Winning % on different surface of the top 3 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Winning % on different surface of the top 3

jenanun
06-16-2008, 07:19 PM
Djokovic
clay 53-20 (72%)
grass 16-6 (73%)
hc 79-28 (74%)
overall 158-59 (73%)

Nadal
clay 155-14(92%)
grass 24-7 (77%)
hc 121-46 (72%)
overall 302-73 (81%)

Federer
clay 123-40 (75%)
grass 75-11 (87%)
hc 324-69 (82%)
overall 588-142 (81%)

djokovic is overrated on hc, and nadal is not a bad hc player at all compare to djokovic
djokovic is not too far from federer on clay
nadal is more dominant on clay than federer on grass, though nadal lost more matches on clay than federer on grass
nadal and federer has same overall winning percentage!!!! (djokovic is still far far behind, may take a while to catch up with them, 73% to 81% is a huge gap)

maconick
06-16-2008, 07:31 PM
u should only count last 3 years imo

Wicked0987
06-16-2008, 07:32 PM
Change every "is" in your argument to a "has been over his entire carreer" and you have a valid argument...

star
06-16-2008, 07:33 PM
I'd like a statistician to look at those numbers and tell me if an 8% differential is really a huge gap.

It seems to me that the real difference is the ability for Nadal to dominate on one surface, and Federer to dominate on two. Also another variable is the number of years each has been playing. I know you think the percentages account for that, but I think it doesn't completely.

Also, do you make a distinction between indoor surfaces?

I think it would be quite interesting to take the percentages from this 12 months past and see where those percentages are, and then keep track of it each year.

p.s. Thanks for compiling those numbers! :hatoff: It was interesting to look at.

Pfloyd
06-16-2008, 07:58 PM
Nice to see objective info on the games current top 3.

Clay Death
06-16-2008, 08:17 PM
Djokovic
clay 53-20 (72%)
grass 16-6 (73%)
hc 79-28 (74%)
overall 158-59 (73%)

Nadal
clay 155-14(92%)
grass 24-7 (77%)
hc 121-46 (72%)
overall 302-73 (81%)

Federer
clay 123-40 (75%)
grass 75-11 (87%)
hc 324-69 (82%)
overall 588-142 (81%)

djokovic is overrated on hc, and nadal is not a bad hc player at all compare to djokovic
djokovic is not too far from federer on clay
nadal is more dominant on clay than federer on grass, though nadal lost more matches on clay than federer on grass
nadal and federer has same overall winning percentage!!!! (djokovic is still far far behind, may take a while to catch up with them, 73% to 81% is a huge gap)


great stuff. keep up the good work. Clay Monster`s domination of clay will take another quantum leap next year. i dont think he is going to lose a single match on clay.

clay is the wellspring from which he flows. he says that dominating the clay circuit--not exactly in those words by the way--gives him the confidence to do well on other surfaces. for that reason, he believes that he must never let up at Roland Garros. in other words, he has to win the French Open.

memo to Fed and Djokovic: death is certain and definitive on clay. pick out your tombstones long before you arrive.

densuprun
06-16-2008, 08:33 PM
I'd like a statistician to look at those numbers and tell me if an 8% differential is really a huge gap.

I can't say that I am a real statistician but for the ratio of n_win/N_total there is an uncertainty in estimating winning percentage. It is n_win/N_total +/- Sqrt(n_win*n_lose/N_total)/N_total.

Federer: 588/730 should be interpreted as (80.55+/-1.47)%
Nadal: 302/375 -> (80.53+/-2.04)%
Djokovic: 158/217 -> (72.80+/-3.00)%

A quick estimate says that Nadal is (80.53-72.80)/3.00 = 2.58 sigma ahead of Djokovic. This means that with the confidence of 99.5% we can say that the intrinsic winning percentage of Djokovic is lower than the intrinsic winning percentage of Nadal.

star
06-16-2008, 08:34 PM
memo to Fed and Djokovic: death is certain and definitive on clay. pick out your tombstones long before you arrive.

It's interesting that you compare losing a tennis match to death. If the analogy were to hold in the least, it would mean that players could meet only once. It's not even "tennis death" to lose a match. But, I think it's interesting that you are so enamoured of this dramatic imagery of violence and destruction and annihilation and ultimate conquest.
Do you do it just for fun, or is it satisfying to you somehow? It's like some kind of movie character talking.

star
06-16-2008, 08:36 PM
I can't say that I am a real statistician but for the ratio of n_win/N_total there is an uncertainty in estimating winning percentage. It is n_win/N_total +/- Sqrt(n_win*n_lose/N_total)/N_total

Federer: 588/730 should be interpreted as 0.8055+/-0.0147
Nadal: 302/375 -> 0.8053+/-0.0204
Djokovic: 158/217 -> 0.728+/-0.030

A quick estimate says that Djokovic is (0.805-0.728)/0.030 = 2.57 sigma behind Nadal. This translates into the estimate that with the confidence of 99.5% we can say that the intrinsic winning percentage of Djokovic is lower than the intrinsic winning percentage of Nadal.

:hatoff: Love the stat talk! :lol: Thank you very much. You sound like a real statistician to me. Now if you could take a look at the variables that should be taken into account, that would be great!

Clay Death
06-16-2008, 08:43 PM
It's interesting that you compare losing a tennis match to death. If the analogy were to hold in the least, it would mean that players could meet only once. It's not even "tennis death" to lose a match. But, I think it's interesting that you are so enamoured of this dramatic imagery of violence and destruction and annihilation and ultimate conquest.
Do you do it just for fun, or is it satisfying to you somehow? It's like some kind of movie character talking.

its not only death but it is lasting death. complete destruction of your opponent--both physically and mentally as Fed described his last death at Roland Garros in 2007---without even laying a finger on him has such a finality of death about it. and it lingers on and on and on. the player thinks about it the next time he steps on the court against you.

there is nobody on the planet now who believes even for a second-- that he can survive a best of 5 sets match against the Clay Monster the death merchant of the gods. so devastating is the impact of his death blows that they keep killing you over and over again.


just ask Fed about it.

The Freak
06-16-2008, 09:10 PM
its not only death but it is lasting death. complete destruction of your opponent--both physically and mentally as Fed described his last death at Roland Garros in 2007---without even laying a finger on him has such a finality of death about it. and it lingers on and on and on. the player thinks about it the next time he steps on the court against you.

there is nobody on the planet now who believes even for a second-- that he can survive a best of 5 sets match against the Clay Monster the death merchant of the gods. so devastating is the impact of his death blows that they keep killing you over and over again.


just ask Fed about it.

:eek:

Montego
06-16-2008, 09:45 PM
there is nobody on the planet now who believes even for a second-- that he can survive a best of 5 sets match against the Clay Monster the death merchant of the gods. so devastating is the impact of his death blows that they keep killing you over and over again.


:spit: