Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is not just the king of clay

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Very interesting analysis at The Economist.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/draws-tennis?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

———

THE RACE is on. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, the two men who dominated men’s tennis from 2005-10, have enjoyed a startling resurgence in 2017, splitting the year’s four grand-slam titles. Mr Federer picked up his wins at the Australian Open (where he defeated Mr Nadal in a five-set final) and Wimbledon, while his long-time rival paired his tenth French Open crown with this year’s US Open title. Mr Nadal cruised to the championship in New York, dropping only one set in his last four matches and polishing it off on September 10th with a routine win over South Africa’s Kevin Anderson, 6-3 6-3 6-4.

The latest trophy represents Mr Nadal’s 16th major title, second only to Mr Federer’s 19. Even as pundits have predicted for years that one or the other is finished as an elite player—especially Mr Federer, who turned 36 last month—there is no end in sight for this two-man race. The only other active player in range—Novak Djokovic, with 12—hasn’t claimed a victory since last year’s French Open, and is sitting out the second half of this season with an elbow injury. Andy Murray, the fourth member of the “Big Four” of men’s tennis, holds only three majors, and thanks to a hip injury, he too is missing much of the 2017 season.

....

Both Mr Federer and Mr Nadal have faced some easy draws and some hard ones—that’s the nature of a sport in which every tournament begins with an empty bracket and a lottery. But the lotteries—and the career trajectories of the strongest members of tennis’s supporting cast—have tended to benefit Mr Federer. The average grand-slam title run requires beating a set of opponents that the typical champion would defeat 23% of the time. Only eight of Mr Federer’s 19 major titles have come against competition more difficult than that. But 13 of Mr Nadal’s 16 championships have required him to confront harder-than-average obstacles. Suddenly, the difference between 19 and 16 isn’t as clear-cut as it initially seemed.

In fact, when we adjust those two numbers for difficulty, the King of Clay proves to be the king of tennis—period. On average, Mr Nadal’s titles are worth 1.18 majors apiece, while Mr Federer’s work out to 0.98 each. I’ll save you the multiplication: Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7. The adjustment gives Mr Djokovic more credit as well, upping his total from 12 to 15.3 and swapping his fourth-place position on the traditional list with Pete Sampras’s third. It’s a promotion Mr Djokovic deserves, as all 12 of his major titles have required him to fight through tougher-than-average draws. Running the numbers also forces us to recognise just how hard Mr Wawrinka has needed to work to break the stranglehold his most fearsome peers have held at the grand slams. His three majors all rank in the top ten most difficult.

Even more than weeks atop the world rankings and Masters-level titles, difficulty-adjusted majors are unlikely to figure in the typical weekend argument about the greatest tennis player of all time. Yet for a single metric, it carries a heavy load, going to the heart of the case for Mr Nadal and cutting through much of the anecdotal carping that leads fans to discount one title or grant another extra credit. Each of the all-time greats has had their share of good and bad luck—little of it as good as Mr Nadal’s fortunes this past fortnight. As the sport’s greatest rivals continue their quest in 2018, it is important to remember that the Spaniard’s easy draw was an aberration, and that his career record in grand slams is every bit as good as Mr Federer’s.
 
"Mr Nadal’s accomplishment may thus appear distinctly uninspiring when compared with his previous title runs. In the big picture, however, it was only a small step toward evening out his grand-slam draw luck with Mr Federer’s. At majors, the Spaniard has faced the other three members of the Big Four 13% of the time, and won a remarkable 74% of those meetings. In contrast, Mr Federer has played his Big Four peers in just 9% of his grand-slam matches, and won only 42% of them."
 
Very interesting analysis at The Economist.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/draws-tennis?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

———

THE RACE is on. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, the two men who dominated men’s tennis from 2005-10, have enjoyed a startling resurgence in 2017, splitting the year’s four grand-slam titles. Mr Federer picked up his wins at the Australian Open (where he defeated Mr Nadal in a five-set final) and Wimbledon, while his long-time rival paired his tenth French Open crown with this year’s US Open title. Mr Nadal cruised to the championship in New York, dropping only one set in his last four matches and polishing it off on September 10th with a routine win over South Africa’s Kevin Anderson, 6-3 6-3 6-4.

