TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Im.not sure how it works here.
The definitive explanation of why the Federer Nadal head-to-head is bogus
- Thread starter falstaff78
- Start date
- Status
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Often, if a couple of people complain it's enough to get an entire thread nuked. Sometimes reporting does more harm than good. An awful lot of good discussion has just been eradicated and, naturally, I think they've done a horrific job.
***
The mods reinstated the original thread and merged it. They've done a terrific job.
Last edited:
moonballs
Hall of Fame
Not sure. But his own thread meets every definition of flame bait--the one started with "Nadal haters..." This thread starts with facts.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Im pretty sure it wad that nasty fed fans comments to me that got the thread deleted.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Why not delete those comments?
If you will recall I even told that poster to back off from the nasty comments
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
I do, but we blocked him and he may continued.
Edit~ if its too much in one thread they take down the whole thread I think. In threads one want to keep its important to stop nasty comments to flourish.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Don't quit. This remark will ensure that someone tries to get this thread deleted also.
If you notice anyone derailing the thread it is best to yourself report those poasts and get them deleted.
Winners or Errors
Legend
Thanks falstaff78, for detailing with facts what we all knew to be the case. Nadal is the CGOAT and Federer has been better on all other surfaces while being good enough to consistently go deep in clay tournaments and get routined by Nadal.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Thanks for looking that up. It's noteworthy, I think, that all six of these fall outside the years when Federer and Nadal were the top players. The first one was simply a lazy defeat by Federer - promising though Nadal was, and even though Federer hates Miami, he wouldn't have lost to Nadal on hard courts when Nadal was 17 and a half if Federer had really shown up that day. The others were after Djokovic had emerged, and the last two (at least) were when Federer was clearly not as good as he once was. (Sure, his form at the AO 2014 was promising and heralded a return to form - but from a low base).
(Saying Federer did well at the AO 2014 is rather like saying Corbyn's Labour did well at the recent election: it's both true given expectations going in and indicative of declined expectations).
Meles
Bionic Poster
I think the Australian Open result alone shows that Nadal is a matchup issue for Federer. It appears that matchup finally changed with his new backhand. Nadal beating up on Federer's backhand is an old staple that Nadal hasn't even given up on through IW and Miami despite it backfiring a 2nd and 3rd time.My previous thread on this topic was deleted. I am re-posting. Needless to say I am a bit annoyed, because of the amount of work I put into this analysis: scouring 151 old tournament draws and making a complicated excel to run the numbers. If this thread is deleted i will cease posting stats on these boards.
~~~~~~~~~
This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".
This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough vs the field to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.
Overall
- Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
- Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
- The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
- They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
- Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.
Split by first and second half of season
- Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
- The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
- The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.
Split by surface
- A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
- There are two reasons for this:
- The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
- The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
- Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
- First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
- Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)
- We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
- On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
- On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
- Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2, and both the losses were due to injury; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
- Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.
Split by time
- As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
- During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
- Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
- By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).
To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.
The reason this head-to-head is such a misleading stat is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.
The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.
Enjoy.
tagging from memory and from cache of page 1. please tag others who were involved in the discussion whom I may have left out.
@FedFosterWallace @StanTheMan @BeatlesFan @Andrew6866 @Silence @stringertom @Meles @Gary Duane @Sysyphus @PeteD @abmk @Kalin @-NN- @Red Rick @VaporDude95 @Vrad @mightyjeditribble @Chanwan @tenisdecente @helterskelter @Tennis wizard
request to not have any political jokes (@Rago), or personal comments about other posters (@Mr Feeny) like last time. which would create an excuse to delete this thread. cheers.
