Matches Between Members Of Top Four (Win Loss Ratio)

The biggest test in tennis is how often players can win when playing the very best. How often can members of "the top four" win against other members in this group?

Nadal has won 50 matches against other top four members and lost 29. ie 50/29. This gives a win loss ratio of .633

Djokovic 37/42 .468

Federer 35/41 .461

Murrary 22/32 .407

I'm sure others will say what about how the top4 did against other top4 plays at any one time...e.g. what was Federer's record against the top 4 players of the time across his career.

Nadal's record nonetheless is impressive. When you look at his record against Top30 players (wiki) it's almost unreal. From 522 matches he has W:L of 79.1%.

There are only 8 players of any rank with leading H2H v Nadal and 5 of those are just 1-0's. Of the 3 left, 2 are from years ago (Hrbaty 3-1 and Corretja 2-0), probably only Davydenko is significant...leading 6-5. That's some going.

Don't have the stats for the others.

Can we see the stats since 1st October 2011, dear Hawkeye

Nadal's stats against Fed and Novak are beefed up by his clay court prowess. What is it, something like 12-2 against them both?

And as the noble brother Spaghetti will tell you, clay is for cows.



emancipator

lydian wrote:I'm sure others will say what about how the top4 did against other top4 plays at any one time...e.g. what was Federer's record against the top 4 players of the time across his career.

Nadal's record nonetheless is impressive. When you look at his record against Top30 players (wiki) it's almost unreal. From 522 matches he has W:L of 79.1%.

There are only 8 players of any rank with leading H2H v Nadal and 5 of those are just 1-0's. Of the 3 left, 2 are from years ago (Hrbaty 3-1 and Corretja 2-0), probably only Davydenko is significant...leading 6-5. That's some going.

Don't have the stats for the others.

lydian

I don't want to upset anyone but Djokovic and Murray would not have had an impressive win/loss ratio to members of the top four before Nadal and Federer came along.

For Nadal and Federer I have shown their win/loss ratio against all players and that will have included members of the top four previously.

https://www.606v2.com/t37571-nadal-v-federer-win-loss-ratio

I have also broken down their H2H against each other in that same article as a comment (both of course have been long term members of the top four)

Slam H2H

Nadal 8 Federer 2

Masters H2H

Nadal 9 Federer 4

WTF (or Masters Cup)

Nadal 0 Federer 4

Other (Dubai)

Nadal 1 Federer 0

If you pick out Federer's H2H against selective members of players who have been in the top four (eg Ferrer or Roddick) they are impressive. Ha ha! I'm sure bogbrush would approve of this sort of selective way of looking at statistics but these statistics are too selective to be significant mathematically. Nadal's positive H2H against virtually all players is more so. I believe that Davydenko is the only active player with a positive H2H with Nadal? Maybe that explains why Davydenko has been hiding for the past year or so he has been attempting to protect it. Ha ha! Someone should have told him it would have been safe to come out...

Stats beasts head here --> http://www.tennis28.com/slams/winpct_slam.html

Federer's figures are wrong. He has less wins than that.

hawkeye wrote:The biggest test in tennis is how often players can win when playing the very best

I have always thought that the biggest test in tennis was how often players can win a slam, what fool I was!!

Anyway, if you can encode the following mysterious encryption you'll get a from me (or from Socal at your laisure).

(17 = 11+5+1)

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

I have always thought that the biggest test in tennis was how often players can win a slam, what fool I was!!

Anyway, if you can encode the following mysterious encryption you'll get a from me (or from Socal at your laisure).

(17 = 11+5+1)

Ha ha! Well you said it! You should try telling your theory to Borg (who had better things to do than travel to Australia) or Laver who thought that being able to earn a living from sport was more of a test than repeatedly winning the same trophies against self financed amateurs for no money. Or try telling this to Pancho Gonzalez who used his racquet to earn money rather than win tournaments. But I reckon they would all agree that the big test was winning matches against the best players.

Um err... Does it mean something like Federer is older than Nadal and better than Djokovic and Murray put together?

sorry, wrong answer.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

hawkeye wrote:The biggest test in tennis is how often players can win when playing the very best

I have always thought that the biggest test in tennis was how often players can win a slam, what fool I was!!

Anyway, if you can encode the following mysterious encryption you'll get a from me (or from Socal at your laisure).

(17 = 11+5+1)

Wow JK, thats an awesome equation, so the best of Nadal,Djoko and Murray put together = Fed's achievements so far, seriously HE would have no answers for this.

That's the correct answer. Well done IC

IC - it is indeed a pretty awesome equation as it stands but at the same time I would advocate significant caution, in as much as Federer is of course very much in the twilight of his career whereas the other three all have a number of potentially Slam-winning years ahead of them.

And therein lies the inherent flaw in attempting to draw meaningful conclusions from comparative stats before the careers in question have all been completed. Only then can it done on a like-for-like basis. Andy has a long, long way to go even to get into double figures, but I'm sure both Rafa and Novak will be disappointed if they don't finish a lot closer to the Slam record than their respective current tallies.

All that said, I am somewhat amused by HE's labelling of JK's assertion that winning the Slams has always been considered the biggest test in tennis as a "theory". The word "theory" makes it sound like some sort of wacky, off-the-wall new-age thinking - as distinct from the universally-accepted benchmark of excellence that it has been ever since the Slams were first contested.

