Sinner vs Fed by age 23 and Alcaraz vs Rafa by age 21

[Pheasant]

What do you mean? This must be wrong.
Sinner turned 23 just now. Fed turned 23 before USO 2004.

I’m using the stats of the OP.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I’m using the stats of the OP.

Oh yes I saw it too thanks

 

[Pheasant]

I’m using the stats of the OP.

Regarding record vs top-10. But you are correct about Fed not having hit the streak of 24 straight yet. I believe he was around 14 straight heading into the USO of 2004. I’m going off of memory from what the the announcers said.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Regarding record vs top-10. But you are correct about Fed not having hit the streak of 24 straight yet. I believe he was around 14 straight heading into the USO of 2004. I’m going off of memory from what the the announcers said.

Tennis Abstract: Roger Federer Match Results, Splits, and Analysis

You are right.

 

[Pheasant]

Tennis Abstract: Roger Federer Match Results, Splits, and Analysis

You are right.

Thanks for posting that. That is awesome! Yeah, I remember the announcers stating that this young Federer dude was likely going break the record for most consecutive wins vs top-10. It was mentioned a lot. think it was 16 back then. It was either Borg or Laver that held the record even. That’s where I’m really fuzzy.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Thanks for posting that. That is awesome! Yeah, I remember the announcers stating that this young Federer dude was likely going break the record for most consecutive wins vs top-10. It was mentioned a lot. think it was 16 back then. It was either Borg or Laver that held the record even. That’s where I’m really fuzzy.

Must be boring though. 24 straight wins is a lot. Thank god Sinner and Raz are both going to be here. This year if Raz was not here, Sinner would go to clay season without a loss. And not even good opposition.

 

[mike danny]

Fed was way better than Sinner at 23, why is this a comparison?

 

[Pheasant]

Must be boring though. 24 straight wins is a lot. Thank god Sinner and Raz are both going to be here. This year if Raz was not here, Sinner would go to clay season without a loss. And not even good opposition.

Yes, very true. I want a very competitive rivalry. Sinner will likely be more consistent. But Carlos is so dangerous when he’s on.

 

[Mustard]

Fed was way better than Sinner at 23, why is this a comparison?

Exactly. Federer was Sinner's current age (23 years, 1 month) just after the 2004 US Open, the final of which against Hewitt was probably Federer's peak moment. That was also the 4th major win for Federer, and his 3rd major of 2004.

 

[tennis_pro]

Why is this doping mug being compared to peak Fed? What is this blasphemy?

This insanity has to stop for real. The big 3 in their primes would clean his clock and he knows this.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

​

​

​

Can era strength be used to mislead the actual difficulty of a player's path?​ ​

It's a mistery who you support.

 

[gravemadness]

I dunno how to quantify era strength from the stats you shared. All I see is that Fedal at those ages had played more tennis than Alcaraz and Sinner, with comparable win rates.

 

[Neptune]

He ate them for breakfast. Fed has the record for longest winning streak against the top-10 at 24. Nobody else is close. The 2nd longest streak is a distant 17 straight, which is shared by Djokovic and Federer.

When you look at the names on the top10 list, it's disappointing, but 24 steak is impressive no matter what.

The most ridiculous part: Fed lost 6 matches to low-ranked players (4 of them outside the top30) during that streak. That era is as strange as it gets...

 

[gravemadness]

When you look at the names on the top10 list, it's disappointing, but 24 steak is impressive no matter what.

The most ridiculous part: Fed lost 6 matches to low-ranked players (4 of them outside the top30) during that streak. That era is as strange as it gets...

tbf, those guys outside the top 30 included players like Nadal and Kuerten.

 

[Pheasant]

I dunno how to quantify era strength from the stats you shared. All I see is that Fedal at those ages had played more tennis than Alcaraz and Sinner, with comparable win rates.

It's impossible to quantify the strength of eras. We all have our theories. But until one of us invents a time machine to have guys like peak McEnroe play Sinner; we won't know. And actually, that's not fair either. Because guys today have much better access to tools(better trainers, nutritionists, doctors, surgeons, supplements, etc, etc).

