Discussion about W/L ratio

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 14:10

Discussion about W/L ratios, Nadal's spread of tournaments in terms of surface, music, and whether GOAT debates can be concluded objectively.

Edited extract from one of the posts about subjectivity in GOAT debates:

summerblues wrote:In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions. But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Good you bring up a square has 4 sides.
For me the debate is not whether the square having 4 sides is similar to a player being the best at tennis. It's just obviously not true. I think the real question now is why is resolving the question as to who is best at tennis not comparable to how many sides a square has.

First let me start with this statement:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better, although it is likely he is.
Now most reasonable people will agree with that, but in case some don't, I'll clarify further.
We can take any statistic, and show what the statement just said. I've talked at length about slams and the natural fluctuations in difficulty to win them in the past; this time let me choose another statistic... let's say finishing year end number 1.
Now let's say hypothetically in 2015: Federer retires in January, Djokovic takes a year break to look after his kids, Murray starts trying to rebuild Hadrian's wall, and Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Wawrinka all have injury problems. Ferrer turns out to be the guy heading to number 1 in the rankings. Now let's say you are called 'Player A'.
For Player A, it would be require you to be a better tennis player to be number 1 in 2007/2010 (where Federer and Nadal had stunning years respectively) than in this dystopian 2015 (let's keep ceteris paribus in terms of technology and say you simply have access to the best technology at the time).

For those now who think they have a valid counter point by saying 'Yes IMBL, but how do you prove that you have to have a better tennis level in 2007 to be year end number 1 than this dystopian 2015??'- I can assure you- you don't actually have a valid counter point. Think about it, my statement said it is 'not necessary' a player with better stats is a better player- so therefore the burden of proof is on you- I just have to show that what I'm saying is a possibility for that statement to be correct.

So when this statement is acknowledged, that is when the problem to get a definition really emerges:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better.

If the statement is true (which is demonstrably is), then it can mean that any definition that just looks at statistics (can be all, can be some) simply cannot be reliably accurate.

So therefore any definition would have to include factors as well as the statistics, and this simply cannot be objective in reality.
So the definition of 'better player' will remain subjective- and this is why GOAT debates cannot be objectively resolved like 'the square has four sides'.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 14:11

Born Slippy wrote:Interesting point about the w-l record. It is a way of judging which isn't affected by Rafa's injury problems. I suppose one argument is that Rafa has been fortunate that he has largely been injury-free on clay and has often missed chunks of a weaker part of his season, so the w-l record is inflated?

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 14:13

IMBL wrote:Also your counter point you raise is very fair, and I will look into it; Nadal has had injury problems mainly on hard court part of season (not the world's most surprising thing if you consider the surface is much worse for his body... especially considering his game). I will look into what you said to evaluate whether the periods he missed could have inflated or deflated the ratio.

I do think it's very important though to raise this point first, as it is quite easy to get misled in this particular analysis:
What I would be judging, let's say for example the injury of the US hard court season of 2014 is not whether it is a better win ratio than his average clay season but whether it is better than his current Win ratio overall.
To go into more detail, his W/L ratio now is higher in the past few years than when he was younger; as on average now the Win ratio is better- hence sending his overall average up. Now considering he's had a lot of injuries when he's older, it may be that even his Win ratio on his weaker surface is better than his overall Win ratio (so it doesn't have to be as good as his 2012 clay season or something for example); and thus would send his overall Win ratio up.
So therefore, it is actually very possible that more tennis for him now on hard courts would send his Win ratio up, even though it would appear unlikely at first.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 14:15

IMBL wrote:Anyway these are the significant periods he's missed due to injury (as far as I can recall... please point out if I've missed any out), now of course you can be the judge to whether his Win ratio would be above 84%:
-2004 clay season, 2009 grass court season, 2012 hard court season (+AO 2013), 2014 US hard court season; keep in mind also that if you really want to make an accurate analysis of how injuries affect W/L- take into consideration matches where he has played despite being injured, that of course has a negative impact on W/L.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 14:16

Born Slippy wrote:Will need to properly consider his historical W/L though before I can really comment.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 14:17

IMBL wrote:here is the breakdown:

Nadal:
Accumulatively by aged 22: 81.4%
" By age 23: 81.6% (400/490)
" By age 24: 82.5% (471/571)
" By age 25: 82.5 % (540/655)
" By age 26: 82.8% (582/ 703)
" By age 27: 83.7% (653/780)

Federer's maximum ever has been 82%

Last line was put just in case people accuse me of being too non-partisan and boring Wink

(not that people have been lining up to do so...)

