Mens Tennis Forums banner

81 - 100 of 109 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
Voo, as good as your numerical stats are, as always, impressive and without blame, I have to say that you are trying something that can't be measured with numbers, and the result ends up being rather arbitrary. Robredo has saved many compromising situations, true, but how many of those have been caused by hiw own mental weakness? and it is worth the same a comeback versus any player? what about coming back versus a man that has beaten you six times in a row? also, moments in a career are very different, some losses are meaningless, some are demolishing. You can't measure courage or determination, although I concede that your attempt has been a serious and methodical effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #83
Robredo has saved many compromising situations, true, but how many of those have been caused by his own mental weakness?
It applies to every player in this thread, look at the numbers, everyone lost at least ~20 matches being relatively close to victory, Nadal lost 18 times for instance matches like 4-6 6-3 6-7 (Del Potro) or 6-2 6-7 3-6 (Garcia-Lopez).

and it is worth the same a comeback versus any player? what about coming back versus a man that has beaten you six times in a row? also, moments in a career are very different, some losses are meaningless, some are demolishing. You can't measure courage or determination, although I concede that your attempt has been a serious and methodical effort.
You haven't also understood the idea of the thread. It's not about analyzing specific players competing against each other (counting all those matches, it really doesn't matter to me that Robredo is 0-11 against Roddick or Wawrinka against Nadal), it's about the mass of players and their entanglement over the 40 years. It's just about numbers and hypothetical assumption what could have happened if a particular player had had bigger or smaller technical/physical potential. I guess for example - give Furlan skills of Rios (both very similar posture) and maybe he would be the best in the world for a while, not 19 as he was in 1996. It's just theoretical assumption.

The stuff is confusing because every has own idea who is strong who isn't, so I suspect it's annoying when I depict the list completely different from the assumption of others, but I don't care. Almost everyone apologize for netcords, I play racquet sports often never apologizing for anything when I win a point (if I don't hurt physically my opponent); people mention break points and unforced errors - I never do this because in my opinion so called "unforced errors" are silly and "break point" stats incomplete so actually meaningless. I don't seek reflection of my own opinions in others.
My list isn't made by a person who began watching tennis last year. As I mentioned earlier: I was thinking about this thread a few years while I started to watch tennis from the tactical point of view in February 1991, I remember it was E.Sanchez-Mansdorf match in Stuttgart. It's long enough to have complex considerations about tennis.

In the end of all discussions, numbers like introduced to this thread are meaningless, what counts the most is who wins the biggest titles. The fact Renzo Furlan is higher in the list than Nadal or Federer doesn't change the fact he is actually a nobody in the history of tennis comparing to them.
I could prepare much more quicker a thread with 250 players and their achievements, but it's too obvious to waste time for something like this especially that this knowledge is broadly accessible on the official ATP site & Wikipedia. Everyone who knows which tournaments are the most important is able to make such a comparison. Perhaps I'll write a book about 250 best players of the Open era in the 50th anniversary (2018) and certainly numbers of the matrix won't be included there, also the list will differ (I guess 20-30 players)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #84
BTW, I've lately made a page on my website composed of my tweets.

Matrix-251, 238-Tweets... it's a play with unconventional narrative. I'm sick of repeating the same stuff all the time, I know something about this because I've made on my website 116 Grand Slam tournaments according to the same pattern (except the 2010 majors).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,516 Posts
Mountaindewslave is not getting it I think. The point is trying to take tennis skill and fitness out of the equation and look at simply mental strength as its own parameter. The point being, players with better mental strenght may be able to gut out wins in situations where they are the worse player, looking at skill and the match alone. Very interesting, I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #86
The point is trying to take tennis skill and fitness out of the equation and look at simply mental strength as its own parameter.
Exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
It applies to every player in this thread, look at the numbers, everyone lost at least ~20 matches being relatively close to victory, Nadal lost 18 times for instance matches like 4-6 6-3 6-7 (Del Potro) or 6-2 6-7 3-6 (Garcia-Lopez).



You haven't also understood the idea of the thread. It's not about analyzing specific players competing against each other (counting all those matches, it really doesn't matter to me that Robredo is 0-11 against Roddick or Wawrinka against Nadal), it's about the mass of players and their entanglement over the 40 years. It's just about numbers and hypothetical assumption what could have happened if a particular player had had bigger or smaller technical/physical potential. I guess for example - give Furlan skills of Rios (both very similar posture) and maybe he would be the best in the world for a while, not 19 as he was in 1996. It's just theoretical assumption.

