Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[Federberg]

The final thing... and this is always something that bugs me a little. Using this sort of criteria would indicate it's better to lose in straight sets or even better, never make the final in the first place. I'll never be able to marry up the fact that losing early is somehow better than losing late in a tournament.

Totally agree with you. That's one of the fallacies that gets parried around on forums that doesn't seem to make much sense in the cold light of day

Somehow, this doesn't sound at all familiar to me, but I agree, it's a boneheaded thing to say or think.

The reason I said that (if your comment about non-familiarity was directed at me) is because I've always maintained it's rather odd to penalise Federer in the Fedal H2H debate for being good enough to consistently challenge Rafa on clay. Remember most of those clay matches were finals. If he was not quite as good on clay his H2H would be dramatically better. Look... Rafa beats him like a drum.. but how can we reconcile the fact that if Roger wasn't as good his H2H would be better? It's absurd to me :blush:

How many other players throughout history have been protected by vastly inferior performance on a specific surface and thus maintain more respectable H2H's against their rivals... Just my view

 

[Moxie]

The final thing... and this is always something that bugs me a little. Using this sort of criteria would indicate it's better to lose in straight sets or even better, never make the final in the first place. I'll never be able to marry up the fact that losing early is somehow better than losing late in a tournament.

Totally agree with you. That's one of the fallacies that gets parried around on forums that doesn't seem to make much sense in the cold light of day

Somehow, this doesn't sound at all familiar to me, but I agree, it's a boneheaded thing to say or think.

The reason I said that (if your comment about non-familiarity was directed at me) is because I've always maintained it's rather odd to penalise Federer in the Fedal H2H debate for being good enough to consistently challenge Rafa on clay. Remember most of those clay matches were finals. If he was not quite as good on clay his H2H would be dramatically better. Look... Rafa beats him like a drum.. but how can we reconcile the fact that if Roger wasn't as good his H2H would be better? It's absurd to me :blush:

How many other players throughout history have been protected by vastly inferior performance on a specific surface and thus maintain more respectable H2H's against their rivals... Just my view

My post was directed at either you or BB. Thanks for clarifying. When you say it like that, I have heard a few say, over the years, that if he weren't as good on clay his H2H would be better v. Rafa. But it is an absurd thing to say, because it essentially says 'If he weren't as great, he would have looked greater on paper.' Ridiculous. I guess the notion that the Baron mentions of losing early or losing in straight sets is directed at some of the same thinking. It's certainly not the mentality of a great champion, and I can see why britbox called it out in frustration. Luckily, though, I don't think we've had a lot of that around at TF.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Federer weren't this good on clay, he never would have won Roland Garros, which would have been a bigger chink in his armor than his H2H against Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

If Federer weren't this good on clay, he never would have won Roland Garros, which would have been a bigger chink in his armor than his H2H against Nadal.

Maybe that's too logical for some people.

 

[shawnbm]

These last few posts about H2H and clay are an example of "both/and" versus "either/or". Roger's H2H has been so upside down, in part, to Roger being better than everyone else on clay for five or six years but unable to withstand Nadal--the best ever on that surface IMO. Yet, his winning RG gave him the career slam and he did it under tremendous internal and external pressure, including being two sets down to a red-hot Tommy Haas in the quarterfinals (if memory serves), when Rafa got beat by Soderling. His prowess on clay got him that title and rightly so; it ought to have been Federer to win Paris if Nadal lost, if he truly were the next best player. That was a crowning achievement for him and he felt that pressure, yet he came through. So, why not "both/and", to wit: Roger's all-court greatness won him the French and many other major clay titles (although he lost about ten finals or more to Rafa) but it wasn't enough to beat Nadal more than twice on clay. This speaks well of both hall of fame players. I would hate to see that Roger have the clay record of McEnroe or Sampras--with 16 slams in 20 major finals (but not a one in Paris). He would merely be two majors ahead of Sampras and have a huge hole in his record.

 

[Federberg]

If Federer weren't this good on clay, he never would have won Roland Garros, which would have been a bigger chink in his armor than his H2H against Nadal.

Agreed. I think some folks make far more of the H2H than is necessary. At the end of the day, you go out to win titles first and foremost. That's what you dream of as a kid. H2H is a means to an end, certainly not the end in itself

 

[britbox]

The final thing... and this is always something that bugs me a little. Using this sort of criteria would indicate it's better to lose in straight sets or even better, never make the final in the first place. I'll never be able to marry up the fact that losing early is somehow better than losing late in a tournament.

