Matches won while winning fewer points

[Tenez!]

= Simpson's Paradox applied to tennis scoring system.

The Atlantic published a great article about it a few years ago, when it explained Federer went 4-24 in these situations (worst stat across all pros) - which according to the authors proves he forces his opponents to adopt risky strategies - which they call "larger-than-average variance strategies".

They conclude this strengthens his claim to best ever. Regardless of this questionable conclusion, here's my question: how does one find these matches?
Can I get them on a tennis stats site, or anything else that manually hunting for them?

Here are a few, but I'm missing a great many :

Lost while winning more points :
05 Australian Open SF - to Safin (7 points)
05 Monte Carlo QF - to Gasquet (1 point)
06 Dubai F - to Nadal (7 points)
06 Rome F - to Nadal (5 points)
07 Montreal F - to Djokovic (2 points)
07 Madrid F - to Nalbandian (0 points)
08 Rome QF - to Stepanek (4 points)
08 Cincinatti R3 - to Karlovic (5 points)
09 Australian Open F - to Nadal (1 point)
09 Montreal QF - to Tsonga (9 points)
10 Indian Wells R2 - to Baghatis (0 points)
10 Miami R3 - to Berdych (0 points)
10 Paris SF - to Monfils (4 points)
11 Rome R3 - to Gasquet (5 points)
11 Wimbledon QF - to Tsonga (? points)
12 Miami R2 - to Roddick (5 points)
13 Basel F - to Del Potro (0 points)
15 Australian Open R2 - to Seppi (1 point)
15 Madrid R2 - to Kyrgios (4 points)
15 Shanghai R2 - to Ramos-Vinolas (7 points)
16 Stuttgart SF - to Thiem (1 point)

Won while winning fewer points :
04 US Open QF - over Agassi (4 points)
08 Estoril F - over Davydenko (1 point)
12 Madrid R2 - over Raonic (4 points)
15 Halle R32 - over Kohlschreiber (1 point)


Any help would be appreciated! (+ interested in stats of Wimby 11 QF, as well as all Davis Cup ties - can't find'em)

 

[daddy]

Honestly their conclusion is a complete nonsense. If we are talking about a regular match where both players are very near 50% points won ( not about a 7-6 0-6 7-6 scoreline ) my opinion is that if you manage to win such a match by winning less points that your opponent it is not winning ugly by any means. It is being better on big points and when it matters ergo being mentally tougher.

 

[Tenez!]

Here are a few :

(see opening post)

 

[Tenez!]

Honestly their conclusion is a complete nonsense. If we are talking about a regular match where both players are very near 50% points won ( not about a 7-6 0-6 7-6 scoreline ) my opinion is that if you manage to win such a match by winning less points that your opponent it is not winning ugly by any means. It is being better on big points and when it matters ergo being mentally tougher.

Yeah yeah, the "mentally tougher" patrol. Heard a hundred times.
Did you even read their summary before stating this? I bet you didn't.

But how does one find these matches?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yeah yeah, the "mentally tougher" patrol. Heard a hundred times.

But how does one find these matches?

Tennis is all about the big points.

 

[Noelan]

Djokovic Nadal Madrid09 SF 125 120

 

[daddy]

Yeah yeah, the "mentally tougher" patrol. Heard a hundred times.
Did you even read their summary before stating this? I bet you didn't.

But how does one find these matches?

I'd help you but I don't know how to find these matches nor if anyone has a complete list of them. As for the heard a hundred times comment, it seems that it wasn't enough for you. Trust me sometimes a couple of points, even just one, can turn things upside down.

 

[Russeljones]

Debatable whether all passing judgment on the study have gone through the full article. Whatever happened to education?

 

[chacmool]

are you sure about halle 2016 sf ( so i can bet my house)

 

[metsman]

infuriating how many huge matches Federer has lost despite winning more points

But in the 04 AO QF he did win fewer points but still win. Testament to Agassi and the conditions but in that match I'm just happy he found a way to win.

 

[metsman]

05 AO semi..he won 8 more points and lost.

Also Roddick lost at both at the AO and USO in 04 (to Safin and Johansson in the quarters) despite winning a fair amount more points (like 20 more in the Johansson match). Brutal luck for Mr. Roddick in the majors in 04.

 

[Arya Stark]

are you sure about halle 2016 sf ( so i can bet my house)

LMAO I just caught that
He meant Stuttgart sf

 

[Tenez!]

are you sure about halle 2016 sf ( so i can bet my house)

Good one!

So any for the missing matches?

 

[metsman]

pretty sure Dubai loss to nadal IIRC was 100 to 98 so 2 fewer points not 7.

Don't know if you are just focused on Federer but like I said Safin won both the QF and SF of the 04 AO despite losing more points and Roddick lost the 04 USO QF despite winning significantly more points. 11 Wimby QF and 05 YEC F I am pretty sure were normal matches. I know that Djokovic beat Davydeno at the 08 YEC RR despite winning fewer points.

Use matchstat.com to get the specific match data, this is all just the top of my head. Just look up player x vs player y matchstat and you get all their match data with points won.

 

[Fedeonic]

pretty sure Dubai loss to nadal IIRC was 100 to 98 so 2 fewer points not 7.

According to ATP, 78-71 for Fed in points won.

 

[metsman]

According to ATP, 78-71 for Fed in points won.

that's right I think 100 to 98 was the 07 Montreal match then.

 

[Tenez!]

that's right I think 100 to 98 was the 07 Montreal match then.

Good call

According to ATP, 78-71 for Fed in points won.

Yup.

I added a few matches. Any more ideas?

(I focus on Federer because he has the most of anyone, which makes it all the more surprising. Three GS losses while winning more points!)