The Most Difficult Grand Slam Title Runs of the Open Era

[NeutralFan]

yikes those are bad. add in AO23 and RG23 too. tommy paul, mental midget, no bh, no return tsitsipas, cramping alcaraz (freebie win after 1-1 in sets) then ruud

edit you already had 2023rg. that was criminally weak, and fed 05/06/07/11, djokovic 11/12/13 levels come away empty handed compared to this vulturing

Sorry i meant AO2023 not AO2021 my bad and many other draws in last few years that I forgot.

 

[Azure]

How do you assess the level of opposition?

 

[abmk]

Again my exact word was "gutsiest." If we're talking the toughest overall Mats' '82 RG is indeed a worthy choice.

I'm actually not so sure about Guga's maiden run, though. Muster (yes, due to his flattened shots) and Bruguera weren't quite their former dominant selves, and while Yev and AMed were tough matchups for Guga I suspect his fellow 3-timers (or Sergi and Jim, for that matter) would've dealt with 'em better. I still gave '97 Kuerten a shout-out due to, again, his low ranking and inexperience at the time.

Muster was not as good as 95/96, nor Bruguera as 93/94, but keep in mind Muster match was a fricking 3rd round match and he still played good. 4 excellent clay courters in a draw. How is that not tough?

I'd throw in Goran and Boris for Pistol at '95 Wimby.

becker was meh at best after 1st set even if Sampras was at his best. Becker was spent from the 5-setter vs Pioline and the tough comeback 4-setter vs Agassi.
Goran 95 of course was tough and probably the toughest opponent Sampras beat at Wim.
But overall SF+F, not quite, IMO.

 

[El_Yotamo]

I appreciate your thorough reply but you're drawing the wrong assumption. Nowhere did I make the kind of sweeping conclusion some of you are attributing to me, and when I singled out Becker's '85 Wimbledon, Edberg's '92 USO and Kuerten's '97 RG as the gutsiest runs I made clear that I was considering level of opposition and age/experience in addition to form.

The thread title and obviously click-baity nature of the phrase repeated in this thread about a certain member of the Big 3 would suggest otherwise, and having scanned through some of the replies it seems that the attention is rightly focussed on this. I'm not particularly interested or moved by terms such as gutsiest either, and in particular it seems that those conclusions which were drawn could have been easily obtained without the numerical "analysis" here, which further leads me to believe it to be unnecessary. Bottom line, GW% does not necessarily correspond to "toughness" of draws nor can we draw any conclusions from the given data on this parameter. If you agree with me on this, fine. In fact, also if you don't agree that's fine tbh I don't think we all have to agree on everything

 

[TheNachoMan]

How do you assess the level of opposition?

eYe tEsT

 

[Third Serve]

I mean it’s hard to complain about people reading too much into the data when the thread title literally says “most difficult title runs.”

 

[NonP]

How do you assess the level of opposition?

eYe tEsT

Correct but with a slight caveat: my own infallible one.

Muster was not as good as 95/96, nor Bruguera as 93/94, but keep in mind Muster match was a fricking 3rd round match and he still played good. 4 excellent clay courters in a draw. How is that not tough?

Where'd you get that idea when I called it "a murders' row of opponents" in my (2nd) OP? I just dunno if it was the very toughest.

becker was meh at best after 1st set even if Sampras was at his best. Becker was spent from the 5-setter vs Pioline and the tough comeback 4-setter vs Agassi.
Goran 95 of course was tough and probably the toughest opponent Sampras beat at Wim.
But overall SF+F, not quite, IMO.

The only time Boris was truly meh was when he missed those 15 1st serves in a row. That Becker was still good enough to win a Wimby vs. a weakish draw, which is, well, good enough for moi.

The thread title and obviously click-baity nature of the phrase repeated in this thread about a certain member of the Big 3 would suggest otherwise, and having scanned through some of the replies it seems that the attention is rightly focussed on this. I'm not particularly interested or moved by terms such as gutsiest either, and in particular it seems that those conclusions which were drawn could have been easily obtained without the numerical "analysis" here, which further leads me to believe it to be unnecessary. Bottom line, GW% does not necessarily correspond to "toughness" of draws nor can we draw any conclusions from the given data on this parameter. If you agree with me on this, fine. In fact, also if you don't agree that's fine tbh I don't think we all have to agree on everything

Mate, this is a tennis board, not ProQuest. "The Most Difficult Grand Slam Runs of the Open Era in GW% Only" just doesn't have the same ring to it and I expect people to read the OP(s) to see what my actual points/arguments are. That's not too much to ask, no?

And of course GW%, SW% or any other stat alone doesn't prove anything. That's why I expanded on some of those runs (plus a few others) in the 2nd OP, to provide the kind of context you correctly say is important in any statistical analysis. Not sure what more I'm supposed to do in a nonacademic setting like this.

I mean it’s hard to complain about people reading too much into the data when the thread title literally says “most difficult title runs.”

 

[RS]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Agassi USO 05 final or Alcaraz Wim 23 final
2. Hewitt Wim 09 QF or Federer AO 08 SF
3. Wawrinka USO 16 final or Djokovic RG 15 final
4. Federer USO 07 final or Djokovic Wim 11 final
5. Djokovic USO 18 final or Nadal Wim 11 final

 

[abmk]

Where'd you get that idea when I called it "a murders' row of opponents" in my (2nd) OP? I just dunno if it was the very toughest.

When you said "I'm actually not so sure about Guga's maiden run, though."

I should've phrased it as: how is that not of the very toughest.

The only time Boris was truly meh was when he missed those 15 1st serves in a row. That Becker was still good enough to win a Wimby vs. a weakish draw, which is, well, good enough for moi.

nope. Becker wasn't good after the 1st set. Hit 15 DFs for the match.

That Becker would've been destroyed by any strong Wimbledon champ past or present.

Becker Wim 95 final was no better than Nadal of USO 11 final for example and you went hard at that one in previous page. Just saying.

you keep over-rating Becker time and again, including your absurd take that his returning in Wim 97 QF was particularly good and in the vicinity of fed's in Wim 01 (when Becker didn't break Sampras even once).
another thing: not ridiculous, but still doesn't hold up to scrutiny, putting becker's BH above fed's. nope.

 

[NatF]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Agassi USO 05 final or Alcaraz Wim 23 final
2. Hewitt Wim 09 QF or Federer AO 08 SF
3. Wawrinka USO 16 final or Djokovic RG 15 final
4. Federer USO 07 final or Djokovic Wim 11 final

Need the option to dislike

 

[TheNachoMan]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Agassi USO 05 final or Alcaraz Wim 23 final
2. Hewitt Wim 09 QF or Federer AO 08 SF
3. Wawrinka USO 16 final or Djokovic RG 15 final
4. Federer USO 07 final or Djokovic Wim 11 final
5. Djokovic USO 18 final or Nadal Wim 11 final

RS hypotheticals without Roddick? Boo.

 

[Azure]

eYe tEsT

In that case Nadal’s US open wins

Vamos Bamos

 

[RS]

RS hypotheticals without Roddick? Boo.

Doesn't that make it better?

 

[NonP]

you keep over-rating Becker time and again, including your absurd take that his returning in Wim 97 QF was particularly good and in the vicinity of fed's in Wim 01 (when Becker didn't break Sampras even once).
another thing: not ridiculous, but still doesn't hold up to scrutiny, putting becker's BH above fed's. nope.

Dude, you're losing it. The point was not that Boris returned well in the Wimby '97 QF but rather that simply looking at URS% alone isn't enough to gauge the opponent's actual performance on return.

And as you should recall from that old GBHOAT thread I'm hardly the only one who rates Becker's BH over Fed's. You could say your boy is better day in and day out, but if we're talking top-drawer versions of both I'm taking Boris.

When you said "I'm actually not so sure about Guga's maiden run, though."

I should've phrased it as: how is that not of the very toughest.

It's probably top 10. Just not sure about top 5.

nope. Becker wasn't good after the 1st set. Hit 15 DFs for the match.

That Becker would've been destroyed by any strong Wimbledon champ past or present.

Becker Wim 95 final was no better than Nadal of USO 11 final for example and you went hard at that one in previous page. Just saying.

And Pistol hit 7 DFs of his own in an otherwise literally flawless outing. And 13 DFs in the '02 USO F which was at worst one of his very best performances on hard. What does that prove, really? Both guys were going for it on 2nds and sometimes you miss more than you'd like. That's classic GC/Big Game tennis.

Plus Boris still had 36% of his serves unreturned. To compare that with Bull's downright dismal 16% is flat-out nonsensical. You're not thinking clearly if you think that Becker would be "destroyed" by anybody on grass, especially when Pistol in his arguably single best GC match couldn't even manage a breadstick.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Doesn't that make it better?

It’s your trademark, I like it.

 

[RS]

It’s your trademark, I like it.

Alcaraz can take his spot. Roddick will still show up fairly often.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Alcaraz can take his spot.

Alcaraz doesn't have the same meme potential. Maybe if a new guy comes in and goes like 5000-1 against him.

 

[RS]

Alcaraz doesn't have the same meme potential. Maybe if a new guy comes in and goes like 5000-1 against him.

You can just bump my old threads I have several. lol

 

[abmk]

Dude, you're losing it. The point was not that Boris returned well in the Wimby '97 QF but rather that simply looking at URS% alone isn't enough to gauge the opponent's actual performance on return.

After I contradicted your Korda/Becker returning in Wim 97, you talked about the URs% alone thing. (no issue there)
But you also continued to insist Becker (&Korda) returned that well.

Korda did well to push that Pistol to 5 sets, ditto Becker keeping his nemesis' URS% under 50%.

so maybe check what you've writtten/stop with crap evaluations

And as you should recall from that old GBHOAT thread I'm hardly the only one who rates Becker's BH over Fed's. You could say your boy is better day in and day out, but if we're talking top-drawer versions of both I'm taking Boris.

disagree. no version of becker BH could hold up vs nadal of RG 07 final for example, probably not even hold up like Rome 06 final vs nadal. don't think Becker's bh does anywhere near as well vs safin bh as fed bh in AO 05 semi for another.
and you of course have that blake exhibition in YEC 06, fed's late exploits with bh in 17 etc. bh masterclasses on medium-fast+ HCs at his peak (incl agassi/hewitt/safin in YECs 03/04, outclassing djoko bh in USO 08/09), then outclassing Murray BH in AO 10 etc.

you are probably thinking top drawer becker vs a good fed, but not necessarily top drawer versions of fed.
there may be specific matchups where Becker's bh is a little better, but overall fed's BH takes it day in day out or top drawer.

It's probably top 10. Just not sure about top 5.

its top 5 for me. But that's fine.

And Pistol hit 7 DFs of his own in an otherwise literally flawless outing. And 13 DFs in the '02 USO F which was at worst one of his very best performances on hard. What does that prove, really? Both guys were going for it on 2nds and sometimes you miss more than you'd like. That's Big Game/GC tennis.

More of Becker not serving well after 1st set.

Sampras in USO 02 final: 67/152 serves unret = 44.1%
subtracting 13 DFs, that becomes 54/152 = 35.52%

Wim 95 final Becker.
36% serves unret
with 15 DFs, that becomes 25%

a whopping 10.5% difference with Wimbledon grass being more friendlier for serving.
difference is Sampras went for more and succeeded (even with some more DFs).
becker just wasn't good after the 1st set.

Becker won 26/67 2nd serve points in Wim 95 final. that's a mere 39%. if you excl DFs, it becomes 26/52 = 50%
Sampras won 34/65 2nd serve points in USO 02 final. that's 52%. if you excl DFs, it becomes, 34/52 = ~66%

Sampras was actually going for it on 2nd serves and it shows.

what were Becker serve speeds for the Wim 95 final and the SF respectively?

Plus Boris still had 36% of his serves unreturned. To compare that with Bull's downright dismal 16% is flat-out nonsensical. You're not thinking clearly if you think that Becker would be "destroyed" by anybody on grass, especially when Pistol in his arguably very greatest performance couldn't even manage a breadstick.

what are you talking about? I was comparing overall performance of Becker and Nadal in the respective finals, not just serving.
nadal was playing very well off the ground/on the return. becker wasn't playing that well at the net or off the ground or on the return after the 1st set.
maybe read properly instead of chest thumping so called flawless analysis.

Edit: oh and that Wim 95 final was a destruction on grass after 1st set. 2 double break sets and a single break set. no BPs generated by Becker on return (actually for whole match), let alone a break. that's a destruction on grass.
just because Sampras didn't serve 1st in set 2 or 4 to make it a breadstick doesn't change that.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Mate, this is a tennis board, not ProQuest. "The Most Difficult Grand Slam Runs of the Open Era in GW% Only" just doesn't have the same ring to it and I expect people to read the OP(s) to see what my actual points/arguments are. That's not too much to ask, no?

It ain't my fault if something factual doesn't have the same ring to it as a click-baity and misleading title, not to mention some of the conclusions as mentioned above. Even in scientific papers we don't expect everyone to read everything through carefully, which is why everything is meticulously organized and phrased in the most objective and unbiased manner possible. As you mentioned this is not an academic setting so out expectations if anything should be even lower. @Third Serve correctly pointed this out, and your response was a big 'ol thumbs down emoji...

I mean it’s hard to complain about people reading too much into the data when the thread title literally says “most difficult title runs.”

Let's just move on with our lives, I hope your thread as well as subsequent ones go well

 

[Backspin1183]

Like US17?

No, Nadal was never pushed to 5 sets. It was an easy Slam.

 

[RS]

Need the option to dislike

Hewitt FTW in number 2.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Lol at people noting that determining the toughness of slam title runs based on GW% and SW% is “unscientific” when 80% of threads here are about people declaring players GOAT or eras weak based on nothing else than their personal opinion and eye test (and with some arrogance and conviction to boot). This is a tennis forum not a science journal. We are discussing those things for fun and the thread is way more original than the hundredths GOAT or CIE back and forth.

 

[NonP]

After I contradicted your Korda/Becker returning in Wim 97, you talked about the URs% alone thing. (no issue there)
But you also continued to insist Becker (&Korda) returned that well.



so maybe check what you've writtten/stop with crap evaluations

No I didn't. You're the one cherry-picking a brief quote out of context to continue with your spin cuz you can't admit to being wrong. This is what I actually said in full:

The highest Wimbledon peak in the OE

agree, that was maybe petes best ever serving performance, crazy numbers on first serve %, and first and second serve speed. Federer also had a matchup advantage against Pete. Against any other player instead of Federer, Pete wins. Had Pete managed to beat Federer, he wins Wilmbledon 2001...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Any functionally literate reader can see that I was referencing Pistol's '97 Wimby run because that was the start of his very best serving streak and to pretend '01 Wimby was the best botting Sampras anyone ever faced is outright comical. Those URS%s were to illustrate that very point, nothing more. You're the only one that thinks my aim was to show that Becker and Korda returned well compared to your boy.

