If H2H is fallacy, so is slam count and every single metric

C

chandu612

Guest
Poeple mentioning Devydenko to prove h2h is irrelevant, then how about slam count?
Clearly Nadal >> Laver, Gaston Gaudio = Roddick and so on.
Similary we can prove every single metric is moot.

H2H is as important as slam count because the former players and experts say so. Not because you and I feel so.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=478312&highlight=goat+links

Edit:
Read post #43, to get the crux of all the discussion that followed.
Federer Fanatic says"Your previous post was comparing 17 to 15. Now you're comparing 1 to 1, that's not the same thing.
Plus Roddick > Gaudio isn't just about the slam, but overall career achievement Roddick is well ahead.
"
Me:You used 6-5 to dismiss 21-10. Not considering the quantity,quality and if they are in grandslams or not.
But you say while considering slam count you want to use quantity and other factors?


This my friends, I call the hypocracy born out of desperation in Fed's camp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I have seen all time major wins list on every channel, web site and commentary, but i have never heard of an all time h2h list.
 

Who Am I?

Banned
Another delusional Nadal fanboy who thinks his fake God is the GOAT. The fact of the matter is that slams FTW and not only slams but you also have to look at the conditions and how it has helped the players and the slowing down of the courts has helped your lover more than any other player and that is a fact.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Another delusional Nadal fanboy who thinks his fake God is the GOAT. The fact of the matter is that slams FTW and not only slams but you also have to look at the conditions and how it has helped the players and the slowing down of the courts has helped your lover more than any other player and that is a fact.

Says you. Who are you btw?
I would believe Agassi,Sampras and McEnroe anyday
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
30 years from now only that will remain is the slam count. No one remembers H2H's. Tell me whats the H2H of Lacoste-Tilden?? Don't use the internet btw! What was the H2H of Rosewall-Laver? Sampras-Krajicek? But you know their slam count on the top of your head don't you?
 

Who Am I?

Banned
Says you. Who are you btw?
I would believe Agassi,Sampras and McEnroe anyday

The commentators and ex players say great things about a player currently dominating just to raise the profile of the game. It's called promotion mate.

And who am I? I don't know. :razz:
 
C

chandu612

Guest
show me an all time list from a reputed web site. I will stop posting for a month.

Show me an all time slam-time list, I will quit posting forever. Dont get it?
Let me stoop to your IQ level.
Just like you cant show some list I cooked up, I cant either.
You cooked up all time h2h list. I didnt.

Read the original post again.
H2H is very relevant and important metric. I saw Tennis channel's top 100 all time. While crowning Federer no1, they mentioned h2h and that they have to revisit the list when Nadal hangs up his boots.
Poeple here are talking about Nadal's h2h against top 30, not because some clueless poster brought it up. Its coz McEnroe brought it up.
Now go back to your "Federer gives me mini-orgasms world"
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Poeple mentioning Devydenko to prove h2h is irrelevant, then how about slam count?
Clearly Nadal >> Laver, Gaston Gaudio = Roddick and so on.
Similary we can prove every single metric is moot.

H2H is as important as slam count because the former players and experts say so. Not because you and I feel so.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=478312&highlight=goat+links

