Significance of Losing Records: Meaning and Psychology and GOAT pecking orders.

Andy Murray has just lost to Novak Djokovic in the Madrid Masters.  This is the twelfth time out of the past thirteen matches that Andy Murray has lost to Novak Djokovic.  

Does this mean that Andy Murray is not as good as Novak Djokovic?
What does this do to the psychology of Andy Murray when he encounters Novak Djokovic and what can he do about it?

Relevance for the GOAT Debate:
It seems to me that the best way to analyse eras is through head to head records but factoring in differences in age and experience.  When Rafael Nadal was at his best nobody could beat him on the clay.  When he was at his best he seemed also to be able to beat Federer on the grass and on the hard courts (apart from the end of year tournament).  Does that make Nadal better than Federer?  I don't think so (apart from on the clay) - because the reason for Nadal beating Federer was a specific kryptonite tactic that Federer couldn't handle.  Yet Federer could beat with ease tall heavy servers that could blow away Nadal on the hard-courts and grass.  So there is a lot to consider when rating players and assessing GOAT status.

Apologies for my somewhat random OP - but head to head records and GOAT status has been occupying some of the threads in recent times.

All facts have relevance if the context is properly taken into account. H2H record becomes more relevant only when you have two players of near equal standing in accomplishment. Nikolay Davydenko has a good h2h against Nadal because he played Nadal a number of times on hardcourts early in Nadal's career and fortunately very few times later on in his career. Same can be said for Roddick who holds a 6-5 edge on Djokovic because he played Novak a large number of times in 09 and 10 during his serving slump and only played him but once after 2011. But if you have two players with comparable slam counts and levels of accomplishment than h2h becomes more significant. Also it becomes more significant the more times two players have played its easy to explain lets say 4-3 or 4-2 h2h; it becomes harder lets say if it is like in Murray's case a lengthy rivalry with a much larger sample of matches.

First, let's be clear: nobody plays tennis to have a good H2H record against anyone. That is a means to an end of winning tournaments - namely the most coveted tournaments - which really how all players are judged, even in the alternate universe of the H2H records analysis. Therefore it is, in my opinion, irrelevant to the GOAT debate.

As for the psychology, it may have an impact, but that is less important than the technical reasons why the H2H records exists. Tennis is a game of match ups, and as such, a player who is presumed to be better in the abstract, can have a negative H2H record against someone who is presumed to be worse. What's the basis for evaluating a player better or worse? The tournaments they've won - specifically the most coveted tournaments - and that's all that should be evaluated when evaluating greatness.

I disagree MMT1, why does it bear no relevance, sure you need a context to the facts maybe one player was well passed it when another came in, or maybe one player only played and beat up on the younger version of his opponent and then retired. But if you have two players who were at or near their peaks at similar times and if they played a large number of matches like the big 4 rivalries it becomes more dispositive.

Very interesting read about top 3 dominance
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/federer-big-titles-2016

Yeah slasher a very interesting perspective. If you combine masters, year end masters cup, and grandslams you see that Fed is at the top of the pile with 47 and Djokovic is at 45, probably will surpass him in that number this year. What is interesting that Djokovic and Nadal both have a higher strike rate than Federer (to be fair being younger will skew this stat a bit against Fed) Nadal wins 1 out 3.5 big tourneys he enters and Novak is like one big titles per every 3.15 first tier events, while Fed is around one major tourney win for every 4.5 entered.

The crazy thing about Novak is that he could become the first guy to 30 masters and he may even reach 40 masters titles. And the record for year end master's cup titles is in play for certain as Fed has 6 and Djoko needs one more to tie. So almost certainly Djokovic is going to have more masters and as many or more Maseters cup year enders as Federer. The slams number the big measuring stick Fed still enjoys the big gap.

I agree socal. Djokovic is really moving up the ladder, that stat around wins per events played is remarkable.

The 17 slam tally of federer will be very tough to match or beat but if he was to even get to 15 (particularly if it included a French open win)and then keeps winning masters titles and if he beat the federer total for year end finals and weeks at number one, it would make for a really big debate.

I have to admit that back around 2010, I predicted Novak might win 6-8 slams. He has already achieved beyond what I expected. It's just a case now of how high up the ladder he can reach.

Read the title, then the OP, then the title again.

So I understand exactly where the OP his heading. Are you talking about the significance of losing records in H2H's? Just by the numbers that is?

