Mens Tennis Forums banner

What do you consider as owning in a h2h?

5K views 73 replies 35 participants last post by  Kyle_Johansen 
#1 · (Edited)
There are a lot to take into consideration here. It's not a straight forward answer. For instance if someone is your pigeon and you lead your opponent 8-0 I would consider that owning. But if you have played 34 matches like Sampras and Agassi did and Sampras leads Agassi 20-14 I would not consider that as ownage.

Agassi still got very important wins over Sampras like the AO final or SF. Similar with Fedal. Federer leads Blake 10-1 in h2h. I would consider that ownage. Nadal leads Federer 19-10 in the h2h but they have played 18 more matches. Also Federer have beaten Nadal 4 times in the WTF and in 2 Wimby finals.

He has also bageled Nadal twice while he was only bagaled once by Nadal. I don't consider that as ownage either. I think we can safely say Federer owned Roddick(21-3). Can you imagine Roddick bageling Federer or beating him in a slam? He almost did at Wimby 09 but when his time came he choked handsomely.

So what would you consider as owning? Pigeon status with less than 10 matches played? Turkey status with less than 20 matches played? Or is it all about the results in slams?

Discuss.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
It is not always about numbers. It is how the battles go.

Nadal owns Fed on dirt and outdoor hard.

Nole owned Nadal for a year, but Nadal leads 19-15 overall.

Lendl was 16-0 lifetime vs. Brad Gilbert, now that is owning.
 
#6 ·
I consider it to be owning it it predicts that you will win comfortably against your opponent regardless of surface. That is obviously not true of Federer - Nadal, where it predicts 1) Nadal will win easy on clay, 2) Nadal will be favourite on outdoor hard, 2) A match on grass will be more or less open, and 4) Federer will be resounding favourite indoors.

Compare that to for example Nadal - Almagro where Nadal will be (at least) resounding favourite everywhere, even indoors. Now that is ownage.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Very good criteria for h2h ownage Litotes. By this criteria Federer would more or less be the favorite on fast courts vs Nadal in the Fedal rivalry, while Nadal would be the favorite more or less on slow courts. How can you own a guy who owns you indoors, or any surface for that matter? The surface argument is very valid.
 
#8 ·
Lol at Fedtards clutching at the straws in order to justify their idol being owned by Nadal. Would be a turkey now if Decrepitrer didn't chicken out of his R3 match.
 
#9 ·
With 5 wins and 1 loss vs. his favorite pigeon, Fed was already the best ever player and owner of a turkey opponent.
That was when no opponent was consistent, therefore the turkey played him twice or more per year.

Then again, losses don't mean much.

Losing with 2 match points twice on a faster court, including one vs. an injured Novak.

Saving 3 match points vs. his pigeon at the 2006 Masters Cup.

Losing 2 match points on clay in 2006 Rome final.
Losing *5-4 & 4-2 leads vs. Nadal in 2008 Monte Carlo.

Novak tanking set points & 4-2 at the 2007 US Open final.

Pigeon collapsing at the 2009 Wimbledon final.
Peak Federer.
 
#11 ·
I do not agree with the sentiment that Djokovic owns Nadal, just so that much is clear.

I do, however, consider it is possible to talk about ownage even when total numbers suggest otherwise. Consider Lendl vs. Connors. Lendl won 17 in a row. Now, that has got to be ownage, hasn't it? Only problem is, Connors won the first nine. Their H2H went from 0-9 via 5-13 to 22-13. At which point was it possible to talk about Lendl owning Connors? What about on 13-13, when he had eight in a row?
 
#14 ·
There are a lot to take into consideration here. It's not a straight forward answer. For instance if someone is your pigeon and you lead your opponent 8-0 I would consider that owning. But if you have played 36 matches like Sampras and Agassi did and Sampras leads Agassi 20-14 I would not consider that as ownage.

