Another angle on comparing tennis greats (with a pretty chart)

[El Dude]

OK, I thought you were kind of angling for the rankings system to be changed, and I was thinking that it favored higher ranked players. Meaning that it feels like it makes it harder for the players farther down to climb up, but I could absolutely be wrong. I see that you're going for a system that actually tells us who is a better player, and there have always been complaints if a player gets to #1 without a Major, for example. (More often, in the women's game, are the ones I remember...Wozniaki, Safina.) I can see now why you made the Ferrer v. Murray comparison. I'm afraid my eyes were glazing over a bit by then. I'm not great at stats, and you really are.

So, would you really like to see the point system changed? I do think that hoping to make it a better reflection of "who's better" is a dream, but a bit like chasing a unicorn.

There's a year I'd like to see you apply your formula to, because there was a great controversy around here over the YE#1. It was between Nadal and Djokovic. Rafa was the ATP YE#1, but Novak was awarded the ITF #1. Could be interesting, if you could be bothered.

Sure...but which year? 2013, maybe?

Anyhow, I think the ATP rankings are really good for what they're intended for: providing a ranking that impacts seeding and such. What they're less good at, but still pretty good at, is signifying the best player in a given year. So again in baseball terms, I was playing ideas for a more qualitative measurement, batting average vs. total hits (baseball).

 

[El Dude]

Though, I would rank these guys ahead of Marcelo Rios on an all-time list. They are close enough in points, that their slams are good enough to put them over the top. Bruguera won 2 slams. Besides, there's a clear gap from Bruguera and Jan Kodes, who won his slam because everyone boycotted Wimbledon that year.

I hear your point, but Kodes won THREE Slams...you can't fluke your way into three. If I remember correctly, at least one of them was with a strong field - and, without checking, I think two of them were.

 

[El Dude]

I really dislike when people bag on Andy's rise to #1 in late 2016. Yes, he did it when Rafa and Roger were not themselves and Novak falling off, but we could analyze almost any year and imagine different situations where we can put the rankings into question. A lot of what makes a player great is the ability to seize opportunity (as Kieran has often said). What Andy did was remarkable, and the end result is that for 41 weeks he was on top, cementing his station as being an all-time great, even if a "lesser" one.

In my own all-time rankings, Andy is firmly ensconced between the Becker-Edberg-Wilander group and ahead of Courier-Ashe-Nastase. He was a greater player than those latter three, as well as players like Hewitt, Kuerten, etc. It is an interesting placement, because it mirrors his station during the Big Four era: worst of the best and/or best of the rest. He's an all-time great, in my book.

 

[Moxie]

Sure...but which year? 2013, maybe?

Anyhow, I think the ATP rankings are really good for what they're intended for: providing a ranking that impacts seeding and such. What they're less good at, but still pretty good at, is signifying the best player in a given year. So again in baseball terms, I was playing ideas for a more qualitative measurement, batting average vs. total hits (baseball).

Oh, yes, sorry. I was pretty sure it was 2013, but then I had to look it up to make sure, and then forgot to type it. LOL!

Thanks for further explaining your ranking system, or your thoughts on the ATP system. Helpful. I do get that baseball analogy.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, yes, sorry. I was pretty sure it was 2013, but then I had to look it up to make sure, and then forgot to type it. LOL!

Thanks for further explaining your ranking system, or your thoughts on the ATP system. Helpful. I do get that baseball analogy.

I will give some more analysis on 2013 a bit later today (and try not to be too nerdy, haha), but very briefly I can tell you that in my various systems, Nadal was clearly the better player over Novak that year. Novak was consistently great, but Nadal was stratospheric; it was, in my view, his highest level of play, even if 2010 might be the overall better year (and maybe 2008 the "funnest" from a Nadalite perspective). In truth, it is too bad he started the year hurt and missed the AO, and was upset at Wimbledon, because it could have been his crown jewel--and one of the best seasons of all time--with a bit more fortune. But it was still an amazing year, regardless, and my favorite of Rafa's seasons because of the high level of play, and the fact that it was a bit of a resurgence when people were starting to question whether he was on the decline.

One stat that impresses me about 2013 over 2010 is this:

2010: 17 events, 9 finals, 7 titles
2013: 17 events, 14 finals, 10 titles

14 finals of 17 events played illustrates how good he was in 2013, especially when you consider that the 3 non-Finals were Wimbledon (grass) and two indoor (fast) hardcourt Masters, Shanghai and Paris.

Anyhow, a bit more on that later.

 

[Fiero425]

41 weeks, nearly a year in the era of the Big 3 is actually quite stupendous. I know we, including me, used to speculate about Murray vs Wawrinka. But as Stan himself said, such comparisons are actually embarrassing. Got to duff my hat to Sir Andy. I still wouldn't have him above either Borg or Sampras. That would be disrespectful to them. But at the very least we have to put him at least in the Becker - Edberg class

We talked about this a while back; the benefit of being YE #1, there's 2 months of "dead tennis!" Nothing's going on much but Davis Cup after the YEC! A lot of those weeks Murray acquired as #1 was during a period there was no defense of anything! It's the reason Novak's sitting at 428 wks., 8 YE #1's helped inflate the number!

 

[El Dude]

OK, here are some comparisons.

Nadal vs Djokovic, 2013

Hopefully that is relatively clear. The first half are some basic stats - events, finals, titles, etc. The last three statistics are my own. The colors are tournament results.

The first, TS (Title Shares) assigns values to titles only, ignoring results that didn't result in a title. As you can see, Nadal has a significant edge: Nadal 54, Novak 39.

The second, PEP (Premier Event Points), is sort of a simplified ATP Points stat: 10-20 is about equivalent to a top 10 player having a peak year; 20-30 is elite; 30-40 a #1 candidate; 40+ is truly great, with 50+ being a historically great year. The edge is a bit smaller, but still significant: Rafa 55, Novak 49.

The last, PEP%, is the percentage of PEP won of all events played. This is the "batting average" version of PEP. Rafa's edge gets larger here: Rafa 72.4%, Novak 57.0%.

The colors are, of course, the tournaments of the year. As you can see, the two combined were super dominant, but there's a lot more green in Rafa's line.

Translation (TLDR): Nadal was better in just about every statistical measurement that matters. Of course the difference isn't much in win% but he was overall more successful, earning more TS and PEP, and at a higher rate of success.

Next I'll compare Rafa's three best years: 2008, 2010, and 2013.

 

[El Dude]

OK, here's Rafa's best three years. I think you can really hone in on those "El Dude Stats" to see the difference. TS are very close for 2010 and 2013, both of which are ahead of 2008 - but not by a huge amount. PEP is even closer. But where 2013 separates itself a bit is PEP%...meaning, the quality of Rafa's play per tournament was better.

You can also see a clear progression: 2010 was better than 2008, 2013 better than 2010.

 

[Moxie]

I really dislike when people bag on Andy's rise to #1 in late 2016. Yes, he did it when Rafa and Roger were not themselves and Novak falling off, but we could analyze almost any year and imagine different situations where we can put the rankings into question. A lot of what makes a player great is the ability to seize opportunity (as Kieran has often said). What Andy did was remarkable, and the end result is that for 41 weeks he was on top, cementing his station as being an all-time great, even if a "lesser" one.

In my own all-time rankings, Andy is firmly ensconced between the Becker-Edberg-Wilander group and ahead of Courier-Ashe-Nastase. He was a greater player than those latter three, as well as players like Hewitt, Kuerten, etc. It is an interesting placement, because it mirrors his station during the Big Four era: worst of the best and/or best of the rest. He's an all-time great, in my book.

You're too nice to say it, but it's mostly Fiero, who never misses an opportunity to bring it up. Even if, as on the previous page here, it has barely anything to do with what we're discussing. LOL. He wasn't the only one, but now maybe he's about the only one left who does it. Anyway, I also subscribe to the notion that opportunism is one of the tools of greatness. Anyway, that year came down to whoever won the Year End Championship final, because it was down to those two. Murray beat Novak, so that one was pretty clear cut.