In the realms of that old chestnut the GOAT Debate, the H2H is rather vast amongst the elite in today's game. For sheer consistency it is frightening.

Looking at the numbers for Djokovic/Federer/Nadal/Murray rivalries:

Djokovic 71-54 Win % 56.8
Nadal 63-43 Win % 59.4
Federer 47-58 Win % 44.7
Murray 27-54 Win% 33.3

Djokovic has played more matches in these rivalries. Leads the H2H in all those rivalries.
Nadal has a greater win %.
Federer has lost the most matches combined.
Murray has the lowest win % and wins combined. Has played the fewest matches in the rivalries.

I think as hard numbers go, you have to say Djokovic's H2H record against his main rivals is scary. For the amount of matches he has played, this screams un-real consistency.

If you examine strike rates don't you have to include the twilight of a players career, when he's past it and getting beaten far more often than at his peak?

Isn't this like comparing the first part of one players career with the whole of another? Isn't that, basically, complete nonsense?

It becomes subjective then doesn't it? E.g the argument becomes entrenched in "Federer lost to Nadal because his peak was over and Nadal lost to Djokovic because his peak was over and Djokovic was losing to begin with because he hadn't peaked and Murray......

You could break it down over the years when they met and what have you. However, given the age gap between Federer and his rivals makes the comparison so tricky to actually evaluate effectively. His rivals prior to the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray years are often dismissed.

I wouldn't say it was nonsense. Just hard to evaluate because of the 'peak' debate.

bogbrush wrote:If you examine strike rates don't you have to include the twilight of a players career, when he's past it and getting beaten far more often than at his peak?

Isn't this like comparing the first part of one players career with the whole of another? Isn't that, basically, complete nonsense?

No it isn't nonsense its called a fact that you analyze and put into context. Yes, I even stated in my first post that Fed's lower strike rate is of course colored by him being older. But then what about the comparison of Nadal and Djoko, also one can discount fed's number a bit or give him some extra consideration. Facts are still facts, the context is important. Yes I agree it is unfair measure due to age if you take it as conclusive, but it still be a fact you take into account.

What about that Fed has only 47 first tier events with 6 years on tour than Djokovic who sits on 45? While the strike rate goes against Federer, Federer is helped by a longer career in this part of the statistical analysis. So he has a leg up here where the strike rate number is brought down by longevity. By the way at this age Novak has way more masters then Fed had at a similar age and is going to take this particular record to some really incredible new heights.

slashermcguirk wrote:I agree socal. Djokovic is really moving up the ladder, that stat around wins per events played is remarkable.

The 17 slam tally of federer will be very tough to match or beat but if he was to even get to 15 (particularly if it included a French open win)and then keeps winning masters titles and if he beat the federer total for year end finals and weeks at number one, it would make for a really big debate.

I have to admit that back around 2010, I predicted Novak might win 6-8 slams. He has already achieved beyond what I expected. It's just a case now of how high up the ladder he can reach.

Yep, and I think he thinks he is going all the way to the top of the pecking list in terms of accomplishment. I still don't think he will get to 17 but if he owns all these other records like weeks at #1 and then gets very close to the 17 then a very compelling argument can be made. Again though this upcoming FO is certainly a big moment in determining that future legacy, he wins the FO and now he is the only guy since Laver to hold all 4 majors at once.

legendkillarV2 wrote:It becomes subjective then doesn't it? E.g the argument becomes entrenched in "Federer lost to Nadal because his peak was over and Nadal lost to Djokovic because his peak was over and Djokovic was losing to begin with because he hadn't peaked and Murray......

You could break it down over the years when they met and what have you. However, given the age gap between Federer and his rivals makes the comparison so tricky to actually evaluate effectively. His rivals prior to the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray years are often dismissed.

I wouldn't say it was nonsense. Just hard to evaluate because of the 'peak' debate.

Nonsense is my shorthand for stuff that really doesn't tell me much. One thing I enjoy doing now & again is eviscerating statistics, only because people (usually unintentionally) misuse them. Stats should supplement your weighed up opinions, not dictate them.

You're right about subjectivity, but funny enough I respect a subjective opinion from an intelligent person far more than I do statistics.

Just for balance, Masters wins at the same age is a good one that makes sense (see socals post).

bogbrush wrote:

You're right about subjectivity, but funny enough I respect a subjective opinion from an intelligent person far more than I do statistics.

