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

C

chandu612

Guest
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.
Opinion and Opinion. Sure I will take yours anyday than experts's like Agassi.
 

Crose

Professional
The H2H number may not be remembered exactly, but people WILL remember how Nadal owned Federer. You can count on that.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
that is exactly what i am asking you .

Everyone refers to an all time major wins list, but since you said H2H is of importance I am asking whether we can see any such H2H listing.

Agassi did. Experts did.

Yes you can see such a listing if you want to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Rivalries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Nadal_rivalry#Head-to-head_tallies

Now my turn. Where can I see offcial all time Goat list? I didnt see it in the link you showed me earlier.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
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...

You are right. I will discount all of them and subscribe to your blog or something then?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Not more of this fact opinion utter bullturd...

Someone save this place.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
o-rly001.jpg
 
C

chandu612

Guest
That is an individual listing. Show me something that compares all the players in history.

Lol...first you show the "Goat" list you are fond of talking about? The h2h is as non-existant as the goat list
 

NN-2

New User
I think I know what's going on here lately. Nadal loses a couple of tournaments and his fans are getting worried that his streak is over. So they start to move the goal posts closer for achieving GOAT status. All of a sudden now 15 is enough. Or, in the case of this thread, it looks like a skewed H2H is enough.

Worry not Nadal fans, this downturn in Nadal's game was expected - he never does well this stretch of the year. Regroup for AO and wait to see those results before prematurely making the requirement less.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
I think I know what's going on here lately. Federer is finished and his fans are getting worried that Nadal might catch up. So they start to move the goal posts farther for achieving GOAT status. All of a sudden H2H is skewed and none should quote experts who say h2h is important and Nadal with all his greatness 15 is enough.
There fixed it for ya.
 

NN-2

New User
Chandu,

Fed *fanatics* have been making claims that H2H is completely irrelevant for some time - nothing new there. However, lately I've noticed that Nadal fans are now requiring less of Nadal. My suspicion is it has to do with his recent losses, which were pretty predictable given the time of year. Maybe they see something in Nadal's form that I don't and there is true cause for concern.
 

Crisstti

Legend
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

Exactly. There's not a single metric that definitely proofs someone is the goat (because no one is).
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Exactly. There's not a single metric that definitely proofs someone is the goat (because no one is).

Finally, a rational post.

Just enjoy your favorites, and enjoy the sport. There will never be a clear cut GOAT. Too much time is invested in something that can never be proven 100 percent.
 

timnz

Legend
Not a fallacy but

H2H is not a fallacy, but is misused on two counts:

1/ Inappropriate weight given to it

2/ Used without reference to surface/conditions

Regarding point 1 - if it is given very high weight, it results in the ludicrous notions of Davydenko and Hbarty being a better player than Nadal - since they both have winning H2H over Nadal. It certainly should be a significantly lesser factor in measuring greatness than Career achievement (major titles, major finals reached etc).

Regarding point 2 - H2H should never be referenced without reference to surface/conditions - ie Grass, Outdoor Hard, Indoor & Clay. The H2H count needs to be who is winning on each surface/conditions. If a totally superior clay court player amasses a huge H2H advantage over another player - it doesn't tell us anything new, if they win another clay court confrontation. Everyone know that the 7 all H2H count between Borg and McEnroe would be totally different if most of the matches had been on clay. One is deluding oneself if you think otherwise. Hence, H2H is meaningless unless broken down by the 4 surface/conditions I mention above.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
People should just enjoy what they want to enjoy. It would be restrictive to say one must not bother considering the possibility of there being a best ever. Some like facts and some like speculation and so those of you who very much enjoy continuing to debate over what constitutes being the greatest and the like, please do carry on. For those who don't like it, feel free to not engage.

On a side note, there could or could not be a greatest ever depending on what parameters an individual decides to set. I'd hate to outright state that there simply isn't a GOAT as much as I'd hate to outright state that there must be a GOAT.

I will say though that in my personal opinion, not restricting the possibilities is liberating, even though not every avenue a person takes leads to something particularly fruitful from a standpoint of practicality or real life application.


