Total win/loss records of top 10-20 players and more: 2004- 2014

[Deleted member 307496]

Which only adds to making the year weaker...

No, because when they both were there and healthy, they made deep runs. Hewitt in particular always made it deep if he played in a tournament that year.

He didn't have a spectacular 2010 at all, but he did have a strong finish.

Also, Tsonga isn't a pushover at the AO.

He might not be a pushover, but he is around the same level as, if not slightly worse than Fernando Gonzalez.. And you ridicule Federer for having to face him like he was some pushover..

Keep in mind that Tsonga wasn't great in 2010 at all.

 

[The_Order]

yeah, even so ..so what ? it was one time ...not like it happened 3-4 times out of the 16 slams in that era ....

We were talking about 05 and comparing 05 only. Try to keep up.

and like I said how the hell does it matter that much when it was the other half that was stacked - federer, hewitt and nalbandian and federer went through nalbandian, hewitt and agassi to win that USO ...we're talking about federer's competition, are we not !?

Enough with adding Nalbandian. Nalbandian was borderline top 10 player throughout most of 2005 and he played crap in the qf.

Hewitt was the only other guy making it tough.

LOL, wut a joke ...verdasco only played well for half a set ...nadal didn't even get into the groove until a set and half ..

as far as USO 05 match vs nalbandian is concerned, it was federer who took nalbandian out of his comfort zone completely ...completely different

Nalbandian is capable of so much more than what he displayed. If he was playing well, Federer wouldn't have so much control.

 

[abmk]

No, they weren't around the same level, Roddick playing well is nowhere near as tough as Novak playing well. Novak is the far greater US Open player and at the time he was playing really well.

no, he isn't...he's better, but not by that much level wise ...

he was playing some good tennis, but not close to his best ..

 

[The_Order]

No, because when they both were there and healthy, they made deep runs. Hewitt in particular always made it deep if he played in a tournament that year.

Yes but missing "large parts" means they weren't there...

He might not be a pushover, but he is around the same level as, if not slightly worse than Fernando Gonzalez.. And you ridicule Federer for having to face him like he was some pushover..

Keep in mind that Tsonga wasn't great in 2010 at all.

Tsonga has a better record than Gonzo who only had one good run there and then never got past the 4th round in any other AO campaign.

Tsonga also got to WIM qf in 2010. What did Gonzo do in the majors apart from AO in 07?

 

[The_Order]

at their very bests, you could say that...anything below that they're in big trouble ...

Well Fed was at his very best/peak when he played them.

They're certainly easier than having to constantly deal with Novak, Federer and Murray.

 

[abmk]

We were talking about 05 and comparing 05 only. Try to keep up.

the conversation included whole of 2004-07 ..though it did mainly come to 05

Enough with adding Nalbandian. Nalbandian was borderline top 10 player throughout most of 2005 and he played crap in the qf.

Hewitt was the only other guy making it tough.



Nalbandian is capable of so much more than what he displayed. If he was playing well, Federer wouldn't have so much control.

of course, nalbandian is capable of playing better, but it was federer's play which took him out of his comfort zone that day ..

unlike the nadal-verdasco match where verdasco didn't do much after a good start and its not like nadal did anything special

if you can't get the difference, that's your problem ...

 

[abmk]

Well Fed was at his very best/peak when he played them.

They're certainly easier than having to constantly deal with Novak, Federer and Murray.

constantly deal with which versions of Novak, federer and murray ?

agassi of USO 04 > novak of USO 10 and 13 for instance, only djokovic of USO 11 is where you could say he was clearly better ...
davydenko of AO 06 QF, gonzales of AO 07 > novak of USO 10, 13 for instance

and murray in USO 11 SF wasn't even playing that well and all of these guys were certainly better than murray in wimbledon 10 and 11 ...the only one you could make a case for is murray of USO 2008 SF and AO 2010 QF

also djokovic of USO 07-09 whom federer faced> djokovic of USO 10 , 13 whom nadal faced ...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yes but missing "large parts" means they weren't there...

So because there were times when they were absent from the tour, you want to exclude their good play from the year?

Tsonga has a better record than Gonzo who only had one good run there and then never got past the 4th round in any other AO campaign.

Tsonga also got to WIM qf in 2010. What did Gonzo do in the majors apart from AO in 07?

