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

powerangle

Legend
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

Clearly you haven't read my other posts (or chose to ignore it as you can't refute them).

I cited your "100-0" fallacy since in your OPENING post, you stated that slams are just as important as H2H (which means they are equal). So if they are equal, then 1 slam must equal one match in the H2H ratio, correct?

So a 17-15 slam lead carries the same weight as a 17-15 H2H lead, in your logic. And a 100-0 slam lead carries the same weight as a 100-0 H2H lead, as well.

But in effect, you were only merely pointing out that H2H means something (which I'm not arguing) because a 100-0 H2H lead should outweigh the 17-15 slam gap...which it obviously does....but that does NOT prove your opening post's statement that H2H are just as important as slams. If they were "just as important" then all you need is a 17-15 lead in H2H to bridge the 2 slam gap.

All your posts have been proving, is that H2H also carries weight in the "greatness" debate...which I am not disagreeing with. But your 100-0 H2H example does NOTHING to prove that the H2H is equal to slams in weight (because you used it to offset a 2 slam gap, not a 100 slam gap). If slams and H2H are equal, then the ratio of slams and H2H must be 1 to 1. 10 slams equal a 10 match lead in H2H (which is bizarre).

The fact that Nadal is 21-10 against Federer, if Nadal can get to 15 slams, he may be considered greater...I can buy that. But that does NOT show that slams are equal to h2h (which is your opening post's statement). Federer has to lead Nadal 21-10 in slams as well (since Nadal leads 21-10 in H2H), for your "H2H are as important as slams" to hold any water.

The fact that the debate of greatness is starting now that Nadal is 4 short of Federer means that H2H carries significance. But notice the slam gap is at 4...while the H2H gap is at 11. If it takes an 11-match lead to "possibly" offset a 4 slam gap, then it really goes to show that each slam is still more important than a match in the H2H.....and so therefore, slams are more important than H2H (which disproves your opening post). Heck, you were even using 15 slams versus 17 slams. So apparently an 11 match lead is needed to offset a 2 slam gap........yeah I'm sorry but that does NOT show that slams and H2H are exactly equal.
 

Morj

Semi-Pro
H2H is relevant between players of a similar caliber. For example, if Davydenko has a positive H2H vs Nadal that can be explained away as purely a matchup issue. After, all, its not like Davydenko is dominating everyone else.

But when it comes to comparing players like Federer and Nadal, all-time greats, then yes H2H is very significant. Nadal already dominates everyone else, as proven by his slam count. That means that his style of play does beat everyone else's. Its not an anomaly that he has a positive H2H with federer, you can't say its a "matchup issue" because clearly Nadal is a bad matchup for everyone.

So what it comes down to is. Player A and B are GOAT contenders. They both dominate everyone, as proven by slam count. The difference is Player A dominates other people a little more than Player B, so he has a slightly greater slam count. But, Player B also dominates everyone, and dominates Player A. Would that not make Player B superior?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
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.

Open a poll on ' if you are a tennis player, do you want 17 slams and Fed's H2H OR 13 slams and Nadal's H2H'


If you win the poll, i will stop posting for a month.
 

Morj

Semi-Pro
For the record, i still say Federer is greater, because a difference of 4 slams and a lot of weeks at no. 1 is significant. But if Nadal gets much closer in either category then he should be considered the greater.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
For the record, i still say Federer is greater, because a difference of 4 slams and a lot of weeks at no. 1 is significant. But if Nadal gets much closer in either category then he should be considered the greater.

For the record, everyone and his dog who has a keyboard has a say. Not that it counts.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
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?

Now, you are REALLY DENSE.
You play tennis to win tournament. Do you?
Look, if you answer "NO", then read no further!

If you think that Rafa plays tennis to have a good h2h against Fed, you ARE seriously wrong or DENSE about it.

Winning the tournament is EVERYTHING. So by extension, have more titles (GS or any other tourneys of choice) is the ULTIMATE GOAL, not have a good h2h. Man...

