Comparison of the big five [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Comparison of the big five

WyverN
01-08-2004, 07:13 AM
I found the following website interesting

http://www.tennis28.com/ST/NB_Compare.html

Compares Federer, Ferrero, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt.

Hewitt is in the lead now but my opinion is that the others will catch up shortly.

Action Jackson
01-08-2004, 07:24 AM
Thanks for that link, it was interesting. You are so hoping that Hewitt gets overtaken aren't you?

Looking at those figures, I noticed a few things
-Hewitt and Federer have the most 1st round exits- 6
-Ferrero has the best record from the semis with 2 semi final finishes, 2 runners up and a Slam win.
-Safin has the most DNPs and Federer has to overcome the 4th round fever and progress through this barrier.

J. Corwin
01-08-2004, 10:46 AM
It is after looking at that site that made me realize really how quickly Roddick ascended the rankings. He debuted in 2000 while the others started in '97. He has been in the top 10 in almost as many weeks as Federer and has been on tour 3 years less than him.

I did a similar comparison thread on the New Balls awhile back, with detailed accomplishment charts and opinions...but the thread has been lost to MTF history. If I wasn't lazy, I'd do a search and bump the thread back up again. Ah well, come post-AO, I'll bump it back.

Thanks for the link, WyverN.

monicain
01-08-2004, 12:27 PM
Look at the surface split and we have:

Hard: Hewitt, FedEx, A-Rod
Clay: JCF
Grass: FedEx, A-Rod, Hewitt
Carpet: Hewitt, Safin

Hewitt is pretty dominated in all surfaces except clay, but I think it 's a matter of time. I think he'd find nowhere to dominate next year, when Roddick rules hard, JCF owns clay, FedEx rules grass and Safin dominate carpet. His just-run-and-run stylee wouldn't survive on any surface.

tangerine_dream
01-08-2004, 03:41 PM
Fascinating. Thanks for the link, WyverN.

Ma. Estefania
01-08-2004, 04:50 PM
Thanx for it, Wyver.

Interesting the fact that Marat on 1997 was already on the top 200....and also Lleyton's jump from 1997 to 1998.

Btw....just wondering....were Marat or Lleyton good at juniors? I never heard too much of them. About Roger and Andy, I do have heard....they were on the top places, but what about Marat or Lleyton?

MisterQ
01-08-2004, 05:00 PM
Great link. Thanks!

Agreed that at this point Hewitt is still a step ahead of the others in accomplishments. This could change within the span of a year or two, however. Interested to see how Lleyton does this year!

Fascinating that Safin, Roddick, Ferrero and Federer all have 11 ATP titles, including just one major, at this point!

Also interesting that Roddick started on the tour a full three years later than all the others, but has caught up in a number of important stats. His head to head vs. the other new balls is still pretty bad, though.

BelgianWaffle
01-08-2004, 05:04 PM
Interesting.. Thanks!

Chloe le Bopper
01-08-2004, 07:01 PM
I didn't realize that Hewitt had so many first round losses in slams... I assume that the majority of those came when he was just starting out, though. The fact that he played his first slam at 15 vs 19 for Ferrero, certainly has it's disadvantages when breaking down their numbers.

Chloe le Bopper
01-08-2004, 07:05 PM
It is after looking at that site that made me realize really how quickly Roddick ascended the rankings. He debuted in 2000 while the others started in '97. He has been in the top 10 in almost as many weeks as Federer and has been on tour 3 years less than him.

I did a similar comparison thread on the New Balls awhile back, with detailed accomplishment charts and opinions...but the thread has been lost to MTF history. If I wasn't lazy, I'd do a search and bump the thread back up again. Ah well, come post-AO, I'll bump it back.

Thanks for the link, WyverN.
Ferrero didn't start on the main tour in 1997. He played a scatter of future, challengers, etc. but was still a junior in 1998, when he made the RG boys final.

His "first year" on tour would have been 1999.

As for Roddick.... he played both Juniors and pro in 2000... and was fairly successful doing so, or he wouldn't have ended in the top 200 ;)

I'm not trying to say that Roddick's rise wasn't more rapid or impressive... it was. Numbers don't lie ;)

But to say that Ferrero started in 1997 and compare them like that would be... silly ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-08-2004, 07:06 PM
Hewitt's rise was more impressive than Roddick's btw... especially when you consider the fact that he was only 16 at the end of 1997 when he had that ranking of 722. After that he skyrocketted... as we all know.

Aside than him, though, Roddick shot up the ranks faster than the rest.

Chloe le Bopper
01-08-2004, 07:09 PM
Interesting that Ferrero's stayed in the top 5 longer than Hewitt has at this point... especially when you consider that Ferrero is viewed as being inconsistent and Hewitt was seen as the master of consistency until this past season.

Of course, it's not really that interesting when you consider that most of Hewitt's "top 5" weeks were spent at number 1, thus Ferrero's got nothing on him ;)

Havok
01-08-2004, 07:14 PM
:eek: look at how long it took everyone else to really crack into the top of the game. Roddick took only one year:worship: Marat did good in one year, but took him 3 years to really crack the top. same for Lleyton and Juan Carlos, took him 3 years. took Roger 4 years:o stats will be a little weird like the h2h and the slam results and stuff due to the age and when they turned pro. nice to see though

Chloe le Bopper
01-08-2004, 07:21 PM
:eek: look at how long it took everyone else to really crack into the top of the game. Roddick took only one year:worship: Marat did good in one year, but took him 3 years to really crack the top. same for Lleyton and Juan Carlos, took him 3 years. took Roger 4 years:o stats will be a little weird like the h2h and the slam results and stuff due to the age and when they turned pro. nice to see though
Lleyton was also 15 when he played his first grand slam. His rise to the top was more impressive than Roddick's... I already stated why I feel that way. Roddick was faster than everybody else, though.

