Federer, Djokovic And Murray's H2H Against The Top 20

First topic message reminder :

To win tournaments you have to beat the best. The best is the present top 20. The best indicator of a players chances of beating another player are perhaps indicated by their previous H2H's. History is past. A positive H2H against a retired player or a player who has lost form and slipped down the rankings is of little interest for future performance. Federer's 17 slams, Nadal's 12, Dkocovic's 6 and Murray's 1 are safely in the bank but to add to their collection will mean beating their closest rivals today. Also their closest rivals will take heart from previous wins or get discourages from previous losses. This information can be found on the ATP site however it has not been amalgamated into this easy to read form. I have taken the trouble to do this for you. I would suggest anyone sensitive to cold, hard numbers to look away now!

This is the H2H of Federer, Djokovic and Murray against the present top 20 (Nadal's can be found here https://www.606v2.com/t45164-nadal-s-h2h-against-top-20.

Federer

Djokovic 16-13
Murray 9-11
Ferrer 14-0
Nadal 10-20
Berdych 11-6
Tsonga 9-4
Del Potro 13-4
Gasquet 10-2
Wawrinka 13-1
Haas 10-3
Cilic 4-0
Nishikori 1-1
Tipsarevic 6-0
Raonic 4-0
Almagro 5-0
Simon 4-2
Kohlschrieber 6-0
Querryey 2-0
Monaco 4-0

-----

Djokovic

Murray 11-7
Federer 13-16
Ferrer 10-5
Nadal 15-20
Berdych 13-2
Tsonga 10-5
Del Potro 8-3
Gasquet 7-1
Wawrinka 12-2
Haas 5-3
Cilic 7-0
Nishikori 1-1
Tipsarevic 5-2
Raonic Never played
Almagro 3-0
Simon 6-1
Kohlshrieber 3-1
Querrey 2-0
Monaco 7-0

----

Murray

Djokovic 7-11
Federer 11-9
Ferrer 7-5
Nadal 5-13
Berdych 4-5
Tsonga 7-1
Del Potro 5-2
Gasquet 5-3
Wawrinka 8-5
Haas 2-1
Cilic 8-1
Nishikori 3-0
Tipsarevic 5-3
Raonic 1-2
Almagro 3-1
Simon 11-1
Kohlshreiber 0-1
Querrey 5-1
Monaco 2-2

Please point out any typing errors. And no name calling if you are upset with the numbers...

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Where do you draw line with H2H's?
As results past, present and even future will show is that anyone on their given day can beat anyone regardless of rank.

Where? At the point where they're being used to prove something that they don't actually show!

I think you're arguing against a position I don't hold though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Head-to-heads are useful form pointers at times without a doubt. However, dynamics in the game changes and so the importance of head-to-heads are somewhat diluted. 

Years ago Djokovic never had great success over Federer and up to a point your money (looking at head-to-heads) would have been on Federer but now it has gone full circle. This is similarly the case of Djokovic V Nadal. If we look at the head-to-head of Murray V Nadal then you would say Murray has no chance if they meet at Wimbledon. However, the dynamics have changed in Murray's game since they played their previous matches as in Andy has Lendl has a coach, has morew self-belief and is now a slam winner. Those all make a difference and so you would take the head-to-heads with more salt.

Good post.

I think some people are recoiling too far about H2H.

Why do we know the Djokovic - Nadal dynamic has changed? Because the H2H has gone from 16-4 (?) to 20-16.

Too much is often read into H2Hs but they're not without value.

H2H's are very interesting in my view, there's plenty of debates to be had about what they tell us about match-ups, differences of surfaces, comparative career trajectories, outright excellence (or not) of the player, bogey-men, funny runs when X seems to play Y every other week and so-on.  They are worthy of many threads - HM is spot on.  I would never feel embarrassed asking a legitimate question about an H2H without any agenda, nor should johnyjeep or anyone else.

If you want to do a real h2h that actually reflects current trends, you should take the last 2 years and only use the h2h in that time.  Federer is now an old man in tennis terms, his h2h gained from when he was the greatest (and so far the very best we have ever seen) is not relevant now.  Similarly, in 3 years time, Nadal's current h2h will be equally meaningless.