And yes, they did return well given what they were up against. Even by his standards this Sampras serve was unusually heavy and to push him to 5 sets or to limit him to 48% of URS was no small achievement when you know he didn't go easy on those two like he did vs. Woodbridge. That's the only thing I pointed out. People can see for themselves if they give a crap about this tedious I-said-he-said.

disagree. no version of becker BH could hold up vs nadal of RG 07 final for example, probably not even hold up like Rome 06 final vs nadal. don't think Becker's bh does anywhere near as well vs safin bh as fed bh in AO 05 semi for another.
and you of course have that blake exhibition in YEC 06, fed's late exploits with bh in 17 etc. bh masterclasses on medium-fast+ HCs at his peak (incl agassi/hewitt/safin in YECs 03/04, outclassing djoko bh in USO 08/09), then outclassing Murray BH in AO 10 etc.

you are probably thinking top drawer becker vs a good fed, but not necessarily top drawer versions of fed.
there may be specific matchups where Becker's bh is a little better, but overall fed's BH takes it day in day out or top drawer.

In the '96 YEC F for starters Boris was effortlessly hitting the kind of DTL BH winners you saw from Fed in that '06 F vs. Blake. He just didn't get to hit many of 'em cuz that was all-court power tennis at its purest.

Anyhoo I'm not interested in dragging this out when I've got a ton of work to do. You won't change my mind, I won't change yours. Time to move on.

nope. Just Becker not finding good enough rhythm on serving after 1st set.

Sampras in USO 02 final: 67/152 serves unret = 44.1%
subtracting 13 DFs, that becomes 54/152 = 35.52%


Wim 95 final Becker.
36% serves unret
with 15 DFs, that becomes 25%

a whopping 10.5% difference with Wimbledon grass being more friendlier for serving.
difference is Sampras went for more and succeeded (even with some more DFs).
becker just wasn't good after the 1st set.

Becker won 26/67 2nd serve points in Wim 95 final. that's a mere 39%. if you excl DFs, it becomes 26/52 = 50%
Sampras won 34/65 2nd serve points in USO 02 final. that's 52%. if you excl DFs, it becomes, 34/52 = ~66%


Sampras was actually going for it on 2nd serves and it shows.


what were Becker serve speeds for the Wim 95 final and the SF respectively?

Why the hell do you keep subtracting DF% from URS% when both are excluded from all in-play points? The real difference is 8%, and Wasp explicitly says (in line with my own memory) that much of Becker's low % of 2nd-SPW can be attributed to Pistol's strong returning. Nobody said Boris' 2nd serve was as strong as Pistol's, though, again, Wasp also says it was like Pete's "near 1st serve strong" in the '95 F.

'96 was the first edition with a full Wimby website so one would need to dig up newspaper reports for pre-'96 serve speeds.

what on earth are you talking about? I was comparing overall performance of Becker and Nadal in the respective finals, not just serving.
nadal was playing very well off the ground/on the return. becker wasn't playing that well at the net or off the ground or on the return after the 1st set.
maybe read properly instead of chest thumping so called flawless analysis.

I know what you said, and I'm saying such a low URS% wouldn't cut it against any strong USO champ.

And the '11 USO F was an ATG pushfest. Doesn't matter how strong Bull's groundies were if he couldn't close out a bulk of those points at the net. '95 Boris wouldn't be nearly as predictable or helpless on serve on any surface.

It ain't my fault if something factual doesn't have the same ring to it as a click-baity and misleading title, not to mention some of the conclusions as mentioned above. Even in scientific papers we don't expect everyone to read everything through carefully, which is why everything is meticulously organized and phrased in the most objective and unbiased manner possible. As you mentioned this is not an academic setting so out expectations if anything should be even lower. @Third Serve correctly pointed this out, and your response was a big 'ol thumbs down emoji...

Again this is a tennis board. The title of this thread is far from the most glaringly "click-baity" you see around here and yet y'all are somehow making this Mount Everest out of a bee hill. Gee maybe, just maybe, I'm not the one with a bias problem here and some of you just don't like the (potential) conclusions to draw from these numbers?

Lol at people noting that determining the toughness of slam title runs based on GW% and SW% is “unscientific” when 80% of threads here are about people declaring players GOAT or eras weak based on nothing else than their personal opinion and eye test (and with some arrogance and conviction to boot). This is a tennis forum not a science journal. We are discussing those things for fun and the thread is way more original than the hundredths GOAT or CIE back and forth.

Yeah, really. I mean should I just settle on 3-sentence titles just so these nitpickers don't have anything to quibble about? Pretty sure that's not what most of us are here for.

 

[abmk]

No I didn't. You're the one cherry-picking a brief quote out of context to continue with your spin cuz you can't admit to being wrong. This is what I actually said in full:

The highest Wimbledon peak in the OE

agree, that was maybe petes best ever serving performance, crazy numbers on first serve %, and first and second serve speed. Federer also had a matchup advantage against Pete. Against any other player instead of Federer, Pete wins. Had Pete managed to beat Federer, he wins Wilmbledon 2001...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

nope.

Any functionally literate reader can see that I was referencing Pistol's '97 Wimby run because that was the start of his very best serving streak and to pretend '01 Wimby was the best botting Sampras anyone ever faced is outright comical. Those URS%s were to illustrate that very point, nothing more. You're the only one that thinks my aim was to show that Becker and Korda returned well compared to your boy.

I never disagreed that Wim 97 was Sampras' best serving at a slam nor did I have a problem with you referencing Wim 97 at all.

Anyone with decent eye can see you keep over-rating Becker and in this case you over-rated Korda's returning in Wim 97 vs Sampras as well.
I don't think your aim was to show Korda and Becker returned well compared to federer, it was about Sampras serving in Wim 97.
but you did make flawed evaluations about Korda/becker returning and can't admit it.
See below again.

And yes, they did return well given what they were up against. Even by his standards this Sampras serve was unusually heavy and to push him to 5 sets or to limit him to 48% of URS was no small achievement when you know he didn't go easy on those two like he did vs. Woodbridge. That's the only thing I pointed out. People can see for themselves if they give a crap about this tedious I-said-he-said.

and again, I said that was due to Korda holding and taking the TBs, not the return per se. yet you keep yapping about the return in that match when Korda had BPs in just 1 game in the entire match (no break) and Sampras had 52+% serves unret vs him.
Becker again had no breaks vs Sampras (BPs in 2 games total IIRC).

it'd be like saying fed returned well vs Roddick in Wim 09 final given what he was up against. keep in mind it was ~41% unret for Roddick (throw in 3-5% additional for SnV of Sampras if you want).

In the '96 YEC F for starters Boris was effortlessly hitting the kind of DTL BH winners you saw from Fed in that '06 F vs. Blake. He just didn't get to hit many of 'em cuz that was all-court power tennis at its purest.