The latest trophy represents Mr Nadal’s 16th major title, second only to Mr Federer’s 19. Even as pundits have predicted for years that one or the other is finished as an elite player—especially Mr Federer, who turned 36 last month—there is no end in sight for this two-man race. The only other active player in range—Novak Djokovic, with 12—hasn’t claimed a victory since last year’s French Open, and is sitting out the second half of this season with an elbow injury. Andy Murray, the fourth member of the “Big Four” of men’s tennis, holds only three majors, and thanks to a hip injury, he too is missing much of the 2017 season.

....

Both Mr Federer and Mr Nadal have faced some easy draws and some hard ones—that’s the nature of a sport in which every tournament begins with an empty bracket and a lottery. But the lotteries—and the career trajectories of the strongest members of tennis’s supporting cast—have tended to benefit Mr Federer. The average grand-slam title run requires beating a set of opponents that the typical champion would defeat 23% of the time. Only eight of Mr Federer’s 19 major titles have come against competition more difficult than that. But 13 of Mr Nadal’s 16 championships have required him to confront harder-than-average obstacles. Suddenly, the difference between 19 and 16 isn’t as clear-cut as it initially seemed.

In fact, when we adjust those two numbers for difficulty, the King of Clay proves to be the king of tennis—period. On average, Mr Nadal’s titles are worth 1.18 majors apiece, while Mr Federer’s work out to 0.98 each. I’ll save you the multiplication: Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7. The adjustment gives Mr Djokovic more credit as well, upping his total from 12 to 15.3 and swapping his fourth-place position on the traditional list with Pete Sampras’s third. It’s a promotion Mr Djokovic deserves, as all 12 of his major titles have required him to fight through tougher-than-average draws. Running the numbers also forces us to recognise just how hard Mr Wawrinka has needed to work to break the stranglehold his most fearsome peers have held at the grand slams. His three majors all rank in the top ten most difficult.

Even more than weeks atop the world rankings and Masters-level titles, difficulty-adjusted majors are unlikely to figure in the typical weekend argument about the greatest tennis player of all time. Yet for a single metric, it carries a heavy load, going to the heart of the case for Mr Nadal and cutting through much of the anecdotal carping that leads fans to discount one title or grant another extra credit. Each of the all-time greats has had their share of good and bad luck—little of it as good as Mr Nadal’s fortunes this past fortnight. As the sport’s greatest rivals continue their quest in 2018, it is important to remember that the Spaniard’s easy draw was an aberration, and that his career record in grand slams is every bit as good as Mr Federer’s.

Excellent scientific article.
 
But---but-but----"too many clay slams'....WTF indoors..b-but, b-but"

Welcome to the real world Fed fans.This is what the general consensus will start looking like if Nadal is within 1 or 2 slams, no matter how many goalposts you try to shift.
 
"Mr Nadal’s accomplishment may thus appear distinctly uninspiring when compared with his previous title runs. In the big picture, however, it was only a small step toward evening out his grand-slam draw luck with Mr Federer’s. At majors, the Spaniard has faced the other three members of the Big Four 13% of the time, and won a remarkable 74% of those meetings. In contrast, Mr Federer has played his Big Four peers in just 9% of his grand-slam matches, and won only 42% of them."

Forsiktig med hva du skriver nå, selv om det er sitat. Det avsnittet der kan få mange til å lukte blod ;)
 
Very interesting analysis at The Economist.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/draws-tennis?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

———

THE RACE is on. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, the two men who dominated men’s tennis from 2005-10, have enjoyed a startling resurgence in 2017, splitting the year’s four grand-slam titles. Mr Federer picked up his wins at the Australian Open (where he defeated Mr Nadal in a five-set final) and Wimbledon, while his long-time rival paired his tenth French Open crown with this year’s US Open title. Mr Nadal cruised to the championship in New York, dropping only one set in his last four matches and polishing it off on September 10th with a routine win over South Africa’s Kevin Anderson, 6-3 6-3 6-4.

The latest trophy represents Mr Nadal’s 16th major title, second only to Mr Federer’s 19. Even as pundits have predicted for years that one or the other is finished as an elite player—especially Mr Federer, who turned 36 last month—there is no end in sight for this two-man race. The only other active player in range—Novak Djokovic, with 12—hasn’t claimed a victory since last year’s French Open, and is sitting out the second half of this season with an elbow injury. Andy Murray, the fourth member of the “Big Four” of men’s tennis, holds only three majors, and thanks to a hip injury, he too is missing much of the 2017 season.