Use the last 2 years as a marker, and against ALL opponents, not just the top 20, and then I may be interested.  And every year, update it with the 2 year cut off point.  That is something that everyone can enjoy, but of course, this thread had nothing to do with that, did it?

to actually win a grand slam (assuming you are seeded), the proportion (or %) of seeded players you will face will be very likely higher than if you get knocked out in the 1st week (after playing mainly unseeded players)

_homogenised_ wrote:If you want to do a real h2h that actually reflects current trends, you should take the last 2 years and only use the h2h in that time.  Federer is now an old man in tennis terms, his h2h gained from when he was the greatest (and so far the very best we have ever seen) is not relevant now.  Similarly, in 3 years time, Nadal's current h2h will be equally meaningless.

Use the last 2 years as a marker, and against ALL opponents, not just the top 20, and then I may be interested.  And every year, update it with the 2 year cut off point.  That is something that everyone can enjoy, but of course, this thread had nothing to do with that, did it?

I agree with you that career h2h's are meaningless, but I thought of developing your idea.

If you trim that back to a year, making it even more topical, that would work better.

Even better, rather than plough through all the h2h's you could award points for each win, and by awarding more for late-tournament wins you most likely reflect the difficulty of that win.

Then you could list all the players in order of their points tallies and see who looks to be best, 2nd best, and so on.

It's a great idea. Why hasn't anyone done this before?

barrystar wrote:H2H's are very interesting in my view, there's plenty of debates to be had about what they tell us about match-ups, differences of surfaces, comparative career trajectories, outright excellence (or not) of the player, bogey-men, funny runs when X seems to play Y every other week and so-on.  They are worthy of many threads - HM is spot on.  I would never feel embarrassed asking a legitimate question about an H2H without any agenda, nor should johnyjeep or anyone else.

My thoughts exactly!

Match ups are one of the things that make tennis so interesting. I can't think of another sport where the respective skill sets of the competitors are such a key factor (the closest I can think of is the blend of a rugby union team and the kind of mismatches that can occur when you get forwards v backs).

I think it's fascinating that Murray has a losing H2H to Berdych, Berdych has a losing H2H to Del Potro but Del Potro has a losing H2H to Murray. What dynamics are at play here? I love that kind of thing.

The Top 4 have always insisted that any match starts at 0-0 and they are quite capable of beating each other as the much-maligned H2Hs show.

Well well bogbrush ..... I see you've somehow moved the argument on from a set of ultimately meaningless stats to a perfectly logical system by which the respective abilities of all players can be accurately measured on a consistent and universal basis. And you have done this seemingly in the blink of an eye, without even the need to apply the six degrees of separation thought process. 

Perhaps we could refer to your idea as a "Ranking Table" (or something similar ....??)

Mind you bb, I can't help but think that with such a rational approach to these weighty matters you might just find that this particular Forum is perhaps not for you .......

You'd also have to do it by surface and indoor/outdoor... a h2h means nothing otherwise.

bogbrush wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:If you want to do a real h2h that actually reflects current trends, you should take the last 2 years and only use the h2h in that time.  Federer is now an old man in tennis terms, his h2h gained from when he was the greatest (and so far the very best we have ever seen) is not relevant now.  Similarly, in 3 years time, Nadal's current h2h will be equally meaningless.

Use the last 2 years as a marker, and against ALL opponents, not just the top 20, and then I may be interested.  And every year, update it with the 2 year cut off point.  That is something that everyone can enjoy, but of course, this thread had nothing to do with that, did it?

I agree with you that career h2h's are meaningless, but I thought of developing your idea.

If you trim that back to a year, making it even more topical, that would work better.

Even better, rather than plough through all the h2h's you could award points for each win, and by awarding more for late-tournament wins you most likely reflect the difficulty of that win.

Then you could list all the players in order of their points tallies and see who looks to be best, 2nd best, and so on.

It's a great idea. Why hasn't anyone done this before?

Too good.



emancipator

lags72 wrote:Well well bogbrush ..... I see you've somehow moved the argument on from a set of ultimately meaningless stats to a perfectly logical system by which the respective abilities of all players can be accurately measured on a consistent and universal basis. And you have done this seemingly in the blink of an eye, without even the need to apply the six degrees of separation thought process. 

