The joys of ELO

B

BrokenGears

Guest
Me neither, but that won't stop these claims.

:cool:
Lol is this post a joke? I think you should look back on your own posts

Every elitist post you make is a thinly-veiled insult either way

That little emoticon you have at the end of your posts is proof enough
 

ak24alive

Legend
The thing with Elo is that it isn't a measure of the level of the player at all. It is the measure of the top ranked players beaten by that player.
Djokovic having highest Elo ever is simply the reflection of Lew's personal favourite Top 10 wins. Djoker beat more higher ranked players in 2015 hence better ratings than Fed 2006. Elo is simply an exchange rating system. You beat an opponent he loses points.. you gain some. The higher ELO rated the opponent you beat the more points you gain. Doesn't take in account the level of those higher ranked players and definitely not the whole field. It is a flawed system in more ways than one.
It's a rating exchange system through winning and losing matches. So when Djoker skipped the second half of '17 he lost no Elo points.. didn't gain any either ofcourse. So there's your Elo.
Beating someone like Fed(who himself was a higher rated Elo player) multiple times throughout 2015 helped Djoker's Elo ratings rise massively. Djoker owned Mury. That helped too. So Elo ratings of a top player will always be high when the field will be top heavy and the rest of field(>10) will be ****.
And as @Red Rick said it doesn't adapt well and quickly, the reason I pointed above.
Hence all the inconsistencies you guys have been pointing out throughout this thread.
Elo very elegantly does what the weak era theorists do. It puts competition above achievements.
There is no point in fighting with Lew. Half of you are playing Cricket. The other half playing football. It's not the same game. Everyone has different measures which plays well into their agenda.
Everyone is like a broken record.
 

ak24alive

Legend
I retract my statement about him not insulting anyone, but that’s nothing compared to the amount of crap you people give him
I agree with this totally. He can be annoying but I think we have come far enough as a species to tolerate every voice that isn't plainly abusive. All the Lew bashing is basically the internet giving us a free card to be animals. Sadly sometimes I myself am a culprit.
 

Your Hero

Professional
The joys of ELO? I dunno. Their first album was pretty weak save for 10538 Overture,
which was a minor masterpiece and one of the better Beatles lifts you'll ever hear. After
their 3rd album it got popular.....and ugly. The band that birthed ELO, The Move, was
much, much better. I'd talk about the joys of ELP but there were too many damn keyboards
going on there and not enough guitars. Also, they made Love Beach and killed prog!
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Lol is this post a joke? I think you should look back on your own posts

Every elitist post you make is a thinly-veiled insult either way

That little emoticon you have at the end of your posts is proof enough
Oh, you mean that I should have succumbed to the nonsense coming from Lew, so that he doesn't feel offended?

Sorry, my bad!

No, not really.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I agree with this totally. He can be annoying but I think we have come far enough as a species to tolerate every voice that isn't plainly abusive. All the Lew bashing is basically the internet giving us a free card to be animals. Sadly sometimes I myself am a culprit.
Pointing at the shortcomings of his "logic" hardly qualifies as "bashing".

However, his refusal to address those remarks often results in public mockery.

:cool:
 

ak24alive

Legend
Pointing at the shortcomings of his "logic" hardly qualifies as "bashing".

However, his refusal to address those remarks often results in public mockery.

:cool:
I agree that pointing at the shortcomings of anyone doesn't qualify as bashing.
But often this pointing out becomes personal and many insults are thrown at Lew especially considering the fact that he rarely gets personal and rarely gets off topic.
It's just my point of view. It might not be a big thing according to others.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
This thread just debunks the ELO applicability for tennis. I mean, to some degree it does work. But it's just not useful to determine the so-called "BOAT/SOAT/XOAT/IOAT" and other invented acronyms by Djokovic fans.

However, without any use of ELO rating, it is still possible to make arguments that put 2014 Federer = 2004 Federer.
 
Last edited:

Towny

Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, I have to concur with @Towny. I say unfortunately because it doesn't suit my agenda (I love to see the pro-Djokovic posts of @Lew II).

However, my love for the truth is bigger. This thread just debunks the ELO applicability for tennis. I mean, to some degree it does work. But it's just not enough to determine "BOATNESS" and other invented things.

