Top 4 Record

Currently for the past four years or so we have had 4 players right at the top of the rankings- Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Out of these four only Andy Murray is the player not to have reached the world number 1 ranking, but he was number 2 for a while.
But let's forget ranking for now, how do they get on against each other. It is well documented that Federer does not match up well with Nadal- but Fedal is not the only exciting rivalry within the top 4

Career Records:

Murray:
8-7 UP vs Federer
5-13 DOWN vs Nadal
5-8 DOWN vs Djokovic
Altogether: 39% Win Percentage

Federer:
7-8 DOWN vs Murray
14-12 UP vs Djokovic
10-18 DOWN vs Nadal
Altogether: 45% Win Percentage

Djokovic:
12-14 DOWN vs Federer
14-19 DOWN vs Nadal
8-5 UP vs Murray
Altogether: 47% Win Percentage

Nadal:
13-5 UP vs Murray
19-14 UP vs Djokovic
18-10 UP vs Federer
Altogether: 63% Win Percentage

Career Records vs Top 4:
1/ Nadal 63%
2/ Djokovic 47%
3/ Federer 45%
4/ Murray 39%


Slam Records in Top 4 Rivalry:

Murray:
2-6 DOWN vs Nadal
0-2 DOWN vs Federer
0-2 DOWN vs Djokovic
Altogether: 17% WP

Federer:
2-8 DOWN vs Nadal
2-0 UP vs Murray
5-5 DRAW vs Djokovic
Altogether: 41% WP

Djokovic:
2-0 UP vs Murray
5-5 DRAW vs Federer
3-6 DOWN vs Nadal
Altogether: 48% WP

Nadal:
6-2 UP vs Murray
8-2 UP vs Federer
6-3 UP vs Djokovic
Altogether: 74% WP

Career Records vs Top 4 in Slams:
1/ Nadal 74%
2/ Djokovic 48%
3/ Federer 41%
4/ Murray 17%

And those are the bare facts as to why Murray has yet to win a slam. As things stand just now he is always destined to meet Nadal in slam semis which, in my opinion, is a bad match up for Andy but tough cheese he has to make do with that.

It Must Be Love was indeed a Top 4 record -
http://blog.madness.co.uk/1981.html

JuliusHMarx wrote:It Must Be Love was indeed a Top 4 record -
http://blog.madness.co.uk/1981.html

These figures are remarkabke! Nadal doesnt just top the list he does so by a clear margin.

hawkeye wrote:These figures are remarkabke! Nadal doesnt just top the list he does so by a clear margin.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And those are the bare facts as to why Murray has yet to win a slam. As things stand just now he is always destined to meet Nadal in slam semis which, in my opinion, is a bad match up for Andy but tough cheese he has to make do with that.

Yes, spot on.
We can see the difference between is total record (39%) and Slam record (17%). He has to start stepping it up against the big guns, especially in Slams.

Tennis is all about hitting the ball towards the moon at the end of the day.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It Must Be Love was indeed a Top 4 record -
http://blog.madness.co.uk/1981.html

I don't get it

Anyway what did you think of the stats Julius? As a mod do you have any advice to these top players?
Any explanation of what is key in the specific rivalries?

Tennis was not even a sport until Federer started playing. No discussions.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Tennis was not even a sport until Federer started playing. No discussions.

You really are a strange chap.

Anyway these stats are all after Federer started playing, so I suppose you can analyse them as tennis stats :whislte:
What did you think of them Josiah? Any words of wisdom perhaps

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Tennis is all about hitting the ball towards the moon at the end of the day.

No its about hitting the ball over the net and within the parameters of the court more often than your opponent

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It Must Be Love was indeed a Top 4 record -
http://blog.madness.co.uk/1981.html

I don't get it

Anyway what did you think of the stats Julius? As a mod do you have any advice to these top players?
Any explanation of what is key in the specific rivalries?

You've never heard of the song 'It Must Be Love' by Madness? It was a top 4 record in the charts in 1981.

As a mod, I would advise the players not to break the site rules when posting here

Calder
As a Murray fan (or are you :unsure:) do you share Craid's sentiments about the stats.?

Unfortunately he was last in both categories- but alarmingly worse in the slams.

Hang on, these aren't records v top 4, they're records v certain players.

bogbrush wrote:Hang on, these aren't records v top 4, they're records v certain players.

It's the record between the 4 who have dominated the rankings for the last 5 years or so now, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Federer.

Apologies if I did not make this clear.

