Discussion about W/L ratio

First topic message reminder :

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'.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

You haven't stated any facts, you have put forward filtered skewed results.

Nadal from 2009 to 2014, can you put forward how many hard court tournaments he missed , how many grass court tournaments he missed? and lets compare that with how many clay court tournaments he missed and how many extra 250 clay court tournaments he played.

If you want to compare, lets compare that with a player of similar age, Djokovic, lets see how both players skipped their weaker surface tournaments and compare it with stronger surface tournaments.

It Must Be Love wrote:
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.

Sorry to say you haven't proved anything yet so far rather than twisting arguments to stay away from answering the question.

Please answer the above question, then I clarify how skewed your stats was

JuliusHMarx wrote: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?

Ah no- interpretation of stats is subjective; the stats themselves are not.
So if someone has a match/surface distribution which is closer to the ATP tour- he has a match/surface distribution close to the ATP tour. However interpreting from that by saying that means he's a better player is subjective- and my opinion claiming someone is GOAT because he has the closest match/surface distribution is ridiculous; and as far as I'm aware no one has even suggested that (certainly not me).

DirectView2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

You haven't stated any facts, you have put forward filtered skewed results.

Quite amusing you've put that in bold, when you're so... wrong.

Let me post it one more time, if you still can't understand after this, then we'll have to move on:

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.

DirectView2 wrote:

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

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

I'm not going down this road... save to say that example isn't really accurate. Fact is Federer lost more times from 2004-2007 to players younger than 20 than he did to Hewitt and Co.

Anyway - on topic. Once you get to the top, I agree that it's superfluous to debate that player X is a better player because of W/L. I'd hope players like Nadal and Djokovic don't retire early to save their W/L.

Your stated opinion "claiming that someone is GOAT because he has the closest match/surface distribution is ridiculous" is not in any way related to a GOAT debate which we're not having, because we're not comparing Rafa and Fed at all. Have I at least got that right?

kingraf wrote:I'd hope players like Nadal and Djokovic don't retire early to save their W/L.

This I'm almost certain won't be the case, and the fact it won't be doesn't harm the usefulness of this stat.
You follow cricket KR, how important in cricket is 'averages' for a batsman. It is seen as important not because each batsman goes out and has an eye on his average, but because he goes out and tries to get as many runs as he can to help his team, and his average is formed as a positive by-product of that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Your stated opinion "claiming that someone is GOAT because he has the closest match/surface distribution is ridiculous" is not in any way related to a GOAT debate which we're not having, because we're not comparing Rafa and Fed at all. Have I at least got that right?

I'm not sure what here is not clear- I posted that specifically to rebuttal DV's point that Nadal's match/surface distribution is disproportionate.

I just want to be sure that despite comparing Fed and Rafa and using terms such as GOAT, that this isn't a GOAT debate, and that we're not analysing statistics to subjectively determine in any way which is the better player. Which would, of course, include arguing for or against the importance of any statistics that favour one player or the other.

kingraf wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:

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

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

I'm not going down this road... save to say that example isn't really accurate. Fact is Federer lost more times from 2004-2007 to players younger than 20 than he did to Hewitt and Co.

Anyway - on topic. Once you get to the top, I agree that it's superfluous to debate that player X is a better player because of W/L. I'd hope players like Nadal and Djokovic don't retire early to save their W/L.

A typical Nadal fan, does not want to accept anything good on Federer cv but could see the same thing as a positive on Nadal cv

Johnyjeep wrote: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.

I'll give a couple of examples to demonstrate why I disagree with you.

Yevgeny Kafelnikov has slightly greater career achievements than Andy Murray. Same number of slams, an Olympic gold but also a few weeks at #1 to Andy's zero, and 4 doubles slam titles. Do these stats prove him to be a better player than Murray? I don't see how you can compare. They had different opposition and played in different eras. I also strongly suspect that many would rate Murray as the better player, despite the slight difference in accomplishment so far.

Another example. In winning Wimbledon this year, Djokovic moved ahead of Becker, 7 slams to 6. But was Djokovic a better player on the 6th July than he was at 22nd June? Did he become better player than Becker over the course of that tournament? Did his tennis skills get better? Or had he just achieved more?