Anyhoo I'm not interested in dragging this out when I've got a ton of work to do. You won't change my mind, I won't change yours. Time to move on.

and federer did that on a slower court. and while Becker was hitting those BH winners in YEC 96 final doesn't necessarily mean it was better than fed's.
I gave some data points/examples contradicting what you said. You want to not respond, that's your prerogative. But then stop posting in every 3rd/4th post of yours about so called flawless analysis. I also pointed out your flaws of taking stats of nadal RG 06/RG 13 vs RG 14 at face value some days before (hint: many more pushovers in RG 14)

Why the hell do you keep subtracting DF% from URS% when both are excluded from all in-play points? The real difference is 8%, and Wasp explicitly says (in line with my own memory) that much of Becker's low % of 2nd-SPW can be attributed to Pistol's strong returning. Nobody said Boris' 2nd serve was as strong as Pistol's, though, again, Wasp also says it was like Pete's "near 1st serve strong" in the '95 F.

'96 was the first edition with a full Wimby website so one would need to dig up newspaper reports for pre-'96 serve speeds.

I'm saying that's the effective number, though not the exact URS.
its to account for DFs bringing down the quality of serve. if you can't get that, that's your problem.

Just FTR, krosero has Sampras with 95 mph 2nd serves on an avg for Wim 95 final in his thread, but doesn't mention Becker's.

Stats for 1995 Wimbledon final (Sampras-Becker)

Sampras d. Becker 6-7 (5), 6-2, 6-4, 6-2 Sampras won 138 points overall, Becker 108. SERVICE Sampras won 82 of 106 points on serve: 52 of 57 on first (91%) and 30 of 49 on second (61%). Becker won 84 of 140 points on serve: 58 of 73 on first (79%) and 26 of 67 on second (39%)...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

I know what you said, and I'm saying such a low URS% wouldn't cut it against any strong USO champ.

And the '11 USO F was an ATG pushfest. Doesn't matter how strong Bull's groundies were if he couldn't close out a bulk of those points at the net. '95 Boris wouldn't be nearly as predictable or helpless on serve on any surface.

so? he would be far more helpless on the return than nadal.
and Becker's returning in the match (or play after 1st set) wouldn't cut it vs any strong Wim champ. 0 BPs generated. won a mere 15 points or so on Sampras serve apart from DFs.
so what's your point?
My point is Becker in Wim 95 final wasn't any better than Nadal in USO 11 final overall. But you chose to focus on serve only? Why?

and bold part, nope. Another one of your many flawed analysis/conclusions.
USO 11 wasn't a pushfest. but yeah, keep going.

Addendum:
oh and that Wim 95 final was a destruction on grass after 1st set. 2 double break sets and a single break set. no BPs generated by Becker on return (actually for whole match), let alone a break. that's a destruction on grass.
just because Sampras didn't serve 1st in set 2 or 4 to make it a breadstick doesn't change that.

 

[Turning Pro]

I don't get how Nadal 2022 FO dosen't get in here as he defeated 4 top 10 players in the last 4 rounds, was it?

Also his 2011 FO draw facing Soderling (2 time finalist) Murray (2 time finalist?) and Fed winer and multiple finalist) back to back.

Or many of his FO runs defeating Djoker and Fed back to back amongst others.

 

[xFedal]

I don't get how Nadal 2022 FO dosen't get in here as he defeated 4 top 10 players in the last 4 rounds, was it?

Also his 2011 FO draw facing Soderling (2 time finalist) Murray (2 time finalist?) and Fed winer and multiple finalist) back to back.

Or many of his FO runs defeating Djoker and Fed back to back amongst others.

Nadal was too dominant in other rounds during those tournaments thats why his games percentage was still high despite some tough battles like Isner RG11.

 

[NonP]

which had nothing to do with Korda or becker returning particularly well in Wim 97 per se.
I never disagreed that Wim 97 was Sampras' best serving at a slam nor did I have a problem with you referencing Wim 97 at all.

Anyone with decent eye can see you keep over-rating Becker and in this case you over-rated Korda's returning in Wim 97 vs Sampras as well. See below.
I don't think your aim was to show Korda and Becker returned well compared to federer.
but you did make flawed evaluations there and can't admit it.
See below again.

Dude, stop digging. You didn't just take issue with my (subsequent) claim that Korda and Becker returned well. Your specific issue, in your own words, that you thought I was saying their return was "in the vicinity of fed's in Wim 01."

Which I explicitly corrected in my 2nd reply when I said that part of my post was to illustrate a point and not to be taken literally. You're just obfuscating your real beef here to score a cheap point now. Stop it because I'm not gonna let this one slide.

and again, I said that was due to Korda holding and taking the TBs, not the return per se. yet you keep yapping about the return in that match when Korda had BPs in just 1 game in the entire match (no break) and Sampras had 52+% serves unret vs him.
Becker again had no breaks vs Sampras (BPs in 2 games total IIRC).

it'd be like saying fed returned well vs Roddick in Wim 09 final given what he was up against. keep in mind it was ~41% unret for Roddick (throw in 3-5% additional for SnV of Sampras if you want).

I actually think Fed returned about as well as he could (factoring in his decline, yes) given that this was likely A-Rod's clutchest and smartest serving, so what's your point?

Again the only two times Pistol lost serve at '97 Wimby were in the first warm-up round and in the SF where he was clearly cruising against a hapless Woodbridge. You keep harping on BPs (or lack thereof) as if it were that easy to return this heavy-AF Sampras serve on unpredictable '90s grass. It wasn't, and Petr's and Boris' return stats are to be understood in that context.

and federer did that on a slower court. and while Becker was hitting those BH winners in YEC 96 final doesn't necessarily mean it was better than fed's

I really don't have time for this. You're talking about a guy who used to be annoyed that commies were going gaga over his BH while overlooking his FH. Were he playing today that BH would still be touted as a legit ATG one.

I'm saying that's the effective number, though not the exact URS.
its to account for DFs bringing down the quality of serve. if you can't get that, that's your problem.

More like double counting. One could well argue instead that a true URS% based on in-play SPs only is a better measure of serving prowess.

so? he would be far more helpless on the return than nadal.
and Becker's returning wouldn't cut it vs any strong Wim champ. 0 BPs generated. won a mere 13 or 15 points on Sampras serve apart from DFs.
so what's your point?
My point is Becker in Wim 95 final wasn't any better than Nadal in USO 11 final overall. But you chose to focus on serve only? Why?


and bold part, nope. Another one of your many many flawed analysis/conclusions.
USO 11 wasn't a pushfest. but yeah, keep going.

Again you keep talking like returning the Sampras serve in a major F is that easy. I mean even with that lopsided L to GOATing Pistol '95 Boris still won 20.5% of return games for the fortnight, more than Bull in '06 (16.5%) and not far below his 23.3%/25.1% in '08/11 (granted he did average 27.0% in '07). But yeah that Becker would be destroyed by a fellow Wimby champ.

And I don't care what you call the '11 USO F. The bottom line is that there were plenty of opportunities to come in which Bull (and TBF Novak himself) failed to take advantage of. Boris wouldn't have the same problem.

I don't get how Nadal 2022 FO dosen't get in here as he defeated 4 top 10 players in the last 4 rounds, was it?

Also his 2011 FO draw facing Soderling (2 time finalist) Murray (2 time finalist?) and Fed winer and multiple finalist) back to back.

Or many of his FO runs defeating Djoker and Fed back to back amongst others.

As I said in my 2nd OP I only looked at Slam runs with at least two 5-setters. You're welcome to make your own noms like you're doing here.

 

[RS]

Good thread NonP.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Like FO 2023, Wimbledon 2021,2022 , AO2021 ,USO2018, uSo 2023 and 90% of his draws in last 4years?

