Clay greats

[Tuan]

Wins-losses and win ratio on clay: (from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2632516-what-is-roger-federers-clay-court-legacy)

1. Nadal 348-32 (.916)
2. Borg 251-41 (.860)
3. Lendl 327-76 (.811)
4. Djokovic 160-41 (.796)
5. Muster 422-127 (.769)
6. Federer 211-66 (.762)
7. Kuerten 189-80 (.703)

However, to be fair, Nole's and Fed's records must be corrected for the "Nadal factor", since Nadal is a clay freak that none of the other contenders had to face. If we remove their wins and losses against Nadal, then the order becomes:

1. Nadal 348-32 (.916)
2. Borg 251-41 (.860)
4. Djokovic 153-31 (.827)
3. Lendl 327-76 (.811)
6. Federer 209-53 (.798)
5. Muster 422-127 (.769)
7. Kuerten 189-80 (.703)

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:32:28 PM UTC-7, Tuan wrote:
> Wins-losses and win ratio on clay: (from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2632516-what-is-roger-federers-clay-court-legacy)

[snipped]

> However, to be fair, Nole's and Fed's records must be corrected for the "Nadal factor", since Nadal is a clay freak that none of the other contenders had to face. If we remove their wins and losses against Nadal, then the order becomes:

> 1. Nadal 348-32 (.916)
> 2. Borg 251-41 (.860)
> 4. Djokovic 153-31 (.827)
> 3. Lendl 327-76 (.811)
> 6. Federer 209-53 (.798)
> 5. Muster 422-127 (.769)
> 7. Kuerten 189-80 (.703)

"To be fair"... ??? What does that even mean? [That's a rhetorical question.] Rafa and Federer played at the same time and one player (Rafa) tended to best the other (Feds) most of the time on clay courts. The stats are the stats; adjusting them seems unnecessary as well as odd, quite frankly.

P

[Whisper]

It's just another way to keep boosting Fed even beyond his actual
numbers. You'll note there's no suggestion of adjusting other player's
records because of Fed's dominance, or going back & adjusting for
Sampras, Borg, Laver etc.

But you're right. The guy is a complete twit.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Borg lost 4 USO finals, 2 to McEnroe & 2 to Connors. Surely he deserves
an 'adjustment' for playing 2 of the fiercest USO champs ever?

Connors in turn lost all 4 times at Wimbledon to Borg. Where's his
adjustment?

[joh]

Op vrijdag 28 juli 2017 08:18:21 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

wow

have you read the title of thread?

[Tuan]

In science, stats are adjusted all the time, outliers are always removed to prevent distorted conclusions. In this case, the outlier is Nadal. If Lendl had to play in Nadal's era, do you think he would have won 3 FO? In the FO finals he beat McEnroe (great clay player!), Pernfors (who's he?) and Wilander (the only one with any credibility on clay).

[Tuan]

Since we are talking about clay performance, why adjust for Sampras and Laver? As for Borg, his 6 FO and .860 win ratio pale besides Nadal's 10 and .916.

[Tuan]

Who's talking about US Open? We're talking about clay greats here and most of Bjorn's USO losses were on hard.

[*skriptis]

Tuan <phamqua...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Only half.

Borg was a unable to win USO finals on grass, clay and twice on hard.

In a way it's worse than Sampras not winning FO.

You think Sampras wouldn't have won FO had it been on grass and
hard couple of times?


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:57:03 +0200, *skriptis wrote:

> You think Sampras wouldn't have won FO had it been on grass and
> hard couple of times?

With Wimbledon around the corner? :)

[Whisper]

Vilas lost 3 FO finals to Borg. He needs adjustment factor no?

[Whisper]

So the only factor is Nadal? Why not make an adjustment for wood
rackets, modern strings etc?

How would Rafa do v Borg using this;

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/htcAAOSwux5YOyvx/$_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F


That's what Borg used to dominate clay in his era.

[Whisper]

You realize Borg quit at age 25 & abandoned a 4 FO streak right?

How would Rafa go using a tiny stiff wood racket? Might find it a bit
harder to hit his banana shots.

: )





--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Whisper]

> Who's talking about US Open? We're talking about clay greats here and most of Bjorn's USO losses were on hard.
>

So you're advocating making 'adjustments' just for clay? Bizarre.