Good day to everybody good day good day.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
H2H is not a fallacy, but is misused on two counts:

1/ Inappropriate weight given to it

2/ Used without reference to surface/conditions

.

Same thing can be said about slam count.It is misused on two counts:

1/ Inappropriate weight given to it

2/ Used without reference to strength of competition.

Lets say Federer had to face another player who is a clone of himself. With same qualities and same age. Then the slam count would have been split like 9-8 or 10-7. Then does that mean neither of them are greatest? Because neither could not dominate the field? If Nadal retired in 2010, and Djoker ends up 6 more slams than his eventual tally, then will you bump him up 5 places in your all time list?
Just like H2H, slam count is also one of the metric. Its not everything. I hated it but accepted when experts said Fed might be the GOAT. But loving it when they say Nadal might have/will trump him. End of the day, what they say is what counts. So H2H is here to stay.
 

powerangle

Legend
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.

You're not even following your own "logic". In your original post, you mention that h2h is JUST AS important as slams. So if that's the case, I can play that game also.

If you want to bring up 100-0 in favor of Nadal (against Federer), since it's an extreme example...then I will bring this up: What if Federer had a 100-0 lead in slam titles (Fed has 100 slams, Nadal has 0)?? Who's greater then?

It's so clear you have bias when you bring up 15 versus 17 (for slams) but then go ahead and use an extreme example of a 100-0 h2h stat.

If they are truly equal, then use the same freaking numbers. 17 versus 15 in slams, and 17 versus 15 in H2H.

So then let me ask you, who is greater between player A and player B if player A has 17 slams and 15-17 h2h against player B (who has 15 slams)??
Player A has two more slam titles, and one match short of an equal H2H (it would stand at 16-16 if he had won one more of their encounters).

I think most people would say player A is slightly greater. And therefore, slams carry more weight than H2H.

This doesn't mean H2H isn't important. It is. But to say they are worth exactly the same, and then use an example of 15-17 slams and 100-0 H2h clearly show that even you have to use that extreme an example to make a "point". Btw...you haven't provided any examples from "experts" to say they are worth exactly the same...you only provided examples where they said that H2H is important. But I am still waiting for the quote where they state they are worth exactly equal to each other.

Case closed. This has nothing to do with Federer and Nadal btw...just going by the fallacy of your logic (slams being exactly equal to H2H).
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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

Actually I don't want to use h2h at all. I'm brought up Davydenko to point out to you that h2h is a flaw when comparing achievement, or greater player. If you're going to use 21-10, then you have to be consistent by using Davy's 6-5 over Nadal, or Federer 19-2 over Davy. You can't pick one and leave out the rest.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Lol...first you show the "Goat" list you are fond of talking about? The h2h is as non-existant as the goat list

The discussion is which one is more relevant - slam count or H2H ? I said slam count is what that matters end of day, as evidenced by every single web site, channel giving that listing.

H2H is more a side topic, there is no consolidated history any one maintains or cares. If there is one, please show.
 

powerangle

Legend
Not sure if serious...

Can't tell if he/she is trolling, but that's some delusional glasses he/she has on.

OP, I am still waiting...

If slams and H2H are exactly equal (per your original statement)...then only compare using 100-0 for slams AND H2H OR use 17-15 metrics for slams AND H2H. Don't cherry pick. That makes you look like you can't even stand behind your own statement.

Going with your logic that slams and H2H are equal, then Player A (100-0 slam lead) and player B (100-0 H2H lead) should be exactly equal in greatness.

Or Player A (17-15 slam lead) and Player B (17-15 H2H lead) should be exactly equal in greatness.

Why did you use 100-0 for H2H but only 17-15 when talking about slams? Insecure much?