Oh boy, do we have to explain it to you all over again?!!!
Look, h2h is much more meaningful if player A and player B constantly faced each other in a game (or match). Let's just use boxing as an example. There, if player A beats player B 10 times and lost only 1 time. This record10-1 is very meaningfu because it involved no one else between these 2 guys.
On the other hand, tennis tourney DEMANDS that you win all your matches all the way to the final and then the final. So there are many more players between you and your main rival, as to speak. In the end, if you or your main rival doesn't make it to the final, one still plays and doesn't wait for the other, right? Bottom line, here, the title count is MUCH MORE meaningful than the h2h. Clear enough?
IMO, that's the reason why I believe that for instance, Fed's 17 GS titles supersede his lower h2h against Rafa. Taking nothing away from Rafa's win, but in the larger context of how tennis is structured, h2h means nothing since player A don't get to play against player B automatically in every single final (as opposed to a boxing match).
Hope this puts the nail in the coffin of this thread.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Oh boy, do we have to explain it to you all over again?!!!
Look, h2h is much more meaningful if player A and player B constantly faced each other in a game (or match). Let's just use boxing as an example. There, if player A beats player B 10 times and lost only 1 time. This record10-1 is very meaningfu because it involved no one else between these 2 guys.
On the other hand, tennis tourney DEMANDS that you win all your matches all the way to the final and then the final. So there are many more players between you and your main rival, as to speak. In the end, if you or your main rival doesn't make it to the final, one still plays and doesn't wait for the other, right? Bottom line, here, the title count is MUCH MORE meaningful than the h2h. Clear enough?
IMO, that's the reason why I believe that for instance, Fed's 17 GS titles supersede his lower h2h against Rafa. Taking nothing away from Rafa's win, but in the larger context of how tennis is structured, h2h means nothing since player A don't get to play against player B automatically in every single final (as opposed to a boxing match).
Hope this puts the nail in the coffin of this thread.

I am sorry did you just rate slam count greater than h2h for goat considerations? Is that a fact or an opinion? If its an opinion, who are you btw?

I am not rating one metric over other ones. I am just stating that the experts used it. That is why it is relevant and very important.
 
I'm a Fed fan, but as of late have become more of a Djoko fan based on his ability to beat Nadal, which brings me great joy. Don't get me wrong, I respect Nadal's ability (How can you not) but I don't like his style. That said, there is the possibility that when all is said and done Djoko's overall H2H versus Nadal could favor him. It really depends on where each player is on the slope of their career during the same time period. As for Federer, he has been owned by Nads so consistently and so long, he looses before even hitting the first ball against his foe. As we have seen lately, Federer can be up on Nadal but loose a couple key points and then get man-handled like a chump for the rest of the match. Sucks but it's true....
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Oh boy, do we have to explain it to you all over again?!!!
Look, h2h is much more meaningful if player A and player B constantly faced each other in a game (or match). Let's just use boxing as an example. There, if player A beats player B 10 times and lost only 1 time. This record10-1 is very meaningfu because it involved no one else between these 2 guys.
On the other hand, tennis tourney DEMANDS that you win all your matches all the way to the final and then the final. So there are many more players between you and your main rival, as to speak. In the end, if you or your main rival doesn't make it to the final, one still plays and doesn't wait for the other, right? Bottom line, here, the title count is MUCH MORE meaningful than the h2h. Clear enough?
IMO, that's the reason why I believe that for instance, Fed's 17 GS titles supersede his lower h2h against Rafa. Taking nothing away from Rafa's win, but in the larger context of how tennis is structured, h2h means nothing since player A don't get to play against player B automatically in every single final (as opposed to a boxing match).
Hope this puts the nail in the coffin of this thread.

To answer you in your way.
All you explained is that a person X might have better h2h against person Y, at the same time end up lot less titles than Y. Everyone gets it. Beating a person is not equal to winning a slam.
But when you are determining who is "Greatest" how do you rate each of these metrics? Your explanation does not account for the resulting rating you came up with.

In your boxing terms, is a player X beats all players except Y consistently, and lost to the great champ Y pretty consistently, how can you call X 'Greatest' ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RF20Lennon

Legend
To answer you in your way.
All you explained is that a person X might have better h2h against person Y, at the same time end up lot less titles than Y. Everyone gets it. Beating a person is not equal to winning a slam.
But when you are determining who is "Greatest" how do you rate each of these metrics? Your explanation does not account for the resulting rating you came up with.

In your boxing terms, is a player X beats all players except Y consistently, but lost one another great champ pretty consistently, how can you call X 'Greatest' ?

By comparing titles, career's, stats etc. Also you never answered my previous question.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
I am sorry did you just rate slam count greater than h2h for goat considerations? Is that a fact or an opinion? If its an opinion, who are you btw?