However, without any use of ELO rating, it is still possible to made arguments that put 2014 Federer = 2004 Federer.
I appreciate your honesty. Many people on here (on all sides) won't accept anything that makes their favourite player look bad or their rivals look good.

I'm curious, however, as to what arguments you would put forward for 2014 Federer being equal to 2004 Federer.
Removing Djokodal and assuming Federer wins the tournaments where he lost to them (unlikely in the case of AO IMO), Federer 2014 ends up with 2 slams and 3 masters. You could possibly argue that he plays YEC final if Novak's not there. I don't agree but you could make the argument. Win-loss becomes 77-9, with 8 titles.

Federer 2004 won 3 slams, 3 masters and the YEC with a win-loss of 74-6 and 11 titles.

I assume that you don't actually hold to this position, but would your argument be that Wawrinka and Cilic are stronger players than anyone Federer faced in 2004?
 

Raz11

Semi-Pro
Even if you were to take into considerations of surface, injuries, form and etc, ELO at best can only be used to gauge who is a favourite in a matchup today. ELO wasn't designed to compare different players throughout different periods as someone with 2000 points today wont certainly be worth the same as someone else 10 years ago with 2000 points.
 

ak24alive

Legend
Even if you were to take into considerations of surface, injuries, form and etc, ELO at best can only be used to gauge who is a favourite in a matchup today. ELO wasn't designed to compare different players throughout different periods as someone with 2000 points today wont certainly be worth the same as someone else 10 years ago with 2000 points.
Exactly. Elo's primary purpose is to predict odds of matchups between players even which it fails to do at times because of it's nature to adjust slowly.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
@itrium84? What do you think about this discovery?
@Towny did a great research and found perfect examples of ELO flaws - delay issues and other stuff (already mentioned in this and other threads). I believe that the stats he provided should be kept for any further reference in other and future threads mentioning ELO, just to keep people away from misusing that kind of stats.
Now, is this a last nail in the tennis ELO coffin? No.
Does this prove ELO is highly unreliable in determining players peak? Yes and no. Yes, if it's taken by itself, without any context. No, because ELO helps reinforcement of other stats, when combined with (for example) atp rating stats and overall success in a period longer than few months, providing wider context.
Is there any type of ELO claims that Towny didn't refute? Yes, It's the field strength, more exactly - Overall opponents strength (relative to the rest of the field, during a period longer than few months).
As we can see, ELO must be used carefully and always within context, as Towny showed us again (he already had good arguments against ELO before).
I tend to give importance to ELO only when it's reasonably analog to other important stats, for example in my thread dedicated to ELO where you can find my basic claim that Djokovic's W2015/RG2016 period is most dominant in tennis history, making him BOAT. In this case, Overall rating stats and ELO stats are complementary and it's never seen combo. Few guys tried to refute this BOAT claim, no one succeeded so far, I'm still waiting.

In short - Can ELO be used alone to determine player's peak? Hell no.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Lew II

Legend
People, don't believe this yet.

I think there's something wrong with what OP did, it doesn't reflect at all what I've always found about ELO.

Please

1) show me in detail how these scores are produced. How no.22 Djokovic could have 2322 score for example.

2) show me they're applied to other sections of the website.
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Legend
Current ELO ranking:

1) Djokovic 2179 (no.1 for ATP)
2) Nadal 2140 (no.2)
3) Federer 2139 (no.3)
4) Del Potro 2101 (no.5)
5) Zverev 2068 (no.4)

ELO ranking is similar to ATP ranking.

Based on what no.22 in mediocre years (2017-18) Djokovic had a much better rating (2322) than no.1 Djokovic? I don't believe it.

I can admit it is wrong if someone proves ELO is garbage, I have many other stats by my side. But it hasn't been proved yet.
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Semi-Pro
People, don't believe of this yet.

I think there's something wrong with what OP did, it doesn't reflect at all what I've always found about ELO.

Please

1) show me in detail how these scores are produced. How no.22 Djokovic could have 2322 score for example.

