Tenez's first set theory

Tenez said that he thought Thiem at his current level would be able to beat Nadal in French Open 2006, something Federer wasn't able to do (I believe Federer was at his prime then, and he only took 1 set in that final).

Then when Tenez was explaining his reasoning, we were led to this explanation as to how Federer did against Nadal on clay when they were both younger in the mid-naughties:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:
To me it is clear that Federer with a more powerful BH (a la Thiem) woudl have beaten Nadal in 3 sets back then.  

So are you saying Federer now would beat Nadal 2006 on clay in straight sets ?

Of course. already back then 61, 1 up and 0/40 up. He would keep the foot down nowadays.

Ah phew, thank goodness you chose a really representative set of Fed vs Nadal on clay in the mid-noughties.

Then Tenez gave some more apparent examples:

Tenez wrote:It's not the only one. There was a 61 or 62 in Rome as well, Hamburg 07, 60, Hamburg 08 5/1 until Nadal cheated with a MTO. fed has a better game than nadal on clay over a set...his problem was over 3 sets or more.

So I did some research, checking clay court matches between 2004 and 2008 between Nadal and Federer (2 years either side of the 2006 year we were discussing).
In first sets between Federer and Nadal, in this period on clay, the ratio was:
8-2 Nadal, 80%
The overall ratio for sets was
25-9 Nadal, just below 75%

So Federer actually did better in the overall match, than the first set, so his average after the first set was better than his average of first sets itself.

I am not trying to make a point that 'oh look, this is why Nadal is better than Federer' or something of the kind (anyway I think Federer and Nadal fans alike would agree that Nadal has a great record vs Federer on clay), however I am trying to point out how unrepresentative Tenez's examples are; and that explains how he can lead himself to such warped conclusions.

You pick and choose your stats as usual. Why stop in 2008? But more importantly I mentioned that you don;t need a full set to lose your edge, especially versus Nadal who will throw as many long rallies as possible.

You take their H2H on clay, out of their 15 encounters, Federer won the first set or was a break up in the first set 7 times ....that's nearly half of their meetings on clay . take away the FO 2008 final and Rome 2013 where he clearly had back problems...and the ratio is 7/13! Quite significante when you ralise he lost 13 of those 15 mtches!

If you don't want to see it...Then I cannot help you. But when taking into account hard courts it's even worse.

Yep sure, I can take all their meetings if you want-
OK if you want too I won't count RG 2008, Rome 2013, or Madrid 2009; Federer was below 100% for the first 2 and Nadal was clearly shattered during Madrid 2009

First sets won:
9-3 = 75% (or 73.3% counting the 3 I missed out)

Overall sets won:
27-11 = 71% (still 71.1% counting the 3 I missed out)

So whatever way you look at it, discounting matches where they were injured/tired, or counting all of them- Nadal does wins a greater percentage of sets in the first set, than after it.

Tenez wrote:You take their H2H on clay, out of their 15 encounters, Federer won the first set or was a break up in the first set 7 times

Oh dear me, that is SO flawed.
Statistically, this measure is just void, as you're giving Federer an 'or' option, quite literally the statistical definition of double standards.
This means according to your measure:
Nadal breaks first but Federer wins the set- 'victory' to Federer
Federer breaks first but Nadal wins the set- 'victory' to Federer

So this measure holds them to different standards, and is simply statistically unfair to Nadal. Especially on a surface like clay where breaks of serve are frequently exchanged anyway.

Tenez wrote:But more importantly I mentioned that you don;t need a full set to lose your edge

Oh dear, this is just getting a bit embarrassing now. Federer 'loses' his edge after less than a full set ?
Then why does Nadal have a better win percentage after the first set than the first set itself ?

(Edit: To check how ridiculously flawed your stats are, I just checked 2 matches where Federer won the first set, Rome 2006 and Madrid 2011. In both of them Nadal broke first...)

I am making a point and the data are confirming that point. If Nadal was simply better than Federer....then the loss of teh first set would be in line with the H2H. But it is not. There is a clear discrepancy between the H2H AND the lead in in the first set by a break or simply winning the first set. I have mentioned that we just need a few tough rallies to take the edge off a player.....unlike in the 90s where there was no long rallies. That is Nadal's strength. BEing able to force those long rallies and sending those cross court balls which requires extra steps from both sides which simply did not exist before him.

It also very much confirms what nadal himself has been saying : "With Federer I just had to wait a bit...." The waiting bit has not got to be a set...though generally it proves to be. The Montecarlo 08, the Hamburg, 08, the FO11 are perfect cases where Fed played well enough to win the first set, led during those sets and came short, essentially by losing his edge (be it fatigue or nadal clear cheating with MTOs). You cannot comapre a game with high margins with a game with thin margins...they don't react teh same way overtime. You know that by know, don't you?

What is so difficult to understand? And this is even more true if you consider the non clay events as well. Nadal made the difference over the distance most of the time.

And by the way I was watching replay of 2005/2006....Federer and nadal play much better nowadays. It's not close and you have to be blind not to see it.

Tenez wrote:I am making a point and the data are confirming that point.

Are you continuing to use this as some sort of joke ? Is your calendar a day behind ?
I've already shown your data set is statistically nonsensical.
You can't have a measure where Federer gets a 'point' for breaking first but losing the set, but if Nadal breaks first but loses the set, Federer still gets the 'point'.
It's double standards, and I've already shown that Nadal broke first and still lost the first set on two occasions.

Tenez wrote:If Nadal was simply better than Federer....then the loss of teh first set would be in line with the H2H. But it is not.

Nope, again looking at matches as a whole rather than pure sets is not a reasonable comparison.
-Every match Nadal has won in Best Of 5, he would have also won in Best of 3 (he got to 2 sets first)
-If you take specifically take sets 1,2, and 3 each in their match-up, Federer has done atleast as well or better than the H2H in across each of the sets individually
-Nadal's percentage overall in first sets is higher than after the first set

I am not doubting that Nadal has better stamina than Federer, and it may well be that Federer does tire in a long match (although I note in Rome 2006, Federer actually played a great 5th set). However you're unreasonable and totally lose perspective when looking at it (i.e. you can't see Nadal breaks first more often than Federer, wins the first set more often than Federer) because you don't want to admit Federer loses any set unless he's injured or tired. Nadal is simply a superior clay court player than Federer.
And then your flawed reasoning somehow leads you to silly warped conclusions that Thiem now would beat Nadal in 2006 even though Fed 2006 couldn't do so.

You have not shown anything at all. You will refuse to be cornered like you have always refused to in the past.

The data simply say that Federer led in the first set and/or was a set up more than 3 times as much as he won v Nadal. That's not something you can brush under the carpet...though I know you want to.

It is also backed up by more data outside clay and by Nadal. If you don;t doubt that Nadal has better stamina, then those data should also make sense to you.

If you can;t see how the game moved since 2006, then I am afraid I can't help you. As you don;t want to acknowledge the digital data, you are even less likely to accept the analog ones.

I am travelling today....so bye!