Just to clear up my 'Top 4' in the title is about the current Top 4 and their record against each other.

It Must Be Love wrote:Calder
As a Murray fan (or are you :unsure) do you share Craid's sentiments about the stats.?

Unfortunately he was last in both categories- but alarmingly worse in the slams.

Yes I admit to being a Murray fan. Don't always agree with Craig as I am more of a pessimistic (but variety is interesting). However the stats speak for themselves in this instance a 2-10 record against the top three (think they all have been qf's, sf's and finals but may be wrong) tells the story. Good though he has been when it comes to the slams getting past these guys has proved to be a big stumbling block. They have worked out how to bring out thier best at the end of the 7 match bo5 format of the slams. Murray still has to do that.

Calder106 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Calder
As a Murray fan (or are you :unsure) do you share Craid's sentiments about the stats.?

Unfortunately he was last in both categories- but alarmingly worse in the slams.

Yes I admit to being a Murray fan. Don't always agree with Craig as I am more of a pessimistic (but variety is interesting). However the stats speak for themselves in this instance a 2-10 record against the top three (think they all have been qf's, sf's and finals but may be wrong) tells the story. Good though he has been when it comes to the slams getting past these guys has proved to be a big stumbling block. They have worked out how to bring out thier best at the end of the 7 match bo5 format of the slams. Murray still has to do that.

Can't disagree with any of that

Well I wouldn't call myself an optimist Calder. I mean I have never made bold statements etc saying Murray WILL win a slam. Love to see him do it but whether he will or not I have my doubts.

To be fair you shouldn't include matches in which the opponent retires.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I wouldn't call myself an optimist Calder. I mean I have never made bold statements etc saying Murray WILL win a slam. Love to see him do it but whether he will or not I have my doubts.

Not meant as a criticism Craig or saying you said anything like that. I'm probably too pesimistic but thats just me. Just pointing out as part of saying I'm a Murray fan that even people who support the same person can sometimes see things in a different way. That's quite healthy in my opinion.

very impressive figures for Nadal, it has to be said. He is incredibly consistent and really brings his A game to the big occasion. One thing i have really admired about nadal in recent times is his volleying, so much better at this than he gets credit for. He also has the best overhead smash in the game in my opinion. His technique is so solid and it never looks like he will miss, a more difficult shot than it often looks.

I think this also shows what a good record Djokovic has against top 4 in majors. Amazing to be 5-5 vs Federer in slams when you think of how brilliant Federer has been through the years in the slams. His 3 slam final wins over nadal is some accomplishment too.

As for Murray, 2 - 10 record in slams is quite worrying but I do agree that Nadal is very bad match up for him. He would probably have prefered to play the other two guys a bit more but that being said he has had four chances against them and not won any of them.

I do still believe Murray will eventually win a slam but he surely needs to do it by next year. He reminds me of westwood in golf, has a lot of the shots required and is very consistent but when it comes to the crunch in majors, he just lacks that inner belief and the finishing touch. I think the longer he goes without one, it is only going to play on his mind even more and the constant reminder of it in the media cannot help.

There is no denying what a huge effort it takes to win a slam, the fact that del potro is the only other player in recent memory to win one really shows this.

I have such respect for these top players for their skill and consistency, awesome athletes!

What these figures fail to show is that Nadal was not reaching later stages of hard court events when Federer was playing the greatest tennis ever 2004-7. He was meeting fed on clay which is the reason for lopsided H2H. Same with the others. Fed has been in steady decline since 2008, but has managed even at 30 to compete. I wonder what Djok Mur and Nad will be doing at 30?

Those kind of stats are really unfair, and perhaps deliberately so. Also, the slower courts today favour the likes of Djok, Mur and Nadal. It isn't rocket science.

Seifer Almasy wrote:What these figures fail to show is that Nadal was not reaching later stages of hard court events when Federer was playing the greatest tennis ever 2004-7. He was meeting fed on clay which is the reason for lopsided H2H.

What is the Head2Head between these two on outdoor hard

Seifer Almasy wrote:
Same with the others. Fed has been in steady decline since 2008, but has managed even at 30 to compete. I wonder what Djok Mur and Nad will be doing at 30?

It could also be argued the other way. Federer had many wins against the likes of Djokovic when he was young, I believe excluding the matches when Djokovic was below the age of 21 (very young) the head to head is 11-9 to Djokovic.
As for Nadal, at which point was Federer ahead in the H2H with him? I'm not entirely sure. It was 0-0 at one point; and if I recall that is the closest Federer has got to being ahead. Remember my point earlier that Nadal has also always had a positive H2H against Federer on outdoor HC too.