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep - 15:12

It Must Be Love wrote:
IMBL wrote:here is the breakdown:

Nadal:
Accumulatively by aged 22: 81.4%
" By age 23: 81.6% (400/490)
" By age 24: 82.5% (471/571)
" By age 25: 82.5 % (540/655)
" By age 26: 82.8% (582/ 703)
" By age 27: 83.7% (653/780)

Federer's maximum ever has been 82%
Last line was put just in case people accuse me of being too non-partisan and boring (not that people have been lining up to do so...)

Is there a reason for Federer to be in this discussion? The thread is for Nadal specifically, or are you interested in Greatest... v2.0.?

by temporary21 Tue 16 Sep - 15:17

Numbers without relation or context have less meaning, maybe if Novaks and others are put there as a comparison too?

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 15:24

There is no doubt Nadal is the greatest on clay court stats, how about divide the Win/Loss percentage on all surfaces individually.

Even splitting Indoor and Outdoor stats if possible.
That way we can identify where he has earth shattering stats and where his weakness is.

But yes Nadal stats in general is over whelming something very similar to Borg, but these stats and percentage may not be the same by the end of his career.

He was close to invincible on clay a few years back and close to 99% of wins I guess, but this year I don't think so its even 90% [I see 4 loss twice to Nole and one each to David Ferrer and Almagro , total wins should be 7+5+2+2+5 =19, again not sure with this stats, ].

Borg had a great stats cause he retired very early in his life and If Rafa retires now yes he would end up having biggest win/loss ration in history so far.

Longevity brings some kind of rewards while short careers bring some kind of laurels. I am pretty sure Rafa would rather prefer Longevity rewards compared to this stats, otherwise he wouldn't be playing now.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 15:45

laverfan wrote:The thread is for Nadal specifically, or are you interested in Greatest... v2.0.?

No, I accompanied that with a light hearted line mocking myself if you didn't see Wink

by HM Murdock Tue 16 Sep - 15:45

It's a great statistic from Nadal.

There are some reasons I take it with a degree of scepticism though:

1) At age 28, he's entering the phase of his career where I think it will begin to drop.

2) He's missed chunks of seasons that I think would have reduced the total.

3) I think missing those periods boosted his form on his return. I don't think his incredible 2013 could have happened if he had played the second half of 2012.

None of which would have or will make his W/L stat massively weaker. But I don't really buy into the idea that a hypothetical career W/L of 83% proves someone to be a better player than one who has, say, 81%. It's not that exact a measure.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 15:47

temporary21 wrote:Numbers without relation or context have less meaning, maybe if Novaks and others are put there as a comparison too?

Fair point. I do have Federer's year by year breakdown, but I have a feeling Federer fans aren't going to like what they see there Wink

So I won't be posting that, for sure.
Good idea, I'll have a look at how Novak compares.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 15:54

DirectView2 wrote:Longevity brings some kind of rewards while short careers bring some kind of laurels. I am pretty sure Rafa would rather prefer Longevity rewards compared to this stats, otherwise he wouldn't be playing now.

HM Murdoch wrote:1) At age 28, he's entering the phase of his career where I think it will begin to drop.

It's an astute point both you have have made; and of course it is very possible the ratio may start to slip; however I would like to make the point that even for his age it is good- for example it is higher than Borg who retired younger than 28 and higher than Federer at the respective age.

HM Murdoch wrote:2) He's missed chunks of seasons that I think would have reduced the total.

Myself and Born Slippy were discussing this earlier, I replied in quite a bit of detail.

HM Murdoch wrote:But I don't really buy into the idea that a hypothetical career W/L of 83% proves someone to be a better player than one who has, say, 81%.

Indeed, but then perhaps I could argue that I don't buy into the idea that someone hypothetically with 15 slams is proved to be better than someone with 12 slams; for example I could argue different circumstances and variables could mean the latter player is actually better. Anyway, that is a debate for another day.

by HM Murdock Tue 16 Sep - 15:55

Also, consider the exaggerated example of season with the W/L record of 28/12 (70%).