"Most successful" is based on hard facts. "Best" is full of nuance.

kingraf wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:

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

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

I'm not going down this road... save to say that example isn't really accurate. Fact is Federer lost more times from 2004-2007 to players younger than 20 than he did to Hewitt and Co.

Anyway - on topic. Once you get to the top, I agree that it's superfluous to debate that player X is a better player because of W/L. I'd hope players like Nadal and Djokovic don't retire early to save their W/L.

Dude losing is different to skipping tournaments, and that is why I am claimed the stats are filtered and skewed on Nadal side.

Nadal safely skipped almost entire season more than 3 times in his young career on surfaces that is traditionally weaker on his CV, in comparison he has never skipped one season on the surface which he is stronger on, so obviously the stats will be skewed.

It Must Be Love wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

You haven't stated any facts, you have put forward filtered skewed results.

Quite amusing you've put that in bold, when you're so... wrong.

Let me post it one more time, if you still can't understand after this, then we'll have to move on:

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.

let me try to clarify for you one more time , if not yes it guaranteed you will never understand or purposefully never understand to show filtered stats for a wrong argument.




Nadal from 2009 to 2014, can you put forward how many hard court tournaments he missed , how many grass court tournaments he missed? and lets compare that with how many clay court tournaments he missed and how many extra 250 clay court tournaments he played.

If you want to compare, lets compare that with a player of similar age, Djokovic, lets see how both players skipped their weaker surface tournaments and compare it with stronger surface tournaments.

Its not a useless Stat. But I don't think it's particularly useful either. Using the cricket example. I've always believed that great batsmen happen to have great averages, rather than Great averages define great batters. The difference is when I look at a cricketer, and rate him, I think of performances, and the fact that they did it often. The effect of repeated great performances is a great average. Same with tennis. You don't see Safin bossing the W/Ls. To continue with a cricket example - if a player averages 52, and another 50.5, it isn't much of a gap. Percentages are interesting, but not very much so. It's debatable whether having a 85% career winning average is more impressive than Federer going 247-15, or whatever it was over four years.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote: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.

I'll give a couple of examples to demonstrate why I disagree with you.

Yevgeny Kafelnikov has slightly greater career achievements than Andy Murray. Same number of slams, an Olympic gold but also a few weeks at #1 to Andy's zero, and 4 doubles slam titles. Do these stats prove him to be a better player than Murray? I don't see how you can compare. They had different opposition and played in different eras. I also strongly suspect that many would rate Murray as the better player, despite the slight difference in accomplishment so far.

Another example. In winning Wimbledon this year, Djokovic moved ahead of Becker, 7 slams to 6. But was Djokovic a better player on the 6th July than he was at 22nd June? Did he become better player than Becker over the course of that tournament? Did his tennis skills get better? Or had he just achieved more?

"Most successful" is based on hard facts. "Best" is full of nuance.

Agree again on your sentiment.
In terms of a counter, one point I could raise is that for your Djokovic vs Becker point; we could just look at the stats after their respective careers have ended.

@ It must be Love

You still haven't answered this question

Myself wrote:
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.

It Must Be Love wrote:In terms of a counter, one point I could raise is that for your Djokovic vs Becker point; we could just look at the stats after their respective careers have ended.

That's a good idea, and could be extended to all current players, don't you think?

kingraf wrote:Its not a useless Stat. But I don't think it's particularly useful either. Using the cricket example. I've always believed that great batsmen happen to have great averages, rather than Great averages define great batters. .

So you agree the OPs stats are not much of an use and doesn't convey anything?

DirectView2 wrote:@ It must be Love

You still haven't answered this question

Myself wrote:
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.

I can't find that specific study- but I have shown for overall matches played; and that is surely the only stat relevant to a W/L analysis about overall matches.
If you find any other, less relevant, studies, do show it

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:In terms of a counter, one point I could raise is that for your Djokovic vs Becker point; we could just look at the stats after their respective careers have ended.

That's a good idea, and could be extended to all current players, don't you think?

HM's stat was one accumulated, ie collected with time.
For W/L we can actually measure it with age- eg we could show the flow between Nishikori and Cilic now and see how they've compared at the same age.

The one main reason Nadal enjoys better win/loss ratio overall is that he safely skips [by injury or any other reason] a lot of tournaments on his weaker surface and enjoys playing his opponents on his stronger surface and the opponent's weaker surface.

