[Chloe le Bopper]

Disclaimer - the point in this thread is NOT to argue wether or not either of these guys deserved their number on rankings in the given years. It is NOT to take away from anything they have done. I do not question any of these things. The point is merely to emphasize just how biased the media, and some fans are, in regards to clay court tennis, and those who excel at it.

Yes I am aware Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002. However, at the end of 2001, that made no difference whatsoever. The reaction to his yera ending rank by both fans, and the media, was based on what he did in 2001, NOT in 2002. Just like Guga's 2000.

Moving on.

What I did was took the points accumulated in the champions race (only those that counted towards their final rank, as events they played that didn't count, do NOT pad their rankings), and determined what percentage of points were earned on what surfaces.

First I'll provide the raw data for you. That is, how many points were earned on each surface, for both. I lumped rebound ace into hardcourt obviously, and all indoor events into the same catagory. The flaw in my logic lies in the fact I wasn't able to pick out which of the indoor events were carpet, as i shouldn't count those as hardcourt. However seeing as Hewitt in 2001 didnt win any matches on what tenniscorner calls carpet, and Guga only won 5 - it doesn't make a HUGE difference.

Points won Per Surfaces (surface - points)

Kuerten-2000

harcourt (outdoor) - 213
hardcourt (indoor) - 190
clay - 421
grass -15
total - 839


Hewitt-2001

harcourt (outdoor) - 465
hardcourt (indoor) - 196
clay - 110
grass - 110
total - 881



Of course, raw data, only tells us so much. However, if you look at the points won per surface as percentages, it tells us a lot more.


Percentage of Points Per Surface (surface - percentage)

Kuerten-2000

harcourt (outdoor) - 25.4
hardcourt (indoor) - 22.6
clay - 50.2
grass - 1.8

Hewitt-2001

hardcourt (outdoor) - 52.8
hardcourt (indoor) - 22.2
clay - 12.5
grass - 12.5


Now, this tells us a couple things.

Firstly, BOTH players "padded" their rankings based on success on one main surface. Obviously this would be hardcourt for Hewitt, and clay for Guga.

Guga accumulated half of his points on clay. If you count indoor hardcourt, Hewitt accumulated 75% of his points on hardcourt. Even if you dont want to count indoors, he still won more than half his points, on outdoor hardcourts.

Furthermore, Guga won a good chunk of points on two surfaces. Grass, was his weakness. Hewitt won most of his on one, and was split for a smaller percentage on both of the others.

It IS worth noting that Hewitt won titles indoors, outdoor hard, and on grass in 2001. While Guga won titles indoors, outdoor hard, and on clay.

Essentially my point is this - BOTH players "padded" their rankings on one surface. BOTH won titles on either two or three difference surfaces - depending on what you consider indoors (since I lumped them all together).

ONE of them has had comments in the past about their "padded" ranking.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

I just wanted to stress that I think NEITHER should be questioned.

But one was, simply because he is great on clay.

The media, some tennis fans - for some reason, have bias against clay.

YES, more of the tournaments are played on hardcourt. However, it isn't like one can be number one by winning everything on grass. There are a LOT of tournaments on clay.

Guga played well on clay, AND hardcourts. That stats indicated that.

However, people make up excuses etc for why comments were made about his reign.

This should indicate that there ARE no excuses.

 

[Dissident]

Thanks Rebecca.
I am not in favor of questioning either player on their acchievments. Although, I have to point out that I read MANY bad publicity on Guga´s legitimacy as a number one player.
That said, I didnt read the same about Hewitt, and that makes an interesting point.
I agree that winning on clay is taken as a minot acchievment to winning on hard or grass.
The reason is beyond me.
As I praised Guga for his performance in 2000, I did to Hewitt last year and this year. All three were finished with the year end title, a grand year and an impressive performance.

Thanks again Becca! :wavey:

 

[Murkofan]

Numbers. I hate 'em.

But anyways, looks like you did a lot of research Becs. Unfortunately, I don't really have much of a response for you, as I agree with you.

As far as this "claycourt specialist" stigma Guga has, it obviously doesn't truly apply. But a lot of casual fans aren't going to realize this, as when they turn on a match on (American, at least) TV, the commentators will be talking about his FO titles, not his lesser hardcourt titles.

 

[Lee]

Thanks Becca for all the work!

 

[TennisHack]

But a lot of casual fans aren't going to realize this, as when they turn on a match on (American, at least) TV, the commentators will be talking about his FO titles, not his lesser hardcourt titles.

That's why I disagree with the cat--PMac & Cliffy do *not* deserve to be lauded, because they really are doing a disservice to the casual tennis fan by making the players seem so one-sided and surface-specialists.

I think the only time I ever heard Hewitt being criticized this year (besides the whole ESPN debacle) was when he was constantly called a "banging baseliner" and how everyone made it seem like a disgrace that he won Wimbly from the back court.

