[Jonathan Northrop] The Big Four by Win Percentage

[El Dude]

Read all about it here.

 

[tented]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Great blog post as always, El Dude.

Some of the first things I've noticed thus far (I'll post more later):

- In 2009, Murray finished with the highest winning percentage, yet that's the year Rafa won the AO, Roger did the Channel Slam, and JMDP won the USO. Murray wasn't even in one of the Major finals, nevertheless won one. Of course that's also the year Novak's serve went walkabout (thanks, Todd! )

- Novak's sharp increase between 2010 and 2011: from the high 70s to the low 90s. I wouldn't have guessed it was that big of a jump from one year to the next.

 

[Front242]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Very nice stats and blog as usual, El Dude. Particularly interesting that Murray had the highest win % in 2009 despite not winning a slam. Guess he was slamming wins at all the other events instead.

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Thanks for that graph, and analysis, El Dude. It helps take the subjectivity out of "peak" years and also very good years, like Murray's 2009. Equally valuing all wins is a good way to look at performance, as in conversation we tend to "over-value" Slams. Not that they aren't more valuable, mind, (before anyone jumps on me, ) but it's very interesting to look at pure winning percentage. (I also suspect this blog post will come in handy for solving a few arguments going forward. :clap )

 

[Ricardo]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Thanks for that graph, and analysis, El Dude. It helps take the subjectivity out of "peak" years and also very good years, like Murray's 2009. Equally valuing all wins is a good way to look at performance, as in conversation we tend to "over-value" Slams. Not that they aren't more valuable, mind, (before anyone jumps on me, ) but it's very interesting to look at pure winning percentage. (I also suspect this blog post will come in handy for solving a few arguments going forward. :clap )

talk about the clarity of thinking uzzled ... it's valued at 2000 points and no, that's not all there is to it

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

^ I guess I could have counted on your for not coming within a mile of catching any point I try to make.

 

[Ricardo]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

^ I guess I could have counted on your for not coming within a mile of catching any point I try to make.

i never counted on you making a valid point, wanna refresh us on how well Fed played in 2008 RG final? never mind

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

^ I guess I could have counted on your for not coming within a mile of catching any point I try to make.

i never counted on you making a valid point, wanna refresh us on how well Fed played in 2008 RG final? never mind

If you can actually read, you don't read without prejudice.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

we can clearly see that roger's worst year since his rise to the top in 2003/4 until his flop 2013 was 2008, he had mono at the start of 08 though he was clear of it and good to go by april/may apart from being ill before wtf, rafa has kept up a high level despite absences from the tour at various times for illness/injury and able to bounce back quickly. novak went ballistic in 2011, but let us not forget he has been world top3 since 2007 and is never injured, murray has been the 4th of the 'big 4' most of the time in recent years.


so we have 100% of the big 4 as members of the big 4 at least 110% of the time (110% being footballspeak.."well garth we went out there and give it 110% the whole match, the lads were tremendous")

 

[tented]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Very nice stats and blog as usual, El Dude. Particularly interesting that Murray had the highest win % in 2009 despite not winning a slam. Guess he was slamming wins at all the other events instead.

Here's Murray's playing activity for 2009:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0#

Highlights:

- Won Doha (250 level tournament)
- Won Rotterdam (500)
- Won Miami (1000)
- Won Queen's Club (250)
- Won Rogers Cup (1000)
- Won Valencia (500)

At Majors:

AO - lost to Verdasco in R16
RG - lost to Gonzalez in QF
Wimbledon - lost to Roddick in SF
USO - lost to Cilic in R16

So, not an awful year, yet also not one which at first glance would lead one to think, "He's the guy who finished the year with the highest win percentage."

 

[El Dude]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

I have no idea what the squabble between Moxie and ricardo is about, but if I may, ricardo, I think Moxie's point was not that Slams don't matter more than other tournaments, but that winning percentage offers a different perspective on how good a season was. Its a data point, a lens - and like any other, partial and incomplete on its own. But it does say SOMETHING and, I think, quite a lot.

This statistical analysis - like any other - is not meant to make a comprehensive statement, but to look at the Big Four through a particular lens, that of winning percentage. There are other lenses - like Slam results - of course if I was trying to do a comprehensive analysis, I would have weighted tournaments in a fashion roughly similar to the ATP points.

But again, I think they point is that this offers an interesting, valuable perspective on performance - just pure win-loss, regardless of tournament.

 

[El Dude]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

One other comment about the chart. I think it illuminates just how dominate Federer was, especially in 2004-06. I mean, think about this: no season by any of the other three matched those in terms of winning percentage. Even Rafa at his most dominant, or Novak in 2011. It is easy to forget just how much Roger dominated the tour there for a few years.

 

[tented]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

One other comment about the chart. I think it illuminates just how dominate Federer was, especially in 2004-06. I mean, think about this: no season by any of the other three matched those in terms of winning percentage. Even Rafa at his most dominant, or Novak in 2011. It is easy to forget just how much Roger dominated the tour there for a few years.