Its like Nadal and Gary Kasparov playing chess 10 times and tennis 2 times, Gary Kasparov wins 10/12 and Nadal wins 2/12 and then now claim Gary Kasparov as the greatest ever.

If the above comment didn't make sense, thats how similar the stats you have put forward is.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:In terms of a counter, one point I could raise is that for your Djokovic vs Becker point; we could just look at the stats after their respective careers have ended.

That's a good idea, and could be extended to all current players, don't you think?

HM's stat was one accumulated, ie collected with time.
For W/L we can actually measure it with age- eg we could show the flow between Nishikori and Cilic now and see how they've compared at the same age.

Another good idea. When can you produce those figures?

It Must Be Love wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:@ It must be Love

You still haven't answered this question

Myself wrote:
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.

I can't find that specific study- but I have shown for overall matches played; and that is surely the only stat relevant to a W/L analysis about overall matches.
If you find any other, less relevant, studies, do show it

You will not like to do the specify study either, cause it will sink your arguments completely if you do so.

DirectView2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Its not a useless Stat. But I don't think it's particularly useful either. Using the cricket example. I've always believed that great batsmen happen to have great averages, rather than Great averages define great batters. .

So you agree the OPs stats are not much of an use and doesn't convey anything?

I didn't say that. Just that outside of bowling in cricket, and maybe Basketball PER, I can't think of a point in discussing stats when the variance is one or two percent

DirectView2 wrote:The one main reason Nadal enjoys better win/loss ratio overall is that he safely skips [by injury or any other reason] a lot of tournaments on his weaker surface and enjoys playing his opponents on his stronger surface and the opponent's weaker surface.

Its like Nadal and Gary Kasparov playing chess 10 times and tennis 2 times, Gary Kasparov wins 10/12 and Nadal wins 2/12 and then now claim Gary Kasparov as the greatest ever.

If the above comment didn't make sense, thats how similar the stats you have put forward is.

This is like talking to a brick wall- I have shown over his whole career Nadal actually has a closer surface/match distribution to the ATP tour than rivals such as Federer.
Anyway no point continuing this really, you may as well keep repeating the same line.

This thread has become a waste of time.
No offence IMBL, as I really like you. But once we get into two pages of nitpicking, with scenarios where Nadal beats Kasporov at chess, we've missed the boat. Try again tomorrow?

Just had a little look at Rafa's stats on WL. I've broken them down by surface and age as follows. I have merged indoor/grass for these purposes which, whilst not ideal, I think probably works better due to the otherwise very small sample sizes.

Age 18-20

Clay - 114-6 (95%)
Outdoor Hard - 58-19 (75%)
Indoor/Grass- 31-14 (69%)

Age 21-24

Clay - 99-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 131-28 (82%)
Indoor/Grass - 56-16 (78%)

Age 25-present

Clay - 91-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 75-13 (85%)
Indoor/grass - 13-9 (59%)

Will have a look at Fed's later and see how he compares at the same age bands.

kingraf wrote:Its not a useless Stat. But I don't think it's particularly useful either. Using the cricket example. I've always believed that great batsmen happen to have great averages, rather than Great averages define great batters. The difference is when I look at a cricketer, and rate him, I think of performances, and the fact that they did it often. The effect of repeated great performances is a great average. Same with tennis. You don't see Safin bossing the W/Ls. To continue with a cricket example - if a player averages 52, and another 50.5, it isn't much of a gap. Percentages are interesting, but not very much so. It's debatable whether having a 85% career winning average is more impressive than Federer going 247-15, or whatever it was over four years.

Great post. I agree totally.

kingraf wrote:with scenarios where Nadal beats Kasporov at chess, we've missed  the boat. Try again tomorrow?

Nadal actually lost at chess in DV's example.

Born Slippy wrote:Just had a little look at Rafa's stats on WL. I've broken them down by surface and age as follows. I have merged indoor/grass for these purposes which, whilst not ideal, I think probably works better due to the otherwise very small sample sizes.

Age 18-20

Clay - 114-6 (95%)
Outdoor Hard - 58-19 (75%)
Indoor/Grass- 31-14 (69%)

Age 21-24

Clay - 99-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 131-28 (82%)
Indoor/Grass - 56-16 (78%)

Age 25-present

Clay - 91-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 75-13 (85%)
Indoor/grass - 13-9 (59%)

Will have a look at Fed's later and see how he compares at the same age bands.