....

Both Mr Federer and Mr Nadal have faced some easy draws and some hard ones—that’s the nature of a sport in which every tournament begins with an empty bracket and a lottery. But the lotteries—and the career trajectories of the strongest members of tennis’s supporting cast—have tended to benefit Mr Federer. The average grand-slam title run requires beating a set of opponents that the typical champion would defeat 23% of the time. Only eight of Mr Federer’s 19 major titles have come against competition more difficult than that. But 13 of Mr Nadal’s 16 championships have required him to confront harder-than-average obstacles. Suddenly, the difference between 19 and 16 isn’t as clear-cut as it initially seemed.

In fact, when we adjust those two numbers for difficulty, the King of Clay proves to be the king of tennis—period. On average, Mr Nadal’s titles are worth 1.18 majors apiece, while Mr Federer’s work out to 0.98 each. I’ll save you the multiplication: Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7. The adjustment gives Mr Djokovic more credit as well, upping his total from 12 to 15.3 and swapping his fourth-place position on the traditional list with Pete Sampras’s third. It’s a promotion Mr Djokovic deserves, as all 12 of his major titles have required him to fight through tougher-than-average draws. Running the numbers also forces us to recognise just how hard Mr Wawrinka has needed to work to break the stranglehold his most fearsome peers have held at the grand slams. His three majors all rank in the top ten most difficult.

Even more than weeks atop the world rankings and Masters-level titles, difficulty-adjusted majors are unlikely to figure in the typical weekend argument about the greatest tennis player of all time. Yet for a single metric, it carries a heavy load, going to the heart of the case for Mr Nadal and cutting through much of the anecdotal carping that leads fans to discount one title or grant another extra credit. Each of the all-time greats has had their share of good and bad luck—little of it as good as Mr Nadal’s fortunes this past fortnight. As the sport’s greatest rivals continue their quest in 2018, it is important to remember that the Spaniard’s easy draw was an aberration, and that his career record in grand slams is every bit as good as Mr Federer’s.

Rafa and Fed tie at the top with Novak coming in 3rd. That sounds about right as of now.
 
"his peers"...

There you go with the first problematic presupposition in this article.

Roger Federer is not playing with his peers.
He's playing with the tennis "generation" after him because there was no one among his peers to keep up with him. He crushed them.

You have just as much justification for calling Grigor Dimitrov Rafa's peer as you do calling Roger Federer Rafa's peer.

People just ignore/forget this all the time.

Rafa and Novak SHOULD have better H2H's by quite a bit by now. They SHOULD be beating him consistently everywhere. HE IS 36!

The fact that this guy - 36 - is chasing after year end number one and has swept his main rival - who is not his peer - all season long is just a ridiculous testament to his GOATNESS.
 
Last edited:
We can have different opinions on the methodology behind this article. But this is yet one more example that the “Slam wins are all that matters to decide who is GOAT” approach is something that no serious tennis commentator agrees with.
 
"In fact, when we adjust those two numbers for difficulty, the King of Clay proves to be the king of tennis—period. On average, Mr Nadal’s titles are worth 1.18 majors apiece, while Mr Federer’s work out to 0.98 each. I’ll save you the multiplication: Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7. The adjustment gives Mr Djokovic more credit as well, upping his total from 12 to 15.3 and swapping his fourth-place position on the traditional list with Pete Sampras’s third. It’s a promotion Mr Djokovic deserves, as all 12 of his major titles have required him to fight through tougher-than-average draws."

Well, according to these numbers, Novak's slam titles are worth 1.275 apiece, compared to Rafa's 1.18 and Fed's 0.98. Thought so.
 
This is just another way of penalizing Federer and Djokovic for Nadal's inability to beat the likes of Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, and Muller at Wimbledon. If he can't get to the latter stages, they can't beat him.

Also, neither Federer nor Djokovic are at their best on clay. Nadal's victories over them at Roland Garros are not as impressive as they might seem.
 
This is just another way of penalizing Federer and Djokovic for Nadal's inability to beat the likes of Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, and Muller at Wimbledon. If he can't get to the latter stages, they can't beat him.

Also, neither Federer nor Djokovic are at their best on clay. Nadal's victories over them at Roland Garros are not as impressive as they might seem.
What drivel!! Nadal isn't at his best on grass so Federer and Djokovic wins over him aren't impressive then!!!!!!

Also three times Federer has failed to meet Nadal at USO!!! Where was he this year?
 
Why mention WTFs in a thread about slams? Ignoring it would be the only sensible thing to do. Were Masters 1000s being ignored too?

The article stated he's the "King of tennis" (not just slams even that's what it analyzed). And yes I ignore Masters 1000, they set you up for higher ranking going into the 5 biggest tournaments that count for Goat.
 
This is just another way of penalizing Federer and Djokovic for Nadal's inability to beat the likes of Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, and Muller at Wimbledon. If he can't get to the latter stages, they can't beat him.

Also, neither Federer nor Djokovic are at their best on clay. Nadal's victories over them at Roland Garros are not as impressive as they might seem.

Excellent post.
This person pinpointed the precise flaw in the analysis and obviously knows how to read stuff critically. Well done, sir/ma'am!
 
Running the numbers also forces us to recognise just how hard Mr Wawrinka has needed to work to break the stranglehold his most fearsome peers have held at the grand slams. His three majors all rank in the top ten most difficult.

Absolute b******t! At 2016 US Open he barely scraped past Evans in R3 and only faced 2 seeded players including a sub-par Djokovic in the final. The article writer doesn't know what he's talking about! :rolleyes:

I concede Stan's first 2 Slam wins but not the 3rd...come on now!
 
Interesting. But also BS. Hate to point this out to the Economist but each slam counts once. Once only. And 19 really is more than 16. Mum, dad...my uni education was not wasted.

Besides that little fact, Feds tennis is mostly gorgeous, while Rafas is generally disgusting. Oh it wins stuff, but it is ugly. I think that will count for something even if/when Nadal overtakes Fed. Doesn't change the fact that I respect Nadal as a competitor though.

By the way, these threads should tone down a little. Rafa fans are getting a bit giddy...
 
Interesting. But also BS. Hate to point this out to the Economist but each slam counts once. Once only. And 19 really is more than 16. Mum, dad...my uni education was not wasted.

Besides that little fact, Feds tennis is mostly gorgeous, while Rafas is generally disgusting. Oh it wins stuff, but it is ugly. I think that will count for something even if/when Nadal overtakes Fed. Doesn't change the fact that I respect Nadal as a competitor though.

By the way, these threads should tone down a little. Rafa fans are getting a bit giddy...
Not quite though as 36/19 is less than 31/16.

At moment Nadal is in pole goat position using mathematics that you prefer
 
Also, why are sports journalists still trying to convince people that Rafa is not a claycourt specialist? Everybody agreed that he wasn't a clay specialist, like, 7 years ago.

It's the same damn thing every time Rafa wins anything off clay. Give it a rest. The man is an incredible player on any surface.
 
This is just another way of penalizing Federer and Djokovic for Nadal's inability to beat the likes of Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, and Muller at Wimbledon. If he can't get to the latter stages, they can't beat him.

Also, neither Federer nor Djokovic are at their best on clay. Nadal's victories over them at Roland Garros are not as impressive as they might seem.
I don’t think this is correct. The model doesn’t just look at how the big 3 played against each other. It looks at the average quality of all the seven players they faced on their way to winning a Slam.
 
Mimicking the average fedfan :
Nah, author must be Fed hater and Rafa fan, also using ELO metric to measure the strenght of competition is crap. And Djokovic , none heard or care about him out of 8 people in Serbia, the villain who dared to steal some victrories from an Old man. Also Rafa will never win 19,I'll tell you that deluded VB.
Baghdatis , Goznzales were beasts down under, Roddick is an underrated great , Hewitt too, not to mention Davys 5 4 against Rafa..
haha


OP interesting article , at least someone is trying to offer a bit different perspective .
But at the end of the day 19>16>12
 
Absolute b******t! At 2016 US Open he barely scraped past Evans in R3 and only faced 2 seeded players including a sub-par Djokovic in the final. The article writer doesn't know what he's talking about! :rolleyes:

I concede Stan's first 2 Slam wins but not the 3rd...come on now!
Stand first slam was against a totally injured Nadal
 
Mimicking the average fedfan :
Nah, author must be Fed hater and Rafa fan, also using ELO metric to measure the strenght of competition is crap. And Djokovic , none heard or care about him out of 8 people in Serbia, the villain who dared to steal some victrories from an Old man. Also Rafa will never win 19,I'll tell you that deluded VB.
Baghdatis , Goznzales were beasts down under, Roddick is an underrated great , Hewitt too, not to mention Davys 5 4 against Rafa..
haha


OP interesting article , at least someone is trying to offer a bit different perspective .
But at the end of the day 19>16>12
Djokovic arguably a whisker behind Nadal as GOAT and ahead of Federer.
 
