Simple guidelines to a significant H2H

[drm025]

Do you know the years when Nadal won his greatest number of titles? Nadal had more chances than Fed during his prime. Add to that the clay bias and you have the recipe for such a lopsided H2H.

Yes, he had his most titles in 2005, 11, with 8 of them being clay, and didnt have the toughest draws in winning his 3 hard court titles, tbh.

They have played less than half of their matches on clay, Federer has had plenty of matches to exert his dominance on his favorite surfaces, but he couldn't.

 

[tennisaddict]

Refer to post #6.

You had stated in post 6 that Fed could have improved H2H at the cost of consistency by losing in early rounds.

Federer could also have lost several semis of FO to Djokovic, Ferrer, Davydenko instead of losing to finals to Nadal.

There is no reason to drum up H2H.

It is the titles (majors and WTF) that counts and how many years /weeks you were No. 1

Everything else are all stocking stuffers.

 

[NatF]

Feel free to elaborate on the parts I missed, I've already worked overtime in this thread.

Too tired to bother, if he doesn't get it after your eloquence my more terse style won't make much difference.

2006-2007 was not Nadal's prime, it was before. Federer had chances before Nadal's prime, and Nadal has chances after Fed's. Just how it works. You can't deny a 23-10 H2H which took place over almost 11 years, and put it down to who was or wasn't in their prime.

2007 at least was clearly Nadal's prime, I'd argue if you're winning slams and defending them as well as making multiple finals you're in your prime.

I actually hate the talk of primes and such, trust me, of course it all counts, but there certainly is a difference in Djokovic pre-2011 and after is there not?

My stance is that a more complete H2H between Djokovic and Roddick over a longer time period would easily have Djokovic leading. I don't know that because it didn't happen, what did happen is that they played 9 times and had a 1 match difference. To me, that is not enough to say who is better. So, then you go to overall achievements, and it becomes clear.

Djokovic never played the best version of Roddick, so your whole point about not enough meetings post 2011 is moot. Djokovic was the significantly better player during the period of all their meetings, he was higher ranked for all but 1 of the meetings IIRC. Even a Djokovic in excellent form in 2008 had lots of trouble with Roddick who was long ways from his best years.

There's enough there to suggest Roddick could cause Djokovic problems. Especially considering Isner e.g. a big serve and big forehand type have caused him problems as well.

 

[NatF]

Yes, he had his most titles in 2005, 11, with 8 of them being clay, and didnt have the toughest draws in winning his 3 hard court titles, tbh.

They have played less than half of their matches on clay, Federer has had plenty of matches to exert his dominance on his favorite surfaces, but he couldn't.

You do realize that most of their matches were on clay during Federer's prime/best years right? 4 of their hard court meetings have come in the last year or so when Federer has been clearly struggling. If only Federer was so lucky to meet Nadal at the back end of 2009.

 

[drm025]

NatF, the best version of roddick (2003) won 2 masters and 1 slam. The best version of Djokovic (2011) won 5 masters and 3 slams, consistently beating Federer and Nadal. Big difference there.

 

[DjokovicForTheFO]

Yes, he had his most titles in 2005, 11, with 8 of them being clay, and didnt have the toughest draws in winning his 3 hard court titles, tbh.

They have played less than half of their matches on clay, Federer has had plenty of matches to exert his dominance on his favorite surfaces, but he couldn't.

So you win the most titles ever in your career INCLUDING a slam (along the way beating the GOAT), including almost 30% of your titles coming from your worst surfaces and THAT is not your prime????? Are you kidding me or are you just delusional? What a load of horsesheet spewed just to satisfy your transparent agenda. Grow up.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

NatF, the best version of roddick (2003) won 2 masters and 1 slam. The best version of Djokovic (2011) won 5 masters and 3 slams, consistently beating Federer and Nadal. Big difference there.

But he isn't disputing that.

 

[tacou]

4-1 h2h for player A, with player B winning the only slam meeting in a final. Irrelevant.

 

[drm025]

Fed and Nadal are only going to meet when they are both playing well, by virtue of their consistenly high rankings. Neither was off their games during these meetings. Because there are so many matches over such a long time period, any difference in their level should even out.

