Internazionali BNL d'Italia - Rome ATP Masters 1000, 2019

[mrzz]

See Rafa vs. Tits semifinal preview from tennis.com

According to it, so far Rafa has 39 losses on clay. Of that 13 were to one handed backhanders and 26 were to two-handed backhanders.
@mrzz claimed that Rafa lost to one handers more often than to two handers. That does not tally with this (unless he is perhaps talking about the losses in all court types; even then I doubt it).

My point is that he statistically loses more to one handers, since there are more two handers out there, at least in a 3 to 1 ratio. This is true in all court types and specifically on clay as well.

 

[Moxie]

5 matches and 10 sets is not harder than 7 and 21. And yes there are still one or two easy matches at most MS events for the top guys. It's always been a silly argument pushed forth by Nadal and Djokovic fans for an obvious reason.

That's not my argument. There are plenty have commentators/analysts that put it forth, which is where I got it from. If you weren't so stubborn, you could look at it for what it is. It's not merely a question of # of sets. It's that you face higher ranked players earlier (than at Majors) and with no rest between days. By virtue of the number of players in Majors and qualifiers, it's possible to go quite deep without facing a high ranked player. (I seem to remember that as a bone of contention amongst Fed fans when Rafa won USO 2017.) Not possible in the MS 1000s. I'm not trying to say that they're bigger than Majors, just that they're WAY bigger than the smaller events, and near-equivalent to the top 5 other events. But I don't expect your biased agenda to cop to that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

My point is that he statistically loses more to one handers, since there are more two handers out there, at least in a 3 to 1 ratio. This is true in all court types and specifically on clay as well.

Do you have data to support your point? See @tented's post regarding this. But, that includes all court types. Based on that it looks like the difference is statistically not significant. (82% vs. 83%).

 

[Moxie]

My point is that he statistically loses more to one handers, since there are more two handers out there, at least in a 3 to 1 ratio. This is true in all court types and specifically on clay as well.

But apparently he does lose more to 2-handers, so you are right. (Read back.)

 

[DarthFed]

That's not my argument. There are plenty have commentators/analysts that put it forth, which is where I got it from. If you weren't so stubborn, you could look at it for what it is. It's not merely a question of # of sets. It's that you face higher ranked players earlier (than at Majors) and with no rest between days. By virtue of the number of players in Majors and qualifiers, it's possible to go quite deep without facing a high ranked player. (I seem to remember that as a bone of contention amongst Fed fans when Rafa won USO 2017.) Not possible in the MS 1000s. I'm not trying to say that they're bigger than Majors, just that they're WAY bigger than the smaller events, and near-equivalent to the top 5 other events. But I don't expect your biased agenda to cop to that.

Yeah I have the agenda. You clearly have none in this argument right

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't say it was a "tough match." My argument is against "annihilation" and I think we both know what that means. This wasn't one.

Ass kicking, beatdown, annihilation, whatever you want to call it. When you lose in straights at a major and they aren't all tiebreaks it is not a tough match. When the last two sets are 6-3, 6-1 that is a walk in the park.

 

[Moxie]

Ass kicking, beatdown, annihilation, whatever you want to call it. When you lose in straights at a major and they aren't all tiebreaks it is not a tough match. When the last two sets are 6-3, 6-1 that is a walk in the park.

Again, I never said it was a tough match. I wish I were bored enough to dredge up all of the scorelines when you told Fiero and others that Roger hadn't suffered a "beatdown." But you know there'd be something comparable.

 

[DarthFed]

Again, I never said it was a tough match. I wish I were bored enough to dredge up all of the scorelines when you told Fiero and others that Roger hadn't suffered a "beatdown." But you know there'd be something comparable.

When he loses like that I definitely consider it a beatdown. Would you consider this AO a beatdown at 6-3, 6-2, 6-3? I definitely would.

 

[Moxie]

When he loses like that I definitely consider it a beatdown. Would you consider this AO a beatdown at 6-3, 6-2, 6-3? I definitely would.

For sure, but that's far different, now, isn't it?

 

[Fiero425]

When he loses like that I definitely consider it a beatdown. Would you consider this AO a beatdown at 6-3, 6-2, 6-3? I definitely would.

It's at the top of Nole's "Beat Down" list! It was his closest rival at a major final all things being equal! IMO it surpasses Qatar from 3 yrs ago! Nole was in the zone, Nadal playing well enough, but was overwhelmed in every aspect of the game! In matches like that Djokovic is cracking the ball on both sides, serve volleying occasionally, acing his opponent at will, and in general making Nadal and his fans feel powerless! I can watch them over and over again! :whistle:

 

[DarthFed]

For sure, but that's far different, now, isn't it?

18-8 in games vs 19-9.