Perhaps we could refer to your idea as a "Ranking Table" (or something similar ....??)

Mind you bb, I can't help but think that with such a rational approach to these weighty matters you might just find that this particular Forum is perhaps not for you .......

"Ranking Table". I like that! You could do all sorts of things with that and I guess any player who was the best as measured by that for a very long time would obviously be higher rated than his contemporaries.

You're too kind, with ideas like that from you I think there's a place for logical thinkers on here despite what some articles would make us think.

Cheers bb.

I was all set to submit this for consideration by the ATP ; but in fairness it was your idea so I must stand back and leave it to you to take any credit should they choose to implement such a radical scheme.

(but may I just ask if you would please try and get me a bit of recognition for coming up with the 'Ranking Table' name .....?)

falzy21 wrote:FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!!!!!!!!
This thread is literally just 3 tables of statistics and we have a moderator, and everyone else with an apparent hatred of "Rafa Fans" slagging it off. Its supposed to encourage respectful debate, far as i can see its evidence of how stellar the top 4 have been against other opposition,  I see no reason to attack the OP or the article.
Nadals just won a grand slam, coming from seven months off, OK yeah people are excited, thats not a crime or an insult to people who dont like him, theyve had little to get excited for for a while. Ganging up on their articles offering nothing about the article but inane comments about the quality of their writing is ridiculous.

There is not hatred on this thread, and the excitement level has gone over board, he already started a vague Nadal's h2h stats against top 20 opponents and now another one here, whats the purpose of it? to wind up other fans, and if thats the case then he is gonna get some stick back.

Red wrote:I still don't see why people are getting so angry at Hawkeye and saying snide comments. You don't have to read, or comment on the article.

For me personally I actually like these stats breakdown.

We like Rosol vs Nadal threads as well, we liked Rosol's stats against Nadal as well, should we open another 1000 threads on that topic? and I did you and other Rafa fans getting agitated on that topic .

No doubt about it lags!

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Red wrote:I still don't see why people are getting so angry at Hawkeye and saying snide comments. You don't have to read, or comment on the article.

For me personally I actually like these stats breakdown.

We like Rosol vs Nadal threads as well, we liked Rosol's stats against Nadal as well, should we open another 1000 threads on that topic? and I did you and other Rafa fans getting agitated on that topic .

Well they've only played one match, but if you want to, then go ahead.

Bogbrush- Federer is ranked higher than Nadal.

As for the angry reaction to HE's recent articles, I think it's pretty clear why people have been so abusive.

_homogenised_ wrote:It doesn't mean much when he has a negative h2h vs a Rank 100 at the time.  H2H change, and top 20 change all the time.  If Nadal continues playing, he will start losing a lot more due to age, and then have a much worse record with a new top 20.  It's completely meaningless.  What good is beating the top 20 if you suffer defeats outside it?

Well Simple,lets assume and discuss the best that would suit their arguments so their hero's achievements could be broadened.

Why not disuss Nadal's H2h vs top 20 in 2005?, 2006?, 2007? 2008?, let discuss Nadal h2h in 2015, 2016, 2017 and we will see how different the picture will portray.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Head-to-heads are useful form pointers at times without a doubt. However, dynamics in the game changes and so the importance of head-to-heads are somewhat diluted. 

Years ago Djokovic never had great success over Federer and up to a point your money (looking at head-to-heads) would have been on Federer but now it has gone full circle. This is similarly the case of Djokovic V Nadal. If we look at the head-to-head of Murray V Nadal then you would say Murray has no chance if they meet at Wimbledon. However, the dynamics have changed in Murray's game since they played their previous matches as in Andy has Lendl has a coach, has morew self-belief and is now a slam winner. Those all make a difference and so you would take the head-to-heads with more salt.

U nailed it CC. 

IC- the H2H against everyone over your career so far is exactly the same as W/L ratio, which I was lambasted for mentioning.
I admit Nadals stats will go down as he declines- of course it will.

Red wrote:As for the angry reaction to HE's recent articles, I think it's pretty clear why people have been so abusive.

True. It's the inherent dishonesty that annoys people.

Red wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Red wrote:I still don't see why people are getting so angry at Hawkeye and saying snide comments. You don't have to read, or comment on the article.