That could be a poor season or it could be a calendar year grand slam!

Where the wins were and against whom are as important as the number of wins.

It's not a stat that can be used in isolation.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 15:57

HM Murdoch wrote:
It's not a stat that can be used in isolation.

Agreed, I'm not suggesting all other stats are dismissed as irrelevant, this can be used along with other stats Wink

For example we could also focus on the Win ratio against major rivals, and in big matches against major rivals in the biggest tournaments.

by HM Murdock Tue 16 Sep - 15:59

It Must Be Love wrote:I could argue that I don't buy into the idea that someone hypothetically with 15 slams is proved to be better than someone with 12 slams; for example I could argue different circumstances and variables could mean the latter player is actually better. Anyway, that is a debate for another day.

I agree. That's why the question of who is the "best" ever (as opposed to who is "most successful" ever) can never be resolved.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 16:02

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I could argue that I don't buy into the idea that someone hypothetically with 15 slams is proved to be better than someone with 12 slams; for example I could argue different circumstances and variables could mean the latter player is actually better. Anyway, that is a debate for another day.
I agree. That's why the question of who is the "best" ever (as opposed to who is "most successful" ever) can never be resolved.

True, but what can be resolved is that it is not necessary that the most 'successful' ever is the 'best' ever- as many people mistakenly think.
When people accuse me in the past of taking in part in 'GOAT' debates they are vaguely correct but technically wrong, I was mainly making the point I just did above.

by HM Murdock Tue 16 Sep - 16:11

It Must Be Love wrote:True, but what can be resolved is that it is not necessary that the most 'successful' ever is the 'best' ever- as many people mistakenly think.

Quite right.

And if we logically extend from that premise:

- level of success does not prove who is the best.
- statistics are calculated on levels of success.
- therefore statistics cannot prove who is the best.

See how we end up down a cul-de-sac?

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 16:12

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:But I don't really buy into the idea that a hypothetical career W/L of 83% proves someone to be a better player than one who has, say, 81%.
Indeed, but then perhaps I could argue that I don't buy into the idea that someone hypothetically with 15 slams is proved to be better than someone with 12 slams; for example I could argue different circumstances and variables could mean the latter player is actually better. Anyway, that is a debate for another day.

HMM is right and raised a very valid point on the other hand I disagree with your explanation, and thats why I asked you to split the stats in terms of surfaces and we can see where Nadal stands which will give the real picture of his stats on every different surfaces.

Nadal has more less picked and chosen which surface he wants to play, which is not wrong [personal preference] but to use that as a barometer to define greatness is wrong and biased.

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 16:13

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I could argue that I don't buy into the idea that someone hypothetically with 15 slams is proved to be better than someone with 12 slams; for example I could argue different circumstances and variables could mean the latter player is actually better. Anyway, that is a debate for another day.
I agree. That's why the question of who is the "best" ever (as opposed to who is "most successful" ever) can never be resolved.

Another excellent point.

I am starting to become your fan now HMM Very Happy

by HM Murdock Tue 16 Sep - 16:18

DirectView2 wrote:
Another excellent point.

I am starting to become your fan now HMM

You're very kind!

You can join the fan club if you like.

Well, I say "club"... it would just be me and you.

And even I'm not that keen on some days.

Actually, probably easier if I join your fan club!

by **laverfan** Tue 16 Sep - 16:23

A woman of unmistakable glamour and athleticism, the striking Marble, wearing her familiar sun visor, altered the face of the women’s game. The first woman to play the serve-and-volley game, she demonstrated to the skeptics that it was indeed possible for a woman to master an aggressive, net-rushing style of play. She moved relentlessly through the 1939 and 1940 seasons without losing a singles match. Marble took the women’s game to another level with her groundbreaking methodology.

http://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/alice-marble

The GOAT. Laugh

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 16:28

HM Murdoch wrote:- therefore statistics cannot prove who is the best.

You're preaching to the preached, I've always supported that.

DirectView2 wrote:Nadal has more less picked and chosen which surface he wants to play

I read somewhere Nadal's matches played actually matches the ATP spread overall better than Federer's, but I need to double check that.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 16:38

It Must Be Love wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:- therefore statistics cannot prove who is the best.
You're preaching to the preached, I've always supported that.