So yeah, it's impossible to know. More losses to lower-ranked players could mean that it's a tougher field. It's impossible to know.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It's impossible to quantify the strength of eras. We all have our theories. But until one of us invents a time machine to have guys like peak McEnroe play Sinner; we won't know. And actually, that's not fair either. Because guys today have much better access to tools(better trainers, nutritionists, doctors, surgeons, supplements, etc, etc).

So yeah, it's impossible to know. More losses to lower-ranked players could mean that it's a tougher field. It's impossible to know.

It's very common that players are now playing more matches in mandatory tournaments than in past. And they are skipping smaller tournaments especially 250s

I think 500s today are very good and majority of them can compete with a slam but 250s have been completely irrelevant.

Slams
Far below masters
A little below them 500s

 

[nolefam_2024]

Medvedev has not won a title in last 65+ weeks
I don't know how many 250s he would play but he did reach 2 slam finals 1 semis 1 quarter and a r4 in the same timeframe.

Only bad loss was r1 RG

So would meddy take a few 250s instead of slams result? Of course not

 

[gravemadness]

It's impossible to quantify the strength of eras. We all have our theories. But until one of us invents a time machine to have guys like peak McEnroe play Sinner; we won't know. And actually, that's not fair either. Because guys today have much better access to tools(better trainers, nutritionists, doctors, surgeons, supplements, etc, etc).

So yeah, it's impossible to know. More losses to lower-ranked players could mean that it's a tougher field. It's impossible to know.

I like what Andrew Burton once introduced as a metric to identify depth vs stability in a field, which was essentially the number of unique players in all 4 GS SFs in a year, with 4 being the most stable field and 16 being a "deep" field.

2000-2004 had an average of 13.2, meaning it tended towards less stability at the top, but possibly more depth.

 

[nolefam_2024]

How many 250s are sinner alcaraz Djokovic holding right now?

I would guess 0 for sinner but I may be wrong and 0 for Djokovic

Alcaraz not sure but most likely 0

 

[Lleytonstation]

Yeah, all the extra matches against low ranked, lol


Where are all the weak era experts?

Djoker fan and his weak era arguments. Sad that you still have to play that card. Problem is, it backfired lol.

 

[gravemadness]

How many 250s are sinner alcaraz Djokovic holding right now?

I would guess 0 for sinner but I may be wrong and 0 for Djokovic

Alcaraz not sure but most likely 0

that's true but 250s these days are not worth the effort unless it's a warm up to a slam for the top players - this isn't the same as pre ranking points change when 250s still gave you 250 points for a win but Masters and slams were 500 and 1000 points respectively.

 

[nolefam_2024]

that's true but 250s these days are not worth the effort unless it's a warm up to a slam for the top players - this isn't the same as pre ranking points change when 250s still gave you 250 points for a win but Masters and slams were 500 and 1000 points respectively.

Yes and in the past it was not the case. Roger won many but I think nole is now reaching matches played by Roger in slams and masters atp finals combined

But Roger must have played 130+ more matches

 

[Pheasant]

I like what Andrew Burton once introduced as a metric to identify depth vs stability in a field, which was essentially the number of unique players in all 4 GS SFs in a year, with 4 being the most stable field and 16 being a "deep" field.

2000-2004 had an average of 13.2, meaning it tended towards less stability at the top, but possibly more depth.

This is very true. That's a fancy way of saying that the standard deviation has shrunk; meaning that the gap among players is smaller on average. This is used in baseball all the time. I've actually spoken to an author of several books on this very topic. He's a PHd statistician. When the standard deviation is a smaller percentage of the mean score, then the competition is said to be stronger.

This said, no method is perfect. But I'm curious to run with concept in tennis. I've never seen that done before.

I'll try this with tennis and the points that they use for rankings. I will run the top-20. I've honestly never done this before. So here goes:

2004
Mean score: 2199.75 points
standard deviation: 1199.17=54.51% of the mean
Fed's 6335 points was 3.44 standard deviations above the mean

2024
Mean Score: 4210.75
standard deviation: 2120.73=50.36% of the mean
Sinner's 11180 points is 3.28 standard deviations above the norm

Note: Using this method, it would appear that 2024 is stronger than 2004. However, Federer is 3.44 standard deviations above the norm, which edges out Sinner's 3.28.