For me personally I actually like these stats breakdown.

We like Rosol vs Nadal threads as well, we liked Rosol's stats against Nadal as well, should we open another 1000 threads on that topic? and I did you and other Rafa fans getting agitated on that topic .

Well they've only played one match, but if you want to, then go ahead.

The forum is for useful disucssion and not for winding up fans with the same theme with different title. 

Red wrote:IC- the H2H against everyone over your career so far is exactly the same as W/L ratio, which I was lambasted for mentioning.
I admit Nadals stats will go down as he declines- of course it will.

Sos useless conclusions could be avoided by posting these kinda stats for a player before he/she retires.

^ (This was in response to invisiblecoolers comment at 5.58)


There is no "hatred" (well I hope not...) however some disparaging comments about both these two H2H threads and strangely my right to express my views have left me disappointed. To quote bogrush (in a different context) some of the comments have been "intellectually barren" to say the least. I certainly have better things to do than join in and respond in kind.

The Nadal H2H thread was lifted from another forum and I sort of expected the same response here. ie a few "wows" but not much response. No I didn't expect an Oscar laverfan . I was hoping someone would compile one for Federer but when no-one did I did it myself. At the request of laverfan I did one for Murray and then didn't want to leave Djokovic out.

I would argue with anyone who say's H2H are of no value and also anyone that says all players are equal. Sport is competitive that's what makes it interesting. But all those posters who have put effort into denigrating my views will be pleased to know it has worked and I won't.

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:As for the angry reaction to HE's recent articles, I think it's pretty clear why people have been so abusive.

True. It's the inherent dishonesty that annoys people.

  

Indeed. 

And perhaps almost as much as the disingenuous approach (I'm using that description by way of generous interpretation of the underlying motive) I would say that it's also the tedious and sheer repetitive nature of these sort of articles  ......

This isn't like Hawkeye's normal articles at all.

True enough.

The normal articles are about having a dig at Murray.

Otherwise it's the same old waffle about Federer and Nadal that we've all heard countless times before ......

That's just rude. 

Not everyone will like all her articles. I liked this one- as it let me compare how Murray and Djokovic in particular are doing against players ranked 5-20. I wrote a bit about how the stats show the disparity in how players compete against SHBH and DHBH, noting Federer's strength against SHBH- but that was totally ignored.

I haven't liked all of Hawkeye's articles in the past, especially some on Murray- and I have said so saying why I thought they had an agenda, like Barrystar to some extent as shared his views here. 
That's different from you dismissing it as 'waffle' or Laverfan calling it 'drivel' and the reason why we don't appreciate tennis.

Red wrote:This isn't like Hawkeye's normal articles at all.

So what is HE normal article in general? windup?

Johnyjeep wrote:Yes Ryan, it is fairly interesting. But also pretty irrelevant.


 
For example it could just mean that the players have a similar schedule (over any given period of their respective careers) which means they enter the same tournaments more often than any other pairing. The lesser tournaments have fewer ranked players which means that the probability of them meeting is higher than at bigger events.


 
Another reason could be that their seeding in relation to one another will vary over the course of their career. Statistically speaking this will alter the probability of one player drawing another. The higher up the seedings you go the more likely you are to draw an individual (although this maybe countered by the fact you are less likely to meet, as there is increased opportunity to get knocked out).


 
For example. Seed 1 and 2 are never going to draw each other until the final (a simple example, I know). Seed 1 has a 50% chance of drawing seed 3 or 4. Seed 1 has a 25% chance of drawing 5, 6, 7 and 8. Seed 1 has a 12.5% chance of drawing seeds 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. And so on and so forth.


 
Depending on where any 2 players spend the bulk of their careers, this will affect the probability of them meeting. 2 players who spend the bulk in one segment will have a higher probability of drawing and playing each other more often than someone who is fairly transient in terms of ranking stability.


 
Of course, all of that could also be complete tosh – and it could be down to the luck of the draw lol



Hope that explains it a bit.

I did try to choose players though that I felt there was a reasonable chance of them playing a similiar time. For instance, of course Tommy Haas will have played Federer more often due to age and possibly a liking for Germanic tournaments. With the top 4 having been the top 4 for around 5 complete years now (give or take a few weeks here and there), I thought there was probably a reasonable chance that players of similiar vintage to Djokovic and Murray would meet a similiar number of times.