[me]

Removal of outliers is an extremely controversial issue. You cannot justify it by saying that it is done in science all the time, as if the scientific community as a whole is happy with this practice. Many think it would be better to use different measures of error/spread which are not so vulnerable to outliers. Furthermore, when outliers are removed, they are done according to a precise method which must be determined before reviewing the data. Arbitrarily removing outliers after reviewing the data is just cooking the books.

When you play these games you are really no better than whisper when he multiplies Sampras's slams by 1.5 to put him ahead of Federer. Let the numbers do the talking, free of manipulation. If you don't like what they say, you just have to learn to accept it.

[John Liang]

Sampras lost to Gudenzi, Schaler, Phillipousis, Chang, Champion, Delgado and he also beat 7 FO champs, where's his adjustments ?

[stephenJ]

On 7/28/2017 12:32 AM, Tuan wrote:
> Wins-losses and win ratio on clay: (from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2632516-what-is-roger-federers-clay-court-legacy)
>
> 1. Nadal 348-32 (.916)
> 2. Borg 251-41 (.860)
> 3. Lendl 327-76 (.811)
> 4. Djokovic 160-41 (.796)
> 5. Muster 422-127 (.769)
> 6. Federer 211-66 (.762)
> 7. Kuerten 189-80 (.703)
>

> However, to be fair, Nole's and Fed's records must be corrected for the "Nadal factor", since Nadal is a clay freak that none of the >other contenders had to face. ...

You mean, "to be stupid", as there's nothing "fair" about deleting Nadal
from Fed/Joke records. That is pure 'distortion'.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Whisper]

> Sampras lost to Gudenzi, Schaler, Phillipousis, Chang, Champion, Delgado and he also beat 7 FO champs, where's his adjustments ?
>

Fed should have his rating adjusted for losing in 2nd rd of Wimbledon
2013 to Stakhovsky when he was defending champ. Sampras lost twice at
Wimbledon when he was defending champ, but that was to Wimbledon
champ/goat caliber players Federer & Krajicek, not a true journeyman.

[Tuan]

You must be blind if you can't see that Nadal is an outlier. I'm not writing a scientific paper here so I won't bother to go into scientific analysis. To compare that with Whisper's 1.5 factor is just plain silly!

[Whisper]

Is Fed an outlier?

Too bad you're not an outlier. Par for the course in rst.

[John Liang]

Of course, Christo Van Rensburg and Derrick Rostagno were potential Wimbledon champions that never got past the QF.

[Whisper]

Sampras was 17 & 18 yrs old then. Federer was playing against junior
boys at same age, not against grown men.

As a defending Wimbledon champion it was impossible for him to lose to a
journeyman like Stakhovsky.

[Carey]

Sampras was 19 years and 11 months old when he lost to Rostagno at W '91.

At the same age, Federer defeated you-know-who on Centre Court Wimbledon.

[AZ]

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:53:01 PM UTC+6, Carey wrote:
> Sampras was 19 years and 11 months old when he lost to Rostagno at W '91.
>
> At the same age, Federer defeated you-know-who on Centre Court Wimbledon.

Lol burnnnn

[John Liang]

Once again when it comes to fact google it. If you have a calculation problem by a FX-82 as I suggested long time ago it is now less than $20.

>
> As a defending Wimbledon champion it was impossible for him to lose to a
> journeyman like Stakhovsky.

Not impossible, Sampras lost to Yzaga too.

[Whisper]

On 29/07/2017 2:52 AM, Carey wrote:
> Sampras was 19 years and 11 months old when he lost to Rostagno at W '91.
>
> At the same age, Federer defeated you-know-who on Centre Court Wimbledon.
>
>
>

I was waiting for this - Fed outachieved Sampras as a teen.

; )

[Whisper]

On 29/07/2017 2:52 AM, Carey wrote:

> Sampras was 19 years and 11 months old when he lost to Rostagno at W '91.
>
> At the same age, Federer defeated you-know-who on Centre Court Wimbledon.
>
>

And when you compare the following year, Fed's 2002 Wimbledon v Sampras'
1992, we see Fed lost 1st rd to Mario Ancic while Sampras made semifinals.

But that's 'out of scope' & can't be admitted as evidence.