I've often heard that 2009 was a year with the strongest competition. For fun, let's test that out:
Mean score: 4143
standard deviation: 2665.32=64.33% of the mean
Fed's z-score is 2.403. This is fairly weak for a world #1

Using this method, 2004>2024 Sinner>>>2009 Federer

Lastly, let's look at 2006
Mean score: 2340.50
standard deviation: 1545.90=66.04% of the mean
Fed's Z-score: 3.900

2006 is the weakest era of this bunch. However, Fed's z-sore of 3.900 is off the charts, which adjusts for the strength of the competition.

 

[NatF]

This is very true. That's a fancy way of saying that the standard deviation has shrunk; meaning that the gap among players is smaller on average. This is used in baseball all the time. I've actually spoken to an author of several books on this very topic. He's a PHd statistician. When the standard deviation is a smaller percentage of the mean score, then the competition is said to be stronger.

This said, no method is perfect. But I'm curious to run with concept in tennis. I've never seen that done before.

I'll try this with tennis and the points that they use for rankings. I will run the top-20. I've honestly never done this before. So here goes:

2004
Mean score: 2199.75 points
standard deviation: 1199.17=54.51% of the mean
Fed's 6335 points was 3.44 standard deviations above the mean

2024
Mean Score: 4210.75
standard deviation: 2120.73=50.36% of the mean
Sinner's 11180 points is 3.28 standard deviations above the norm

Note: Using this method, it would appear that 2024 is stronger than 2004. However, Federer is 3.44 standard deviations above the norm, which edges out Sinner's 3.28.

I've often heard that 2009 was a year with the strongest competition. For fun, let's test that out:
Mean score: 4143
standard deviation: 2665.32=64.33% of the mean
Fed's z-score is 2.403. This is fairly weak for a world #1

Using this method, 2004>2024 Sinner>>>2009 Federer

Lastly, let's look at 2006
Mean score: 2340.50
standard deviation: 1545.90=66.04% of the mean
Fed's Z-score: 3.900

2006 is the weakest era of this bunch. However, Fed's z-sore of 3.900 is off the charts, which adjusts for the strength of the competition.

Tennis is a zero sum game, the points are the same every year only the distribution changes. Statistics alone can never tell you whether it's depth, weakness or otherworldy level of play that creates these dominant or years of relative parity.

 

[nolefam_2024]

This is very true. That's a fancy way of saying that the standard deviation has shrunk; meaning that the gap among players is smaller on average. This is used in baseball all the time. I've actually spoken to an author of several books on this very topic. He's a PHd statistician. When the standard deviation is a smaller percentage of the mean score, then the competition is said to be stronger.

This said, no method is perfect. But I'm curious to run with concept in tennis. I've never seen that done before.

I'll try this with tennis and the points that they use for rankings. I will run the top-20. I've honestly never done this before. So here goes:

2004
Mean score: 2199.75 points
standard deviation: 1199.17=54.51% of the mean
Fed's 6335 points was 3.44 standard deviations above the mean

2024
Mean Score: 4210.75
standard deviation: 2120.73=50.36% of the mean
Sinner's 11180 points is 3.28 standard deviations above the norm

Note: Using this method, it would appear that 2024 is stronger than 2004. However, Federer is 3.44 standard deviations above the norm, which edges out Sinner's 3.28.

I've often heard that 2009 was a year with the strongest competition. For fun, let's test that out:
Mean score: 4143
standard deviation: 2665.32=64.33% of the mean
Fed's z-score is 2.403. This is fairly weak for a world #1

Using this method, 2004>2024 Sinner>>>2009 Federer

Lastly, let's look at 2006
Mean score: 2340.50
standard deviation: 1545.90=66.04% of the mean
Fed's Z-score: 3.900

2006 is the weakest era of this bunch. However, Fed's z-sore of 3.900 is off the charts, which adjusts for the strength of the competition.