After all, since slams are equal to H2H, one more slam win should equal to one match H2H lead, right?? 17-15 slam lead is equal to 17-15 H2H lead, right?
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
The basic premise of this thread is just plain flawed. There is a number of factors one could or should consider when establishing GOAT-ness. Slam count is a major factor in the minds of most, but not neccessirly the only factor. H2H against a single player is not a factor that many would give much weight (tho' some may give 'some' consideration).
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Can't tell if he/she is trolling, but that's some delusional glasses he/she has on.

OP, I am still waiting...

If slams and H2H are exactly equal (per your original statement)...then only compare using 100-0 for slams AND H2H OR use 17-15 metrics for slams AND H2H. Don't cherry pick. That makes you look like you can't even stand behind your own statement.

Going with your logic that slams and H2H are equal, then Player A (100-0 slam lead) and player B (100-0 H2H lead) should be exactly equal in greatness.

Or Player A (17-15 slam lead) and Player B (17-15 H2H lead) should be exactly equal in greatness.

Why did you use 100-0 for H2H but only 17-15 when talking about slams? Insecure much?

After all, since slams are equal to H2H, one more slam win should equal to one match H2H lead, right?? 17-15 slam lead is equal to 17-15 H2H lead, right?

Even with 17 ATP250 titles to 15 ATP250 titles triumph 17-15 H2H.

17 weeks at #1 to 15 weeks at #1 is comparable to 17-15 H2H.
 

powerangle

Legend
Even with 17 ATP250 titles to 15 ATP250 titles triumph 17-15 H2H.

17 weeks at #1 to 15 weeks at #1 is comparable to 17-15 H2H.

Probably. But the OP is so ludicrous to claim that 17-15 slams are equal to 17-15 H2H....

I mean if he had actually brought up some good arguments and solid logic (without random 100-0 ratios that he pulled out of his arse), I'd be willing to consider it. But he totally shoots himself in the foot by bringing up 100-0 H2H and then calls someone that brings up 100-0 slams being "biased".

Hypocrisy is not pretty. And it doesn't win you any arguments.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Yeah, it was the (admittedly audibly hilarious) hypocrisy that had me questioning if serious or not.
 
H2H against one person is virtually meaningless. It may prove a point somewhere, but in terms of "who is better," tennis simply isn't played or done that way. Different styles of tennis exist to counteract other styles. The Davydenko Postulate is really the best argument against the head to head.

As far as slam counts go, they are relevant because it requires a player to beat 7 other players in a row. Essentially, it's a combined H2H against a mix of the field, including the best player from the other half and the second best player from the half the concerned player is in. If a player only had to beat one person to win a slam then the slam would be meaningless, but it doesn't work that way.
 

Speranza

Hall of Fame
Opinion and Opinion. Sure I will take yours anyday than experts's like Agassi.

Not that I am saying Federer/Nadal is the GOAT, for I don't believe it can be concluded either way, but you continually refer to Andre Agassi's opinion, as if his opinion matters more than someone else's.

This is the same player that lied to the tennis governing body regarding his drug tests. Granted that this is a very different topic etc., but my point is that just because one person says something (even with all their experience), it doesn't make it so. You yourself have said this.

You, like others, use what you want (and what others have said) to put across your own beliefs.

This forum is continually full of people trying to convince others that A is better than B. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, NO ONE IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND!

You know, even if Nadal were to reach 30 slams, I would only agree that he's the most successful player, but I wouldn't deem him the best for more than one reason. And that goes for Federer too.
 
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.

Lmao nooooo Federer is just the only potential Goat to be owned by his main rival hahahaha. Of course people bring it up because it's never happened before!!!!
 
C

chandu612

Guest
You were the one that used a 100-0 H2H example. I'm just using your "logic".

If they are equal, then why did you use a 100-0 H2H example but only a 15-17 slam example??

Waiting for your explanation.

Did it ever occur to you that I was doing the same thing. Do you even read before commenting? Go back and read the post I quoted. Do not take words out of context. Just how your example is justified, So is mine
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

chandu612

Guest
Not that I am saying Federer/Nadal is the GOAT, for I don't believe it can be concluded either way, but you continually refer to Andre Agassi's opinion, as if his opinion matters more than someone else's.

but my point is that just because one person says something (even with all their experience), it doesn't make it so. You yourself have said this.
if that someone is some poster here, then Yes Agassi's opinion weighs more.
Not just Agassi many experts have said it. And as long as they mention, it is so valid and so relevant.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Why do you only consider Agassi ? why not Laver. ?

