Federer, Djokovic And Murray's H2H Against The Top 20

by hawkeye Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:57 pm

To win tournaments you have to beat the best. The best is the present top 20. The best indicator of a players chances of beating another player are perhaps indicated by their previous H2H's. History is past. A positive H2H against a retired player or a player who has lost form and slipped down the rankings is of little interest for future performance. Federer's 17 slams, Nadal's 12, Dkocovic's 6 and Murray's 1 are safely in the bank but to add to their collection will mean beating their closest rivals today. Also their closest rivals will take heart from previous wins or get discourages from previous losses. This information can be found on the ATP site however it has not been amalgamated into this easy to read form. I have taken the trouble to do this for you. I would suggest anyone sensitive to cold, hard numbers to look away now!

This is the H2H of Federer, Djokovic and Murray against the present top 20 (Nadal's can be found here https://www.606v2.com/t45164-nadal-s-h2h-against-top-20.

Federer

Djokovic 16-13
Murray 9-11
Ferrer 14-0
Nadal 10-20
Berdych 11-6
Tsonga 9-4
Del Potro 13-4
Gasquet 10-2
Wawrinka 13-1
Haas 10-3
Cilic 4-0
Nishikori 1-1
Tipsarevic 6-0
Raonic 4-0
Almagro 5-0
Simon 4-2
Kohlschrieber 6-0
Querryey 2-0
Monaco 4-0

-----

Djokovic

Murray 11-7
Federer 13-16
Ferrer 10-5
Nadal 15-20
Berdych 13-2
Tsonga 10-5
Del Potro 8-3
Gasquet 7-1
Wawrinka 12-2
Haas 5-3
Cilic 7-0
Nishikori 1-1
Tipsarevic 5-2
Raonic Never played
Almagro 3-0
Simon 6-1
Kohlshrieber 3-1
Querrey 2-0
Monaco 7-0

----

Murray

Djokovic 7-11
Federer 11-9
Ferrer 7-5
Nadal 5-13
Berdych 4-5
Tsonga 7-1
Del Potro 5-2
Gasquet 5-3
Wawrinka 8-5
Haas 2-1
Cilic 8-1
Nishikori 3-0
Tipsarevic 5-3
Raonic 1-2
Almagro 3-1
Simon 11-1
Kohlshreiber 0-1
Querrey 5-1
Monaco 2-2

Please point out any typing errors. And no name calling if you are upset with the numbers...

by User 774433 Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:15 pm

Good stuff HE thumbsup

Federer and Djokovic have on the whole a fantastic set of results, Murray's too apart from a few blemishes.
Against Rao and Berdych he will look to turn it around.

by hawkeye Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:28 pm

^ At the risk of making anyone cry when the H2H is close (or even when it isn't) there are two players who have a chance of turning it round.

by Chydremion Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:35 pm

by bogbrush Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:37 pm

Intellectually barren.

by lags72 Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:41 pm

Oh jeez ..... back on the merry-go-round, here we go again.

Stop the world ..... I wanna get off......

Ps : can this one be locked too, laverfan ...? But right now please !!

by Chydremion Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:05 pm

I think I'll let Red and hawk have their 3 some with H2H.

I'm off. Don't feed it, they say.

by User 774433 Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:28 pm

I don't see what's that bad with this article.
It's just some stats.

I never knew Murray had a negative H2H vs Raonic before this article.

by invisiblecoolers Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:23 am

Red wrote:I don't see what's that bad with this article.
It's just some stats.

I never knew Murray had a negative H2H vs Raonic before this article.

Why not we have stats for the rest 96 players of top 100.

No wonder Jeremy posted an article that "Nadal camp is getting a little excited", actually a little over excited would have been better.

by _homogenised_ Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:09 am

From these stats it is clear that Murray is a better player than Federer.

by **laverfan** Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:24 am

The best article everrrrrrrrrrr. Yahoo

Where did I leave that Pulitzer (or that Oscar or that BAFTA)? (let me go search for it.... Run

)

by whocares Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:58 am

_homogenised_ wrote:From these stats it is clear that Murray is a better player than Federer.