Agassi still got very important wins over Sampras like the AO final or SF. Similar with Fedal. Federer leads Blake 10-1 in h2h. I would consider that ownage. Nadal leads Federer 19-10 in the h2h but they have played 18 more matches. Also Federer have beaten Nadal 4 times in the WTF and in 2 Wimby finals.

He has also bageled Nadal twice while he was only bagaled once by Nadal. I don't consider that as ownage either. I think we can safely say Federer owned Roddick(21-3). Can you imagine Roddick bageling Federer or beating him in a slam? He almost did at Wimby 09 but when his time came he choked handsomely.

So what would you consider as owning? Pigeon status with less than 10 matches played? Turkey status with less than 20 matches played? Or is it all about the results in slams?

Discuss.
36=20+14
36=34
Mind=Blown :confused:
 
#16 ·
IMO it is about 50% more wins. For example, 15-10. Or 12-7. Of course, number of played matches must be at least 8-10 to draw a conclusion about this, but there is a slight problem in -recent wins- argument. If someone is 10-5 up, but he lost last 5 matches, it is not a ownage. Its a bit fluid category
 
#28 ·
a player having at least 4 times as many wins as the other guy

the thing about the federer-nadal rivalry, is that federer still wins a third of their matches, judging off that h2h, federer has a 33% chance of winning in any match, which isn't that bad in tennis ownage history

if you want ownage, look at nadal/djokovic vs berdshit, or federer vs ferrer :facepalm:
 
#39 ·
:haha:

8-2 at Slams for Nadal.

Fedmug hasn't won over Nadal SIX long years at Slams- definition of ownage.
Meanwhile Fedmug only was winning Slams where Nadal had been out in early rounds LOL

Once again only Slam's H2H is relevant, i don't know if Berdych is Djoko pigeon but Fedmug is Nadal's golden pigeon for sure.
 
#29 ·
You have to play at least 4 matches.
3-0 is really not an "owning".
Those 4 matches have to played on at least two surfaces in at least a period of 3 years.

And if the two players have played 4-5 matches against each other, it has to 4-0 or 5-0.

From 6 to 8 matches, I'll go with 5-1, 6-1, 7-1.

From 9 to 12 matches, 7-2, 8-2, 9-2, 10-2.

And then on, from 13 to 17 matches,
10-3 to 14-3.

And then on, from 18 to 23 matches,
14-4 to 19-4.

And then on, from 24 to 30 matches,
19-5 to 25-5.

You can't make a simple rule or factor like 3 times more because that does not fit with every amount of played matches.
 
#30 · (Edited)
Owning has little to do with H2H (though it certainly helps). Player A is owned by player B if player B more or less systematically destroys almost all shreds of certain aura or myth surrounding player A, exposing his weaknesses better than most of the other players in the tour.

And also, there's frequently a sort of vicious circle: being owned contributes to any possible choking that might occur on the court, thus further deepening the ownage.

Good example of true ownage might be Nadal - Ferrer. Psychology is a very important factor in such deliberations. Ferrer indeed seems resigned to his destiny to not EVER beat healthy in-form Rafa, whereas Novak's general frame of mind is simply "I won't be owned. I will keep trying and trying and trying until I find the solution." And so he did recover from convincing H2Hs against Federer and Nadal in his youth.
 
#31 ·
Owning has little to do with H2H (though it certainly helps). Player A is owned by player B if player B more or less systematically destroys almost all shreds of certain aura or myth surrounding player A, exposing his weaknesses better than most of the other players in the tour.

And also, there's frequently a sort of vicious circle: being owned contributes to any possible choking that might occur on the court, thus further deepening the ownage.

Good example of true ownage might be Nadal - Ferrer. Psychology is a very important factor in such deliberations. Ferrer indeed seems resigned to his destiny to not EVER beat healthy in-form Rafa, whereas Novak's general frame of mind is simply "I won't be owned. I will keep trying and trying and trying until I find the solution." And so he did recover from convincing H2Hs against Federer and Nadal in his youth.
So you're saying Nadal has destroyed the aura or myth that surrounded Ferrer? I must have missed out on that one.