 

[Moxie]

18-8 in games vs 19-9.

Don't be an idiot, and don't think I am. Tennis isn't basketball. Games don't accumulate. It's a very different scoreline in our game.

 

[DarthFed]

Don't be an idiot, and don't think I am. Tennis isn't basketball. Games don't accumulate. It's a very different scoreline in our game.

I'm not following here. How is 2015 a significantly less beatdown than this AO? I do agree this AO was slightly more lopsided but I'd say the game tally isn't exactly an awful measure.

 

[Moxie]

Oh, you follow, you pig-headed Greek.

 

[El Dude]

There is an argument that they're harder than Slams, as you well know, in a way, or at least as hard, in their way. All of the top players (basically) play, the field is small and limited to the top, and they don't have the day off. There is nowhere to hide, as there is with Slams, when you play lower ranked players to start, and you do get the day off. Plus, as we know, the Bo5 format favors the higher ranked/better players. The MS1000s are not "in the middle." They are way above the 250s and 500s, as you say, and they are arguably trickier than Majors, as I mentioned, and than the YEC, you could argue. At least at YEC you get a second and possibly a 3rd chance, even after you lose. MS offer a tough field, and no margin for error. They are a huge step up over 250s/500s, and I think maybe only a small one behind the YEC, which is only because of the field and points on offer.

We're not that far apart on this, Moxie - and I certainly agree with you that Masters are tough and way above the lower level tournaments, and the Masters lead is nothing to sneezy at. What I am saying is that when you're looking at career numbers, because they're inbetween the premier events and the lower ones, and also because there are nine a year and because there is some unnevenness in terms of how they've been viewed over the Open Era and the emphasis players have put on them, they're a bit tricky to consider on their own. As far as I know, the Masters leader has only been a matter of conversation in recent years as Rafa and Novak have played leap-frog; and even then, not many really talk or care about it. People talk about Slams and overall titles and, to some extent, "big titles."

No one cares at all about who has the most ATP 500s. Masters are a bigger deal, but there's a similar factor of "in-betweeness" involved. This is why I usually talk about Slams, Big Titles, and overall titles. Yes, differentiating Tour Finals and Masters, and even 500s from 250s, is meaningful - but it is a more granular level. And note that I'm not just focusing on Big Titles over Masters alone because Roger has the lead; that won't last long...the three will almost certainly end their careers with Novak and probably Rafa with more BTs over Roger.

I actually think the ATP does a good job in assigning point values in terms of comparative difficulty of winning the different levels of tournaments. Of course what they don't measure is legacy and prestige; in terms of difficulty it makes sense that a Slam earns 8x the points of an ATP 250, but there is not a player on Earth who woudn't trade a hundred ATP 250s for one Slam trophy. Just as no player would rather have a dozen Masters than one Slam. I'd be curious to know how they feel about Tour Finals relative to the other titles...I'm guessing they are viewed as far more prestigious than Masters, but still distant behind Slams.

 

[Moxie]

We're not that far apart on this, Moxie - and I certainly agree with you that Masters are tough and way above the lower level tournaments, and the Masters lead is nothing to sneezy at. What I am saying is that when you're looking at career numbers, because they're inbetween the premier events and the lower ones, and also because there are nine a year and because there is some unnevenness in terms of how they've been viewed over the Open Era and the emphasis players have put on them, they're a bit tricky to consider on their own. As far as I know, the Masters leader has only been a matter of conversation in recent years as Rafa and Novak have played leap-frog; and even then, not many really talk or care about it. People talk about Slams and overall titles and, to some extent, "big titles."

No one cares at all about who has the most ATP 500s. Masters are a bigger deal, but there's a similar factor of "in-betweeness" involved. This is why I usually talk about Slams, Big Titles, and overall titles. Yes, differentiating Tour Finals and Masters, and even 500s from 250s, is meaningful - but it is a more granular level. And note that I'm not just focusing on Big Titles over Masters alone because Roger has the lead; that won't last long...the three will almost certainly end their careers with Novak and probably Rafa with more BTs over Roger.

I actually think the ATP does a good job in assigning point values in terms of comparative difficulty of winning the different levels of tournaments. Of course what they don't measure is legacy and prestige; in terms of difficulty it makes sense that a Slam earns 8x the points of an ATP 250, but there is not a player on Earth who woudn't trade a hundred ATP 250s for one Slam trophy. Just as no player would rather have a dozen Masters than one Slam. I'd be curious to know how they feel about Tour Finals relative to the other titles...I'm guessing they are viewed as far more prestigious than Masters, but still distant behind Slams.