How many of those wins were in GS? arent you getting a bit over-excited by the "man who returns a lot" Wink

by banbrotam Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:40 am

_homogenised_ wrote:From these stats it is clear that Murray is a better player than Federer.

by Johnyjeep Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:19 am

they would be meaningful/comparable if they were all in the same point in their career. actually even then it wouldn't.

who was better this year? chelsea or man u. chelsea beat man u twice in the league. but man u won the league. h2h pointless.

thats me. not getting sucked in like yesterday. on that note Red i do apologise. my response to you was probably a bit rude towards the end. i went to apoligise but the thread had been locked.

by barrystar Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:24 am

So - you have it from the horse's mouth, use of H2H vs. the current top 20 (not including former top 20 players) is merely a diagnostic tool to predict how each player will fare in the short-term future.

It's absolute nonsense of course, because the H2H can still go back to times when both players were at a completely different stage in their career development and there can be all sorts of reasons why danger players are outside the top 20 at any particular time, but at least in a bogus attempt to put on a fig leaf and pretend that the whole exercise was not designed to provoke a twisted GOAT debate whilst leaving out information adverse to the Messiah, HE has now made it clear that H2H is not a primary tool for assessing a player's overall position in the game or "greatness", but, used properly, it is for future predictions.

I am looking forward to more displays of ill-thought-out contortionism next week.

Perhaps HE would like to explain what assistance can be drawn from looking at a player's period at #1 (maybe worth grabbing whilst that is an achievement lacking from Murray's CV, although we don't want to run the risk of bigging-up Djokovic do we?).

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:45 am

Another mundane and pointless thread.

What do these statistics actually show? What exactly are you looking to achieve? The statistics are not pertinent to any point you are trying to make with this thread as you continue to operate in riddles than actually sit on opinion you have.

As posters have correctly pointed out that these offer no real insight at all to a players credentials as their careers and peaks rarely occur at the same time.

by banbrotam Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:03 am

hawkeye wrote:Also their closest rivals will take heart from previous wins or get discourages from previous losses.

But it means sweet fanny adams all!! Del Potro recently beat Murray - everybody could see it coming, including me, their respective records meant nowt

More significantly if this of any importance, how come Novak has more or less reversed his constant losing trend to Roger and Rafa since 2011?

When facing an opponent, only the weak mentally will rest on their laurels or have a 'rabbit in the headlights' approach

by lags72 Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:55 am

Just as well that laverfan did not follow my suggestion of locking this exciting thread within the first hour of its publication.

Otherwise hawkeye would not have had the pleasure of reading so much positive feedback from a whole variety of enthusiastic posters ..........

by ryan86 Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:09 am

What I find quite interesting is how certain players seem to meet more than

For isntance del Potro has played Federer 10 times more than Murray or that Simon has played Murray almost as many timesm as Federer and Djokovic combined. Indeed, Murray has played Querrey more than Federer and Djokovic combined.

by Johnyjeep Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:45 am

Yes Ryan, it is fairly interesting. But also pretty irrelevant.

For example it could just mean that the players have a similar schedule (over any given period of their respective careers) which means they enter the same tournaments more often than any other pairing. The lesser tournaments have fewer ranked players which means that the probability of them meeting is higher than at bigger events.

Another reason could be that their seeding in relation to one another will vary over the course of their career. Statistically speaking this will alter the probability of one player drawing another. The higher up the seedings you go the more likely you are to draw an individual (although this maybe countered by the fact you are less likely to meet, as there is increased opportunity to get knocked out).

For example. Seed 1 and 2 are never going to draw each other until the final (a simple example, I know). Seed 1 has a 50% chance of drawing seed 3 or 4. Seed 1 has a 25% chance of drawing 5, 6, 7 and 8. Seed 1 has a 12.5% chance of drawing seeds 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. And so on and so forth.

Depending on where any 2 players spend the bulk of their careers, this will affect the probability of them meeting. 2 players who spend the bulk in one segment will have a higher probability of drawing and playing each other more often than someone who is fairly transient in terms of ranking stability.

Of course, all of that could also be complete tosh – and it could be down to the luck of the draw lol

Hope that explains it a bit.