Totally agree with you. That's one of the fallacies that gets parried around on forums that doesn't seem to make much sense in the cold light of day

Somehow, this doesn't sound at all familiar to me, but I agree, it's a boneheaded thing to say or think.

The reason I said that (if your comment about non-familiarity was directed at me) is because I've always maintained it's rather odd to penalise Federer in the Fedal H2H debate for being good enough to consistently challenge Rafa on clay. Remember most of those clay matches were finals. If he was not quite as good on clay his H2H would be dramatically better. Look... Rafa beats him like a drum.. but how can we reconcile the fact that if Roger wasn't as good his H2H would be better? It's absurd to me :blush:

How many other players throughout history have been protected by vastly inferior performance on a specific surface and thus maintain more respectable H2H's against their rivals... Just my view

My post was directed at either you or BB. Thanks for clarifying. When you say it like that, I have heard a few say, over the years, that if he weren't as good on clay his H2H would be better v. Rafa. But it is an absurd thing to say, because it essentially says 'If he weren't as great, he would have looked greater on paper.' Ridiculous. I guess the notion that the Baron mentions of losing early or losing in straight sets is directed at some of the same thinking. It's certainly not the mentality of a great champion, and I can see why britbox called it out in frustration. Luckily, though, I don't think we've had a lot of that around at TF.

Ok, I'll explain...

The thinking is based on several things...

Such as posters indicating that Federer's legacy is somehow diminished because he lost certain finals...

Such as Lendl losing 11 grand slams despite winning 8.

Such as Federer's less than stellar record in 5 set matches.

Such as people preferring a player to lose in an earlier round rather than face another player they would be favourites to lose to.

..etc ..etc.

Now, my line of thinking is that losing a 5 setter is better than losing a 3 setter.
Losing in a final is better than losing in a semi-final.
Losing to a specific player in a later round is better than losing to a lesser player earlier, regardless of stats, H2Hs etc...

Lendl gets a big knock from some quarters because he lost 11 grand slam finals. He wouldn't get those knocks if he lost in a semi-final because his final stats would be better. Give me a final record of 8-11 over a final record of 7-0 any day. The former trumps the latter IMO.

Federer gets knocked for losing 5 set matches. His stats would be improved if he lost in 3 or 4. How is that better?

His H2H would look better had he never won those matches shepherding him towards encounters with Nadal. Would losing to a player earlier in the tournament strengthen a legacy? Go figure.

My own thinking is totally the reverse. You've got to be in it to win it. Better to try and fail than not be in the mix to begin with.

 

[Federberg]

100% agree BB...

Perhaps when people raise these points against Federer, they have darker agendas...

 

[brokenshoelace]

100% agree BB...

Perhaps when people raise these points against Federer, they have darker agendas...

This thread is one giant agenda anyway. Everybody's view on the GOAT is influenced by the era they loved the most (hence thinking clay was a totally different sport back in the day), the player they root for, etc... Nobody's any different.

 

[Federberg]

100% agree BB...

Perhaps when people raise these points against Federer, they have darker agendas...

This thread is one giant agenda anyway. Everybody's view on the GOAT is influenced by the era they loved the most (hence thinking clay was a totally different sport back in the day), the player they root for, etc... Nobody's any different.

If you're referring to me.. I've already stated I don't believe in a GOAT...historic comparisons dip into the realm of what if... pointless as far as I'm concerned

 

[shawnbm]

britbox said it far better than I could a few posts above. That pretty much distills into a much shorter series of phrases what I could not say in my convoluted paragraphs--but with more uumph! :clap

 

[Front242]

Agreed. His post was great.

 

[brokenshoelace]

100% agree BB...

Perhaps when people raise these points against Federer, they have darker agendas...

This thread is one giant agenda anyway. Everybody's view on the GOAT is influenced by the era they loved the most (hence thinking clay was a totally different sport back in the day), the player they root for, etc... Nobody's any different.

If you're referring to me.. I've already stated I don't believe in a GOAT...historic comparisons dip into the realm of what if... pointless as far as I'm concerned

You don't have to. But your belief that clay "used to be a totally different sport" is probably stemmed from watching a different era of tennis and being influenced by it, which is what I stated above. And why would I be just referring to you? I cited a particular example because you brought it up and I was replying to you. But I'm referring to everyone, myself included. We're in denial if we think otherwise.

 

[Moxie]

Ok, I'll explain...

The thinking is based on several things...

Such as posters indicating that Federer's legacy is somehow diminished because he lost certain finals...

Such as Lendl losing 11 grand slams despite winning 8.

Such as Federer's less than stellar record in 5 set matches.

