Do things necessarily need to be competitive at the top?

by break_in_the_fifth Tue 07 Apr 2015, 8:22 am

First topic message reminder :

Djokovic is number 1 in the world right now and by some distance. From reading posts this year so far I get the feeling that people here aren't satisfied with this state of affairs or that it's somehow worse now than it has been before. I'm not saying this is shaping up to be the most exciting year in tennis ever but is it really so bad, relative to the last 5 years, that the others need to step their game up to save us from some kind of viewing catastrophe? Yes they need to step their game up if they want to beat him and I'm sure they are doing all they can but the feeling I'm getting from here is that it is all too imperative that they succeed in order to avert a crisis.

I'll admit that I didn't watch much of Miami apart from highlights but across these last two tournaments he's been challenged a few times but in the end proved too good. The game moves on every year and if he's done the best with keeping up with that and improving then more credit to him. He's not my favourite player but if he should win the majority of everything significant this year then so be it. It seems that on here there is a strong desire not to have a single player dominate and that if that is the case then competition is weak; maybe no one wants to see domination of a "weak era" like 2004-2007 again and anything resembling that can't be good for the game. I, on the other hand, believe it's possible to just gave a player who is much better than everyone else at a given time. The competition is ok this year and we're not at a point where the matches are foregone conclusions , at least no more or less significantly so than previous years.

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:25 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Also, 9-2-2, vs 7-5-1, you can say one is overwhelmingly good on one surface and balanced on the other two; and one is good on two surfaces and poor on the third one, it depends on how one sees it.

Bit harsh that the 1 in Federer's column is "poor" but the 2s in Nadal's columns are "balanced"!

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:25 am

Simples

if AO didn't exist, Federer's primary slam accumulator was Wimbledon (grass) he has seven titles there. Nadal's primary slam accumulator is Paris (clay), nine there
9>7

Federer's secondary accumulator is New York - five there. Nadal's secondary is Wimbledon (On account of more final appearances than in New York)

5>2

Federer's Tertiary accumulator is Paris, where he has one slam. Nadal's Tertiary accumulator is New York, where he has two.

2>1

Nadal has more primary and Tertiary wins, ergo 2/3

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:27 am

Got to remember when talking about Balance, if Nadal can somehow muster one more Wimbledon win, he'll be the only man to achieve a triple triple crown* (at least three slams on three different surfaces).

*Triple Triple Crown is the intellectual property of Kingraf.

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:38 am

kingraf wrote:Simples

if AO didn't exist, Federer's primary slam accumulator was Wimbledon (grass) he has seven titles there. Nadal's primary slam accumulator is Paris (clay), nine there
9>7

Federer's secondary accumulator is New York - five there. Nadal's secondary is Wimbledon (On account of more final appearances than in New York)

5>2

Federer's Tertiary accumulator is Paris, where he has one slam. Nadal's Tertiary accumulator is New York, where he has two.

2>1

Nadal has more primary and Tertiary wins, ergo 2/3

And there I was thinking that there was no amount of statistical jiggery pokery that could present Rafa as more balanced... but it turns out there is!

I will concede therefore, that if the Australian Open didn't exist and if we divide the remaining three slams in primary, secondary and tertiary accumulators, Nadal wins in two of these three categories.

It's a watertight case!

I would also like to give you kudos for using the word tertiary in what is your 17th language. Wink

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:38 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote: Rafa was dping well on grass back then!

Oh please correct that quickly - or better still reword it. Laugh

by bogbrush Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:38 am

This is hilarious! Someone suggesting Nadal has a better spread of Slams? If he wins RG this year people will be celebrating 15 Slams and overlooking that TWO-THIRDS are from one event.

Fortunately posters know that I will be above describing him as a phenomenon on clay and a merely a very good player on the other Slams.

As some have said, where one HC be removed and replaced with an indoor Slam it's a fair bet Federer would be on a couple more and Rafa one down (think switching the Australian for the Masters, that shows it easily enough).

by bogbrush Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:39 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well if AO was grass during 2007-2010, I won't bet that Rafa would win more than one AO! Rafa was dping well on grass back then!

You missed a letter out.

(thanks for the pass, Craig).