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:47 am

FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!!!!!!!!
This thread is literally just 3 tables of statistics and we have a moderator, and everyone else with an apparent hatred of "Rafa Fans" slagging it off. Its supposed to encourage respectful debate, far as i can see its evidence of how stellar the top 4 have been against other opposition, I see no reason to attack the OP or the article.
Nadals just won a grand slam, coming from seven months off, OK yeah people are excited, thats not a crime or an insult to people who dont like him, theyve had little to get excited for for a while. Ganging up on their articles offering nothing about the article but inane comments about the quality of their writing is ridiculous.

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:02 pm

Where is the hatred on this thread for Nadal or any of his achievements? Also where is the hatred from the mod?

The OP has offered little in the way of any view they hold to the statistics of the value they actually hold. What are they relevant to? As barry pointed out they don't offer any insight to the outcome of a H2H in the future.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:07 pm

I still don't see why people are getting so angry at Hawkeye and saying snide comments. You don't have to read, or comment on the article.

For me personally I actually like these stats breakdown.
I already know the top 4 records, so that part can be omitted, but the rest I found quite interesting. As I said I didn't know that Murray had a losing H2H vs Raonic, or isn't in the lead against Monaco.

I agree with the sentiment that having a positive H2H doesn't necessarily mean you will always win future encounters... of course not, no one even suggested that ridiculous proposition. However when predicting a match, I personally look at past H2H record as well as current form- these are generally good indicators.

Overall though I'm not sure why the response has been so hostile, especially from LF who is a mod here. thumbsup

JohnnyJeep- Absolutely no worries about yesterday- I apologise on my part if you feel I was being too stubborn. I do recognise that feasability wise it will not be easy to have more major grass court tournaments.

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:11 pm

The sarcasm wasnt necessary... especially not from a mod.
Ok ill try a critique. Problems with the article.

It only the statistics, and not a critique or structured analysis of them, could do with some commentary.
Plausibly could have been conceived as controversial.

On the other hand.
The article is a set of statistics, for which people could look at. This hardly makes it a bad article just a simple one, its hardlt deserving of sarcasm and the criticism its getting compared to other articles we've had in the past that got a free ride.

They contain some relevance. A dominant head to head record suggests the player holds a good advantage over the other, indicating a decent chance of a further gap later on in the H2H. This OF COURSE assumes the result are at least somewhat recent, perhpas discuss how some players could turn it around

Its a notch in the bow of all 4 big guys as to how ell theyve been doing. All 4 have enourmously good H2H records against most, and at least very competitive against others.

The nadal hatred comes from the locked previous thread, of nadals h2h record. That was locked and this thread was made to show the stats for the others, which was met with contempt most likely in part due to the previous one.

by HM Murdock Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:15 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote: they don't offer any insight to the outcome of a H2H in the future.

Well... yes and no.

Nobody gave Ferrer a chance against Rafa, largely because his H2H is so poor.

Likewise, we conclude Murray is vulnerable to Berdych because the H2H shows that to be the case.

So H2H is not totally without value.

I think the irritation comes from that fact that hawkeye has form when it comes to making threads with an agenda and that's how this is being interpreted.

by **laverfan** Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:22 pm

falzy21 wrote:The sarcasm wasnt necessary... especially not from a mod.
Ok ill try a critique. Problems with the article.

Hatred and sarcasm are two entirely different reactions.

falzy21 wrote:It only the statistics, and not a critique or structured analysis of them, could do with some commentary.
Plausibly could have been conceived as controversial.

So if a player loses the very first match, since the h2h is against the said player, the probability of a future loss increases, but the article completely fails to draw conclusions, by how much?

falzy21 wrote:On the other hand.
The article is a set of statistics, for which people could look at. This hardly makes it a bad article just a simple one, its hardlt deserving of sarcasm and the criticism its getting compared to other articles we've had in the past that got a free ride.

Yesterday, on a similar article, the reactions of the community were obvious. Was there really a need to repeat the same?

falzy21 wrote:They contain some relevance. A dominant head to head record suggests the player holds a good advantage over the other, indicating a decent chance of a further gap later on in the H2H. This OF COURSE assumes the result are at least somewhat recent, perhpas discuss how some players could turn it around

When does a h2h become dominant. Does article say anything about it becoming dominant at 5-x, 10-x, 15-x, 20-x, 100-x?

falzy21 wrote:Its a notch in the bow of all 4 big guys as to how ell theyve been doing. All 4 have enourmously good H2H records against most, and at least very competitive against others.