OK BS, but please remember that IMBL does not want a GOAT debate, so perhaps there is no need for Federer's stats, as there is no requirement to compare the two in this thread.

BS; there's a clear distribution between outdoor hard and indoor hard/ grass- more so than clay and outdoor hard over time interestingly.

DirectView- you said Nadals matches were disproportionately on clay- I showed his match/surface distribution is actually closer to the ATP tour than rivals such as Federer.
Then you just ignored it, and were talking about tournaments. I've found the study done on tournaments, which I've double checked with ATP site:

If you think looking at the number of tournaments they have played on each surface as opposed to number of matches is more relevant, it strengthens my case.

Federer
Hard - 168 tournaments (64%)
Clay - 65 tournaments (25%)
Grass - 31 tournaments (12%)

Nadal
Hard - 101 tournaments (56%)
Clay - 63 tournaments (35%)
Grass - 16 tournaments (9%)

And what is the tour layout? Hard - 57%, Clay - 34%, Grass - 9%

Federer has about the same deviation from the tour and Nadal is practically dead on.
(Study from drm025)

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK BS, but please remember that IMBL does not want a GOAT debate, so perhaps there is no need for Federer's stats, as there is no requirement to compare the two in this thread.

IMBL - can you confirm that you'd rather Fed's stats were not posted here?

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:Its not a useless Stat. But I don't think it's particularly useful either. Using the cricket example. I've always believed that great batsmen happen to have great averages, rather than Great averages define great batters. The difference is when I look at a cricketer, and rate him, I think of performances, and the fact that they did it often. The effect of repeated great performances is a great average. Same with tennis. You don't see Safin bossing the W/Ls. To continue with a cricket example - if a player averages 52, and another 50.5, it isn't much of a gap. Percentages are interesting, but not very much so. It's debatable whether having a 85% career winning average is more impressive than Federer going 247-15, or whatever it was over four years.

Great post. I agree totally.

Thank you. I don't mean to be narcissistic, but I too am particularly proud of that. Don't think I've posted a serious opinion on the tennis forum in six months.

It Must Be Love wrote:

kingraf wrote:with scenarios where Nadal beats Kasporov at chess, we've missed  the boat. Try again tomorrow?

Nadal actually lost at chess in DV's example.

Just like how Fed losses in your all filtered stats

Born Slippy wrote:Just had a little look at Rafa's stats on WL. I've broken them down by surface and age as follows. I have merged indoor/grass for these purposes which, whilst not ideal, I think probably works better due to the otherwise very small sample sizes.

Age 18-20

Clay - 114-6 (95%)
Outdoor Hard - 58-19 (75%)
Indoor/Grass- 31-14 (69%)

Age 21-24

Clay - 99-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 131-28 (82%)
Indoor/Grass - 56-16 (78%)

Age 25-present

Clay - 91-6 (94%)
Outdoor Hard - 75-13 (85%)
Indoor/grass - 13-9 (59%)

Will have a look at Fed's later and see how he compares at the same age bands.

Good stats, BS

Now 'It must be Love', you can put forward where Nadal stands on each of the percentage to cast the honest picture, which ever stats he dominates I agree he is the most successful for that given stats, on the same lines would you be courageous enough to accept in some stats he actually not even in top 10

Ranking each surface would take hours, days even; considering all the players.
Laverfan, you upto the task ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Woohoo science and sport - my two favourite subjects!!  Now you are talking my language. You have however, rather unwittingly I suspect, helped prove my point.
Your experiment analogy, as I'm sure you know, is not good. To put things simply, whenever an experiment is designed to prove or disprove any stated fact/null hypothesis at any level of learning, variables are kept to an absolute minimum.  

So when I state that  "the best player at a major (or any tournament) is the player who is holding the trophy at the end of the tournament" and then I design an experiment in which to do that (play the tournament - funnily enough exactly how it is done now), I think I am on fairly solid ground.  Variables are kept to an absolute minimum. In fact they couldn't be reduced any further. I have yet to hear anyone tennis player complain that this is not a fair way to do it.

This doesn't mean they are the best player over a  6 or 12 month period or even a 5 year period.  For those 2 weeks (or one), the guy who is unbeaten is the best.
And I ask this question to you (again - as I asked you in my original post) - by what criteria are you determining the "best" player?
And you must apply to that everyone. Not just keep throwing stats around about Federer and Nadal because Lord knows we don't need another one of them.