 

[Jelenafan]

View attachment 10100

OK, here's Rafa's best three years. I think you can really hone in on those "El Dude Stats" to see the difference. TS are very close for 2010 and 2013, both of which are ahead of 2008 - but not by a huge amount. PEP is even closer. But where 2013 separates itself a bit is PEP%...meaning, the quality of Rafa's play per tournament was better.

You can also see a clear progression: 2010 was better than 2008, 2013 better than 2010.

I can’t disagree with your numbers; overall it makes sense that 2013 was Nadal’s best year , with his winning the USO & 3 HC Masters, (1 in spring, 2 in the fall) as well as the FO and 2 red clay Masters. It Was probably his best HC season ever, his most balanced year.

However that 2010 was insane, only time he won 3 (count ‘em) Masters on red clay back2back2back and then the French Open & Wimbledon &capping it off with his first US0 crown. I dunno would you trade 3 slams in 2010 for a more “balanced” year in 2013?

 

[Moxie]

OK, here are some comparisons.

Nadal vs Djokovic, 2013
View attachment 10099

Hopefully that is relatively clear. The first half are some basic stats - events, finals, titles, etc. The last three statistics are my own. The colors are tournament results.

The first, TS (Title Shares) assigns values to titles only, ignoring results that didn't result in a title. As you can see, Nadal has a significant edge: Nadal 54, Novak 39.

The second, PEP (Premier Event Points), is sort of a simplified ATP Points stat: 10-20 is about equivalent to a top 10 player having a peak year; 20-30 is elite; 30-40 a #1 candidate; 40+ is truly great, with 50+ being a historically great year. The edge is a bit smaller, but still significant: Rafa 55, Novak 49.

The last, PEP%, is the percentage of PEP won of all events played. This is the "batting average" version of PEP. Rafa's edge gets larger here: Rafa 72.4%, Novak 57.0%.

The colors are, of course, the tournaments of the year. As you can see, the two combined were super dominant, but there's a lot more green in Rafa's line.

Translation (TLDR): Nadal was better in just about every statistical measurement that matters. Of course the difference isn't much in win% but he was overall more successful, earning more TS and PEP, and at a higher rate of success.

Next I'll compare Rafa's three best years: 2008, 2010, and 2013.

Thanks for doing this, and I really do appreciate your "taking requests."

 

[Moxie]

View attachment 10100

OK, here's Rafa's best three years. I think you can really hone in on those "El Dude Stats" to see the difference. TS are very close for 2010 and 2013, both of which are ahead of 2008 - but not by a huge amount. PEP is even closer. But where 2013 separates itself a bit is PEP%...meaning, the quality of Rafa's play per tournament was better.

You can also see a clear progression: 2010 was better than 2008, 2013 better than 2010.

I just wanted to say, in your response to notion that 2008 may have been the most fun one for Nadal fans...it's not just that, though it was very fun. Obviously, with the Wimbledon win, getting to #1 finally, and the OGM. I think it's mainly because of the level he was playing at on clay that year. I'm not saying it was overall his best year, because he won 3 Majors in 2010, and you make a case for 2013. I'm just saying, and I think @MargaretMcAleer is of a similar opinion and will back me up on this: I don't know if he ever played at such an amazing and consistently amazing level of tennis as he did on the clay that year. I don't even know if that is quantifiable. It's an eye test, and a memory test. I think for those of us who shout out 2008, it's because of that particular run of extraordinary level, on clay, especially.

All of the big 3 have had many great runs of being pretty unbeatable. And they also had ones of being nigh on untouchable, meaning runs of peak performance. That's pretty hard to do, and stands out in memory.

 

[Moxie]

We talked about this a while back; the benefit of being YE #1, there's 2 months of "dead tennis!" Nothing's going on much but Davis Cup after the YEC! A lot of those weeks Murray acquired as #1 was during a period there was no defense of anything! It's the reason Novak's sitting at 428 wks., 8 YE #1's helped inflate the number!