Yes, so a separate article for a single player adds value to the community?

falzy21 wrote:The nadal hatred comes from the locked previous thread, of nadals h2h record. That was locked and this thread was made to show the stats for the others, which was met with contempt most likely in part due to the previous one.

So why repeat the same? IMO, it would have been better to put the top 4 for a debatable and thought-provoking article. This business of writing one-liners to WUM and provoke defensive corners and trench warfare is tribalism. Do I belong the tribe of Nadal or the tribe of Federer or the tribe of Murray or the tribe of Djokovic?
The appreciation of the entire sport is lost in such articles. Why is there no article about the h2h of Berlocq v Giraldo? Laugh

BTW, this thread, as Lags points out, is unlocked, but may be locked, if the shenanigans of yesterday erupt again. It is always good to have a civil debate, but topics like these do not lend themselves to such.

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:30 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote: they don't offer any insight to the outcome of a H2H in the future.

Well... yes and no.

Nobody gave Ferrer a chance against Rafa, largely because his H2H is so poor.

Likewise, we conclude Murray is vulnerable to Berdych because the H2H shows that to be the case.

So H2H is not totally without value.

I think the irritation comes from that fact that hawkeye has form when it comes to making threads with an agenda and that's how this is being interpreted.

But then prior to their meeting at the US Open in 2012, Berdych had the better H2H and also won their previous BO5 encounter. Murray came out on top.

This is why I don't think has the value that is being attached to it.

Look at the Ferrer and Nadal H2H then no-one would back Ferrer especially at RG. Yet the last time Ferrer defeated Nadal was in 2004 on Clay. We are led to believe that this holds value when for example Davydenko's success over Nadal was dismissed because of current ranking.

If you have someone providing stats and not really choosing their interpretation and view on what they mean, they would be questioned.

I didn't have any issue with the Nadal thread, infact I found it interesting. Especially when the stats were opened up. Others viewed it as a legacy adding exercise that showed what many observed which was how dominant he is on Clay and how vulnerable he is on HC. I think a better point would've been to see how this new Nadal could tackle the lack of HC court success in a bid to become a real GOAT contender.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:35 pm

laverfan wrote:Hatred and sarcasm are two entirely different reactions.

It was snide sarcasm.

laverfan wrote:
So if a player loses the very first match, since the h2h is against the said player, the probability of a future loss increases, but the article completely fails to draw conclusions, by how much?

When you try and predict a winner for the next match, you have to look at indicators such as current form as past H2H. These for me are the two most important indicators, you may disagree. HE thinks that the H2H is a very impotant indicator, once again you may disagree. She doesn't not have to give a quantitative measurement- infact it is impossible to do so (ie decide exactly how significant the H2h is). It doesn't mean it's not important.

laverfan wrote:Yesterday, on a similar article, the reactions of the community were obvious.

Who is the community? Who isn't in this community?
If you don't want to comment on an article, you don't have to.

laverfan wrote:The appreciation of the entire sport is lost in such articles.

This line is bordering on bizarre. Why is the appreciation of entire sport lost because of this article.

laverfan wrote:It is always good to have a civil debate

It is. Aggressive and abusive comments, such as dismissing an article as 'drivel' is not leading to a civil debate.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:38 pm

legendkiller wrote:But then prior to their meeting at the US Open in 2012, Berdych had the better H2H and also won their previous BO5 encounter. Murray came out on top.

This is why I don't think has the value that is being attached to it.

No one is arguing that it's the only factor.
As I said, current form and experience at that level are other very important factors.

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:44 pm

Sarcasm is also not civil debate LF I appreciate that HE's track record is very poor and that articles like these can spark debates. In truth this one was to try and provide some counterbalance to the nadal specific thread of before, but i'm aware you go into HE's articles bracing yourself. However if you want to encourgae civil debate and prevent it from hitting off, patronisingly dismissing the article is NOT the way you do it.

by Born Slippy Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:49 pm

The Nadal article was, imo, perfectly valid. Nadal's record against the rest of the top 20 is astonishing. When was there last a player who didn't have at least one -ve h2h in the top 20? It was a good starting point for a discussion. Not only that but it led to some interesting posts. The breakdown of Rada's record by surface was revealing. Jonny's point about why the h2h has not translated into more non-clay slams was also a fascinating point to debate.