Sure why not. I will take any pro's opinion than the posters' here. If they say slam count is important, then it is. if they say h2h is important, then it is.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Sure why not. I will take any pro's opinion than the posters' here. If they say slam count is important, then it is. if they say h2h is important, then it is.

Look, chandu. I don't know if you pretend to be, or truly are...ignorant. However, put aside for a moment the opinions of all so-called experts and ask yourself this: As a pro tennis player (suppose for a moment, would you?), what would YOU (not anybody else) LOVE to have more, GS titles or a better h2h against any X player of your choice? In other words, would you take 30 GS titles and a 2-20 h2h against player X (who himself only has 5 GS titles), or yourself have only 5 GS and a 20-2 record against player X (who has 30 GS)?
Your answer?
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Yeah, right! I take a better GS tally than a good h2h anytime, anywhere, anyhow...eyes closed. Not even worth mentioning! Just like asking: would you rather breath pure air or polluted smog?!!!
 

bullfan

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.

Actually, I see H2h discussed often during tournaments. The discussions include folks during the 80s as well as Sampras and Agassi. This is not a new phenomenon ginned up by Nadal fans simply because he has a better h2h.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Look, chandu. I don't know if you pretend to be, or truly are...ignorant. However, put aside for a moment the opinions of all so-called experts and ask yourself this: As a pro tennis player (suppose for a moment, would you?), what would YOU (not anybody else) LOVE to have more, GS titles or a better h2h against any X player of your choice? In other words, would you take 30 GS titles and a 2-20 h2h against player X (who himself only has 5 GS titles), or yourself have only 5 GS and a 20-2 record against player X (who has 30 GS)?
Your answer?

Look i know you are ignorant. But let me try.
Ask yourself this: As a pro tennis player (suppose for a moment, would you?), what would YOU (not anybody else) LOVE to be, the best player ever (lets assume its measurable on a scale of 100) of calibre 95 beat everyone and have 13 slams or have an option of being a player of calibre lets say 60 and lucky but have 17 slams? Your answer?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Look i know you are ignorant. But let me try.
Ask yourself this: As a pro tennis player (suppose for a moment, would you?), what would YOU (not anybody else) LOVE to be, the best player ever (lets assume its measurable on a scale of 100) of calibre 95 beat everyone and have 13 slams or have an option of being a player of calibre lets say 60 and lucky but have 17 slams? Your answer?

I will go with 17 slams.

History looks at slam counts. Everything else is sundry.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Actually, I see H2h discussed often during tournaments. The discussions include folks during the 80s as well as Sampras and Agassi. This is not a new phenomenon ginned up by Nadal fans simply because he has a better h2h.

They are discussed as intangibles, much much below in the pecking order of major count and weeks at number 1.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Look, chandu. I don't know if you pretend to be, or truly are...ignorant. However, put aside for a moment the opinions of all so-called experts and ask yourself this: As a pro tennis player (suppose for a moment, would you?), what would YOU (not anybody else) LOVE to have more, GS titles or a better h2h against any X player of your choice? In other words, would you take 30 GS titles and a 2-20 h2h against player X (who himself only has 5 GS titles), or yourself have only 5 GS and a 20-2 record against player X (who has 30 GS)?
Your answer?

Also you want to skew the numbers. I played that game earlier. Here we go again. Player X leads Player Y 100-0 in h2h. and player x has 1 slam and y has 2 slams. Whom do you want to be? But But..I thought you said you will pick more slams anyday anywhere eyes closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

chandu612

Guest
I will go with 17 slams.

History looks at slam counts. Everything else is sundry.

Good for you. Btw, none cares what you pick or what you think. That is the point of this whole thread.
You must be Federer himself. That would explain a lot.
 
Top