I am not rating one metric over other ones. I am just stating that the experts used it. That is why it is relevant and very important.

It's the end result that you have to look at.
And YES, IMO, in tennis, it's the title count that matters. As for GOAT considerations, many other factors also should be considered. Title count is ONLY 1 of them. Unlike Thundervolley who kept insulting all Fed's fans by bringing up the Grand Slam as the one and unique criteria, I wouldn't stoop so low. However, h2h has no meaning to me when considering a player worthwhile being a GOAT or not. Honestly, do you know by heart, for instance, Rafa's h2h vs any other players other than Fed: Murray, Tsonga, Berdie, DelPo, etc. No, I don't think so. But you surely know how many GS titles Rafa has so far, yes?
If you care about h2h, that's fine and dandy with me. Free country, yes? But in the larger picture of why one data means more than the other, h2h is so behind the GS titles. Ask any player: which one they prefer, having won more GS or a better h2h vs player X, you get the answer.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
no disrespect Chandu but you are the one who said federer has not beaten any grand slam champions after 2007
 
C

chandu612

Guest
30 years from now only that will remain is the slam count. No one remembers H2H's. Tell me whats the H2H of Lacoste-Tilden?? Don't use the internet btw! What was the H2H of Rosewall-Laver? Sampras-Krajicek? But you know their slam count on the top of your head don't you?

That is your opinion. True we dont know h2h of other rivalries coz it was unimportant. But we all do know the h2h of Nadal and Federer isnt it? Why do you think so?

Anyways, when it is all done and dusted, if Nadal ends up lesser titles than Federer, I am most certain that Nadal will still be rated above Federer. Than even after 30 years, everyone will wonder why Nadal with lesser slams is rated above Federer and will know the h2h.

Anyways, this is all your opinion and my opinion.
The topic here is , I can find loop holes in slam count metric like you do in h2h. It is important if Experts say so. Thats why I dont give much importance to Masters title, wtf or week at no1.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Show me an all time slam-time list, I will quit posting forever. Dont get it?
Let me stoop to your IQ level.
Just like you cant show some list I cooked up, I cant either.
You cooked up all time h2h list. I didnt.

Read the original post again.
H2H is very relevant and important metric. I saw Tennis channel's top 100 all time. While crowning Federer no1, they mentioned h2h and that they have to revisit the list when Nadal hangs up his boots.
Poeple here are talking about Nadal's h2h against top 30, not because some clueless poster brought it up. Its coz McEnroe brought it up.
Now go back to your "Federer gives me mini-orgasms world"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Most_wins_per_Grand_Slam_event_and_discipline
 

cknobman

Legend
Not once in history (before Federer) did anyone use h2h as a measuring stick as a measure of greatness.

The reason they came up with this for Federer was because it was just about the ONLY THING they could think of as a counter argument due to Federer being so great at everything else.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
no disrespect Chandu but you are the one who said federer has not beaten any grand slam champions after 2007

I dont understand how your quotation is related to how experts rate h2h. Care to explain?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Show me an all time slam-time list, I will quit posting forever. Dont get it?
Let me stoop to your IQ level.
Just like you cant show some list I cooked up, I cant either.
You cooked up all time h2h list. I didnt.

Read the original post again.
H2H is very relevant and important metric. I saw Tennis channel's top 100 all time. While crowning Federer no1, they mentioned h2h and that they have to revisit the list when Nadal hangs up his boots.
Poeple here are talking about Nadal's h2h against top 30, not because some clueless poster brought it up. Its coz McEnroe brought it up.
Now go back to your "Federer gives me mini-orgasms world"

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_alltime.html
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Poeple mentioning Devydenko to prove h2h is irrelevant, then how about slam count?
Clearly Nadal >> Laver, Gaston Gaudio = Roddick and so on.
Similary we can prove every single metric is moot.