Just for balance, Masters wins at the same age is a good one that makes sense (see socals post).

And that is why you are wrong about 90 percent of the time. Bias and perspective are always an issue when you rely on subjective opinion not based on some empirical facts.

The breakdown lists two numbers. 1. the total wins of first tier events (which inflates Fed's number of the other two because of his longevity) 2. The strike rate (which deflates Fed's standing v. his opponents artificially because of more losses as you age. Both are valid and when you look at a broad base of various numbers the total picture becomes more accurate. Again context is provided and you are free to argue it, but it isn't a worthless measure you just need to look at more measures than just this one to get an accurate picture.

To be fair Federer is building stats vs much younger guys there. Let's see how Djokovic fares against guys who are 24/25 when he's 30/31/32...?

Why is it unfair to Federer when he has many more years to rack up his total number of 47 than Nadal or Djokovic. While one of the two measures is unfair to Fed because of relative age the other measure is flattering of Federer's standing because he has had more years to rack up total wins. Either way as far as masters go Fed has been second fiddle to Nadal and Djokovic and age has really nothing to do with it Novak has more Masters at a younger age.

I was commenting on LKs numbers not the overall 'big' titles.
At the end of the day with no new major name coming through the stage looks nicely set for Djokovic to just about break every record going...

lydian wrote:I was commenting on LKs numbers not the overall 'big' titles.
At the end of the day with no new major name coming through the stage looks nicely set for Djokovic to just about break every record going...

I know isn't it great, I will be strutting around here like the cat that got the pigeon. But honestly, I am more than happy with what he has done so even if he does go into a tailspin he still has his legacy. Federer I think could never rack up the masters on clay like Novak can, Novak since 2011 has won a huge number of clay court masters in comparison to Fed when Nadal was at his peak. The fact that unlike Nadal, Novak doesn't kind of take off the indoor masters; and unlike Federer he wins a bit more clay, well then it becomes clear that he really is chomping up big titles at an unprecedented rate.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

You're right about subjectivity, but funny enough I respect a subjective opinion from an intelligent person far more than I do statistics.

Just for balance, Masters wins at the same age is a good one that makes sense (see socals post).

And that is why you are wrong about 90 percent of the time. Bias and perspective are always an issue when you rely on subjective opinion not based on some empirical facts.

The breakdown lists two numbers. 1. the total wins of first tier events (which inflates Fed's number of the other two because of his longevity) 2. The strike rate (which deflates Fed's standing v. his opponents artificially because of more losses as you age. Both are valid and when you look at a broad base of various numbers the total picture becomes more accurate. Again context is provided and you are free to argue it, but it isn't a worthless measure you just need to look at more measures than just this one to get an accurate picture.

You confuse subjectivity with irrationality.

Subjective opinion is the result of composition of huge volumes of data, including both statistical and contextual. Simply being a slave to statistics is evidence of narrow, unimaginative people, or a result of people pretending to grasp subjects that are beyond them.

In business, for example, it's normal to make decisions every week of huge importance and it's crucial to look far beyond mere statistics.

Of course the subjective opinion of over-emotional idiots is worthless, which I why I clearly qualified my statement.

Like I say, the subjective judgement of an expert is worth far more than some statistics. Any idiots can read out statistics and parrot them in place of wisdom.

Again broadly over generalizing, so what you claim is the subjective opinion of expert is actually the expert studying OBJECTIVE FACTS AND STATS and then telling you what opinion he has on that empirical evidence. So you believe your expert who has studied things like statistics and objective results is entitled to look and cite statistics in forming the opinion he is going to give to you. Well then what is different with looking at the same things you want your expert opinion to look at? You concede that the expert you want to rely on should do his research into the numbers, but what if we want to look beyond his opinion and are smart enough to look at the numbers or the evidence or objective facts ourselves? Tennis isn't quantum physics.

Despite your characterization nobody is putting forward brainless recitation of stats, although that is a convenient characterization of a statistic you don't like. Generally, from what I have seen you ignore a statistic you don't like or pretend that it doesn't mean anything, when absolutely it does. Of course just numbers with no factual or real world context don't mean anything. Just like a blowhard pontificating about a topic with out objective, empirical results backing up his assertions doesn't substitute for stat based and research based analysis.