Sure Nadal has dumped out of draws later in the season plenty of times due to a host of wear and tear issues. Nadal having a good Fall really has never happened. 2015 might have been his best and he was at best in early comeback form then:
44/2015 F Basel I Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-3 5-7 6-3 1.36 - 3.00
If we look earlier in the season:
12/2017 F Miami Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-3 6-4 1.80 - 2.10
10/2017 R16 Indian Wells Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-2 6-3 2.20 - 1.66
3/2017 F Australian Open Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-4 3-6 6-1 3-6 6-3 2.10 - 1.73
3/2014 SF Australian Open Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-6(4) 6-3 6-3 1.54 - 2.74
10/2013 QF Indian Wells Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-4 6-2 2.29 - 1.71
10/2012 SF Indian Wells Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-3 6-4 2.16 - 1.81
3/2012 SF Australian Open Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4 2.57 - 1.60
12/2011 SF Miami Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 6-2 1.70 - 2.26
4/2009 F Australian Open Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2 2.35 - 1.69
26/2008 F Wimbledon Grass Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7 2.00 - 1.75
26/2007 F Wimbledon Grass Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 7-6(7) 4-6 7-6(3) 2-6 6-2 1.18 - 4.70
26/2006 F Wimbledon Grass Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3 1.20 - 4.20
9/2006 F Dubai Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 3.65 - 1.35
12/2005 F Miami Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1 1.13 - 7.04
13/2004 R32 Miami Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 6-3 5.25 - 1.18
If we look at earlier in the season on hard courts, healthy Nadal leads 8-4 before 2017 with only one straight set victory for Fed. It is very plain that Nadal was a huge matchup issue for Fed off clay. Federer before 2017 would never have had a good head to head with Nadal if Nadal was in health/form later in the year. The overall head to head doesn't look misleading at all. NADAL HAS OWNED FEDERER until 2017 Auz Open Final.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
I think the Australian Open result alone shows that Nadal is a matchup issue for Federer. It appears that matchup finally changed with his new backhand. Nadal beating up on Federer's backhand is an old staple that Nadal hasn't even given up on through IW and Miami despite it backfiring a 2nd and 3rd time.
Sure Nadal has dumped out of draws later in the season plenty of times due to a host of wear and tear issues. Nadal having a good Fall really has never happened. 2015 might have been his best and he was at best in early comeback form then:
44/2015 F Basel I Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-3 5-7 6-3 1.36 - 3.00
If we look earlier in the season:
12/2017 F Miami Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-3 6-4 1.80 - 2.10
10/2017 R16 Indian Wells Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-2 6-3 2.20 - 1.66
3/2017 F Australian Open Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-4 3-6 6-1 3-6 6-3 2.10 - 1.73
3/2014 SF Australian Open Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-6(4) 6-3 6-3 1.54 - 2.74
10/2013 QF Indian Wells Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-4 6-2 2.29 - 1.71
10/2012 SF Indian Wells Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-3 6-4 2.16 - 1.81
3/2012 SF Australian Open Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4 2.57 - 1.60
12/2011 SF Miami Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 6-2 1.70 - 2.26
4/2009 F Australian Open Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2 2.35 - 1.69
26/2008 F Wimbledon Grass Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7 2.00 - 1.75
26/2007 F Wimbledon Grass Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 7-6(7) 4-6 7-6(3) 2-6 6-2 1.18 - 4.70
26/2006 F Wimbledon Grass Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3 1.20 - 4.20
9/2006 F Dubai Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 3.65 - 1.35
12/2005 F Miami Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1 1.13 - 7.04
13/2004 R32 Miami Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 6-3 5.25 - 1.18
If we look at earlier in the season on hard courts, healthy Nadal leads 8-4 before 2017 with only one straight set victory for Fed. It is very plain that Nadal was a huge matchup issue for Fed off clay. Federer before 2017 would never have had a good head to head with Nadal if Nadal was in health/form later in the year. The overall head to head doesn't look misleading at all. NADAL HAS OWNED FEDERER until 2017 Auz Open Final.
Your entire argument breaks down because Nadal finds himself down 3-7 in 10 matches, on fast courts, in the latter half of the year, despite a little help from injuries.
And late 2017 will be like late 2004-2009 all over again. Nadal unable to reach Federer to receive his share of thrashings late in the year. Quote me in November!
Last edited:
Meles
Bionic Poster
I fear you and much of TTW are a bit biased for Mr. *********. Of course we'll never know because the new backhand is going to be a load for Nadal. I suspect we'll have a healthy Nadal on our hands in the Fall and we'll get a match or two. Fed will need that backhand because a much, much lesser Nadal took him to three sets in Basel in 2015.
In any event I heavily favor Federer, but Nadal will be reasonably competitive the rest of 2017.With any luck NextGen will take both of them down.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
I fear you and much of TTW are a bit biased for Mr. *********. Of course we'll never know because the new backhand is going to be a load for Nadal. I suspect we'll have a healthy Nadal on our hands in the Fall and we'll get a match or two. Fed will need that backhand because a much, much lesser Nadal took him to three sets in Basel in 2015.
With any luck NextGen will take both of them down.
Good post.
I most certainly am biased towards Federer. I make no pretension that this post is an academic inquiry into the truth. It's a fan trying to set the record straight on a lazy and false stereotype.
What I'm not sure i agree with is that my bias extends to the numbers in the chart! They speak for themselves.