H2H is as important as slam count because the former players and experts say so. Not because you and I feel so.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=478312&highlight=goat+links

The slam count is not the only metric but it's the most important one. The career achievements are the whole package in evaluating a player's ranking.

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Win/loss record at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Show me an all time slam-time list, I will quit posting forever. Dont get it?
Let me stoop to your IQ level.
Just like you cant show some list I cooked up, I cant either.
You cooked up all time h2h list. I didnt.

Read the original post again.
H2H is very relevant and important metric. I saw Tennis channel's top 100 all time. While crowning Federer no1, they mentioned h2h and that they have to revisit the list when Nadal hangs up his boots.
Poeple here are talking about Nadal's h2h against top 30, not because some clueless poster brought it up. Its coz McEnroe brought it up.
Now go back to your "Federer gives me mini-orgasms world"

http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/tennisrecords.php
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
H2H is as important as slam count because the former players and experts say so. Not because you and I feel so.
That's meaningless.

When people talk about the greatest baseball, football, basketball, hockey, etc. teams, do you ever hear them mention H2H?

When people talk about the greatest golfers, drivers, sprinters, gymnasts, swimmers, etc., do you ever hear them mention H2H?

No, you only hear about how many major events they've won, period!
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
To answer you in your way.
All you explained is that a person X might have better h2h against person Y, at the same time end up lot less titles than Y. Everyone gets it. Beating a person is not equal to winning a slam.
But when you are determining who is "Greatest" how do you rate each of these metrics? Your explanation does not account for the resulting rating you came up with.

In your boxing terms, is a player X beats all players except Y consistently, and lost to the great champ Y pretty consistently, how can you call X 'Greatest' ?

I use boxing vs tennis as a means to illustrate how meaningful the h2h is in each respective context. It seems to confuse you.
Look, if you want to live and die by h2h, then fine by me.
Otherwise, let me rephrase it: in boxing, player A is arranged (or matched) against player B in a winner-take-all match. Each player has NO need to beat 5-6 other boxers before facing each other. In that way, if A beats B 10 times, it's very meaningful since there are no intermediates before their game. Each one is guaranteed to see the other, right?
Tennis is different. You may or may not see your main rival at every single tourney, it just depends on how each of you plays. So here, if you end up with more titles than your rival, it means you have been more consistent, played better against the rest of the field. And if you lose the few times you meet your main rivals, let's say 1 time out of 10 tourneys you entered and won, it's just an outlier because your OVERALL record is 9-1. In that context, who cares about the "1" in the 9-1 record! Do you?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That's meaningless.

When people talk about the greatest baseball, football, basketball, hockey, etc. teams, do you ever hear them mention H2H?

When people talk about the greatest golfers, drivers, sprinters, gymnasts, swimmers, etc., do you ever hear them mention H2H?

No, you only hear about how many major events they've won, period!

The answer is NO !

Michael Jordan is 0-2 against Larry Bird and 1-3 against Isiah in the playoff series, but Jordan is considered the goat. The general consensus is Jordan simply because he was more accomplished, more dominant, more records. The couldn't careless about his bad H2H against other legendary players.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
That is your opinion. True we dont know h2h of other rivalries coz it was unimportant. But we all do know the h2h of Nadal and Federer isnt it? Why do you think so?

Anyways, when it is all done and dusted, if Nadal ends up lesser titles than Federer, I am most certain that Nadal will still be rated above Federer. Than even after 30 years, everyone will wonder why Nadal with lesser slams is rated above Federer and will know the h2h.

Anyways, this is all your opinion and my opinion.
The topic here is , I can find loop holes in slam count metric like you do in h2h. It is important if Experts say so. Thats why I dont give much importance to Masters title, wtf or week at no1.

See the bolded part.
Hehe, it takes many posts before revealing your TRUE colors, doesn't it?
 

Niou

New User
Let's assume we have Player A and Player B:

Player A won against Player B 12 times and lost 0 times in non-grandslam-tournaments.

Now they play for 3 years in Grandslam-Tournaments and never face each other in the early rounds.