So what is exact purpose of discussing one specific statistic? What conclusions can you hope to draw? Where do you hope the discussion will go?

by Johnyjeep Tue 16 Sep - 17:02

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:True, but what can be resolved is that it is not necessary that the most 'successful' ever is the 'best' ever- as many people mistakenly think.
Quite right.

And if we logically extend from that premise:

- level of success does not prove who is the best.
- statistics are calculated on levels of success.
- therefore statistics cannot prove who is the best.

See how we end up down a cul-de-sac?

Hey folks,

I have to say I disagree with this premise. Certainly the first point - level of success does not prove who is the best?

What exactly is your definition of "best"? For me - it is winning. Winning tournaments. The person who wins the tournament is the best player is he not? It's not the person who went out in the second round? Or the third or the runner-up in the final. I don't care if the runner-up has lost fewer games/sets/points in the tournament over all compared to the winner - he wasn't good enough to win the tournament.

If we are not to deduce that - then how else do we determine who is the best? I think i'm the best. I've had no success - but what does that matter?

Tennis is as cut and dried as that. It's not there for entertainment purposes. That's just a by-product. It's a game which is entirely based on line calls. It is either in or out. It is not subjective. If it is in more often that it is out - you win. If it is in more often that it is out - you win the tournament. Players want to win points and will use the tools at their disposal to do this. Some have more tools than other - but ultimately, that is irrelevant. Winning the point is relevant.

The problem you have with the statistics - is not statistics - it is that folk are cherry picking them to justify their own conclusions which have already been made. By not looking at them first and then coming to their own conclusions. Or not applying them equally across all players. Or basically just making up a different criteria to determine the best which is not appropriate. This career win/loss statistic is one such example. The players at the top of the game won't care about this. They'll just want trophies. If they win lots of trophies - the w/l statistic will take care of itself. We let our only personal bias towards playing style, preference to players personality - and no doubt other superficial attributes - to determine who is best and then looking for stats to prove it.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 17:17

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:- therefore statistics cannot prove who is the best.
You're preaching to the preached, I've always supported that.

So what is exact purpose of discussing one specific statistic? What conclusions can you hope to draw? Where do you hope the discussion will go?

What a bizarre post.
You'll tell me what conclusions I hope to draw- well it won't be that I've proved Nadal (or anyone) is the best due to this statistic.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 17:23

It Must Be Love wrote:
DirectView2 wrote:Nadal has more less picked and chosen which surface he wants to play
I read somewhere Nadal's matches played actually matches the ATP spread overall better than Federer's, but I need to double check that.

OK, good news: my memory was not failing me and that is indeed correct.

If you look at the tournaments for 2013 the total number of hard court tournaments is 37, clay court tournaments is 22, and grass court tournaments is 6.

Tournament Percentages:
Hard - 57%
Clay - 34%
Grass- 9%

Let's look at the total matches on each surface for Federer and Nadal after 2013 (not including carpet):

Federer:
Hard - 681 matches (64%)
Clay - 248 matches (23%)
Grass - 140 matches (13%)

Nadal:
Hard - 402 matches (52%)
Clay - 314 matches (40%)
Grass - 63 matches (8%)

Federer's plays 7% more on hard courts, 11% less on clay courts, and 4% more on grass courts compared to the layout of the tour. That's a total deviation of 22%.

Nadal plays 5% less on hard courts, 6% more on clay courts, and 1% less on grass courts compared to the layout of the tour. That's a total deviation of 12%.

Interesting, so the distribution of Nadal's career is actually closer to the actual layout of the tour. Federer deviates more on every single surface.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 17:33

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:- therefore statistics cannot prove who is the best.
You're preaching to the preached, I've always supported that.

So what is exact purpose of discussing one specific statistic? What conclusions can you hope to draw? Where do you hope the discussion will go?
What a bizarre post.
You'll tell me what conclusions I hope to draw- well it won't be that I've proved Nadal (or anyone) is the best due to this statistic.

What a bizarre response. Perhaps when posters ask questions they could be answered out of courtesy.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 17:34

JuliusHMarx wrote:
What a bizarre response. Perhaps when posters ask questions they could be answered out of courtesy.