Last edited:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
They need a lot more than just Lady Luck.With any luck NextGen will take both of them down.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
cheers
moonballs
Hall of Fame
Why do you heavily favor Federer in 2017 fast court matchups but it seems like you would heavily favor Nadal in the same situation 2004-2007 from your previous post? Is the 2017 that big of a change for Fed's tennis level? To me the Backhanderer backhand is just an adjustment which definitely tipped the scale of the AO but should not be thought as a "new" backhand. It is not like in the past Fed was not able to hit backhand winners on fast courts (2010 WTF 6:3 6:0, 2006, 2007 W). And in 2013 when Nadal was the better player he beat Fed on Cindy and WTF. The matchup advantage nadal has can only tip the balance when they are at the same level. But in history their peaks didn't line up so one of them was the better player most of the time. The actual H2h is largely a result of their ability to reach the final to play each other.I fear you and much of TTW are a bit biased for Mr. *********. Of course we'll never know because the new backhand is going to be a load for Nadal. I suspect we'll have a healthy Nadal on our hands in the Fall and we'll get a match or two. Fed will need that backhand because a much, much lesser Nadal took him to three sets in Basel in 2015.
With any luck NextGen will take both of them down.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
With any luck NextGen will take both of them down.
That would be the preferable scenario.
First off, great post. It's a really persuasive argument, even if delving into statistics like that can lose a bit of the audience sometimes.
I know Federer fans have been saying it for years, and Nadal fans have been laughing it off for years, but it's nice to see some analysis of the claim that Federer was "denied the opportunity" to register a lot of wins against Nadal on his favored surfaces.
I had never realized the huge difference in Nadal's results 1st half vs 2nd half of the season. I wonder if it's wearing down, or if it's the different hard courts in the spring vs fall seasons.
One small thing I might disagree with you on a bit, because it gets into a pet topic of mine: Federer's and Nadal's respective "primes".
You have defined a 3-4 year prime for Federer, and a 5-6 year prime for Nadal. That itself can bias things a bit. Some players benefit from a prolonged prime definition (Lendl, for example) and some from short ones (like McEnroe).
When I've done statistical analysis of the great players, I've tried to remove any bias from how I define their prime by setting 1 fixed length for each players primes. I picked 8 years. i know that seems like a long prime, but the *great* players consistently seem to get about 8 years in their prime. That 8 years covers a period where a) they are elite at the start of the 8 years b) they are still elite at the end of the 8 years c) the majority (or even vast majority) of their career defining achievements take place during that 8 years.
I know 8 years seems a long time, but consider:
Borg: Start with his 1st major in 1974. End with his retirement in 1981. 8 years. Covers 11/11 majors.
Becker: Start with 1st major, 1985. End with his 2nd to last major, 1991. 7 years. Have to add 1 year for consistency/fairness. Covers 5/6 majors.
Lendl: Start with the fall of 82 (made the F of US Open, QF of French, SF of Wimbledon). End with summer of 1990 (Won Australian, SF of Wimbledon). Covers 7/8 majors.
McEnroe: from his bursting onto the scene (1978 USO SF) to his last final (1986 US Open) = 8 years. Covers 7/7 majors.
Wilander: won the French in 1982. 1991 Australian was his last SF. 8 years. Covers 7/7 majors.
Sampras: Start with his first major in the summer of 1993. Goes through to back to back Fs in late 2000 (7.5 years). Covers 12/14 majors.
Nadal: Start with his FO defense and Wimbledon F in 2006. Through to his 2013 USO win and 2014 Australian F. 8 years. Covers 12/15 majors.
Federer: Start with his 1st major,2003. 8 years takes you to his FO F loss (you could easily go 7 or 9- it's a bit fuzzy). Covers 16/19 majors.
Edberg: 1st major was Australian 1985. Last Major F was Australian 1993. Just under 8 years. Covers 6/6 majors.
Agassi and Connors defy categorization and Djokovic is still developing
I've used
Agassi: Fall of 1994 (US Open W, Australian W) to Summer of 2002 (QF of French, Wimbledon). Agassi was too inconsistent for it to be clean
Connors: Started in 1974, when he won 3 majors. Makes me end in 1981, where he made 2 SFs. But then he won Wimbledon and USO in 1982. Connors was too good too long to be captured by 8 years.
Djokovic: I want to end at the end of 2016 (USO Final loss) but that makes me start at the beginning of 2009 which was not a great year. He was better in 2008 and 2010.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Too....much...sense....must...resist...My previous thread on this topic was deleted. I am re-posting. Needless to say I am a bit annoyed, because of the amount of work I put into this analysis: scouring 151 old tournament draws and making a complicated excel to run the numbers. If this thread is deleted i will cease posting stats on these boards.