You know how Fed fans feel he is punished for being consistent and losing in finals? Well, you guys do the same by punishing Nadal for being utterly dominant on clay.

 

[ForLoveOfTheGame]

Alright alright alright alright alright... Head to head must not include matches when player was not in baby stage of career or twilight. Also, no inclusion of matches played under roofs, on clay, on glass, on plexi glass or under bridges. No matches played on split surfaces or helipads, as well as matches played when player was injured or had the diarrhea.

 

[drm025]

But he isn't disputing that.

He said that because they didnt meet during roddick's peak it doesnt matter than they didnt meet during djokovic's peak. I disagree because Djokovic's peak was much higher.

 

[drm025]

So you win the most titles ever in your career INCLUDING a slam (along the way beating the GOAT), including almost 30% of your titles coming from your worst surfaces and THAT is not your prime????? Are you kidding me or are you just delusional? What a load of horsesheet spewed just to satisfy your transparent agenda. Grow up.

Whats with all this transparent talk? Yes, I am trying to be transparent. What Federer fan would make a thread like this?

Either way if you feel Nadal was in his prime in 2005, is he still there now? 10 years later? I dont really believe in a prime per se. When I said not in his prime I basically meant not getting the consistent slam results he was able to get later in his career.

 

[DjokovicForTheFO]

Whats with all this transparent talk? Yes, I am trying to be transparent. What Federer fan would make a thread like this?

Either way if you feel Nadal was in his prime in 2005, is he still there now? 10 years later? I dont really believe in a prime per se. When I said not in his prime I basically meant not getting the consistent slam results he was able to get later in his career.

Yes he's still there now for the reasons I've already outlined. It may seem Nadal's game is harder on his body, but there is no proof for this whatsoever, only subjective rants, not only by delusional posters, but by the media including tennis 'experts'. There is simply no proof that his playing style is worse on his body. Additionally all of the breaks he's taken prolonged his prime. But most importantly it's his high margin topspin game that still allows him to dominate now even when his movement is not as good as it used to be. With Federer, even slightly slower movement is far far less forgiving because he plays so close to baseline taking the ball on the rise. Hence Federer's peak ended rather abruptly after he contracted mono.

 

[NatF]

NatF, the best version of roddick (2003) won 2 masters and 1 slam. The best version of Djokovic (2011) won 5 masters and 3 slams, consistently beating Federer and Nadal. Big difference there.

That's not the point though...the point is Djokovic was higher ranked and having significantly better years than Roddick when he suffered those defeats. He should have led the h2h comfortably but he didn't. Djokovic was pre his best years and Roddick was post them.

 

[JMR]

It seems that a lot of posters (mostly Fed fans) either completely dismiss H2H or don't understand what the difference between a significant H2H vs. an insignificant H2H is. A significant H2H being a H2H that can actually help you differentiate between 2 players (not the same as a significant rivalry such as Borg-McEnroe).

There's no great wisdom in suggesting that playing in slams is different from playing in other events, or that in general, the more matches played against each other, the better for comparative purposes.

A truly valuable contribution would be demonstrating exactly how head-to-head records might be logically employed for some purpose other than determining which one of the only two tennis players on a desert island is the better of the two. That is, how can head-to-head records be used to rank any group of three or more players? How can head-to-head records be used to rank players who have never played against each other?

For my part, I don't see how head-to-head records can logically and reliably rank even a tiny subset of the field, such as Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic. Nadal has a huge edge on Federer, so he must be ranked well above Fed, correct? Federer in turn has a slight edge on Djokovic, so that means the Djoker is in third place, I suppose. But wait: Djokovic has a pretty respectable head-to-head against Nadal, clearly better than Fed's, so he must leap ahead of Federer, yes? Now throw Sampras into the mix. He has no head-to-head against any of these players, except a blip of an 0-1 record against Federer. How does he fit into the head-to-head-determined matrix?

A > B / B > C / C > A head-to-head combinations will always exist. Now add something that can't be even be directly compared, such as Σ, and the problem is compounded.

 

[drm025]

There's no great wisdom in suggesting that playing in slams is different from playing in other events, or that in general, the more matches played against each other, the better for comparative purposes.