From reading the thread, it looked to me as though a few of the people objecting to the article just needed to be asked to tone down the aggression. Its hardly like Federer's own record is bad as shown in this thread. The Nadal fans actually appeared entirely reasonable and just wanting to discuss what is a great record. Its a shame it was felt necessary to lock it.

by _homogenised_ Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:56 pm

It doesn't mean much when he has a negative h2h vs a Rank 100 at the time. H2H change, and top 20 change all the time. If Nadal continues playing, he will start losing a lot more due to age, and then have a much worse record with a new top 20. It's completely meaningless. What good is beating the top 20 if you suffer defeats outside it?

by HM Murdock Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:03 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
But then prior to their meeting at the US Open in 2012, Berdych had the better H2H and also won their previous BO5 encounter. Murray came out on top.

This is why I don't think has the value that is being attached to it.

Yeah, it of course depends what it's being used for. You can never say "this is what happened in the past, therefore this is what will happen in the future".

But running with the Berdych angle, it's fair to say that Djokovic and Murray have broadly similar styles, they are a similar ranking and an almost identical age.

Yet Djokovic is 13-2 against Berdych whereas Murray is 4-5.

So there's something interesting happening in the Berdych-Murray match up that gives it a surprising dynamic (or conversely, it's the Berdych-Djokovic match up that's surprising).

Tennis is game of match ups, so I think the H2H is relevant.

It can't be used to prove that Djokovic is better than Murray or that Murray will lose his next game against Berdych.

But I think it's fair to say that the match up makes Berdych a more problematic opponent for Andy than, say, Tsonga, who Andy has a record of dealing with very well.

Same thing with Federer and Nadal. We know Nadal is bad match up for Federer mainly due to the H2H.

If the H2H were 20-10 in Fed's favour, do you think we'd talk so much about Federer needing to avoid Rafa in the draw?

If the H2H has no relevance, we would say Federer is #3, Rafa is #4 therefore it should close. But we all know that Federer would want to avoid Rafa because the H2H tells us it's a bad match up.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:17 pm

Born Slippy wrote:The Nadal article was, imo, perfectly valid. Nadal's record against the rest of the top 20 is astonishing. When was there last a player who didn't have at least one -ve h2h in the top 20? It was a good starting point for a discussion. Not only that but it led to some interesting posts. The breakdown of Rada's record by surface was revealing. Jonny's point about why the h2h has not translated into more non-clay slams was also a fascinating point to debate.

From reading the thread, it looked to me as though a few of the people objecting to the article just needed to be asked to tone down the aggression. Its hardly like Federer's own record is bad as shown in this thread. The Nadal fans actually appeared entirely reasonable and just wanting to discuss what is a great record. Its a shame it was felt necessary to lock it.

Thankyou Born Slippy, that sums up what I'm trying to say very well.
That's not to say of course you aren't allowed to criticise any record- for example it's perfectly reasonable to say that Nadal's record is boosted by his dominance on clay, or that Djokovic's dominance is boosted by hard courts etc.

by barrystar Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:17 pm

I was critical of this H2H thread, no sarcasm needed, and I don't feel any need to change my viewpoint, which I explain below in full.

The first thread was intended to provoke a reaction, in particular a GOAT debate. HE said nothing about the H2H other than wondering how Federer's was in comparison and thereby hoping that she (HE is a she?) had lit the blue touch paper. In fact, many did not take the bait as intended, and it provoked a number of different debates, some interesting and some silly, before verging into the silly as HE had always intended it should.

This thread is an attempt to offer ex post facto justification for the first thread, promoted on the basis that H2H is important chiefly for predicting the future (something not said in the original OP).

The modus operandi is to say something HE knows and hopes will be provocative in a certain way, but to try and hide that by avoiding committing herself to what she is saying. Then she stands back, watches people sinking into the mire she has planned, before entering into the debate, frequently twisting and turning a bit, before deciding how she wants to portray the original OP to try and make it look like a genuine contribution to a sensible debate, when that was never the intention, and hardly ever is.