The stuff is confusing because every has own idea who is strong who isn't, so I suspect it's annoying when I depict the list completely different from the assumption of others, but I don't care. Almost everyone apologize for netcords, I play racquet sports often never apologizing for anything when I win a point (if I don't hurt physically my opponent); people mention break points and unforced errors - I never do this because in my opinion so called "unforced errors" are silly and "break point" stats incomplete so actually meaningless. I don't seek reflection of my own opinions in others.
My list isn't made by a person who began watching tennis last year. As I mentioned earlier: I was thinking about this thread a few years while I started to watch tennis from the tactical point of view in February 1991, I remember it was E.Sanchez-Mansdorf match in Stuttgart. It's long enough to have complex considerations about tennis.

In the end of all discussions, numbers like introduced to this thread are meaningless, what counts the most is who wins the biggest titles. The fact Renzo Furlan is higher in the list than Nadal or Federer doesn't change the fact he is actually a nobody in the history of tennis comparing to them.
I could prepare much more quicker a thread with 250 players and their achievements, but it's too obvious to waste time for something like this especially that this knowledge is broadly accessible on the official ATP site & Wikipedia. Everyone who knows which tournaments are the most important is able to make such a comparison. Perhaps I'll write a book about 250 best players of the Open era in the 50th anniversary (2018) and certainly numbers of the matrix won't be included there, also the list will differ (I guess 20-30 players)
I get what you mean... and despite still not agreeing it can be called "mental thoughness ranking", I as ever enjoyed your work and learned a lot about players I didn't know. Thanks :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #88
I get what you mean... and despite still not agreeing it can be called "mental toughness ranking", I as ever enjoyed your work and learned a lot about players I didn't know. Thanks :)
Perhaps better terminology could be applied, but it's not a problem of this thread - it's rather a general problem of modernity, the rate of change is much more faster than the linguistic changes. Thus I'm follower of combining words with pictures & music - this 3-piece mixture allows to better convey what we mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Mountaindewslave is not getting it I think. The point is trying to take tennis skill and fitness out of the equation and look at simply mental strength as its own parameter. The point being, players with better mental strenght may be able to gut out wins in situations where they are the worse player, looking at skill and the match alone. Very interesting, I think.
I get the 'concept' and I understand Voo has just compiled stats regarding very close matches and sets and the ratio in which a player wins in these close moments
the problem is - much like Bazooka has already pointed out- that tons of sets go to tiebreaks, and matches to 5 sets, because of LACK of mental strength
if Robredo repeatedly lets himself get taken to 5 by mediocre opponents or won a lot of tight sets in tiebreaks why would he automatically deserve credit for being mentally strong? you could just have easily have been mentally weak, ala blowing leads or letting a match be far too close against players much worse than yourself
I find stats as interesting as anyone but you can't just take 4 or 5 stats regarding the end of matches and sets and act like they have true bearing
far too many intangibles
like I mentioned earlier, if Robredo wins tons of tight matches against players average like a 50th in the world rank because he plays a huge proportion of small tournaments in his schedule, and Federer wins a bit fewer tight matches but plays his matches against an average opponent of like 20th rank, by these stats Robredo (as is shown) is supposedly 'mentally tougher'

it's just entirely skewed by the things Voo doesn't take into account. I applaud the effort but you can't exactly theorize 'mental toughness' with numbers. this is the sort of thing you need to observe. players can win and lose tight matches for many reasons and compiling data, even in high volume, does not make it any more reliable or fulproof
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #90 (Edited)
Random stuff worth mentioning​