He has made it to the QF stage of all the majors.. and he has made it to the SF of Roland Garros.

 

[NatF]

What would be exceptionally interesting is if the top ten players opponent's total won/lost and winning percentage was calculated.

I can do it for the top 11-20 players. But are you asking for the win/loss of every player anyone of them faced that year?

I decided to have a look at 1st Serve Points Won:

Year - % Diff - Grass - Clay

2014: 4.54: - 73.48 - 70.29
2013: 5.07: - 73.12 - 69.59
2012: 4.13: - 72.09 - 69.23
2011: 4.85: - 71.96 - 68.63
2010: 5.92: - 73.05 - 68.97
2009: 6.73: - 73.94 - 69.28
2008: 5.93: - 72.88 - 68.80
2007: 6.80: - 72.57 - 67.95
2006: 6.04: - 72.12 - 68.01
2005: 4.24: - 70.28 - 67.42
2004: 4.60: - 71.44 - 68.30
2003: 2.56: - 70.05 - 68.30
2002: 3.72: - 70.29 - 67.77
2001: 5.89: - 72.27 - 68.25
2000: 5.32: - 72.29 - 68.64
1999: 9.23: - 73.73 - 67.50
1998: 7.52: - 73.67 - 68.52
1997: 7.46: - 73.50 - 68.40
1996: 6.53: - 72.42 - 67.98
1995: 7.38: - 72.50 - 67.52
1994: 7.08: - 72.76 - 67.95
1993: 9.77: - 73.28 - 66.76
1992: 10.25: - 73.70 - 66.85
1991: 8.94: - 70.07 - 64.32

Interesting, thanks for this. A lot of fluctuations but an overall trend towards closer 1st serve points won. Any thoughts on this?

-----

The_Order Roddick doing better at the FO in 2009 is irrelevant really. He was never a contender there. In 2004 he was better at the AO and USO clearly in terms of form and similar at Wimbledon. That's what really counts for him.

 

[70sHollywood]

Interesting, thanks for this. A lot of fluctuations but an overall trend towards closer 1st serve points won. Any thoughts on this?

Bear in mind the ace rate has increased over time (as stated in the article), I'm assuming due to technology. It's worth noting that the 1st serve points won on clay has increased far more than on grass. In other words clay has "caught up" with grass.

The question is why hasn't the 1st serve points won on grass increased by the same rate as on clay?

The obvious first thought is that the grass has been slowed down. As technology has "improved" serving (ace rates increasing), the 1st serve points won on clay has increased - because clay hasn't changed over the period. Because the 1st serve points won on grass has remained largely the same it could suggest the grass has been slowed to counter the improved serving.

But why would the ace rate still increase if this were the case? Unless the ace rate has increased by a smaller amount on grass than on clay?

Another factor is playing style. With everyone being a baseliner the returners on grass no longer have to pass the net rusher on virtually every point. As a result they are not giving away as many cheap points. This would counter the improved ace rate.

 

[NatF]

*Bump*

Just finished collating the same stats of the top 10 from 1993-2003.

For now I will post it like so...

This is in order of win/loss minus the #1 player or the column titled - 'Top 10' e.g. column D.

I will discuss this later on. Although the first thing that stands out is that 98 is the only year where the YE #1 ended with a losing h2h with players in that top 10.

There's also not a clear change in consistent win/loss records until around 2011 - though it does trend upwards. More titles were won in the 90's possibly because there were less mandatory events. One of the next things I will chart are the number of times masters events were skipped in this sort of period - though probably not as far back as 1993.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

So basically the late '90s to early '00s transitional era was real.

I'm not sure how much a year-by-year analysis tells us. You can have a year that seems like an anomaly among the surrounding years.

I'm being slightly facetious as it isn't that simple, though I don't disagree with it entirely.

Some intuitive thoughts:

The stagnant nature of the tour in recent years, where generations who were also in their primes in supposedly much weaker years are still alive and kicking, has led to a more consistent hierarchy at the top (perhaps this can be very simply disproved with readily available stats.). The implication is that it doesn't necessarily demonstrate increased strength but perhaps more a lack of dynamism on the tour, allowing the scene at the top to settle and find consistent solutions for a tour that doesn't demand that they change and adapt as much as some older times—the tour losing its state of flux.