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:45 am

Look, When Federer was on 14, 8 of his slams came from one surface. For Nadal the equation us nine. I'm not sure why we're pretending the gap is that large

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:45 am

It is like one of those ColemanBalls on the internet.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:48 am

Unfortunately, while English is the least spoken mother language in South Africa, it is the language of business. Mastery in the imperialist language is not optional Very Happy

by Guest Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:49 am

by Belovedluckyboy Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:53 am

HMM, it depends on how one sees it. If Rafa has only 5 FOs, his 2 Wimbledon and 3'HC slams would not make his slam mixes seem imbalanced. However, because of his overwhelming dominance on clay, it has made it looked imbalanced. Having 2 Wim and 3 HC slams are not poor by any standard, and it's quite balanced in that Rafa has 1 AO, 2 Wim and 2 USO. Fed has 4 AO, 5 USO and 1 FO, so how's that any more balanced than Rafa's?

i don't think Rafa is done winning slams, even the non clay ones, so who knows, he may have a few more HC slams, maybe one more Wimbledon, and so address this so called 'imbalance' created by his dominance on clay.

by Belovedluckyboy Fri 10 Apr 2015, 10:57 am

Oh please BB, Rafa need not resort to doping. I obviously mean doing. Why are you so quick in jumping on things like this. I could also do the same on your favorite player you know? There are plenty I could suspect him about but I'm not going there.

by Belovedluckyboy Fri 10 Apr 2015, 11:00 am

Well, if it's indoor HC, it's still HCs, so what are you people talking about? It's not indoor or outdoor, Rafa can win indoors if it's indoor clay!

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 11:20 am

bogbrush wrote:
temporary21 wrote:As the One Proposing the thoery, the burden of proof is very much on BB here, you need to convince people its right, beofre people need knock it down.

Personally im not really convinced of it either
No, I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The scientific process involves making hypotheses (which I have), supporting them with information (which I also have) and making predictions (also done). It now falls to experimental testing to disprove the hypothesis.

By the way, you can hardly have something knocked down once you've convinced people it's right - the first process renders the second redundant. But don't worry, you don't have to convince everyone of that theory.

What are you talking about Bogbrush ?

I am talking about your 'equal era' theory, where you said that for a period greater than 12 months there can't be any fluctuation in competition. No one is questioning your smug prediction that 4 slams will be won this year.

You must have missed the questions I asked you yesterday:

Explain why when there is such irregularity with the rate tennis players of a certain level are produced, why would there be no fluctuation in a period greater than 12 months ?
Why does it always balance itself out after 13 months or greater ? Do you not therefore think it's possible that 2014-2015 may not be as strong as 2011-2012 ? (as it's concerning a time period of greater than 12 months) ?
In terms of relevance to this thread specifically: do you therefore not think it possible that Djokovic's competition now for the next 13 months (or any period greater than 12 months) could be easier in slams because of the lack of young guns then it was for him in 2011-2013 ?

So many questions, so few answers. Either it's because you have the answers and you're hiding it from us, or you know your 'equal era' theory is totally illogical and indefensible.

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 11:25 am

Blue Moon wrote:"Strength of competition"?

The rule does not say a thing about the nature of competition a player must beat in order to win an ATP tournament. If Djoko continues to be the last man standing in the next slam(s), he is still king, regardless. So who he beat doesn't matter in the big picture. His victory will be recorded as fact and the trophy awarded will still be the same. Weak-strong competition ain't going to change history made, will it?

When have I said otherwise ?
Think about this intelligently, saying Djokovic is going to have easier competition now then he has so far in his career is not equivalent to saying the trophy won't be awarded, or his victory won't be recorded as a fact.
However when doing further analysis, i.e. seeing the level Djokovic had to play to win Slams across his career, or comparing Djokovic to another player and seeing how hard it was to win a slam on average, it's right to consider competition as one of the factors.

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 11:30 am

On the surface distribution point, I did a calculation of what would happen if across the year, there was a genuine split between the 3 main surfaces; hard courts, grass, and clay.
Obviously that involved fractions and is more of statistically hypothetical than a realistic idea (I'm not proposing we have 1 1/3 slams per surface...):

Currently the slam breakdown is weighted towards hard courts (clearly), as it has 50% of the slams, while clay has 25% and grass has 25%.

Now let's say I create a fairer situation, where every Slam has 33.3% (1/3) slams; so there are 4/3 slams on each surface- and see how each player does.
(Obviously this calculation is only possible mathematically... I'm not actually suggesting we have 4/3 slams per year on a certain surface).

