Skip to main content

If there were no Big 4...

If there were no Big 4…

Nishikori would rule the world!

Here’s why.  I compared the head-to-heads of the current top 12 (substituting Tsonga for FLopez, since Jo-W has quite a history in the top 10).  After the Big 4 is, what I’m calling, the Next 8.  Here’s their h2h % against the rest of the top 12:
Nishikori
51.6%
Wawrinka
40.8%
Ferrer
38.2%
Tsonga
33.0%
Berdych
32.8%
Cilic
26.8%
Raonic
24.5%
Dimitrov
22.7%

Wawrinka has a slam title and Ferrer was in the top 5 for quite a while – is he the best player never to win a slam?  But I was surprised to see Kei at the top of this list.  He’s really blossomed in the last year, but I didn’t think that was enough time to top a career (so far) list.  That tells me he’s been at his winning ways for a while.

On the bottom end, Dimitrov and Raonic are distinctly not looking like world-beating talents about to seize the mantle from the Big 4.  Tsonga and Berdych are solidly mid-pack, which describes their careers neatly, and Cilic is, well, surprisingly good at times – does he even belong in this group?  Hard to leave him out with that slam title in his back pocket.

Looking at their records against just each other (the Next 8), the picture changes only slightly.
Nishikori
65.9%
Wawrinka
64.2%
Ferrer
54.3%
Tsonga
40.6%
Berdych
40.4%
Cilic
31.4%
Raonic
24.0%
Dimitrov
23.8%

The order is exactly the same, but Wawrinka moves much closer to Nishikori in percentage.  Kei’s been very good against his fellow 2nd stringers, but has suffered under the Big 4.  In fact, the best records against the Big 4 come from Ferrer, Tsonga, and Berdych, who have obviously learned a thing or two over the years.  Against Big 4:
Ferrer
29.4%
Tsonga
28.8%
Berdych
27.0%
Raonic
25.0%
Nishikori
23.8%
Wawrinka
22.4%
Cilic
22.2%
Dimitrov
21.7%

The one constant is that Dimitrov is bottom of the pack in every measure.  Perhaps he does not quite belong in this group.

Looking at the numbers put up by the Big 4 brings another layer of perspective.  They are very good.  They are a cut above the Next 8.  Against the rest of the Big 4:
Nadal
64.2%
Djokovic
51.4%
Federer
44.7%
Murray
35.3%

But it’s interesting to me how close Kei’s numbers are to Murray’s.  Kei actually edges out Murray vs the top 8, and that carries him to a slight advantage vs the top 12, too.  Versus Next 8:
Nadal
83.2%
Djokovic
81.7%
Federer
81.5%
Murray
65.0%
Nishikori
65.9%

And here are the numbers of the Big 4 against the whole top 12:
Nadal
73.7%
Djokovic
66.5%
Federer
62.9%
Murray
51.4%

The closeness of Kei to Murray vs the Next 8 and the Top 12 suggest that Kei is nearly in the same class as Murray, with the caveat that Kei trails vs the Big 4.  It makes me think it would be VERY surprising if Kei, with his talent and record, did not win a slam title at some point.  While Murray is clearly above the Next 8, he is also clearly behind the other 3 of the Big 4.  He, and possibly Kei, are occupying a middle ground between the two groups.

The other take away is that Nadal is clearly the top of this very elite field.  He’s untouchable in every category and is the only player with a winning record against every other player in this group of 12.  In fact he is the only slam winner in the open era to not have a losing record against any other slam winner.

Here’s the detail:
01-Apr-15
Djo
Fed
Mur
Nad
Nis
Rao
Fer
Ber
Waw
Cil
Dim
Tso
wins
Djokovic
18
17
19
3
5
13
18
17
11
5
13
139
Federer
20
12
10
3
9
16
13
15
5
3
11
117
Murray
8
11
5
3
2
9
5
8
10
5
10
76
Nadal
23
23
15
7
5
22
18
12
2
5
8
140
Nishikori
2
2
1
0
5
7
3
1
5
2
4
32
Raonic
0
1
3
1
2
0
3
0
1
1
1
13
Ferrer
5
0
6
6
4
4
8
7
3
4
3
50
Berdych
2
6
6
4
1
1
5
5
6
2
5
43
Wawrinka
3
2
6
1
3
4
6
11
8
2
3
49
Cilic
0
1
2
1
3
1
1
4
2
1
3
19
Dimitrov
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
3
1
0
0
10
Tsonga
6
5
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
4
30
losses
70
69
72
50
30
40
81
88
71
52
34
61

wins
win%
v big4 wins
big 4 losses
big 4 %
next 8 wins
next 8 losses
next 8 %
Djokovic
139
66.5%
54
51
51.4%
85
19
81.7%
Federer
117
62.9%
42
52
44.7%
75
17
81.5%
Murray
76
51.4%
24
44
35.3%
52
28
65.0%
Nadal
140
73.7%
61
34
64.2%
79
16
83.2%
Nishikori
32
51.6%
5
16
23.8%
27
14
65.9%
Raonic
13
24.5%
7
21
25.0%
6
19
24.0%
Ferrer
50
38.2%
25
60
29.4%
25
21
54.3%
Berdych
43
32.8%
20
54
27.0%
23
34
40.4%
Wawrinka
49
40.8%
15
52
22.4%
34
19
64.2%
Cilic
19
26.8%
8
28
22.2%
11
24
31.4%
Dimitrov
10
22.7%
5
18
21.7%
5
16
23.8%
Tsonga
30
33.0%
17
42
28.8%
13
19
40.6%


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

French Open Preview 2017 - Men

French Open Preview 2017 – Men Rafa is back! He is the clear and dominant favourite for the next slam title at Roland Garros.  Can anyone stop him? Immediately after his Aus Open final appearance I began wondering aloud if Rafael Nadal would be ranked #1 by year’s end.  It appears that eventuality could happen as early as July, but it will depend on what Andy Murray does.  Murray has had a reasonably dreadful year – especially for a #1.  He’s won only about 2.3 matches for every 1 he’s lost – which is respectable – just not for a #1.  Meanwhile Rafa just came off a 17 match win streak – all on clay – and has won three of the four big run-up tournaments to the French – Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, but fell in the Rome quarters to Thiem.  Rafa has won 3 of these tournaments and RG in the same year seven times in his career.  Will this be the eighth?  The most serious challenger to Nadal might be 23 year-old Dominic Thiem....
4 comments
Read more

Victory Points - Djokovic vs Connors, Lendl vs Sampras

Novak Djokovic has just won his 63 rd main tour title with his victory in Miami last week.  It seems like a lot of tournaments and is almost as many as Nadal has won with 67... or Sampras with 64.  But it’s still a lot less than Jimmy Connors’ open era record of 109 titles.  Here’s the title list for the top 20 of the Open Era (since 1968 when professionals were allowed to play with amateurs). 109 Connors 94 Lendl 88 Federer 77 McEnroe 67 Nadal 64 Sampras 64 Borg 63 Djokovic 62 Vilas 60 Agassi 58 Nastase 49 Becker 46 Laver 44 Muster 41 Edberg 37 Smith 35 Murray 34 Chang 33 Ashe 33 Wilander That list may or may not agree with various lists published on the ATP website or Wikipedia, and that’s because there was a fair bit of confusion in the early days of the open era (1968-1973) about what tournaments counted and which were exhibitions.  Some supposed ‘tournaments’ had draws of only four players or were ‘invitational’.  But after ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

The Case for Rod Laver Two grand slams.   When one considers the near impossibility of winning a calendar year grand slam in this day and age, the thought of one player winning two boggles the mind.   It’s difficult enough to win the career slam – only 7 men have ever done it and only 4 in the Open era.   Winning a non-calendar slam is even more difficult and many great players have won three in a row and fallen just short:   like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Pete Sampras. So Rod Laver should be an open and shut case for the greatest of all time.   But it’s not that simple.   His first grand slam is really negligible and doesn’t count.   It was an amateur slam won in an era when the best players were professionals.   Especially in the 1960’s the pros were gaining more and more credibility.   The sheer number of pros was increasing as more and more tournaments began to be established for pro players.   Laver was by no means considered...
3 comments
Read more