Novak faced 2 top 10 players at FO23, WB 2021 again 2 top 10 players, WB 2022 again 2 top 10 players, AO21 again 2 top 10 players, US18 Del Potro was number 3 at that moment, US23 he faced Fritz and if he defeat Shelton in the final it will be top 10 player again... Who did Nadal faced at US17 from top 10? Nobody. Highest ranking was Anderson in the final, 25. It's not Nadal fault but my point remains.

 

[Unseeded Player]

No, Nadal was never pushed to 5 sets. It was an easy Slam.

Easiest as I can remember, he faced nobody from top 10... Not his fault of course..

 

[The_Order]

Novak faced 2 top 10 players at FO23, WB 2021 again 2 top 10 players, WB 2022 again 2 top 10 players, AO21 again 2 top 10 players, US18 Del Potro was number 3 at that moment, US23 he faced Fritz and if he defeat Shelton in the final it will be top 10 player again... Who did Nadal faced at US17 from top 10? Nobody. Highest ranking was Anderson in the final, 25. It's not Nadal fault but my point remains.

Nope... they were top 10 seeds. Only Berrettini was a true top 10 player (ranked #9) but you're scraping the barrel there anyway...

Sure US17 was weak... nobody denies that...

But US18 was just as weak. The number next to Delpo's name doesn't change the fact that he was playing at a similar level in both tournaments...

 

[Unseeded Player]

Nope... they were top 10 seeds. Only Berrettini was a true top 10 player (ranked #9) but you're scraping the barrel there anyway...

Sure US17 was weak... nobody denies that...

But US18 was just as weak. The number next to Delpo's name doesn't change the fact that he was playing at a similar level in both tournaments...

2018 was better for Delpo then 2017.

 

[The_Order]

2018 was better for Delpo then 2017.

Nah

 

[aldeayeah]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but again in response to the opening post: if you really want to use GW% as a measure of the strength of competition faced by a player in a single tournament, allow me to propose a different metric.

Opponent average GW% = number of games won by opponents across all rounds / total number of games played by opponents across all rounds

This has three big advantages over using the Game Loss %:

- It gives more weight to the late round opponents (who have played more games)
- It uses more data to gauge the level of opponents (which reduces noise)
- It lessens the effect of the own player's strength (because we include data for matches in which he didn't play)

This kind of metric is often used as a secondary tiebreaker in real world competitions, especially those that use a round robin or Swiss rounds system.

 

[NonP]

@Pro tennis historian added his two cents (in a PM) which I'll share here:

Regarding toughest Grand Slam runs in the open era, one thing I factor in is playing consecutive days. Two runs stand out.

First, Newcombe at 1975 Australian. 4 hours 15 minute five set epic against Geoff Masters. Then the next day Newk beat Tony Roche, coming from 5-2 down in the fifth set saving three match points in 3 hours 20 minutes (points were quicker and less time taken between points than today's five set epics). "I feel as old as Ken Rosewall," Newcombe told the Kooyong crowd after beating Roche. Then the next day he beat Connors in four tough sets in 2 hours 54 minutes. 10 hours 29 minutes playing singles in three days. Hot weather in Australia.

The other is one I remember. 1992 US Open. Edberg was a break down in the fifth set against Krajicek and won in four hours and 20 minutes. He was a break down in the fifth against Lendl in a match spanning two days lasting 3 hours 58 minutes. Then he came back the next day and played 5 hours 26 minutes against Chang and the next day beat some fellow called Sampras in 2 hours 52 minutes. Just the 12 hours and 16 minutes gruelling singles over four consecutive days for Stefan. The Chang match (of record length) was played in the heat on a hot day, I remember watching that live on TV here in the UK and the final also, though the lights were on in the later stages of the final. This event is what I most frequently refer to when I say how strong the draws were then.

I recently mentioned in a private conversation to someone that I thought Murray would win 0 slams in the late 80s, early 90s, the other guy thought he would win 3 or 4 including two French. I said, although there was no dominant player at RG in 1989/90 (a young Chang and veteran 1-slammer Gomez victorious), the draw would have beaten Murray. Quality players all over the place in that era. Players could be inconsistent then (Krajicek a good case in point) but if they were in form they were very tough to beat. Lendl in 1992 wasn't the carcase he became in 1993 and 1994. Edberg wasn't quite at his peak and struggled with his serve and his net game at times, but he battled harder than I ever saw anyone battle to win his sixth and last major singles title.

Makes moi appreciate Edberg's '92 USO even more. As we discuss this or that pre-'13* run at Flushing we should definitely keep in mind the Super Saturday schedule which added to the Open's already daunting physical challenges.

*I'm not sure exactly when the men began playing USO SFs on Saturday. Supposedly "the CBS idea" was born "in the middle of the 70s," but I was able to confirm that men's SFs were held Saturday as early as 1970.

One more thing:

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but again in response to the opening post: if you really want to use GW% as a measure of the strength of competition faced by a player in a single tournament, allow me to propose a different metric.

Opponent average GW% = number of games won by opponents across all rounds / total number of games played by opponents across all rounds

This has three big advantages over using the Game Loss %:

- It gives more weight to the late round opponents (who have played more games)
- It uses more data to gauge the level of opponents (which reduces noise)
- It lessens the effect of the own player's strength (because we include data for matches in which he didn't play)

This kind of metric is often used as a secondary tiebreaker in real world competitions, especially those that use a round robin or Swiss rounds system.

This is in fact my own approach, except I insist on looking at opponents' seasonal GW%s on the surface. Tournament GW%s can be wildly misleading since, after all, you play only 7 matches max at any given Slam.

Take for one A-Rod's QF run at the '04 USO, which Tennis28's (outdated) table tells us was the 37th best Slam outing of the OE in GW% with 65.8%. But then he did lose the QF to Pim Pim, so does that deserve to be rated up there at all with championship runs with a full 7 rounds when its average GW% would've surely dropped with an extra SF/F? In fact I'm not sure why the webmaster included it in the first place.

So let's expand our purview to Roddick's entire '04 season. IC he won 58.65% of his games on hard (I didn't bother to take out DC matches this time) - good, but not dominant and more in line with our expectations. And that goes for just about everybody except maybe on grass which is always a crapshoot with its mini-season. The good ol' statistical rule of thumb applies here: the greater the sample, the better.

 

[tex123]

The only vulture is the Djokovic. No amount of statistical data fitting can change that. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. He's vulturing the weakest era of all time.

 

[abmk]

Dude, stop digging. You didn't just take issue with my (subsequent) claim that Korda and Becker returned well. Your specific issue, in your own words, that you thought I was saying their return was "in the vicinity of fed's in Wim 01."

Which I explicitly corrected in my 2nd reply when I said that part of my post was to illustrate a point and not to be taken literally. You're just obfuscating your real beef here to score a cheap point now. Stop it because I'm not gonna let this one slide.

I had an issue with both. - more with the fed vicinity part yes.

I actually think Fed returned about as well as he could (factoring in his decline, yes) given that this was likely A-Rod's clutchest and smartest serving, so what's your point?

federer returned decent at best in Wim 09 final. not well. similarly Becker/Korda didn't return well either vs Sampras in Wim 097
and you are wrong. federer returned clearly better vs Karlovic in the QF for example - when he clustered the returns better to break Karlovic twice. (with Karlovic serving at career best and unbroken in grass season - including vs tsonga/verdasco). yes, even if Karlovic did have a pretty high unret serve% vs fed.

Again the only two times Pistol lost serve at '97 Wimby were in the first warm-up round and in the SF where he was clearly cruising against a hapless Woodbridge. You keep harping on BPs (or lack thereof) as if it were that easy to return this heavy-AF Sampras serve on unpredictable '90s grass. It wasn't, and Petr's and Boris' return stats are to be understood in that context.

yes and my point remains.