On the other hand, the strength of the Trifecta alone bumps the strength of recent years a lot. We know how strong they are but they might be making the rest of the top-ten look better than they are. There simply wasn't a Trifecta around in the 90's that could have this sort of effect on the statistics.

These things could be completely wrong.. but just a couple of thoughts that came to mind.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

NatF, I believe that in tennis there is often a lag effect between the field and the top few. This can cause periods where there's an unusual gap in quality between the top few and the rest of the field, until they clock on and collectively make the same adjustments for the changing times that the preemptive and more talented guys at the top did (sometimes they are just more fortunate and happen to slot into the requirements of the time). When a field catches up to the next wave of tennis change instigated by the best players, it can produce cycles of equality which can be perceived as "weaker" times due to the conclusions that can be drawn from these sort of statistics (yours) because more equality = less predictable results. The top end of the field must then find a way to separate themselves once again and the cycle repeats. These changes formulate different tennis answers for success—this is not to say that each subsequent overarching discovery on tour and its slow filtering down to the field leads to a base answer that is superior to all previous ones—though as a general rule I think sports do evolve. Generally though, new answers are designed to deal with existing dominant ones, and not older ones. It's a large call and response system where the response deals with the present call and defeats it h2h but wouldn't necessarily be superior to the call that happened previously to that last call.

Good luck understanding this.

 

[Russeljones]

My conclusion is that, as always, Federer is a victim of his own success. He made everyone look ordinary during his peak and everyone at the top suffered from this.

Wins against him, in later years, were of equal importance as even in his decline he has been ubiquitous. So he can't win. He was too good for his opposition to appear worthy, now he is too good not to get to the point in a tournament where the younger guys beat him.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Waiting for some responses to my theories on tennis.

It carries some implications despite this proviso: "These changes formulate different tennis answers for success—this is not to say that each subsequent overarching discovery on tour and its slow filtering down to the field leads to a base answer that is superior to all previous ones—though, as a general rule, sports do evolve."

Rarely does the tennis field really get "weaker". It can occasionally happen in sports where a bunch of legends retire and there is truly a giant drop-off in the strength of a field. A good example of this is in F1, which has a small roster anyway so if a few legends happen to end their career then it's going to have a huge impact on the field.

From about 1993-1994ish (can't remember the exact years) F1 lost Prost (4x Champ), Senna (3x Champ) and Mansell (1x Champ). Suddenly the field was severely weakened—the dominant palaces had collapsed leaving merely rubble in their wake; and a new land to be terraformed by those who dared.

It's hard for this to really happen in tennis. When Sampras retired in 2002 he was far removed from his prime and we still had Agassi living it large yo. The new pretenders had already become contenders with the likes of Hewitt, Safin and then Roddick blooming rather early.

The strength from year-to-year in tennis can meander, but along what is generally an upward slope. I imagine it as plotting a path of changes in tennis and their responses (typically from the best players) against a path of realisation from the field on a backdrop of evolution in tennis that always slowly trends upwards, disturbed by localised noise from the arrival of new players and the retirement of older ones.

 

[NatF]

Yes I do feel like a general upwards trend seems likely, years like 2005 and 2009 seem like anomalies where their win/loss record is a lot higher than the surrounding years.

I will say that despite a general upwards trend it does appear that the late 90's saw a drop which lasted at least a little while. 1998 looks like a very weak year - a player with just 4 titles was the YE #1. I don't think there a serious increase upshot in win/loss record until about 2011. I do wonder if tour conditions are a significant reason or not.

The Big 3 must contribute to this somewhat but I do wonder how significant they could be, is a few percentage enough to account for 2012's great win/loss record? It has been my opinion that the rest of tour learnt their place a bit for a while and lost belief.

It might be that the changing tour conditions could of been easier to adjust to for Federer than the rest of his generation, along with his high level. While the developing younger group were able to tailor their games to the new conditions and the new standard. Clearly Federer's game was tailored to dominate his own generation, as was his mentality.

I agree that future generations improve on the old ones, I think there are peaks and troughs but evolution of the sport is inevitable.

I will try and write a more well thought response tomorrow.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes I do feel like a general upwards trend seems likely, years like 2005 and 2009 seem like anomalies where their win/loss record is a lot higher than the surrounding years.