Frankly, it is my biggest problem with many of your arguments. You cite anecdotal evidence or one particular match as proof of some broad assertion, but you don't ever provide empirical numbers or stats. You don't believe in them, but I am sorry I believe in them if analyzed properly more than I believe in your naked opinion divorced from numbers.

Head to Heads are important but always it needs to be put into context.  In tennis styles make matches  - the kryptonite tactic Nadal used against Federer was less effective against Djokovic (technically savvy commentators tell me it is because Federer uses a single handed back hand while Djokovic uses a double handed back hand).  That effect reveals itself when comparing the H2H of Nadal & Federer with that of Nadal & Djokovic.  Yet Federers H2H against the big hitters is far better than Nadal (who is best suited to slower court conditions): hence Federer reaches more finals at the US Open and Australian Open with Nadal getting beaten before encountering Federer.

We also have to throw in as context the fact there was a clear MkI and Mk II version of Djokovic.  With Nadal there was steady rise and fairly sharp fall (off the clay).  With Federer there was a sharp rise and a more gradual fall off.

With Murray his H2H's are much better in 3 set matches than with slam matches against the top three.  But Murray's "progression" can be divided into three phases.  The early phase where he was competitive in best of three set matches but uncompetitive in slam matches against the top three.  Then there is a focusing on the slams & Lendl was brought in in the last two years of that period.  Then there is the post Lendl / post surgery period.

At the end of the day "GOAT" debates are over simplifications.  What we have is a "narrative", a chronology, a history.  Different players have different strengths and weaknesses.  This all occurs in a background where the sport itself is changing due to racket technology, professionalism and so forth.

There was another thread where I think it was generally agreed where Federer, Nadal and Djokovic excelled in.  Federer fast medium surface, changeable conditions.  Nadal clay, slow conditions.  Djokovic medium - slow conditions, reproducible conditions.  Given those conditions in their peak period they would generally win.  Then we can add in the likes of Sampras - fast conditions, low technology rackets ... and so forth.

Djokovic's consistency throughout the year in terms of Masters wins + his end of year tournaments wins also tells us something about the solidity of Djokovic's game, his level throughout the year and so forth.  Some sportspeople physically peak for certain periods of the year - Djokovic appears to maintain a "very high level" across the year as judged by his masters success (recent win rate of something like 3 out of 4 tournaments entered) with additional peaks in the latter end of slam tournaments.

So lots and lots of context - but making use of factual evidence including head to heads.  Without resorting to factual evidence to ground the discussion there is a tendency of some discussion to float off into cloud cuckoo land.

Er... when Fed was making the HC slam finals, Rafa was still young, age below 23. When Rafa made the HC slam finals, Fed was beaten by Rafa (AO2009 when Fed was at age 27, not past his prime), beat Fed enroute to AO finals in 2012/2014 (admittedly Fed was past 30). When Rafa made the USO finals (2010-2011, 2013) Fed wasn't there.

Your comment about Rafa not making it to face Fed at HC slams- I can say the same about Fed not making it to meet Rafa at the USOs from 2010 onwards. Also there's no guarantee that Fed would beat Rafa back then had Rafa made the HC slam finals! Its not like Rafa hadnt beaten Fed on the HCs then.

Who said anything about Fed beating Rafa on HC grand slam finals ... Rafa's kryptonite tactic suggests Rafa beats Federer at the AO and challenges strongly Federer at the USO (where conditions are faster and wind more variable at the US which favours Federer - but Rafa still has a somewhat blunted form of kryptonite).  However Rafa's path to the final / semifinal is more difficult than Federer's path, because Federer was superior than Rafa at dispatching the fast heavy servers.

One also needs to consider that Rafa's peak performances at the US Open (especially) and AO were not physically sustainable by his body - so peak Rafa at the Hard Courts was for a short period and this too needs to be taken into consideration in the overall assessment.  Peak Djokovic (Mk II) version would however beat a majority of the time peak / high performing Rafa at the AO and USO in very gruelling matches.  High performing Rafa beats peak Djokovic on the clay.

Both Fed and Rafa also had years where they dominated throughout, though they never had dominated on every surface - Fed never on clay and Rafa never on indoor HCs.

Djoko's 2015 stands alone as he's no.1 on each surface but the only flaw was he not winning the FO. He won 100% on grass, 80% on clay and 89% on HCs. Fed and Rafa could dominate on two surfaces and be no.2 on the third surface but never dominate on all surfaces.