  • Most 3-setters won in "best of three" matches in a row: 23 - Paolo Bertolucci: January '75 - April '73
Code:
6-2 2-6 6-4 Dick Crealy [AUS]
1-6 7-6 7-5 Jan Lundquist [SWE]	
3-6 6-4 8-6 Ramiro Benavides [BOL]	
6-4 6-8 6-4 Hans Kary [AUT]	
6-4 3-6 8-6 Steve Faulk [USA]	
5-7 6-2 6-4 Bernard Mitton [RSA]	
6-3 6-7 6-3 Dick Crealy [AUS]	
7-6 5-7 7-5 Steve Krulevitz [USA]	
5-7 6-4 6-1 Onny Parun [NZL]	
6-3 5-7 6-1 Marco Consolini [ITA]	
4-6 6-1 10-8 Vladimir Zednik [CZE]	
5-7 7-5 6-0 Bob Carmichael [AUS]	
1-6 6-3 8-6 Antonio Munoz [ESP]	
1-6 6-4 6-2 Charlie Pasarell [USA]	
7-6 4-6 6-4 John Alexander [AUS]	
6-3 8-9 6-4 Tony Roche [AUS]	
4-6 6-2 7-5 Jiri Hrebec [CZE]	
4-6 6-3 7-5 Roger Taylor [GBR]	
4-6 6-3 6-3 Ion Tiriac [ROU]		
0-6 6-3 6-2 Jun Kuki [JPN]		
6-2 0-6 7-5 Mike Collins [GBR] 
4-6 6-3 6-2 Patrice Dominguez [FRA]	
7-5 5-7 6-4 Modesto Vazquez [ESP]
* 10 out of 23 included to the matrix (all 4th Cat.)​

  • Most 5-setters won by a two-game advantage with at least 12-game deciders: 8 - Goran Ivanisevic (1992-2001)
Code:
Magnus Larsson [SWE]	6-7 6-3 6-1 3-6 9-7
Jakob Hlasek [SUI]	3-6 6-0 4-6 7-6 9-7
Fabrice Santoro [FRA]	6-7 6-7 6-4 6-4 8-6
Chris Bailey [GBR]	5-7 7-6 6-7 6-4 9-7
Thomas Muster [AUT]	6-7 7-5 6-7 6-2 7-5
Richard Krajicek [NED]	6-3 6-4 5-7 6-7 15-13
Cedric Pioline [FRA]	6-4 2-6 7-5 1-6 9-7
Patrick Rafter [AUS]	6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7
* Djokovic has won 8 as well (seven of them with 7 ahead)​

  • Very likely, the best "shifter of the momentum": 19 - Andres Gomez (1979-1991)
Code:
Jan Kodes [CZE]	        4-6 7-6 6-4
Robert Vant Hof [USA]	3-6 7-6 6-2
Ivan Lendl [USA]	2-6 7-6 6-4
Anders Jarryd [SWE]	3-6 7-6 6-1
Pablo Arraya [PER]	4-6 7-6 6-4
Tom Gullikson [USA]	5-7 7-6 6-1
John Sadri [USA]	4-6 7-6 6-2
Guy Forget [FRA]	4-6 7-6 6-1
John Fitzgerald [AUS]	3-6 7-6 6-4
Libor Pimek [BEL]	3-6 7-5 6-4
Vincent Van Patten [USA]6-7 7-6 6-2
Jordi Arrese [ESP]	4-6 7-6 6-0
Fernando Luna [ESP]	6-7 7-6 6-2
Jeremy Bates [GBR]	4-6 7-6 6-1
Eduardo Bengoechea [ARG]1-6 7-6 6-2
Patrick Baur [GER]	4-6 7-6 6-1
Derrick Rostagno [USA]	1-6 7-5 6-3
Diego Perez [URU]	3-6 7-6 6-0
Goran Prpic [CRO]	4-6 7-6 6-4
* Behind Federer 65% & Djokovic 64%, Gomez is third best in tie-breaks along with Nadal 63%​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #92
Robredo mental giant :eek:
From my point of view the most important random info about Robredo's mentality is the fact he won this year three straight matches from two-sets-to-love down. No-one accomplished such a feat since 1927
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,177 Posts
Robredo's greatest mental feat was reading MTF and refraining from necking himself afterwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #94
The matrix-players by country:

43 - USA
26 - Spain
18 - Argentina, France
17 - Sweden
15 - Australia
10 - Italy
9 - Czech Republic, Germany, Russia
6 - Croatia, Netherlands
5 - Austria, South Africa, Switzerland
4 - Chile, Serbia
3 - Great Britain, Brazil, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine
2 - Belgium, Ecuador, India, Morocco, New Zealand
1 - Belarus, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Thailand, Uruguay, Zimbabwe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #95
Five worst players by each category:​

5-setters (at least 15 played):

Code:
R.Reneberg & K.Carlsen  7-13 	(.35)
Gaudio, Gaston		6-15   	(.28)
Rostagno, Derrick	4-11 	(.26)
Karlovic, Ivo		4-13   	(.23)
Blake, James		4-15   	(.21)
Tie-breaks:

Code:
Goellner, Mark-Kevin    67-95   (.41)   
Agenor, Ronald	        69-115  (.38)
Volandri, Filippo	35-57   (.38)
Squillari, Franco       37-61   (.37)
Haase, Robin		36-63   (.36)
Deciding 3rd set tie-break (at least 15 played):

Code:
Ancic, Mario		7-15   	(.31)
Hanescu, Victor		7-17   	(.29)
Mantilla, Felix		8-20   	(.28)
Verdasco, Fernando 	6-15   	(.28)
Tipsarevic, Janko	3-12   	(.20)
"Two-game away" (at least 25 played):

Code:
Ginepri, Robby		9-18   	(.33)
Rosset, Marc		14-30 	(.31)	
Mayotte, Tim         	11-24 	(.31)	
P.Fleming & A.Pavel	9-21 	(.30)
Malisse, Xavier		6-21   	(.22)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,290 Posts
First of all, credit to Voo de Mar, great piece of work.

I carried out kind of similar research (in terms of its aim - mental strength) in my BA thesis, but obviously didn't have such a great range of statistics, which forced me to look for other statistics than used by Voo.

I divided mental strength into four categories:
1) Tie-breaks
2) Deciding sets
3) Difference between percentage of break points saved and percentage of service points won
4) Difference between percentage of break points converted and percentage of return points won

The research concerned only active players who played at least 30 tie-breaks and 30 deciding set.

Then I tried to group the players (Cluster analysis) and looked at H2H between the groups to see to what extent my thesis (The mentally stronger group has a positive H2H with a group that is not so strong mentally) is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #97
3) Difference between percentage of break points saved and percentage of service points won
4) Difference between percentage of break points converted and percentage of return points won
IMO, break points may be taken into serious consideration only in the perspective in games won/lost.

I despise official BP stats because 3/6 (3) & 3/6 (6) have completely different meaning. When I make a match-stats I always deliver numbers of games in parenthesis to inform you in how many games a player saved break points.

3/6 (3) - means he lost all games he was forced to save BPs
3/6 (6) - means he won 3 games facing BPs

You know, you can save 7 BPs in a long game and eventually lost that game and it's a pain for the player who saved all those break points, not for that one who squandered. It's psychological and quite often has important consequences. The last time I observed it during the Murray-Wawrinka match at the US Open.

I keep my eye on set points and match points, of course if vital. When Norman saved 10 match points in the 4th set of the Roland Garros '00 final, but ultimately lost that set and the match, it's his problem, not Kuerten's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
Great work. Next you should post only formula so tards can get to result they want or put a bold disclaimer that it doesn't speak about success of these players. First one would work better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,212 Posts
Discussion Starter #99
The most < won [...] lost > by each category:


5-setters:

Code:
36 - Lendl, Ivan
33 - Sampras, Pete
32 - Hewitt, Lleyton & Becker, Boris
30 - Lapentti, Nicolas
29 - Noah, Yannick & Bjorkman, Jonas & Vilas, Guillermo

[...]

22 - Lendl, Ivan & Agassi, Andre
21 - Alexander, John & Stepanek, Radek & Rochus, Olivier
20 - Vilas, Guillermo & Hlasek, Jakob & Clement, Arnaud & Hewitt, Lleyton & Haas, Tommy
Tie-breaks:

Code:
341 - Federer, Roger
328 - Sampras, Pete
304 - Roddick, Andy
276 - Ivanisevic, Goran
256 - Rusedski, Greg

[...]

209 - Ljubicic, Ivan
207 - Ivanisevic, Goran
200 - Rusedski, Greg
194 - Sampras, Pete
185 - Roddick, Andy
Deciding 3rd set tie-break:

Code:
34 - Karlovic, Ivo
33 - Moya, Carlos
33 - Ljubicic, Ivan
29 - Sampras, Pete
28 - Isner, John

[...]

31 - Safin, Marat
25 - Karlovic, Ivo
24 - Rosset, Marc
23 - Andreev, Igor
22 - Ljubicic, Ivan
"Two-game away":

Code:
39 - Alexander, John
38 - Gomez, Andres
35 - Sampras, Pete
34 - Connors, Jimmy
33 - Rusedski, Greg

[...]

30 - Rosset, Marc
28 - Rusedski, Greg & Fibak, Wojtek
27 - Stockton, Dick
26 - Tanner, Roscoe & Woodforde, Mark
25 - Henman, Tim & Hrbaty, Dominik & Fromberg, Richard
 
81 - 100 of 109 Posts
Top