A truly valuable contribution would be demonstrating exactly how head-to-head records might be logically employed for some purpose other than determining which one of the only two tennis players on a desert island is the better of the two. That is, how can head-to-head records be used to rank any group of three or more players? How can head-to-head records be used to rank players who have never played against each other?

For my part, I don't see how head-to-head records can logically and reliably rank even a tiny subset of the field, such as Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic. Nadal has a huge edge on Federer, so he must be ranked well above Fed, correct? Federer in turn has a slight edge on Djokovic, so that means the Djoker is in third place, I suppose. But wait: Djokovic has a pretty respectable head-to-head against Nadal, clearly better than Fed's, so he must leap ahead of Federer, yes? Now throw Sampras into the mix. He has no head-to-head against any of these players, except a blip of an 0-1 record against Federer. How does he fit into the head-to-head-determined matrix?

A > B / B > C / C > A head-to-head combinations will always exist. Now add something that can't be even be directly compared, such as Σ, and the problem is compounded.

Yes, this is a problem you would run into if you were to try and use only H2H to determine which players are better than others, but I don't think anyone is trying to do that. IMO, the H2H can only become really significant when players have similar achievements. The H2H cannot overcome a big gap in career achievements and cannot be used at all to compare players whose careers did not significantly overlap.

 

[JMR]

Yes, this is a problem you would run into if you were to try and use only H2H to determine which players are better than others, but I don't think anyone is trying to do that.

No, I think some people are absolutely trying to do that, and have been doing it for years. But perhaps you are not among them.

The H2H cannot overcome a big gap in career achievements and cannot be used at all to compare players whose careers did not significantly overlap.

That's odd, because some Sampras partisans have argued that Federer's poor head-to-head against Nadal meant that somehow Sampras was better than Federer. It was the old "overcame his rivals" canard.

 

[drm025]

No, I think some people are absolutely trying to do that, and have been doing it for years. But perhaps you are not among them.



That's odd, because some Sampras partisans have argued that Federer's poor head-to-head against Nadal meant that somehow Sampras was better than Federer. It was the old "overcame his rivals" canard.

I am not among them. But, if there is any case where the H2H becomes significant, it is between Federer and Nadal. When people try to compare that to Nadal vs. Davydenko, that is where I have a problem.

I don't see how Federer losing to Nadal could make Sampras better than him. For me, Sampras cant be better without the career slam.

 

[JMR]

I am not among them. But, if there is any case where the H2H becomes significant, it is between Federer and Nadal. When people try to compare that to Nadal vs. Davydenko, that is where I have a problem.

Interestingly, about 22% of Federer's losses to Nadal have come in the last 16 months. If Federer had retired after 2012, he would have sacrificed not one of his own legacy-defining titles or No. 1 ranking stats, but would have:

• Kept his head-to-head with Nadal at 10-18 (bad), rather than 10-23 (really bad).
• Preserved his perfect 4-0 WTF record against Nadal.
• Ended his career with a win over Nadal (Indian Wells 2012).

So by continuing to play as an oldster when he didn't need to, Federer gained no more slams, slam finals, WTF titles, Masters titles, or weeks at No. 1, but made himself look a lot worse in the eyes of those who think head-to-head play is a useful metric in GOAT analyses. Dumb move, right? I imagine that if Federer keeps playing and losing to Nadal indefinitely, Nadal can become the undisputed GOAT for the head-to-head crowd merely by piling up those meaningless wins. No need even to move up from the 14th slam. After all, wouldn't 10-30 be totally unacceptable for a GOAT, no matter how old?

 

[drm025]

Interestingly, about 22% of Federer's losses to Nadal have come in the last 16 months. If Federer had retired after 2012, he would have sacrificed not one of his own legacy-defining titles or No. 1 ranking stats, but would have:

• Kept his head-to-head with Nadal at 10-18 (bad), rather than 10-23 (really bad).
• Preserved his perfect 4-0 WTF record against Nadal.
• Ended his career with a win over Nadal (Indian Wells 2012).