Nadal-
9 clay slams= on 25%(1/4) of slams on clay
12 clay slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on clay
2 grass slams= on 25%(1/4) of slams on grass
8/3 grass slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on grass
3 hard court slams= 50%(1/2) of slams on hard court
2 hard court slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on hard court

Federer-
1 clay slam= 25%(1/4) of slams on clay
4/3 clay slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on clay
7 grass slams= 25%(1/4) of slams on grass
28/3 grass slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on grass
9 hard court slams= 50%(1/2) of slams on hard court
6 hard court slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on hard court

So added up:
Nadal= 12+8/3+2= 16 2/3
Federer= 4/3+28/3+6= 16 2/3

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 10 Apr 2015, 12:18 pm

I still say that I can enjoy tennis more or less the same whether one person is dominating or not. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that?

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 12:22 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:I still say that I can enjoy tennis more or less the same whether one person is dominating or not. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that?

I enjoy being dominated while watching tennis.

by Belovedluckyboy Fri 10 Apr 2015, 12:27 pm

I guess it depends on what kind of dominance, absolute ones like beating his opponents 6-1,6-0 can be boring; but, hard fought ones can be fine as long as there's quality tennis.

by biugo Fri 10 Apr 2015, 12:52 pm

About the balance of Fed and Nadal at GS, both are indeed unbalanced towards their favoured surface, but I've always seen Federer as having a more balanced performance.

And the very simple argument saying Federer performance is generally more balanced is his incredible consistency: how somebody misses just 2 GS finals over 5 years?! (that's 18 Finals and 2 SF in 5 years, over all surfaces...)

However, this other argument makes more sense and show that both are similarly balanced over their career - one with a stronger venue, one with a weaker venue:

Match Wins % per Tournament:
In order: AO - FO - W - USO
Federer: 86% - 80% - 89% - 88% (average: 86%)
Nadal: 83% - 99% - 83% - 84% (average: 88%)
(noting that Fed's weak is linked to Rafa's strong directly - 1% less by loss against Rafa)

These players seem less balanced than both actually:
Djoko: 90% - 81% - 85% - 85%
Andy: 80% - 77% - 84% - 80%

Sampras: 83% - 65% - 90% - 89%
McEnroe: 78% - 71% - 84% - 85%
Borg: 50% (1 tournie) - 96% - 93% - 82%
Jimbo: 92% (2 t.) - 75% - 82% - 85%

The last guys to have a success as widespread as Fedal and Djoko were born over 100 years ago
Bill Tilden: N/A - 82% - 91% - 91%
Fred Perry: 90% - 81% - 88% - 89%
...

So how lucky are we to have such legends in our time! Hug

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 12:58 pm

99% win rate at a slam after entering it on 10 occasions is ridiculously good.

by bogbrush Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:00 pm

kingraf wrote:Look, When Federer was on 14, 8 of his slams came from one surface. For Nadal the equation us nine. I'm not sure why we're pretending the gap is that large

Desperate stuff.

by bogbrush Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:02 pm

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Oh please BB, Rafa need not resort to doping. I obviously mean doing. Why are you so quick in jumping on things like this. I could also do the same on your favorite player you know? There are plenty I could suspect him about but I'm not going there.

Next time I tee you up with some careless typing, be my guest.

by bogbrush Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:04 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
temporary21 wrote:As the One Proposing the thoery, the burden of proof is very much on BB here, you need to convince people its right, beofre people need knock it down.

Personally im not really convinced of it either
No, I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The scientific process involves making hypotheses (which I have), supporting them with information (which I also have) and making predictions (also done). It now falls to experimental testing to disprove the hypothesis.

By the way, you can hardly have something knocked down once you've convinced people it's right - the first process renders the second redundant. But don't worry, you don't have to convince everyone of that theory.
What are you talking about Bogbrush ?

I am talking about your 'equal era' theory, where you said that for a period greater than 12 months there can't be any fluctuation in competition. No one is questioning your smug prediction that 4 slams will be won this year.

You must have missed the questions I asked you yesterday:

Explain why when there is such irregularity with the rate tennis players of a certain level are produced, why would there be no fluctuation in a period greater than 12 months ?
Why does it always balance itself out after 13 months or greater ? Do you not therefore think it's possible that 2014-2015 may not be as strong as 2011-2012 ? (as it's concerning a time period of greater than 12 months) ?
In terms of relevance to this thread specifically: do you therefore not think it possible that Djokovic's competition now for the next 13 months (or any period greater than 12 months) could be easier in slams because of the lack of young guns then it was for him in 2011-2013 ?