2) show me they're applied to other sections of the website.
Hi Lew, about issue 1 - Why is this so unbeliebable to you? You can theoretically be out of top100 and still have 2300+ ELO rating - You just need to not play for a while, or lose only a few matches. I didn't check the data Towny provided, but he shared his source, and someone would refute it by now if it was invalid, right? For Djokovic example, it's just a very specific set of circumstances, which generated this unusual ELO results, far from overall ELO averages (when compared to one's tour success).

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Lew II

Legend
Hi Lew, about issue 1 - Why is this so unbeliebable to you? You can theoretically be out of top100 and still have 2300+ ELO rating - You just need to not play for a while, or lose only a few matches. I didn't check the data Towny provided, but he shared his source, and someone would refute it by now if it was invalid, right? For Djokovic example, it's just a very specific set of circumstances, which generated this unusual ELO results, far from overall ELO averages (when compared to one's tour success).

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
After RG 2018 Djokovic had a 12 months score of 22-9 playing only 2 matches against top-10.

If this player had a 2322 rating in the stats I used these days, I won't use those stats again, but I want it to be proved first.
 
Last edited:

Towny

Hall of Fame
After RG 2018 Djokovic had a 12 months score of 22-9 playing only 2 matches against top-10.

If this player had a 2322 rating in the stats I used this days, I won't use those stats again, but I want it to be proved first.
I gave you the link to the website I used, which is the same website you have used before for peak ELO, specifically when someone brought up an alternative list from tennis abstract. @ak24alive very kindly provided a screenshot of the data in post #42

Although I have read the theory about calculating Elo, I don't have the inclination nor the specific knowledge to do so at present, especially when it comes to things like the k factor. Feel free to calculate the ELO yourself on the dates I have used so we can compare. Alternatively, give me a different source. In any case, stop using ELO data from this website in future if you doubt its validity.

Please provide some actual data to back up your assertion that the data in the OP is incorrect. I've already told you where I got the data from. If there is a mistake, it is with their calculations, not my application
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
After RG 2018 Djokovic had a 12 months score of 22-9 playing only 2 matches against top-10.

If this player had a 2322 rating in the stats I used this days, I won't use those stats again, but I want it to be proved first.
Well, that "ak" guy provided screenshot with the ELO list on a given date, it looks legit, what more can you ask for? I mean, it's easy to check the source.

About not using ELO - Why not? As long as it is used in proper context, it's ok. There's no better tool to measure average opponents strength compared to the rest of the field over a longer period of time. Using it for other stuff can (and probably will) be unreliable and deceiving, as Towny proved without shadow of a doubt (for me).

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Wrote a long-winded post on ELO once, feel like it’s relevant:

I wouldn't say it's garbage, just very limited in scope/explanatory power and susceptible to some ambitious extrapolations. This can lead to some wacky results that ought to be discarded (like the Murray-Sampras comparison).

What ELO does is assign a numerical value to a player which builds up or declines in near-linear increments. Precipitous ELO declines are pretty much impossible, even when our own eyes and conventional results tell us that a player is better or worse than their current ELO has them at. Take Djokovic for instance; per TA, his current ELO is higher than Federer's current ELO. This is by virtue of Novak's extraordinary 18 month run from 2015-16. For the ATG's, a peak ELO rating represents their highest point of sustained dominance, usually racked up over the course of a few years years, rather than momentary or absolute peak playing level (which is even HARDER to quantify).

Look at Federer at the end of his venerated 2004 breakthrough year. His ELO rating was in the mid-2400's (I believe), and it would have gotten HIGHER even if his '05 and '06 years were slightly worse than his '04 (say, if he won 2 majors and 3 masters in each year). So, he could conceivably have had worse years and yet still seen his ELO spike. Does that make sense? It wouldn't if one were arguing which individual year was the greatest (historic years that were preceded by comparatively average years take a hit, like Djokovic's 2011 or or Wilander in '88), but if one were to try and objectively determine a results-based, accumulated 'summit' of a player, it might. However, even for the latter this methodology has its limitations. We tend to value Majors more, in relation to other tournaments, than the points and ELO ratings would reflect, e.g we may value them three or four-fold more rather than the 2-1 ratio the ATP gives. This is probably the main reason Murray's ELO peak is higher than Pete's, Andy was awesome in B03 in '09, had numerous quality wins against the elite guys...yet utterly failed at the Majors. Another limitation is that margin of victory isn't usually factored in at all, like it would be in the ELO rankings of a team in a team sport. I believe the TA, 538 and UTS systems treat Nadal's RG '08 the same as if he lost a bunch of sets along the way.