So my answer to you is: YES, I TAKE 17 SLAMS anytime, anywhere, anyhow, eyes closed! You, on the other hand, would go with 13 slams and a h2h that NOBODY, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY, will remember 100 years from now! Man...
Ouff, what a difficult choice, was it? For you? Difficult enough to prop it up as a thread to have people give you the answer?
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
Open a poll on ' if you are a tennis player, do you want 17 slams and Fed's H2H OR 13 slams and Nadal's H2H'


If you win the poll, i will stop posting for a month.

Good luck to win this argument with this OP. Man, another clone of TDK! Just what we need!!!
Circular logic, borrowing 'expert' opinion, arguments that hold no air whatsoever (the 100-0 h2h! LOL)
LOL
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Well I personally think Nadal is greater than Federer, he doesn't need to get any closer to Federer's records and it isn't just about the numbers.
 

powerangle

Legend
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.

So you used a 100-0 H2H to offset a 1 slam deficit. What happened to slams being equal to H2H?? Are you agreeing that slams are weighted that much more than H2H?

Using your logic (slams being equal to H2H, per your opening post): Player X has 2 slams while Player Y has 1 slam. But Player Y leads H2H 2-1 against Player X. They are equal supposedly, according to your logic.

If you have to use an extreme 100-0 H2H to offset a few slams, that means you are already agreeing that slams are worth more than H2H (thereby disagreeing with your opening post). So which is it?
 

Kenshin

Semi-Pro
H2H is relevant between players of a similar caliber. For example, if Davydenko has a positive H2H vs Nadal that can be explained away as purely a matchup issue. After, all, its not like Davydenko is dominating everyone else.

But when it comes to comparing players like Federer and Nadal, all-time greats, then yes H2H is very significant. Nadal already dominates everyone else, as proven by his slam count. That means that his style of play does beat everyone else's. Its not an anomaly that he has a positive H2H with federer, you can't say its a "matchup issue" because clearly Nadal is a bad matchup for everyone.

So what it comes down to is. Player A and B are GOAT contenders. They both dominate everyone, as proven by slam count. The difference is Player A dominates other people a little more than Player B, so he has a slightly greater slam count. But, Player B also dominates everyone, and dominates Player A. Would that not make Player B superior?

Great post! Head-to-head will be very significant when Nadal gets closer and closer to Federer's slam count.
 

timnz

Legend
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.

Agassi and Sampras are experts in playing tennis. What makes them experts in Tennis history and statistical analysis?
 

msc886

Professional
H2H is based on 1-on-1 whereas titles are based on 1-vs-whole field.
H2H is important but it's silly to put H2H on the same level as titles.
Furthermore, H2H is already accounted for in the titles won because having a bad H2H vs Nadal cost Federer many titles. i.e its because of his bad H2H vs Nadal that Federer doesn't have more titles than he currently has.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
H2H is relevant between players of a similar caliber. For example, if Davydenko has a positive H2H vs Nadal that can be explained away as purely a matchup issue. After, all, its not like Davydenko is dominating everyone else.

But when it comes to comparing players like Federer and Nadal, all-time greats, then yes H2H is very significant. Nadal already dominates everyone else, as proven by his slam count. That means that his style of play does beat everyone else's. Its not an anomaly that he has a positive H2H with federer, you can't say its a "matchup issue" because clearly Nadal is a bad matchup for everyone.

So what it comes down to is. Player A and B are GOAT contenders. They both dominate everyone, as proven by slam count. The difference is Player A dominates other people a little more than Player B, so he has a slightly greater slam count. But, Player B also dominates everyone, and dominates Player A. Would that not make Player B superior?

Exactly. Two GOAT contenders of the same caliber.

You bet your sweet bippy, H2H counts.

It's ludicrous to say otherwise.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
So you used a 100-0 H2H to offset a 1 slam deficit. What happened to slams being equal to H2H?? Are you agreeing that slams are weighted that much more than H2H?

Using your logic (slams being equal to H2H, per your opening post): Player X has 2 slams while Player Y has 1 slam. But Player Y leads H2H 2-1 against Player X. They are equal supposedly, according to your logic.

If you have to use an extreme 100-0 H2H to offset a few slams, that means you are already agreeing that slams are worth more than H2H (thereby disagreeing with your opening post). So which is it?

