The hack factor.. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The hack factor..

sexybeast
06-02-2012, 12:48 AM
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/hack_factor.html

Anyone seen this before?

It is just a study on what kind of players took down the greats in slams, ranked within 5 cathegories from 0 which is "greats" to 4 which is journeyman who never reached a grand slam QF. Here are the 5 cathegories:

0 - one of the 6-slam winner greats, + Newcombe, Vilas, Courier and Djokovic
1 - won 1-3 slams. I knocked Gomez, Costa, and Johansson and Kriek down to level 2.
2 - showed F/SF slam talent.
3 - solid pro, on occasion might reach slam QF/SF
4 - true journeyman, never reached any slam QF

So, it is interesting to know the quality that was required to take down greats in slams.

Not surprisingly Borg is the most consistant at not falling to journeymen (he never did) and only once fell to a player who never reached SF/F in a slam. On the other hand Borg never hanged around to old age and was exceptional already as a teen. Nadal and Federer are next in the list , here is the frequency of losses to players with no talent to reach a SF in a slam for greats:

Combining Hack Factor 3+4 (I updated their stats with AO 2012+made the stats for Djokovic among the greats):

43% Boris Becker
38% Stefan Edberg
38% Rafael Nadal
37% John McEnroe
37% Pete Sampras
35% Mats Wilander
28% Andre Agassi
27% Ivan Lendl
24% Roger Federer
22% Jimmy Connors
16% Novak Djokovic
6% Bjorn Borg

Also, not surprisingly Sampras was king of losing to absolute mugs, mostly because of his lack of talent on claycourts:

Loss % to Hack Factor 4:

16% Pete Sampras
13% Andre Agassi
13% Stefan Edberg
13% Boris Becker
12% Ivan Lendl
10% Rafael Nadal
6% Jimmy Connors
5% John McEnroe
5% Novak Djokovic
3% Roger Federer
3% Mats Wilander
0% Bjorn Borg

Interesting how the 80s greats lost so often to other 80s greats, Mcenroe mostly beeing hurt losing 50% of his matches to other greats (a grand total of 19 matches) and Lendl ofcourse losing so many finals to great players:¨

To other greats (Hack Factor 0):

50% John McEnroe
48% Novak Djokovic
47% Ivan Lendl
44% Jimmy Connors
39% Roger Federer
38% Boris Becker
35% Stefan Edberg
35% Bjorn Borg
34% Andre Agassi
30% Mats Wilander
23% Rafael Nadal
21% Pete Sampras

Sampras unsurprisngly ranked low having few greats around in his era (besides Agassi who was often away from tennis). Young Djokovic was damaged alot by Nadal+Federer delaying his breakthrought, Federer obviously damaged mostly by Nadal but lately also by a peaking Djokovic at old age.

There are more stats in the site, but these I found most interesting. It once again strengthens my view that Mcenroe was alot better than 7 slams worth, Sampras I have always found most limited and fortunate of alltime greats, 14 slams beeing overachieved.

John Mcenroe having lost 50% of his matches to alltime greats and 37% to factor 3/4 players is interesting, he had peak years with though opposition in SFs and Fs, then his decline was very fast and he hanged around to old age as a ghost of himself losing to low ranked players in slams. Djokovic is one loss against Federer/Nadal to actually equal Mcenroe and have 50% of his losses either at the hands of Nadal or Federer.

sexybeast
06-02-2012, 12:59 AM
I think it would be more fair to count from the first slam final to the last, so players like Mcenroe ho hanged around just for the fun of it would get even more impressive stats, Federer who was a irregular youth and became another player from the day he won Wimbledon 2003 would get completely different stats aswell, here are some selected Greats I have applied this to:

Federer from 2003 Wimbledon:

0-67%
1-16%
2-16%

Mcenroe from 79 Usopen to 85 Usopen:

0-75%
1-0%
2-8%
3-16%

Lendl from 81 RG final to 91 Australian open final:

0-64%
1-18%
2-11%
3-4%
4-4%

Nadal since 2005 RG:

0-31%
1-6%
2-50%
3-6%
4-6%

Sampras from 1990 Usopen final to 2002 Usopen final:

0-26%
1-29%
2-19%
3-10%
4-16%

Connors from AO 73 to Usopen 84:

0-57%
1-14%
2-24%
3-5%

Borg from RG 74 to Usopen 81:

0-50%
1-25%
2-17%
3-8%

HKz
06-02-2012, 01:17 AM
Borg's stats certainly can't honestly be counted.. I mean virtually all those players in that list played until the end, causing their stats to suffer actually quite a bit. While certainly not surprising for the dominance Nadal/Sampras have had against "hack factor 0" it is also kind of skewed similarly for both as they were ultimately beating everyone at their best slams (FO/Wimb respectively) and losing to much lower ranked players at the other events making their "hack factor 0" stat look really good.

Either way, the stats are always interesting, but there are several things to take into consideration certainly which kind of makes some of the stats look silly.

hipolymer
06-02-2012, 01:18 AM
The so called "GOAT" doesn't top even one of the lists. :angel:

HKz
06-02-2012, 01:19 AM
The so called "GOAT" doesn't top even one of the lists. :angel:

What a fantastic comment! Quite unique around here.

sexybeast
06-02-2012, 01:54 AM
The so called "GOAT" doesn't top even one of the lists. :angel:

You are definetly not supposed to top 2 out of those 3 lists genius.

Nole fan
06-02-2012, 01:59 AM
Great stats Sexybeast, thank you. :)

sexybeast
06-02-2012, 02:04 AM
Borg's stats certainly can't honestly be counted.. I mean virtually all those players in that list played until the end, causing their stats to suffer actually quite a bit.

Yes, I know but Borg was one hell of a consistant player, almost like Federer since 2003. Players usually have more trouble at ages like 17-18 than at 30-something, but ofcourse some really hang in there when they are completely outdated (Mcenroe) which makes the stats look more scewed. Mcenroe didnt lose to alot of hack factor 3/4 players in his years as a top player like Sampras did, but still his stats look worse than Sampras' stats.


While certainly not surprising for the dominance Nadal/Sampras have had against "hack factor 0" it is also kind of skewed similarly for both as they were ultimately beating everyone at their best slams (FO/Wimb respectively) and losing to much lower ranked players at the other events making their "hack factor 0" stat look really good.

Their hack factor 0 looks kind of bad, you want to lose to the best rather than weak players. Sampras pretty much had only Agassi as a factor 0 player in the 90s (with Courier beeing the weakest factor 0 and arguably factor 1 in the beginning of Sampras career). Sampras was one hell of an inconsistant "great", not only on clay but on other surfaces aswell.

Nadal having trouble beating factor 2 players on hardcourt early on in his career not having oppurtunity to go down against Federer/Djokovic in Usopen/AO explains his low frequency of hack 0.

sexybeast
06-07-2012, 12:35 PM
It looks to me like Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are about to greatly improve their numbers in the coming years. It seems to me they can only lose to each other in slams from now on...

TigerTim
06-07-2012, 12:38 PM
Borg will always be Stats Goat because he retired so young. Only way to stop this is if Nadal retires this year. Which he won't (hopefully).

sexybeast
06-07-2012, 12:40 PM
Borg will always be Stats Goat because he retired so young. Only way to stop this is if Nadal retires this year. Which he won't (hopefully).

I dont think Borg would lose to hack factor 4 even at 30, he was very consistent and adaptable to different surfaces.

DJ Soup
06-07-2012, 12:41 PM
did a quick read, but the guy omitted Gaudio

Shinoj
06-07-2012, 12:54 PM
Some of the things that i noticed

The people amongst lower the lists like Novak Djokovic,Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors,Nadal all play the percentages games very well. You wont see them hitting a lot of unforced Errors. You can count on them that they would hit the shot, that they are supposed to hit at that point on most occassions. Hence they play the percentages game very well. Their Game is less Mercurial and more percentages based. They would be consistent in most of their Careers. Only Exception is Federer, who is quite astounding because he has a superb game and has an equally superb consistency.