I basically agree with your implied point that people can have ulterior motives for using and misinterpreting ELO to try and settle a subjective debate that the system simply can't settle (and doesn't try to). For what this system ACTUALLY tries to determine (and not what some overzealous Fedkodal fans might think it does), it can be moderately useful...but still nowhere near definitive. I'm not surprised that the top 5 is almost always (in no order) Djok-Fed-Nadal-Borg-Lendl. That's about what you'd expect.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
It can't be real. If it is, I agree it's simply wrong.
No offence meant, but the fact that you didn’t realize such whacky results are pretty commonplace reveals that you didn’t even do the bare-miniumum due diligence. Sloppy, considering how often you tout ELO and use it to knock down Federer.

ELO’s limitations became clear to me not 10 minutes after researching the methodology.

Mind you, I don’t think ELO is completely useless. It’s a neat little metric. But its usefulness is overblown.
 

Max G.

Legend
Yeah, I've never really found Elo to be very good for tennis. It just doesn't represent players skill very well.

Sure, in a lot of cases players's skill is obvious and it really doesn't matter what rating system you use. But there's plenty of weird results from it, and so anytime it does something besides confirm the obvious it's not really trustworthy.

My personal go-to thing for how bad Elo works for tennis is looking at Sampras's grass-court ELO. It was never that high because Sampras would treat the warmup to Wimbledon as, well, a warmup, and so he wouldn't win it very often. Elo, since it has no concept of important or unimportant matches, would penalize that pretty heavily, leading to pretty silly results where despite winning 7 out of 8 consecutive Wimbledons, Sampras was barely above his competition in grasscourt Elo.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Current ELO ranking:

1) Djokovic 2179 (no.1 for ATP)
2) Nadal 2140 (no.2)
3) Federer 2139 (no.3)
4) Del Potro 2101 (no.5)
5) Zverev 2068 (no.4)

ELO ranking is similar to ATP ranking.

Based on what no.22 in mediocre years (2017-18) Djokovic had a much better rating (2322) than no.1 Djokovic? I don't believe it.
You've clearly got this list from tennis abstract, whereas before you've used ultimate tennis statistics. For example:
I took the 2400/2200 ELO division from Ultimate tennis statistics.
You identify your source here as Ultimate tennis statistics. Furthermore, regarding peak Elo, your list is:
Peak ELO rating:

Djokovic no.1
Nadal no.4
Federer no.5
Tennis abstract's peak Elo list has Djokovic 1st, Federer 2nd, Borg 3rd, McEnroe 4th and Nadal 5th. Ultimate tennis statistics list has the same order as yours
Years Federer met most opponents with ELO ≥ 2400

1) 2015: 9
2) 2012 / 2013 / 2014: 6
According to tennis abstracts list, Murray didn't achieve an Elo of 2400 or higher in 2015. Likewise, Nadal's Elo wasn't 2400 or higher in 2015. Federer only played Djokovic 8 times, so how could he have played someone with an Elo of 2400 or more 9 times in 2015? I suspect you were using a different scale to tennis abstract. Here is a link to the article I'm using:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2015/09/18/the-case-for-novak-djokovic-and-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal/

Out of interest, here are the current Elo ratings as per Ultimate tennis statistics:
1 Nadal 2407
2 Djokovic 2388
3 Federer 2356
4 JMDP 2263

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/eloRatings
 

Lew II

Legend
You've clearly got this list from tennis abstract, whereas before you've used ultimate tennis statistics. For example:

You identify your source here as Ultimate tennis statistics. Furthermore, regarding peak Elo, your list is:

Tennis abstract's peak Elo list has Djokovic 1st, Federer 2nd, Borg 3rd, McEnroe 4th and Nadal 5th. Ultimate tennis statistics list has the same order as yours