I really don't have time for this. You're talking about a guy who used to be annoyed that commies were going gaga over his BH while overlooking his FH. Were he playing today that BH would still be touted as a legit ATG one.

whatever

More like double counting. One could well argue instead that a true URS% based on in-play SPs only is a better measure of serving prowess.

not double counting at all.
you can't just only talk about URS% when not mentioning DFs.
either you subtract from URS or mention DFs along with it. (especially if significant)
an ureturned serve is a free point got on serve. A DF is a free point given away on serve.

Again you keep talking like returning the Sampras serve in a major F is that easy. I mean even with that lopsided L to GOATing Pistol '95 Boris still won 20.5% of return games for the fortnight, more than Bull in '06 (16.5%) and not far below his 23.3%/25.1% in '08/11 (granted he did average 27.0% in '07). But yeah that Becker would be destroyed by a fellow Wimby champ.

I was talking about Becker's returning in the final. didn't say it was easy, but it was below par from Becker.
nadal didn't serve that badly before the final in USO 11 either.
I also mentioned rest of Becker's play wasn't that good after set 1 also.
yes, by destroyed, I mean destroyed given grass. Sampras after set1 definitely destroyed Becker in that final. A strong Wimby champ would destroy that Becker (by grass standards) just as a strong USO champ would destroy Nadal of USO 11 final.

Point is you over-rated becker in Wim 95 final compared to nadal of USO 11 in the finals. Not much difference between either performance.
you want to keep digging yourself over this, knock yourself out.

And I don't care what you call the '11 USO F. The bottom line is that there were plenty of opportunities to come in which Bull (and TBF Novak himself) failed to take advantage of. Boris wouldn't have the same problem.

it wouldn't make much of a difference given both were passing supremely well.
net play isn't a magical solution.
nadal got burnt in crucial point in Wim 18 SF vs djoko. fed in Wim 19 final.
the b2b passes in 4th set TB of Wim 08 final.
etc.
fed stayed back in the epic rally in AO 17 final - if he had come in, he'd probably be passed

 

[NonP]

The only vulture is the Djokovic. No amount of statistical data fitting can change that. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. He's vulturing the weakest era of all time.

Then Bull himself has vultured the same joke era. For the umpteenth time he and Djoker are less than a year apart in age. There's no way you can argue they didn't benefit from the same weak fields.

federer returned decent at best in Wim 09 final. not well. similarly Becker/Korda didn't return well either vs Sampras in Wim 09.
and you are wrong. federer returned clearly better vs Karlovic in the QF for example - when he clustered the returns better to break Karlovic twice. (with Karlovic serving at career best and unbroken in grass season - including vs tsonga/verdasco)

I don't buy into this "clustering" business and have already explained why. I mean your boy couldn't put even 40% of Karlovic's serves back in play, and even considering Ivo's superiority I'm somehow supposed to think this return performance was that much better than the F vs. botting A-Rod? Sorry, that's a hard pill to swallow.

not double counting at all.
you can't just only talk about URS% when not mentioning DFs.
either you subtract from URS or mention DFs along with it. (especially if significant)

The point is that both stats track out-play points. I'm not saying we should ignore DFs altogether, but rather that DF % is dependent on how many 1st-serve-ish 2nds the player hits on average. On paper the equation may look like 1 to 1, but the real benefits may in fact be greater (or lesser).

I was talking about Becker's returning in the final. didn't say it was easy, but it was below par from Becker.
I also mentioned rest of Becker's play wasn't that good after set 1 also.
yes, by destroyed, I mean destroyed given grass. Sampras after set1 definitely destroyed Becker in that final. A strong Wimby champ would destroy that Becker (by grass standards) just as a strong USO champ would destroy Nadal of USO 11 final.

Point is you over-rated becker in Wim 95 compared to nadal of USO 11 in the finals. Not much difference between either performance.
you want to keep digging yourself with more BS over this, knock yourself out.

I still remember you taking issue with my old claim that Pistol could seemingly break Boris' serve at will that day, and now you're saying the very opposite. So which is it then? Either Pistol's returning was that good or Boris' serving went down the toilet after the 1st set. You can't have both.

Not interested in further hashing out '95 Boris vs. '11 Bull. I see that Becker having a legit shot at almost every Wimby of the last 30 years in the eventual champ's place, while I can't say the same for '11 Nadal at Flushing (maybe about half of 'em, as opposed to 2/3 if not more for Boris). If you don't buy it that's your loss.

 

[abmk]

I don't buy into this "clustering" business and have already explained why. I mean your boy couldn't put even 40% of Karlovic's serves back in play, and even considering Ivo's superiority I'm somehow supposed to think this return performance was that much better than the F vs. botting A-Rod? Sorry, that's a hard pill to swallow.

I said it was clearly better in the QF vs Karlovic.
and again, you've shown you didn't watch that QF vs Karlovic. federer broke Karlovic clean with 2 excellent returning games. one each in 1st and 2nd set. not one other person broke Karlovic in that grass season in like 8-9 matches (it was his career best serving). fed set the tone with that early command break in the 1st set.
so please stop. I watched it live and I watched it again to track the stats.

fed returned well enough to have got 1 break vs Roddick in 1st 4 sets (didn't get it obviously). 1st set 5-5. missed a makeable FH.
vs karlovic he returned well enough to break him once each in sets 1 and 2. 2 breaks in 3 sets.
karlovic's serving/hold game was even better than Roddick's

regarding clustering, again, your problem. another flaw in your analysis.

The point is that both stats track out-play points. I'm not saying we should ignore DFs altogether, but rather that DF % is dependent on how many 1st-serve-ish 2nds the player hits on average. On paper the equation may look like 1 to 1, but the real benefits may in fact be greater (or lesser).

my point is both need to be mentioned. its fine if you don't want to subtract. I do agree real benefits could be greater or lesser.
But no, DF% isn't dependent on that only that. it could also be nerves or faulty serving.

I still remember you taking issue with my old claim that Pistol could seemingly break Boris' serve at will that day, and now you're saying the very opposite. So which is it then? Either Pistol's returning was that good or Boris' serving went down the toilet after the 1st set. You can't have both.

combination of both - becker not serving well and sampras returning well.

Not interested in further hashing out '95 Boris vs. '11 Bull. I see that Becker having a legit shot at almost every Wimby of the last 30 years in the eventual champ's place, while I can't say the same for '11 Nadal at Flushing (maybe about half of 'em, as opposed to 2/3 if not more for Boris). If you don't buy it that's your loss.

nope. your wrong analysis and over-rating of Becker. period. moving on.

 

[NonP]

I said it was clearly better in the QF vs Karlovic.
and again, you've shown you didn't watch that QF vs Karlovic. federer broke Karlovic clean with 2 excellent returning games. one each in 1st and 2nd set. not one other person broke Karlovic in that grass season in like 8-9 matches (it was his career best serving). fed set the tone with that early command break in the 1st set.
so please stop. I watched it live and I watched it again to track the stats.

fed returned well enough to have got 1 break vs Roddick in 1st 4 sets (didn't get it obviously). 1st set 5-5. missed a makeable FH.
vs karlovic he returned well enough to break him once each in sets 1 and 2. 2 breaks in 3 sets.
karlovic's serving/hold game was even better than Roddick's

regarding clustering, again, your problem. another flaw in your analysis.

