Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Djokovic had a 2.40 dominance ratio over Nadal in last night’s final. Before this final, Djokovic’s most dominant slam Finals win was in 2011 over Murray at the AO (1.54; 6-4,6-2, 6-3). In that match, Murray won 78 points overall compared to Nadal’s 53 last night and won 26 return points to Nadal’s 13. In Djokovic’s 2016 SF AO defeat of Federer. Djokovic had a 1.64 dominance ratio. Federer won 82 points overall and 26 points on return. In Federer’s 2004 defeat of Hewitt at the USO (6-0, 7-6, 6-0), Hewitt won 64 points overall and 29 on return.

Only JMac’s obliteration of Connors in 1984 was a more dominant victory.

Dominance ratio captures how well a player did much better than the score line since tennis’ peculiar scoring system can mean a player who won fewer points overall can win a match and the peculiar system can mean a player who won many, many more return points than his opponent could lose a match.

Definition: (% of points won on opponents' serves) / (% of points lost on own serve).

e.g. if you are winning 30% of return points and your opponents are winning 20% of points on your serve (i.e. you are winning 80% of points on serve) then you have a DR of 30% / 20% = 1.5 @falstaff78 with the definition.

1984 Wim: JMac 2.79 over Connors (Connors won 11 return points)

2019 AO: Djokovic 2.40 over Nadal (Nadal won 13 out of 69 points on return)

1987 Wimb: Cash 2.23 over Lendl (Lendl won 15 out of 81 points on return)

2017 RG: Nadal 2.22 over Wawrinka (Wawa won 15 out of 65 points on return)

2003 AO: Agassi 2.20 over Schuttler (Schuttler won 15 out of 65 points on return

2017 Wimb: Federer 2.13 over Cilic (Cilic won 15 out of 70 points on return)

2007 AO: Federer 2.03 over Gonzo (Gonzo won 17 out of 86 points on return)

1997 AO: Sampras 2.03 Over Moya (Moya won 18 out of 69 points on return)

2017 USO: Nadal 2.00 over Anderson (Anderson won 15 out of 72 points on return)

2008 RG: Nadal 1.91 over Federer (Federer won 19 out of 61 points on return)

2005 Wimb: Federer 1.89 over Roddick (Roddick won 17 out of 79 points on return)

2009 RG: Federer 1.84 over Soderling (Soderling won 17 out of 79 points on return

1995 Wimb: Sampras 1.83 over Becker (Becker won 24 out of 105 points on return)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
This is from tennis warehouse.

Do you agree with this?

From the list Federer seems to have most number of dominating wins
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
While I don't want to disregard this stat, I feel it's to easy to say that the normal scoreline is much worse to show dominance in a match. Yes, the point system means someone can play quite a decent match and end up losing by a big difference, or completely the other way around. But it is the point system that the players use and that they keep in the the back of their mind whilst playing the game.

For instance, someone thats 5-2 ahead in a set might donate the next service game to their opponent, and focus on their own next service game.

But back to the stat, I'm mostly surprised that RG2008 is not further up there, but Federer actually "didn't do terrible" on return, seemingly (he won 31.1%, in 2007 for instance he won 33.6% and in 2006 31.5%).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
While I don't want to disregard this stat, I feel it's to easy to say that the normal scoreline is much worse to show dominance in a match. Yes, the point system means someone can play quite a decent match and end up losing by a big difference, or completely the other way around. But it is the point system that the players use and that they keep in the the back of their mind whilst playing the game.

For instance, someone thats 5-2 ahead in a set might donate the next service game to their opponent, and focus on their own next service game.

But back to the stat, I'm mostly surprised that RG2008 is not further up there, but Federer actually "didn't do terrible" on return, seemingly (he won 31.1%, in 2007 for instance he won 33.6% and in 2006 31.5%).
It's a pretty sophisticated situation all together. For instance you could win a set 6-3 and actually have won a lot less or a lot more points than your opponent. What matters in the end though is who wins the big points and not so much who wins the most points. Therefor losing a set 6-4 is always going to be better than 6-0 even if you won a higher percentage of points in the 6-0 set. Because it means that you won more important points in the 6-4 set that won you games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,081 Posts
The scoreline itself doesn't reflect opposition.

Federer's only dominant slam finals were 2004 USO, 2007 WB.

For Rafa:
2008 FO, 2008 WB, 2010 USO, 2012 FO, 2013 FO, 2017 FO, 2017 USO, 2018 FO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
While I don't want to disregard this stat, I feel it's to easy to say that the normal scoreline is much worse to show dominance in a match. Yes, the point system means someone can play quite a decent match and end up losing by a big difference, or completely the other way around. But it is the point system that the players use and that they keep in the the back of their mind whilst playing the game.

For instance, someone thats 5-2 ahead in a set might donate the next service game to their opponent, and focus on their own next service game.

But back to the stat, I'm mostly surprised that RG2008 is not further up there, but Federer actually "didn't do terrible" on return, seemingly (he won 31.1%, in 2007 for instance he won 33.6% and in 2006 31.5%).
Good point but i think that should even out on average with large enough numbers?

So if you were to donate the return game to focus on your service game then the easier points your opponent got would be roughly compensated by your more emphatic service hold due to redeployment of resources?
Therefore i think the final value would not change much?

As for the surprise about Nadal's 2008 seeming thrashing of Federer being so low, I think that this stat could be very useful in shedding more light on the performance.
It probably means there was a larger mental element to the performance such as a relative inability to win the big points?

If the scoreline were one sided and the stat were also high, it would probably and definitively be concluded the loser had zero chance and it was an absolute annihilation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,509 Posts
The scoreline itself doesn't reflect opposition.

Federer's only dominant slam finals were 2004 USO, 2007 WB.