Those seasons were so amazing they currently occupy three out of six of the top 10 single season records in the Open Era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_records#Single_season_records

1. John McEnroe - 96.47% - 82–3 - 1984
2. Jimmy Connors - 95.88% - 93–4 - 1974
3. Roger Federer - 95.29% - 81–4 - 2005
4. Roger Federer - 94.85% - 92–5 - 2006
5. Björn Borg - 93.33% - 84–6 - 1979
6. Ivan Lendl - 92.50% - 74–6 - 1986
Roger Federer - 92.50% - 74–6 - 2004

 

[El Dude]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Weren't four of Federer's five losses in 2006 to Rafa? I don't know who is more impressive in that regard, Fed or Rafa!

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Weren't four of Federer's five losses in 2006 to Rafa? I don't know who is more impressive in that regard, Fed or Rafa!

Now that you mention it: Dubai, MC, Rome and RG. Who was the fifth? And which is more impressive? That's why they'll always be spoken of in the same breath.

 

[tented]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Weren't four of Federer's five losses in 2006 to Rafa? I don't know who is more impressive in that regard, Fed or Rafa!

Now that you mention it: Dubai, MC, Rome and RG. Who was the fifth? And which is more impressive? That's why they'll always be spoken of in the same breath.

He lost to Andy Murray in Cincinnati.

 

[Ricardo]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

^ I guess I could have counted on your for not coming within a mile of catching any point I try to make.

i never counted on you making a valid point, wanna refresh us on how well Fed played in 2008 RG final? never mind

If you can actually read, you don't read without prejudice.

best example of prejudice is exactly that: Fed didn't play well in 2008 RG final and you kept denying it! i would educate you on this: no player of same calibre would just win 4 games in a slam final no matter how well the other guy played.... you show me any valid example that counters this!

 

[masterclass]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Weren't four of Federer's five losses in 2006 to Rafa? I don't know who is more impressive in that regard, Fed or Rafa!

Now that you mention it: Dubai, MC, Rome and RG. Who was the fifth? And which is more impressive? That's why they'll always be spoken of in the same breath.

He lost to Andy Murray in Cincinnati.

And that was his only non-final and straight set loss of that phenomenal year.

Lost in 3 to Rafa in Dubai.
Lost in 4th set tiebreaker to Rafa in Monte Carlo.
Lost in 4th set tiebreaker to Rafa at Roland Garros.

Lost in 5 to Rafa in the hard fought unforgettable Rome 5 hour battle, Rafa winning in the decider 7-6(5) after Roger looked the winner several times in the set. Roger was a just missed first serve away from a 5-2 lead and got broken. He had two championship points with Nadal serving at 5-6, and overcooked two forehands for unforced errors to allow Nadal back to deuce, where he then got it to the tiebreaker. Finally, Federer had a 5-3 minibreak lead, with him serving, and slapped an unforced error into the net, to make it 5-4, and given another life, Rafa overcame the second best clay court player of those years to win the championship.

Here is that match again for those that never saw or have somehow managed to forget it.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUma7TL_RDk[/video]

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Federberg]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

^ I guess I could have counted on your for not coming within a mile of catching any point I try to make.

i never counted on you making a valid point, wanna refresh us on how well Fed played in 2008 RG final? never mind

If you can actually read, you don't read without prejudice.

best example of prejudice is exactly that: Fed didn't play well in 2008 RG final and you kept denying it! i would educate you on this: no player of same calibre would just win 4 games in a slam final no matter how well the other guy played.... you show me any valid example that counters this!

Errr... hate to pick at this... and Fed fan that I am... I was at that match live. My chunnel ticket was for the 9pm train, coz we thought the match could last for 4 or 5 hours. Lasted about 1.5! My point is.. that match was more about Rafa just playing utterly dominant tennis than Roger playing terribly. Yes of course he could have played better (and goodness knows what Higueras had suggested tactically, but puff pace down the line backhands.. why bother!?), but from where I was sitting Rafa was just crushing the ball. It was horrible! Almost about as bad as sitting at a cafe near Gard du Nord afterwards for hours on end waiting for the trip back to London

 

[tented]

RE: The Big Four by Win Percentage

Weren't four of Federer's five losses in 2006 to Rafa? I don't know who is more impressive in that regard, Fed or Rafa!

Now that you mention it: Dubai, MC, Rome and RG. Who was the fifth? And which is more impressive? That's why they'll always be spoken of in the same breath.

He lost to Andy Murray in Cincinnati.

And that was his only non-final and straight set loss of that phenomenal year.

Lost in 3 to Rafa in Dubai.
Lost in 4th set tiebreaker to Rafa in Monte Carlo.
Lost in 4th set tiebreaker to Rafa at Roland Garros.

Lost in 5 to Rafa in the hard fought unforgettable Rome 5 hour battle,

That's stunning. Thanks for pointing it out.