~~~~~~~~~
This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".
This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough vs the field to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.
Overall
- Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
- Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
- The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
- They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
- Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.
Split by first and second half of season
- Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
- The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
- The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.
Split by surface
- A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
- There are two reasons for this:
- The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
- The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
- Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
- First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
- Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)
- We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
- On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
- On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
- Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2, and both the losses were due to injury; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
- Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.
Split by time
- As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
- During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
- Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
- By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).
To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.
The reason this head-to-head is such a misleading stat is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.
The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.
Enjoy.
tagging from memory and from cache of page 1. please tag others who were involved in the discussion whom I may have left out.
@FedFosterWallace @StanTheMan @BeatlesFan @Andrew6866 @Silence @stringertom @Meles @Gary Duane @Sysyphus @PeteD @abmk @Kalin @-NN- @Red Rick @VaporDude95 @Vrad @mightyjeditribble @Chanwan @tenisdecente @helterskelter @Tennis wizard @Sentinel
request to not have any political jokes (@Rago), or personal comments about other posters (@Mr Feeny) like last time. which would create an excuse to delete this thread. cheers.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't mind seeing a different champion and 2 players from the NextGen contesting the USO final. New faces are always good.I fear you and much of TTW are a bit biased for Mr. *********. Of course we'll never know because the new backhand is going to be a load for Nadal. I suspect we'll have a healthy Nadal on our hands in the Fall and we'll get a match or two. Fed will need that backhand because a much, much lesser Nadal took him to three sets in Basel in 2015.
With any luck NextGen will take both of them down.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Fed's backhand just looks invulnerable to me in comparison to the one that was abused by the top players. Fed was awful in 2013. We really don't know how they'll matchup now on fast courts because Nadal has only been sharp a few years late in the season. Everything points to Federer winning this year.
Nadal was no where near the top of his hard court game in 2004 to 2007, so I wouldn't favor him. To be clear Federer is a much better hard court player than Nadal, but Nadal likes the matchup. A matchup advantage in my mind is one where one player always seems to play really well against another plus Nadal had the go to strategy of backhand abuse.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
He doesnt seem to like it that much at the moment, tbh (listen to what he said about possibly meeting Federer in the Wimbledon final).
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
1. first of all, welcome to the boards. and thanks for sharing your first post on my thread. a logical, knowledgeable and fact-based person like yourself will have a rough time. my unsolicited advice: there is a small core of people who are worth knowing. find them. know them.
2. totally agree that peaks and primes are a whole other topic unto themselves. you are not the first person to comment on my reductive use of the word "peak" to refer to the time periods. @abmk made the same comment. I simply went year by year to see when the stats split themselves into natural segments. here is what I found:
as you can see, 2003-2007, 2008-2013 and 2014-2017 were the natural way to split the data. i didn't mean to imply that these are unambiguously their respective peaks.
3. I have a notification list of people whom I tag on my stats threads. happy to add you if you have any interest.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Statistically, your model just doesn't hold with the modern game (Poly string dominated.) It's becoming clear that for most of the tour clay often is the surface of first success. This can vary if a player is really bad on clay. A player's prime starts earlier on clay. Hard courts for most players involve a late prime window due to the nature of the game today (serve, stamina, and strength requirements). Most players will drop level on clay first and hard courts last. We have exceptions like Nadal where the level is so much higher on clay to begin with. These days grass also seems to favor the more experienced players on the surface. These players also generally are serving the best of their career which helps on grass.
The killer for the younger players is the power and bounce height on hard courts these days; they just don't have the upper body strength to handle these shots well. Tall players can break through earlier. The game is so competitive today and it is rare to have a young player with close to enough of a peak serve game to break through.
NextGen mainly best on clay with a chance on grass. Hard courts.Federer as a poor example of sorts.
1. Relatively poor on clay, but developed the game and he was already declining in 2009 on the surface after a period of peak years on the surface.
2. Grass is very subjective, but hard not to call 2017 prime or 2014 or 2015 for that matter.
3. Fed has returned to strong prime form from 2015 to 2017 on hard courts with no end in sight. The same may be said of grass now that he's amazingly upped his returning level
4. Doubt he fares so well on clay if he ever plays it again.
Djokovic:
1. Clay prime by 2008 and hard courts too
2. Hard court and clay prime derailed by gluten issues in 2009 and 2010
3. Peak did not start until 2011 as a result
4. Besides the gluten gap we're now finding out the arm issues of the last 18 months likely are a chief source of decline of a player whose past peak, but may have many more prime years to come.