For Rafa:
2008 FO, 2008 WB, 2010 USO, 2012 FO, 2013 FO, 2017 FO, 2017 USO, 2018 FO.
Don't you fucking have any shame? You made the bet, lost, made some goodbye thread and now you just keep fucking posting? This is a joke. Get a grip, man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
It's a pretty sophisticated situation all together. For instance you could win a set 6-3 and actually have won a lot less or a lot more points than your opponent. What matters in the end though is who wins the big points and not so much who wins the most points. Therefor losing a set 6-4 is always going to be better than 6-0 even if you won a higher percentage of points in the 6-0 set. Because it means that you won more important points in the 6-4 set that won you games.
Yeah, that's kinda also what I was trying to point at but probably worded it kinda badly. So that means Federer's loss to Nadal at RG would be a worse loss than the Nadal loss to Djokovic, even if OP's stat says otherwise.
Then again, is it better to win a few points each game but win almost no games, or win a few games but almost no points in others.

Good point but i think that should even out on average with large enough numbers?

So if you were to donate the return game to focus on your service game then the easy points your opponent got would be roughly compensated by your more emphatic service hold due to extra deployment of resources?
Therefore i think the final value would not change much?

As for the surprise about Nadal's 2008 seeming thrashing of Federer being so low, I think that this stat could be very useful in shedding more light on the performance.
It probably means there was a larger mental element to the performance such as a relative inability to win the big points?

If the scoreline were one sided and the stat were also high, it would probably and definitively be concluded the loser had zero chance and it was an absolute annihilation?
I'm not sure it all evens out, would be difficult to calculate.

Do agree that this stat could be somewhat interesting to evaluate matches with, but then I would rather look at the more split up stats to see "what went wrong".

And yes if both scoreline and a stat like this show the same thing, I guess we can safely conclude it was quite a trashing.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
13,115 Posts
The scoreline itself doesn't reflect opposition.

Federer's only dominant slam finals were 2004 USO, 2007 WB.

For Rafa:
2008 FO, 2008 WB, 2010 USO, 2012 FO, 2013 FO, 2017 FO, 2017 USO, 2018 FO.
You sure about WM 2008? Nadal was strong but not dominant in the final, he was 5 points away from losing it.

To be fair I wouldn't say 2007 WB was Fed's dominant final either, he was twice double BP down in the 5th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Yeah, that's kinda also what I was trying to point at but probably worded it kinda badly. So that means Federer's loss to Nadal at RG would be a worse loss than the Nadal loss to Djokovic, even if OP's stat says otherwise.
Then again, is it better to win a few points each game but win almost no games, or win a few games but almost no points in others.



I'm not sure it all evens out, would be difficult to calculate.

Do agree that this stat could be somewhat interesting to evaluate matches with, but then I would rather look at the more split up stats to see "what went wrong".

And yes if both scoreline and a stat like this show the same thing, I guess we can safely conclude it was quite a trashing.
Well it is just A/ B.

If A went down and B went down then the final value should roughly stay the same (assuming A and B are large enough)?

Of course, this is an average and statistically, there would be a spread of possibilities and outliers.

You are right though about finer stats. Maybe this could be calculated for each set to further show evidence of a mental or physical decline?
If the stat stayed roughly the same each set then again the loser was just clearly inferior in every way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
Well it is just A/ B.

If A went down and B went down then the final value should roughly stay the same (assuming A and B are large enough)?

Of course, this is an average and statistically, there would be a spread of possibilities and outliers.

You are right though about finer stats. Maybe this could be calculated for each set to further show evidence of a mental or physical decline?
If the stat stayed roughly the same each set then again the loser was just clearly inferior in every way?
Yeah I understand the math behind it, but meant it more in the way that it potentially doesn't even out every single match. For instance not always will a service game after donating a return game give an easier hold. When numbers get bigger, a few points here and there probably don't matter for the stats, yeah.

And yes a stat like this could be used to look at which things went better in which set, I guess. But then, just looking at serve %, points won%, return ptsw&, etc, would be more indicative, I feel, than a combined stat, such as the one used in the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Agassi in AO 2003 did not lose more than 3 games in any set in QF, SF or F and just one set in the rest of the tournament (also no tiebreaks).

oh , slam final you say...my bad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,081 Posts
You sure about WM 2008? Nadal was strong but not dominant in the final, he was 5 points away from losing it.

To be fair I wouldn't say 2007 WB was Fed's dominant final either, he was twice double BP down in the 5th.
Exactly, they were both close to losing.

That can't terminally exclude them though.

What if opposition simply happens to be dominant as well?

Often calls upon an added dimension of dominance, in the between the ears category.

Or you disavow getting into heat all together and go all 2017 FO F Nadal.

No one can tell me that Federer was better in the 04 AO, 04 WB, 06 WB, etc finals than the 07 WB final. He wasn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts
The scoreline itself doesn't reflect opposition.

Federer's only dominant slam finals were 2004 USO, 2007 WB.

For Rafa:
2008 FO, 2008 WB, 2010 USO, 2012 FO, 2013 FO, 2017 FO, 2017 USO, 2018 FO.
You must be thinking of something else when you are talking about dominance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,081 Posts
You must be thinking of something else when you are talking about dominance.
Yeah, winning the consensus greatest match ever definitely bodes badly in terms of dominance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
I'm guessing the stats don't go back to the beginning of the Open Era, because Jimmy Connors' win over Ken Rosewall in 1974 Wimbledon was pretty dominant. It is possible that the match doesn't show up because Connors wasn't a huge server and like Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi, and both Nadal and Djokovic after him, it was his return game that made him a top level player.

I would have guessed John McEnroe's win over Connors at the 1984 Wimbledon final would rank very high (and it appears to rank first).
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top