; )

[Tuan]

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:32:28 PM UTC+10, Tuan wrote:
> Wins-losses and win ratio on clay: (from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2632516-what-is-roger-federers-clay-court-legacy)
>

> 1. Nadal 348-32 (.916)
> 2. Borg 251-41 (.860)

> 3. Lendl 327-76 (.811)
> 4. Djokovic 160-41 (.796)
> 5. Muster 422-127 (.769)
> 6. Federer 211-66 (.762)
> 7. Kuerten 189-80 (.703)
>

> However, to be fair, Nole's and Fed's records must be corrected for the "Nadal factor", since Nadal is a clay freak that none of the other contenders had to face. If we remove their wins and losses against Nadal, then the order becomes:
>
> 1. Nadal 348-32 (.916)
> 2. Borg 251-41 (.860)
> 4. Djokovic 153-31 (.827)
> 3. Lendl 327-76 (.811)
> 6. Federer 209-53 (.798)
> 5. Muster 422-127 (.769)
> 7. Kuerten 189-80 (.703)

The proof of the pudding: in the uncorrected ranking above, Muster is ahead of Fed on clay. When the "Nadal effect" is corrected for, Fed edges ahead. Which is more reasonable?

Muster: 1 clay slam, 0 other slam final.
Fed: 1 clay slam, 4 other clay finals (all lost to Nadal).

This simple comparison shows that Fed is clearly greater than Muster on clay, confirming the correctness of taking into account the Nadal effect.

[Whisper]

But what if Muster would dominate fed h2h on clay? All it takes is 1 or
2 missing players for others to have artificially inflated numbers.

Don't forget Muster won 44 clay titles.

Also remember Guga crushed peakest Federer in 2004 FO in straight sets,
& Fed won the other 3 slams that year. Guga was past his peak in 2004
yet still way too good for peak Federer on clay. Fed/Djoker/Murray clay
numbers are already artificially inflated due to there only being 1 good
claycourter in the field. If we had Guga, Muster, Bruguera, Coria as
well these guys would be way down the list.

What's obscene is you want to remove Nadal from the stats as well to
even further misrepresent their clay form. Astonishing. Too bad for
you nobody is that stupid to swallow it.

[John Liang]

Don't forget majority of Muster's wins on clay were coming from titles that no other top players during his era would play, when every top 10 were preparing themselves for USO on hard court in July to August Muster was the only one playing in tier 3 or tier 4 clay court tournaments in Europe.

>
> Also remember Guga crushed peakest Federer in 2004 FO in straight sets,

Also remember Guag lost their previous match quite easily in Hamburg when he was the defending FO, so their clay court h2h is 1:1.

> & Fed won the other 3 slams that year. Guga was past his peak in 2004
> yet still way too good for peak Federer on clay. Fed/Djoker/Murray clay
> numbers are already artificially inflated due to there only being 1 good
> claycourter in the field. If we had Guga, Muster, Bruguera, Coria as
> well these guys would be way down the list.

Coria ? Coria at his peak lost to Federer on clay in 4 sets in 2004, that was well before Federer really hitting his peak on clay after 2005.

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 23:54:27 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:
> On 29/07/2017 2:52 AM, Carey wrote:
> > Sampras was 19 years and 11 months old when he lost to Rostagno at W '91.
> >
> > At the same age, Federer defeated you-know-who on Centre Court Wimbledon.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I was waiting for this - Fed outachieved Sampras as a teen.
>
> ; )

yeah which is odd considering Sampras won slams in his teens, twenties and thirties and Nadal won slams in his teens, twenties and thirties, hmm funny very odd very strange, yet Fed is the most talented and better etc.

[The Iceberg]

Tim Henman was an outlier in 2001!

[The Iceberg]

LOL Fed's peak was in 2005! LOL oh yes he won against retired Coria, who totally disappeared and didn't he get busted for drugs even?!

[John Liang]

Lol, burger flipper. Coria got to his highest ranking in 2004 he lost in 4 sets to Federer at Hamburg Master. Of course he forgot to eat his pizza, idiot

[stephenJ]

This is really silly thinking. Heck, you could achieve the same result -
raising Fed's winning % above Muster's, by just wacking off any 10
losses Fed suffered on clay, versus anyone, not just Nadal. Or randomly
knocking 15 wins off Muster's win total. That would be just a dumb.

Moral: You make the mistake of thinking that Muster having a higher clay
win % than Federer gives the mistaken impression that Muster was
greater, thus the need for a correction. But it doesn't, because anyone
who knows tennis knows that win % doesn't define greatness, slam results
do, and as you noted above, Fed has a much better FO record than does
Muster. Heck, even if we ignored that Fed advanced deep into the FO many
more times than Muster, Fed's FO win % is 80%, Muster's is 71%.