Nadal is also blowing up the 8 year model with his 2017.
Last edited:
Meles
Bionic Poster
I'll settle for one or two getting a beatdown from Fed in finals.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
prime Federer isn't meekly losing to Djokovic on grass.Statistically, your model just doesn't hold with the modern game (Poly string dominated.) It's becoming clear that for most of the tour clay often is the surface of first success. This can vary if a player is really bad on clay. A player's prime starts earlier on clay. Hard courts for most players involve a late prime window due to the nature of the game today (serve, stamina, and strength requirements). Most players will drop level on clay first and hard courts last. We have exceptions like Nadal where the level is so much higher on clay to begin with. These days grass also seems to favor the more experienced players on the surface. These players also generally are serving the best of their career which helps on grass.
The killer for the younger players is the power and bounce height on hard courts these days; they just don't have the upper body strength to handle these shots well. Tall players can break through earlier. The game is so competitive today and it is rare to have a young player with close to enough of a peak serve game to break through.
Federer as a poor example of sorts.
1. Relatively poor on clay, but developed the game and he was already declining in 2009 on the surface after a period of peak years on the surface.
2. Grass is very subjective, but hard not to call 2017 prime or 2014 or 2015 for that matter.
3. Fed has returned to strong prime form from 2015 to 2017 on hard courts with no end in sight. The same may be said of grass now that he's amazingly upped his returning level
4. Doubt he fares so well on clay if he ever plays it again.
Djokovic:
1. Clay prime by 2008 and hard courts too
2. Hard court and clay prime derailed by gluten issues in 2009 and 2010
3. Peak did not start until 2011 as a result
4. Besides the gluten gap we're now finding out the arm issues of the last 18 months likely are a chief source of decline of a player whose past peak, but may have many more prime years to come.
Nadal is also blowing up the 8 year model with his 2017.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
@falstaff78 way to go man
I started a thread that was meant to track the instances where they entered the same tournament and were actually about to meet.
I am sure you remember it.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nd-instances-when-one-couldnt-make-it.515165/
Voted: No
The H2H is what it is. The people who watched tennis all these years know the context, the history books might not really care though.
I started a thread that was meant to track the instances where they entered the same tournament and were actually about to meet.
I am sure you remember it.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nd-instances-when-one-couldnt-make-it.515165/
Voted: No
The H2H is what it is. The people who watched tennis all these years know the context, the history books might not really care though.
Statistically, your model just doesn't hold with the modern game (Poly string dominated.) It's becoming clear that for most of the tour clay often is the surface of first success. This can vary if a player is really bad on clay. A player's prime starts earlier on clay. Hard courts for most players involve a late prime window due to the nature of the game today (serve, stamina, and strength requirements). Most players will drop level on clay first and hard courts last. We have exceptions like Nadal where the level is so much higher on clay to begin with. These days grass also seems to favor the more experienced players on the surface. These players also generally are serving the best of their career which helps on grass.
The killer for the younger players is the power and bounce height on hard courts these days; they just don't have the upper body strength to handle these shots well. Tall players can break through earlier. The game is so competitive today and it is rare to have a young player with close to enough of a peak serve game to break through.
All that is true, but not sure what it has to do with defining a player's prime. Their prime may come later these days, for those reasons, than it would have in the 1990s, but that doesn't speak to how long they will have in their prime. Now, we *could* be seeing an evolution of training/health that allows players to extend their, but we'll have to wait and see on that.
I would really not want to start getting into setting different prime years by surface, because a) the sport is about playing all surfaces, not one, and b) sometimes, you don't have enough data. You can't define a single season grass court prime because there just isn't enough of a sample size. But overall, I'm puzzled by your numbers here. You seem to be suggesting that in almost every way, 2015 is part of Federer's prime (you mention it for both grass and HC). In 2015, he didn't win a major, failing to make the SFs of 2 of them. He won 1 Masters 1000 Event (Cincinnati). Winning 1 event at the highest tier (Majors + Masters + YE Championship) is by almost any metric way down from Federer's prime.
During what I called his prime he won 16 majors, 16 Masters Events, 5 ATP Championships and finished #1 in the world 5 times.
In 2015, he won 0 majors, 1 Masters Event, 0 ATP Championships and finished #3 in the world.
That is exactly *why* it's useful to have a strict definition of prime that is the same for everyone; no one's "in their prime" statistics should not be hurt or diminished because they were still good after their prime (and by diminished, I mean that including years like 2015 would bring down all the averages and percentages).
I agree, somewhat, on Djokovic. We have to watch and see, as his career is not over and his peak/prime may not be over.