In 12 Grandslam-Tournaments Player A lost 12 times in the first round.
Player B won all 12 Grandslam-Tournaments.


Who do you think will be said to be the better player ?
Obviously Player B cause he has titles (trophies, medals) to back it up while Player A got nothing except his h2h-statistics.

Sure it looks a little bit bad on Player B, that he is 0/12 against Player A but then again he got all the money, trophies, medals...


You can't say 'if Player B won the grandslams 12 times and Player A got a record of 12/0 against Player B, he is better' because nobody needs a player who can't win against a variety of different styles (in the pro scene)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's assume we have Player A and Player B:

Player A won against Player B 12 times and lost 0 times in non-grandslam-tournaments.

Now they play for 3 years in Grandslam-Tournaments and never face each other in the early rounds.

In 12 Grandslam-Tournaments Player A lost 12 times in the first round.
Player B won all 12 Grandslam-Tournaments.


Who do you think will be said to be the better player ?
Obviously Player B cause he has titles (trophies, medals) to back it up while Player A got nothing except his h2h-statistics.

Sure it looks a little bit bad on Player B, that he is 0/12 against Player A but then again he got all the money, trophies, medals...


You can't say 'if Player B won the grandslams 12 times and Player A got a record of 12/0 against Player B, he is better' because nobody needs a player who can't win against a variety of different styles (in the pro scene)

An excellent example is Davy vs. Nadal.

According to Nadal's illogical fallacy, Davy has to be a greater hard court players because he owns the H2H 6-1.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Let's assume we have Player A and Player B:

Player A won against Player B 12 times and lost 0 times in non-grandslam-tournaments.

Now they play for 3 years in Grandslam-Tournaments and never face each other in the early rounds.

In 12 Grandslam-Tournaments Player A lost 12 times in the first round.
Player B won all 12 Grandslam-Tournaments.


Who do you think will be said to be the better player ?
Obviously Player B cause he has titles (trophies, medals) to back it up while Player A got nothing except his h2h-statistics.

Sure it looks a little bit bad on Player B, that he is 0/12 against Player A but then again he got all the money, trophies, medals...


You can't say 'if Player B won the grandslams 12 times and Player A got a record of 12/0 against Player B, he is better' because nobody needs a player who can't win against a variety of different styles (in the pro scene)
Lets say Federer has 17 slams and Nadal ends up with 15 slams. And their h2h is 100-0 in favour of Nadal. Do you still call Federer "Greatest"?
See two can play this game.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Lol..I am sorry, it is my opinion and I mentioned it out there for everyone to see. Your point is?

fine by me. Just like if you want to put h2h as the #1 consideration in judging a player. Different folks, different strokes...
Again, my point is you may or may not remember/know the h2h of a player vs another one, however, you certainly remember/know how many titles he won, in particular when it comes to GS, yes?
 
C

chandu612

Guest
fine by me. Just like if you want to put h2h as the #1 consideration in judging a player. Different folks, different strokes...
Again, my point is you may or may not remember/know the h2h of a player vs another one, however, you certainly remember/know how many titles he won, in particular when it comes to GS, yes?

You are missing the whole point here. Read the original post again.. Experts said it. Agassi said it. what you and I say is not important.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Lets say Federer has 17 slams and Nadal ends up with 15 slams. And their h2h is 100-0 in favour of Nadal. Do you still call Federer "Greatest"?
See two can play this game.

Yes. Because Nadal must have worse H2H against the entire field to only win 15. His 100 wins over Federer but Fed may have hundreds of more win than Nadal against the field. There's a give and take.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
An excellent example is Davy vs. Nadal.

According to Nadal's illogical fallacy, Davy has to be a greater hard court players because he owns the H2H 6-1.

So according to you logic Roddick is of the same quality of Gaston Gaudio. (Both have 1 slam). Now all of a sudden most of Federer's competition look of lesser quality to me.