Such as people preferring a player to lose in an earlier round rather than face another player they would be favourites to lose to.

..etc ..etc.

Now, my line of thinking is that losing a 5 setter is better than losing a 3 setter.
Losing in a final is better than losing in a semi-final.
Losing to a specific player in a later round is better than losing to a lesser player earlier, regardless of stats, H2Hs etc...

Lendl gets a big knock from some quarters because he lost 11 grand slam finals. He wouldn't get those knocks if he lost in a semi-final because his final stats would be better. Give me a final record of 8-11 over a final record of 7-0 any day. The former trumps the latter IMO.

Federer gets knocked for losing 5 set matches. His stats would be improved if he lost in 3 or 4. How is that better?

His H2H would look better had he never won those matches shepherding him towards encounters with Nadal. Would losing to a player earlier in the tournament strengthen a legacy? Go figure.

My own thinking is totally the reverse. You've got to be in it to win it. Better to try and fail than not be in the mix to begin with.

Thanks for clarifying this, Baron. It has deservedly received many "likes," so many have read it, but I quote it again so no one misses it. Now that you and federberg have illuminated, I HAVE heard some of this spurious reasoning over the years. It seems to be designed around winning arguments on the internet. The product of Barca-lounger warriors. Certainly not the thinking of a champion. I agree with you…if you're not in, you can't win. And I'm sure all of the top players fancy their chances if they get to play. And how can limping away in straights ever be better than fighting on for 5 sets? Stats and H2Hs are for folks like us to argue, but the players want to play…perchance to win. Luckily, as I said before, we haven't had a lot of this hare-brained "logic" around here.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I would also like to mention one other point. Often someone or other brings up
a thread saying Federer won so many GS titles because he was playing in a weak
era. We had such a thread just a couple of months ago.

While I do not believe that Fed played in a weak era, for the sake of argument
let me assume that it is true and Fed indeed played in weak era and proceed.

What can a great player do after all? A great player can only defeat the
folks who are put on the other side of the net again and agian and collect
titles and accolades. It is not the great player's fault that other players
are weak. The great player can not manufacture a strong player by artificial
means and then beat him. So, IMO there should not be any asterisk even
assuming a player played in a weak era. The ``Most Dominanat Player''
simply figures as to how dominant a player in the era in which he played.
That is after all what can be asked of a player, isn't it.

To give you an analogy, many people would agree that there should
not be any asterisk over Bartoli's Wimbledon title or Na Li's Australian Open
title. Neither of them beat strong players. Na Li did not beat anyone inside
top 20. But, it was not Na Li's fault that Serena, Victoria or Maria did not
make it that far to stand across the net from Na Li.

Similarly, if one says that a player won so many GS titles because
he played in a weak era and therefore there should be an aserisk over
his count or his domination, it is ridiculous. After all a player can only
dominate his peers and he has no control over whether his peers are
weak or strong. If they are really weak, it is actually his peers' fault
that they did not improve their game to the extent they can give
him a run for the money.

Finally, one should also consider that it is greatness that makes
things look easy (while in reality it is not easy at all) and it is greatness
that makes opponents look like they are weak players (while in reality
they may not be weak at all).

 

[Mog]

These last few posts about H2H and clay are an example of "both/and" versus "either/or". Roger's H2H has been so upside down, in part, to Roger being better than everyone else on clay for five or six years but unable to withstand Nadal--the best ever on that surface IMO. Yet, his winning RG gave him the career slam and he did it under tremendous internal and external pressure, including being two sets down to a red-hot Tommy Haas in the quarterfinals (if memory serves), when Rafa got beat by Soderling. His prowess on clay got him that title and rightly so; it ought to have been Federer to win Paris if Nadal lost, if he truly were the next best player. That was a crowning achievement for him and he felt that pressure, yet he came through. So, why not "both/and", to wit: Roger's all-court greatness won him the French and many other major clay titles (although he lost about ten finals or more to Rafa) but it wasn't enough to beat Nadal more than twice on clay. This speaks well of both hall of fame players. I would hate to see that Roger have the clay record of McEnroe or Sampras--with 16 slams in 20 major finals (but not a one in Paris). He would merely be two majors ahead of Sampras and have a huge hole in his record.

Great post Shawnbm. Couldn't be said better than this.

 

[Mog]

Totally agree with you. That's one of the fallacies that gets parried around on forums that doesn't seem to make much sense in the cold light of day

Somehow, this doesn't sound at all familiar to me, but I agree, it's a boneheaded thing to say or think.