You clearly have a comprehension problem. You can spin off , interpret, understand whatever I said however you want. I am not going to reply to all that non sense. Advice for you, next time just quote me, dont even para-phrase.
@Everyone: I am not rating or weighing the h2h against slam count. I am manitaning the same as from the original post. If you say h2h is fallacy, I can prove slam count is also fallacy. Both are very much relevant.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Agassi and Sampras are experts in playing tennis. What makes them experts in Tennis history and statistical analysis?

So we discount them and subscribe to you? Even if I listen, millions of people watch tennis, listen to commentary. Go tell the experts not to bring h2h up and explain them why it is a fallacy.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Open a poll on ' if you are a tennis player, do you want 17 slams and Fed's H2H OR 13 slams and Nadal's H2H'


If you win the poll, i will stop posting for a month.

Lets cut the chase. Lets say this forum (full of non-biased, level-headed people)
votes in favour of you. What are you proving here? Before you answer, read my original post again.
 

firepanda

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

Slam count and H2H are statistics. Statistics are not fallacies. Ever. The conclusions drawn from them can be.

Few people say that slam count is exclusively what makes you great, although it is a strong argument. Ditto for H2H, in spite of what some Fed fans say. Slam count is a statistic that has been adopted as a model. It is an approximation for greatness, and a very strong one as well, particularly in the last 40 years.

Because I'm lazy, I just use slam count to decide who I think is greatest, with the occasional exception, such as Laver's two CYGS's and Sampras' inability to do the career slam.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
roflbot.jpg
 

powerangle

Legend
You clearly have a comprehension problem. You can spin off , interpret, understand whatever I said however you want. I am not going to reply to all that non sense. Advice for you, next time just quote me, dont even para-phrase.
@Everyone: I am not rating or weighing the h2h against slam count. I am manitaning the same as from the original post. If you say h2h is fallacy, I can prove slam count is also fallacy. Both are very much relevant.

You clearly don't know when you are being hypocritcal, or don't even know your own logic. Next time, don't claim two things being equal when you can't back it up.

Here's the direct quote:

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 onus is on you to prove that they are "as important", which is different from "both are important". You claim they are as important as each other, now prove it. When you claim "as important" you are weighing them against each other...and are giving them equal weight.

Or maybe you don't even know what you are posting yourself...or don't know what "as important" even means...

I don't even have a problem with your original premise (of H2H not being fallacious), but you yourself open up a can of worms when you claim they are as important as slams. I've given a ton of examples that you can't refute, to show they are not "as important".
 
Last edited:

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
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?

They wil remember the H2H between the two GOATs. Their matches have all been documented so well, they ain't going away.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Lets cut the chase. Lets say this forum (full of non-biased, level-headed people)
votes in favour of you. What are you proving here? Before you answer, read my original post again.

Then it proves you need a change in your thinking or at least the reason why no one agrees with you.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
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?

I think the H2H will still be remembered 30 years from now because (1) Nadal will likely be in GOAT discussions unlike Krajicek and (2) the H2H between Federer and Nadal is so lopsided. The big knock on Federer will ALWAYS be that he could never get the best of his chief rival (who happens to be 3rd on the GS list).

Federer-Nadal, imo, is tennis' version of Ali-Frazier. And the Wimbledon 2008 Final is the equivalent of Ali and Frazier's "Fight of the Century" or the "Thrilla in Manila." Ali and Frazier fought over 40 years ago and sportswriters are STILL writing about that fight. And ESPN Classic STILL shows their fights. So why would the Federer-Nadal rivalry just fade into obscurity?

That Wimbledon 2008 match will be re-televised from now until all eternity. So I think that the H2H between those two will forever be in the consciousness of true tennis fans.
 

powerangle

Legend
I think the H2H will still be remembered 30 years from now because (1) Nadal will likely be in GOAT discussions unlike Krajicek and (2) the H2H between Federer and Nadal is so lopsided. The big knock on Federer will ALWAYS be that he could never get the best of his chief rival (who happens to be 3rd on the GS list).

Federer-Nadal, imo, is tennis' version of Ali-Frazier. And the Wimbledon 2008 Final is the equivalent of Ali and Frazier's "Fight of the Century" or the "Thrilla in Manila." Ali and Frazier fought over 40 years ago and sportswriters are STILL writing about that fight. And ESPN Classic STILL shows their fights. So why would the Federer-Nadal rivalry just fade into obscurity?