Winning % is what it is, it speaks for itself. Your "correction" is just
a distortion of what actually happened.


---

[MBDunc]

Muster clay greatness is obvious.
- His Lendl-like dedication and research ... he came up and pioneered with computer based analysis on players around 94-95 and that was a part of his great 95-97.
- His fitness.
- His intimidation skills (over other claycourters like Bruguera)
- His base game was superb solid on clay.
- His mental: his finals winning ratio is just superb.

However he had a lot more weaknesses than most on top claycourt -lists.
- He had actually only one great run 1995-spring 1997. Other times he was just a king of small clay tuneups.
- H2H stat against Edberg is puzzling 0-10 (four of them on clay)
- He was pretty heavy-footed for a clay great; fitness yes but quickness not so.
- He really relied on his presence rather than actual skills (like Yannick Noah)

I liked Muster but he is like Vilas - absolute clay boatness/goatness; not really and not even close.

.mikko

[Tuan]

No, it would be infinitely dumber! Only REAL DUMB people can put losses to Nadal on clay and random losses on clay side by side! :)

[TT]

I think more fair way would be not to take all losses against Nadal
away... but maybe 50% - to pretend that Nadal was a 'normal' clay great.

[stephenJ]

On 7/29/2017 6:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> Muster clay greatness is obvious.
> - His Lendl-like dedication and research ... he came up and pioneered with computer based analysis on players around 94-95 and that was a part of his great 95-97.
> - His fitness.
> - His intimidation skills (over other claycourters like Bruguera)
> - His base game was superb solid on clay.
> - His mental: his finals winning ratio is just superb.
>
> However he had a lot more weaknesses than most on top claycourt -lists.
> - He had actually only one great run 1995-spring 1997.

Yes, I liked Muster too. Who could not like his on-court manly-man
bravado and his resilience in returning from dreadful accident?

And, I thought Sampras and Agassi showed very poor form in denigrating
his 1995 clay exploits, which were awesome. Both said that going in to
the USO that whoever between them won should be #1 for the year, when
had Muster won his claim clearly would have been best.

But he just came up small in the FO way too many times and his clay
titles did tend to be of the small, Vilas variety. Who, btw, Muster
wasn't nearly as talented as.

[stephenJ]

No, for these purposes, determining clay greatness, it would be just as
dumb, no dumber. Removing losses to Nadal only distorts our
understanding of how good a clay player Federer or Joker have been. It
eliminates very useful data about how those guys compare to Nadal, while
relying on baseless speculations/assumptions about how guys who never
played Nadal would have fared against him.

No use getting around either of those facts.

[Whisper]

Truly objective analysts aren't ceibs fanboys. You're ceibs on steroids.




--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

He's already decided because today's guys can't compete with Rafa on
clay, then nobody ever could. Agreed it's incredibly faulty (stupid?)
thinking. The most credible analysts are the ones who bring in names
like Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad etc into analysis. Ceibs fanboys are easily
identified by bringing in the top goats from current - 10 yrs period.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Carey]

I think the idea of correcting for a "Nadal factor" is wrongheaded, unless, say,
it can be proved that he is a long-time doper, a la Armstrong.

[Tuan]

Doing that Djokovic will be tied with Lendl at .811, while Fed is still ahead of Muster at .780.

[Tuan]

What have you been smoking? Lendl won his first FO 23 years ago. If you can find stats for other clay greats, be welcome to bring them in.

[stephenJ]

Yes, and the saddest part wasn't the initial post. Everyone is wrong
sometimes, the real sin is doubling-down on a bad idea and refusing to
accept corrective thinking from others.

[stephenJ]

On 7/29/2017 8:50 AM, Carey wrote:
> I think the idea of correcting for a "Nadal factor" is wrongheaded, unless, say,
> it can be proved that he is a long-time doper, a la Armstrong.
>

Good point. Unless we have reason to believe Nadal's victories over Fed
and Joker are not legitimate, as with doping (and we don't), the only
logical thing is to count all the results.

[bob]

clay only
rafa
borg
fed, muster, guga, vilas, probably a few more on same line.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>Sampras was 19 years and 11 months old when he lost to Rostagno at W '91.

i was at that match, watched from 2nd row!

>At the same age, Federer defeated you-know-who on Centre Court Wimbledon.

bob

[Tuan]

That kind of logic is called blind logic, one that ignores the obvious evidence.