I will say that despite a general upwards trend it does appear that the late 90's saw a drop which lasted at least a little while. 1998 looks like a very weak year - a player with just 4 titles was the YE #1. I don't think there a serious increase upshot in win/loss record until about 2011. I do wonder if tour conditions are a significant reason or not.

The Big 3 must contribute to this somewhat but I do wonder how significant they could be, is a few percentage enough to account for 2012's great win/loss record? It has been my opinion that the rest of tour learnt their place a bit for a while and lost belief.

It might be that the changing tour conditions could of been easier to adjust to for Federer than the rest of his generation, along with his high level. While the developing younger group were able to tailor their games to the new conditions and the new standard. Clearly Federer's game was tailored to dominate his own generation, as was his mentality.

I agree that future generations improve on the old ones, I think there are peaks and troughs but evolution of the sport is inevitable.

I will try and write a more well thought response tomorrow.

And they lose that belief for a long time in what have been stagnant conditions—I'm talking the tennis roster here and not the surfaces etc,. A lot of this is down to the undeniable excellence of the top players for the era, but the stagnant nature has been given a huge helping hand by a relatively substandard following generation or two. Suppose the Raonic bunch had gotten going 2-3 years ago as a full group, might the figures look less impressive for 2012-2014? It's possible, and yet if that had happened, clearly tennis would have been stronger in those years.

 

[NatF]

And they lose that belief for a long time in what have been stagnant conditions—I'm talking the tennis roster here and not the surfaces etc,. A lot of this is down to the undeniable excellence of the top players for the era, but the stagnant nature has been given a huge helping hand by a relatively substandard following generation or two. Suppose the Raonic bunch had gotten going 2-3 years ago as a full group, might the figures look less impressive for 2012-2014? It's possible, and yet if that had happened, clearly tennis would have been stronger in those years.

The lack of a talented fearless younger generation is this era's biggest flaw. All great champions have a mental dominance over their peers whether this leaves their opponents beaten before the match starts or just comes to the fore in big moments it's there.

Guys like Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer you feel had accepted their place in the hierarchy. Content to gate keep and fill the top 10. Tennis needed guys who believed and wanted that #1 ranking.

 

[NatF]

Thanks to Russel for highlighting this info for me, it is worth noting that in 1995 there were 85 tournaments and in 2005 only 66. This probably accounts for some of the disparity between high tournament total victories in the 90's.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Bumperdy Rumparoonies.

 

[NatF]

Bumperdy Rumparoonies.

It's a shame Chawan banned himself. I think he could of added something to this discussion.

-----

On topic I may attempt to remove the 'outliers' from the data and see what happens e.g. remove the player with the worst win/loss record each year. The guys who get into the top 10 based a single good result or something.

In years like 2007 the likes of Davydenko played 30+ tournaments and accued a lot of losses, likewise Gonzalez was essentially top 10 based off his AO final run.

That bumped 2007 right down.

But obviously that's me letting my bias get the best of me.

Is there anything you think could be added to this or explored?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's a shame Chawan banned himself. I think he could of added something to this discussion.

-----

On topic I may attempt to remove the 'outliers' from the data and see what happens e.g. remove the player with the worst win/loss record each year. The guys who get into the top 10 based a single good result or something.

In years like 2007 the likes of Davydenko played 30+ tournaments and accued a lot of losses, likewise Gonzalez was essentially top 10 based off his AO final run.

That bumped 2007 right down.

But obviously that's me letting my bias get the best of me.

Is there anything you think could be added to this or explored?

Average age of top 100 year to year (by year-end).

Amount of change in the top 100 year to year (year-end rank).

Title totals of top 10 players from year to year at a. the time and b. overall.

Removing outliers, like you said.

In other words, too much work.

 

[NatF]

Average age of top 100 year to year.

Amount of change in the top 100 year to year.

Title totals of the top 10 from year to year at a. the time and b. overall.

Removing outliers, like you said.

In other words, too much work.

Really would need that web scraping tool to get the top 100 win/loss records.

Will be interesting to see if there's been much change, my general assumption is that at that level the difference negligible.

I will do the outliers. Perhaps also not just the worst but the best win/loss outside of the #1. My first thoughts are that years like 2005 and 2013 might suffer as the #2 players won 88% of their matches or thereabouts.