I would happily put lots of money on the fact that Borg, Laver (and indeed all other legends of the game) will remember to their dying day exactly how many Slams they won ; but ask them - even now - what their respective h2h records were and I'm pretty certain they would struggle.

There's a reason why trophies are handed out for winning tournaments, as opposed to beating a specific rival in a series of one-off matches - however good the rivals may be, and however often you pull it off. And the most valued trophies of all are those that come after seven successive Bo5 rounds played over two weeks.

Agreed Lags

hawkeye wrote:

lydian wrote:I'm sure others will say what about how the top4 did against other top4 plays at any one time...e.g. what was Federer's record against the top 4 players of the time across his career.

Nadal's record nonetheless is impressive. When you look at his record against Top30 players (wiki) it's almost unreal. From 522 matches he has W:L of 79.1%.

There are only 8 players of any rank with leading H2H v Nadal and 5 of those are just 1-0's. Of the 3 left, 2 are from years ago (Hrbaty 3-1 and Corretja 2-0), probably only Davydenko is significant...leading 6-5. That's some going.

Don't have the stats for the others.

lydian

I don't want to upset anyone but Djokovic and Murray would not have had an impressive win/loss ratio to members of the top four before Nadal and Federer came along.

For Nadal and Federer I have shown their win/loss ratio against all players and that will have included members of the top four previously.

https://www.606v2.com/t37571-nadal-v-federer-win-loss-ratio

I have also broken down their H2H against each other in that same article as a comment (both of course have been long term members of the top four)

Slam H2H

Nadal 8 Federer 2

Masters H2H

Nadal 9 Federer 4

WTF (or Masters Cup)

Nadal 0 Federer 4

Other (Dubai)

Nadal 1 Federer 0

If you pick out Federer's H2H against selective members of players who have been in the top four (eg Ferrer or Roddick) they are impressive. Ha ha! I'm sure bogbrush would approve of this sort of selective way of looking at statistics but these statistics are too selective to be significant mathematically. Nadal's positive H2H against virtually all players is more so. I believe that Davydenko is the only active player with a positive H2H with Nadal? Maybe that explains why Davydenko has been hiding for the past year or so he has been attempting to protect it. Ha ha! Someone should have told him it would have been safe to come out...

Oh really Hawky?

So over the course of his career Federer has played a total a total of just 79 matches against top four opponents?

Are you sure you added all of his top four matches? By my calculation he has played 76 (29+28+19) matches against the current top four alone. So that leaves just three matches against all previous top four opponents.

I think you really do need to go back to school.



emancipator

According to Wiki Fed has a win loss record of 178-90 (66.4%) against top three opponents in his career.

So that's much higher than your figure.

emancipator wrote:According to Wiki Fed has a win loss record of 178-90 (66.4%) against top three opponents in his career.

So that's much higher than your figure.

The equivalent career stats for Rafa against top 3 opponents to date are 111-53 (67.7%)

Obviously Nadal, being 26 years old right now, is still playing in his prime. One would expect his stats to be much lower once he is 30 years of age.

I bet a few Federer supporters are hoping Nadal might drop to 5. That would boost his stats against members of the top four... especially if he were to be replaced with Ferrer.

In case anyone failed to understand my figures were for the PRESENT top four.

lags72

Interesting to see career stats for both Federer and Nadal against top three opponants... Nadal tops that list too I see.

Stop trying to wriggle your way out of it.

Lydian said:

'I'm sure others will say what about how the top4 did against other top4 plays at any one time...e.g. what was Federer's record against the top 4 players of the time across his career.'

To which you replied:

'For Nadal and Federer I have shown their win/loss ratio against all players and that will have included members of the top four previously.'



Don't even bother replying.



rotapicname - universal intergalactic investigating journalist.

And even if your figures were for the present top four, they're still wrong.

They are obviously for the current top 4. In all fairness, they are correct apart from the Federer one which HE appears to have inflated so that he is above Djokovic.

emancipator

I confess I was ignoring you claims that my figure were incorrect because you were talking about Federer's stats against all members of the top four and not the present top four.

I have made a grave mistake (by copying figures without first checking them) and I don't think fans of Federer will be pleased with the corrected results...

Please check the main article soon for the new shocking figures. I am tempted to try and twist the figures but I know that the beady eyes of 606v2 will be watching carefully...

cough! Federer's figures are obviously not a true reflection of his ability. All matches played after the age of 30 should not count in career stats. They should be recorded separately in a category known as "bonus career stats".

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Obviously Nadal, being 26 years old right now, is still playing in his prime. One would expect his stats to be much lower once he is 30 years of age.

Another illustration of why it is that, ultimately, any stats - whether win/loss ratios, total number of Slam titles, or even h2h's against other top players can only be assessed with any meaningful like-for-like comparison once respective careers are complete.

hawkeye wrote:cough! Federer's figures are obviously not a true reflection of his ability. All matches played after the age of 30 should not count in career stats. They should be recorded separately in a category known as "bonus career stats".

Cough, cough of course they are a reflection of his competitiveness with the top guys, but the longer you hang around it tends to be that dominance wanes a little. As pointed out, this is not the first, nor probably the last, top four that Federer has competed against so your figures are a part of his career, but not a comprehensive overview.

I don't think Rafa will hang around to 'go gentle..' so he may maintain a better ratio but that won't tell the whole story, cough, splutter etc - no statistical data ever does.