You've complained about this before, including after 2013 when Rafa had the YE#1. At least you can admit that Novak has been the beneficiary as well. And Roger, to follow that thought along. The ATP could change the rules, and suspend the accrual of weeks at #1, and meaning at all ranks, I guess, if that matters. But this would mess with the records from the past and going forward. It doesn't seem like enough to worry about.

 

[Fiero425]

You've complained about this before, including after 2013 when Rafa had the YE#1. At least you can admit that Novak has been the beneficiary as well. And Roger, to follow that thought along. The ATP could change the rules, and suspend the accrual of weeks at #1, and meaning at all ranks, I guess, if that matters. But this would mess with the records from the past and going forward. It doesn't seem like enough to worry about.

Sure! I'm not a hypocrite! Novak has benefitted by a # of things/situations which have inflated his records out of sight! IMO, after surviving the onslaught of Fedal early on, he could always depend on the Lost Gens. I & II to assist by giving him comeback opp. after comeback opp. to acquire some of those 72 Big Titles!

 

[El Dude]

I just wanted to say, in your response to notion that 2008 may have been the most fun one for Nadal fans...it's not just that, though it was very fun. Obviously, with the Wimbledon win, getting to #1 finally, and the OGM. I think it's mainly because of the level he was playing at on clay that year. I'm not saying it was overall his best year, because he won 3 Majors in 2010, and you make a case for 2013. I'm just saying, and I think @MargaretMcAleer is of a similar opinion and will back me up on this: I don't know if he ever played at such an amazing and consistently amazing level of tennis as he did on the clay that year. I don't even know if that is quantifiable. It's an eye test, and a memory test. I think for those of us who shout out 2008, it's because of that particular run of extraordinary level, on clay, especially.

All of the big 3 have had many great runs of being pretty unbeatable. And they also had ones of being nigh on untouchable, meaning runs of peak performance. That's pretty hard to do, and stands out in memory.

That makes sense - and I trust your knowledge of Rafa's game more than mine, for obvious reasons. I think the one mark on Rafa's 2008 clay season was that weird loss to Juan Carlos Ferrero at Rome. Otherwise he was perfect, winning Roland Garros, Hamburg, Monte-Carlo and Barcelona. But...it is also hard to beat 2010, when he won all four clay big titles (didn't play Barcelona...do you remember why?).

Anyhow, the numbers do reflect some of what you say. If you compare Rafa at Roland Garros in 2008 vs. 2010, he didn't drop a set in either, but in 2008 he recorded 3 bagels and 9 breadsticks. In 2010, none of either. So he was more dominant at RG in 2008 than in 2010. In 2013, he dropped a set in the 1st and 2nd round, to Daniel Brands and Martin Klizan, respectively, then took five sets to beat Novak in the SF, including a 9-7 fifth set. So in terms of dominance, it was 2008 > 2010 > 2013.

Rafa's Clay Seasons: 2008, 2010, 2013
2008: 24-1 matches, 59-4 sets, 6 bagels, 16 breadsticks
2010: 22-0 matches, 51-2 sets, 3 bagels, 6 breadsticks
2013: 39-2 matches, 90-11 sets, 8 bagels, 9 breadsticks

I didn't realize how many more clay matches he played in 2013 - that was due to adding Santiago, Sao Paulo, and Acapulco early on when he was building himself up after injury.

Anyhow, it does seem he was a bit more dominant on clay in 2008, though he still managed a perfect record in 2010 but not the other two years. UTS's Elo says his clay peak was in 2013, though that could have been due to playing more matches.

We shouldn't forget the fact that he won 8 clay titles in 2005, though 5 of those were 250s and 500s. And of course he was so good on clay, that there were many years he did the "trifecta" of Roland Garros and two Masters. 2006 was also undefeated on clay, winning RG, Rome, MC, and Barcelona. 2007 was also great, with a trifecta plus two 500s, but he lost to Roger at Hamburg.

Anyhow, I think Margaret makes a good point: that 2013 was a bit more balance in terms of surfaces with the USO and three hard Masters, but 2008 was probably his clay peak. But it is hard to beat those 7 big titles in 2013, compared to 6 in each of 2008 and 2010.