According to tennis abstracts list, Murray didn't achieve an Elo of 2400 or higher in 2015. Likewise, Nadal's Elo wasn't 2400 or higher in 2015. Federer only played Djokovic 8 times, so how could he have played someone with an Elo of 2400 or more 9 times in 2015? I suspect you were using a different scale to tennis abstract. Here is a link to the article I'm using:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2015/09/18/the-case-for-novak-djokovic-and-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal/

Out of interest, here are the current Elo ratings as per Ultimate tennis statistics:
1 Nadal 2407
2 Djokovic 2388
3 Federer 2356
4 JMDP 2263

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/eloRatings
Everything that puts 2003-07 low and 2011-16 high is correct to me. :-D

Now, since I don't trust ELO anymore, let's move on. Take a look at this:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-points-by-year.634341/
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Often? I used it only in the last week :-D
The following is a quote from the now deleted account of Lew, which you claim is the same person as you:
Top-20 peak ELO ratings by decade:



'70s - 4

'80s - 4

'90s - 4

'00s - 1

'10s - 5



http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
Clearly you've been using it for at least a few months, certainly as long as I've been a member

Here's the reference thread if you want to double check
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-versions-of-nadal-vs-peak-federer-on-all-surfaces.629674/page-7
 

Lew II

Legend

ak24alive

Legend
Based on what no.22 in mediocre years (2017-18) Djokovic had a much better rating (2322) than no.1 Djokovic? I don't believe it.

I can admit it is wrong if someone proves ELO is garbage, I have many other stats by my side. But it hasn't been proved yet.
Elo is all about exchange of points between opponents. It doesn't even penalize a player for missing a huge chunk of the season.
For Example Nole's Elo just after Wimbley 2017 was 2421.
He didn't play the next half of the season after that.
His Elo at year end 2017 was 2417.


Lololol the guy was penalized 4 Elo points for missing so much ****.
Reason: He didn't lose to any players in this time.
His ATP ranking fell down a lot in that time.
His Elo rating however didn't.
Which is why Elo doesn't go hand in hand with the ATP rankings mate.
If you want to know how Nole had such high Elo when he was no. 22 you should check Elo week by week and you will see that how less he was penalized for losing to lesser players in the first half of 2018. That's the flaw of Elo. It doesn't adjust well.
Also it doesn't tell you the level of a particular player. It is an indicator of a player's competition but as you can see here it doesn't work well even there.
Dude it's just a mathematical model. Believe me there are so many variables in tennis that these models can't incorporate. It isn't utter **** I will give you that but it isn't perfect either.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
The thing with Elo is that it isn't a measure of the level of the player at all. It is the measure of the top ranked players beaten by that player.
Djokovic having highest Elo ever is simply the reflection of Lew's personal favourite Top 10 wins. Djoker beat more higher ranked players in 2015 hence better ratings than Fed 2006. Elo is simply an exchange rating system. You beat an opponent he loses points.. you gain some. The higher ELO rated the opponent you beat the more points you gain. Doesn't take in account the level of those higher ranked players and definitely not the whole field. It is a flawed system in more ways than one.
It's a rating exchange system through winning and losing matches. So when Djoker skipped the second half of '17 he lost no Elo points.. didn't gain any either ofcourse. So there's your Elo.
Beating someone like Fed(who himself was a higher rated Elo player) multiple times throughout 2015 helped Djoker's Elo ratings rise massively. Djoker owned Mury. That helped too. So Elo ratings of a top player will always be high when the field will be top heavy and the rest of field(>10) will be ****.
And as @Red Rick said it doesn't adapt well and quickly, the reason I pointed above.
Hence all the inconsistencies you guys have been pointing out throughout this thread.
Elo very elegantly does what the weak era theorists do. It puts competition above achievements.
There is no point in fighting with Lew. Half of you are playing Cricket. The other half playing football. It's not the same game. Everyone has different measures which plays well into their agenda.
Everyone is like a broken record.
I'm not a broken record damnit. Just a server who gets broken often.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
From 0:15