So many questions, so few answers. Either it's because you have the answers and you're hiding it from us, or you know your 'equal era' theory is totally illogical and indefensible.

Nope, I said small fluctuations in the short term neutralise in the medium. This is straightforward statistical inevitability. Confidence levels of statistical analysis of populations increase for larger "n" because of this effect.

As for what I'm talking about, it was temps post. That's why I quoted them.

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:07 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Nope, I said small fluctuations in the short term neutralise in the medium. This is straightforward statistical inevitability. Confidence levels of statistical analysis of populations increase for larger "n" because of this effect.

As for what I'm talking about, it was temps post. That's why I quoted them.

I don't think it's an inevitability at all, due to the irregularity of tennis players of certain level being born.
Your understanding of statistical terminology is also wrong, there is no reason why small fluctuations in the short term would neutralise in the medium unless there was regularity.

But instead of talking about it in stats terms (which let's be honest, is basically a cop out tactic), why don't you answer some direct questions on how your theory manifests itself:
Do you not therefore think it's possible that 2014-2015 may not be as strong as 2011-2012 ? (as it's concerning a time period of greater than 12 months) ?
In terms of relevance to this thread specifically: do you therefore not think it possible that Djokovic's competition now for the next 13 months (or any period greater than 12 months) could be easier in slams because of the lack of young guns then it was for him in 2011-2013 ?

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:11 pm

Bogbrush's hero:
http://wallpapers111.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cop-Out-wallpaper-1.jpg

by bogbrush Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:12 pm

Regarding the consistency numbers, the standard deviations are

Federer 3.49
Nadal 6.80
Djokovic 3.19
Murray 2.49

Therefore clearly Nadal has the most unbalanced performances, Murray the least.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:14 pm

This forum runs a lot better when everybody's number crunching

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:16 pm

Nonetheless, having looked up. What exactly is desperate about what I typed? Nadal has five slams off clay. When Federer has 14, he had six slams off hard. Fact or fiction?

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:17 pm

kingraf wrote:Nonetheless, having looked up. What exactly is desperate about what I typed? Nadal has five slams off clay. When Federer has 14, he had six slams off hard. Fact or fiction?

Federer has less opportunity to win non-HC Slams than Nadal does to win non-clay slams.

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:20 pm

bogbrush wrote:Regarding the consistency numbers, the standard deviations are

Federer 3.49
Nadal 6.80
Djokovic 3.19
Murray 2.49

Therefore clearly Nadal has the most unbalanced performances, Murray the least.

There's an error in these numbers.

You've classified the Australian Open as existing.

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:20 pm

I think the problems you have judging eras and strength of opposition is insurmountable so why even try?

We related earlier the 2007 top ten compared to 2015 and we had debates but surely you also need to take into account the remaining hundreds of pros playing tennis in 2007 and 2015 as well. Who is to say what strengths and weaknesses there were throughout that list from both years - I'd say that overall there will be strengths and weaknesses in both years lists but it will invariable even things out.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:24 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think the problems you have judging eras and strength of opposition is insurmountable so why even try?

You need to ask?

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:24 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think the problems you have judging eras and strength of opposition is insurmountable so why even try?

We related earlier the 2007 top ten compared to 2015 and we had debates but surely you also need to take into account the remaining hundreds of pros playing tennis in 2007 and 2015 as well. Who is to say what strengths and weaknesses there were throughout that list from both years - I'd say that overall there will be strengths and weaknesses in both years lists but it will invariable even things out.

CC, that's a fair point, but I am talking about competition at the top, i.e. to win Slams.
I think most pros out of the thousands who compete, to be honest there aren't that many who are relevant when seeing who is competing for a Slam.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:27 pm

Indeed, but that's the reality. The converse is also true

Federer has more opportunity to win Hard court slams, than Nadal has to win Clay court slams, correct? This helps his real world numbers. The converse only helps his hypothetical numbers, which carry no real world value, but help pass the day

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:29 pm

Also the debate I'm having now with Bogbrush isn't comparing eras itself, or even whether comparing eras is subjective or objective.
Bogbrush is basically saying that there can't be a difference in level of competition if we take a time period of greater than a year.
Which is obviously absolute nonsense, I've not seen anyone else on any forum hold that view, and for good reason too. According to Bogbrush, we can't say that 2011-2012 was harder in terms of competition for Djokovic than 2014-2015 will be, because it's a period greater than one year and therefore everything balances out.
It just makes no logical sense whatsoever.