That Wimbledon 2008 match will be re-televised from now until all eternity. So I think that the H2H between those two will forever be in the consciousness of true tennis fans.

I agree with this sensible post.:)
 

HoyaPride

Professional
No one thinks less of Mcenroe because he has 15-21 h2h with Lendl.

Yeah, but most people think of "Borg-McEnroe" before "McEnroe-Lendl." Even before I really got into tennis, I knew about the Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon Final. And because that rivalry is higher profile, I think a lot of people pay a lot of attention to their H2H.

People will always pay attention to the Federer-Nadal H2H because of Nadal's stature in the game. At the very least, he will have as many Slams as Pete Sampras (plus a Career Slam) and will likely surpass him. If that happens (likely), Nadal will start being included in the discussion of all time greats along with Fed and Laver.

So as much as Fed fans may want the H2H to be discarded into the realm of irrelevance, I doubt it will be. They will both go down as two of the best to ever do it and they gave us perhaps the most sublime tennis the world has ever seen on a rainy day in SW19. The H2H will be a part of this debate for many, many years to come.
 

timnz

Legend
Question of Weight

It isn't 'either or' when comparing major titles count vs H2H. It is however, the weight you put on things. So no-one should be saying that (and I am certainly not) that H2H doesn't matter at all. However, many are saying that it is a far less important criteria than major titles. It has to be that way otherwise you get the Davydenko & Hbarty thing kicking in with Nadal.

There have been other threads discussion the criteria for greatness assessments. People have different opinions. My own are - in order of weighting:

1/ Majors count (by Majors I am meaning titles that have been considered majors in amateur, pro or open tennis AT THE TIME THEY WERE PLAYED) ie Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, French Open, French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, World Hardcourt Championship, World Covered Court Championship, World Pro. Championship Berlin 1932/33, Pro Tournament of Champions (LA 1956, Forest Hills 1957-1959), Wimbledon Pro 1967, Winning Professional challenge with Pro. world champion vs challenger (eg Gonzales vs Hoad 1958 etc) etc

2/ Number of Year end number 1 or co-number 1's

3/ Season end finals

4/ Weeks at number 1

5/ Finals reached in the major tournaments listed in (1) above

6/ Masters 1000 Equivalents

7/ Other Misc. titles that were considered not majors but important titles at the time they were played.

8/ H2H with main rivals (mainly in use for tie breaks between similar performing champions if the first 6 criteria land players close in the overall rankings)

9/ Overall number of titles
 
Last edited:

Kenshin

Semi-Pro
Federer and Nadal's head-to-head will become more and more sighnificant when Nadal closes on Federer.You cannot dismiss it. Most people will weigh among the top of the list.
 

powerangle

Legend
The H2H is definitely significant. It is the extremists (those saying that they don't matter whatsover, or those that say they are as important as slams) that I disagree with. History will look at everything. The 10-21 H2H against Nadal will not exactly do Fed any favors. It is good for Nadal though.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Federer and Nadal's head-to-head will become more and more sighnificant when Nadal closes on Federer.You cannot dismiss it. Most people will weigh among the top of the list.

Very true. If Nadal wins roughly the same amount of Majors as Federer, then people will start to assign more weight to other parameters as a means to finding separation.
 

powerangle

Legend
Very true. If Nadal wins roughly the same amount of Majors as Federer, then people will start to assign more weight to other parameters as a means to finding separation.

For sure. If Nadal gets close enough in slams (the most important metric), then the spotlight will shine even more heavily on the H2H. Such a big lead in the matchup can offset one or two slams.
 

Kenshin

Semi-Pro
Very true. If Nadal wins roughly the same amount of Majors as Federer, then people will start to assign more weight to other parameters as a means to finding separation.

Sorry if I am wrong but you are a Federer fan right? I'm really glad that someone sensible like you post on this forum. And I thank you for that. :)
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Sorry if I am wrong but you are a Federer fan right? I'm really glad that someone sensible like you post on this forum. And I thank you for that. :)

Very much so, he's my favourite athlete ever thus far.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
For sure. If Nadal gets close enough in slams (the most important metric), then the spotlight will shine even more heavily on the H2H. Such a big lead in the matchup can offset one or two slams.