 

[Jelenafan]

That makes sense - and I trust your knowledge of Rafa's game more than mine, for obvious reasons. I think the one mark on Rafa's 2008 clay season was that weird loss to Juan Carlos Ferrero at Rome. Otherwise he was perfect, winning Roland Garros, Hamburg, Monte-Carlo and Barcelona. But...it is also hard to beat 2010, when he won all four clay big titles (didn't play Barcelona...do you remember why?).

Anyhow, the numbers do reflect some of what you say. If you compare Rafa at Roland Garros in 2008 vs. 2010, he didn't drop a set in either, but in 2008 he recorded 3 bagels and 9 breadsticks. In 2010, none of either. So he was more dominant at RG in 2008 than in 2010. In 2013, he dropped a set in the 1st and 2nd round, to Daniel Brands and Martin Klizan, respectively, then took five sets to beat Novak in the SF, including a 9-7 fifth set. So in terms of dominance, it was 2008 > 2010 > 2013.

Rafa's Clay Seasons: 2008, 2010, 2013
2008: 24-1 matches, 59-4 sets, 6 bagels, 16 breadsticks
2010: 22-0 matches, 51-2 sets, 3 bagels, 6 breadsticks
2013: 39-2 matches, 90-11 sets, 8 bagels, 9 breadsticks

I didn't realize how many more clay matches he played in 2013 - that was due to adding Santiago, Sao Paulo, and Acapulco early on when he was building himself up after injury.

Anyhow, it does seem he was a bit more dominant on clay in 2008, though he still managed a perfect record in 2010 but not the other two years. UTS's Elo says his clay peak was in 2013, though that could have been due to playing more matches.

We shouldn't forget the fact that he won 8 clay titles in 2005, though 5 of those were 250s and 500s. And of course he was so good on clay, that there were many years he did the "trifecta" of Roland Garros and two Masters. 2006 was also undefeated on clay, winning RG, Rome, MC, and Barcelona. 2007 was also great, with a trifecta plus two 500s, but he lost to Roger at Hamburg.

Anyhow, I think (edited) makes a good point: that 2013 was a bit more balance in terms of surfaces with the USO and three hard Masters, but 2008 was probably his clay peak. But it is hard to beat those 7 big titles in 2013, compared to 6 in each of 2008 and 2010.

El Dude, you're just baiting me now, LOL.

 

[Federberg]

You're too nice to say it, but it's mostly Fiero, who never misses an opportunity to bring it up. Even if, as on the previous page here, it has barely anything to do with what we're discussing. LOL. He wasn't the only one, but now maybe he's about the only one left who does it. Anyway, I also subscribe to the notion that opportunism is one of the tools of greatness. Anyway, that year came down to whoever won the Year End Championship final, because it was down to those two. Murray beat Novak, so that one was pretty clear cut.

I feel the same way about how Andy took advantage of the opportunity that year as I do about Roger taking RG after Soderling did the main business. It was ice cold. If we want to talk about a series of huge performances I look back at Roger's games against Haas and Delpo. Both of those were phenomenally clutch.

By the way... for anyone who doesn't understand how good Delpo was at his absolute best, I think that French Open match against Roger is actually his peak, not the final in Flushing later that year. He was hitting back hand winners as powerful as his forehands. Flushing was Roger's loss entirely. He lost his head and allowed Delpo to get into rallies. Last couple of sets are some of the worst in IQ degradation I've seen outside of his multiple surrenders to Rafa on hard courts. I digress, but the fact that Roger beat him on a surface that should have favoured Delpo was huge

 

[Moxie]

That makes sense - and I trust your knowledge of Rafa's game more than mine, for obvious reasons. I think the one mark on Rafa's 2008 clay season was that weird loss to Juan Carlos Ferrero at Rome. Otherwise he was perfect, winning Roland Garros, Hamburg, Monte-Carlo and Barcelona. But...it is also hard to beat 2010, when he won all four clay big titles (didn't play Barcelona...do you remember why?).