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:30 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think the problems you have judging eras and strength of opposition is insurmountable so why even try?

We related earlier the 2007 top ten compared to 2015 and we had debates but surely you also need to take into account the remaining hundreds of pros playing tennis in 2007 and 2015 as well. Who is to say what strengths and weaknesses there were throughout that list from both years - I'd say that overall there will be strengths and weaknesses in both years lists but it will invariable even things out.
CC, that's a fair point, but I am talking about competition at the top, i.e. to win Slams.
I think most pros out of the thousands who compete, to be honest there aren't that many who are relevant when seeing who is competing for a Slam.

The top ten though is not all that goes towards deciding who wins slams. Lower ranked players may not win slams but they sure do have a say in who wins them. I mean look in recent years at Stakhovsky, Darcis, Rosol and Kyrgios in recent times and I'm sure we could dig back to 2007 when top seeds bombed out against lower ranked players so you see the strengths of eras run so much deeper than just judging say the top ten.

So you see consistency in winning slams is not all about strength of top tens it is about the ability to overcome the unexpected - a shooting from the hip low ranker not expected to offer a challenge but does. Novak may get a lot of that in coming years and who is to say that is not more challenging than being pushed hard by an in-form Murray or Federer?

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:30 pm

kingraf wrote:Indeed, but that's the reality. The converse is also true

Federer has more opportunity to win Hard court slams, than Nadal has to win Clay court slams, correct?

Yep, scroll up to my post at 11:30 am, I do address that imbalance.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:33 pm

Surely the easiest way to test this hypothesis is to have a look at sports with measurable performance outputs?

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:38 pm

kingraf wrote:Federer has more opportunity to win Hard court slams, than Nadal has to win Clay court slams, correct? This helps his real world numbers.

Why are you equating Fed on HC with Rafa on clay though? Grass is Federer's best surface.

They both have the same opportunity to win on their best surface.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:41 pm

9>7 (Federer's numbers).

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:43 pm

Besides, at Federer's peak, he won 8/9 HC slams, vs 5/6 Grass. That statement is debatable, since 5/6 represents 83%. While 8/9 represents 89%.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:45 pm

Was actually 6/7 on grass wasnt it? I forget when people decided Fed had crossed over.

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:46 pm

kingraf wrote:9>7 (Federer's numbers).

Which shows Rafa on his best surface is better than Federer on his best surface.

Nothing to do with diversity and balance.

by kingraf Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:48 pm

No no, you misunderstood
Nine titles on hard
is more than
seven on grass

by It Must Be Love Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:56 pm

Yes but there's more Slams on hard court than grass KR, no ?

by Matchpoint Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:57 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Blue Moon wrote: "Strength of competition"?

The rule does not say a thing about the nature of competition a player must beat in order to win an ATP tournament. If Djoko continues to be the last man standing in the next slam(s), he is still king, regardless. So who he beat doesn't matter in the big picture. His victory will be recorded as fact and the trophy awarded will still be the same. Weak-strong competition ain't going to change history made, will it?
When have I said otherwise ?
Think about this intelligently, saying Djokovic is going to have easier competition now then he has so far in his career is not equivalent to saying the trophy won't be awarded, or his victory won't be recorded as a fact.
However when doing further analysis, i.e. seeing the level Djokovic had to play to win Slams across his career, or comparing Djokovic to another player and seeing how hard it was to win a slam on average, it's right to consider competition as one of the factors.

No need to attack my intelligence just because I don't support your view. Why so defensive? You know that this weak/strong competition idea is a non-issue as far as the ATP is concerned. You're just jealous now because Djokovich is looking so good compared to "another player" you mention above. But that's no reason to be rude in your mission to force a non-issue that others like me don't share.

by temporary21 Fri 10 Apr 2015, 1:58 pm

Bobbrush is referring to the Central limit theorem which says things tend to a normal limiting distribution. That is to say even out. Over a long period. He makes two critical errors though. You can't apply this to something you can't consistently measure. More importantly how big is big? I don't think the space of a year is a guarantee of long enough to even out . Maybe 5- 10 years

by HM Murdock Fri 10 Apr 2015, 2:00 pm

kingraf wrote:No no, you misunderstood
Nine titles on hard
is more than
seven on grass

So 9 HC slams is OK for this point but when we look at total and spread, we have to allow for the fact there are two HC slams each year?

The sands of this debate are shifting with every step!

by Sponsored content