Nadal is also blowing up the 8 year model with his 2017.
Players are allowed to have some great success outside their prime. That doesn't blow it up. But there's no way to call 2017 his prime unless you think a player's prime can be discontinous (2010-2012, 2014, 2016-2017 ...). But allowing for a discontinuous prime just dimishes the whole point here, which is to come to a common basis of how long a player should be *expected* to be in his prime. If a player is good for longer than that, they get bonus points. If they are not good for that long, they get rightly diminished for lacking longevity.
Or, to put it another way, I'd assess/compare great players by saying
1. Totals for their entire career (how many majors, how many titles, how many weeks at #1, etc)
2. Averages in their prime (winning %age against top 10, avg performance at majors, %age of tournaments entered that they won)
And to do (2) in a fair, even handed manner, you have to come to a definition of prime that is fairly even for all players. Otherwise, you get into debates like whether McEnroe's prime was 1979-1984 (really good) or 1983-1984 (amazing).
Thanks. I'd love to be tagged. I won't always have time to scour the board, so that will help.
Meles
Bionic Poster
peak Federer would agree
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
we now have two versions of this thread.
mods, would it make sense to merge? Thanks.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...adal-head-to-head-is-misleading-redux.595080/
mods, would it make sense to merge? Thanks.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...adal-head-to-head-is-misleading-redux.595080/
Last edited:
Meles
Bionic Poster
I look at points stats which basically correlate with other stats. Federer certainly wasn't prime on grass in 2016. His return game was not prime on grass in 2014 or 2015. 2017 was very solid on grass and absolutely has him back to prime levels, but not his best level or peak level.
Hard courts is another matter for Fed and he definitely found prime form in 2015 into 2016. 2013 into 2014 was not prime.
Nadal definitely had one of his better years on clay in 2017 and that qualifies for prime.
Yes now we can have gaps. Yes I believe you go by surface. Nadal's prime on clay started in 2005 and certainly went through 2012. His game has been reborn in 2017. Some areas we see decline in the numbers, but in others he's above peak or at peak (serve). Nadal's prime on hard courts started no earlier than 2009 and ended in 2013 into early 2014 (injury). We'll see if he finds a high level for the rest of the year, but it seems very, very likely given that his serve game has been reborn (a glaring weakness for years.)
So yes it's totally different in the Poly string era where strength, stamina, and serve have come to the fore giving the veterans an advantage with their physique and extra personnel on their team at the very top. Speed is no longer the determining factor as we saw Djokovic play his best tennis around age 28 until turning 29. Results count for determining prime, but stats and ELO as a 2nd check tell the story.
The points criteria is not available before 1991, but now ELO and games won goes back to the beginning of the Open era.
Borg:
https://tennis-strangeforest.rhcloud.com/playerProfile?playerId=939
This sight is new and amazing.
@Gary Duane has studied points and games stats. With a formula you can take games to points with reasonable accuracy.
In short, stats and ELO can be used to measure players on each surface back into 1968.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Dear mods. We now have two versions of this thread. Would it make sense to merge them. Thanks.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...e-federer-nadal-head-to-head-is-bogus.594943/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...e-federer-nadal-head-to-head-is-bogus.594943/
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
By "the field" you must mean Djokovic? All others used to get wrecked.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
If I'd have meant Djokovic, I would've said Djokovic. I didn't. I specifically meant "the field" aka all players other than Fedal.
What do you do when you're playing a player that's out of your league? What do you do to have a shot? You swing for the fences, and hope for the best. That tactic specifically matches up better to Nadal than it does to Federer.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Yep yep. As lopsided as 14-23 may look, despite the skew, it's positively masterful ownership compared to nearly the rest.
Fate Archer
Hall of Fame
Is this the nuked thread? If yes, blessed be the mods this time around.
And indeed, have also seen articles proposing that interpretation at least since 2009 or thereabout. Tennis is not boxing, MMA, or whatever type of game/ sport where you can pick matchups according to demand or public interest. It's a partly randomized knockout field. It's survival of the fittest, and if we're lucky, we might see some desired matchups in the field. We just have been unusually spoiled with the consistency of the big "beasts" that have come to dominate the tennis jungle of this era.
"H2H", as it has been historically used by a number of members from the Nadal camp to latch on Federer for one of the few possible blemishes on his resume, is mostly a non-argument, and its implicative meaning has become so distorted, so contorted, to mean something more than it is, that it's a complete caricature now. As the discussion progresses with time and maturity, and quality topics such as this, the conclusion only becomes more clear.
