For example, I wouldn't consider Robredo to be a main rival of Federer, or Wawrinka a main rival of Nadal. Yet, I think considering Murray a main rival of Nadal or Federer is not too unreasonable.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
The ones you mentioned seem about right. For me the criteria is players with a substantial H2H. You could also require multiple finals, especially slam finals, or multiple slam matches. For example, I wouldn't consider Robredo to be a main rival of Federer, or Wawrinka a main rival of Nadal. Yet, I think considering Murray a main rival of Nadal or Federer is not too unreasonable.
Agreed. What about Davydenko, would you consider him a main rival of Federer? They met in 6 (?) slam matches so they should probably be considered rivals if not main rivals.
 
Agreed. What about Davydenko, would you consider him a main rival of Federer? They met in 6 (?) slam matches so they should probably be considered rivals if not main rivals.
I wouldn't consider Davydenko a main rival of anybody. Certainly a rival, but Davydenko's career has been streaky at best.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Nadal is so great at the h2h against the top players. Yet he can never win a single WTF which is only played by the top 8.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I agree that it is important, just not that important. Lendl is the poster boy to make that case. I think to some extent everybody is biased in determining what achievements are more important, which is actually expected.
My point is that the metrics aren't being used consistently. The same statistic is being used in one case to exalt and in the other to deflate.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
My point is that the metrics aren't being used consistently. The same statistic is being used in one case to exalt and in the other to deflate.
Can you back up your claims that weeks at #1 is somehow being used against anyone? I've never seen it. Least of all by anyone who supports Federer, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal is so great at the h2h against the top players. Yet he can never win a single WTF which is only played by the top 8.
And Federer can't win a single Rome or Monte Carlo title, while Nadal has 15. I suggest you have a look at Nadal's record against all the top players. These people who say "it's about the record against the field" don't seem to realise that Nadal's record against the field is excellent.
 
Can you back up your claims that weeks at #1 is somehow being used against anyone? I've never seen it. Least of all by anyone who supports Federer, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Well, at least you will agree that the Number of weeks at #1 gained much more weight for some once Federer beat that record. Which is expected anyway, I'm not complaining about it.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well, at least you will agree that the Number of weeks at #1 gained much more weight for some once Federer beat that record. Which is expected anyway, I'm not complaining about it.
Yes, definitely. Another criteria could be to discard "pigeons" as maIn rivals, but I am not too sure about that.
I think h2h versus top players is far more subjective. If we call it h2h versus top 10 opponents we can be objective with the players we include.

As for weeks at #1 gaining weight I haven't seen that. It's always been important. Some still tout Federer's consecutive weeks at #1 ahead of his total weeks. So I don't think it has anything to do with Federer getting that 2 extra weeks to nudge ahead of Sampras. It's always been an important criteria.

These claims seem false to me. It would be nice if people on this board substantiated their claims about other fanbases instead of just pointing fingers.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
What good is it if you beat Federer and Murray, but keep losing to Davydenko, Rosol, Giles Muller , Darcis and Zeballos ?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
And Nadal's head-to-heads (including against the other big 3, which you conveniently left out):

Federer: 22-10
Djokovic: 22-17
Murray: 13-5
Hewitt: 6-4
Roddick: 7-3
Safin: 2-0
Ferrer: 21-5

Davydenko: 5-6
Gonzalez: 7-3
Robredo: 7-0
Youzhny: 10-4
Blake: 4-3
Ferrero: 7-2
Ljubicic: 7-2
Nalbandian: 5-2
Stepanek: 6-0
Ginepri: 1-0
Karlovic: 4-0
You need to list the players that are same/close to Nadal's age. Guys like Ljubicic is a lot older than Nadal, lol. You don't see men include Fed h2h against Agassi(8-3) and Sampras(1-0).
 
Top