Anyway let's not make this a Holly Wilaboobie vs tat debate any-more- the stats are stats and that is simple as that.

Selective stat and they didn't play enough games on hardcourt in fed's peak years. Not just that, NAdal is a bad match up for fed. First the slowed down courts, secondly a left hander.

It is a no brainer.

Fed is a 16 time slam champ with other records Nadal has not a prayer of beating. Consistency? Have you seen his consecutive Quarter and Semi final appearances at slam level? Consecutive WN1?

Give me a break. Nadal is a little boy.

Seifer Almasy wrote: Not just that, NAdal is a bad match up for fed. First the slowed down courts, secondly a left hander.

If we look at the stats we can also see Nadal has a better record against Djokovic and Murray than Federer. Whatever that means I don't know. Maybe he's not just good because he is left handed. One of my best mates is also left handed.

Seifer Almasy wrote:
Fed is a 16 time slam champ with other records Nadal has not a prayer of beating. Consistency? Have you seen his consecutive Quarter and Semi final appearances at slam level? Consecutive WN1?

Federer is an incredible player with incredible records
I am not trying to denigrate him, and if you want to write articles about him you are free to do so.

Seifer Almasy wrote:
Give me a break. Nadal is a little boy.

You are trying to wind me up. I'm not falling for it. Laverfan told me not to get annoyed at trolls like you.

slashermcguirk wrote:

...........................................................................................................

I have such respect for these top players for their skill and consistency, awesome athletes!

I like this sentence more than any other in your post (not that I disagree with the rest ....).

And I would add that a feature of that skill & consistency is sometimes making the near-impossible look easy. You often have to remind yourself just how incredibly good these guys are.......

So whenever I see posters here on v2 (but happily much less often than was the case on the old 606) slagging off any of the top players - and by that I don't mean reasoned and justified criticism but continuously denigrating or, worse, childishly abusing them in a misguided effort to make their own particular favourite player look better - I invariably conclude that they're not really fans of the sport.

There is so much competition at all levels of pro tennis nowadays that even squeezing just inside the top 100 requires enormous ability, hard work and dedication.

So as far as I'm concerned, to all who 'make it' - or indeed come close - on the ATP Tour :

Lags

Lags, what did you think of the stats I provided.
Were you impressed by Nadal, or slightly surprised by the fact Federer was below Djokovic (considering Federer himself holds a 14-12 lead over him).

Great stats.

Murrays are incredible. I'd love to see his win percentage in masters against the top 3, the disparity must be remarkable.

Reminds me of the footballer Ronaldo. Everyone accepts he is one of the best in the world, but he's always had his doubters whispering in the background that he 'never turns it on when it really matters'. Until he starts upping that percentage Murray will be tarred with the same brush, and can't really argue with it.

Nadal's stats are crazy, though I imagine they were even more impressive 18 months ago.

slashermcguirk wrote:... I do still believe Murray will eventually win a slam but he surely needs to do it by next year. ...

But why o' why Sir Slasher does Murray only have until next year - the end of which he will be 26 and a half years old?

I see no new Federers or Nadals or Djokovics on the horizon, while at the end of next year Federer will be pensionable, and Nadal's body would have probably collapsed. That would just leave a Djokovic who might be struggling to refind his 2011 form

Let's see Nore Staat, let's see

[/quote]
But why o' why Sir Slasher does Murray only have until next year - the end of which he will be 26 and a half years old?

I see no new Federers or Nadals or Djokovics on the horizon, while at the end of next year Federer will be pensionable, and Nadal's body would have probably collapsed. That would just leave a Djokovic who might be struggling to refind his 2011 form [/quote]

They say that every year since 2006, and he's still going strong. The guy is a freak and i wouldn't be surprised if he's still a top player at 30 years of age. It has been three years ago since he had a serious injury.

Nadal- Djokovic record against the current World No.1 ,2,3,4 after 5 years would just not be the same, its unfortunate to compare Fed with Djoko and Murray as he is losing more matches to them and age is one of the prime reason.

Nore Staat wrote:But why o' why Sir Slasher does Murray only have until next year - the end of which he will be 26 and a half years old?