It seemed to me to be not a genuine question but more like a 'so what the hell is the point of this' type remark. Anyway if I made a misjudgement we can move on, no matter.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 17:35

Johnyjeep wrote:What exactly is your definition of "best"? For me - it is winning. Winning tournaments....
Tennis is as cut and dried as that. It's not there for entertainment purposes. That's just a by-product. It's a game which is entirely based on line calls. It is either in or out. It is not subjective.

Interesting post JJ, and one I totally disagree with you on, and I agree with HM (and I guess Julius too?).

Alright to counter what you're saying, rather than actually bringing players into this (after which we may go down a line of debate we've gone before), let me use this metaphor:

I'm a scientist trying to conduct an experiment. I'm seeing at which rate different plants grow. The first plant (Plant A) I put in conditions of 10°C and see how fast it grows. It doesn't grow very quickly.
The second plant (Plant B), a different plant, I put in conditions of 35°C. It grows very quickly. Then a third plant (Plant C), another different variety, I put in conditions of 150°C and it unsurprisingly fails to grow at all.

So I head back to the science committee, with a graph and spreadsheet in my hands and shout, 'Look, I've proved my case. Plant A grows at a higher rate than Plant C, but the fastest growing plant is Plant B for sure- look at my statistics !

So, have we actually proved that Plant B is the fastest growing ? Well we may have shown it's highly likely, but to make it clear that it is likely- it's also important to observe the variables first. You see, the problem with this experiment, was that the variables were changing.
It's only if we can accurately determine how those variables affected the statistics, that we can see whether we have 'proved' (or even less than that.. 'shown it's likely') that Plant B is the fastest growing plant.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 17:43

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
What a bizarre response. Perhaps when posters ask questions they could be answered out of courtesy.
It seemed to me to be not a genuine question but more like a 'so what the hell is the point of this' type remark. Anyway if I made a misjudgement we can move on, no matter.

OK, though I would still be interested in a response to those questions.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 17:53

My answer would say there is an umbrella of issues that can be discussed; the inflation or deflation of this statistic due to time missed, player comparisons (which I'll try to avoid on the whole), to what extent this statistic can be seen as effective (for example this is a by-product of players playing well... I doubt any player is fixated by the W/L ratio; but does that really matter?) etc. etc.

Edit: Also if I may ask you a question in response, do you agree with JJ's stance that analysis on who is the better player can be 'objectively' judged by stats, or do you agree with myself or HM that due to the different variables such a debate will always remain subjective, and any claim to objectively saying you've 'proved' a player is better is simply misled.

by LuvSports! Tue 16 Sep - 17:58

Nadal off clay:
Hard Win–Loss 78%
Grass Win–Loss 78%

Feds off grass:
hard: 83%
clay: 76%

As expected, very close. But again doesn't show the whole story.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 18:05

LuvSports! wrote:Nadal off clay:
Hard Win–Loss 78%
Grass Win–Loss 78%

Feds off grass:
hard: 83%
clay: 76%

As expected, very close. But again doesn't show the whole story.

Out of those 4 it is ranked:
1/Federer
2/Nadal
3/Nadal
4/Federer

What is the comparison of the two best surfaces, this I guess would be the tiebreaker of sorts.

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 18:05

HM Murdoch wrote:
DirectView2 wrote:
Another excellent point.

I am starting to become your fan now HMM
You're very kind!

You can join the fan club if you like.

Well, I say "club"... it would just be me and you.

And even I'm not that keen on some days.

Actually, probably easier if I join your fan club!

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 18:07

I'm not sure if I agree with either JJ or you/HM (and I'm not even sure you and HM would agree on certain aspects).

I agree with this though, if that helps :-
"The problem you have with the statistics - is not statistics - it is that folk are cherry picking them to justify their own conclusions which have already been made. By not looking at them first and then coming to their own conclusions. Or not applying them equally across all players. Or basically just making up a different criteria to determine the best which is not appropriate."

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 18:15

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with either JJ or you/HM (and I'm not even sure you and HM would agree on certain aspects).

I agree with this though, if that helps :-
"The problem you have with the statistics - is not statistics - it is that folk are cherry picking them to justify their own conclusions which have already been made. By not looking at them first and then coming to their own conclusions. Or not applying them equally across all players. Or basically just making up a different criteria to determine the best which is not appropriate."