I don't care what HE does with all these threads and OP's, I decide when and to what extent I can be bothered to take the bait (not usually, but sometimes, I admit). What annoys me about this thread is that there seem to be others who, either because they don't see or because they don't want to see, are angrily defending HE's posts as legitimate contributions to a debate.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:23 pm

What 'bait' is there in this thread?
It's just some stats, with an intro.

Looking at the article again, I can observe that Federer is the best at dealing with other players with a single handed backhand.
For Djokovic, I think he is slightly troubled by the likes of Kohli and Haas as they can keep the ball very low with the slice.
Murray has similar stats as Djoko, and I think unlike Federer he can sometimes be a bit passive- hence letting the SHBH dictate. Nowadays though I think he'll look to be more aggressive from that start.

by HM Murdock Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:28 pm

A hammer is a useful tool. In the hands of a lunatic it becomes a weapon.

Head to heads are useful tool... you know the rest.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:31 pm

HM, your comment would indicate that all Nadal fans have suddenly gone 'OMG Nadal has a better H2H against Federer, OMG Nadal has a H2H against Federer, OMG NA...'

But just read this thread, and the other one; this isn't the case at all.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:35 pm

barrystar wrote:I was critical of this H2H thread, no sarcasm needed, and I don't feel any need to change my viewpoint, which I explain below in full.

The first thread was intended to provoke a reaction, in particular a GOAT debate. HE said nothing about the H2H other than wondering how Federer's was in comparison and thereby hoping that she (HE is a she?) had lit the blue touch paper. In fact, many did not take the bait as intended, and it provoked a number of different debates, some interesting and some silly, before verging into the silly as HE had always intended it should.

This thread is an attempt to offer ex post facto justification for the first thread, promoted on the basis that H2H is important chiefly for predicting the future (something not said in the original OP).

The modus operandi is to say something HE knows and hopes will be provocative in a certain way, but to try and hide that by avoiding committing herself to what she is saying. Then she stands back, watches people sinking into the mire she has planned, before entering into the debate, frequently twisting and turning a bit, before deciding how she wants to portray the original OP to try and make it look like a genuine contribution to a sensible debate, when that was never the intention, and hardly ever is.

I don't care what HE does with all these threads and OP's, I decide when and to what extent I can be bothered to take the bait (not usually, but sometimes, I admit). What annoys me about this thread is that there seem to be others who, either because they don't see or because they don't want to see, are angrily defending HE's posts as legitimate contributions to a debate.

I concur and in my opinion it is not worth getting worked up about - a post par for the course by the OP with hidden motive. Those wise to it can see that - those less so can't.

by HM Murdock Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:35 pm

Red wrote:HM, your comment would indicate that all Nadal fans have suddenly gone 'OMG Nadal has a better H2H against Federer, OMG Nadal has a H2H against Federer, OMG NA...'

But just read this thread, and the other one; this isn't the case at all.

It doesn't indicate that at all!

by Johnyjeep Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:35 pm

Excellent post Barrystar. Couldn't agree more. Similiarly HM Murdoch's post at 2.03 is very good.

To quote a bunch of (career) stats and not offer an explanation/opinion/analysis as to why you are presenting them is being provocative. To then suggest they be compared to another player (whose career path is not alligned), for me, adds very little value and was intended to be a (not so) thinly veiled attempt to suggest Nadal is the greatest.

I could go on. But Barrystar has summed it all up better than I could.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:36 pm

barrystar, that pretty much sums up my view of it also. The original article on Nadal's H2H was, to borrow a word, 'snide' towards the forum as a whole.

by User 774433 Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:44 pm

Why would it be snide to the forum?

I can see how an anti-Murray could provoke Murray fans, and I don't support those.
How are some stats, which she has taken the time to research for the forum, so terrible?

If she did that, and just missed out the ones she didn't to include- then you could argue she had an agenda. Nothing so far has indicated that- unless you hate a particular player so much you just see anything that can be construed as positive for them as 'snide.'

by **laverfan** Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:48 pm

This current article is an afterthought.

https://www.606v2.com/t45164p100-nadal-s-h2h-against-top-20#2119763

Quoting the original yet again...

hawkeye wrote:Outstanding! I wonder how this compares with Federer?