[stephenJ]

The only one trying to ignore "obvious evidence" is yourself, by
excluding the results of actual, real world tennis matches on clay.

[Tuan]

Taking factors other than numbers into account is what intelligent people do as opposed to amateur statisticians. For example, no intelligent person would consider Court superior to Serena or Graf in spite of her bigger slam count: you have to take into account the very poor competition at most of the AOs that she collected.

[stephenJ]

On 7/29/2017 10:07 PM, Tuan wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:21:54 AM UTC+10, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 7/29/2017 3:33 PM, Tuan wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 1:32:48 AM UTC+10, StephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/2017 8:50 AM, Carey wrote:
>>>>> I think the idea of correcting for a "Nadal factor" is wrongheaded, unless, say,
>>>>> it can be proved that he is a long-time doper, a la Armstrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good point. Unless we have reason to believe Nadal's victories over Fed
>>>> and Joker are not legitimate, as with doping (and we don't), the only
>>>> logical thing is to count all the results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> That kind of logic is called blind logic, one that ignores the obvious evidence.
>>>
>>
>> The only one trying to ignore "obvious evidence" is yourself, by
>> excluding the results of actual, real world tennis matches on clay.
>
> Taking factors other than numbers into account is what intelligent people do as opposed to amateur statisticians.

You haven't done much statistical analysis here at all, unless you think
tabulating percentages is high-level work. All you've done is declared a
fake "factor" and on that basis decided to throw out a bunch of data.

[bob]

clown era you say? :-)

bob

[Tuan]

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:25:02 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 20:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Tuan

No, not a clown era, but maybe a "clown slam". It is a PROVEN fact (looking at the seed list) that the AO was poorly attended by northern top ranked players. The clown era concept, on the other hand, is based on the completely UNPROVEN belief that certain eras have little competition. The trouble with some RST posters is that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction!

[Tuan]

The funny thing is that those RST-ers who are most opposed to admitting that Nadal is a unique clay great in the face of all the evidence, are also those who believe in the silly, unproven concept of clown eras!

[RaspingDrive]

Nadal is indubitably the unique clay GREATEST. Who else would come anywhere near him? He has double Borg's clay slams. It may take 500 years to break his record.

[RaspingDrive]

OK, the Double 6 Borg has 6 clay slams. When Nadal leaves, he may well have double Borg's clay slams.

[Whisper]

Borg left at age 25 though, having won the previous 4 FO's in a row & 6
overall.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[RaspingDrive]

Perhaps he lost the edge? Unfortunately such things as 'left at age 25 though' don't figure in records. Borg got 6 FO's and no more and that's what we will work with. Nadal is unique and an outlier for sure. Until the next outlier appears after 250 or 500 years, that is.

[Whisper]

Lost the edge on clay after winning last 4 FO's & being in peak physical
form & age? Sure.

He also entered 3 slams in his last yr & was in the final of all 3,
losing only to the most gifted player of all time.

>Unfortunately such things as 'left at age 25 though' don't figure in records. Borg got 6 FO's and no more and that's what we will work with. Nadal is >unique and an outlier for >sure. Until the next outlier appears after 250 or 500 years, that is.
>

Even if true you can't 'adjust' the ratings of his rivals. The fact
they couldn't challenge him on clay shows you they were also pretty crap
claycourters overall. I doubt Nadal & Guga were the only players in
history who crushed peak Federer at FO. That's nonsensical. The truth
is many great clay greats would have beaten Fed/Djoker.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Tuan]

Borg has a clay win ratio of .860 compared with Nadal's 0.912. You can't blame early retirement for that. If he had continued past his peak years like most others his win ratio would probably be even less. Most of Nadal's clay losses occur during his after-injury comebacks else his figure would be even better.

[me]

Hope you're not including Borg's green clay matches to calculate those ratios!

[stephenJ]

Nobody is denying that Nadal is a totally dominant clay great who has
completely out-distanced all the clay competition he has ever faced.
He's won 10 FOs while none of his contemporaries have won more than 1.
Similar to Borg in the late 1970s, but even moreso.

What's being denied is the analytical value of disregarding Nadal's wins
over other players like Fed and Joker when evaluating them. Because
there is no analytical value in doing that, quite the opposite.

[stephenJ]

Good point, green and red clay aren't the same.

