Discussion:
H2h stupid or not?
(too old to reply)
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
E.g. Federer lost 4 Wimbledon finals to his major all-time rivals.

If there is any devastating h2h in tennis it's Federer's 2-4 or 2/6 against Nadal/Djokovic in Wim finals. 33.33% win rate against goat rivals in the biggest final in tennis.

Total Wim h2h is kinda better, 4-4 or 4/8 so not too shabby. 50% win rate.


However, will people, 200 years from now on, even care about it?

They will all see, Federer 8 titles to his name and Sampras. Federer's 8/12 in finals tops Sampras 7/7 in finals and that's it.

So I don't think we should overemphasize h2h. Yes h2h important because when you play against your rival, it boils down to +/- 2 difference in slam titles, not +/- 1.

The stakes are higher regarding slam chase, that's the real significance of h2h and perhaps that's all there is. Nothing mythical.


In terms of h2h I feel it might be important or kinda required that the player beats his rival at least once at a major stage, to avoid hole in his resume but beyond that, I don't see the need to own h2h against everyone. Federer has beaten Nadal/Djokovic several times. He doesn't own h2h but you can't say "he's never beaten them". If you demand Federer owns Nadal or Djokovic, why would you not demand Djokovic to own Nadal in slam finals? 4-5 at the moment or 0-2 vs Wawrinka. I doubt he'd have chances to improve that one.

Let's just count slams and calculate 7543 ok?

So..




--
Whisper
2021-03-02 13:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
E.g. Federer lost 4 Wimbledon finals to his major all-time rivals.
If there is any devastating h2h in tennis it's Federer's 2-4 or 2/6 against Nadal/Djokovic in Wim finals. 33.33% win rate against goat rivals in the biggest final in tennis.
Total Wim h2h is kinda better, 4-4 or 4/8 so not too shabby. 50% win rate.
However, will people, 200 years from now on, even care about it?
They will all see, Federer 8 titles to his name and Sampras. Federer's 8/12 in finals tops Sampras 7/7 in finals and that's it.
So I don't think we should overemphasize h2h. Yes h2h important because when you play against your rival, it boils down to +/- 2 difference in slam titles, not +/- 1.
The stakes are higher regarding slam chase, that's the real significance of h2h and perhaps that's all there is. Nothing mythical.
In terms of h2h I feel it might be important or kinda required that the player beats his rival at least once at a major stage, to avoid hole in his resume but beyond that, I don't see the need to own h2h against everyone. Federer has beaten Nadal/Djokovic several times. He doesn't own h2h but you can't say "he's never beaten them". If you demand Federer owns Nadal or Djokovic, why would you not demand Djokovic to own Nadal in slam finals? 4-5 at the moment or 0-2 vs Wawrinka. I doubt he'd have chances to improve that one.
Let's just count slams and calculate 7543 ok?
So..
But we also look at who they beat in slam finals to get a better
perspective. Hoad v Rosewall Wimbledon final is much more interesting
than Hoad v Cooper. When we see greats facing off we are interested in
the history & context of those matches. Nobody talks about or cares
that McEnroe beat Chris Lewis in a Wimbledon final - that match is never
talked about. We always discuss Borg v Mac & Connors slam finals.

Will anyone ever care about the slam finals involving Kevin Anderson v
Nadal at USO & Djoker at Wimbledon? Nope.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On 2/03/2021 11:19 pm, *skriptis wrote:> E.g. Federer lost 4 Wimbledon finals to his major all-time rivals.> > If there is any devastating h2h in tennis it's Federer's 2-4 or 2/6 against Nadal/Djokovic in Wim finals. 33.33% win rate against goat rivals in the biggest final in tennis.> > Total Wim h2h is kinda better, 4-4 or 4/8 so not too shabby. 50% win rate.> > > However, will people, 200 years from now on, even care about it?> > They will all see, Federer 8 titles to his name and Sampras. Federer's 8/12 in finals tops Sampras 7/7 in finals and that's it.> > So I don't think we should overemphasize h2h. Yes h2h important because when you play against your rival, it boils down to +/- 2 difference in slam titles, not +/- 1.> > The stakes are higher regarding slam chase, that's the real significance of h2h and perhaps that's all there is. Nothing mythical.> > > In terms of h2h I feel it might be important or kinda required that the player beats his rival at least once at a major stage, to avoid hole in his resume but beyond that, I don't see the need to own h2h against everyone. Federer has beaten Nadal/Djokovic several times. He doesn't own h2h but you can't say "he's never beaten them". If you demand Federer owns Nadal or Djokovic, why would you not demand Djokovic to own Nadal in slam finals? 4-5 at the moment or 0-2 vs Wawrinka. I doubt he'd have chances to improve that one.> > Let's just count slams and calculate 7543 ok?> > So..> > > > But we also look at who they beat in slam finals to get a better perspective. Hoad v Rosewall Wimbledon final is much more interesting than Hoad v Cooper. When we see greats facing off we are interested in the history & context of those matches. Nobody talks about or cares that McEnroe beat Chris Lewis in a Wimbledon final - that match is never talked about. We always discuss Borg v Mac & Connors slam finals.Will anyone ever care about the slam finals involving Kevin Anderson v Nadal at USO & Djoker at Wimbledon? Nope.
Yeah true. Much more interesting. But what's the verdict on Borg vs McEnroe? What's more relevant? Is it 1-1 in finals, or 5-3 in titles? Is Borg vs Connors, 2-0 in finals or 5-2 in titles?

Usually the guy with better h2h ends up having more titles anyway so we never have to contemplate on this one.




--

Loading...