If a poster can make such a comment, they can also provide publicly available numbers of player x.

WUMmery at it's best, I say. And the track record of player denigration is rather extensive and exhaustive. Just ask the Murray fans on 606v2. Laugh

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:51 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
But then prior to their meeting at the US Open in 2012, Berdych had the better H2H and also won their previous BO5 encounter. Murray came out on top.

This is why I don't think has the value that is being attached to it.

Yeah, it of course depends what it's being used for. You can never say "this is what happened in the past, therefore this is what will happen in the future".

But running with the Berdych angle, it's fair to say that Djokovic and Murray have broadly similar styles, they are a similar ranking and an almost identical age.

Yet Djokovic is 13-2 against Berdych whereas Murray is 4-5.

So there's something interesting happening in the Berdych-Murray match up that gives it a surprising dynamic (or conversely, it's the Berdych-Djokovic match up that's surprising).

Tennis is game of match ups, so I think the H2H is relevant.

It can't be used to prove that Djokovic is better than Murray or that Murray will lose his next game against Berdych.

But I think it's fair to say that the match up makes Berdych a more problematic opponent for Andy than, say, Tsonga, who Andy has a record of dealing with very well.

Same thing with Federer and Nadal. We know Nadal is bad match up for Federer mainly due to the H2H.

If the H2H were 20-10 in Fed's favour, do you think we'd talk so much about Federer needing to avoid Rafa in the draw?

If the H2H has no relevance, we would say Federer is #3, Rafa is #4 therefore it should close. But we all know that Federer would want to avoid Rafa because the H2H tells us it's a bad match up.

Where do you draw line with H2H's? When we had the age old weak era debate it was largely down to the quality of the opponent it was thought upon that made Player A's credentials much better than Player B's. So when we couldn't agree on who was the better out of 'peak' Hewitt and a 'peak' Djokovic, we get the H2H spin which happened to be dished out by a known protagonist of the forum today.

As results past, present and even future will show is that anyone on their given day can beat anyone regardless of rank.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Red wrote:Why would it be snide to the forum?

I can see how an anti-Murray could provoke Murray fans, and I don't support those.
How are some stats, which she has taken the time to research for the forum, so terrible?

If she did that, and just missed out the ones she didn't to include- then you could argue she had an agenda. Nothing so far has indicated that- unless you hate a particular player so much you just see anything that can be construed as positive for them as 'snide.'

For all the reasons barrystar explained and which many respected posters have agreed with.

by lags72 Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Outstanding post by barrystar (2.17pm) and I can only echo Johnyjeep's comment as to how beautifully barrystar has assessed not just these two intertwined articles, but the whole modus operandi to be seen in so many of HE's musings/contributions.

As I mentioned yesterday, the clue as to ulterior motive (is there ever NOT one ....?) was there right from the start in the Nadal H2H " article" which carried the wholly disingenuous remark immediately following the table of stats : " I wonder how this compares with Federer"

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Well Im out.

by Johnyjeep Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:56 pm

I'm almost too scared to ask this now!!

But I've been thinking. To win a Grand Slam you actually have to play more matches against players who are outside the Top 20 - unless you are unlucky and get seed 17, 18, 19 or 20 in round 3 (a 1 in 8 chance).

I wonder the respective w/l percentage is for those matches (taking into account the ranking of the opposing player at the time of playing) for our oft talked about awesome foursome? That may or may not add some balance. I don't know.

Is that a can of worms? If so, keep it sealed.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:01 pm

Head-to-heads are useful form pointers at times without a doubt. However, dynamics in the game changes and so the importance of head-to-heads are somewhat diluted.

Years ago Djokovic never had great success over Federer and up to a point your money (looking at head-to-heads) would have been on Federer but now it has gone full circle. This is similarly the case of Djokovic V Nadal. If we look at the head-to-head of Murray V Nadal then you would say Murray has no chance if they meet at Wimbledon. However, the dynamics have changed in Murray's game since they played their previous matches as in Andy has Lendl has a coach, has morew self-belief and is now a slam winner. Those all make a difference and so you would take the head-to-heads with more salt.

by Sponsored content