Dude, your analysis isn't half as airtight as you think it is. I too saw that match live and still remember fans (in another forum) discussing in its aftermath whether this was a good return performance from Fed when Ivo served so many aces and freebies (obviously URS% wasn't a thing then).

Plenty of don't buy that giving up 60+% of URSs is still clearly better than limiting it to 40% just because "clustering," and with damn good reason. I find the whole notion nonsensical, so if you wanna keep droning on about this do it with somebody else.

my point is both need to be mentioned. its fine if you don't want to subtract.
and no, DF% isn't dependent on that only that. it could also be nerves or faulty serving.

Never said it is only that. Most (if any) of Boris' DFs weren't of choking variety, anyway.

combination of both - becker not serving well and sampras returning well.

So Boris still served well enough that Pete couldn't break him at will. Got it.

nope. your wrong analysis and over-rating of Becker. period. moving on.

Pretty sure which position most knowledgeable old-timers would side with, but hey, you do you.

Oh and one more thing:

it wouldn't make much of a difference given both were passing supremely well.
net play isn't a magical solution.
nadal got burnt in crucial point in Wim 18 SF vs djoko. fed in Wim 19 final.
the b2b passes in 4th set TB of Wim 08 final.
etc.
fed stayed back in the epic rally in AO 17 final - if he had come in, he'd probably be passed

Per TA pre-Boris Djoker won 63% of his net points, and Bull 74% (if admittedly out of 23 points only). Think I like Becker's chances.

 

[abmk]

Dude, your analysis isn't half as airtight as you think it is. I too saw that match live and still remember fans (in another forum) discussing in its aftermath whether this was a good return performance from Fed when Ivo served so many aces and freebies (obviously URS% wasn't a thing then).

yet you actually failed to address what I said there.
now how many people or how much % would seriously argue fed was returning well vs Roddick in Wim 09 final?
think about it and you'll get the answer how clearly the QF performance was better.

Plenty of don't buy that giving up 60+% of URSs is still clearly better than limiting it to 40% just because "clustering," and with damn good reason. I find the whole notion nonsensical, so if you wanna keep droning on about this do it with somebody else.

not sure where this 40% is coming from.
yes, its apparently useless on you when you don't want to try to understand.

So Boris still served well enough that Pete couldn't break him at will. Got it.

putting words in my mouth. just stop.

Pretty sure which position most knowledgeable old-timers would side with, but hey, you do you.

pretty sure based on nothing. tell yourself whatever you want.

Oh and one more thing:


Per TA pre-Boris Djoker won 63% of his net points, and Bull 74% (if admittedly out of 23 points only). Think I like Becker's chances.

and those %s would go down as you approached more.
and you didn't even address what I mentioned about net play not being a magical solution with examples.

 

[RS]

Does Karlovic Wim 09 QF get a set vs Fed of the final?

 

[NonP]

yet you actually failed to address what I said there.
now how many people or how much % would seriously argue fed was returning well vs Roddick in Wim 09 final?
think about it and you'll get the answer how clearly the QF performance was better.

We're not judging '09 Fed by TMF standards. He won 25.4% of return games for the whole year and yes, it's absolutely legit to say he returned as well as he could in the 5-set marathon vs. A-Rod given his actual form at the time.

not sure where this 40% is coming from.
yes, its apparently useless on you when you don't want to try to understand.

Dude, are you now arguing just for the heck of it? A-Rod had 41.0% (98/239) of URS in that '09 F, vs. Ivo's 62.3% (48/77) in the QF (5 SPs are missing from TA's data). You know this already.

and those %s would go down as you approached more.
and you didn't even address what I mentioned about net play not being a magical solution with examples.

Nobody said net play can solve all problems. But this is Boris friggin' Becker we're talking about, the same Becker having a career renaissance after his disappointing '94 season. They were definitely plenty of missed opportunities to come in during the '11 USO F and I don't see Boris being so passive on those points.

Also the real comparison is between Boris at '95 SW19 vs. Bull at '11 Flushing. Their supposed USO matchup is somewhat relevant but ultimately a distraction.

Does Karlovic Wim 09 QF get a set vs Fed of the final?

Fraud would be going all out in a Slam F, and there's no guarantee Ivo wouldn't freeze up a tiny bit in his 1st (and only) one. So the A is no.

 

[abmk]

Nobody said net play can solve all problems. But this is Boris friggin' Becker we're talking about, the same Becker having a career renaissance after his disappointing '94 season. They were definitely plenty of missed opportunities to come in during the '11 USO F and I don't see Boris being so passive on those points.

Also the real comparison is between Boris at '95 SW19 vs. Bull at '11 Flushing. Their supposed USO matchup is somewhat relevant but ultimately a distraction.

the same Becker who was spent from the 5-setter vs Pioline and tough 4-setter vs Agassi?
we are comparing Wim 95 final to USO 11 final here.

yes, Becker would come in more, but his % would dip and he'd also get burnt at crucial points given the passing of djokovic(/nadal) - they'd be even sharper on crucial points.

Dude, are you now arguing just for the heck of it? A-Rod had 41.0% (98/239) of URS in that '09 F, vs. Ivo's 62.3% (48/77) in the QF (5 SPs are missing from TA's data). You know this already.

I wasn't arguing. I was asking what number you were exactly referring to. Since it was 41%, not 40%. Wasn't sure if you were rounding.
firstly Karlovic was serving better, secondly throw in extra 5% or so unret. thanks to SnV.
so its not exactly an even comparision.

fed returned well enough to have got 1 break vs Roddick in 1st 4 sets (didn't get it obviously). 1st set 5-5. missed a makeable FH.
vs karlovic he returned well enough to break him once each in sets 1 and 2. 2 breaks in 3 sets.
karlovic's serving/hold game was even better than Roddick's.

I have
Karlovic : 49/80 (61.25%) (2 serves are missing)

We're not judging '09 Fed by TMF standards. He won 25.4% of return games for the whole year and yes, it's absolutely legit to say he returned as well as he could in the 5-set marathon vs. A-Rod given his actual form at the time.

fed could've returned better vs A-Rod in the final given his general 09 form or how he returned vs Karlovic.
federer returned clearly better in the QF than in the F in Wim 09 and he didn't return well in Wim 09 final by 09 standards. You'd have to be really flawed or stubborn not to see/admit this.
I've seen enough in the last few months. This is the last straw for me. I'm done taking you seriously as an analyst.

 

[NonP]

the same Becker who was spent from the 5-setter vs Pioline and tough 4-setter vs Agassi?
we are comparing Wim 95 final to USO 11 final here.

yes, Becker would come in more, but his % would dip and he'd also get burnt at crucial points given the passing of djokovic(/nadal) - they'd be even sharper on crucial points.

There's that fav buzzword of yours again. For the umpteenth time you can't just assume a player is "spent" just cuz he'd played a bunch of long matches before. Nobody who watches the '95 F with a fresh set of eyes would think Boris lost that match due to fatigue.

And you're talking about a guy who's 2nd only to Pistol (and, strictly speaking, Cressy) in Net W% among all charted men with at least 25% in Net Freq. This isn't anywhere near a slam dunk for Nadalovic as you think it is.

I wasn't arguing. I was asking what number you were exactly referring to. Since it was 41%, not 40%. Wasn't sure if you were rounding.
firstly Karlovic was serving better, secondly throw in extra 5% or so unret. thanks to SnV.

fed returned well enough to have got 1 break vs Roddick in 1st 4 sets (didn't get it obviously). 1st set 5-5. missed a makeable FH.
vs karlovic he returned well enough to break him once each in sets 1 and 2. 2 breaks in 3 sets.
karlovic's serving/hold game was even better than Roddick's.