Chloe le Bopper
01-08-2004, 07:27 PM
btw... I don't see anything wrong with the head to heads :confused:

Havok
01-08-2004, 07:41 PM
Rebecca when i was talking about getting to the top the fastest, i was simply looking at when they turned pro and when they got there. obviously Lleyton's was even better than Andy because he was younger, but i was just looking at year to year, not their age. and for the head to heads, Roddick is the one with the least amount of years on tour and he's got a pretty horrible total h2h. most of those loses came in his 1st year on tour back in 2001, so it looks a little weird, but just for him though since all the others in the list have players for at least 2-3 more years than him

maratski
01-08-2004, 08:13 PM
marat turned pro in 1998 and won his first title in '99. He ended that year in the top 50 if I remember correctly and we all know how 2000 was ;)

So it didn't take him that long ;)

Havok
01-08-2004, 08:18 PM
well it only showed the year end rank, and i went by top 20 finish. but as i said Marat's first year was still very good, probably better than anybody else save Roddick

J. Corwin
01-08-2004, 08:29 PM
Ferrero didn't start on the main tour in 1997. He played a scatter of future, challengers, etc. but was still a junior in 1998, when he made the RG boys final.

His "first year" on tour would have been 1999.

My bad.

I knew something didn't read right. ;)

Likewise it can be said for Federer. I believe he actually started the main circuit in 1998, as opposed to 1997.

Shy
01-08-2004, 09:09 PM
Likewise it can be said for Federer. I believe he actually started the main circuit in 1998, as opposed to 1997.

He's first full year in the main circuit would be 1999. He was still a junior in 1998 since he won the boys wimbledon that year.

WyverN
01-09-2004, 12:05 AM
Also interesting that Roddick started on the tour a full three years later than all the others, but has caught up in a number of important stats. His head to head vs. the other new balls is still pretty bad, though.


Does make you wonder if Roddick would have already been more succesful if he became a pro earlier

WyverN
01-09-2004, 12:08 AM
:eek: look at how long it took everyone else to really crack into the top of the game. Roddick took only one year:worship: Marat did good in one year, but took him 3 years to really crack the top. same for Lleyton and Juan Carlos, took him 3 years. took Roger 4 years:o stats will be a little weird like the h2h and the slam results and stuff due to the age and when they turned pro. nice to see though

The way I see it, the simpler a players game is the faster they begin to fulfil their potential.
Guys like Hewitt and Chang and even Roddick have fairly simple gamestyles hence their early success.

Someone like Federer for example has so many weapons and one of his main criticisms during his first few years is he does not know how to use them properly (poor shot selection, ill timed charges to the net etc)

So I don't think how fast a player achieves good results proves anything - I mean look at Chang.

croat123
01-09-2004, 12:09 AM
i'm also pretty sure that roddick had more help (ie wild cards) than the rest.

also, you have to look at the head to heads :o

Chloe le Bopper
01-09-2004, 12:21 AM
i'm also pretty sure that roddick had more help (ie wild cards) than the rest.

also, you have to look at the head to heads :o
I would assume that he got more "handouts" than the other guys, but that could be wrong. Either way, he obviously made good use of his "handouts".

Lisbeth
01-09-2004, 01:05 AM
As someone said, Hewitt did not play much (if any?) juniors because he won his first ATP tournament so young and went on the "adult" tour full time. He was already playing real slams regularly at 16-17 when most men are playing the junior slams. Quite amazing actually.

Interesting analysis and it will be interesting to see the same list in 5/10 years time as their careers draw to a close.

Lisbeth
01-09-2004, 01:09 AM
Does make you wonder if Roddick would have already been more succesful if he became a pro earlier

I don't think so. Roddick and his game both looked pretty immature when he started out as it was. I guess he just wasn't ready in his teens - a lot of men aren't. Even though I think the early wins of a Hewitt or Agassi are impressive, there's no prize for playing early if you don't win. Starting a little later might actually have been the only good advice of Roddick's pre-Gilbert career!

Lisbeth
01-09-2004, 01:11 AM
The way I see it, the simpler a players game is the faster they begin to fulfil their potential.
Guys like Hewitt and Chang and even Roddick have fairly simple gamestyles hence their early success.

Someone like Federer for example has so many weapons and one of his main criticisms during his first few years is he does not know how to use them properly (poor shot selection, ill timed charges to the net etc)

So I don't think how fast a player achieves good results proves anything - I mean look at Chang.

I do agree with this. A Federer or Sampras game is a work of art and develops more slowly. If they're careful, it also lasts longer.

Havok
01-09-2004, 02:40 AM
i'm also pretty sure that roddick had more help (ie wild cards) than the rest.

also, you have to look at the head to heads :o
yeah he got more wildcards than the rest but he isnt no elke clijsters thats for sure:lol: he got most of them in 2000, very begining of 2001. then he won consecutive tournaments so he didn't need them anymore:wavey: so the wildcard thing doesnt really matter. and as i mentioned before, the head to heads don't really look good for Andy because more than half of those loses came in his 1st year on tour 2001. which was why i was saying some of the stats are a little weirs because of the age difference/years on tour/etc.

Ma. Estefania
01-09-2004, 05:12 PM
As someone said, Hewitt did not play much (if any?) juniors because he won his first ATP tournament so young and went on the "adult" tour full time. He was already playing real slams regularly at 16-17 when most men are playing the junior slams. Quite amazing actually.

Yeah, I really found amazing that at that age Hewitt was already at the 7-- th something position....that's why maybe there isn't too much info about his juniors' results....

But what about Marat? Was he good at juniors?