[Tuan]

The ATP figures don't make the distinction. Most people agree green clay is still closer to red clay than to hard courts, or at most halfway.

[RaspingDrive]

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 7:24:39 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 31/07/2017 9:17 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 6:44:39 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 31/07/2017 8:11 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 6:07:41 AM UTC-4, RaspingDrive wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The funny thing is that those RST-ers who are most opposed to admitting that Nadal is a unique clay great in the face of all the evidence, are also those who believe in the silly, unproven concept of clown eras!
> >>>>
> >>>> Nadal is indubitably the unique clay GREATEST. Who else would come anywhere near him? He has double Borg's clay slams. It may take 500 years to break his record.
> >>>
> >>> OK, the Double 6 Borg has 6 clay slams. When Nadal leaves, he may well have double Borg's clay slams.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Borg left at age 25 though, having won the previous 4 FO's in a row & 6
> >> overall.
> >
> > Perhaps he lost the edge?
>
> Lost the edge on clay after winning last 4 FO's & being in peak physical
> form & age? Sure.
>
> He also entered 3 slams in his last yr & was in the final of all 3,
> losing only to the most gifted player of all time.

Focus on clay. Focus focus, Whisper. Borg perhaps lost motivation? Whatever may be the reason, his FO count is 6 and no more. Nadal's is 10 and, based on his performance and desire, promises to become 12 in two to three years. He is certainly an outlier even now. Ten is a mind boggling number.

> >Unfortunately such things as 'left at age 25 though' don't figure in records. Borg got 6 FO's and no more and that's what we will work with. Nadal is >unique and an outlier for >sure. Until the next outlier appears after 250 or 500 years, that is.
> >
>
>
> Even if true you can't 'adjust' the ratings of his rivals. The fact
> they couldn't challenge him on clay shows you they were also pretty crap
> claycourters overall. I doubt Nadal & Guga were the only players in
> history who crushed peak Federer at FO. That's nonsensical. The truth
> is many great clay greats would have beaten Fed/Djoker.

The adjustment is not totally a preposterous notion. They faced a RAMPANT outlier who was in every final 10 out 13 years and won every final he played, and, thus, whose record may be indelible for 500 years. The 'lesser' achievers (than Nadal on clay, that is) thus far clearly left more chances (read: WoO) for their contemporaries than Nadal left for his.

Remember to answer nicely, otherwise I will throw you out ;)

[stephenJ]

It's important. If Borg lost most of his matches on green clay, that
would be worth recalibrating those win %s for, as green clay doesn't
play the same as red clay - unlike your desire to toss out losses to Nadal.

[bob]

he has 10, borg had 6. that's your version of double?

bob

[RaspingDrive]

Hopefully you also read my correction.

[bob]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:07:35 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive

yes, but i didn't feel like commenting on that. :-)

bob

[Tuan]

Fine. You can deny the analytical value of discounting the value of Court's AOs and place Court above Serena and Graf. It's your right to follow numbers blindly and disregarding all other evidence. But the majority of tennis followers would prefer a more sophisticated approach.

[Whisper]

But they still aren't the same, & Rafa never had to play on the stuff.

How about for fun just stick to real clay & show us the ratios?

Don't run away.

: )



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Whisper]

Where is Goran's adjustment for losing 3 times at Wimbledon to a
'rampant' Sampras?

[John Liang]

Goran was unlucky in the last match in 1998, he played a long five setter against Krajicek in the semi that went to 15:13 in the fifth, he was running on an empty tank when his match against Sampras going to the fifth set.

[John Liang]

Would have means practically nothing. Guga played Fed on clay twice he was 1:1 against Federer.

[me]

There is a continuum between blindly following the numbers and cooking the books. For example, whispers 7543 will probably put Serena and Graf ahead. You could also put them ahead by applying a minus 6 slams to court to account for your perception that she is inferior - but that would clearly be cooking the books. Do you understand the difference?

Removing matches against Nadal is cooking the books. Now, you could, for example consider only clay court matches against players outside the top ten. One might then question the value of such a statistic, but it would at least not be so arbitrary and biased as removing matches against a particular player.

[RaspingDrive]

Rampant outlier to be precise, which Nadal is and Sampras is arguably not. 7/13 vs 10/13 indicates considerable WoO that Nadal competitors did not have.

[Tuan]

I am NOT applying 7543 to Court, and I am NOT applying minus 6 slams to her. Do you understand the difference?