The ELO song feat. Tormund


(FYI: Not a folksong, but a sami contribution to a Norwegian song at The Eurovision Song Contest in the early 80s)
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
I agree with this totally. He can be annoying but I think we have come far enough as a species to tolerate every voice that isn't plainly abusive. All the Lew bashing is basically the internet giving us a free card to be animals. Sadly sometimes I myself am a culprit.
I don't even find Lew annoying. The guy clearly comes from the perspective of having watched a lot of the game. For a young guy you can see he really has a huge knowledge and understanding of tennis. He does have an agenda but that should sit separate from his talent in analysing the game which is evident. When he posts, I think he does aim to "wake up" some boardmembers who, being a similar to age to him, have slid into a comfort zone of viewing tennis solely through the "prism of Federer" not having known the game pre or post Roger. Not referring to @Towny in this category, I think we know the target audience for a lot of Lew and Lew II's missives. He has fought the good fight and I've been glad for his input.

People, don't believe this yet.

I think there's something wrong with what OP did, it doesn't reflect at all what I've always found about ELO.

Please

1) show me in detail how these scores are produced. How no.22 Djokovic could have 2322 score for example.

2) show me they're applied to other sections of the website.
Meles made ELO famous. I won't believe until I see his input. (y)
Agree. Meles feedback is crucial.

I'm also waiting on verification that the ELO data quoted here isn't dirty?
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
@LETitBE @MasterZeb @marc45
The joys of ELO? I dunno. Their first album was pretty weak save for 10538 Overture,
which was a minor masterpiece and one of the better Beatles lifts you'll ever hear. After
their 3rd album it got popular.....and ugly. The band that birthed ELO, The Move, was
much, much better. I'd talk about the joys of ELP but there were too many damn keyboards
going on there and not enough guitars. Also, they made Love Beach and killed prog!
Not sure that Love Beach was ever meant to be taken seriously. ELP was burned out after touring (1977-78) and had even broken up at the time. Love Beach was largely the result of ELP's effort to fulfill a contractual obligation. ELP may have intentionally created this cheesy product as a way to stick it to the record company.

Anyway, on to the Joys of ELO:
.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't even find Lew annoying. The guy clearly comes from the perspective of having watched a lot of the game. For a young guy you can see he really has a huge knowledge and understanding of tennis. He does have an agenda but that should sit separate from his talent in analysing the game which is evident. When he posts, I think he does aim to "wake up" some boardmembers who, being a similar to age to him, have slid into a comfort zone of viewing tennis solely through the "prism of Federer" not having known the game pre or post Roger. Not referring to @Towny in this category, I think we know the target audience for a lot of Lew and Lew II's missives. He has fought the good fight and I've been glad for his input.
You must be trolling. Never seen Lew post anything insightful or analytical, he simply posts numbers he's filtered from ultimatetennisstatistics...In fact I've never seen him comment on actual match play. I've seen him compare Federer's defensive abilities to Isner and Karlovic before - for sure he's watched a lot of the game :-D
 

Lew II

Legend
You must be trolling. Never seen Lew post anything insightful or analytical, he simply posts numbers he's filtered from ultimatetennisstatistics...In fact I've never seen him comment on actual match play. I've seen him compare Federer's defensive abilities to Isner and Karlovic before - for sure he's watched a lot of the game :-D
Personal insight is overrated when you have objective stats.

Never compared Federer's defence to Isner's. I just wrote that the least defensive players are, the highest winner/error ratio they will have, posting Isner-Karlovic as an example.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
You must be trolling. Never seen Lew post anything insightful or analytical, he simply posts numbers he's filtered from ultimatetennisstatistics...In fact I've never seen him comment on actual match play. I've seen him compare Federer's defensive abilities to Isner and Karlovic before - for sure he's watched a lot of the game :-D
I wasn't trying to troll. But I take your point if I'm giving that impression it is best for me to leave it at that and stay out of thread.

I still can't get over that Murray / Rafa amalgamation in you're avatar by the way o_O
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Personal insight is overrated when you have objective stats.

Never compared Federer's defence to Isner's. I just wrote that the least defensive players are, the highest winner/error ratio they will have, posting Isner-Karlovic as an example.
The stats are the stats, your interpretation of them is not objective.

You compared hitting winners past Federer to hitting them past Isner/Karlovic :laughing:
 
Top