And indeed, have also seen articles proposing that interpretation at least since 2009 or thereabout. Tennis is not boxing, MMA, or whatever type of game/ sport where you can pick matchups according to demand or public interest. It's a partly randomized knockout field. It's survival of the fittest, and if we're lucky, we might see some desired matchups in the field. We just have been unusually spoiled with the consistency of the big "beasts" that have come to dominate the tennis jungle of this era.
Last edited:
moonballs
Hall of Fame
You can make peace with the facts now.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Yep. They brought the nuked thread back to life and merged the replacement thread into it.
The light of justice shone forth today
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
I now have a separate thread where I plan to maintain these "tournament head to heads" for the big three and others.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/tournament-head-to-heads-calculated.595183/
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Let's keep this at the fore. In lieu of a sticky, round-the-clock bumps, if you please. For the confused Nad disciples out there, these 'efforts' are not new. There have been worlds of distance between the two for ages. It is simply easier now to deconstruct the final remnant of any argument to which you delusionally hung. Move on.
In lieu of a sticky, round-the-clock bumps, if you please. For the confused Nad disciples out there, these 'efforts' are not new. There have been worlds of distance between the two for ages. It is simply easier now to deconstruct the final remnant of any argument to which you delusionally hung. Move on.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".
This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough vs the field to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.
Overall
- Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
- Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
- The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
- They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
- Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.
Split by first and second half of season
- Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
- The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
- The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.
Split by surface
- A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
- There are two reasons for this:
- The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
- The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
- Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
- First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
- Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)
- We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
- On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
- On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
- Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2, and both the losses were due to injury; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
- Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.
Split by time
- As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
- During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
- Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
- By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).
To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.
The reason head-to-head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.
The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.
Enjoy.
falstaff78 - Master statistician!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
hopefully you realized the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance you must have conjured to create such a labored and yet ultimately flawed argument.This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".
This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough vs the field to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.
Overall
- Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
- Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
- The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
- They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
- Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.
Split by first and second half of season
- Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
- The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
- The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.
Split by surface
- A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
- There are two reasons for this:
- The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
- The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
- Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
- First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
- Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)
- We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
- On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
- On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
- Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2, and both the losses were due to injury; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
- Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.
Split by time
- As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
- During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
- Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
- By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).
To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.
The reason head-to-head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.
The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.
Enjoy.
your statistical analysis starts off fine (which no one really argues with, including any rational Nadal fan, Federer is the greatest which is an inherently more quantitative gauge than qualitative); yet then you go into subjective qualifiers (all of which favor Federer in your clearly biased interpretation) eg Federer was 'injured', yet you completely ignore any 'injuries' that may be plaguing Nadal. we all know that Nadal has been far more injury prone (both acute and niggling) than Federer throughout their careers. But you say Nadal is only tired or fatigued. if you really wanted to maintain integrity in your argument, you would not add any qualifiers to your original stat analysis. if both players entered the same tournament, then we would assume both feel healthy and fit enough to play at a high level. of course in real life we know this is not always the case, but for you to only give Federer the 'benefit of the doubt', yet not mention any of Nadal's 'injuries', clearly shows bias.
also, another obvious flaw (and the the most significant) with you argument, is that you are somehow equating the draws of each player, just because they entered the same tournament. that is ridiculous. we all know that the two sides of the draw of a single event are not always the same regarding level of competition (since we're dealing with Nadal and Federer it is somewhat safe to assume they are usually on opposite sides of the draw, but not always). often times one side is 'worse' than the other. How many draws at the majors have been considered at parity when comparing both sides? probably not that many. also you assume that getting through a draw to reach the same point or round requires the same exact greatness or level or overall effort. again this is not always the case. even if both are on the same side of the draw, that does not guarantee that all of their opponents will be the same in terms of level of competition. you also ignore 'matchups' in your analysis. just because player A beats player B and player B often beats player C - does not guarantee that player A would beat player C.