The reason I said that (if your comment about non-familiarity was directed at me) is because I've always maintained it's rather odd to penalise Federer in the Fedal H2H debate for being good enough to consistently challenge Rafa on clay. Remember most of those clay matches were finals. If he was not quite as good on clay his H2H would be dramatically better. Look... Rafa beats him like a drum.. but how can we reconcile the fact that if Roger wasn't as good his H2H would be better? It's absurd to me :blush:

How many other players throughout history have been protected by vastly inferior performance on a specific surface and thus maintain more respectable H2H's against their rivals... Just my view

My post was directed at either you or BB. Thanks for clarifying. When you say it like that, I have heard a few say, over the years, that if he weren't as good on clay his H2H would be better v. Rafa. But it is an absurd thing to say, because it essentially says 'If he weren't as great, he would have looked greater on paper.' Ridiculous. I guess the notion that the Baron mentions of losing early or losing in straight sets is directed at some of the same thinking. It's certainly not the mentality of a great champion, and I can see why britbox called it out in frustration. Luckily, though, I don't think we've had a lot of that around at TF.

Ok, I'll explain...

The thinking is based on several things...

Such as posters indicating that Federer's legacy is somehow diminished because he lost certain finals...

Such as Lendl losing 11 grand slams despite winning 8.

Such as Federer's less than stellar record in 5 set matches.

Such as people preferring a player to lose in an earlier round rather than face another player they would be favourites to lose to.

..etc ..etc.

Now, my line of thinking is that losing a 5 setter is better than losing a 3 setter.
Losing in a final is better than losing in a semi-final.
Losing to a specific player in a later round is better than losing to a lesser player earlier, regardless of stats, H2Hs etc...

Lendl gets a big knock from some quarters because he lost 11 grand slam finals. He wouldn't get those knocks if he lost in a semi-final because his final stats would be better. Give me a final record of 8-11 over a final record of 7-0 any day. The former trumps the latter IMO.

Federer gets knocked for losing 5 set matches. His stats would be improved if he lost in 3 or 4. How is that better?

His H2H would look better had he never won those matches shepherding him towards encounters with Nadal. Would losing to a player earlier in the tournament strengthen a legacy? Go figure.

My own thinking is totally the reverse. You've got to be in it to win it. Better to try and fail than not be in the mix to begin with.

Excellent post BB.

 

[Ricardo]

Ok, I'll explain...

The thinking is based on several things...

Such as posters indicating that Federer's legacy is somehow diminished because he lost certain finals...

Such as Lendl losing 11 grand slams despite winning 8.

Such as Federer's less than stellar record in 5 set matches.

Such as people preferring a player to lose in an earlier round rather than face another player they would be favourites to lose to.

..etc ..etc.

Now, my line of thinking is that losing a 5 setter is better than losing a 3 setter.
Losing in a final is better than losing in a semi-final.
Losing to a specific player in a later round is better than losing to a lesser player earlier, regardless of stats, H2Hs etc...

Lendl gets a big knock from some quarters because he lost 11 grand slam finals. He wouldn't get those knocks if he lost in a semi-final because his final stats would be better. Give me a final record of 8-11 over a final record of 7-0 any day. The former trumps the latter IMO.

Federer gets knocked for losing 5 set matches. His stats would be improved if he lost in 3 or 4. How is that better?

His H2H would look better had he never won those matches shepherding him towards encounters with Nadal. Would losing to a player earlier in the tournament strengthen a legacy? Go figure.

My own thinking is totally the reverse. You've got to be in it to win it. Better to try and fail than not be in the mix to begin with.

Thanks for clarifying this, Baron. It has deservedly received many "likes," so many have read it, but I quote it again so no one misses it. Now that you and federberg have illuminated, I HAVE heard some of this spurious reasoning over the years. It seems to be designed around winning arguments on the internet. The product of Barca-lounger warriors. Certainly not the thinking of a champion. I agree with you…if you're not in, you can't win. And I'm sure all of the top players fancy their chances if they get to play. And how can limping away in straights ever be better than fighting on for 5 sets? Stats and H2Hs are for folks like us to argue, but the players want to play…perchance to win. Luckily, as I said before, we haven't had a lot of this hare-brained "logic" around here.

you still don't get the logic in this .... sigh

 

[brokenshoelace]

Re: Weak era.

It's laughable to say Federer competed in a weak era while glorifying Laver's accomplishments. Likewise, it's even more laughable to talk about homogenization of the surfaces now, while disregarding that hard court was virtually a non factor in Laver's day, and one of his calendar slams (if not both) consisted of winning 3 slams on grass.

 

[Federberg]

That's a good point BS