I think in terms of what can be gleaned from the raw statistics can be interesting, but you need to go deeper to read much more. When were these matches, what surface were they on, even were they any extenuating circumstances.

For instance Berdych/Murray, Berdych is 3-0 up on clay, but Murray leads 4-1 on hard courts.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:It doesn't mean much when he has a negative h2h vs a Rank 100 at the time.  H2H change, and top 20 change all the time.  If Nadal continues playing, he will start losing a lot more due to age, and then have a much worse record with a new top 20.  It's completely meaningless.  What good is beating the top 20 if you suffer defeats outside it?

Well Simple,lets assume and discuss the best that would suit their arguments so their hero's achievements could be broadened.

Why not disuss Nadal's H2h vs top 20 in 2005?, 2006?, 2007? 2008?, let discuss Nadal h2h in 2015, 2016, 2017 and we will see how different the picture will portray.

You see, this is something the Nadal fans aren't ready for.  All these media lackeys who run about devaluing Federer by insisting he is just as good as he used to be, will do the same to Nadal when he can no longer chase down every ball.  And all the annoying fanboys for a future great (who will be by that time kicking Nadal's ass) will be rubbing their glory in, and using the EXACT same arguments that Nadal fans use now against Federer. 

What I am trying to say is... what goes around, comes around.

bogbrush wrote:
Even better, rather than plough through all the h2h's you could award points for each win, and by awarding more for late-tournament wins you most likely reflect the difficulty of that win.

Then you could list all the players in order of their points tallies and see who looks to be best, 2nd best, and so on.

It's a great idea. Why hasn't anyone done this before?

Late tournament wins are like titles. Perhaps counting titles is another approach? 

It could be weighted with the rankings of players beaten enroute to the title, but WCs and LLs present challenges, like Scoville Jenkins or Devin Britton?

I have done an average ranking analysis somewhere on v2, IIRC.

hawkeye wrote: No I didn't expect an Oscar laverfan .

We could always use a 606-like star ranking.

hawkeye wrote:At the request of laverfan I did one for Murray and then didn't want to leave Djokovic out.

Thank you.

hawkeye wrote:I would argue with anyone who say's H2H are of no value and also anyone that says all players are equal. Sport is competitive that's what makes it interesting. But all those posters who have put effort into denigrating my views will be pleased to know it has worked and I won't.

Yes, it is competitive, but there is no yardstick to measure greatness. Federer considers Nadal unique and he definitely is. It is bliddy marvellous for peers to acknowledge such traits. All players are equal in one respect, they all have chosen to play Tennis as a profession.

While this article is clearly not going to win the award for article of the year, I find it extremely harmless and even slightly interesting and debate provoking. As someone said, the Berdych records of Murray and Djokovic are interesting for instance, caught my eye anyway. Of course something like that might be explained by random chance and the fact that Djokovic is a bit better player to some extent. If anything I think the stats show that matchups play a role, but that also it is a case of better players winning >50% of the matches against lesser players.

I am bit suprised this article drew so much abuse. Let's face it Hawkeye has done a lot worse. I think really Hawkeye is getting abuse for the never ending sequence of articles that proceeded this one, rather than this article itself. In fact, Barrystar, who is one of the harsh criticisers, did make a post at 2.17 that was very eloquent. And when Hawkeye gets these kind of criticisms of bias/prejudice/wummery, she rarely responds to them. Is that an acceptance that there is some truth in them?

Anyway in summary fair to criticise Hawkeye's articleS and approach in general, but not much wrong with this one. This article reminds me of when someone like Suarez or Bale gets booked for diving when they were actually fouled. A case of reputation going before them.

And another thing. Head to heads are more likely to predict the outcome of future matches when the players are similar ages. When there are big age disparities, they can swing very much from one way to the other. A player could be 4-1 up and about to lose 9 out of the next 10, I have seen this a lot. E.g. look at the H2Hs for Federer/Henman, Federer/Agassi, Connors/Lendl, there are tons of others I can't think of right now but some head to heads follow the pattern of a younger player improving until they finally get to the point that they go from being a weaker player to a better one, and some of the switches can be dramatic.