But thankfully, experts like Agassi and Sampras dont agree with your logic.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Lets say Federer has 17 slams and Nadal ends up with 15 slams. And their h2h is 100-0 in favour of Nadal. Do you still call Federer "Greatest"?
See two can play this game.

First, it wasn't skewed 100-0 as you put it. If not like Fed NEVER EVER EVER beat Rafa!!!
Second, would you call Rafa 'greater" than Fed with a GS tally of 15 vs 17? Humm... if we want to go down that slope, perhaps Sampras should also be mentioned since he's only second to Fed in winning Wimby, etc. Feel free to throw in any name that you like that since the slope is slippery!:)
If we have to believe that 15>17. then we may as well throw in many things we love in our own taste.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Yes. Because Nadal must have worse H2H against the entire field to only win 15. His 100 wins over Federer but Fed may have hundreds of more win than Nadal against the field. There's a give and take.

wow...this must be a metric to find out how deeply you live in "Fed wonder world". I am guessing except you, not even the most fed fanatics will call him goat if he has a 100-0 losing h2h.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
So according to you logic Roddick is of the same quality of Gaston Gaudio. (Both have 1 slam). Now all of a sudden most of Federer's competition look of lesser quality to me.

But thankfully, experts like Agassi and Sampras dont agree with your logic.

Your previous post was comparing 17 to 15. Now you're comparing 1 to 1, that's not the same thing.

Plus Roddick > Gaudio isn't just about the slam, but overall career achievement Roddick is well ahead.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
wow...this must be a metric to find out how deeply you live in "Fed wonder world". I am guessing except you, not even the most fed fanatics will call him goat if he has a 100-0 losing h2h.

Performances/results against the playing field >>>>> performances/results against one single player.

I'm sorry I don't agree Davy is greater than Nadal on hard court.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
You are missing the whole point here. Read the original post again.. Experts said it. Agassi said it. what you and I say is not important.

Experts as Agassi, big Mac, Courier, Cash?!!! Personally, I take all their opinions with a grain of salt, or even less! See how big Mack has swung over the years between fed and Rafa...How about Cash who kept bashing Fed, and himself, hardly a giant killer? Wilander, another wannabe, who won a few GS titles and what, not even worthwhile to be mentioned as GOAT?...If these are the experts you referred to...
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Your previous post was comparing 17 to 15. Now you're comparing 1 to 1, that's not the same thing.

Plus Roddick > Gaudio isn't just about the slam, but overall career achievement Roddick is well ahead.

Finally we are talking. You used 6-5 to dismiss 21-10. Not considering the quantity,quality and if they are in grandslams or not.

But you say while considering slam count you want to use quantity and other factors?

LOL
 

NLBwell

Legend
The stat that matters most in the last few decades for overall greatness is number of weeks at #1. Other factors matter also, like number of tournament victories, slam tournaments won, level of peak play (subjective), etc.
Pre-open era, and times when there were multiple tours, etc. make earlier judgements more difficult.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
The stat that matters most in the last few decades for overall greatness is number of weeks at #1. Other factors matter also, like number of tournament victories, slam tournaments won, level of peak play (subjective), etc.
Pre-open era, and times when there were multiple tours, etc. make earlier judgements more difficult.

Says you. You must have ROFL when some player named Agassi mentioned h2h.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
what are you talking about ?

My original post was 'I have seen all time major wins list on every channel, web site and commentary, but i have never heard of an all time h2h list.'

my question to you is what is "all time h2h list" ?
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
That is your opinion. True we dont know h2h of other rivalries coz it was unimportant. But we all do know the h2h of Nadal and Federer isnt it? Why do you think so?

If the h2h is so vital how come you don't know the h2h's between Lendl-McEnroe, Borg-Connors, Wilander-Edberg etc. without checking it? Thinking logically, if it was as important as the Slam count, you'd think commentators would bring it up from time to time?

The h2h will only come to play if Federer and Nadal end up with the same number of Slams to "determine the GOAT" (as if we need it). Until then it's a meanigless stat brought up here to stir things up.
 
Top