The masters leader became a race when Roger and Rafa were trading it, so it pre-dates the Rafa-Nole race. I'm surprised you don't remember that. I think Agassi was the previous leader. But, yes, it's a fairly young race, as the ATP did consolidate tournaments in the last 30 years, or whatever. The tournaments used to be all over the place, and players chased the money at will. That's why we argue the value of Connors having more titles than Roger, or Vilas' titles on clay, before Rafa passed him overall. When they consolidated 9 tournaments into MS 1000s, and made them mandatory, (except for MC,) they made them more valuable and difficult.

I don't expect the finally tally of one of the big 3 to be any game changer. I was just pointing out the relative difficulty of winning them, and also how no one so much cares, in terms of those at the upper-echelons. It's funny, because one MS or YEC or Major makes a career for some guys, and we argue between Roger/Rafa/Novak how many they have of each. Even as they age, it's astonishing how little they've left for others to get. But the tide is changing, ever so slowly.

 

[Fiero425]

...

I actually think the ATP does a good job in assigning point values in terms of comparative difficulty of winning the different levels of tournaments. Of course what they don't measure is legacy and prestige; in terms of difficulty it makes sense that a Slam earns 8x the points of an ATP 250, but there is not a player on Earth who woudn't trade a hundred ATP 250s for one Slam trophy. Just as no player would rather have a dozen Masters than one Slam. I'd be curious to know how they feel about Tour Finals relative to the other titles...I'm guessing they are viewed as far more prestigious than Masters, but still distant behind Slams.

Maybe in prestige, but not in points really; YEC 1500/Major 2000! I'm still burning over 2016! Djokovic wins 2 Majors to complete his Nole-Slam, takes 4 Masters, and's in the final of a 3rd Major plus the YEC! Murray cobbled some extra points by overplaying in 500's, won his 2nd Wimbledon, and took the #1 ranking for about a moment! It cost him though; probably needing bionic parts to put himself back together one day! It cost Nole as well with a lost 2017, but able to as we all know, "rise from ashes" :demon: to win the last 3 Majors! Djokovic is on the CUSP of possibly making pro-history with a 2nd NCYGS next month; Nole-Slam2! The ATP probably needs to give an added bonus of points to majors to prevent that kind of travesty occurring again! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Ass kicking, beatdown, annihilation, whatever you want to call it. When you lose in straights at a major and they aren't all tiebreaks it is not a tough match. When the last two sets are 6-3, 6-1 that is a walk in the park.

When Nadal beat Djokovic at the US Open 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1, no one wanted to call that a beatdown/annihilation, etc. Some folks insisted that it was terrible that Djokovic even lost that match. He did win one set, but the win percentage between this and the ones you cited (RG '15, AO '19) is not that hugely different. As little as about 6 percentage points. So if you want to split hairs...

Point being, I know you know the difference between a beat-down, an annihilation and a mere loss.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe in prestige, but not in points really; YEC 1500/Major 2000! I'm still burning over 2016! Djokovic wins 2 Majors to complete his Nole-Slam, takes 4 Masters, and's in the final of a 3rd Major plus the YEC! Murray cobbled some extra points by overplaying in 500's, won his 2nd Wimbledon, and took the #1 ranking for about a moment! It cost him though; probably needing bionic parts to put himself back together one day! It cost Nole as well with a lost 2017, but able to as we all know, "rise from ashes" to win the last 3 Majors! Djokovic is on the CUSP of possibly making pro-history with a 2nd NCYGS next month; Nole-Slam2! The ATP probably needs to give an added bonus of points to majors to prevent that kind of travesty occurring again.

What a load of sour grapes. Nole had points to lose, and he lost them. Murray found a way to make up points, and he did. Plus, when the 2 played for the YE#1, Andy beat Novak, so that's pretty fair and square. You're probably one of those people that criticized Rafa for suggesting a 2-year rolling point system, so I will call foul on you, if so, for gaming a point system to favor your guy. Maybe you didn't, but I'd be surprised, since you criticize Rafa for everything.

 

[mrzz]

Do you have data to support your point? See @tented's post regarding this. But, that includes all court types. Based on that it looks like the difference is statistically not significant. (82% vs. 83%).

Thanks for pointing that out. As @Moxie noticed I could not follow the thread properly.

Anyway, even if barely, my initial point is still valid, one handers have better stats against Nadal than two handers. Even if we take those results as a technical draw (which it is), it goes against conventional wisdom.

The data I had I quickly compiled myself from the ATP site, just counting/classifying the clay losses (it was specific to clay), since in general people regard that the one hand back hand effect is more prominent on clay (which now I see that it is precisely the other way around). I guess I lost the data, but it is not that hard to reproduce it (since he has so few clay losses). I remember that about 30% or more of his clay losses were to one handers, which is more than the percentage of one handed bh players. From that I (wrongly) assumed that this would translate to other surfaces.