An
article in the NYT asks if Federer or Nadal is the greatest among the current
generation of male tennis players. What does Nadal have going for him?
Apparently, his “ability to crunch the best numbers
in what remains the essence of tennis, a sport often referred to as boxing
without the blood.” So, he “holds a 21-10 record over Federer”; “holds a winning record over every other Grand Slam
singles champion who has crossed his path as a professional” (with one
minor exception); has the same, this time perfect, “winning record over
every member of the current top 30”; and the list goes on and on: “Nadal
also has the best career winning percentage in tour history at 84 percent to
Federer’s 81. Nadal also has the edge in Grand Slam winning percentage over
Federer at 88 to 86 and in Masters 1000 winning percentage (84 to 77) as well
as a better strike rate against top 10 opponents (69 to 65).”
What can all these numbers tell you? I have no real knowledge of or
experience in tennis, but here is my take: if after watching the two men at
their best for about 15 min. you still think Nadal’s statistics hold much
non-statistical significance, you are a hopeless and incorrigible nerd. Of
course, the opposite extreme of taking in “Federer as a religious experience”
can have its own downsides – but I would rather go with these.