So by continuing to play as an oldster when he didn't need to, Federer gained no more slams, slam finals, WTF titles, Masters titles, or weeks at No. 1, but made himself look a lot worse in the eyes of those who think head-to-head play is a useful metric in GOAT analyses. Dumb move, right? I imagine that if Federer keeps playing and losing to Nadal indefinitely, Nadal can become the undisputed GOAT for the head-to-head crowd merely by piling up those meaningless wins. No need even to move up from the 14th slam. After all, wouldn't 10-30 be totally unacceptable for a GOAT, no matter how old?

The H2H in slams would still be 8-2 though, which is pretty significant. Either way, no one knew he wouldn't win any big titles after the end of 2012. He looked to be in pretty good form as 2012 ended, actually. If you continue playing then you have the ability to win more titles and you also have the ability to lose more. It goes hand-in-hand, I'm afraid.

 

[Bud]

You had stated in post 6 that Fed could have improved H2H at the cost of consistency by losing in early rounds.

Federer could also have lost several semis of FO to Djokovic, Ferrer, Davydenko instead of losing to finals to Nadal.

There is no reason to drum up H2H.

It is the titles (majors and WTF) that counts and how many years /weeks you were No. 1

Everything else are all stocking stuffers.

WTF is a joke. Best 2 of 3 where it's possible to lose two matches and still win the title. It exists to make money for the ATP at the end of the season and gives players big points and big $$$ for attending. Otherwise, many would probably opt to skip it and take an extended vacay before January rolls around.

When it's best of 5 and not RR format, it may have some credibility.

 

[JMR]

If you continue playing then you have the ability to win more titles and you also have the ability to lose more. It goes hand-in-hand, I'm afraid.

Only in theory. In reality, you eventually reach (soon reach, if you're already over 30) a point at which it's a practical impossibility to win anything of value, yet you can still lose. It's easy to lose in tennis. Turn pro too young, and you'll rack up the losses. Stay a pro too long, and you'll rack up the losses. Play lots of big matches against players a generation behind you, and you'll lose lots of matches. That's why it's generally a bad practice to evaluate players based on matches they've lost. It's better to look at what they've won, because wins are much more difficult to come by.

 

[tennisaddict]

WTF is a joke. Best 2 of 3 where it's possible to lose two matches and still win the title. It exists to make money for the ATP at the end of the season and gives players big points and big $$$ for attending. Otherwise, many would probably opt to skip it and take an extended vacay before January rolls around.

When it's best of 5 and not RR format, it may have some credibility.

Rafa does not think so...

Fed and Novak play for their life and are so thrilled when they get the trophy.

Sour grapes is all what we can see.

A qualifier or wild card could win a major, not WTF...Players fight throughout the year to qualify and treat this as a reward for their year round work.

Players skip FO, Players skip olympics..not WTF.

 

[Lips]

Rafa does not think so...

Fed and Novak play for their life and are so thrilled when they get the trophy.

Sour grapes is all what we can see.

A qualifier or wild card could win a major, not WTF...Players fight throughout the year to qualify and treat this as a reward for their year round work.

Players skip FO, Players skip olympics..not WTF.

Players are not at their best at the WTF...it's a round robin, exhibition style tournament that is probably a bit overjoyed by fans like yourself.

Everyone talks about peak ..put it this way players peak for grand slams, not for the WTF....it's been a long season they are not at their best

 

[The Green Mile]

Players are not at their best at the WTF...it's a round robin, exhibition style tournament that is probably a bit overjoyed by fans like yourself.

Everyone talks about peak ..put it this way players peak for grand slams, not for the WTF....it's been a long season they are not at their best

That's when Federer JUMPS IN AND TAKES IT!!!

 

[Lips]

That's when Federer JUMPS IN AND TAKES IT!!!

As far as I'm concerned he can have it..it's just not that big of a deal

 

[The Green Mile]

As far as I'm concerned he can have it..it's just not that big of a deal

Can he have USO as well?

 

[Lips]

Can he have USO as well?

Probably not...

 

[The Green Mile]

Probably not...

:neutral:

 

[Bud]

That's when Federer JUMPS IN AND TAKES IT!!!

The surface and conditions also suit his game, perfectly. He excels indoors on a medium paced, low bouncing surface.