The ridiculous logic of inferring the result of prime matchups through lost sets!

[kragster]

I see this specious logic used all the time on this forum by fans in all camps to extrapolate prime vs prime matchups:

Brokeback Agassi took sets off prime Fed so prime Agassi would…..
Old Hewitt took a set of Novak so prime Hewitt would…
Overweight past his prime Nalbandian took a set off Nadal so prime Nalby would…

There are two reasons this logic is flawed
1) To make any kind of meaningful observation, you need multiple data points, not just 1 encounter
2) There is a HUGE difference between TAKING A SET off someone and BEATING them. If you don’t take my word for it, go to the ATP website and see the number of players ranked outside the top 50 who have managed to win sets off these grand slam champions in their prime. In 2006 Fed lost a set to the giant Takao Suzuki, ranked 1078 in the world! In 2011 Novak was bageled by Kei Nishikori! Prime Nadal almost lost to the GOAT Petzschner. These one off results mean diddly squat for the most part. On any given day, the form of a player fluctuates and even in their prime, players can easily lose sets to people they are supposed to straight set.

If you want to figure out what a hypothetical prime vs prime matchup would look like, you must consider:

1) Overall proficiency on the surface based on titles won, W-L% etc
2) If multiple non-prime matchups have taken place between the players, then you can infer something IF AND ONLY IF the results were very one sided.
3) Analysis of their playing styles and what would be the likely pattern of play.

 

[Seth]

Nice post. Well thought out.

 

[hawk eye]

In 2006 Fed lost a set to the giant Takao Suzuki, ranked 1078 in the world! In 2011 Novak was bageled by Kei Nishikori!

I think you have a deep hidden, but strong fear of Japan take over the world and you try to somehow defuse it by making this thread.

 

[kragster]

I think you have a deep hidden, but strong fear of Japan take over the world and you try to somehow defuse it by making this thread.

You have seen through me. This was the whole intent of this thread,to alert the world to a Japanese takeover.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Wonderful post...

 

[hawk eye]

Good for you. Always be on alert when those little guys start messing around with the Feds and Novaks of this world.. suddenly they´re just every where, like in London and Paris taking over Wimby and RG. And they´ve got pictures to prove it..

 

[zam88]

Really if anything it's a statement of why the tennis scoring system is kind of stupid.

I haven't studied the metrics closely enough to offer a good counter scoring system...

However, I'd rather see some sort of system where.. player 1 got 10 serves, player 2 got 10 serves, then switch sides, repeat.. for grand slams the first person to 200 points or something.. must win by 5 or something.... once you're ahead by 20 points (after reaching a minimum of 100 points) the mercy rule kicks in and the match ends.

 

[kragster]

Really if anything it's a statement of why the tennis scoring system is kind of stupid.

I haven't studied the metrics closely enough to offer a good counter scoring system...

However, I'd rather see some sort of system where.. player 1 got 10 serves, player 2 got 10 serves, then switch sides, repeat.. for grand slams the first person to 200 points or something.. must win by 5 or something.... once you're ahead by 20 points (after reaching a minimum of 100 points) the mercy rule kicks in and the match ends.

So more like table tennis right? I think it's a mixed bag though. On the one hand I think it is kind of unfair that a set won 6-0 and a set won 7-6 have the same value. On the other hand I think it makes it interesting that you could be down 0-6, 0-6 , 0-5, and still come back and win the match. Versus in a lot of other sports, the result is almost set in stone by the time you are halfway through the match.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I see this specious logic used all the time on this forum by fans in all camps to extrapolate prime vs prime matchups:

Brokeback Agassi took sets off prime Fed so prime Agassi would…..
Old Hewitt took a set of Novak so prime Hewitt would…
Overweight past his prime Nalbandian took a set off Nadal so prime Nalby would…

There are two reasons this logic is flawed
1) To make any kind of meaningful observation, you need multiple data points, not just 1 encounter
2) There is a HUGE difference between TAKING A SET off someone and BEATING them. If you don’t take my word for it, go to the ATP website and see the number of players ranked outside the top 50 who have managed to win sets off these grand slam champions in their prime. In 2006 Fed lost a set to the giant Takao Suzuki, ranked 1078 in the world! In 2011 Novak was bageled by Kei Nishikori! Prime Nadal almost lost to the GOAT Petzschner. These one off results mean diddly squat for the most part. On any given day, the form of a player fluctuates and even in their prime, players can easily lose sets to people they are supposed to straight set.

If you want to figure out what a hypothetical prime vs prime matchup would look like, you must consider:

1) Overall proficiency on the surface based on titles won, W-L% etc
2) If multiple non-prime matchups have taken place between the players, then you can infer something IF AND ONLY IF the results were very one sided.
3) Analysis of their playing styles and what would be the likely pattern of play.

Great post.

 

[The Meat]

2) There is a HUGE difference between TAKING A SET off someone and BEATING them. If you don’t take my word for it, go to the ATP website and see the number of players ranked outside the top 50 who have managed to win sets off these grand slam champions in their prime. In 2006 Fed lost a set to the giant Takao Suzuki, ranked 1078 in the world! In 2011 Novak was bageled by Kei Nishikori! Prime Nadal almost lost to the GOAT Petzschner. These one off results mean diddly squat for the most part. On any given day, the form of a player fluctuates and even in their prime, players can easily lose sets to people they are supposed to straight set.

Very true, you need to hold serve 5 times and break or take it to the tie break. Any player can make a few mistakes in a single game to lose their serve or lose the tie break. That's the reason why Isner and Raonic are so successful with their lack of weapons(there's a better way of saying it but can't think of it). Winning at a grandslam against a top player is harder because you have to do it 3 times instead of twice.

 

[FreeBird]

I see this specious logic used all the time on this forum by fans in all camps to extrapolate prime vs prime matchups:

Brokeback Agassi took sets off prime Fed so prime Agassi would…..
Old Hewitt took a set of Novak so prime Hewitt would…
Overweight past his prime Nalbandian took a set off Nadal so prime Nalby would…

There are two reasons this logic is flawed
1) To make any kind of meaningful observation, you need multiple data points, not just 1 encounter
2) There is a HUGE difference between TAKING A SET off someone and BEATING them. If you don’t take my word for it, go to the ATP website and see the number of players ranked outside the top 50 who have managed to win sets off these grand slam champions in their prime. In 2006 Fed lost a set to the giant Takao Suzuki, ranked 1078 in the world! In 2011 Novak was bageled by Kei Nishikori! Prime Nadal almost lost to the GOAT Petzschner. These one off results mean diddly squat for the most part. On any given day, the form of a player fluctuates and even in their prime, players can easily lose sets to people they are supposed to straight set.

If you want to figure out what a hypothetical prime vs prime matchup would look like, you must consider:

1) Overall proficiency on the surface based on titles won, W-L% etc
2) If multiple non-prime matchups have taken place between the players, then you can infer something IF AND ONLY IF the results were very one sided.
3) Analysis of their playing styles and what would be the likely pattern of play.