Ferrer is certainly owned, but he's not Nadal's most reliable customer at 4-17 with two slam wins among the four. You can say Nadal was not at his best but he didn't meet Ferrer in R1 and he managed to beat the ones he met before Ferrer while not at his best, so some credit must be due Ferrer anyway.
 
#32 ·
Federer owns Ferrer, and that is about as clear as it gets. Federer has a bad H2H record vs Nadal but I would hardly say Nadal owns him and it's hard because their peaks and primes have come at different times. Nadal certainly has the edge on slow HC/clay and Fed has the edge on faster surfaces/indoors and marginally grass (b/c of his serve).
 
#33 ·
Federer owns Ferrer, and that is about as clear as it gets. Federer has a bad H2H record vs Nadal but I would hardly say Nadal owns him and it's hard because their peaks and primes have come at different times. Nadal certainly has the edge on slow HC/clay and Fed has the edge on faster surfaces/indoors and marginally grass (b/c of his serve).
Wow, I just realized the h2h is 14-0. Three more wins and it will be bigger ownage than the 16-0 of Lendl vs Gilbert.
 
#34 ·
The biggest thing about "ownage" is that it's all mental. Almagro vs Nadal is an example. Almagro has been in winning positions but he always finds ways to lose. With Federer vs Nadal, many times Rafa is the better player and just has the matchup advantage, so Fed has to go far out of his comfort zone, especially on clay.
 
#35 ·
If someone won 70% matches they played, playing each other at least 5 times - I'd consider it a H2H dominance.

Unlike some people here, I wouldn't consider the differential (+5, -3, etc.), but rather percentage of matches won against a certain player. Djokovic loses H2H against Nadal 15-19, which is actually much better than losing 2-5, even though the differential in later is better (-4 < -3). But in the first case, winning percentage is much better (44% > 28,5%).
 
#36 ·
Agreed. Also h2h can turn around quite dramatically. We have seen this many times for example Lendl/Connors and Fed/Hewitt. The one guy basically gets owned and he turns it around and starts owning the other guy. In this case it is still ownage, even though the h2h may not end up looking like ownage. For instance Nadal leads Djokovic 19-15 but has owned him in the last 11 match(8-3). This is why h2h is a very complex thing. I would say Djokovic owns Nadal, yet he trails him by 4 in the h2h!
 
#44 ·
It`s all about mentality. If the player goes on court without inner self-belief - well, he is owned. As much as I don`t like to say it, but Ferrer and Gasquet would be great example. Troicki and Djokovic too I guess. Monaco and Nadal.
 
#45 ·
Folks I think Litotes has come up with the best criteria so far. When you lead a guy in the h2h across all surfaces that qualifies as owning. In Fedal's case Nadal only leads Federer on clay which is to be expected after all. On hard court it's 6-6. On grass it's 2-1 Federer. On indoor it's 4-0 Federer. So if we go by the surface criteria Federer is closer to owning Nadal than the other way around.
 
#49 ·
the Fed vs Denko, Blake and Roddick are classical examples

and i agree that Litotes' system is perfect
It is a great system and Litotes is a smart poster, but I'm not sure it's perfect. Fed leads Ferrer 14-0 in the h2h. Now lets say they meet on grass and Ferrer wins that match(very unlikely I know) it means that Ferrer leads Fed in the h2h on grass. So by the surface criteria Fed would not own Ferrer, even though the h2h would be 14-1. Or Fed gets injured during that match and it counts as a win for Ferrer. I think in that case you can just discount that match and say Federer owns Ferrer.
 
#52 ·
:facepalm: All the fedtards trying to defend their idols putrid hth agaisnt Nadal. Federer is simply the inferior player by a large margin to Nadal just as their hth states.
 
#54 ·
Fluke is how a sad pigeon loses 3 match points in Masters Cup, a Wimbledon set and a big lead in another set against Fed. Hopefully, Djoker will humiliate Fed 5+ times this year.
 
#64 ·
I don't think Fed is going to face Djoko so many times this year.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top