I have
Karlovic : 49/80 (61.25%) (2 serves are missing)

Dude, you've gotta be at least somewhat consistent. Just earlier you were hellbent on disputing the hardly out-there notion that Korda (and Boris to a lesser extent) returned well in that 4R at '97 Wimby (which I'm pretty sure you've never seen) due to Pistol's high URS%, but now you're dismissing Karlovic's humongous 20% advantage over Roddick on the thin basis that Fed played a few return points right. I mean then why bother with any return points at all outside the games with breaks of serve? Ya really think Fed (or anyone else, really) can afford to be so casual against a server of Ivo's caliber on grass?

fed could've returned better vs A-Rod in the final given his general 09 form or how he returned vs Karlovic.
federer returned clearly better in the QF than in the F in Wim 09 and he didn't return well in Wim 09 final by 09 standards. You'd have to be really flawed or stubborn not to see/admit this.
I've seen enough in the last few months. This is the last straw for me. I'm done taking you seriously as an analyst.

Well, I don't care what you think of me. Saves moi a lot of time anyway.

 

[abmk]

There's that fav buzzword of yours again. For the umpteenth time you can't just assume a player is "spent" just cuz he'd played a bunch of long matches before. Nobody who watches the '95 F with a fresh set of eyes would think Boris lost that match due to fatigue.

And you're talking about a guy who's 2nd only to Pistol (and, strictly speaking, Cressy) in Net W% among all charted men with at least 25% in Net Freq. This isn't anywhere near a slam dunk for Nadalovic as you think it is.

that sharpness wasn't there in Becker's game thanks to the QF+SF. yes that counts as atleast somewhat spent to me.
he'd have lost anyways to that Sampras even otherwise, but not as easily.


Meanwhile Sampras himself.

"I just started to connect on my returns," Sampras said, "and my serve didn't let me down, and I could tell he was more tired, and put it all together and I felt pretty great about my game out there."

TENNIS; The Third Time Is Charming: Sampras Wins at Wimbledon Again (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

(this is preceded by the mention of heat on court that day)


your 2nd point isn't that applicable given becker wasn't good in the final after 1st set.

Dude, you've gotta be at least somewhat consistent. Just earlier you were hellbent on disputing the hardly out-there notion that Korda (and Boris to a lesser extent) returned well in that 4R at '97 Wimby (which I'm pretty sure you've never seen) due to Pistol's high URS%, but now you're dismissing Karlovic's humongous 20% advantage over Roddick on the thin basis that Fed played a few return points right. I mean then why bother with any return points at all outside the games with breaks of serve? Ya really think Fed (or anyone else, really) can afford to be so casual against a server of Ivo's caliber on grass?

nope. I also said Korda had BPs in 1 game for the entire match and he didn't break. It wasn't just the 52% URS.

Roddick v Karlovic:
firstly Karlovic was serving better, secondly throw in extra 5% or so unret. thanks to SnV.
so its not exactly an even comparision.

federer broke early in the 1st set to set the tone and he broke in the 2nd set as well vs Karlovic. guy hadn't been broken on grass that season in 8-9 matches. it wasn't some fluke from fed. those were sharp, clean return games - which atleast I remember clearly.

 

[abmk]

Does Karlovic Wim 09 QF get a set vs Fed of the final?

IF he plays just as well in the final as he did the QF, then I'd say yes, Karlovic snags a set in the Wim 09 final vs Fed.
But that's an IF.

 

[tex123]

Then Bull himself has vultured the same joke era. For the umpteenth time he and Djoker are less than a year apart in age. There's no way you can argue they didn't benefit from the same weak fields.

Players can be a year older and yet count as older generation. Djoko developed late. Nadal came in at Fed's peak as his only rival. Novak peaked and Nadal battled with him to get his titles.

Once Fed retired and Nadal semi retired, Novak vultured. Vultured bad. You can bluff all you want. Nadal won his titles with a peak Fed and peak Novak competing. The only vulture here is Novak. Poor weakgens.

No one needs stats to understand that Nadal won with the toughest competition. If you say Nadal had the easiest then peak Nole and peak Fed were inferior to Nadal?

Seriously, stop.

 

[NonP]

that sharpness wasn't there in Becker's game thanks to the QF+SF. yes that counts as atleast somewhat spent to me.
he'd have lost anyways to that Sampras even otherwise, but not as easily.


Meanwhile Sampras himself.

"I just started to connect on my returns," Sampras said, "and my serve didn't let me down, and I could tell he was more tired, and put it all together and I felt pretty great about my game out there."

TENNIS; The Third Time Is Charming: Sampras Wins at Wimbledon Again (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

(this is preceded by the mention of heat on court that day)


your 2nd point isn't that applicable given becker wasn't good in the final after 1st set.

So we're supposed to take players' words as gospel now? Of course Pistol would say that when his opponent missed some dozen 1st serves in a row. Boris sure didn't look out of it when he was bantering with the umpire in the middle of the match.

Anyhoo I'm done with this. I rate that Boris higher than you do. That's it. End of discussion.

nope. I also said Korda had BPs in 1 game for the entire match and he didn't break. It wasn't just the 52% URS.

Roddick v Karlovic:
firstly Karlovic was serving better, secondly throw in extra 5% or so unret. thanks to SnV.
so its not exactly an even comparision.

federer broke early in the 1st set to set the tone and he broke in the 2nd set as well vs Karlovic. guy hadn't been broken on grass that season in 8-9 matches. it wasn't some fluke from fed. those were sharp, clean return games - which atleast I remember clearly.

So you've narrowed the URS% gap to, what, about 10%? That's still a whole lot more ground to account for.

And I bet Ivo's overall URS% at '09 Wimby wasn't far above Pistol's 52.8% in '97, if at all, given his 4 BPS in 1R vs. Lacko and, of course those 2 BPs lost to Fed. And with that SF vs. Woodbridge removed '97 Pistol's "real" average URS% was a whopping 55.3%.

So no, I can't buy that Fed in the '09 QF returned so much better than Korda in '97 4R just cuz "clustering." Either URS% matters or it doesn't. I mean you're seriously arguing that taking an ATG hold machine to 5 (yes, thx to 2 TBs) on the best serving streak of his entire career, very possibly the best of anyone ever, is somehow clearly worse than creating one more BP and converting both against another bot with a far more limited game. It just strains credulity to an extreme.

Players can be a year older and yet count as older generation. Djoko developed late. Nadal came in at Fed's peak as his only rival. Novak peaked and Nadal battled with him to get his titles.

Once Fed retired and Nadal semi retired, Novak vultured. Vultured bad. You can bluff all you want. Nadal won his titles with a peak Fed and peak Novak competing. The only vulture here is Novak. Poor weakgens.

No one needs stats to understand that Nadal won with the toughest competition. If you say Nadal had the easiest then peak Nole and peak Fed were inferior to Nadal?

Seriously, stop.

Nope, Rafa won 8 majors in his 30s (vs. Novak's 11, yes). That's worth Agassi's entire trophy collection. It's risible to call that Nadal "semi retired."

And you keep saying "weakgens" as if I ever disputed the sorry status of recent men's fields. I don't. My beef with you is your refusal to acknowledge that Nadal himself has benefited from this vacuum.