I can agree with this statement. Sinner is already matching Federer's B+ season as good as 2009 where he made 4 slam finals. But due to consistency Sinner will pull far ahead by end of the year.

But he is not yet at Fed 2004 to 2007 level seasons but either he will get there one day, or even if he doesn't ever reach there, he is not far off.

 

[CHillTennis]

What about beating him back to back at Wimbledon including when Djokovic was in top form in 2023???

But that doesn't count right??

No, it doesn't.

The fact that Djokovic is still in contention for winning grand slam titles at his age is ridiculous.

 

[Incognito]

Relax. No one doubts Alcaraz is no Nadal, especially on clay. That is just another different universe.

Carlos is more talented than Rafa. unfortunately he doesn’t have Rafa’s brain.

 

[KingCarlitos]

True. Sinneraz have had peak Djokovic and strong era titans Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas. How would Fed be able to break through?

Sincaraz had It relatively easy, Djokovic was far past his peak by the time they broke through, Zverev and Tsitsipas are asses and mugs and Med Is only good on HC And is at best a Wawrinka-Courier level player.

 

[FailBetter]

Sinner was 22 and 21 when those things happened. Because he is a late developer, he only hit his peak when he turned 23 less than a month ago. I predict that, now that he is at his peak, he will be a dominant/almost unbeatable #1 on grass and hard courts for the next several years and either best or second-best player on clay (although by a smaller margin). He will most likely win three slams in 2025, but don't be surprised if he completes the CYGS!

Sinner in his prime now but alcaraz not. Carlos is two years younger and has 2 slams more and he still figuring out his game sometimes. Won Slams on all Surfaces and struggled most on RG. Dont understand why most say his best is clay? he is not rafa. Sometimes it seems he doesnt really figured out how to play his game on clay.
He has certainly more “Tools” while jannick is the more solid and maybe more mature now. Future will be interesting!

 

[ppma]

Carlos is more talented than Rafa. unfortunately he doesn’t have Rafa’s brain.

I agree on that statement, but Rafa's forehand in clay is just another thing. Don't think anyone can replicate.

 

[KingCarlitos]

Sinner in his prime now but alcaraz not. Carlos is two years younger and has 2 slams more and he still figuring out his game sometimes. Won Slams on all Surfaces and struggled most on RG. Dont understand why most say his best is clay? he is not rafa. Sometimes it seems he doesnt really figured out how to play his game on clay.
He has certainly more “Tools” while jannick is the more solid and maybe more mature now. Future will be interesting!

His game needs to mature And be more patient If he wants to dominate RG like Rafa.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sincaraz had It relatively easy, Djokovic was far past his peak by the time they broke through, Zverev and Tsitsipas are asses and mugs and Med Is only good on HC And is at best a Wawrinka-Courier level player.

Right

Same like our dear Federer had it easy

Rafa has it tougher

And Andy nole had toughest

 

[NatF]

Right

Same like our dear Federer had it easy

Rafa has it tougher

And Andy nole had toughest

lol

 

[Incognito]

Sincaraz had It relatively easy, Djokovic was far past his peak by the time they broke through, Zverev and Tsitsipas are asses and mugs and Med Is only good on HC And is at best a Wawrinka-Courier level player.

I dont understand why there are different standard for Federer and djoke. Fed was peak at the time he was 37 according to Nole fans lol.

 

[mike danny]

Sincaraz had It relatively easy, Djokovic was far past his peak by the time they broke through, Zverev and Tsitsipas are asses and mugs and Med Is only good on HC And is at best a Wawrinka-Courier level player.

But somehow you claimed Fed had it the easiest to get to the top.

 

[KingCarlitos]

But somehow you claimed Fed had it the easiest to get to the top.

He did.

 

[Neptune]

I like what Andrew Burton once introduced as a metric to identify depth vs stability in a field, which was essentially the number of unique players in all 4 GS SFs in a year, with 4 being the most stable field and 16 being a "deep" field.

So, when you remove the top5-50, you get the most stable field?
When you remove all the top50, you get a 'deep' field?