Well of course you would agree with that line, everybody would, the question is there are two ways of looking at this debate:
a) it's subjective, and just looking at stats can't be enough due to the changing variables
b) it's objective, we can definitively see from certain stats (in JJ's case- trophies) who is the better player

The irony of JJ saying that is the problem he identified would be a far bigger issue for approach b, than my approach.

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 18:17

It Must Be Love wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
DirectView2 wrote:Nadal has more less picked and chosen which surface he wants to play
I read somewhere Nadal's matches played actually matches the ATP spread overall better than Federer's, but I need to double check that.
OK, good news: my memory was not failing me and that is indeed correct.

If you look at the tournaments for 2013 the total number of hard court tournaments is 37, clay court tournaments is 22, and grass court tournaments is 6.

Tournament Percentages:
Hard - 57%
Clay - 34%
Grass- 9%

Let's look at the total matches on each surface for Federer and Nadal after 2013 (not including carpet):

Federer:
Hard - 681 matches (64%)
Clay - 248 matches (23%)
Grass - 140 matches (13%)

Nadal:
Hard - 402 matches (52%)
Clay - 314 matches (40%)
Grass - 63 matches (8%)

Federer's plays 7% more on hard courts, 11% less on clay courts, and 4% more on grass courts compared to the layout of the tour. That's a total deviation of 22%.

Nadal plays 5% less on hard courts, 6% more on clay courts, and 1% less on grass courts compared to the layout of the tour. That's a total deviation of 12%.

Interesting, so the distribution of Nadal's career is actually closer to the actual layout of the tour. Federer deviates more on every single surface.

Shall I humbly say you are wrong here thumbsup

, you either did not understand the statement properly or I did not put the statement clearly, so lets assume the mistake is on both sides or my side whatever, lemme try to explain the statement clearly.

why are you looking at just 2013? we are not taking just about 2013 but whole of Nadal's career, why did you not look at 2009? or say 2012? or say 2014? in these years Nadal played hell lot of clay court matches compared to Grass court matches and hard court matches.

What is the mystery that Nadal gets injured only in the part of the season he does not like to play? or the better words would be Nadal might be equally bad in some of the clay season yet he never wanted to skip them cause he knows he can win there even if he is not 100% on the contrast he might still go down to many players in the ATP in the hard court season even if he is 100% fit, so he never likes to take chances when he feels he is not 100% fit on hard courts and grass courts alone but not on clay courts.

Do you see why his stats could be skewed now? in contrast say Djokovic, toils hard on all surface and even starting to be successful on grass.

If Djoko would have played only hardcourt seasons [cherry picking like Nadal] he might have had a big h2h lead over Rafa by now. Very Happy

So my conclusion is , you need to split stats by surface and call who the most successful on the surface rather than call it an overall picture when Nadal's commitment to overall picture is not the same as his commitment to his preferred surface clay.

by kingraf Tue 16 Sep - 18:19

I've always liked the "ignoring clay" argument. It's probably a greater compliment than it is a drawback. Bit like Tendulkar fans saying "ignoring the fact that Lies is the only batsman to score 500, 400, 300, 200 and a hundred in First class cricket"...

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 18:20

LuvSports! wrote:Nadal off clay:
Hard Win–Loss 78%
Grass Win–Loss 78%

Feds off grass:
hard: 83%
clay: 76%

As expected, very close. But again doesn't show the whole story.

Great stats LS

Its close now, but would it be close for Nadal say after 6 years from now? Its certainly a big question mark, if he can hold this level for next 6 years then yes very likely he will end up as GOAT, but Nadal fans need to wait till then.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 18:21

DirectView2 wrote:why are you looking at just 2013? we are not taking just about 2013 but whole of Nadal's career, why did you not look at 2009? or say 2012? or say 2014? in these years Nadal played hell lot of clay court matches compared to Grass court matches and hard court matches.

I am talking about ALL years upto 2013.
Just look at the stats carefully- you can't seriously suggest I'm claiming Nadal played 402 hard court matches in 2013.

If you consider their whole career upto 2013, Nadal's spread is closer to the ATP tour than Federer's, on every single surface.

DirectView2 wrote:Its close now, but would it be close for Nadal say after 6 years from now?