Marin Cilic was the best player at the US Open 2014

Djokovic was the best players at Wimbledon 2014.

(sorry to bring this two into it after my above point!)

RF was the best player at French Open in 2009.

RN was the best player at Wimbledon in 2008.

This doesn't mean one is better than the other over the length of their careers. But for those two weeks - anyway you want to slice it - one was better than the other.
So if winning tournaments does not determine who is the best player there...I'd really like to hear an alternative way.

Anyway...

This is a thread about w/l percentages. So I will bring it back to that.

Why is this not a very good statistic to use? Well, it doesn't mean anything. It is the consequence of success but not a measure in its own right and never has been.
When has any champion been introduced as...the guy with the xth best career win/loss percentage? Do players go into their career thinking about it? I really want a 80% w/l record or I want to win Wimbledon. I bet Lendl has a pretty tasty w/l record at Wimbledon? Better than a lot of people who have won it I suspect?  I bet he would sacrifice at least 20 percentage w/l  points for one Wimbledon trophy.

It's across sports as well not just tennis.  I play cricket, football and snooker (among others). At the end of each league season trophies are awarded for: Most runs and wickets (not highest batting average or lowest bowling average), most goals (not most goals per minutes/games) and most frames (not w/l percentage). Why? Because it introduces another host of variables that is not needed and cannot be quantified.

That's not what sport is about. Trying to quantifying what doesn't happen. Because the absence of something doesn't mean it will happen.

Am I the only one who doesn't know what this thread is about anymore?

What are these statistics supposed to be demonstrating?

It Must Be Love wrote:DirectView- you said Nadals matches were disproportionately on clay- I showed his match/surface distribution is actually closer to the ATP tour than rivals such as Federer.
Then you just ignored it, and were talking about tournaments. I've found the study done on tournaments, which I've double checked with ATP site:

If you think looking at the number of tournaments they have played on each surface as opposed to number of matches is more relevant, it strengthens my case.

Federer
Hard - 168 tournaments (64%)
Clay - 65 tournaments (25%)
Grass - 31 tournaments (12%)

Nadal
Hard - 101 tournaments (56%)
Clay - 63 tournaments (35%)
Grass - 16 tournaments (9%)

And what is the tour layout? Hard - 57%, Clay - 34%, Grass - 9%

Federer has about the same deviation from the tour and Nadal is practically dead on.
(Study from drm025)

Do you have a habit to understand an argument or a comment always wrong? if you have such habit there is really not point in posting vague stats which wasn't even asked.

let me try to clarify to you again.

1]Nadal's stats from 2008/2009 to present on how many hard court and grass court tournaments missed to have actually played [minimum] and Nadal's stats from 2009 - 2014 on how many clay court tournaments missed to have actually played [minimum] , also post extra tournaments played on each surface outside requirement [like 250's]

2]Djokovic's stats for the same, cause they are both more or less the same age.

lets avoid Federer at the moment as it will lead to GOAT debate, but if you are persistent to talk about Federer, then compare Fed's prime years from 2003-2008/2009

2008-2014 is where Nadal's maximum success happened and similarly 2003-2007 is where Fed's maximum success happaned , so I am going to consider that as prime period for both of them.

Any other variable then you have to wait till both retired, or it would be wise to compare people of similar period.

HM Murdoch wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't know what this thread is about anymore?

What are these statistics supposed to be demonstrating?

There are many debates going on at the same time, I'm following it closely so I can see the distinctions, but I can also see why it may get confusing; should I differentiate all of them ?

Directview2 wrote:Do you have a habit to understand an argument or a comment always wrong? if you have such habit there is really not point in posting vague stats which wasn't even asked.

I've posted ALL matches and ALL tournaments, and shown Nadal's surface distribution for both is closer to the ATP tour than Federer, and for tournaments he is practically dead on- thus he is not playing disproportionately more tournaments on clay compared to the ATP tour.
I've not found any studies answering your particular studies- and I see no reason why to cherry pick anyway- but if you wish present your case. I've posted overall stats for matches and tournaments.

kingraf wrote:This thread has become a waste of time.
No offence IMBL, as I really like you. But once we get into two pages of nitpicking, with scenarios where Nadal beats Kasporov at chess, we've missed  the boat. Try again tomorrow?