This is very true. That's a fancy way of saying that the standard deviation has shrunk; meaning that the gap among players is smaller on average. This is used in baseball all the time. I've actually spoken to an author of several books on this very topic. He's a PHd statistician. When the standard deviation is a smaller percentage of the mean score, then the competition is said to be stronger.

This said, no method is perfect. But I'm curious to run with concept in tennis. I've never seen that done before.

Time to look up and understand 'Elo rating system'

Elo rating system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mike danny]

He did.

No, he didn’t, that’s Sinneraz

 

[gravemadness]

So, when you remove the top5-50, you get the most stable field?
When you remove all the top50, you get a 'deep' field?

No. It's just seeing how many different players are good enough to make the semis of a grand slam (and conversely, how many are good enough to make multiple semis in the same year).

 

[Neptune]

Fed surely had the easiest path to the top, All he had was a mummified Agassi and transitional greats like Hewitt, Safin and Roddick.

Sincaraz had It relatively easy, Djokovic was far past his peak by the time they broke through, Zverev and Tsitsipas are asses and mugs and Med Is only good on HC And is at best a Wawrinka-Courier level player.

But somehow you claimed Fed had it the easiest to get to the top.

Easy, easier, easiest. Mike.

 

[mike danny]

Easy, easier, easiest. Mike.

Yes, Fed played guys who had never picked up a racket before

 

[NeutralFan]

Why is this doping mug being compared to peak Fed? What is this blasphemy?

This insanity has to stop for real. The big 3 in their primes would clean his clock and he knows this.

Sinner will break all records, watch out

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sinner is almost guaranteed to win all masters 1000 and atp finals

He might even win all 4 slams to complete tennis career. Just like Djokovic.

Plus he won queens club

 

[Neptune]

by age 23​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Sinner​	40 (17-23) 42.50%​	12.35%​	63 (32-31) 50.79%​	19.44%​	261 (213-48) 81.61%​	80.56%​	324 (245-79) 75.62%​
Fed​	34 (24-10) 70.59%​	7.98%​	74 (46-28) 62.16%​	17.37%​	352 (264-88) 75.00%​	82.63%​	426 (310-116) 72.77%​

by age 21​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Alcaraz​	28 (18-10) 64.29%​	11.38%​	49 (31-18) 63.27%​	19.92%​	197 (163-34) 82.74%​	80.08%​	246 (194-52) 78.86%​
Rafa​	28 (18-10) 64.29%​	8.78%​	46 (30-16) 65.22%​	14.42%​	273 (223-50) 81.68%​	85.58%​	319 (253-66) 79.31%​

What do you see? Which duo had the easier path?
Does this reflect the era's strength?
Can era strength be used to mislead the actual difficulty of a player's path?

People should pay close attention to such comparisons to see the bigger picture and clear up some lies or misunderstandings.

 

[mike danny]

People should pay close attention to such comparisons to see the bigger picture and clear up some lies or misunderstandings.

There are no lies or misunderstandings. Even the numbers how Fed was better at 23 than Sinner LOL.

 

[Aabye5]

21 year old Nadal would get crushed by Zvereb Medvedev, Oldovic etc on hard court

Haha, no.

 

[Aabye5]

We're already comparing two very talented youngsters to two of the best players of all time. What that tells me is they're doing pretty damn well. That's great for tennis.

Heck, we can barely compare the little 3 to Roddick.

 

[nolefam_2024]

We're already comparing two very talented youngsters to two of the best players of all time. What that tells me is they're doing pretty damn well. That's great for tennis.

Heck, we can barely compare the little 3 to Roddick.

Agreed

 

[Mustard]

Sinner is almost guaranteed to win all masters 1000 and atp finals

He might even win all 4 slams to complete tennis career. Just like Djokovic.

Plus he won queens club

Tommy Paul won 2024 Queen's Club.

 

[SonnyT]

Three players are/were better suited to the natural surfaces than HC. Borg was 11 of 11 of slams on naturals. Nadal was 4 of first 4, and 7 of first 8 on naturals. Alcaraz was 3 of first 4 on naturals. We always think of clay as the opposite of grass! Not for these players!

Who would you think as most suitable on clay & grass, like Borg, Nadal & Alcaraz? And who would you add to that list?