While the ones higher up in the list had a Mercurial game. You cannot predict their game so much. Take a Mc Enroe,Becker,Edberg,Sampras,Agassi and so on. It can be understood that while they have their highs which a common sports fan would like to watch it more that the ones Lower down in the list like Nadal or a Connors or a Borg they often had their lows which can attribute to their losses..


Also Edberg in his Twilight days was losing to Mugs very often. Mostly after the Wimbeldon 93. He was losing to Journeymen like Norman,Medvedev and so on.


You gotta be kidding me if you say Sampras's game was limited. I wouldnt want to elaborate on his Net Prowess because it is well documented but when he wanted to stay on baseline he was blowing Agassi off the court. He had almost Everything. And in fact he had everything.

WHy he failed on Clay was because he was so good in rest of the surfaces he did not want to change his style. And that is common Sense. After all why would he want to play like a typical Clay Courter hitting Moonballs and having their backs on the Advertising BillBoards. It would have been very UnSampras like.

Sampras was a Champ.

ServeVolley
06-07-2012, 01:07 PM
The so called "GOAT" doesn't top even one of the lists.

Only because he peaked later than some of the other players... You might not realise this, but since the French Open 2003, Federer has never gone out to a player who hadn't/didn't make at least one slam final:

Nalbandian in the 2003 US Open (1x slam finalist)
Keurton in the 2004 French Open (3x slam winner)
Safin in the 2005 Aus Open (2x slam winner)
Nadal in the 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, & 2011 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon, and 2009 & 2012 Aus Open (10x slam winner)
Djokovic in the 2008 & 2011 Aus Open, and 2010 & 2011 US Open (5x slam winner)
Del Potro in the 2009 US Open (1x slam winner)
Soderling in the 2010 French Open (2x slam finalist)
Berdych in 2010 Wimbledon (1x slam finalist)
Tsonga in 2011 Wimbledon (1x slam finalist)

sexybeast
06-07-2012, 01:40 PM
You gotta be kidding me if you say Sampras's game was limited. I wouldnt want to elaborate on his Net Prowess because it is well documented but when he wanted to stay on baseline he was blowing Agassi off the court. He had almost Everything. And in fact he had everything.

WHy he failed on Clay was because he was so good in rest of the surfaces he did not want to change his style. And that is common Sense. After all why would he want to play like a typical Clay Courter hitting Moonballs and having their backs on the Advertising BillBoards. It would have been very UnSampras like.

Sampras was a Champ.


I dont think it was mentioned that Sampras was limited, but there is no denying that he was prone to lose to low ranked players. I also dont think he would have to become a typical claycourter (like if that was possible) to be great on clay, just play like Laver and Federer, allcourt tennis using touch and their big forehands aswell as learning how to move on clay. Ofcourse Sampras' game was limited when it came to his potential to become a great claycourter.

If a mercurian game meant losing early is difficult to tell, Mcenroe was incredibly consistent between 79 and 85 with a mercurian game, losing to other "greats" 3 times out of 4.

Shinoj
06-07-2012, 01:56 PM
I dont think it was mentioned that Sampras was limited, but there is no denying that he was prone to lose to low ranked players. I also dont think he would have to become a typical claycourter (like if that was possible) to be great on clay, just play like Laver and Federer, allcourt tennis using touch and their big forehands aswell as learning how to move on clay. Ofcourse Sampras' game was limited when it came to his potential to become a great claycourter.

If a mercurian game meant losing early is difficult to tell, Mcenroe was incredibly consistent between 79 and 85 with a mercurian game, losing to other "greats" 3 times out of 4.


At the End of the Day,The French Open is just one of the 4 Slams. Of Course you can priotize it ; For Some it will be the least important and for some it will be the most important. But at the end of the day on an average, it is just one other Slam.