Essentially: the 'field' is not some immutable, indisputable, flawless standard you can use to qualitatively measure which player (Federer or Nadal) is the best, due in part to the many reasons I have pointed out.
you follow this same flawed way of thinking in your 'split by surface' and 'split by time' analysis. you're assuming and extrapolating that just because Federer has been more favored historically to win matchups against Nadal in the 2nd half of the season vs the fisrt half; that he would most likely continue that trend if Nadal had met him more. we simply don't know that. you are conjecturing. the conjecture maybe at least somewhat logical, but it is still conjecture.
and again your argument seems to assume 'unfairness' in favor of Federer, but have you ever asked yourself, what if the tour (bigger tournaments) was more dominated by clay than hard. how unfair is it to Nadal, that 2/4 of the majors are played on hardcourt, when it comes to comparing slam count vs Federer? then the same could be asked about more tournaments not being played on grass.
this leads us to your ultimate and overall point: "The reason head-to-head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity."
again this is simply a flawed hypothesis formed from you postulating on too many subjective factors; especially to say 'much closer to parity'. define much. I would agree it would be closer, but not much closer. are you saying instead of Federer winning only 38% of their matches, that he would win 50%? I sincerely doubt that and would bet my house on it!
either way it is completely hypothetical, which by definition takes a lot away from your original statistical argument.
and lastly, two of your closing points are either clearly wrong or will very likely be proven untrue.
you say: "This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head." Sorry bud, but that is objectively and demonstrably wrong! theres no way of getting around 23 > 14!
then you state that based on your analysis, Federer will be year end #1 and it won't even be close ('...big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close...'). I strongly disagree! first off it will at least be close, second I think Nadal is more likely to be #1 than Federer this year.
so at least there is one hypothetical measuring stick that can be used on this thread come November/December; we shall see...
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
this is a fair point. I accept this criticism as valid. you are not the first to make this point (see post #46 by @The_18th_Slam). however it's no more than a stylistic point because even if we withdraw any mention of Federer's injuries in 2013, the argument still holds:
Nadal won 74% in first half
Federer won 70% in second half
73% of matches were played in the first half
=> Nadal won 62% overall
you can see the problem is with the 73% of matches in the second half.
These things even out after 151 tournaments. you'd need some pretty credible evidence to convince anyone that Nadal's draws were harder, on average, across 14 years of entering tournaments together.
I'll use your own logic against you. If they played 27 matches in the second half of the year, instead of 10, you can only conjecture that Federer would not have won a clear majority. Unlike my conjecture, your conjecture isn't backed up by a 7-3 head to head.
My argument assumes no unfairness.
well if they had played 27 matches in the second half of the year, as they did in the first, and Federer had maintained his 70% win rate. that would get the head to head up to 26-28. may not be 50/50, but it would've rendered the head-to-head a non-issue.
sure! but there's also no getting around 73>67 (going further in common tournaments), or 47>37 (winning titles in common tournaments), or 25>19 (going further in common majors), or 16>14 (winning common majors). to learn more, point your browser here.
you have your head-to-head. I have mine. Mine is more closely aligned to the fundamental objective of professional tennis: advancing in, and winning tournaments. So I like mine more.
you are a brave man to bet against the guy who went further than the other 44 times vs. 17 in second half tournaments. but sure, you'll know where to find me in december
.
Last edited:
I think most people agree with both the first vs second half of the year bias and the clay bias. Except from the monster seasons 2010 and 2013, Rafa has primarily been a clay player, winning "only" 9 HC titles and 3 grass titles in all the other years combined, which is way behind rest of the big4.
For me (as a Fed-fan) the terrible stat was the 0-3 at AO (pre2017) and the 08 Wimbledon loss. The 0-4 in non-clay slams between 08 and 17 was very hard to swallow. If this slam H2H was 2-2, the total H2H would be 16-21, and it wouldnt be much to talk about.
For me (as a Fed-fan) the terrible stat was the 0-3 at AO (pre2017) and the 08 Wimbledon loss. The 0-4 in non-clay slams between 08 and 17 was very hard to swallow. If this slam H2H was 2-2, the total H2H would be 16-21, and it wouldnt be much to talk about.
Last edited:
PeteD
Legend
1. The "field" is the best and really, the only standard we have. Note most tourneys seed strictly on rank.
2. Roger has been very successful at USO and O2 Finals in the past, Raphael not so much. So never counting the latter out, he's not a "likely" #1 over Fed.
Last edited:
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Fantastic post.
But to be fair, an avid Fed fan that has his avatar of his hero is genuinly biased. These kind of stats should have been made by a non biased person. Op is making up excuses after excuse. I cant take it seriously but I respect the attempt. He is a nice poster overall.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
This is not an academic journal, or a newspaper. It's an internet message board. You get what you pay for.
At least I can say, unlike 95% of posters, I acknowledge when I get it wrong. please see point about Nadal injuries, above.
In isolation, this is a terrible comment.
To his/her credit, @DRII, is the only dissenting poster who has made a serious attempt to respond to my analysis. If you lay out your disagreements I can respond, and we can have a debate. Otherwise you are the one who cannot be taken seriously.
Thanks. You are too.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