The article stated he's the "King of tennis" (not just slams even that's what it analyzed). And yes I ignore Masters 1000, they set you up for higher ranking going into the 5 biggest tournaments that count for Goat.

Headline aside, the topic at hand deals with Slam titles, which makes sense given that they are the most important of the criteria
for greatness in tennis. While the WTF is an important event, it simply has no place being grouped in with Slams.
 
WTF isn't a slam mate

If anything it's more impressive than a slam. Why? You avoid the lottery of playing tougher or weaker players. You are forced to play the best of the entire year, each one (half of until final at least). This article analizes the value of each slam victory, the nature of the draw allows for such an argument. But the ATP finals does not and it's viewed as the unofficial 5th slam. The article cherry picks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF
Djokovic arguably a whisker behind Nadal as GOAT and ahead of Federer.
First of all I don't believe in goat, the term that was invented from media and fans , or comparing players across the different eras.
All that know Djokovic had to play against the most accomplished players in his or their era if you like and he done wonders, considering many obstacles that were thrown at him as unwanted third weel, from 3th world country. Tennis is still an elitist sport you know, and there is bussines. I'm hoping that he didn't say his last word. When they all finish their carieer, then we can talk more.
 
Headline aside, the topic at hand deals with Slam titles, which makes sense given that they are the most important of the criteria
for greatness in tennis. While the WTF is an important event, it simply has no place being grouped in with Slams.

I and others disagree. It's a lottery who you face! The article proves. The WTF doesn't have that problem.
 
Absolute b******t! At 2016 US Open he barely scraped past Evans in R3 and only faced 2 seeded players including a sub-par Djokovic in the final. The article writer doesn't know what he's talking about! :rolleyes:

I concede Stan's first 2 Slam wins but not the 3rd...come on now!

I dont know if I would say one of the most difficult but beating Del Potro who came in red hot and many were picking to beat Wawrinka and possibly win the Open, Nishikori who at that point was a solid top 6 player and was just coming off a huge win over Murray, then Djokovic, is not an easy draw by any measure. Certainly light years more difficult than Nadal's U.S Open draw this year.
 
I and others disagree. It's a lottery who you face! The article proves. The WTF doesn't have that problem.

It's not up to you to decide. Slams are the most prestigious, there is more pressure to win them and the larger fields are not a negative. It also shouldn't matter who you face, the best player in the tournament gets sorted out.
 
Article efficiently argues statistical values of slams but concludes "Rafa is King of tennis" instead of "Rafa is the King of Slams". :rolleyes:
 
I have some graphic that was made after AO17 which means before RG, Wim, and USO (which I think can not drastically change the image) based on ranking. So you can see the paths to GS titles of 4 players about who we talk 24/7 here:p You can see for yourself , and also have the right to doubt:)
C6Y2JwzXQAEmedW.jpg
 
It's not up to you to decide. Slams are the most prestigious, there is more pressure to win them and the larger fields are not a negative. It also shouldn't matter who you face, the best player in the tournament gets sorted out.

While I agree with that sentiment, I was taking side with the article to use its own logic to make case for WTF as even higher value. So can't win either way. Oy
 
Last edited:
Off-season :(

How many more months until AO?

This is not the off-season and there is more tennis to be played. Ironically Federer and Nadal will playing on the same team at the Laver Cup before starting the indoor season towards the WTF Finals.
 
GOAT is such an impossible thing to decide. Especially with the Slam obsession on this board, yes they are the most important, but they aren't the only tournaments for a reason.

Who is better? Terrell Davis who dominated the NFL for only 4 years or Curtis Martin who was very solid but never the best for 10 years?
 
Too bad for Fraud, the least he could have done was to skip all the majors until Djoko and Nadal hit their prime. Then, we would have seen who is who. Once again the fedephants have been exposed. This thoroughly researched scientific article proves that he's no "GOAT"!
 
Back
Top