It's crap like that that make me like Wimbledon less and less.

 

[Murkofan]

I think the only time I ever heard Hewitt being criticized this year (besides the whole ESPN debacle) was when he was constantly called a "banging baseliner" and how everyone made it seem like a disgrace that he won Wimbly from the back court.

I was annoyed by that as well. I mean, yes, he's a baseliner, but he's certainly no banger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard DH described as a "banging baseliner." Personally, I liked seeing Lleyton win Wimbledon, besides that fact that he's my fave. I just liked seeing something different at Wimby for once. I'm not a huge fan of the serve/volley game, as it strikes me as very big serve oriented and very hit-or-miss. But God forbid the traditions at Wimbledon be shaken up.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Tennishack - I don't like Wimbledon as it is Seeing as like 1% of the season is played on grass (what, like 7 tournaments?), I don't see how some regard it as the crown jewel in tennis. But to each his own.

I think the only time I ever heard Hewitt being criticized this year (besides the whole ESPN debacle) was when he was constantly called a "banging baseliner" and how everyone made it seem like a disgrace that he won Wimbly from the back court.

I remember reading this, and disagreeing. Hewitt can play well from any part of the court. Anyone who watches tennis should know that. He won Wimbledon from the back of the court, because at the time that was all he needed to beat David.

But anyways, looks like you did a lot of research Becs. Unfortunately, I don't really have much of a response for you, as I agree with you.

It wasn't THAT much research. Just took the figures from atptennis, and talked about them

 

[Dissident]

Oh gosh, I guess I didnt read that.
How stupid is that remark??
Some people are really pros on making themselves come out as asses.

 

[Murkofan]

More iniative than I would've shown.

I just thought of something else for you to look up if you feel like it. 1)What's the ratio of hardcourt tournaments to claycourt tournaments throughout the course of the season and 2) what's the ratio of hardcourt tournaments to claycourt tournaments played by Guga in 2000 and Lleyton in 2001?

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

I'll do that later tonight when I should be doing stats.

You'll find it in the morning


*I shit you not*

 

[Murkofan]

*Is confident that she is not being shitted*

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

On second thought, I will do that tomorrow.

My assignment has been put back a day.

SO I have to kill tomorrow now.

 

[Ma. Estefania]

I think the only time I ever heard Hewitt being criticized this year (besides the whole ESPN debacle) was when he was constantly called a "banging baseliner" and how everyone made it seem like a disgrace that he won Wimbly from the back court.

Why a disgrace that a baseliner has win it?
What? Only serve-volley players can win it?
Baseliners also can.....damn.
I like baseliners and complete players as Martina Hingis, that's why I like her.:hearts: :kiss:

 

[ys]

Firstly, BOTH players "padded" their rankings based on success on one main surface.

Firstly, BOTH players "padded" their rankings based on success in one major tournament. Take that tournament out of the equation first.

Second, take out of the equation another tournament - season-ending championships, because it combines players with very different motivation and surface mean little then. It is obvious that Kuerten beat Sampras and Agassi in Lisbon mostly because he had a kind of motivation that his opponents had not. Then calculate what is remaining.

 

[Ace Tracker]

and what would be next y_s, taking his other titles off the equation?
If we were to take the season ending Masters Championships off Hewitt's 2001 record, Guga would have been the number 1 player then...

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

I don't see why I should analyse their stats with their grand slam wins removed.

I think that what surface they won 200 points on for their slam win that year is entirely relevant to the debate.

Otherwise, I would be happy to do the work.

But seeing as both had comprable years (year end champs, one slam, a lot of points on one surface, number one ranking) - I fail to see why I should remove the two tournaments that put them at number one, or pretty much defined their so called surface specialization at that point in their careers.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Ace Tracker - if we remove the year end champs, Marat would have been number on in 2000 as well

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

*has nothing better to do*

If you remove the tournaments you commented on ys - even though in no way does it make a difference to the point I made -

You come up with the following:

Kuerten-2000 (surface- points- percentage of total)

harcourt (outdoor) - 213 - 41.8%
hardcourt (indoor) - 60 - 11.8%
clay - 221 - 43.4%
grass -15 - 2.9%
total - 509


Hewitt-2001 (surface -points-percentage of total)

harcourt (outdoor) - 265 - 49.9%
hardcourt (indoor) - 46 - 8.7%
clay - 110 - 20.7%
grass - 110 - 20.7%
total - 531


All this goes to tell us is that Hewitt STILL won a larger percentage of his points on his chosen surface in 2001. Furthermore it shows that Guga won about as many of his points on hardcourt as he did on clay, if you take out those two tournaments.

Explain to me what difference this makes, either than blowing up Hewitts clay and grass stats?

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Did Guga not also make the semis of Paris in 2000, losing to Mark P? I'm fairly certain that was the case.

So the year end champs were NOT his only good indoor result that year.