Anyhow, the numbers do reflect some of what you say. If you compare Rafa at Roland Garros in 2008 vs. 2010, he didn't drop a set in either, but in 2008 he recorded 3 bagels and 9 breadsticks. In 2010, none of either. So he was more dominant at RG in 2008 than in 2010. In 2013, he dropped a set in the 1st and 2nd round, to Daniel Brands and Martin Klizan, respectively, then took five sets to beat Novak in the SF, including a 9-7 fifth set. So in terms of dominance, it was 2008 > 2010 > 2013.

Rafa's Clay Seasons: 2008, 2010, 2013
2008: 24-1 matches, 59-4 sets, 6 bagels, 16 breadsticks
2010: 22-0 matches, 51-2 sets, 3 bagels, 6 breadsticks
2013: 39-2 matches, 90-11 sets, 8 bagels, 9 breadsticks

I didn't realize how many more clay matches he played in 2013 - that was due to adding Santiago, Sao Paulo, and Acapulco early on when he was building himself up after injury.

Anyhow, it does seem he was a bit more dominant on clay in 2008, though he still managed a perfect record in 2010 but not the other two years. UTS's Elo says his clay peak was in 2013, though that could have been due to playing more matches.

We shouldn't forget the fact that he won 8 clay titles in 2005, though 5 of those were 250s and 500s. And of course he was so good on clay, that there were many years he did the "trifecta" of Roland Garros and two Masters. 2006 was also undefeated on clay, winning RG, Rome, MC, and Barcelona. 2007 was also great, with a trifecta plus two 500s, but he lost to Roger at Hamburg.

Anyhow, I think Margaret makes a good point: that 2013 was a bit more balance in terms of surfaces with the USO and three hard Masters, but 2008 was probably his clay peak. But it is hard to beat those 7 big titles in 2013, compared to 6 in each of 2008 and 2010.

I knew as soon as I typed that something probably wasn't quantifiable, that you would try. Good job, actually.

The loss in 2008 to JCF in Rome was due to blisters. (I think it was one of the reasons that Fed fans used to complain about us Nadal fans...that we'd always have an excuse if he lost. But he really did have terrible blisters on his feet. They showed them on TV. He needed a break.)

I don't specifically remember why he didn't play Barcelona in 2010, but it was always a bit of a point of contention with Madrid. Jan Tiriac always bullied him a lot about playing Madrid, while I'm sure Rafa preferred Barcelona...the surface was more true clay. So I think it was just the conflict in the calendar, and Nadal was pressured to play Madrid. I know that ever has happened, so it was probably some version of that, that year.

I thought it was Jelenafan that said that about the balance of the wins in 2013, but maybe MM said it, too. Anyway, there were definitely plenty of other great years. That loss to Roger in Hamburg you mention was the loss that ended his record surface-streak on clay. Rafa ended Roger's surface streak on grass, in 2008 at Wimbledon. I think those surface streaks both still stand as the surface record.

 

[Moxie]

I feel the same way about how Andy took advantage of the opportunity that year as I do about Roger taking RG after Soderling did the main business. It was ice cold. If we want to talk about a series of huge performances I look back at Roger's games against Haas and Delpo. Both of those were phenomenally clutch.

By the way... for anyone who doesn't understand how good Delpo was at his absolute best, I think that French Open match against Roger is actually his peak, not the final in Flushing later that year. He was hitting back hand winners as powerful as his forehands. Flushing was Roger's loss entirely. He lost his head and allowed Delpo to get into rallies. Last couple of sets are some of the worst in IQ degradation I've seen outside of his multiple surrenders to Rafa on hard courts. I digress, but the fact that Roger beat him on a surface that should have favoured Delpo was huge

That's definitely one of the things I'm thinking of when I talk of great champions and seizing opportunities. He felt the pressure of it, for sure. I think Haas had a MP against him in the QF. But he got the job done, just like he knew he had to.

 

[El Dude]

El Dude, you're just baiting me now, LOL.

My apologies, Jelenafan. I will serve my penance by creating a shrine to Holger Rune.