Close enough is 1 slam , currently the gap is 4 slams. Also Nadal is like the perennial number 2. He is number 1 for like 100 weeks, which probably several players have achieved and nowhere close to GOAT hood.

Nadal is accomplished on 1 out of 4 majors. federer is 3 out of 4 majors. Big big difference.

4 slams is what Murray and Hewitt have achieved TOGETHER.

So the gap between Federer and Nadal is the size of Murray and Hewitt's accomplishments put together.
 
Last edited:

powerangle

Legend
Close enough is 1 slam , currently the gap is 4 slams. Also Nadal is like the perennial number 2. He is number 1 for like 100 weeks, which probably several players have achieved and nowhere close to GOAT hood.

Nadal is accomplished on 1 out of 4 majors. federer is 3 out of 4 majors. Big big difference.

4 slams is what Murray and Hewitt have achieved TOGETHER.

So the gap between Federer and Nadal is the size of Murray and Hewitt's accomplishments put together.

No where did I say 4 slams is "close enough" though. I did say "IF" Nadal gets close enough, which is like maybe 1 or 2 slams for me. And sure, Nadal falls way short of Federer in other metrics (weeks at #1, # of WTFs, etc), but Nadal has metrics where Federer falls short of as well (consecutive years winning a slam, Olympics, # of Masters, etc).

I wouldn't necessarily give Nadal the "GOAT" title either even if he did come within 1 or 2 slams of Fed, but I can see why some people would give arguments to arguably compare Fed v Nadal for "GOAT-hood" (if such a thing exists). There will be decently sound arguments to support either side.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
No where did I say 4 slams is "close enough" though. I did say "IF" Nadal gets close enough, which is like maybe 1 or 2 slams for me. And sure, Nadal falls way short of Federer in other metrics (weeks at #1, # of WTFs, etc), but Nadal has metrics where Federer falls short of as well (consecutive years winning a slam, Olympics, # of Masters, etc).

I wouldn't necessarily give Nadal the "GOAT" title either even if he did come within 1 or 2 slams of Fed, but I can see why some people would give arguments to arguably compare Fed v Nadal for "GOAT-hood" (if such a thing exists). There will be decently sound arguments to support either side.

Fair enough , if he gets to 17 then we can debate.

BTW. Number of consecutive years winning a slam is a statistic , not a record.

A player who wins 4 majors between age 24-27 is no different from someone who won at age 20, 24 , 28 and 32.
 

powerangle

Legend
Fair enough , if he gets to 17 then we can debate.

BTW. Number of consecutive years winning a slam is a statistic , not a record.

A player who wins 4 majors between age 24-27 is no different from someone who won at age 20, 24 , 28 and 32.

Fair enough, there is no right or wrong, it is just opinions anyway.

Number of consecutive years winning a slam IS a record, unless you know of a player that has won in more consecutive years. How meaningful is the "record" is of course open to debate. And for what it's worth, I agree that winning X slams is winning X slams, no matter how "concentrated" it is. Of that I agree with you. Just like it was nice that Fed won 11 slams in 4 years, but it is no different from winning those 11 slams had it been spread over several more years.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fair enough, there is no right or wrong, it is just opinions anyway.

Number of consecutive years winning a slam IS a record, unless you know of a player that has won in more consecutive years. How meaningful is the "record" is of course open to debate. And for what it's worth, I agree that winning X slams is winning X slams, no matter how "concentrated" it is. Of that I agree with you. Just like it was nice that Fed won 11 slams in 4 years, but it is no different from winning those 11 slams had it been spread over several more years.

Fed reached 18 of 19 major finals at one point. That is 5 straight years of major finals, we dont talk about it much.

Consecutiveness is just a pattern, not a record.

Fed was number 1 for 237 consecutive weeks. How many years is that ? If you are a one surface GOAT, you can have 10 consecutive years winning a slam, but how difficult it is to be number 1 for years together ?
 

Day Tripper

Semi-Pro
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.


This could possibly be the worst post I have encountered on tennis talk to date and thats saying something.
 
Top