BorgTheGOAT
Legend
The metrics you guys come up with in order to push Murray get stranger and stranger. Why not stick to the most important ones 4>3, 58>41.
Murray vs Courier
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I don't think those are the only stats that matter. Especially weeks at # with such small numbers.
Hewitt > Edberg?
Kuerten > Wilander/Murray?
Roddick > Becker?
I did not write that his opponents were not great champions, simply Murray impressed me more both when he lost (above all) and when he won against Fedalovic rather than Jim v so many great players but .. only Pete was absurd.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I agree that weeks at No.1 are overrated in importance and have stated it in many threads . However, still more relevant than total number of positive H2Hs or overall winning percentage.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Not for me.
Lucky weeks at #1 can happen if there's a void of ATGs (check 1998-2003). Lucky win percentage or positive h2h don't happen.
GuyForget
Professional
well yeah Sampras is better than Nadal on 3 of the 4 surfaces
NatF
Bionic Poster
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I meant h2h against the whole field.
RODDICK's h2h with 10+ matches:
12 positive (66.7%)
1 draw
5 negative (Federer, Murray, Nadal, Ferrer, Haas)
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
This is such a useless stat as there are so many scenarios that are not covered. What for example if a player has 10 negative H2H of 5-6 with most losses coming in 500s and 250s while another player has only two negative H2Hs but both complete desasters of 2-20 and 1-15 with something like 12 of these losses being in slams. Roddick is a good example here, he might only have 5 negative H2Hs in 10+ matches, but his 3-21 (0-8) against Fed has hurt him more than most of Couriers negative H2H ever could. Another flaw of your stat: it does not take into account that there are players who have good H2H against the big boys, but surprisingly many losses against journeymen. Becker is a good example, he has positive or equal H2H against almost everyone apart from Sampras, Agassi and Lendl. However, he lost a hell lot of times in early rounds against lower opposition which is why he has surprisingly few weeks at No.1. According to your great H2H stat he must be a monster on the level of big three.
Again, I would say that it's about both Majors (more important) and years/weeks at #1 (less important).
Edberg > Hewitt b/c he leads in Majors 6-2, they're tied in years at #1, and Hewitt's 8 week lead in weeks at #1 isn't close to overcoming Edberg's 4 Major lead.
Wilander > Kuerten b/c he leads in Majors 7-3, they're tied in years at #1, and Kuerten's 23 lead in weeks at #1 isn't close to overcoming Wilander's 4 Major lead.
Becker > Roddick b/c he leads in Majors 6-1, and Roddick's 1 year at #1 and 1 week lead in weeks at #1 isn't close to overcoming Becker's 5 Major lead.
Again, the problem for Murray is that he is behind Courier in both Majors and weeks at #1. And sure, he leads in a lot of secondary stats, but those are far less important.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I thought the discussion was about Slams. I think Federer has done better at RG than Djokovic (the extra final is really the one thing that tips the scale though) while Djokovic is better overall on clay.
I disagree on both fronts. You can certainly have a lucky win percentage for a few reasons. For instance, two players can have all/most of their matches when Player A is in his prime and Player B is past his prime. In that case Player B could be the overall better player, and Player A could have a lucky positive H2H.
You can also have a lucky win percentage. As you just noted, you can have stretches where there's a void of ATGs, and you can also have stretches where the overall competition is better or worse. If Player A plays a good chunk of his career in a "bad" period, his win percentage might be better than Player B, who was better but who played most/all of his career during a "good" period.
Now, you might quibble over whether Player A was lucky in either scenario, but I'd have the same quibble about whether Player A was lucky to get weeks at #1 during a "weak" year.