So when the op's stats are questioned , you would like to resort to nitpicking rather then let me argue with the OP in a decent manner.

If I further counter OP's stats then you will post the history of me like you did in the other thread.

Why try again tomorrow? did you just realize this thread is a waste of time? and if you decide so why not stay off from it rather than post a comment that has no connection with the logic of the thread.

Is there a reason you used the term "we missed the boat" instead of "you missed the boat" or "I missed the boat", all I can see with respect to we here is windup as a team and it didn't happen and hence you missed the boat.

kingraf wrote:This thread has become a waste of time.
No offence IMBL, as I really like you. But once we get into two pages of nitpicking, with scenarios where Nadal beats Kasporov at chess, we've missed the boat. Try again tomorrow?

HM Murdoch wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't know what this thread is about anymore?

What are these statistics supposed to be demonstrating?

I did call it.

HM Murdoch wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't know what this thread is about anymore?

What are these statistics supposed to be demonstrating?

You are point stamper , something I tried to demonstrate with 2 pages of writing and you explained it in 2 lines. I wish I had this talent.

For HM:

1/ Can we analyse better players 'objectively' from stats- or are debates such as GOAT debates always subjective ?

2/ Is the 'average' aspect of W/L ratio- which is clearly not the aim for players (ie no one actually is fixated by it) mean they are more or less relevant ?

3/ Has Nadal played matches or tournaments disproportionately on clay compared to the ATP tour ? (let me answer that one for you: no.)

4/ Analysis of the gap between clay/ outdoor hard and grass/indoor from Nadal throughout his career.

What team? Your example made no sense. Simple. As. That.

You aren't achieving anything pretending being successful on clay is actually a bad thing. It's embarrassing. I used "we" because I commented on this thread and felt we aren't making any headway as a collective. I mean really. If Nadal loses ten games to Kasporov... Well okay then... If Daffy Duck wins a Grammy does that mean Djokovic is a great dancer? If Serena scores a goal playing yard soccer does that make Ronaldo a great Ballet dancer?

@ "It Must Be Love"

Surface distribution stats is different to tournament missed stats. Did you understand that or purposefully you want to stay way from that stats?

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

^That is for context, all my quotes from now on will be me quoting JJ:

Woohoo science and sport - my two favourite subjects!!  Now you are talking my language. You have however, rather unwittingly I suspect, helped prove my point.

I don't think so...
But let's see

To put things simply, whenever an experiment is designed to prove or disprove any stated fact/null hypothesis at any level of learning, variables are kept to an absolute minimum.

 
Yes, that's correct

So when I state that  "the best player at a major (or any tournament) is the player who is holding the trophy at the end of the tournament" and then I design an experiment in which to do that (play the tournament - funnily enough exactly how it is done now), I think I am on fairly solid ground.  Variables are kept to an absolute minimum. In fact they couldn't be reduced any further.

Oh dear. You have missed out the obvious point.
I am not arguing that over a certain two weeks, the winner of a Grand Slam is the best player over those two weeks. However what I am arguing is that the variables would be different for each Grand Slam. It may for some reason or another (let's say either tennis is naturally in a transition period, or the top 300 players are on strike due to low pay), be that a slam is easier/ harder to win than another slam. Certainly it's almost impossible that the variables remain constant to the point that all the slams are of equal difficulty to win, there would naturally be fluctuations.
The issue with your experiment is that it assumes just because 'one player is best within those 2 weeks'- the level that one player had to play at is equivalent to the level another 'player who is best within those 2 weeks' will have to play at. It couldn't be more obviously flawed.

And thus, you cannot claim to be able to objectively say one all-time-great is better than another, with the pretence you are not being subjective.

DirectView2 wrote:@ "It Must Be Love"

Surface distribution stats is different to tournament missed stats.  Did you understand that or purposefully you want to stay way from that stats?

OK, let me try and make it even clearer:
Tournaments played + Tournaments not played = 100% of all tournaments within a career

If I have shown, as I have done, that Nadal's distribution of tournaments played is almost exactly matching with the ATP tour, and closer than Federer's; then by mathematical proof it must be that the surface distribution in tournaments he has not played in is also very close to the ATP tour's distribution, and closer than Federer's.

Does that make sense?