 

[Chanwan]

@NatF , Apologies on not getting back to you on this. Will do as soon as I have enough time to digest it all

 

[NatF]

@NatF , Apologies on not getting back to you on this. Will do as soon as I have enough time to digest it all

No problem. I'm still looking forward to it.

 

[RS]

@NatF
Is this you actual ranking of the strength of years or did you use a system you found quite facinating for looking at the strength of the field each year? 2014 gets called weak a lot of people it is cool to see it ranked quite high and a bunch of them are Fedal fans.
I considered for a while that 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 as the best years of our era overall with periods like 2003-2005 and 2014-2015 being quite underlooked strength wise.

 

[Red Rick]

Some really interdeasting ideas in here.

 

[NatF]

@NatF
Is this you actual ranking of the strength of years or did you use a system you found quite intresting for looking at the strength of the field? 2014 gets called weak a lot of people it is intresting to see it ranked quite high.
I considered for a while that 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 as the best years of our era overall with periods like 2003-2005 and 2014-2015 being quite underlooked strength wise.

I was discussing era strength a while back and someone said that in their opinion win/loss record was the best metric to determine the strength of a player or field. It got my interest and decided to look into the win/loss records of the top 10-20 going back some years - I also decided part way to look into how many titles were won etc...

 

[Lew II]

Can you do it for slams only?

Masters changed their formula. Slams didn't.

 

[NatF]

Can you do it for slams only?

Masters changed their formula. Slams didn't.

If I was going to do anything it would be to update the totals for the years since I last updated it tbh. I'd have to redo the whole thing to seperate out slams from masters, don't have the time or the inclination really

By masters changing their formula you mean the elimination of byes?

 

[Lew II]

If I was going to do anything it would be to update the totals for the years since I last updated it tbh. I'd have to redo the whole thing to seperate out slams from masters, don't have the time or the inclination really

By masters changing their formula you mean the elimination of byes?

Not all matches are the same. 7 wins in a Slam could have more value than 100 wins in 250s.

Later I'll do it for Grand Slam only.

 

[NatF]

Not all matches are the same. 7 wins in a Slam could have more value than 100 wins in 250s.

Later I'll do it for Grand Slam only.

I'm sure you've done threads focusing on just the slams before.

Do it if you want, no one can stop you lol. This thread was about the total year records. I would be interested in seeing the top 10-20 performers on each surface per year, is that something that ultimate tennis statistics would make easy? Don't use that site much.

Edit: It does look east. Maybe I'll play around with it.

 

[Lew II]

@NatF

average 10 highest winning percentages in Slams since 2003:

2012 - 81.58
2009 - 81.54
2016 - 81.29
2015 - 81.25
2017 - 81.17
2014 - 81.08
2018 - 80.77
2008 - 80.69
2013 - 80.58
2007 - 80.40
2010 - 80.33
2005 - 79.92
2011 - 79.90
2019 - 79.69
2004 - 79.54
2006 - 79.17
2003 - 79.05

 

[RS]

@NatF

average 10 highest winning percentages in Slams since 2003:

2012 - 81.58
2009 - 81.54
2016 - 81.29
2015 - 81.25
2017 - 81.17
2014 - 81.08
2018 - 80.77
2008 - 80.69
2013 - 80.58
2007 - 80.40
2010 - 80.33
2005 - 79.92
2011 - 79.90
2019 - 79.69
2004 - 79.54
2006 - 79.17
2003 - 79.05

It’s strange to see 2016 and 2017 are so high. They are considered to be very weak years by most people.

 

[Lew II]

It’s strange to see 2016 and 2017 are so high. They are considered to be very weak years by most people.

Top players in 2016/2017 didn't win many matches though.

Slam matches won by 10 players:

2012 - 161
2009 / 2015 - 159
2014 - 154
2011 - 153
2010 - 151
2007 - 149
2016 / 2018 - 147
2013 - 144
2003 - 142
2006 - 138
2005 / 2008 / 2017 - 136
2004 - 128

 

[RS]

@Lew II
Well that explains some of it. 2008 again is considered a very strong year but 2010 and 2015-17 are considered weak are still above it in terms of slam matches won. Shows we have quite a few ways of looking at competition strength.