I didn't want to repeat this, and this is the last time I'm going to say it to ensure LF and Julius don't get too upset Wink

If you take them at their respective age, e.g. Fed aged what Nadal is now- Nadal is still higher.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 18:24

"This debate"?
Which debate in particular? Are we now discussing "who is the better player"?
You now seem to be comparing Nadal and Federer. Are we now debating which one is "the better player"?
That sort of reminds me of a previous thread I once saw, long ago....

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 18:24

kingraf wrote:I've always liked the "ignoring clay" argument. It's probably a greater compliment than it is a drawback. Bit like Tendulkar fans saying "ignoring the fact that Lies is the only batsman to score 500, 400, 300, 200 and a hundred in First class cricket"...

Best example is Federer, just cause he was miles ahead of his competition , people called it a weak era, and some of the weak era players have a better h2h against current champions and past champions Very Happy

You are finally understanding how somebodies success could be put in dark light by pointing on the wrong side. Very Happy

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 18:27

JuliusHMarx wrote:"This debate"?
Which debate in particular? Are we now discussing "who is the better player"?

I was referring to what JJ was saying in analysing statistics- that debate. Not specifically who is the better player.

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 18:29

It Must Be Love wrote:
DirectView2 wrote:why are you looking at just 2013? we are not taking just about 2013 but whole of Nadal's career, why did you not look at 2009? or say 2012? or say 2014? in these years Nadal played hell lot of clay court matches compared to Grass court matches and hard court matches.
I am talking about ALL years upto 2013.
Just look at the stats carefully- you can't seriously suggest I'm claiming Nadal played 402 hard court matches in 2013.

If you consider their whole career upto 2013, Nadal's spread is closer to the ATP tour than Federer's, on every single surface.

DirectView2 wrote:Its close now, but would it be close for Nadal say after 6 years from now?
I didn't want to repeat this, and this is the last time I'm going to say it to ensure LF is not too upset
If you take them at their respective age, e.g. Fed aged what Nadal is now- Nadal is still higher.

Again the stats are very screwed, lets see the percentage of hard court and grass court tournaments one has to play and compare with Nadal and see how much he actually plays and lets also compare that stats for other surface like clay and grass.

You could easily see if you get the stats right, Nadal's commitment towards hard courts and grass courts are way too lesser compared to clay , and you being a Nadal fan doesn't want to see the actual picture but skew the stats to support the argument Nadal is greater. Which doesn't make sense for neutral fans and non-Nadal fans.

by DirectView2 Tue 16 Sep - 18:31

Djokovic, Federer play the minimum amount of tournament to say the least on their weaker surface too , but such is not the case for Rafa even in his prime years.

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 18:32

DirectView2 wrote:
You could easily see if you get the stats right, Nadal's commitment towards hard courts and grass courts are way too lesser compared to clay

I've just shown the stats, and what you've just said is simply factually incorrect.
Nadal has played less than 50% of his matches on clay, and the matches he has played is more in accordance with the ATP calendar than Federer's surface distribution.
I don't see why this means Nadal is a better player- just because you have a match/surface distribution which is closer to the ATP calendar does not mean you're a better player- not by any stretch of the imagination.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 18:34

But why are we analysing Nadal's statistics and comparing them to Federer's? Are we hoping not to reach any conclusions? Is this some new way I haven't quite caught onto of avoiding a GOAT debate?

by It Must Be Love Tue 16 Sep - 18:36

JuliusHMarx wrote:But why are we analysing Nadal's statistics and comparing them to Federer's? Are we hoping not to reach any conclusions? Is this some new way I have quite caught onto of avoiding a GOAT debate?

No, because showing that someone has a closer match/surface distribution to the ATP tour in general does not mean you're a better player.
Unless you're a total loon. Perhaps there's a guy out there who thinks the guy who's matches have been played with less variance than the ATP calendar in terms of surface distribution is the GOAT, but I'm not that guy.
The point of the study is to show that what DV is accusing (specifically that Nadal's surface distribution is skewed compared to his rivals) is factually misled.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 16 Sep - 18:41

So anyone who interprets that statistic to reach that conclusion is a total loon, despite that fact that you've admitted that interpretation of statistics is subjective, and that they can't be used to prove anything objectively? Or maybe they are objectively a total loon?

by Sponsored content