I see no new Federers or Nadals or Djokovics on the horizon, while at the end of next year Federer will be pensionable, and Nadal's body would have probably collapsed. That would just leave a Djokovic who might be struggling to refind his 2011 form

A good point - one of which it depressed me no-one else seems to understand. You'd think that the Top 3 were as omnipresent as the stink of a local abbatoir

He hasn't even played Fed in a Slam for 2 and a half years - so we're judging him on matches when Fed was at his near peak and Murray not at his. Is it a definite 'shoe in' that Fed would beat him now?? I'd say 50/50 depending on form

Also, one year we might have a Slam court as fast as the US Open 2010. Get Andy on these type of courts and he's a whole different player to the Top 2

Finally, Andy could wait until he's 28 and get his first Slam and still win 4 of them

When you've got that talent, drive and determination - things balance out in favour, over the long term

IMBL, to answer your question :

In all honesty I don't believe any rational thinker can fail to be impressed by Nadal, and what he has achieved to date.

(I personally happen to feel that Rafa's particular brand of tennis is much less attractive to the eye than Federer's, but of course that's a whole different subject which has pretty much been 'done to death' anyway, with little new to add ; although it will, I guess, remain a topic of debate for as long as tennis is written about, spoken about and watched ..... !!)

As for Djokovic : well not too surprised, given how he has raised his game (AND motivation) to a whole new level since 'announcing' himself with that first AO title.

As so often said when such figures are produced, they are invariably interesting but it's only fair to tot everything up at the end of the respective careers. Ultimately any player's legacy is determined far more by their actual achievements and trophies than any h2h stats. We all know how many Slams Borg and Sampras won BUT very few of us easily remember - if at all - their h2h's against specific rivals of their day.

By way of personal example ... even as a huge fan of Borg I always had the idea in my mind that he was evenly matched to Connors through their playing career. However, when I actually checked the stats just a few weeks ago I was intrigued to see that the final h2h tally was in fact 15-8 to Borg. But right now, in June 2012, I don't think any less of Connors- or indeed more of Borg - for knowing this. They were both true giants of the game. Borg's talent always seemed to me to be almost god-given, beautiful to watch at its best ; whereas nobody could ever fault Connors for sheer guts, playing every point as if it was his last

All that said, IMBL, thanks for your efforts in compiling the stats

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal- Djokovic record against the current World No.1 ,2,3,4 after 5 years would just not be the same, its unfortunate to compare Fed with Djoko and Murray as he is losing more matches to them and age is one of the prime reason.

Really? I believe this is a common misconception.

As I have said earlier I believe excluding the matches when Djokovic was 20 years old and younger (the same age Federer lost to the likes of Henman) it is Djokovic who actually leads the H2H.
So there! It can be twisted both ways. But rather than doing that, I have given you the whole picture with the matches throughout their career (whether it was when Djoko was too young or Fed too old).

banbrotam wrote:... He hasn't even played Fed in a Slam for 2 and a half years - so we're judging him on matches when Fed was at his near peak and Murray not at his. Is it a definite 'shoe in' that Fed would beat him now?? I'd say 50/50 depending on form

Also, one year we might have a Slam court as fast as the US Open 2010. Get Andy on these type of courts and he's a whole different player to the Top 2

Finally, Andy could wait until he's 28 and get his first Slam and still win 4 of them

When you've got that talent, drive and determination - things balance out in favour, over the long term

As long as Murray remains motivated and committed then he should be a slam winner by the time he puts his racquet up. He would be expected to be competing at least until the Olympics after this one and probably a few more years after that.

The reason I think Murray needs to win a slam soon is that it will naturally only put doubts in his mind the longer he goes without one. I can see nadal and djokovic hanging around the next few years and by that stage others will probably emerge. There are also the likes of berdych, tsonga, del potro that could take him out in earlier rounds.

There are several examples in sport of great players like Murray that just struggle more over time with each passing major because you start to doubt yourself.

Westwood, garcia, monty in golf
Jimmy white in snooker
Teams like Holland and England in soccer

It is only normal that such doubt kicks in. I do think Murray can do it but I feel he is in his prime now so he needs to take advantage while he is at his peak. You also never know what injuries could lie ahead, hopefully not though

Yes Slasher, good point.
The more Slams Murray goes without winning one, the more his confidence will go down.

As Nadal has gone out early this week he will not get a chance to face the rest of the top 4 this tournament.

Meanwhile the other 3 will surely face each other in the latter stages, well they should do (barring surprises ).
Interestingly Murray, Djokovic and Federer have never played each other on grass, so we cannot really predict with much certainty what would happen if they meet.
From the stats from other Grand Slams it looks like the winner of the Djokovic-Federer semi would win the tournament, but let's see.