I am pretty sure that Sampras with his 14 Grand Slams will always be considered better than Andre Agassi who had a Career Slam By the way.

And you can argue that Sampras should have played like this or that and even Better Sampras would have thought by now that He should have played like that. But at those moments with whatever level of preparation and legacy that he had on Clay Courts he did what he could.

Also you have to account for the fact that in Laver's Era the Field was not as competitive as it was in Sampras's Era or Sampras's must not have played on Clay as much as European Clay Born and Bred Federer did.

Shinoj
06-07-2012, 02:05 PM
And By the way John Mcenroe,s Stats against Fellow greats like Bjorn Borg,Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl

John Mac 7- Borg -7
John Mac 20- Connors -14
John Mac 15 - Lendl -21

He has a very Good Record against them as you can see and also i am pretty sure he would have a more formidable record against Lendl if you consider just his peak years. Now the Question will arise whether Lendl was in his Peak then? So it is going to be quite complicated. Mcenroe had a very record against the Top Players, i would say.

sexybeast
06-07-2012, 02:28 PM
And By the way John Mcenroe,s Stats against Fellow greats like Bjorn Borg,Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl

John Mac 7- Borg -7
John Mac 20- Connors -14
John Mac 15 - Lendl -21

He has a very Good Record against them as you can see and also i am pretty sure he would have a more formidable record against Lendl if you consider just his peak years. Now the Question will arise whether Lendl was in his Peak then? So it is going to be quite complicated. Mcenroe had a very record against the Top Players, i would say.

Yes, ofcourse he had. I meant out of all the matches he lost in slams between 79 and 85, 75% of his losses was against Top Players.

I didnt mean Mcenroe lost 3 times out of 4 matches he played against greats, I meant that 3 out of 4 slam losses was at the hand of other greats.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I am a Mcenroe fan afterall and may be even a bit biased here but I would say Mcenroe is extremly underrated and always won slams beating other greats, also only played 3 slams every year.

If you compare Mcenroe to Wilander, both with 7 slams, the numbers clearly lie about their greatness and Mcenroe is on a whole different level of greatness compared to Wilander.

If you count TMC as the slam instead of Australian Open (it was more important at that era), Mcenroe ends up with 10 slams+TMC and Wilander with 4 slams+TMC. Then we look into their number of titles, Mcenroe with almost 80 and Wilander with 30, you can further look into Mcenroe's hack factor, losing 50% of his slam matches to other greats while Wilander is down at 35%.

Shinoj
06-07-2012, 03:11 PM
Mc Enroe and Federer are the most gifted and Natural Tennis Players Ever.

But my Fav ones were Stefan Edberg and Later Kafelnikov(to some extend) and then Marat Safin.:yeah:

sexybeast
06-07-2012, 03:17 PM
Mc Enroe and Federer are the most gifted and Natural Tennis Players Ever.


Add Laver to those and I agree.

TigerTim
06-07-2012, 03:23 PM
Add Laver to those and I agree.

everyone pre WW2 seems to rave about Budge also. Doubt anyone here saw him though.

Shinoj
06-07-2012, 03:37 PM
Add Laver to those and I agree.

Yes. Even in those Blurry Videos you could see that His Touches were exquisite.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-08-2012, 12:33 AM
federer 2003 is the only true all court player who could play a master level game

sampras 1994- arguably there aswell

tsonga is a coulda been great with allcourter skills

laver- yes 100%

sexybeast
07-08-2012, 09:07 PM
Djokovic is one loss away from having 50% of his losses in GS against either Federer or Nadal!

Djokovic has lost 25 GS matches, 6 against Federer and 6 against Nadal.

Garson007
07-08-2012, 10:53 PM
Djokovic is one loss away from having 50% of his losses in GS against either Federer or Nadal!

Djokovic has lost 25 GS matches, 6 against Federer and 6 against Nadal.
:eek: That is quite the stat. Djokovic has always been extremely consistent.