Well, like I said, Rafa wasnt ready for the HC slams earlier on; from 2010 onwards, which fast heavy server could trouble Rafa at the USO??

How do you get peak Djoko > peak Rafa at the HC slams? So Rafa beating Djoko twice at USO when Djoko wasnt at his peak? Djoko beating Rafa at AO2012 and USO2011 when both Djoko and Rafa were at their peaks? I seriously dont think Rafa was at his peak either, at USO2011 and AO2012 when he was clearly lacking in confidence when facing Djoko after five consecutive defeats in their finals.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:It becomes subjective then doesn't it? E.g the argument becomes entrenched in "Federer lost to Nadal because his peak was over and Nadal lost to Djokovic because his peak was over and Djokovic was losing to begin with because he hadn't peaked and Murray......

You could break it down over the years when they met and what have you. However, given the age gap between Federer and his rivals makes the comparison so tricky to actually evaluate effectively. His rivals prior to the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray years are often dismissed.

I wouldn't say it was nonsense. Just hard to evaluate because of the 'peak' debate.

Nonsense is my shorthand for stuff that really doesn't tell me much. One thing I enjoy doing now & again is eviscerating statistics, only because people (usually unintentionally) misuse them. Stats should supplement your weighed up opinions, not dictate them.

You're right about subjectivity, but funny enough I respect a subjective opinion from an intelligent person far more than I do statistics.

Just for balance, Masters wins at the same age is a good one that makes sense (see socals post).

Oh I agree on stats that sometimes they don't quite fit the argument one tries to make.

I think what I marvel at this the frequency these 4 have met. 208 in total. It's insane!

Stats, like a sales reps detail aid, should support the story not be the story. However, we live in a world of numbers and quick to find detail so there are trends that can be found by looking at data. But for most of the discussions on here stats aren't needed as we're often discussing opinion based notions...who is best, why has A got worse, why has B not come on as expected, when did C start to decline, etc.

I use stats quite a bit but only where they support an argument position I feel can be made. The beauty of numbers if put well together is that they reinforce the point made rather than everything being said from gut instinct. But sure there's a place for that too.

At the end of the day this is just informed banter in a virtual bar/coffee shop. Guys (and girls!) who like tennis, who like expressing what they like/hate about the sport. Thankfully we have a good stage of players before us to discuss...although I do worry for the game once the big 4 have gone! Who is going to be:

- the proponent of artistry?
- the proponent of grit & determination?
- the proponent of lethal consistency?
- the proponent of variety set against the need for consistency?

Indeed I am still waiting for the next Alex Bogdanovic:

Wiki of Pedia wrote:Aleksa "Alex" Bogdanovic (22 May 1984) Serbian-born British tennis player. He became a professional in 2002, with a career-high ranking of World No. 108, which he achieved in June 2007. Bogdanovic has competed mainly in the Challenger Tour. He qualified for the 2004 US Open, losing in the first round. He received wildcards to Wimbledon every year from 2002 to 2009, losing in the first round each time.

Bogdanovic is generally regarded as a player who has never fulfilled his potential. The Times writes that "Bogdanovic has long been regarded as a player too satisfied by failure and in denial of the true facts of tennis life."

His record at Wimbledon forms a beautiful statistic that may never be repeated.

If only Britain had waited for the next Serbian born tennis player to poach

Oh I agree lydian. Stats are not just a hard cold truth that universally proves the point all the time. As you say it supports a view not be the view.

Some stats, however are a hard cold truth.

Interestingly of the stats. Of the 208 encounters between those 4...89 have been finals of tournaments! So over 42% of the matches have decided titles.

Nore Staat wrote:


So lots and lots of context - but making use of factual evidence including head to heads.  Without resorting to factual evidence to ground the discussion there is a tendency of some discussion to float off into cloud cuckoo land.

Great line and exactly what I believe. Context is hugely important but if you don't have some grounding in objective numbers than anyone can say anything and there is nothing to discern if one opinion is worth more than someone else's who is just basing it completely on their eyeball impressions.

socal1976 wrote:I disagree MMT1, why does it bear no relevance, sure you need a context to the facts maybe one player was well passed it when another came in, or maybe one player only played and beat up on the younger version of his opponent and then retired. But if you have two players who were at or near their peaks at similar times and if they played a large number of matches like the big 4 rivalries it becomes more dispositive.

Tennis is not boxing - champions are not determined by who specifically beats whom. They are determined by who wins tournaments. Even in the sliver of cases you cited where H2H might be considered, they don't come into consideration unless their results are the same. So why reach around results to evaluate H2H when you have the results in the first place.

MMT1 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree MMT1, why does it bear no relevance, sure you need a context to the facts maybe one player was well passed it when another came in, or maybe one player only played and beat up on the younger version of his opponent and then retired. But if you have two players who were at or near their peaks at similar times and if they played a large number of matches like the big 4 rivalries it becomes more dispositive.

Tennis is not boxing - champions are not determined by who specifically beats whom.  They are determined by who wins tournaments.  Even in the sliver of cases you cited where H2H might be considered, they don't come into consideration unless their results are the same.  So why reach around results to evaluate H2H when you have the results in the first place.  

Ok in hierarchy I have for determining greatness:
1 slams
2 total weeks at number 1
3 year end number 1s
4. Number of masters
5. Number of total tournaments 
6. Total wins and win loss percentage
7. H2h against other contemporary greats

I think it still is a fair measure in what in school we used to call the totality of facts. Some are weighted more but that doesn't mean everything doesn't get measured on the scales.

socal1976 wrote:Again broadly over generalizing, so what you claim is the subjective opinion of expert is actually the expert studying OBJECTIVE FACTS AND STATS and then telling you what opinion he has on that empirical evidence. So you believe your expert who has studied things like statistics and objective results is entitled to look and cite statistics in forming the opinion he is going to give to you. Well then what is different with looking at the same things you want your expert opinion to look at? You concede that the expert you want to rely on should do his research into the numbers, but what if we want to look beyond his opinion and are smart enough to look at the numbers or the evidence or objective facts ourselves? Tennis isn't quantum physics.

Despite your characterization nobody is putting forward brainless recitation of stats, although that is a convenient characterization of a statistic you don't like. Generally, from what I have seen you ignore a statistic you don't like or pretend that it doesn't mean anything, when absolutely it does. Of course just numbers with no factual or real world context don't mean anything. Just like a blowhard pontificating about a topic with out objective, empirical results backing up his assertions doesn't substitute for stat based and research based analysis.

Frankly, it is my biggest problem with many of your arguments. You cite anecdotal evidence or one particular match as proof of some broad assertion, but you don't ever provide empirical numbers or stats. You don't believe in them, but I am sorry I believe in them if analyzed properly more than I believe in your naked opinion divorced from numbers.

All opinion is based on input. Where else do you think your opinions come from?

Statistics is an incredibly limited and unreliable part of that input. Mostly (but not wholly) I find that people who run to stats repeatedly are probably quite shaky on the fundamentals - it takes no real expertise to regurgitate them.

Nore Staat wrote:If only Britain had waited for the next Serbian born tennis player to poach

It is not like they did not try:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jun/21/tennis.gdnsport3

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Again broadly over generalizing, so what you claim is the subjective opinion of expert is actually the expert studying OBJECTIVE FACTS AND STATS and then telling you what opinion he has on that empirical evidence. So you believe your expert who has studied things like statistics and objective results is entitled to look and cite statistics in forming the opinion he is going to give to you. Well then what is different with looking at the same things you want your expert opinion to look at? You concede that the expert you want to rely on should do his research into the numbers, but what if we want to look beyond his opinion and are smart enough to look at the numbers or the evidence or objective facts ourselves? Tennis isn't quantum physics.

Despite your characterization nobody is putting forward brainless recitation of stats, although that is a convenient characterization of a statistic you don't like. Generally, from what I have seen you ignore a statistic you don't like or pretend that it doesn't mean anything, when absolutely it does. Of course just numbers with no factual or real world context don't mean anything. Just like a blowhard pontificating about a topic with out objective, empirical results backing up his assertions doesn't substitute for stat based and research based analysis.

Frankly, it is my biggest problem with many of your arguments. You cite anecdotal evidence or one particular match as proof of some broad assertion, but you don't ever provide empirical numbers or stats. You don't believe in them, but I am sorry I believe in them if analyzed properly more than I believe in your naked opinion divorced from numbers.

All opinion is based on input. Where else do you think your opinions come from?

Statistics is an incredibly limited and unreliable part of that input. Mostly (but not wholly) I find that people who run to stats repeatedly are probably quite shaky on the fundamentals - it takes no real expertise to regurgitate them.

72% of people would agree with you.