Of course if the older player is already heavily behind to a younger one, it should still be a good predictor. Since the older players isn't as likely to improve.

In the case of similar ages, I think they are a decent predictor.

In summary H2Hs are usually a good predictor provided that the losing player is of a similar age or older than the the winning player.

Even then not always. The Nadal-Djokovic head to head (between these two players of similar age) prior to 2011 was not a good predictor for the 2011 series between the pair; but I don't think that is very common.

Henman Bill.

I don't get involved in name calling because I would never go down to that childish level. There are many forums that consist of little more than slanging matches and it's disappointing when this one goes down the same route. I will have no part of that. IMO that is exactly the sort of thing that moderators should discourage.

I believe that some throw the term "wum" about in an attempt to censure views that they don't agree with. Throwing the term at a set of statistics that they may find upsetting is verging on the ridiculous. What a shame it killed most of the discussion that you've hinted could have been extracted from it.

laverfan.

Thanks for the single rose although I was sort of expecting a whole bunch considering...

hawkeye wrote:Henman Bill.

I don't get involved in name calling because I would never go down to that childish level. There are many forums that consist of little more than slanging matches and it's disappointing when this one goes down the same route. I will have no part of that. IMO that is exactly the sort of thing that moderators should discourage.

I believe that some throw the term "wum" about in an attempt to censure views that they don't agree with. Throwing the term at a set of statistics that they may find upsetting is verging on the ridiculous. What a shame it killed most of the discussion that you've hinted could have been extracted from it.

laverfan.

Thanks for the single rose although I was sort of expecting a whole bunch considering...

Final step in modus operandi; come over all hurt when rumbled and carry out a final subtle (?) adjustment of the goal posts - a textbook illustration of how it's done for anyone giving thought to taking the bait in the future.

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Even better, rather than plough through all the h2h's you could award points for each win, and by awarding more for late-tournament wins you most likely reflect the difficulty of that win.

Then you could list all the players in order of their points tallies and see who looks to be best, 2nd best, and so on.

It's a great idea. Why hasn't anyone done this before?

Late tournament wins are like titles. Perhaps counting titles is another approach? 

It could be weighted with the rankings of players beaten enroute to the title, but WCs and LLs present challenges, like Scoville Jenkins or Devin Britton?

I have done an average ranking analysis somewhere on v2, IIRC.

laverfan  : I have to ask the question, or I may never know for sure ......  

Did you genuinely not pick up the heavy (and for me, highly amusing) sarcasm in bogbrush's post here ...?

Or were you in fact refining bb's 'new' idea of an ATP Ranking Table ("Defining Excellence since 1973" and currently sponsored by Emirates) and thereby taking the irony of it all to another level ...?

Oh, the irony within the irony.
Personally I love the "Complete Calenderised Overall Calculator for H2H - Updated Points" ranking thingmybobs...or 'Complete COCH UP' for short.

lags72 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Even better, rather than plough through all the h2h's you could award points for each win, and by awarding more for late-tournament wins you most likely reflect the difficulty of that win.

Then you could list all the players in order of their points tallies and see who looks to be best, 2nd best, and so on.

It's a great idea. Why hasn't anyone done this before?

Late tournament wins are like titles. Perhaps counting titles is another approach? 

It could be weighted with the rankings of players beaten enroute to the title, but WCs and LLs present challenges, like Scoville Jenkins or Devin Britton?

I have done an average ranking analysis somewhere on v2, IIRC.

laverfan  : I have to ask the question, or I may never know for sure ......  

Did you genuinely not pick up the heavy (and for me, highly amusing) sarcasm in bogbrush's post here ...?

Or were you in fact refining bb's 'new' idea of an ATP Ranking Table ("Defining Excellence since 1973" and currently sponsored by Emirates) and thereby taking the irony of it all to another level ...?

I did. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, to diffuse the contentious issue, I tried to turn it into something useful, like steering the conversation to a related topic.

hawkeye wrote:Thanks for the single rose although I was sort of expecting a whole bunch considering...

Have a few... and a Hawaiian Lei - http://www.blackpearldesigns.net/flower-leis.html

(As long as you promise to write articles provoking debates, not wars).